NationStates Jolt Archive

No, he makes it patently obvious that he is a liberal by ridiculing conservatives instead of adequately trying to represent their views. He makes many inane, anti-Republican comments under the guise of a conservative news host. He is certainly not diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly trying to express the views of a conservative. In fact, he makes fun of conservatives.

He diligently, enthusiastically, and thoroughly pursues satire, and he does it very well, because he has obviously studied literature. What Colbert does is make use of typical knee-jerk Republican catchphrases and sensibilities, and amplify them for comic effect. Of course he's not trying to seriously endorse conservative views. But liberals and conservatives alike recognize some of the things he says as being identical to some of the things Bill O'Reilly and others have said. In fact, some time he out-O-Reillys O'Reilly. Most people with any wits about them realize that it's meant satirically -- why, even your President understood what Colbert was doing, once it was all explained to him after the Washington Press Corps dinner.

But it's not quite so patently obvious to some Republicans, as the following item shows:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/24/delay-colbert/

DESPERATE FOR SUPPORTERS, DELAY TURNS TO STEPHEN COLBERT

A good sign that Tom DeLay doesn’t have the facts on his side: the top source for his latest defense against his critics is Stephen Colbert.

This morning, DeLay’s legal defense fund sent out a mass email criticizing the movie “The Big Buy: Tom DeLay’s Stolen Congress,” by “Outfoxed” creator Robert Greenwald.

The email features a “one-pager on the truth behind Liberal Hollywood’s the Big Buy,” and the lead item is Colbert’s interview with Greenwald on Comedy Central (where Colbert plays a faux-conservative, O’Reilly-esque character). The headline of the “fact sheet”:

DeLay thinks Colbert is so persuasive, he’s now featuring the full video of the interview at the top of the legal fund’s website. And why not? According to the email, Greenwald “crashed and burned” under the pressure of Colbert’s hard-hitting questions, like “Who hates America more, you or Michael Moore?”

Apparently the people at DeLay’s legal fund think that Colbert is actually a conservative. Or maybe they’re just that desperate for supporters.

*************

Someone in your party just isn't all that bright.

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral. Oh, wait! Liberals would be up in arms about that, wouldn't they? Hell, they're already up in arms about being forced to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They might burn down churches if something even more extreme happened.

Liberals wouldn't be upset if asked to explain how animals are immoral, just perplexed. To be immoral one must be capable of having a moral code and then violating it.

Animals are ammoral because understanding morality is something that animals aren't capable of.

Liberals wouldn't be upset if asked to explain how animals are immoral, just perplexed. To be immoral one must be capable of having a moral code and then violating it.

Animals are ammoral because understanding morality is something that animals aren't capable of.

He said atheists, not animals.

If I wrote an essay that was absurdly over the top, then I wouldn't get a good grade, now would I? That would bring us back to the original dilemma.

You would get a good grade if the essay were well written and properly composed, no matter how over the top it was, and regardless of the ideological chasm between you and your teacher.

I know this for a fact, because I know teachers. And if your teacher were to act differently from most good educators, you would have a perfect right to get a second opinion of your essay from an independent source or (since you're in the US and likely litigious) sue the school.

Or that they are flawed. Can you explain to me why evolution is flawed, like your ideological opponents believe? Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Have you ever been in a debating club? You're asked to do things like that all the time. It's an intellectual exercise. You don't want your brain to get all flabby, do you?

And 1 + 1 = 3 is a statement, not an argument.

Axioms cannot be backed by valid arguments.

Have you ever been in a debating club? You're asked to do things like that all the time. It's an intellectual exercise. You don't want your brain to get all flabby, do you?

Luckily, English class is not an anti-conservative debating club.

You stated that "the fact that you cannot 'diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly' express the views of your ideological opponents is a fairly clear indicator that you do not understand them." There are some views which cannot so express because they are false. Can you "understand" why 1 + 1 = 3? Of course not.

Why would a person think that 1 + 1 = 3? Can you think of a way a person may be led to believe such an absurdity? I can. Does the fact that I can imagine this lead to me suddenly believing that 1 + 1 does not equal 2? No. It doesn't. Not at all.

Why would a person think that 1 + 1 = 3?

Why would a person believe that evolution is false?

Why would a person believe that evolution is false?

A lot of the time it is a faith in God and the written word they believe passed down to them which describes creation of humans and animal species.

Luckily, English class is not an anti-conservative debating club.
Maybe you need some intellectual exercise.

You're unfit at the moment.

Luckily, English class is not an anti-conservative debating club.

No, thicky, it's not. And you seem to be asserting that debating clubs are inherently anti-conservative, when they're quite neutral. Back when I was in school, I regularly had to argue points that I didn't believe in, and do so convincingly, even regarding such insoluble issues as whether the death penalty is a good thing, or whether war is ever just, or if women should be allowed to have abortions.

That's what your English teacher was expecting you to do, in your case, anyway: take a viewpoint opposite your own and espouse it convincingly. It's not easy, but it does open up the mind to different perspectives, which apparently also isn't easy, if we are to take your word for it.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

I agree with none of your points.
How is advanced calculus going to help me irrigate my crops?
It isn't like you cannot learn how to pay your taxes without a elementary school course in paying taxes...
Have you ever been to college? That is where you learn the skills needed to join the workforce.


"If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time."

So we don't need any historians or writers?
While we are at it, might as well force all musicians into 'compassionate slavery', which you would no doubt suggest.

Basically, we should toss all the humanities courses out the window and become a bunch of robots crammed full of advanced calculus/statistics; all for the economic benefit of the hive mind.
:rolleyes:

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Economics classes are important, and that's why they're required for graduation (at least they are where I live). However, the arts are also very important. From what I've learned in psychology so far, it's important to expose children to the arts, music, etc, as it helps them to form more neural connections. Also, children should be exposed to many areas of study so that they can find where there interests lie. Of course classes like economics should be taught, but that doesn't mean that they should replace history and the arts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soheran
Simple objects simply cannot produce, in and of themselves, more complex structures.


Sure they can. Proto-cells have been synthesized in laboratories.


I don't follow your logic MTAE...

The discipline of economics and personal finances are two completely different things.

Teaching kids Marshall's crosses won't prevent them from getting a huge credit card debt. There's other courses for that (and those should be compulsory, I agree, but not at the expense of things like history, maths or English).

I don't follow your logic MTAE...

Given a set of compounds, proto-cells were formed without human interaction.

Art has a value, remember that. Just because it doesn't involve business, science or military doesn't mean that it has a lack of merit. Value is subjective.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

So - do they breathe oxygen on your planet, or is it some kind of weird shit instead, like chlorine or methane or something? I had/have no interest whatsoever in economics, and society has yet to fall due to any failure on my part to be able to compound interest or understand amortization or any of that other stuff you seem to attach a greater value to than to what I do to make money and pay taxes which go towards educating the next generation.

That's a slap in my face, there mush. You're telling me I'm alright enough to pay into education, but kids should be dissuaded from following my path in life? Nice one, MTAE.

Given a set of compounds, proto-cells were formed without human interaction.

But, ultimately, the designers of the experiment set the quantities of compounds available according to what they estimated the conditions of early Earth were. If the early Earth environment was different or the lightning less intense (which is more likely than the Urey-Miller parameters), then that particular method would not be viable.

I'd say that the origin of life on Earth is fairly similar to that process, but it's far from a certainty how life originated. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, believe that the mechanisms necessary for life to emerge originated in certain types of clay. It's even possible that life originated from somewhere else in the solar system, or even in space.

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral. Oh, wait! Liberals would be up in arms about that, wouldn't they? Hell, they're already up in arms about being forced to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They might burn down churches if something even more extreme happened.

Trolling, Trolling, Trolling!
Keep those comments rolling!
TROOOLLLING!

Depends on the intent of the lesson. If some silly Christian is trying to preech then yes he should be slapped down.

God is not part of the original pledge. The Godless communists are no more so it's not needed anymore. Guess you missed that part of history.

Actually the ones burning the churches tend to be the Christians(at least in the US). Missed that part of history didn't you.....

Once again, I state: There are PROVEN correlations between music and math, art and science. An increased education including the arts correlates to higher success in math and science. It has very little to do with instilling a love of art and music. Music is known to be mathmatical. Ask a math major or math professor what his favorite composer is. 9 out of 10 times, they will say Bach. Why? He is incredibly mathematical. The ones who don't will usually say someone of the modern grouping, which is, again, mathematical.

Art helps with physics, geometry, etc. Spacial knowledge, interaction between bodies, all that.

Subjects are not learned independently. They impact eachother. THAT is why we function on an "Educate the whole child" system.

I already conceded defeat...

*Blinks*

*Looks outside for the 4 guys on horses* :p

Wow. I thought maybe I was on drugs for a moment.

Let me just say this: I may not be the smartest NSer on the block, but I do know when to concede defeat.

You do have to admit that the kind of courses he suggests would be of benifit. I would not even suggest going anywhere close to actually replacing history, art, literature, and music classes with them, but as extra courses, methinks they would be a good idea. After all, so many teenagers end up throwing themselves into a huge amount of debt straight after high school, be it from credit cards, loans, or other issues. Some good, quality education about managing one's finances is extremely valuable information for anyone.

I already conceded defeat...

Most people on here just are not used to that type of behavior.

You do have to admit that the kind of courses he suggests would be of benifit. I would not even suggest going anywhere close to actually replacing history, art, literature, and music classes with them, but as extra courses, methinks they would be a good idea. After all, so many teenagers end up throwing themselves into a huge amount of debt straight after high school, be it from credit cards, loans, or other issues. Some good, quality education about managing one's finances is extremely valuable information for anyone.

I agree to that. Especially when you look at all the people in their early twenties struggling under insane amounts of credit debt.

I agree to that. Especially when you look at all the people in their early twenties struggling under insane amounts of credit debt.

Man, I can't imagine how idiotic one would have to be to accumulate massive credit card debt.

However, I have accumulated 17k in debt in the past two years, with schooling alone.

By my calculations, I should only be 30k or so in debt by the time I'm out of college. Less if I pay off some of my alternative loans if I do medical studies ranging from 1k-5k. Still, quite strange that being 30k in debt over only 4 years is considered "lucky" by most, as some of my friends have over 20k in debt, if not more, already.

Man, I can't imagine how idiotic one would have to be to accumulate massive credit card debt.

However, I have accumulated 17k in debt in the past two years, with schooling alone.

By my calculations, I should only be 30k or so in debt by the time I'm out of college. Less if I pay off some of my alternative loans if I do medical studies ranging from 1k-5k. Still, quite strange that being 30k in debt over only 4 years is considered "lucky" by most, as some of my friends have over 20k in debt, if not more, already.

http://www.maxedoutmovie.com/syn/index.html

The basic premise of this claim is that making money and having a secure job is the best course of action (and the measure of success) for the individual, and that having a thriving economy is the best course of action for the state.

If you buy that, than it is a perfectly reasonable claim. If you think that perhaps developing a proper character as a human being is the ultimate end of human activity, and that there are other factors aside from wealth which determine the merits of a civilization, you are forced to disagree. Economics might be important, but it is hardly a science which satisfies the whole person.

