A short article from Forbes that reviews some of the reasons that folks will act in a manner inconsistent with their own self-interests.

Specifically this article discusses research looking at the language of "choice" and "liberty" as influences on political decisions about all manner of wealth redistribution related topics (tax rates, health care, and such).

The basic notion is that when political groups invoke the call for "choice" or "liberty" folks are much more tolerant and accepting of wealth inequality than they would be in other situations. This is how the rich get people of modest means to fight for lower tax rates on the wealthy--frame it as an issue of choice or liberty and many folks who feel that the wealthy could pay more in taxes become hostile to the idea.

I sincerely hope someone points out that this one is some sort of internet hoax! In the meantime, the Washington Post seems to be reporting that Texas Republicans are officially taking a stand against the evil of critical thinking.

On the plus side, I now have a chance to get my students interested in scientific reasoning as a "subversive topic."

Well, it still doesn't beat the Times of London mistaking the Tolkien Sarcasm Page's tongue-in-cheek synopsis of Lord of the Rings for the real thing, and using facts from it for one of their stories. Galadriel is sister of the beautiful but evil Queen Beruthiel indeed.

Not a hoax. I stumbled across that earlier and was going to post here to ask a question--my suspicion was that the words they were referring to had taken on different meanings for them and they weren't reacting against critical thinking, but against some buzzword that came with baggage. So I was going to ask was there some new teaching philosophy being promoted in the states' classrooms

For example, we learned 'new math' by playing with popsicle sticks because children don't want to memorize and do rote work and they'll learn it intuitively by playing; so we moved popsicle sticks around, divided them up, grouped them, and after a full year of playing, no-one had learned any basic math. Teachers in the next grade had to start us off with stuff we should have learned the previous year. In that example, there were parents saying don't you teach my children new math. They weren't protesting against math per se, but against this new way of teaching math.

Also, , and


I'm sure they're all gung-ho for that...right up till the point that Muslims or some other religion aside from extreme Christian fundamentalism want to pray in the classroom, or have meetings. Right up till those students complain that the state is challenging their fixed beliefs in Islam, the Qu'ran, and undermining parental authority.

What they are really saying is if you're Christian, no-one can challenge your beliefs, but if you're not, then we can challenge your beliefs and undermine parental authority all we want because we are absolutely right.

Yes, let's give equal treatment to the scientific theory that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it (it is in the Bible, you know).

Let's give equal treatment to the concepts of evil humours causing diseases. Germ theory is just a theory, after all. Hmm, so is gravity. Come to think of it, we have atomic theory and cell theory. Or the theory of inheritance. Chemistry is built on several theories. Teach the controversy...ignore the fact that all those accepted theories built everything we have around us now, including internet.



Errrm...all scientific ideas are challengeable and all are subject to change as new data is produced. That is the very definition of science. If a prevailing theory hasn't changed to one you like, that isn't because no-one has challenged it. It is because it has withstood every challenge thrown at it over the decades, and is able to explain the observable facts. That, and no other idea even comes close to explaining even a small bit of the evidence.



Again, I wonder how well that would go over if a teacher presented the evidence that demonstrates that there is no possible way the earth is 6,000 years old. Or if the teacher says that animal distribution flatly contradicts that animals dispersed from a central location after a flood. Or that recent animal fossils contradict that.

Or that molecular and genetic evidence contradict that animals alive today came from just two parents. Or that rock strata in the Grand Canyon and other sites conclusively demonstrate they weren't produced in a short period of time by a world-wide flood. Or that the earth's orbital mechanics and changes in the orbit correlate well with sedimentary and ice core records going back a million years, and fossil records going back a few hundred million years.

Would those teachers be protected from retribution or discrimination of any kind? I doubt it.

What they're really saying is that if you're Christian and you want to teach a belief as a theory, you're allowed to no matter how silly it is or how much evidence demonstrates it can't even be remotely true. You'll be protected.

But don't try teaching any other creation story (turtles in oceans, beaver gathered the mud from the bottom of the ocean that the Great Spirit moulded into dry land), and don't try teaching any actual science that contradicts someone's belief...unless you want to contradict the beliefs of someone from another religion, of course.

The stupidity is staggering. The hypocrisy even more so.

Reading between the lines here, it seems they have once again mixed up the difference between life origin hypotheses and evolutionary theory. They are two different things. One deals with how life started and there are numerous ideas there. The other deals with how life evolved once it had already started. This is almost kindergarten stuff (he hyperbolizes). How is it possible they keep getting it wrong?

I may be reading too much into this, and they may not have got it wrong. However, in discussion boards and watching politicians and speakers on youtube, almost all of them do get it wrong so it is likely a gaggle of old white male politicians did get it wrong too.

hm, GOP = gaggle of old people?, gormless old politicians?, goofy old politicians?

I'm puzzled over the uproar about this PA law that will require voters to show photo ID at the polls.

We have to show photo ID, it helps prevent fraud, and photo ID is so ubiquitous (driver's license, health cards, for e.g.) that it is hard to imagine there are that many people who don't have it. I had assumed that was the way it is in the U.S. too, but apparently not.

What is the background behind this law that ruffles feathers? Why is it controversial? Will it really eliminate that many people from voting? If you're not using government issued photo ID, how do you verify voter identity?

I know that when I show up to vote I simply declare my name, it gets looked up on the voter registration list, and I vote.

Not sure what the fuss is about...most states have a photo ID in lieu of a driver license for those who do not drive.

The Democrats don't care about voter fraud becaues they expect to be the ones that benefit from it. If the Republicans thought they'd benefit from it, the roles would be reversed.

The official "excuse" for the uproar is that it's so difficult to get one that some people might not bother, or something like that. Even in a state where the state will send you one for free for the asking, it's somehow too difficult. Illegal voters might be afraid to ask for the ID (or something like that). I'm sounding flip, but they're honestly not very clear about their reasons. These days most people just jump to the conclusion, and don't bother with a reasoning process.

The reasoning of the pro-ID groups is just as bad. They claim that providing ID will prevent voter fraud, especially voting by illegal aliens. The form of voter fraud they allege is that people will stand in lines for hours to vote in the place of registered voters.

Neither of these claims have any truth behind them. There is voter fraud, but no one has ever been convicted or even investigated for voting for someone else. Nor do illegal aliens vote, or even try to vote.

The whole thing reeks of paranoia. It is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Here in Arizona you can vote without a photo ID, but you need things like electric bills to vote. The whole thing is absurd, and yet another imposition on ordinary citizens.

There is something to be said for trusting the voters. They, after all, are the sovereigns of this country, not the government.