Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
Maybe if you added soem shiny objests, or weapons of mass distruction, or better shiny womd, that might distract him
JAC
kunckles, no its ok! I am a big geek. Have you been to my web comic site? I have seen every ep of Stargate sg1, except the most recent 2. However I got the number of times mr Cox played the pres from the internet movie data base. Now I have to say having never met the man Ronny Cox may be the nicest guy ever, but considering the characters he plays, his last name is perfect.
Jeff Coney
http://www.hedgehoggames.com
But anyway, the point is, I don’t think that a majority of the public is actually hostile to intelligence and accomplishment.
Man, what country do you live in?
-Rex Hondo-
Well, certainly this administration is…
Heh. This is apparently the background of the federal effort against avian bird flu:
And, of course, HHS funding for disease prevention has been slashed over the last few years…
Roger, I’ve no reason to doubt you but how much has it been cut? The only thing I’ve found was a complaint from the American heart Association that the 2005 budget only had a 2.6% increase which, while not enough, isn’t a slash.
I would, however, much rather see disease prevention get preference over farm subsidies and transportation boondoggles. The administration has spent money like a drunken sailor in other areas, no reason to be stingy in this one.
Man, what country do you live in?
The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research. Look, things could be way better but it does no good to overstate the problems. If you think that the majority of the public is hostile to intelligence and accomplishment, please make the case.
Huge amounts of tax money are spent on new sports arenas, while schools continue to decay. And what money schools DO get, as often as not is spent on sports also.
The very fact that a man unqualified to manage a 7-11, much less a nation, is president speaks volumes.
The continuing “debate” over creationism in the classroom is hardly indicative of a nation where critical thinkers hold sway.
And I hate to burst your bubble, but we’re poised to drop rather precipitously from our position of “one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.” People in some other countries are better educated and more driven.
I could probably go on, but I’d best get home and get some sleep.
In order:
1- We still spend a fortune on education. A good percentage of our population is college educated. Free education is available to all, not just the rich or elite.
College attendance in the United States has grown so rapidly over the past four decades that now 75 percent of high school graduates get some postsecondary education within two years of receiving their diplomas. Student aspirations are even loftier, with nearly 90 percent saying they hope to attend college.1 Older adults, too, have recognized the benefits of college study and account for more than one-third of matriculants.
2- One’s opinion of Bush has no bearing on the subject. Th fact that the Democrats nominated perhaps the one guy who could be beaten by Bush is not an indication of their hatred of intelligence.
3- I welcome the debate. The evolution side will win. Really, it already has.
4- I’d ask you for 2 things–the date by which we will cease to be “one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.” and the names of the countries that will leave us in the dust. Otherwise I don’t know how to respond.
If one is talking about China for example, it would create a bit of a conflict with points 1 and 2. –China does a much worse job of educating its entire population than we do (some parts are still incredibly backward) and a good proportion of the Chinese population still believes in traditional (ie nonscientific) medicine and superstitions
The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.
Ah, so you live in South Korea then.
If you think that the majority of the public is hostile to intelligence and accomplishment, please make the case.
Exhibit A: Dover, PA
Exhibit B: McCllellan describing Harriet Miers as “uniquely qualified” for the USSC.
BTW, HHS has been a mess for years now. During the Anthrax scare and early years of the West Nile Outbreak, I sat in on several teleconferences in which Tommy “For the life of me, I don’t know why terrorists haven’t attack us through our food supply because it’s so easy” Thompson. Thompson got his job because, when governor, he spearheaded welfare reform in his state. The amount of information he didn’t know about public health issues was astounding.
A 2.6% budget increase, when faced with 3%+ inflation, is in fact a budget cut.
What great inventions and technologocal advancements has the US been responsible for lately? Spaceshipone is to me the most public example. Next thing that comes to mind is the Magic Bullet…that blender/chopper thing.
China and Japan seem to be on the brink of passing us. China may have piss-poor country-wide education for everyone, but they’re getting world class education for enough to drive their technology sectors to be competitive with the US. The major differences betwee the US and the major eastern players? Discipline. They have it, we barely know what the word means. Our frontier heritage may have necessitated the growth of innovation, but we haven’t been a frontier society for generations. We’re soft, accustomed to pampering, and on an individual basis, have little incentive to seek to work to better our station, because our society has shown us that such improvements are something we’re entitled to, simply for passing time.
It’s not just China and Japan. All the big biotechnology advancements these days are coming out of Korea. And India has one of the best undergraduate engineering programs in the world today.
David Brooks had an excellent piece this week comparing the number of science and engineering degrees obtained by US citizens compared to other countries. I can’t find it online, but the numbers for us were pitiful.
(Sorry for the delay; time’s becoming rarer the last couple of days.)
Bobb wrote:
You can’t seriously be comparing this to what’s happened under Bush’s administration?
No, actually, I’m comparing it to your “freedom-loving” assertion. Clinton’s administration (partially (maybe even mostly) because it was hampered by having the opposing party in charge of Congress) may have been more freedom loving than our current administration (which, in turn, is more freedom loving than what today’s Democrats seem to want), but it’s a far cry from what I’d consider truly freedom loving.
Incidentally, yes, I consider the DMCA, Brady Bill, and the ignorant “Assault Weapons” ban to be much more frightening than telling children that some people believe evolution is guided by an intelligence. I think the ID thing is stupid (I’m more than capable of telling my children how I reconcile my mostly scientific bent with my religious beliefs myself, thank you very much), but I don’t consider it a major infringement on my rights. It’s certainly a far cry from establishing a state religion, which is really all the First Amendment truly bans anyway.