Incidentally, China currently has adopted this mindset. Over 4,000 years of a unique, rich, and vibrant culture are no longer being taught in schools; the emphasis is rather on business and international business.

http://www.maxedoutmovie.com/syn/index.html

Man, I wish that movie were showing near me. Of course, I probably coulnd't afford to go to it(I'm money conscious), but at least it would be cool to watch. When does it go on video? I may be able to find a way to watch it for free...

*shifty eyes*

Really, though, nothing is pissing me off more these days than spoiled little saps who have their parents pay for(And I am serious, there are several people I know who are like this):

A)Car insurance
B)ENTIRE college
C)Cell phone bill(Along with buying their phone for them)
D)Food
E)Room and board(If not living on campus)
F)All clothes
G)New car(I'm talking new. As in this year's model).

And yet, I pay for none of it, and I am happy to do so. I never ask my parents for a damn thing. I pay for my car insurance(Which I'm canceling soon-the damn thing shitted out on me, and I can't afford to fix it, and it's not worth it to begin with), I am going to be paying for all of my college, I bought my cell phone and pay the bill every month, I pay for my room and board, all of my food, I'm dirt poor, I have almost no money for anything. At least I'm glad I'm going to be able to stand on my own two feet when I'm out of college, unlike some of my other peers(Who spend thier money on worthless crap) who will be caught with their pants down.

Also, I am not really allowed back at my parents house since the debacle of the previous summer, so if I can't afford to live in the house with 4 roommates, I'm official screwed, 100%.

Heh. And yet, I'm not even complaining about this. That's the strange part.

Man, I wish that movie were showing near me. Of course, I probably coulnd't afford to go to it(I'm money conscious), but at least it would be cool to watch. When does it go on video? I may be able to find a way to watch it for free...

*shifty eyes*

Really, though, nothing is pissing me off more these days than spoiled little saps who have their parents pay for(And I am serious, there are several people I know who are like this):

A)Car insurance
B)ENTIRE college
C)Cell phone bill(Along with buying their phone for them)
D)Food
E)Room and board(If not living on campus)
F)All clothes
G)New car(I'm talking new. As in this year's model).

And yet, I pay for none of it, and I am happy to do so. I never ask my parents for a damn thing. I pay for my car insurance(Which I'm canceling soon-the damn thing shitted out on me, and I can't afford to fix it, and it's not worth it to begin with), I am going to be paying for all of my college, I bought my cell phone and pay the bill every month, I pay for my room and board, all of my food, I'm dirt poor, I have almost no money for anything. At least I'm glad I'm going to be able to stand on my own two feet when I'm out of college, unlike some of my other peers(Who spend thier money on worthless crap) who will be caught with their pants down.

Also, I am not really allowed back at my parents house since the debacle of the previous summer, so if I can't afford to live in the house with 4 roommates, I'm official screwed, 100%.

Heh. And yet, I'm not even complaining about this. That's the strange part.

Independence is irreplaceable.

Independence is irreplaceable.

Yes, it is. I got incredibly pissed off when one of my friend's parents bought him a brand-fucking-new car, whilst I was driving a 15 year-old-pos, which I payed for, and has currently failed me. And yet, I deal with it, and am currently trying to figure out a way to buy a new(as in new to me, not brandnew, I'm not insane) car, that will actually work. I'm think medical study. There's a PRACS institute near me, that pays pretty damn well for two weekend visits. However, that would mean taking two weekends off of work, during the "busy" season(Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up means I can't take a damn day off for the next two months).

And yet, all he has less money than I do, and I can't for the life of me figure out how.

Independence is irreplaceable.

Amen to that. In the long run, you are much better off without all the "help" from mommy and daddy.

Amen to that. In the long run, you are much better off without all the "help" from mommy and daddy.

Yeah, sometimes it sucks(I haven't bought new clothes in over a year and half, due to lack of funds), all of my jeans are in bad shape, my shirts are getting there, I wear the same sweatshirt pretty much every day(Best thing my parents could have gotten me last year for christmas, as I have more use out of this than any of the useless jank others get). There we go. For Christmas: New clothes. That's it.

Kind of a complete 180 from when I was 6, really.

Back on point: In the long run, it'll be far better. Sucks now, won't be as bad in the future.

Anywho, yeah, I don't think some of the people I know are going to do all that great when they get out of college(At least one is probably going to be living with his parents until he is 45. And be a virgin. Thus, in 20 years, a documentary called "The 45 Year Old Virgin" will be released.

Anywho, yeah, I don't think some of the people I know are going to do all that great when they get out of college(At least one is probably going to be living with his parents until he is 45. And be a virgin. Thus, in 20 years, a documentary called "The 45 Year Old Virgin" will be released.

Plus, let's say these little brats do find success---great job, nice car, big house, etc---but it's handed to them on a silver platter, thanks to mom and dad's connections. Have they really "suceeded"? Have they actually found the good life, even if they've done nothing themselves to achieve it?

I think it kinda goes back to the original question implied bythis thread, which is whether or not we want to define "success" in terms of material gain, or if it's something beyond just having a bunch of nice stuff.

Plus, let's say these little brats do find success---great job, nice car, big house, etc---but it's handed to them on a silver platter, thanks to mom and dad's connections. Have they really "suceeded"? Have they actually found the good life, even if they've done nothing themselves to achieve it?

I think it kinda goes back to the original question implied bythis thread, which is whether or not we want to define "success" in terms of material gain, or if it's something beyond just having a bunch of nice stuff.

Eh, living in Minnesota means that rich doesn't mean powerful, it just means your parents can afford to buy everything for you. Thus, it is highly unlikely that anybody I know will be given these jobs, which means they will likely fail, if anything. The other problems these people have is that they deem certain jobs "beneath" them, and will not be willing to work them. There are only a few things I would likely never do, and those are largely due to my somewhat weak stomach to smell(Garbage man is fairly high on the list), but if worst comes to worst I would suck up all of my pride for a bloody job if I needed one. These people would rather go crying to mummy/daddy than take a bit of responsibility.

As to success, that is quite true. Different people regard success as different things. Money actually plays very little into what I consider success(As it is only the means by which one gains material assets-it is a terrible goal to devote ones life to, as it doesn't provide many other needs), as I have other asperations. Money is good and all, but it is hardly the be-all end-all. I'd rather be happy and comfortable than rich and miserable.

I'm rather enjoying the "Trial by Fire", so to speak. Sometimes I do wish I could go to a time a few years back with fewer worries, but who doesn't? Difference between others and me is that I understand I can't, nor would it be beneficial, and others seem never to have left those days.

MTAE: taking the arts and history out of education and leaving nothing but the practical, economics based curriculum is a sure fire way to condemn someone to a life of empty slavery. Economic productivity is how we support the finer things in life I.E art. There is far more to life than just how productive a citizen you are.

Were you not just complaining that no one actually understands what they are voting for any more? Did you not suggest that only people who can pass a test on current events and poltical knowledge should be allowed to vote?

Where do you think people learn such skills? History and English classes where you're taught historical trends (as to why we got to where we are, and what people have done in the past in simular situations), and the ability to read between the lines of poltical BS to see what is really being said.

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

No, no, take a look at yourself, for God's sake.
There are beautiful things out there; you just refuse to believe it because to accept would destroy your vision of the world and thus destroy all the means you use to justify your bullshit. You see a world full of lazy bitches, I see more. There are samaritans out there, there are good people and things left in the world. You realise it, of course, but you do not accept it, and that is where the problem lies. Damn it, there is good out there! Good ideas! Great things have always started with a big imagination! Without that, our world would be bland! We wouldn't have a damned world if we couldn't think of anything new, ever! But that is what you are proposing. Don't you see? When you take away imagination, take away inspiration, you are taking the good from this earth, taking it and stabbing it in the fucking back. Your faulty vision and lack of realisation causes you to see problems where there are none, to propose solutions to these troubles nonexistent, in the name of this, that, or the other.
Why? Why don't you see the truth?

MTAE: taking the arts and history out of education and leaving nothing but the practical, economics based curriculum is a sure fire way to condemn someone to a life of empty slavery. Economic productivity is how we support the finer things in life I.E art. There is far more to life than just how productive a citizen you are.

I heartily agree. I'm also rather shocked that this thread seems to be on topic after 20 pages. did I miss anything at all by skipping 19 of them?

Education in art, language and history is important in a civilised society.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

I can see your point to an extent. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as you do I would say that particually when it comes to things like economics it is not taught as much as it needs to be. However history and understanding of the past is important, just as an apreciation for literature and music. Like so many of these situations (and this is often something Americans often do not understand) there is a balance to be struck. Clearly we cannot completely kick out the more abstract courses and elements of the curriculam such as the arts and history but at the same time to have a system without a descent economics training area is foolhardy. And I would agree with you that currently the balance is too far in favour of the more abstract courses, I would not advocate getting rid of them completely. To do so would be to make it apper as if all your life is to be made up of is the aquisition of wealth, which is wrong.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

I can see your point to an extent. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as you do I would say that particually when it comes to things like economics it is not taught as much as it needs to be. However history and understanding of the past is important, just as an apreciation for literature and music. Like so many of these situations (and this is often something Americans often do not understand) there is a balance to be struck. Clearly we cannot completely kick out the more abstract courses and elements of the curriculam such as the arts and history but at the same time to have a system without a descent economics training area is foolhardy. And I would agree with you that currently the balance is too far in favour of the more abstract courses, I would not advocate getting rid of them completely. To do so would be to make it apper as if all your life is to be made up of is the aquisition of wealth, which is wrong.

MTAE: taking the arts and history out of education and leaving nothing but the practical, economics based curriculum is a sure fire way to condemn someone to a life of empty slavery. Economic productivity is how we support the finer things in life I.E art. There is far more to life than just how productive a citizen you are.

Seeing as MtaE advocates enslaving large parts of the population (if you belive his postings), this should suit him just fine.

How about just lowering the age of options? In the UK you dont get to drop subjects like art until Year10 (age 14-15)
I never really learned much in subjects like art or geography, so i would have preferred to drop them a few years earlier in favour of other subjects, such as business studies

How about just lowering the age of options? In the UK you dont get to drop subjects like art until Year10 (age 14-15)
I never really learned much in subjects like art or geography, so i would have preferred to drop them a few years earlier in favour of other subjects, such as business studies

I think that varies from place to place. Here, in 9th grade (14-15) you are required to take either geography or a business course (I chose geography since I qualified to take it as an AP course and earn college credit for it.) We're required to have either a semester of a performing art and a semester of a practical art, or a year of either a practical art or a performing art. That leaves a lot of room for electives, so that if a student wants to take a lot of business courses, they can, and if they want to take a lot of art courses, they can. I would have preferred to have been able to have not taken P.E., because it's annoying and you don't actually learn anything in it. I definitely would have loved to have been able to drop that in favor of academic classes. I'm just glad that all of my classes now are academic classes, now that I've fulfilled the art and PE requirements (although I did enjoy chorus somewhat; a lot more than I enjoyed PE, anyway.)

Damn it, there is good out there! Good ideas! Great things have always started with a big imagination! Without that, our world would be bland! We wouldn't have a damned world if we couldn't think of anything new, ever!