Assuming that the Republican candidate they were running against held to Bush’s version of “conservative”, I’d vote for a Democratic candidate if they’d promise (and who could be trusted to keep that promise) that they’d: (a) stay away from even the appearance of gun control (including any kind of registration), (b) refrain from stealing any more of my money than the government already does (or better yet, let me keep more of my money), and (c) not leave the Iraqi people in the lurch (even if we were wrong to invade (I don’t believe we were), it would be wrong to abandon Iraq before they were ready to stand on their own).
If they’d also promise to cut spending significantly and work toward eradicating McCain-Feingold, I’d not only vote for them, I’d campaign for them.
David Bjorlin wrote:
This may be a bit of a digression, but this is why we have an exclusionary rule in criminal law: evidence gained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution of the person whose right was violated.
Huh.
Thanks for this. I’d never considered the exclusionary rule in that light before. I’d still prefer we keep the evidence, then prosecute the officer who broke the law (not let him be sued, but actually investigate and prosecute where necessary), but I wasn’t aware of the reasoning behind it, and it makes a lot more sense now.
Rat wrote:
And as far as Miers goes…isn’t it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?
I’m thinking that the number of Justices who were previously judges is 60-70%, actually. I can’t promise that my memory’s right (heck, as I’ve proven above, I can’t even remember something written two lines above), but I’m certain it’s close to that range, if not in it.
I can’t believe I’m feeding the troll, but here we go:
I said, That’s one of those “reality based” issues that Democrats are so fond of.
CJR replied That’s funny, because I’m registered Independent. Both parties and shuffle off and die for all I care.
Actually, I said “Democrats.” Not “you,” because I have no idea what party if any you belong to and I don’t want to make unfounded assumptions. (See below.) I never said you were a Democrat; I respect some Democrats.
I said Being a prìçk” != “having more information than you.”
Never said it did, did I?
Your exact words were, “The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office. Oh, unless it’s Clinton we’re talking about. I say no to that, and you decide to be a prìçk.”
So let’s take a look at the transaction that you equated with my decision “to be a prìçk.”
1) I made a prediction, in response to PAD’s original comment, that the Republicans would not need to invert their Clinton v Jones positions because Bush and Cheney, unlike Clinton, would be sued over something that is alleged to have happened during (and in the course of) their Administration. I predicted that they would have an excellent chance of just claiming immunity and walking away. I assume that my comment is one of the ones you meant when you wrote, “The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office. Oh, unless it’s Clinton we’re talking about.”
2) I beleive this is the post that you mean by, “I say no to that”: you made the comment that “Well, guess what? The president isn’t above the law.”
3) I fired back with two posts. The first one was fairly sarcastic, admittedly, but stood for the position that your little bromide didn’t actually advance the discussion nor did it refute the prediction I made based on my training and experience. The second, very long post, explained in detail the basis for my opinion, and I provided citations and a link to the SCOTUS opinions that I think apply to this hypothetical. The President isn’t above the law, but he is immune from prosecution in anything other than an impeachment court in a variety of contexts.
4) You called me a prìçk.
So yes, I’m standing by my claim that you called me a prìçk because I said you were wrong, and explained why you were wrong. Sarcasm is a well-established mode of discussion on here, so I don’t feel that alone elevates me to prickdom.
And, as you’ve shown again, being a prìçk = pompous ášš who makes poor assumptions about others.
Pot. Kettle. Black. I try very hard, when I make claims based on specialized knowledge, to back my claims up. In this debate and in the annual flamewar about Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr’s opinion in Schenk v. United States, I provide citations and, where possible, links to the texts I mention. (Findlaw will let you look up most SCOTUS opinions based solely on their citation, but that lookup screen is kind of hard to get to. I paste the http address in my posts in an attempt to be helpful.) If you want to argue with me, fine, but if you don’t put in as much effort as I do, don’t expect me to make the “poor assumption” that your views are as valid as mine. I don’t presume to tell PAD how to write fiction, I don’t presume to tell a doctor how to diagnose diseases. Yet here you are claiming your uninformed use of cliches has some merit in a discussion about a specific legal doctrine, and you think I’m pompous?
The “having more information than you” I think that relates more to your ego than anything else. Unless you use that information to be a prìçk. 🙂
No, my having more information than you relates more to my spending three years in law school and seven years in law practice honing my ability to make legal arguments. As you demonstrate, no such training is necessary to be a prìçk.
Re: the exclusionary rule: Thanks for this. I’d never considered the exclusionary rule in that light before. I’d still prefer we keep the evidence, then prosecute the officer who broke the law (not let him be sued, but actually investigate and prosecute where necessary), but I wasn’t aware of the reasoning behind it, and it makes a lot more sense now.
That’s how Prof. Karlan explained it in my Criminal Procedure class, at least, and I think it’s the best explanation for the system we have. I’d be more confident if I could ever find a judge actually coming out and saying that, but if nothing else it’s a good explanation for why the SCOTUS always simultaneously insists that 1) the Constitution mandates some solution to the problem, not necessarily the exclusionary rule, and 2) we’re going with the exclusionary rule.
Me- The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.
Den- Ah, so you live in South Korea then.
Hoo boy, what does “one of the” mean to you? Because to me it means that yes, there are indeed OTHER countires that are ALSO leading sources of new inventions, etc.
I don’t know whether or not South Korea has actually beaten us in the such things but that would still not invalidate what I said. You know, if you are trying to actually argue about us becoming so backward in science and all it would be a good idea to back it up with some statistics.
As for the Dover board…sigh, just because one board is stupid you think that’s a reason to malaign a majority of the population (Which, if one goes back a few posts, is what we are arguing about here)? The vast majority of school boards are not like them. The attention it has gotten has mostly been negative. When the Kansas School board tried something like it the result was they all got booted out and replaced with smarter people. School boards are the bottom of the political food chain–if this is the best they can do we are not in trouble. (They are still worth fighting though)
A 2.6% budget increase, when faced with 3%+ inflation, is in fact a budget cut.
hardly a “Slash” though. Words have meanings.
What great inventions and technologocal advancements has the US been responsible for lately? Spaceshipone is to me the most public example. Next thing that comes to mind is the Magic Bullet…that blender/chopper thing.
Ipods. Lots of great nanotech stuff. Bioengineered food. Vancomycin. 2 of the 3 winners of the Nobel prize in physics. 2 of the 3 winners of the nobel prize in chemistry. 2 austrailians got the Nobel in medicine, breaking an 8 year streak of USA representation but I wouldn’t panic and sell my biotech stocks just yet. (Oddly enough I don’t see the South Koreans represented much.)
If you want to say that other countries are getting better at doing these things fine. That’s a good thing. But the idea that we are no longer a world leader in science and technology is as unreality based as anything a creationist could come up with.
The Japanese economy has been a basket case for over a decade now. The days where people thought of them passing the USA are long gone. China does indeed do a good job of educating a small proportion of its population but so do we and without the weight of government oppression–I pity the poor Chinese researcher who can’t access internet sites with forbidden words like “tibet” or “freedom” on them.
The major differences betwee the US and the major eastern players? Discipline. They have it, we barely know what the word means. Our frontier heritage may have necessitated the growth of innovation, but we haven’t been a frontier society for generations. We’re soft, accustomed to pampering, and on an individual basis, have little incentive to seek to work to better our station, because our society has shown us that such improvements are something we’re entitled to, simply for passing time.
There will always be people who break the mold. One Bill Gates more than makes up for 10,000 Ward Churchills. The USA still has a much better liklihood of producing someone like that than China will ever have in the forseeable future.
Bill, I’d be more assured if the money was going for more pure and basic research and less on applied. And I’d be more assured if there were more homegrown scientists; much of the brainpower and new PhDs are immigrant.
From my vantage point in higher ed, I see that the cutting edge can move around faster than people might think. The US is dangerously complacent about their funding; much of it is aimed more at applied research than basic, given the dictates of corporate and government funding. I think it’s telling that you point to Bill Gates, who is much more of a businessman and applications person, as opposed to someone who works in basic research (which is where all the applied stuff comes from).
Michael Brunner,
Thanks, I had no idea that was out there.
Hoo boy, what does “one of the” mean to you?Because to me it means that yes, there are indeed OTHER countires that are ALSO leading sources of new inventions, etc.
The US, however, is falling fast. As a nation that makes gods out of athletes but has media that treats scientists and creationists or scientists and political hacks appointed to doctor scientific reports as if both actually have equal validity has taken its toll. We are not the major leader in science and technology that we were even ten years ago.
I don’t know whether or not South Korea has actually beaten us in the such things but that would still not invalidate what I said.
They have:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200510/200510200021.html
You know, if you are trying to actually argue about us becoming so backward in science and all it would be a good idea to back it up with some statistics.
As I said, Brooks actually published those statistics this week, but since the NYTimes charges to read their columnists now, you’ll have to check back issues in the library.
But if you want to see some nice charts and numbers, here they are:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm#pictures
As for South Korea’s representation at the Nobel Prize, their emergeance is a relatively recent phenomenon (5-10 years). The Nobels are not like the Oscars where awards are given out for what was published in the past year. It usually takes several years for the impact of discoveries to be fully appreciated.
If you want to say that other countries are getting better at doing these things fine. That’s a good thing. But the idea that we are no longer a world leader in science and technology is as unreality based as anything a creationist could come up with.
The number of science degrees being handed out to Americans, however, is dropping and more Asian students are either staying in their home countries to get their graduate degrees or returning to their homeland after they graduate from MIT or Stanford because there are more jobs for scientists there then there was before.
Are we completely out of the race? No, but we are losing ground fast. The initial push in science education that started in the 50s has long since fizzled out and our current government is about as anti-science as you could possibly imagine. These and other cultural factors are taking their toll.
Pick the phone and call Microsoft’s tech support line. That’s an Indian accent you’re hearing. A huge percentage of our software support and even coding and basic engineering has already been outsourced to India.
As for the Dover board…sigh, just because one board is stupid you think that’s a reason to malaign a majority of the population (Which, if one goes back a few posts, is what we are arguing about here)? The vast majority of school boards are not like them.
You obviously have not been paying attention to the polls. If you were to put whether ID should be taught in science class to a referendum today, it would win hands down.
As for China, I don’t want to sound like I’m defending their brutal censorship policies, but a science researcher is not going to be looking up Tibet while doing a literature search on biotechnology. The point is, they are educating enough of their 1.3 billion people to pull ahead of us in many major areas of basic research.
There will always be people who break the mold. One Bill Gates more than makes up for 10,000 Ward Churchills. The USA still has a much better liklihood of producing someone like that than China will ever have in the forseeable future.
You’re confusing entrenpeneurialism with research. Bill Gates didn’t invent Windows. He hired the people who could invent for him. And Microsoft is increasingly looking outside the US for the latest advancements.
But, don’t take my word for it, here’s what Bill Gates himself thinks of the current state of science in America:
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/07-18FacultySummit.asp
MARIA KLAWE: So let me ask you, when Microsoft — I mean, are you finding enough people to hire in the U.S.?
BILL GATES: No, absolutely the answer is no. We have this interesting paradox where in China and India we can get lots of engineers but getting people who have sort of what we call program management type skills or general management type skills, it’s very hard to find enough of those, whereas here in the United States we do pretty well at getting people with those skill sets, but then it’s just the engineering we’re very short of what we’d like to get. And so the competition for somebody who’s got the right background is just phenomenal.