I am not proposing removing imagination from our world, as that is a prerequisite for economic and technological progress. We should do our utmost to enhance the creativity of those in the medical and technological fields. However, a well-drawn piece of art or an excellent melody does nothing, or very little, to improve the quality of life for anyone. It's all well and good if you want to be an artist or a musician -- take the courses if you so desire. But no one should be forcefully subjected to such a course, against his/her will, just because you think that such classes are necessary; they are not. Also, artists and musicians are not to ones with a monopoly on the ability to see "good" in our world -- in fact, people of other professions not only see good, but they actively act to produce it. They make inventive new medicines to cure disease. They make genial new technologies to make our life easier. They think up new systems to help everyone. They do not draw a picture and claim that the world will benefit from it, because it won't.

Seeing as MtaE advocates enslaving large parts of the population (if you belive his postings), this should suit him just fine.

No, I only advocate compassionate slavery. That is, the quality of life of the people who are to be sold into slavery should be increased by such a programme. A life of empty slavery would be something I could never condone; I would only be a proponent of a happy, brainwashed one.

I find that to be a very good idea and a fix to the failing education system. Though I do believe some history is needed as it can be used from time to time.

I am not proposing removing imagination from our world, as that is a prerequisite for economic and technological progress. We should do our utmost to enhance the creativity of those in the medical and technological fields. However, a well-drawn piece of art or an excellent melody does nothing, or very little, to improve the quality of life for anyone. It's all well and good if you want to be an artist or a musician -- take the courses if you so desire. But no one should be forcefully subjected to such a course, against his/her will, just because you think that such classes are necessary; they are not. Also, artists and musicians are not to ones with a monopoly on the ability to see "good" in our world -- in fact, people of other professions not only see good, but they actively act to produce it. They make inventive new medicines to cure disease. They make genial new technologies to make our life easier. They think up new systems to help everyone. They do not draw a picture and claim that the world will benefit from it, because it won't.

Would it trouble you to know that science has proven that someone who learns music will greatly increase their maths skill, will become much more disciplined and find learning easier.

History will also give vital skills in understanding sources and will show you how to properly read between the lines and decide for yourself what is credible and what is not whilst giving you a better view and understaning of the world past, present and future. That is why so many history graduates are having such good job oppertunities in business and government.

Would it trouble you to know that science has proven that someone who learns music will greatly increase their maths skill, will become much more disciplined and find learning easier.

So does chess. Your point?

So does chess. Your point?

Most people would rather learn about music then chess, and chess doesn't develop maths skills in the same way music does. Nor does chess develop any sort of disciplinery(sp?) skills.

Would it trouble you to know that science has proven that someone who learns music will greatly increase their maths skill, will become much more disciplined and find learning easier.

History will also give vital skills in understanding sources and will show you how to properly read between the lines and decide for yourself what is credible and what is not whilst giving you a better view and understaning of the world past, present and future. That is why so many history graduates are having such good job oppertunities in business and government.

Whilst I agree it may be possible that music may improve someones mathmatical abilities, I do not think it will improve them to the extent that actually being taught maths will. I agree with you, and Meanstoanend, music and history are both vital courses, but they are not as vital as is an understanding of practical maths to someones essentially reducitoonalist welbeing. In British schools, at least in my school, we had 5 hours of maths per week, two hours of history, three hours of english literature and two of the chosen expressive art (music, drama or art). I think that this seems to be a reasonable allocation of time. Our timetable worked on 5 one hour lessons a day, broken down like this

Period 1
Period 2
BREAK (aprox 20-25 mins)
Period 3
LUNCH (aprox 45-50 mins)
Period 4
Period 5
HOME

I agree however that within maths more practical things should be examined, such as interest and basic fianical principles.

Most people would rather learn about music then chess, and chess doesn't develop maths skills in the same way music does. Nor does chess develop any sort of disciplinery(sp?) skills.

Actually, chess does more to improve math skills than music does. It forces you to calculate several moves down the road -- you have a goal, and you must figure out the best way to achieve it. It is very complex and teaches you one of the most important math skills of all -- analyzation. There is no substitute for that in music. Also, chess is a very structured game which does wonders for discipline. You have to sit down for hours at a time, constantly thinking and exploring various possibilities.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Man, if you had brains, you'd be dangerous.

You'd like kinds not to learn history, wouldn't you? That way, when some NeoCon fascist or UberLiberal communist tries their crap in politics, there'd be nobody alert enough to see through the propaganda and proclaim that the Emperor is stark raving naked.

Sorry, chum, but those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and as long as I teach, I'll also add that those who fail history are doomed to repeat it, too.

As for the arts, what the hell are we fighting, working, and building wealth FOR?!? When you're well off, what will you do? Just keep going to work until you're dead at 40 and never appreciate the aesthetics of ANYTHING?

I know you're a troll, but dammit, your proposal is just plain irresponsible. Not everyone is easily shoehorned into an educational matrix, and the more options we can provide, the better educated our children will be. My high school didn't force but one -- ONE -- year of arts classes into our electives. In fact, many upperclassmen were allowed to slough off in their senior year if they didn't want to take a fourth year of English or Math or Science. That may have changed since 1988, but why not give students a chance to learn about something different instead of letting them hang around taking only four of six possible classes?

And what of the Contemporary World Issues portion of the typical public HS history track? Are you so transparent as to suggest that CONTEMPORARY issues are not involved with or informed by HISTORICAL ones?

Please. Go back under your bridge and wait for the goats.

Actually, chess does more to improve math skills than music does. It forces you to calculate several moves down the road -- you have a goal, and you must figure out the best way to achieve it. It is very complex and teaches you one of the most important math skills of all -- analyzation. There is no substitute for that in music. Also, chess is a very structured game which does wonders for discipline. You have to sit down for hours at a time, constantly thinking and exploring various possibilities.

*nods* but it doesnt work for, er, lower ability groups, you need to have a level of dicipline and concentration to play chess in the first place

No, the lack of financial knowledge and discipline that is prevalent among the poor is the cause. They would rather buy alcohol and drugs than investing their money, which is why they live in squalor. If they were better educated in how to effectively utilize their wealth, they could rise up out of their predicament. Instead, they waste, waste, waste.

That's got nothing to do with economics and more to do with ethics...something that many of those in the high-end economic world must have skipped in school. Hmmm.....

Actually, chess does more to improve math skills than music does. It forces you to calculate several moves down the road -- you have a goal, and you must figure out the best way to achieve it. It is very complex and teaches you one of the most important math skills of all -- analyzation. There is no substitute for that in music. Also, chess is a very structured game which does wonders for discipline. You have to sit down for hours at a time, constantly thinking and exploring various possibilities.

Nice try. Music involves both the left and right brain as you attempt not only to master the technique of your instrument, but also the musicality and aesthetic component of the music itself. I am a chess-playing musician and I love them both. My father taught me chess. PUBLIC SCHOOLS taught me music. My creaativity has always and will always inform and legitimize my analytical prowess.

You are, quite simply, wrong. You're an angry young man, chip on shoulder, listening to those who would egg you on instead of inform you. You have my pity.

Sorry, chum, but those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and as long as I teach, I'll also add that those who fail history are doomed to repeat it, too.

That's, quite simply, false. What happened in the past does not apply to what is currently happening. Nobody should base current decisions on past happenings -- they should only be based on the relevant factors. If people advocate the creation of a communist government, they have much more serious problems than the fact that communism is a proven failure. They lack the capacity to analyze the benefits of such a plan.

Nice try. Music involves both the left and right brain as you attempt not only to master the technique of your instrument, but also the musicality and aesthetic component of the music itself. I am a chess-playing musician and I love them both. My father taught me chess. PUBLIC SCHOOLS taught me music. My creaativity has always and will always inform and legitimize my analytical prowess.

You are, quite simply, wrong. You're an angry young man, chip on shoulder, listening to those who would egg you on instead of inform you. You have my pity.

You win the thread.

I take it no one is interested in a balanced examination of this issue

Yes schools at present do not teach enough economics

Yes the arts, literature and history are valuable

Thus we should introduce more economics into maths lessons while at the same time not overly compromise the arts, literature and history

Bleurgh, If I was in school again I would hate to be subjected to an economics/business course. It should be optional, life is not about securing a safe job behind a desk, wearing a suit and tie and so on. It is almost suggestive of worshipping the market as some kind of demi god (as in,-" C02 emissions are on the rise, in 10 years time there will be no landmasses left", response: "I know but will this hurt the economy?",-ffs it doesnt matter whether it will hurt the economy in ten years there wont even be one to speak of!)- slight exaggeration but nonetheless it articulates my sentiments that nowadays there is just a blind acceptance of the market being all important, thats why a lot of good art and music isnt getting into the mainstream. It infuriates me to think that accountants have control over teh music as opposed to business side of the music industry. When I was doing maths one of the areas I hated the most was the business section. As for music being inter related with mathematical ability, Id agree to some extent, but I also think you can have amazing musicians who suck at maths. There would be 2 main types of musician imo- performers and composers, you can have composers who write intuitive, emotive songs (emo jokes on standby) and composers who write very elegant pretty tunes, mathematical composers if you will and you can have combinations of both.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Wow. You're not a troll, you're a flamebaiting uberconservative. I apologize for ever thinking you a troll.

we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music.

As a band geek and writer, this hurts me. Knowing history would benefit the future because you know what happened in the past and you know how to fix it (if it was a bad thing). Literature is needed because you need to know other viewpoints about the world. Art and music are forms of expression. If we do't learn how to express ourselves this world will be worse off than it is now.

Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world. Which means history, art, music, and literature must be in the curriculum.

Nice try. Music involves both the left and right brain as you attempt not only to master the technique of your instrument, but also the musicality and aesthetic component of the music itself. I am a chess-playing musician and I love them both. My father taught me chess. PUBLIC SCHOOLS taught me music. My creaativity has always and will always inform and legitimize my analytical prowess.

You are, quite simply, wrong. You're an angry young man, chip on shoulder, listening to those who would egg you on instead of inform you. You have my pity.

Yep. Also if you're in band you're actullay smarter and don't get into trouble as much as non-band geeks. *nod* My band director read off the statistics, but I'm not sure where he got them from.

In strategy you need creativity, and the arts help creativity.

Do you have any statistics with which to back up this assertion? I should very much like to see them.


Homelessness: The Causes and Facts

Introduction
At a time when the economy is booming, unemployment is low; and the Dow Jones has set new records, the National Coalition for the Homeless estimates that as many as 3 million people are homeless in the U.S. during the course of a year.


The primary causes of homelessness are the lack of affordable housing, the lack of living wage jobs or sufficient income, and the lack of adequate health and supportive services. Local and national efforts to address homelessness often focus on emergency services, temporary shelter, food, clothing, and emergency healthcare rather than on the root causes.


While advocates are busy fighting for new affordable housing and creating new job opportunities, homelessness is outpacing them. While shelter beds are vitally important and life saving, but they are not a permanent solution. Until the root causes of homelessness are addressed and permanent solutions adequately funded, the problem will continue to worsen.