“in the annual flamewar about Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr’s opinion in Schenk v. United States,”
(Bobb perks his head up)
Is it that time again already? I thought we just had this discussion…darn, where did I put my file with the opinions in it…?
Hey, guys? Can I just mention that aside from a few lashouts on everyones part from time to time, these are still the best political discussions I’ve had (or read, for that matter) online.
China does a much worse job of educating its entire population than we do (some parts are still incredibly backward) and a good proportion of the Chinese population still believes in traditional (ie nonscientific) medicine and superstitions.
I’ve been checking around – in all of the schools I’ve looked into, children are still being taught such things as that most scholars in the 1400s thought the world was flat (when in fact not only did they know it was round, they knew about how big it was – Colombus thought it was only 5000 miles around, not 25,000, and he was dead wrong the whole way), that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree (myth), and that Albert Einstein’s only important work was the equation E=mc^2 (completely ignoring the work on the photovoltaic effect that won him a Nobel, as well as everything else in the Special and General Theories of Relativity). Our children are being taught all manner of nonsense about history, the sciences, literature (Hemingway was a lousy writer, who couldn’t keep a sentence under sontrol with a whip and a chair, and feared multisyllabic words), and now, thanks to the proponents of ID, biology and cosmology.
As for the latter part of your statement, check out any of the burgeoning number of “natural health” stores out there, or go to your local Barnes & Noble and check out how many books they have on “natural healing.” For that matter, find me a newspaper that would willingly skip its daily horoscope column, as if the stars and planets had nothing better to do than to form a private code telling you whether today was a good day to close a business deal.
Football players are treated as deities in high school, while the brilliant science nerds who will one day control their lives are marginalized. When was the last time you heard of a school holding a bake sale to raise money for sports equipment? When was the last time you heard of a jock being harassed mercilessly by the smart kids for admitting that the only thing he’s ever read was the letters section in “Penthouse”?
And remember, one of the strongest arguments presented in those “man-on-the-street” interviews for supporting Bush back in 2000 was, “He’s the kind of guy you could go have a beer with.” This was considered a primary reason to elect someone as leader of the free world. And you want to claim that our country isn’t veritably awash in anti-intellectualism?
jonathan, your examples do not support the idea that the u.s. is becoming less intellectual. why? becuase that simplistic nonsense has ALWAYS been taught in american schools – in fact, it used to be much worse. i was taught all of those things when i was in school more than 20 years ago, and i imagine if you looked at school books from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, etc., you’d find much the same.
and “natural healing” is bunk, but at least now you can go into your bookstore and find books that call it bunk – 40 years ago, you wouldn’t see any bunk-busting books on the shelves to combat the non-science.
and football players have ALWAYS been treated as deities in high school, at least since world war 2. my school system fired it’s one music teacher (who worked k-12) for lack of funds, but was able to afford brand new sports scoreboards for football AND basketball. heck, the idea of the jocks being popular and supported and the smart kids being picked on has been around for long enough that it was a well-recognized stereotype when stan lee created a nerd named peter parker.
here’s the rub – where are all these brilliant minds working? are they working in the u.s.? or for u.s. companies? i ask, because many of the brilliant thinkers in the u.s. from the past 50-100 years WERE NOT originally american. it used to be they were german, or russian. now they are chinese or indian. i agree that we, as a rule, have less discipline than an authoritarian regime that suppresses individual rights and freedoms, but i for one would not trade one of my freedoms for a better science education in china.
i would venture to guess that if you examined what is taught in the average chinese classroom you’d find a lot more aggregious mistakes than the few minor ones you listed above…
And I’d be more assured if there were more homegrown scientists; much of the brainpower and new PhDs are immigrant.
as opposed to our past scientific triumphs that were the result of good old american know-how. brought to us by good old americans like Werner Von Braun.
how many of our great scientists really have been homegrown?
Pick the phone and call Microsoft’s tech support line. That’s an Indian accent you’re hearing.
Well, tech support in India, Sri Lanka, and the Phillipines is more about cheap labor.
But otherwise, yes, most of the actual creative work is being done in Asia.
While the U.S. is still a major innovator of new technologies, it doesn’t always develop yhose technologies.
Things such as CD’s, VCR’s, & superconductors were created in the U.S., but other countries (usually Japan) developed those technologies into marketable products.
U.S. corporations are more concerned with immediate profit, & so spend less on R&D, while foreign corporations take a longer term viewpoint & invest in new technologies.
But even in innovation, the U.S. is starting to fall behind others. In the last 2-3 years South Korea has been especially busy in this area.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1012/p04s01-usec.html
=============
While China overall provides a poor level of education to it’s people, when someone shows promise, they get the full education treatment.
There was an article on Yahoo recently about India & China each producing between 5 & 9 times as many engineering graduates as the U.S> is (If I can find the article & give a link. Right now I can’t)
===================
As for U.S. anti-intellectualism, here’s a few numbers:
* The United States is 49th in the world in literacy
* The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy
* Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year
More joy here:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp
==============
how many of our great scientists really have been homegrown?
George Washington Carver
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Robert Goddard
And this is just off the top of my head. A little searching will likely reveal dozens, if not hundreds, more.
Well, Bob, who is asking you to trade? Tell me why we can’t have our freedoms and a decent science education.
As for the specific fallacies like Columbus sailing to prove the world is round, yeah, that’s been in schools for a long time. But that’s not a science myth and it misses the central point.
In the 1950s, the Russians launched the first manmade satellite, quickly followed by the first animal and first human in space. This scared the crap out of the US government, so for the first time, science education became a national priority. Money and resources were pumped into science education and the number of students who graduated from US colleges with engineering and science degrees soared. Kids from all over the world wanted to come to the US to attend college.