Who Are the Homeless?
• 22 percent of homeless people are veterans. There are more homeless veterans today than U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam.1
• The average age of a homeless person in the United States is 9 years old.2
• In the US, 29 percent of homeless families that have ever received TANF reported having their benefits cut or reduced in the last 6 months.3
• 16 percent of homeless people spent time in foster care, group homes, shelters, or welfare hotels before they were 18.4
• As many as 25-40 percent of homeless people work full- or part-time, but cannot afford to pay rent.5


National Homeless Demographics
45 percent - single men
38 percent - families with children
14 percent - single women
3 percent - unaccompanied

49 percent - African American
32 percent - White
12 percent - Latino
4 percent - Native American
3 percent - Asian


CAUSE: Lack of Affordable Housing
• The affordable housing shortage, once concentrated in the cities, has spread to the suburbs. The number of suburban households with critical housing needs jumped by 146,000 from 1991 to 1995 - a nine percent increase.6
• Nationally, 10.5 million renters compete for 6.1 million low-income units. This gap leaves 4.4 million people unable to find an affordable place to live.7
• More than 1 million families nationwide are on waiting lists for assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).8
• Nationally, requests for housing assistance have increased by 74 percent in the last year. Only 27 percent of eligible low-income households currently receive housing assistance.9
• In 1998, 44 percent of families nationwide lived doubled or tripled up with family or friends prior to entering homeless shelters.10


CAUSE: Lack of Living Wage Jobs
• Between 1982 and 1990, temporary employment grew by 300 percent.11 In 1997, almost 30 percent of all U.S. workers were employed in part-time or temporary positions, even though many of these workers actively sought full-time work.12
• A person must work full time and earn at least $8.29/hour to reach the federal poverty level for a family of four ($16,588). According to the most recent Census Bureau report, 2.3 million people worked full-time in 1997 yet were below the poverty line.13
• A full-time worker at the minimum wage of $5.15/hr. earns an annual income of $10,300 before taxes. Minimum-wage jobs generally provide no benefits such as health insurance or daycare, nor do they provide opportunity for advancement. The real value of the minimum wage in 1997 was 18.1 percent less than in 1979.14
• Between 1980 and 1998, the average pay of working people increased just 68 percent, while CEO compensation grew by 1,596 percent. The average CEO of a major corporation made $10.6 million in 1998, 419 times more than an average blue-collar worker.15
• A 1998 welfare grant for a family of three was $377. The buying power of a 1998 welfare grant was less than 44 percent of a grant in 1973.16


CAUSE: Lack of Health and Supportive Services
• Approximately 38 percent of homeless people suffer from a substance abuse problem.17
• In 1996, Congress eliminated SSI and SSDI benefits for people diagnosed with an addiction.
• There are currently no federal programs that target funds for substance abuse programs for homeless people.18
• The mortality rate for a homeless person is 3-4 times higher than that of the general public.19
• A national study indicated that 13 percent of homeless individuals became homeless due to health problems.20
• Homeless individuals are 10-15 times more likely to suffer from gangrene, gout and ulcerations resulting in amputation; 2-3 times more likely to suffer from gastro-intestinal disorders; and 2-4 times more prone to hypertension.21
• 20-25 percent of homeless people suffer from serious mental illness.22
• Many mentally ill people are inappropriately discharged from hospitals to the streets. Nevertheless, only 5-7 percent of homeless people with mental illness need to be institutionalized. As many as 95 percent could live in community settings if appropriate supportive services and housing were available.23
• Eight percent of homeless people suffer from AIDS or are HIV-positive.24


Impact of Homelessness on Children
Families with children are the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population. Homelessness has a particularly devastating impact on children. One problem that often arises is a disruption in schooling as homeless children are forced to change schools repeatedly and miss many days in the school year.
• It takes an average of 4-6 months for a child to recover academically from a change in schools.25
• 66 percent of students who missed 20 or more school days during first, second or third grade will drop out of school.26
• 50 percent of all children in shelters show signs of anxiety and depression.27
• Children in shelters show as high as 70 percent rate of delay in immunizations, compared to 22 percent among low-income children who are housed.28


Shelter Types
Overnight Shelters: Located in churches or other larger buildings, these shelters are open only at night. Most overnight shelters simply serve the immediate needs of homeless people by providing a warm place to sleep and some food to eat.
Warming Centers: Similar to overnight shelters, but they are open only between October and April.
Transitional Shelters: These shelters are often geared toward a specific population, such as battered women. They attempt to break the cycle of homelessness by providing a structured, homelike environment and helping people transition to more permanent housing. The standard length of stay is 120 days.
Second-Stage Housing: These programs provide alternative, low-income housing in individual apartments, usually for up to two years. Social services and case management are provided to help people make a transition to more stable permanent housing. Housing fees are often charged, usually at about one-third of the person's income.


Targeting Treatment for Homeless People
Most drug and alcohol addicts never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are more susceptible to homelessness. Many homeless people develop an addiction after becoming homeless. The challenge of controlling addiction, regardless of when it arises, coupled with a lack of proper treatment programs, makes moving beyond homelessness extremely difficult.

Of the 38 percent of homeless people who suffer from an alcohol or drug addiction, less than half receive proper treatment.29 The National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors has identified homeless people as a group with specific needs they are unable to meet, but little is done to improve access to treatment for homeless people.30


Several studies have shown that treatment is a more cost-effective and helpful way to address substance abuse that the usual alternative of incarceration. A national study found that, following treatment, clients who reported being homeless dropped by 43 percent while the employment rate increased by 19 percent.31 In California, a 1991 study showed that for every dollar spent on treatment $7 were saved by the taxpayers.32


Recently, the increasing number of people incarcerated for drug-related crimes has prompted several states, including New York and Arizona, to cease mandatory prison sentences in favor or treatment programs. In addition, more than two-thirds of U.S. prison wardens favor the increased use of correctional treatment options, such as residential drug treatment programs and halfway houses.33


Domestic Violence and Homelessness
Domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness among women and children. Half of all homeless women cite domestic violence as their primary cause for becoming homeless. Many women who leave their abusers have no other option but the streets. Leaving an abusive relationship often means leaving property and family income behind.

Of women who become homeless due to abuse, 40 percent are not able to find room in a domestic violence shelter. There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the U.S. as shelters for battered women.34


The lack of decent affordable housing and childcare compounds their already desperate situation. In some cases, the painful experience of being homeless causes women to return to their abusers. For others, relentless batterers-those who show up at a woman's new job and harass her-make regaining stability and independence a difficult task.


Welfare Reform and Family Homelessness
Welfare Reform has added to the problem of family homelessness. Welfare recipients need to move from welfare to work within five years or they will lose their benefits. Many families are already becoming homeless when they are sanctioned due to stricter work requirements.


Despite widespread publicity about reduced welfare rolls, only 27 percent of welfare cases in 1998 were closed due to increased income, while 50 percent were closed due to failure to keep an appointment or provide paperwork.35 Without any support many families that are sanctioned, even when the sanction is caused by a state error, end up in a shelter.


Even families that do find work and move off welfare have difficulty maintaining housing. Nationally, families leaving welfare make an average of just $5,000 in the first year and $9,000 after five years.36 These incomes put families under 30 percent of national median income and at high risk of homelessness. Families that leave welfare for very low-paying jobs may end up in worse financial situations and at a higher risk of homelessness than when they were on welfare-especially with the loss of medical assistance and increased costs associated with working such as childcare and transportation.


Homelessness and Mental Illness
Nationwide, 20-25 percent of homeless people suffer from some form of serious mental illness.37 Solutions for this population are not "one size fits all." Only 5-7 percent of homeless persons with mental illness need to be institutionalized, while most others could live in community settings with appropriate supportive services and housing.38 Despite this fact, many homeless people that are mentally ill are not able to obtain the supportive services, such as case management, treatment, and supportive housing, that they need to find and maintain housing.


In the meantime, homeless people with severe mental illness tend to suffer more: they remain homeless for longer periods of time, have less contact with family and friends, encounter more barriers to employment, tend to be in poorer physical health, and have more contact with the legal system than other homeless people.39 Without more treatment and rehabilitation services, many mentally ill homeless people will remain on the streets and not regain their independence and find stable housing.


Information taken from: The Facts Behind the Faces - A Fact Sheet From the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.



1 US Conference of Mayor's Report on Hunger and Homelessness, 1998.
2 Homes for the Homeless, New York.
3 See note 1.
4 Ten Cities: A Snapshot of Family Homelessness Across America, Homes for the Homeless and the Institute for Children and Poverty, 1997-1998.
5 National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999.
6 HUD press release, April 28, 1998.
7 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, In Search of Shelter: The Growing Shortage of Affordable Rental Housing, June 1998.
8 See note 6.
9 See note 1.
10 See note 4.
11 Jobs That Pay, The Work Poor Project, Northern Illinois University, 1995.
12 Jobs Picture: Unemployment Steady, but Growth Slows, Economic Policy Institute, 1998.
13 US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Poverty in the United States: 1997 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1998.
14 National Coalition for the Homeless, February 1999.
15 AFL-CIO Executive Pay Watch, 1999.
16 www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html
17 See note 1.
18 National Coalition for the Homeless, Homelessness and Chemical Dependency: Needs, Services, Funding.
19 Barrow S., D. Herman, P. Cordova, E. Strueing Mortality among Homeless Shelter Residents in New York City, April 1999.
20 Life and Death on the Streets, National Coalition for the Homeless, 1993.
21 Ibid.
22 National Coalition for the Homeless, Fact Sheet #5, 1997.
23 Ibid.
24 See note 1.
25 Dr. Joy Rogers of the Loyola University Department of Education, Education Report of Rule 706 Expert Panel, presented in B.H. v. Johnson, 1991.
26 Against the Odds: Early Identification of High School Drop Outs, Chicago Panel on School Policy Study, 1989.
27 Bassuk, El, and L. Rosenberg, Psychological Characteristics of Homeless Children and Children with Homes, Pediatrics 1990.
28 Fierman AH, Dreyer BP, Acker PJ, Legano L. Status of Immunization and Iron Nutrition in New York City Homeless Children. Clinical Pediatrics, 1993 (March).
29 National Law Center on Homelessness and Pverty, http://www.tomco.net/_nlchp/health.htm. See note 13.
30 See note 13.
31 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), National Treatment Improvement Study (NTIES), http://www.health.org/nties97/employ.htm.
32 National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD), http://www.nasadad.org/treatment1.htm.
33 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 19974, from http://www.jointogether.org/sa/
34 Senate Judiciary Committee, 1990.
35 IDHS Caseload Activity Reports.
36 Daniel R. Meyer and Maria Cancia. Life After Welfare: The Economic Well-Being of Women and Children Following Exit from AFDC, Institute for Research and Poverty, University of Wisconsin, 1996.
37 Koegel, Paul, et al. The Causes of Homelessness, 1996.
38 Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness, 1992.
39 Kleppner, Paul and Theodore Nikolas. Working After Welfare: Is Illinois' Booming Economy Creating Enough Jobs, Midwestern Job Gap Project, Chicago, 1997.

Now find some way to ignore the statisitcs YOU asked for.

You can still take English, art, music, or whatever you wish. However, not everyone will be forced to take it.

and that's why you are a trioll, as well as being proven a troll. You asked for information to assert the opther's position and you just ingore it to troll your stupid assertions without basis. Everyone, know that MTAE is a upper middle class, white, racist, bigoted pile of monkey poop. You toll, I'll flame. :mp5:

Now find some way to ignore the statisitcs YOU asked for.

I'm not going to ignore them. However, the overhaul of our current welfare state which I suggested would handily take care of this problem. All those on the streets would be given food and board, provided that they are willing to work for it.

I'm not going to ignore them. However, the overhaul of our current welfare state which I suggested would handily take care of this problem. All those on the streets would be given food and board, provided that they are willing to work for it.

What kind of work?