Today, that priority towards science education has long since evaporated. In fact, we have an administration that is openly hostile to science. And I don’t just mean government funding for science, but also practices like having political hacks doctor scientific reports and encouraging bringing nonscience into the science classroom. This is an administration that openly disdains and sneers at academic achievement as “elitism.”
You can say that, “it’s always been that way,” but the truth is, we as a society did encourage kids to go into the sciences in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Yes, athletes have always been revered as gods, but we used to at least give some encouragement to the sciences.
As for those foreign kids who come over for graduate degrees, a funny thing has happened. It used to be, most of them would stay here after graduation and apply for a visa extension because this is where the jobs were. Now, most of them go back to India and China, because those countries are encouraging science and engineering.
We are not.
Amazing how a thread on the political ramifications of a criminal investigation has shifted to a discussion on the deplorable state of science education in this country.
Indestructibleman — wins the award for best subtle use of a Tom Lehrer quote. 🙂
Bill —
You know, while there is a great deal of truth in what you say, I think that for many people “being a prìçk” is not just a matter of being smart–it’s more a matter of not being as smart as you think you are.
There are certainly varying levels of prickitude (for want of a better neologism) depending on one’s attitude, but a great many people feel as if ANY indication of intelligence is “being talked down to”.
Back when I was writing Trek reviews, I occasionally had people saying flat-out that they preferred someone else’s because “they’re shorter and they don’t make me feel like I need a dictionary.” I wasn’t attempting to sound smart or to put on airs — I was just writing as I normally write.
So while the way a smart person handles said smartness can certainly affect the amount to which they’re perceived as being a prìçk, I think the basic tendency to equate the two is around in a lot, lot, LOT of people.
You say that you don’t think a majority of people are opposed to intelligence. I disagree.
You say in re: the creationism debate,
I welcome the debate. The evolution side will win. Really, it already has.
No, it hasn’t — not the way that matters.
The evolution side has won, perhaps, for those who accept the validity of the scientific method and understand how to examine evidence and why looking at evidence is a good thing.
Based on polls showing that a majority of the country believe that Biblical creation as told in Genesis is literally true and that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools, that’s hard evidence that the rational people have in absolutely no way, shape, or form won. The Visigoths are just over the next hill, so far as I can see from that poll.
I’m not worried about specific relatively-trivial facts such as some of the ones Jonathan brings up, though that can clearly be improved.
I’m talking about adults (and kids) who dismiss an understanding of reality (from a scientific standpoint) as Things Other Professions Need To Know.
I’m talking about a president who says that “the jury is still out” on evolution and who openly professes a preference for gut hunches over evidence-gathering.
I’m talking about cashiers who can’t make change when the register’s calculator craps out.
I’m talking about moments where you say you’re a physics teacher and 90% of the people you talk to shudder and say “oh, man, I hated that when I took it” or boast about never having had it.
If you really think we’re not in a culture that downplays the importance of knowledge and plays up ignorance as a positive state of being, then all I can conclude is that we’re living in vastly different countries. I think I’d prefer yours.
(David Goodstein has published several articles dealing with the conundrum that yes, we’ve got more than our share of Nobelists, but that our typical HS students perform at levels far below those in several other major countries. Look him up sometime.)
You also cite that “we’re spending more on education” as evidence that we’re not in trouble from an ignorance standpoint. I’m surprised that you’re taking the stereotypically liberal position that throwing money at a problem means the problem is automatically solved (or at least reduced).
TWL
“aggregious mistakes”
That is funny on so many levels, considering the nature of this discussion.
Just to take a moment to get back to Robin S. and freedom…
Can’t say you’re wrong…those acts (Brady Bill, DCMA) are infringments on freedom. My view is they’re justified, and rather limited, and that they serve a goal of protecting OTHER freedoms. Your problem with them seems to stem from the fact that they are freedoms that you like to excercise more than I do…I’ve no real desire to acquire a firearm (although I’m thinking about it…expanding your family makes you think more about protecting them) and I’m content with not making digital copies of my CDs.
However, I do think that trying to force a religious doctrine into schools is fundamentally different than trying to balance competing freedoms. There’s no compelling freedom based interest that is supported by inserting religious ideas into public education. On the contrary, if you’re only inserting ONE particular reigion’s ideas, you’re acting in direct contravention of the Constitution. A Federal action that, by it’s inference, establishes a Federal preference of one religion over others, is strictly prohibited. That’s not even a question of freedom, that’s a government acting beyond an explicit limitation of it’s authority.
how many of our great scientists really have been homegrown?
George Washington Carver
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Robert Goddard
Actually, Bell was born in Scotland.
Actually, Bell was born in Scotland.
My bad. History classes were a long time ago.
In his place:
Henry Ford
And I’d be more assured if there were more homegrown scientists; much of the brainpower and new PhDs are immigrant.
That doesn’t bother me a whit. I’m more concerned that more and more of them are staying in their own countries once they’ve gotten their american education (and that’s another point in oour favor, I might add–the best and brightest in the world tend to come here to get a college education, whereas, with a few notable exceptions, the americans who go abroad often do it because they falied to get into the American college of their choice).
I think it’s telling that you point to Bill Gates, who is much more of a businessman and applications person, as opposed to someone who works in basic research (which is where all the applied stuff comes from).
yeah, I agree, but Bobb seemed to be talking about spaceships and doohickies so I thought I’d stick to the applied stuff. The Nobel prizes are more basic research and we are still the dominant force there, from what I’ve seen (at least in the hard sciences)
We are not the major leader in science and technology that we were even ten years ago.
But we are a major leader, right? So we have no disagreement. That’s a far cry from saying that I must have to live in South Korea to be in a major leader in science and technology.
Me– I don’t know whether or not South Korea has actually beaten us in the such things but that would still not invalidate what I said.