How will a worker knowing history prevent it from being repeated?

because workers vote you clown. If they are smart enough they don't vote for a cansdidate who will propogate the problems of the past. And you still ignored the statistics that the poster proved. You skirt the issues and answer the questions you want vs. the ones that are asked. No wonder you love Bush. And you're still a toll.

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.

yes becaue it's illegal to promote one political party/politician to an audience that has no ability to leave. They are legally required to be there and are considered a captive audience. Learn the law troll. You're too easy to defeat MTAE. Further, I've been destroying your pathetic arguments for months and you finally reply. I see I'm having an effect now. :mp5:

What kind of work?

Productive physical labor. For example, they could clean our highways. They could also work on a farm.

Well, I found it disgusting that I was forced to renounce my beliefs in an essay, especially when people claim that our schools are not liberally biased.

You can't "argue in the contrary?" This is what lawyers do all of the time in order to try and refute their own arguments. You heard it here, MTEA is not smart enough to do this task. Finally, what do you think the largest undergraduate major of lawyers is.... Ooooh ooohh, English-Writing you troll. I was asked to write an essay on why God and Satan didn't exist, although as a Catholic I believe in them. I got an A on the paper. Thank you for pointing out how superior I am to you in reasoning skills.

No, I was forced to write an essay, not fiction.

and all essays are non-fiction? You're not even a smart troll.

Or that they are flawed. Can you explain to me why evolution is flawed, like your ideological opponents believe? Go ahead, I'm waiting.


why? so he can give you the answer and you can ignore it like you always do. You're a TROLL, a stupid troll at that.

Productive physical labor. For example, they could clean our highways. They could also work on a farm.

You should take a look at this book.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5474070

Productive physical labor. For example, they could clean our highways. They could also work on a farm.

Sounds a bit like the good old USSR.

Sounds a bit like the good old USSR.

Yeah... I was going to say... Which isn't to say that it's that bad of an idea but I'm pretty sure that work programs are already in place in much of the country.

However, a well-drawn piece of art or an excellent melody does nothing, or very little, to improve the quality of life for anyone.

Well of course this assertion completely depends on how you define "quality of life". If quality of life is determined soley by the health of the body and the balance of one's bank account, then yes, music, art, etc. probably contribute very little to one's happiness.

If, however, happiness is more than mere bodily satiation, then we might find that what a work of art or piece of music produces in us is worth more than money or perhaps even our health.

MTAE, the world you seem to envision is one where people only act if they get some immediate (preferably bodily) reward or if they perceive some immediate again, preferably bodily) harm. Did it ever occur to you what kind of military such a society might have? You'd have to scare people into going to war. You would need, literally or metaphorically, a seargeant waving his pistol in the face of every soldier to get them to advance. I would argue that few (if ANY) great civilizations had armed forces built on such a system, and that absolutely NO great civilization ever dispensed with art, music, etc. for the sake of economics and remained a great civilization. Do we remember the Romans because of the amount of money they had? Did the Aztecs have wonderful economic theories? Your proposal seems at best short-sighted, at worst an attempt to unwittingly rob us of all that makes life worth living.

English, art, and music are useless courses. We need more science and math, with optional English (after maybe 1 mandatory year for students to see if they like it) for students pursuing a writing career/whatever. I find it disturbing that some people think that you can only foster creativity through those other subjects. Economics should be optional, but some personal finance wouldn't hurt, I suppose in addition to the rest of the curriculum.

Well of course this assertion completely depends on how you define "quality of life". If quality of life is determined soley by the health of the body and the balance of one's bank account, then yes, music, art, etc. probably contribute very little to one's happiness.

If, however, happiness is more than mere bodily satiation, then we might find that what a work of art or piece of music produces in us is worth more than money or perhaps even our health.

You do realize that in order to appreciate those "inner" things like art and music, we first need to fulfill our bodily needs -- health, food, etc. first, right? Who gives a shit about Mozart when you're starving?

and that's why you are a trioll, as well as being proven a troll. You asked for information to assert the opther's position and you just ingore it to troll your stupid assertions without basis. Everyone, know that MTAE is a upper middle class, white, racist, bigoted pile of monkey poop. You toll, I'll flame. :mp5:

And what exactly is wrong with being white, you racist?

English, art, and music are useless courses. We need more science and math, with optional English for students pursuing a writing career/whatever. I find it disturbing that some people think that you can only foster creativity through those other subjects.

I dunno... Maybe it's the fact that musicians are statistically better at math than non-musicians, and that artists follow the same path. Maybe it's that without the skills you learn in English classes, all you have is facts, and not a method of presenting them or coordinating them.

You do realize that in order to appreciate those "inner" things like art and music, we first need to fulfill our bodily needs -- health, food, etc. first, right? Who gives a shit about Mozart when you're starving?

So there are absolutely no jobs in, say, technical writing, 3-D graphics design, or musical performance out there, eh?

Suuuuuuure....

I dunno... Maybe it's the fact that musicians are statistically better at math than non-musicians, and that artists follow the same path. Maybe it's that without the skills you learn in English classes, all you have is facts, and not a method of presenting them or coordinating them.

So there are absolutely no jobs in, say, technical writing, 3-D graphics design, or musical performance out there, eh?

Suuuuuuure....

Putting words in my mouth (bold the part when I said there are no jobs (and I italicized it too for emphasis) in those areas. Guess what, 3-D graphics requires TECHNOLOGY and art knowledge. Musicians (you mean people like J-Lo, Metallica, etc.) also need the math then, too. Notice a trend? We need more math, science, and tech even to support subjects like music and arts in the modern day.

You do realize that in order to appreciate those "inner" things like art and music, we first need to fulfill our bodily needs -- health, food, etc. first, right? Who gives a shit about Mozart when you're starving?

Naturally. But is the health of our bodies the only end? Do we listen to Mozart for the health of our bodies, or do we care about the health of our bodies so that we might live an appreciate things like Mozart? Bodily needs are important, but to make them the sole focus of human activity is to turn a human being into just another animal.

Naturally. But is the health of our bodies the only end? Do we listen to Mozart for the health of our bodies, or do we care about the health of our bodies so that we might live an appreciate things like Mozart? Bodily needs are important, but to make them the sole focus of human activity is to turn a human being into just another animal.

Bodily needs come first. there are other things to appreciate, like family and friends. you don't need music or art to fulfill those things. and I hate classical music.:D

Putting words in my mouth (bold the part when I said there are no jobs (and I italicized it too for emphasis) in those areas. Guess what, 3-D graphics requires TECHNOLOGY and art knowledge. And musical performance? Please, good luck on getting to the top 40. Not everyone has an innate artistic talent, and there's no damn reason to force us to learn it. You can, however, learn math and science.

The TOP 40? You seem to be assuming here that the only reason why anyone would go into the field of art or music is in order to be "sucessful", to make money, acquire fame and status, etc. I don't know of very many artists who go into their field looking to make money; if they wanted to make money, they would have signed up for business classes. There is an intrinsic value to art, music, etc.

For that matter, are we talking about learning to make or learning to appreciate art? There is a world of difference between the two. Naturally not everyone should study highly advanced painting techniques, but in grade school, middle school, high school, etc, what is the harm in taking some basic painting classes, or in learning art history? If you are so dead set on earning a degree in economics, do it in college, where the opportunity is presented.

Bodily needs come first. there are other things to appreciate, like family and friends. you don't need music or art to fulfill those things. and I hate classical music.:D

There is a temporal priority to them (bodily needs), but temporal priority does not mean that one values them more.

You say you like family and friends. Tell me, would you give up eating a meal for your friends and family? Would you put those bodily needs on hold for their sake? Would you die for them, ceasing all bodily needs for their sake?

If that is the case, then family and friends have priority over bodily needs in terms of value. You take care of your body so you can spend time with them and enjoy their company.

Putting words in my mouth (bold the part when I said there are no jobs (and I italicized it too for emphasis) in those areas. Guess what, 3-D graphics requires TECHNOLOGY and art knowledge. And musical performance? Please, good luck on getting to the top 40. Not everyone has an innate artistic talent, and there's no damn reason to force us to learn it. You can, however, learn math and science.

Guess what, they are all ART related jobs. Musical performance includes a number of well paying jobs IN SYMPONIES (Starting wage? 90,000 a year) and in smaller symphonies (a few thousand a year, but you tend to also get connections to lesson opportunities. Teaching lessons pays, very well for pros.), performance in recording orchestras, work as a studio expert, AND the silly Pop-Crap business (had it ever struck you that the vast majority of musicians do well enough to live without ever reaching the big-leagues?).

I'm just showing that ART classes are important to making a living for some people as well, since you seemed to beleive that art and money were mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the music industry, the movie industry (where MANY artists work), the video gaming industry, the advertising industry, the book industry, and other art related industries are some of the largest in America. Almost all of them employ a large number of artists.

The TaOP 40? You seem to be assuming here that the only reason why anyone would go into the field of art or music is in order to be "sucessful", to make money, acquire fame and status, etc. I don't know of very many artists who go into their field looking to make money; if they wanted to make money, they would have signed up for business classes. There is an intrinsic value to art, music, etc.

For that matter, are we talking about learning to make or learning to appreciate art? There is a world of difference between the two. Naturally not everyone should highly advanced painting techniques, but in grade school, middle school, high school, etc, what is the harm in taking some basic painting classes, or in learning art history? If you are so dead set on earning a degree in economics, do it in college, where the opportunity is presented.

I edited my post, disregard the top 40.

Anyways, I don't care about art nor do I care to appreciate it (at least art in the "standard" form). And that painting class (no help whatsoever unless you want to go into an artistic field) is useless. Maybe if they started doing some exciting stuff in art class (Picasso is *yawn*), it would be cool -- but with the education system we've got here in the US... I don't see any cool stuff any time soon.

Also, I'm not the one who said we should neglect history. Two or three years of history is fine to get the basics down -- your home country, world, and something else. And if I want to get into college, I need to excel in those areas already. Good colleges are damn expensive and competitive, we can't be wasting our time painting.

And what exactly is wrong with being white...?

I hate being white. I can't even look at a picture of the sun without blistering. Otherwise enjoyable outdoor activities require supreme discomfort ("sunscreen" :mad: :headbang: ) in order to avoid epidermic (or worse) disaster. I would give anything for a far higher level of skin pigmentation.

Anyway, this whole "art vs. science" "debate" really just boils down to the good old fashioned phallus contest. "Without me you'd have no soul/meaning/happiness" or "without me you'd have no medicine/cars/salad shooters," so on and so forth, ad nauseum. I've noticed, however, that the vast majority of people can conduct their daily lives without being too terribly affected by this most controversial topic.

Let the children bicker. They'll tire out and take a nap, eventually.

I'm just showing that ART classes are important to making a living for some people as well, since you seemed to beleive that art and money were mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the music industry, the movie industry (where MANY artists work), the video gaming industry, the advertising industry, the book industry, and other art related industries are some of the largest in America. Almost all of them employ a large number of artists.

And video games, movies, etc all require software and technology that you need to learn in a technology related class. You need a good deal of physics if you want to be an effective computer animator.

And video games, movies, etc all require software and technology that you need to learn in a technology related class. You need a good deal of physics if you want to be an effective computer animator.

Not really. Someone else handles the physics engines, and you don't worry about them.

However, you're dodging the point. Those jobs employ a number of artists. How can you justify not teaching them, since your justification for your precious sciences was that they had "real" jobs?

I edited my post, disregard the top 40.