Den–They have:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200510/200510200021.html
Well, this shows you just how we differ on things. The article is about how the South koreans have set up a stem cell hub for cloning humans. From this, Den feels secure saying that the South Koreans are a more dominant force in science and technology than we are. Incredible.
Since, despite claims to the contrary, human stem cell research is still legal in this country I’ll wager that in 10 years the United States is going to be the major player in stem cell research, especially since the whole controversy over using cloned human cells will most likely be solved by technology that will take embryos out of the picture (Not that I have a major problem with using embryos).
But if you want to see some nice charts and numbers, here they are:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm#pictures
And here is another nice illustration of how we view things differently–I ask for statistics showing the USA to not be a major power in science and technology and Den gives me a survey showing that USA students score below nost other countries in a math and science test.
How useful is that to the subject at hand? Well, we scored lower than Lechtenstein and Latvia. Is there anyone who wants to seriously suggest that either of these two is a major scientific force in the world? Italy score even worse than we did but I am pretty sure that Italian scientists have done more of note than the powerful Latvian juggernaut. (now the LATVERIANS…man!)
You are quite correct about the Nobel’s being based on much older work. Perhaps we will see the Koreans begin to be more dominant in the future, though simply building a hub for stem cells won’t do it (that’s more of an applied science thing).
our current government is about as anti-science as you could possibly imagine.
See, that’s where you lose points… anyone with any kind of imagination imagine a more repressive science policy. Watch and be amazed! Instead of just saying that the government will not give grants to experiments using new stem cell lines…we ban all experiments in stem cells all together, even in the private sector! See how easy it was?
As for China, I don’t want to sound like I’m defending their brutal censorship policies, but a science researcher is not going to be looking up Tibet while doing a literature search on biotechnology. The point is, they are educating enough of their 1.3 billion people to pull ahead of us in many major areas of basic research.
I suspect that their censorship goes beyond a few words and will be a problem for their researchers. And again, in what technology have they pulled ahead. Certainly not space technolgy, though I give them credit for having the balls to go into space exploration while we have gotten bored with it.
in all of the schools I’ve looked into, children are still being taught such things as that most scholars in the 1400s thought the world was flat (when in fact not only did they know it was round, they knew about how big it was – Colombus thought it was only 5000 miles around, not 25,000, and he was dead wrong the whole way), that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree (myth), and that Albert Einstein’s only important work was the equation E=mc^2 (completely ignoring the work on the photovoltaic effect that won him a Nobel, as well as everything else in the Special and General Theories of Relativity).
Come to Sanford, North Carolina. Apparently we are an oasis of science education here. Who knew?
As for the latter part of your statement, check out any of the burgeoning number of “natural health” stores out there, or go to your local Barnes & Noble and check out how many books they have on “natural healing.” For that matter, find me a newspaper that would willingly skip its daily horoscope column, as if the stars and planets had nothing better to do than to form a private code telling you whether today was a good day to close a business deal.
No argument there but my point was if having a population that believes in silly stuff disqualifies one from being a world leader in science you’d have to cross off any Asian country.
Football players are treated as deities in high school, while the brilliant science nerds who will one day control their lives are marginalized. When was the last time you heard of a school holding a bake sale to raise money for sports equipment? When was the last time you heard of a jock being harassed mercilessly by the smart kids for admitting that the only thing he’s ever read was the letters section in “Penthouse”?
Gee, I’ve gotten a “diety” kicked off the team for flunking my class. How powerful does that make me? real life is not always like an Archie comic. (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. But I’ve taught at two schools in two states and the reality is not at all like the TV shows).
And anyway, the smart kids, if they really are smart, have better things to do than mock the stupid ones.
For anyone interested, Tom Delay’s arrest warrent & mugshot:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
See, that’s where you lose points… anyone with any kind of imagination imagine a more repressive science policy. Watch and be amazed! Instead of just saying that the government will not give grants to experiments using new stem cell lines…we ban all experiments in stem cells all together, even in the private sector! See how easy it was?
Wow, Bill, way to completely misrepresent what I said. Did I ever claim there was a total ban on stem cell research? I really expect better from you.
Just ignore my points about altering scientific reports, sneering at academic achievement, and promoting the teaching of nonscience and argument against a strawman that I never invoked.
And I lose points?
Suuuuuur. Whatever.
How about Ben Franklin? Brian Greene? Sylvester Gates?
Is that a mug shot or a high school yearbook photo?
From this, Den feels secure saying that the South Koreans are a more dominant force in science and technology than we are. Incredible.
All right, let’s talk about stem cell research since you want to bring that up.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128361/nav/tap1/
Note this article doesn’t claim that there’s a total ban in the US, but it does discuss some cultural differences at to why they are pulling ahead of us in that field.
I never said that South Korea was dominant in every field in science and technology, but they are where the cutting edge in biotechnology is happening.
And if it makes you feel better to keep harping on my obviously sarcast “You must live in SK” statement, good right ahead. I freely admit I was engaging in a little hyperbole just for effect.
And here is another nice illustration of how we view things differently–I ask for statistics showing the USA to not be a major power in science and technology and Den gives me a survey showing that USA students score below nost other countries in a math and science test.
So where do you think the next generation of scientists are going to come from? As a science teacher, I thought you’d realize that if we aren’t encouraging students to take up the sciences, we will continue to lose ground. And we are already.
It’s not enough to say, “We’ve been dominate for years and therefore, we will continue to be so.” Because the work in computer science, engineering, and biotechnology is already moving to Central Asia because those countries value education.
And that has been my central point throughout this entire discussion. We are losing the battle not just for producing, but also in developing new ideas.