Anyways, I don't care about art nor do I care to appreciate it (at least art in the "standard" form). And that painting class (no help whatsoever unless you want to go into an artistic field) is useless. Also, I'm not the one who said we should neglect history. Two or three years of history is fine to get the basics down -- your home country, world, and something else. And if I want to get into college, I need to excel in those areas already. Good colleges are damn expensive and competitive, we can't be wasting our time painting.

My objection was more to the effect that bodily needs may have what we might call a temporal priority, but they are not the ultimate end of a human being as human being. If art isn't your thing, see my last post regarding friends and family, which seem to matter more to you.

Also, I'm curious. What do you mean by art in the "standard form"? Do you appreciate "non standard" art, and if so, what do you mean by this?

My objection was more to the effect that bodily needs may have what we might call a temporal priority, but they are not the ultimate end of a human being as human being. If art isn't your thing, see my last post regarding friends and family, which seem to matter more to you.

Also, I'm curious. What do you mean by art in the "standard form"? Do you appreciate "non standard" art, and if so, what do you mean by this?

Standard form -- Picasso, Van Gogh, the classical stuff that we're all urged to appreciate. Painting, drawing, coloring, all of that. Maybe if schools started introducing lessons that utilized 3D Design, Macromedia Flash, Adobe Photoshop, Web design, and whatnot, people would like it more.

However, you're dodging the point. Those jobs employ a number of artists. How can you justify not teaching them, since your justification for your precious sciences was that they had "real" jobs?

Let's just that it is more likely you will come across a field that requires science knowledge than one that requires art knowledge. I don't think we should abolish art, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Like I've stated before, even an art career will require experience in the other fields -- the converse isn't necessarily true.

Anyway, this whole "art vs. science" "debate" really just boils down to the good old fashioned phallus contest. "Without me you'd have no soul/meaning/happiness" or "without me you'd have no medicine/cars/salad shooters," so on and so forth, ad nauseum. I've noticed, however, that the vast majority of people can conduct their daily lives without being too terribly affected by this most controversial topic.


Wouldn't every debate/argument/dialogue then be a good old fashioned phallus contest? The vast majority of people conduct their daily lives without really questioning anything, when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean that certain questions aren't worth discussing.

Standard form -- Picasso, Van Gogh, the classical stuff that we're all urged to appreciate. Painting, drawing, coloring, all of that. Maybe if schools started introducing lessons that utilized 3D Design, Macromedia Flash, Adobe Photoshop, Web design, and whatnot, people would like it more.

Schools DO offer computerized design. In fact, any self-respecting art school offers such courses. Furthermore, the "classical stuff" often forms the basis of all the stuff that is done using 3D design, photoshop, etc.


Let's just that it is more likely you will come across a field that requires science knowledge than one that requires art knowledge. I don't think we should abolish art, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Like I've stated before, even an art career will require experience in the other fields -- the converse isn't necessarily true.

Is the purpose of school merely to prepare one for the workforce?

Wouldn't every debate/argument/dialogue then be a good old fashioned phallus contest? The vast majority of people conduct their daily lives without really questioning anything, when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean that certain questions aren't worth discussing.

Most issues like these I don't really care about... I just don't want to take any more god damn English classes when I could be doing some more math (not that it's fun) or technology.

Wouldn't every debate/argument/dialogue then be a good old fashioned phallus contest? The vast majority of people conduct their daily lives without really questioning anything, when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean that certain questions aren't worth discussing.

Point understood, however, I don't see in the near future anyone actually acting on the "arts vs. science" "debate." Art (and associated education) is here to stay. Same for science. As such, I see the best course of action being to respond to the pointless bickering with a resounding "meh" and to get on with one's life. Besides, any number of professions which blend the best of both sides can be easily pointed out. Computer animation has been mentioned (MY GOD A REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUND!!!!!!!!!)

Meh. :rolleyes: :D

Most issues like these I don't really care about... I just don't want to take any more god damn English classes when I could be doing some more math (not that it's fun) or technology.

Then why are you posting on a message forum, engaging in a debate, etc., instead of solving math problems or learning about technology? Might I point out that without English classes and the like, you would be incapable of doing this?

Point understood, however, I don't see in the near future anyone actually acting on the "arts vs. science" "debate." Art (and associated education) is here to stay. Same for science. As such, I see the best course of action being to respond to the pointless bickering with a resounding "meh" and to get on with one's life. Besides, any number of professions which blend the best of both sides can be easily pointed out. Computer animation has been mentioned (MY GOD A REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUND!!!!!!!!!)

Meh. :rolleyes: :D

Totally agree with you. I hope I wasn't coming off sounding like a luddite; they are both obviously very important pursuits for humankind and if anyone actually did act on this debate, whether for the sake of science or for the sake of art, we would all suffer for it. And pointless bickering definately deserves a re-sounding "meh" :rolleyes:

Most issues like these I don't really care about... I just don't want to take any more god damn English classes when I could be doing some more math (not that it's fun) or technology.

If what I saw during peer review/editing in the writing class (technical) I took recently is a reliable indicator, not nearly enough people are taking sufficient "god damn English classes."

Good lord almightly....

Then why are you posting on a message forum, engaging in a debate, etc., instead of solving math problems or learning about technology? Might I point out that without English classes and the like, you would be incapable of doing this?

Well, if you like solving math problems in your free time...;)

I do learn about technology. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource.

About the writing, I learned how to write with what... one english course (AP) and another for world history (AP). I don't need anymore, and I definitely don't need to read Hamlet. Yuck.

Well, if you like solving math problems in your free time...;)

I do learn about technology. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource.

About the writing, I learned how to write with what... one english course (AP) and another for world history (AP). I don't need anymore, and I definitely don't need to read Hamlet. Yuck.

But why are you posting messages on a message forum, engaging in a debate?

If what I saw during peer review/editing in the writing class (technical) I took recently is a reliable indicator, not nearly enough people are taking sufficient "god damn English classes."

Good lord almightly....

The man speaks the truth.

I copy-edit for Newspaper at school, and the things people will write are pathetic.

Stuff like:

You may have herd that the football team was going to the playoffs this year. However, there coach, Mr. (name) has said that they do not have the number of players and that they are to tired. I know that you are not happy about this, but we as students will have to cop.

Thanks, and this is (name), signing out.

I return these things covered in red ink, for the most part.

But why are you posting messages on a message forum, engaging in a debate?

Because I don't want to do homework

Because I don't want to do homework

So you get a kind of pleasure out of doing this, then. Tell me, does it improve you?

And what exactly is wrong with being white, you racist?

It just limits the extent of your racism (most racists believe their race is best). also, it kinda adds to the troll persona.

The man speaks the truth.
I copy-edit for Newspaper at school, and the things people will write are pathetic.


A couple of days ago my attention was caught by a poster, in a prominent location near the university library, advertising the weekly meetings of a transfer student organization. Apparently, they meet on "Wednesday's."

For a second I thought there was finally a student organization I'd actually want to join. Oh well... :rolleyes:

A couple of days ago my attention was caught by a poster, in a prominent location near the university library, advertising the weekly meetings of a transfer student organization. Apparently, they meet on "Wednesday's."

For a second I thought there was finally a student organization I'd actually want to join. Oh well... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I get that one a lot.

"Senior-Junior football game's take place on afternoons on Friday's"

:rolleyes:

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music.

Economics IS liberal.

English, art, and music are useless courses. We need more science and math, with optional English (after maybe 1 mandatory year for students to see if they like it) for students pursuing a writing career/whatever.

English literature is an extremely valuable course as it demonstrates how to express yourself well and gives you a well grounded use of language. Art and music are more abstract I agree but English is definitely essential. That is why the British curriculum has always revolved around English, Maths and Science as the three core subjects

The man speaks the truth.

I copy-edit for Newspaper at school, and the things people will write are pathetic.

Stuff like:


I return these things covered in red ink, for the most part.

You ought to cover the student in that red ink. He/she needs to be corrected.

You're slipping, MeansToAnEnd. Don't try so hard next time.

And I'm sure history is as useless as you say it is. You know, I'll bet that whole "Learning from Past Mistakes" thing is totally useless.

You're slipping, MeansToAnEnd. Don't try so hard next time.

And I'm sure history is as useless as you say it is. You know, I'll bet that whole "Learning from Past Mistakes" thing is totally useless.

The phrase, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" always pops into my mind when I read his threads.

The phrase, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" always pops into my mind when I read his threads.

Indeed.

Being a History major and a Music minor, I was somewhat insulted by the original post. The hallmarks of advanced civilizations are not only an advanced economic system-which belive me, I think is very important-but also literature, music, and art.

You know...Culture. A sense of identity within a nation. Human Expression.

Otherwise we might as well be living in a giant corperate slave state.

Indeed.

Being a History major and a Music minor, I was somewhat insulted by the original post. The hallmarks of advanced civilizations are not only an advanced economic system-which belive me, I think is very important-but also literature, music, and art.

You know...Culture. A sense of identity within a nation. Human Expression.

Otherwise we might as well be living in a giant corperate slave state.

Which MTAE has indicated more favorability toward than anyone else here. :D

Which MTAE has indicated more favorability toward than anyone else here. :D

WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

However, a well-drawn piece of art or an excellent melody does nothing, or very little, to improve the quality of life for anyone. It's all well and good if you want to be an artist or a musician -- take the courses if you so desire. But no one should be forcefully subjected to such a course, against his/her will, just because you think that such classes are necessary; they are not.

And what if you had never received that influence except from those classes? I had a friend who grew up in inner-city Chicago. He wanted to be a rapper. He thought it was was expected of him & he knew it was probably his only chance to get out of squalor.

One day in a mandatory music class in middle school, he was exposed to African music; this was in 1988, when Ladysmith Black Mambazo became well-known in America due to Paul Simon's collaboration with them. The teacher had used Graceland as a way to show his students that there was far more out there than just what they heard at home or on the radio. Because the class was 95% black, he wanted them to see where the rap they listened to came from: Africa, the Caribbean, blues, zydeco, jazz, gospel, soul, R&B, even old negro spirituals sung by slaves in the fields.

That one class profoundly changed his outlook on life. Because of it, he went on to help advance & promote African music in the western world. He routinely supervises events in the US, Canada, & all of Europe. Just from that one class. He's told me that if he hadn't been exposed to it there, that he thinks he'd probably have been dead or in jail because of probable gang involvement & the associated aspects. Instead, he's alive & helping to mainting his culture.

Productive physical labor. For example, they could clean our highways. They could also work on a farm.

What about the ones who are disabled? What about the smart ones who could hold degrees except for their psychoemotional disabilities?

Bodily needs come first. there are other things to appreciate, like family and friends. you don't need music or art to fulfill those things. and I hate classical music.:D

I have been through some seriously rough shit in the past few years. Nothing like living through Katrina or being in Sudan or any of that, but rather psychoemotional hits that would have broken lesser men clean in two. I've cracked a few times myself, wavered, but never broken. Even when I had no money for food & was living off of things friends would give me that tasted disgusting, I was so glad for my iPod because with a simply series of songs, I could feel better & gain the energy & strength to continue onward.

I submit here a review of the Crusade episode "The Needs Of Earth", which I've mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe it will help some to understand better.