I’m not alone in seeing this trend. Bill Gates sees the writing on the wall. So does anyone looking to recruit engineers and scientists in this country. You can choose to ignore it and just make sneering comments at me and set up strawmen to ignore what I actually said.
But that’s where we’re headed.
Is that a mug shot or a high school yearbook photo?
I know. My first thought was “That’s a mugshot??”
Where’s the profile, the height lines & the card with the numbers on it? This looks more like a political campaign photo.
That doesn’t bother me a whit. I’m more concerned that more and more of them are staying in their own countries once they’ve gotten their american education
Incidentally, that’s another trend that’s reversing. Students who got advanced degrees in the US often return to their native countries and then join the universities there. Now, they’ve built them up so that there’s less incentive for students in India to want to come here.
“Gee, I’ve gotten a “diety” kicked off the team for flunking my class. How powerful does that make me? real life is not always like an Archie comic. (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. But I’ve taught at two schools in two states and the reality is not at all like the TV shows).”
The problem with this is that for every kid that gets suspended for academic failure, there’s about 100 that have tutors, homework assistants, outright free passes just to play sports. And I’ve seen cases where it IS every bit as bad as TV portays it to be. And in my experience, personal and observed, this is more often the case than the reverse.
Your problem with them seems to stem from the fact that they are freedoms that you like to excercise more than I do
And see, I didn’t realize that the right to bear arms means the right to own a gun that is fully automatic, the sole purpose of which is to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, and so forth.
The ban was, iirc, a ban on assault weapons. Something no sane person has a use or need for.
Oh, and on that note, there was a bill passed earlier today that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits.
Chalk another one up for the NRA when that assault gun ban ends and the gun makers can ramp up their latest models of death and destruction.
Another shield bill was up for vote for fast food chains as well.
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/jun04/234486.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=276464&page=1
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/04/falling_behind.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-5659116.html
The joys of googling.
“Oh, and on that note, there was a bill passed earlier today that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits.
Chalk another one up for the NRA when that assault gun ban ends and the gun makers can ramp up their latest models of death and destruction.
Another shield bill was up for vote for fast food chains as well.”
Anyone got any idea how many gun makers have been held liable for someone’s death because a criminal used a gun to commit murder? I can’t think of any. And I don’t see a rash of these cases being filed. I know there are several state suits pending, but my preference is to allow the case to go through the judicial system, and have them struck down. Or not. Ditto with the cheesburger act. Let the court system work, striking down these cases as frivolous, if that’s what they are. But don’t deprive the people of this country their legal recourse.
The cheesburger bill is the more useless of the two acts, as courts have ALREADY held that companies like McDonalds are not responsible for kids being overweight. I’d think that if the NRA and the gun makers, instead of funneling all that money into politicians, had instead spent it on competent legal counsel, they could have had these suits against them dismissed before they progressed too far in the system.
Bill says:
See, that’s where you lose points… anyone with any kind of imagination imagine a more repressive science policy. Watch and be amazed! Instead of just saying that the government will not give grants to experiments using new stem cell lines…we ban all experiments in stem cells all together, even in the private sector! See how easy it was?
Den comes back with:
Wow, Bill, way to completely misrepresent what I said. Did I ever claim there was a total ban on stem cell research? I really expect better from you.
Just ignore my points about altering scientific reports, sneering at academic achievement, and promoting the teaching of nonscience and argument against a strawman that I never invoked.
And I lose points?
Suuuuuur. Whatever.
Den, my friend, my comment was directed at this exact statement of yours: our current government is about as anti-science as you could possibly imagine.
I then showed that this was untrue, that it was EASY to imagine a more repressive government.
If you want to accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel, of taking an obviously hyperbolic statement and treating it as though you meant it–fine, I’ll plead guilty. But don’t accuse me of setting up a strawman. You made a statement, I showed that it was an exaggeration
Your second article on Korea is more interesting, though I note that it states that the single biggest reason why they are such a force in stem cell research (and I freely admit I underestimated their accomplishments in this area) are due to one man. Which is why I’m not overly bothered by the USA’s low scores in international math tests. It only takes one man or woman to change the world. A kid with talent can go through my school–and my school is a modest one, though I’m coming to appreciate how good it is when others on this board describe what they are dealing with–and get a SUPERB education. They can have an award winning guy teach them Earth Science, a teacher of the year teach them biology, and finish up with 2 more teacher of the years for chem and physics. the Physics teacher in particular is better than any of the ones I had in college and I went to a GREAT college.
Now the kid I’ve described describes only maybe 50 kids out of a class of 350. But you know, if 15% of our population are strong in science skills it will probably be enough to carry the rest of us.
Hey, I’d like it to be higher but I know a lot of folks who hated science and they are still contributing members of society.
Me That doesn’t bother me a whit. I’m more concerned that more and more of them are staying in their own countries once they’ve gotten their American education
Den says
Incidentally, that’s another trend that’s reversing. Students who got advanced degrees in the US often return to their native countries and then join the universities there. Now, they’ve built them up so that there’s less incentive for students in India to want to come here.
There’s another way of looking at this of course. Would it be such a bad thing if the USA wasn’t the only game in town? We all benefit from science and whether the next vaccine comes from the USA or India, I won’t complain.
It’s actually high time that the rest of the world started to catch up. Why SHOULDN’T the Chinese be the world leaders in just about anything? Once they get rid of their backward political philosophy they will be unstoppable.
But if India becomes a world leader in science it will be despite the fact that it is far far worse in many of the things you brought up than we are. The population is largely uneducated and superstitious. The value of 1/2 of the population (women) is incredibly devalued by large segments of the culture. No country that writes off its women will get far. I do not mean to condemn India or its people–they have made great strides in the face of tremendous difficulties.But in no way would I be willing to trade their next 50 years for our next 50 years. Talk to me in 2055 and we’ll see.
The ban was, iirc, a ban on assault weapons.
No, the ban was on assault-style weapons – that is, weapons with a clip of larger than seven rounds, or with styling similar to that of an actual assault weapon (oh yes, and anything capable of having a bayonet mounted on it – yes, that’s in there). If anyone wanted to pick on a cop, my brother’s holdout weapon violates that ban, as its clip holds 12 rounds. Sure, they’re .25 caliber, intended primarily to annoy a bad guy until backup can arrive, but there are still too many of them.
For that matter, my nephew-in-law’s AR-15 is in violation, as it’s styled to look a lot like an M-16. It’s strictly semi-auto, and can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled (and even that speed is limited by barrel heating – try to fire it that fast, and after five or six rounds, it’ll jam).
I had no idea I belonged to such a violent, lawless family!
There’s another way of looking at this of course. Would it be such a bad thing if the USA wasn’t the only game in town? We all benefit from science and whether the next vaccine comes from the USA or India, I won’t complain.
If we were losing ground because lots of other countries to meet our educational standards, I’d agree: that wouldn’t be bad at all.
I don’t see that as the case. I see it as them doing some rising and us doing a significant amount of falling.
(And frankly, I don’t think anyone who voted for the Neanderthal-in-Chief twice has the grounds to talk about anybody’s “backwards political philosophy”. 🙂
I hope you’re going to address some of Den’s other points other than the admittedly hyperbolic statement he made. Doesn’t it concern you that the current administration actively undercuts scientific results by rewriting reports to suit its own political needs? Is that not demonstrating an obvious and dramatic anti-science bias? Some of these issues are ones where we agree on the facts but have different outlooks — but I don’t see how actions such as those rewrites can get a remotely positive spin.
TWL
(And frankly, I don’t think anyone who voted for the Neanderthal-in-Chief twice has the grounds to talk about anybody’s “backwards political philosophy”. 🙂
Hey, given the choice, I had to vote for the smarter guy. 🙂
But let me add here–Feingold. The one Democrat who voted today with a measly 12 Republicans to divert some of the crap pork projects toward rebuilding New Orleans. Patty “Braindead” Murphy actually threatened anyone who voted for the bill.
Feingold now goes to the top of my list of Democrats who deserve a good hard long look come 2008. McCain and Allen also voted the right way.
Everyone else…a pox on them. Conservative, liberal, it’s all about the money with them.
I hope you’re going to address some of Den’s other points other than the admittedly hyperbolic statement he made. Doesn’t it concern you that the current administration actively undercuts scientific results by rewriting reports to suit its own political needs? Is that not demonstrating an obvious and dramatic anti-science bias? Some of these issues are ones where we agree on the facts but have different outlooks — but I don’t see how actions such as those rewrites can get a remotely positive spin.
Well, my point has always been, despite efforts to turn it into something else, that the reports of the USA no longer being a, if not THE, major force in science and technology are overwrought and just not supported by the facts. So it isn’t really pertinent. But that being said, if what I remember about the case in question is true–and I am really just relying on memory here, I think it was something on global warming–the efforts of the administration to rewrite the reports was idiotic. It happens whenever politics and science get mixed up and I like it no more when it’s done by my party than when it’s done by yours (I like it less, in fact).
And keep in mind–I’m no Pollyanna. I know how much scientific ignorance there is. Plenty of blame to go around–it would be nice if Hollywood could even attempt to get things right, since so much of what passes for scientific knowledge comes from pop culture. An army of creationists could hardly have done more damage to my teaching of evolution than the producers of Waterworld have done. If I have to explain one more time that we will NOT all grow gills when the polar icecaps melt and flood the world, which would not happen anyway…
(off topic but you know me–am I the only one that thinks that GATTACA, for all its flaws, is one of the few actual science fiction films of the last 10 years? A film about ideas, not just inventions…
Anyway…my optimism is based on the fact that I have not yet run across any kid who had a gift for science who got lost because of the problems mentioned. Now admittedly, nobody is making me teach creationism–North Carolina is a red state so we may not have the problems of our blue state brethren 🙂 but even so, I don’t see it as a problem. (I would actually love love love to be able to have a creationist come in and give their piece–they have not advanced the argument one iota from the days almost 10 years ago when I was practically obsessed with arguing with them. And I’ve kept notes. If it wasn’t for creationists I probably never would have remembered anything about the second law of thermodynamics so, thanks guys!)
Another thing–if we are falling into the abyss of ignorance, how do we explain the fact that in the last 10 years things have gotten so much better in the things I love? DVD, computers that let me do movie level CGI, medicines that control acid reflux, migraines and, should the need arise (f’nar! f’nar!), impotence, big ášš plasma screen TVs, way better treatment for diabetes, more software of greatness than I will ever have time to explore…this is a golden age.
Come to Sanford, North Carolina. Apparently we are an oasis of science education here. Who knew?
You know, I could always tell there was something special about that slow spot on US1.
Oh, I almost forgot – the obligatory BUSH SUCKS!!!!!
There, now I feel better… 🙂
That isn’t accurate, Bill. Here is the entire list of those who voted yes:
Allard (R)
Allen (R)
Bayh (D)
Burr (R)
Coburn (R)
Conrad (D)
DeMint (R)
DeWine (R)
Feingold (D)
Graham (R)
Kyl (R)
Landrieu (D)
Sessions (R)
Sununu (R)
Vitter (R)
A big whopping fifteen yes votes. That pìššëš me off to no end. Every Democrat should have voted for this bill, I don’t care that Tom Coburn is certifiably nuts. It was a good bill.
I’m no Patty Murray fan, and this only increases my displeasure with her. Unfortunately, the GOP hasn’t had a decent candidate in this state since 1980.