In "The Needs of Earth" written by JMS, the Excalibur gets some information about an alien on the run from his own government, because he has apparently found a way to download virtually all of the important knowledge of his race, covering centuries. Then he left his world in a hurry presumably to sell that information to the highest bidder. So, his government is after him, and bounty hunters have captured him and are holding him until the alien government can come and get him.

Gideon decides to go and bust the guy out of captivity, and get the information in the hopes of finding useful medical information, or information on other civilizations they’ve not yet encountered - information perhaps useful toward finding a cure to the Drakh plague.

[snip for irrelevance]

But, at heart "The Needs of Earth" is about art. And it’s about the value of art in culture. In a turning point the music of Mozart plays a pivotal part. And in the end a very large statement about art, and hope is expressed.

So, if you are a person who has sold your soul to prostitute yourself to work in an immoral profession like advertising, and you have zero understanding of artistic values, then perhaps this episode will be of some help to you. As Dr. Chambers says: "Every advanced culture sooner or later figures out that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, come close to figuring out Pi. Science is a universal constant; it’s there for anyone to discover as long as you do the math. But you don’t just discover Ode on a Grecian Urn, or Beethoven, or Gaugain. When the last copy is burned, it’s gone forever."

It’s a good episode, with an important idea. Where do hopes come from? What inspires hope? Those are the questions raised and discussed in "The Needs of Earth".

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

*points to sig*
But really, culture is one of the defining charachteristics of humanity. I'm presuming you watch TV and movies, and have read a couple Rush Limbaugh novels, if people didn't have these classes, they wouldn't come up with any storylines or anything, as I said, Art is one of the defining features of humanity,
IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT MONEY

IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT MONEY

You're right; it's not all about money. It's all about what money can buy, be it a diamond ring or anything that makes you feel alright.

WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

I am certainly not advocating a 1984-style dystopia in which everybody lived a wretched existence. The sole purpose of all my ideas is to improve the quality of life; that's my only aim. If slavery is a step in the correct direction, so be it; I am not going to let prejudice interfere with my objectivity when making decisions, regardless of the negative connotations attached to several ideas. Hell, in some areas, I'm a liberal, despite the stigma connected to that term. I can proudly say that on particular issues, I am a liberal. Similarly, I can say with pride that on some issues, I am ultra-conservative.

Economics IS liberal.

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.

That's, quite simply, false. What happened in the past does not apply to what is currently happening. Nobody should base current decisions on past happenings -- they should only be based on the relevant factors.
Dear God almighty... How the hell are you capable of functioning in the modern world without considering past actions?

People react due to things from their past. Countries react to things in their past. Humanity itself reacts to things that occured in the past. It's called learning.

The fact that you somehow think that one can understand the world today without looking at where we have been explains a lot about your positions, and scares the hell out of me.

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.

And it's not suited to everyone.

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't even know THAT?! There are so many schools of thought on economics that it should properly be catagorized as a philosphy. There's a reason it's listed under the social sciences!

You're right; it's not all about money. It's all about what money can buy, be it a diamond ring or anything that makes you feel alright.

Can't buy me love, love
Can't buy me love

I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright
I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright
'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

I'll give you all I got to give if you say you love me too
I may not have a lot to give but what I got I'll give to you
I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

Can't buy me love, everybody tells me so
Can't buy me love, no no no, no

Say you don't need no diamond ring and I'll be satisfied
Tell me that you want the kind of thing that money just can't buy
I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

Economics IS liberal.
Economics is no more liberal than it is leftist or fascist. You think the central planners in Moscow didn't all have full degrees in economics? That their research didn't move the discipline forward?

I recommend Stiglitz, he's probably got the best argument for more traditional leftism around these days. And it's ultimately based on fairly solid economics (namely the information problem, which does exist and can cause imperfections).

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.
Now, I'm a 3rd year student of economics, and as much as I would like to agree with you...no, it's everything but objective.

Read Schumpeter, he probably had the best idea about it: We can't eliminate our personal vision of the world, but we must all strive to be aware of it, not pretend we're being objective and make it clear where we're coming from.

-snip-

*Starts humming along*. Everybody now!

Is anyone else starting to get that he's getting these from the issues? I noticed this after the first three he made and in every one of them there was some sort of reference to an issue. This one is comepletely based off that banning art issue. Seriously, how much more trollish can you get. He clearly doesn't think this stuff, he's getting it from the issues.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't even know THAT?! There are so many schools of thought on economics that it should properly be catagorized as a philosphy. There's a reason it's listed under the social sciences!

There are many different schools of thought in evolutionary science, too. Economics is a social science because it deals with the rational interactions and transactions between people. It is rooted in cold, hard, fact, however -- it is not privy to the whims of philosophers.

Economics is no more liberal than it is leftist or fascist. You think the central planners in Moscow didn't all have full degrees in economics? That their research didn't move the discipline forward?

I recommend Stiglitz, he's probably got the best argument for more traditional leftism around these days. And it's ultimately based on fairly solid economics (namely the information problem, which does exist and can cause imperfections).
I think Grave_n_idle means economics is liberal as in liberal arts, not as in liberal poltical position.

It is rooted in cold, hard, fact, however -- it is not privy to the whims of philosophers.
How much economics education do you have, if I may ask?

I think Grave_n_idle means economics is liberal as in liberal arts, not as in liberal poltical position.
Oh, fair enough. Nevermind then.

There are many different schools of thought in evolutionary science, too. Economics is a social science because it deals with the rational interactions and transactions between people. It is rooted in cold, hard, fact, however -- it is not privy to the whims of philosophers.

Erm...

J.S. Mill?
Malthus?
Ricardo?
Marx?

All of them were philosophers, as well as economists.

There are many different schools of thought in evolutionary science, too. Economics is a social science because it deals with the rational interactions and transactions between people. It is rooted in cold, hard, fact, however -- it is not privy to the whims of philosophers.
Neu Leonstein just shot that point down, and proves that once again, you do not know what it is you are talking about.

Erm...

J.S. Mill?
Malthus?
Ricardo?
Marx?

All of them were philosophers, as well as economists.

Not to mention Adam Smith.

Not to mention Adam Smith.

I wasn't sure about him. I knew the others were, though.

Read Schumpeter, he probably had the best idea about it: We can't eliminate our personal vision of the world, but we must all strive to be aware of it, not pretend we're being objective and make it clear where we're coming from.

There are laws of economics which are based on tangible fact. As demand increases, for example, so does price. This axiom is unchangeable, regardless of how you feel about it. However, various policies can be interpreted in various ways, and can conform to either leftist or rightist viewpoints. There is as much debate about the correct way to see a particular issue in economics as there is in law. However, in both cases, your position is only tenable if it is rooted in fact and observations. As long as our personal image of the world cannot be disproved using common sense and economic postulates, it is a valid view. Perhaps objective is not the correct term to describe it, as political leaning can affect your economic outlook. However, the underlying theory cannot be hijacked by a particular political orientation.

There are laws of economics which are based on tangible fact. As demand increases, for example, so does price. This axiom is unchangeable, regardless of how you feel about it.
So far so good.

Now...do you want to make a prediction? Know perhaps how much price will increase?
What do you do? Drawing a Marshallian Cross carries with it a myriad of implicit assumptions. Accept them, and you move towards neoclassical economics, reject them and you tend towards alternative forms (like the Austrians who reject modelling as a whole).

So say we do draw the cross...what does supply look like? Are you thinking in your head about that nice straight supply curve? Well, you're assuming perfect competition, diminishing marginal returns and the like, aren't you?

I can go on and on, if you want. Fact of the matter is that unless you're going to reduce "economics" to only the most basic of observations, you'll have to be making assumptions, based on philosophy.

However, the underlying theory cannot be hijacked by a particular political orientation.
It's not even a case of "hijacking". It's just that the mind will interpret the world a certain way (back to philosophy again, aren't we) and what you observe and conclude is invariably shaped by what your mind looks like inside.

Now...do you want to make a prediction?

That is unnecessary and extraneous to the basic object. The theory of evolution, to extend your example, does not state how fast a particular species will evolve given a specific set of circumstances; it simply says that it will. Similarly, students shall simply be taught that price increases as demands increases, without being told by how much.

Similarly, students shall simply be taught that price increases as demands increases, without being told by how much.
And that's what you call an economics education? How is that going to help students?

Hell, seeing the relative lack of market power that every single one of us has, it's not even true that if I personally want more of something it will become more expensive. More like the other way around.

That is unnecessary and extraneous to the basic object. The theory of evolution, to extend your example, does not state how fast a particular species will evolve given a specific set of circumstances; it simply says that it will. Similarly, students shall simply be taught that price increases as demands increases, without being told by how much.
Nice way to ignore the rest of what he said, of course you do have a habit of doing that, don't you?

Of course, to use your line of thought here, economics can then be covered in one class because all we can say is that price increases when demand increases (which doesn't always hold true, given human interaction). That's it, the end of economics because anything beyond that (as Neu Leonstein noted) goes into the philosphical part of economics and we can't have that, now can we?

And that's what you call an economics education? How is that going to help students?

I'm not referring to complex economic theories -- I simply want to give them a basic education in all types of financial assets, how to manage their money better, how and where to invest their money, etc. My aim is not to allow them to obtain doctorates in economics, but rather to be more economically productive in the US economy by better allocating their money.

That's it, the end of economics because anything beyond that (as Neu Leonstein noted) goes into the philosphical part of economics and we can't have that, now can we?

No, we can't, because none of that can be proven. There is no one way to calculate the effect, and we simply don't have the time to teach 1000 different personal philosophies. We never teach students all the possibilities if there are too many to be effective time-wise; we just lay the basic groundwork.

I'm not referring to complex economic theories -- I simply want to give them a basic education in all types of financial assets, how to manage their money better, how and where to invest their money, etc. My aim is not to allow them to obtain doctorates in economics, but rather to be more economically productive in the US economy by better allocating their money.
Which means giving a grounding in economic theories (philosophy included) as your ground law won't help with investments, unless it's to help the students lose money.

I'm not referring to complex economic theories -- I simply want to give them a basic education in all types of financial assets, how to manage their money better, how and where to invest their money, etc.
And I agree with you. But that's not economics.

Economics is a clearly (well, not really 'clearly', but you get the idea) defined social science, and either you're going to teach it, or you don't.

What you're after is a "personal finance" course or something. And that certainly can't hurt.

I'm not referring to complex economic theories -- I simply want to give them a basic education in all types of financial assets, how to manage their money better, how and where to invest their money, etc. My aim is not to allow them to obtain doctorates in economics, but rather to be more economically productive in the US economy by better allocating their money.

That's not economcis, then. That's consumer math. I took that one semester in highschool. We covered how to fill out taxes, how to balance a checkbook, how to amortize interest, all of that. It was called "farm kid math" but it was more useful to me than algebra. To this day, I'm still the go-to guy on filling out W-2s.

These are important items to know for functioning in this society, yes. But you don't need more than one semester of it. What else could possible matter?

No, we can't, because none of that can be proven. There is no one way to calculate the effect, and we simply don't have the time to teach 1000 different personal philosophies. We never teach students all the possibilities if there are too many to be effective time-wise; we just lay the basic groundwork.
Then your course becomes one class and rather useless. Along with the field of ecomics (which, BTW, relies heavily on market history to help predict what may happen. I love the smell of contradictions in the morning).

Anyways, I gotta go. Got an exam in Social Benefit/Cost Analysis today.

It's an assumption bonanza! :D

I can go on and on, if you want. Fact of the matter is that unless you're going to reduce "economics" to only the most basic of observations, you'll have to be making assumptions, based on philosophy.

Actually, we can have even more fun with this if we like.

You want rationally coherent or empirically justified economic theories? Why? Stop assuming, philosophically, that those are better than random incoherent assertions!

Wait... you believe we can meaningfully know things about the external world? Stop bringing your epistemology, a philosophical topic, into economics!

And so on and so on.

Then your course becomes one class and rather useless. Along with the field of ecomics (which, BTW, relies heavily on market history to help predict what may happen. I love the smell of contradictions in the morning).

First of all, I'm fine with teaching modern history to students. However, I draw the line at anything prior to WWII -- it is completely tangent to our life in the 21st century. Second of all, when I say economics, I am also referring to a broader course which incorporates elements of economics, personal finance, etc.

You want rationally coherent or empirically justified economic theories? Why? Stop assuming, philosophically, that those are better than random incoherent assertions!

Don't worry -- I think that's a safe assumption to make.

First of all, I'm fine with teaching modern history to students. However, I draw the line at anything prior to WWII -- it is completely tangent to our life in the 21st century.
Bullshit. It's all relevant. Human nature never changes.

First of all, I'm fine with teaching modern history to students. However, I draw the line at anything prior to WWII -- it is completely tangent to our life in the 21st century. Second of all, when I say economics, I am also referring to a broader course which incorporates elements of economics, personal finance, etc.
Ah, well, that's all good then. Of course students will have no bloody idea as to why WWII happened (You know, since WWI was a major part of that for Europe and evens far back in the mid-1800's for Japan). They won't know how their country developed, or where the government came from, but that's a-ok!

And as pointed out above, you're talking a personal finance class, maybe a semester long course, perhaps a year long, and well within slotting into the current system of electives.

Bullshit. It's all relevant. Human nature never changes.

Ah. So, how does the fact that Jefferson was against a national bank and Hamilton was a proponent of it afford us a tremendous insight into human nature? Are supposed to learn that people (oh, no) disagree? To put it simply, such things are completely pointless and inconsequential. They have no bearing on modern society.

Don't worry -- I think that's a safe assumption to make.

Actually, it's not.

In fact, it's a subjective value judgment.

Ah. So, how does the fact that Jefferson was against a national bank and Hamilton was a proponent of it afford us a tremendous insight into human nature? Are supposed to learn that people (oh, no) disagree? To put it simply, such things are completely pointless and inconsequential. They have no bearing on modern society.

Some people get circumcisions and then regret it because they feel like less of a man.

Why is it you possess certain knowledge that you obviously regret knowing?

Ah. So, how does the fact that Jefferson was against a national bank and Hamilton was a proponent of it afford us a tremendous insight into human nature? Are supposed to learn that people (oh, no) disagree? To put it simply, such things are completely pointless and inconsequential. They have no bearing on modern society.
How about looking at the tends between Jefferson's idea of an ag basced society with a weak federal government as opposed to Hamilton's notion of a much stronger central government, that took a very active role in the economy? How about how Jefferson's ideal won out and kept the US government rather small and weak until the civil war?

Oh, and the beginings of our modern two party system in the Congress and the presidency?

LOTS of very relivent information there that has some massive effects today (from the Federal Reserve to the election on Tuesday which will decide party control).

Actually, it's not. In fact, it's a subjective value judgment.

The point of an economics class is to learn models which accurately represent our world, not random gibberish. As a means to that end, empirically justified statements work much better than incoherent babbling.

Ah. So, how does the fact that Jefferson was against a national bank and Hamilton was a proponent of it afford us a tremendous insight into human nature? Are supposed to learn that people (oh, no) disagree? To put it simply, such things are completely pointless and inconsequential. They have no bearing on modern society.

Actually, that's an excellent example of the role history can have in helping us understand our present society.

The issue of banking is marginalized today; it shouldn't be. The arguments for and against the national bank have their relevance today, in the age of central banking, and the recognition that once the question was controversial is an important step in getting us to question the institution. (Question, not reject, necessarily.)

The point of an economics class is to learn models which accurately represent our world, not random gibberish.

Why should it be? Stop making these assumptions.

As a means to that end, empirically justified statements work much better than incoherent babbling.

Our "end" requires philosophy to justify.

How about looking at the tends between Jefferson's idea of an ag basced society with a weak federal government as opposed to Hamilton's notion of a much stronger central government, that took a very active role in the economy? How about how Jefferson's ideal won out and kept the US government rather small and weak until the civil war?

Will that affect which job you get? Will it effect how you vote? Will it change how you act? Unless you're going to become a historian or have serious issues, the answer is "no." It is useless information because it has no place in our modern society.

Why should it be? Stop making these assumptions.

Our "end" requires philosophy to justify.
You know, the funny thing is that Neu Leonstein already spanked him on this, he retreated, and how he tries to argue it again once Neu Leonstein left.

What was it that Einstine said about instanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Why should it be? Stop making these assumptions.


We require philosophy to determine what to teach. We can, ironically, employ it to decide not teach philosophy.

What was it that Einstine said about instanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

That's why I don't bother arguing with MTAE anymore.

He generally ignores my posts except when I'm questioning the size of his penis anyway.

You know, the funny thing is that Neu Leonstein already spanked him on this, he retreated, and how he tries to argue it again once Neu Leonstein left.

No, he didn't. I was not arguing that economics was devoid of philosophy. He misconstrued my arguments because they were not worded very clearly.

Will that affect which job you get? Will it effect how you vote? Will it change how you act? Unless you're going to become a historian or have serious issues, the answer is "no." It is useless information because it has no place in our modern society.
Well, actually yes it does. For the job I get, since I am a teacher, that is very much based upon the economic situation of the community I am in (or trying to get into). Knowing how the country is going (based upon the argument) will tell me if the comunity can aford me or not. And yes, it does change how I will act and vote, because going back to that argument, I can see the begining of the current debates about free market or controled economies. That's a very profound issue, don't you agree? Considering the GOP and Democrats argue about it endlessly (and it too has a large impact on the area and country's economy), I will be voting by what I know.

If you don't understand history, you are doomed to wander around wondering where the hell things came from.

We require philosophy to determine what to teach. We can, ironically employ it to decide not teach philosophy.

But in using it to decide what not to teach you show the importance of philosophy in and of itself

If it is important enough skill to determine for better or worse the future of learning in america then it is obviously a rather important for kids to learn philosophy

We require philosophy to determine what to teach.

We also require philosophy to determine the proper bases and methodology of any science, including economics.

Once, for instance, "the Bible says it" would have been seen as a legitimate argument. It required philosophy to overcome such positions.

A great deal of material has in fact been written on this exact subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

No, he didn't. I was not arguing that economics was devoid of philosophy. He misconstrued my arguments because they were not worded very clearly.
No, I'd say he understood you clearly, YOU just do not understand what it is you are talking about.

So I will repeat his question, which you never answered, he has three years of study in economics, how many do you have?

That's why I don't bother arguing with MTAE anymore.

He generally ignores my posts except when I'm questioning the size of his penis anyway.
I'm just bored today...

And I REALLY don't want to speculate as to his mesurments.

He generally ignores my posts except when I'm questioning the size of his penis anyway.

That's because you contribute nothing valid to the topic. If you debate in a civilized manner, I will answer your queries.

Actually, that's an excellent example of the role history can have in helping us understand our present society.

The issue of banking is marginalized today; it shouldn't be. The arguments for and against the national bank have their relevance today, in the age of central banking, and the recognition that once the question was controversial is an important step in getting us to question the institution. (Question, not reject, necessarily.)

And actually, it has other implications as well. It shows how compromise can be good, as when Jefferson was President he held not only his Republican ideals(quite different than todays Republican party) and Federalist goals. His rechartering of the National Bank is a very good example of this.

Really, history is quite important for looking at past accomplishments and mistakes, and understanding how to apply these to today's world.

That's because you contribute nothing valid to the topic. If you debate in a civilized manner, I will answer your queries.
You never did on mine.

I did remind you that you said that anyone who votes should take a test on poltical knowledge and world events before passing. I noted that such knowledge needs history and reading skills learned in History and English and asked how you plan to get around that contradiction.

That's because you contribute nothing valid to the topic. If you debate in a civilized manner, I will answer your queries.

I can and have indulged your so-called need for debate.

And as I just said, you can and have ignored it when I did. Basically because you're a troll and you tend to gather toward the negative responses much like a moth to the flame.

So why bother? Clearly you prefer the insults. But hey, I realize that as a troll, it is one of your sacredly held duties to pretend you're not. That includes ignoring it when I prove that you are.

If you don't understand history, you are doomed to wander around wondering where the hell things came from.

No, you can learn the rationale behind modern arguments from modern sources. For example, any economics textbook will tell you that free trade maximizes the total production due to comparative advantage, regardless of the fact that this was discovered in the 1800s. Similarly, modern sources will tell you about the function of the Federal Reserve, regardless of the fact that it was founded in the 1800s.

I did remind you that you said that anyone who votes should take a test on poltical knowledge and world events before passing. I noted that such knowledge needs history and reading skills learned in History and English and asked how you plan to get around that contradiction.

You only need political knowledge of the past, say, 25 years to pass such a test. Furthermore, I advocated teaching students how to read and how to construct grammatically correct sentences -- I simply shied away from forcing them to read various (liberal) books.

No, you can learn the rationale behind modern arguments from modern sources. For example, any economics textbook will tell you that free trade maximizes the total production due to comparative advantage, regardless of the fact that this was discovered in the 1800s. Similarly, modern sources will tell you about the function of the Federal Reserve, regardless of the fact that it was founded in the 1800s.
But will not tell you about the various systems tried before free trade, or how well it has functioned since the 1800's. Nor will it tell you as to why the Federal Reserve was set up, the conditions, and so on.

BTW, the Federal Reserve system of today was started in 1915 (and enacted by Congress in 1913). Better go back and bone up on your history.

That includes ignoring it when I prove that you are.

You have only "proved" me a troll in your own misguided mind when I am, in fact, no such thing.

You have only "proved" me a troll in your own misguided mind when I am, in fact, no such thing.

Of course you are not. :rolleyes:

You only need political knowledge of the past, say, 25 years to pass such a test. Furthermore, I advocated teaching students how to read and how to construct grammatically correct sentences -- I simply shied away from forcing them to read various (liberal) books.

On what basis do you assign the book a “liberal” stamp and based on what reasoning do you find those books to be anything BUT beneficial for students?

You have only "proved" me a troll in your own misguided mind when I am, in fact, no such thing.

See? You like it when you get the negative responses. You feed on them. They're what you post for. You ignore pretty much anything else except that which allows you to continue this sad charade longer.

You pretty much prove it yourself. :)

But will not tell you about the various systems tried before free trade, or how well it has functioned since the 1800's. Nor will it tell you as to why the Federal Reserve was set up, the conditions, and so on.

And if you want to learn about those systems, you should take a history course. However, you need not take such a course to function well in modern society -- all you need to know is that free trade is the best possible system of international trade, although there are other alternatives, including fair trade. Also, nobody cares if the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 or 1790 -- it makes no difference whatsoever.

Of course you are not. :rolleyes:

You don't seem to enthusiastically support that statement due to the emoticon which you appended following it. However, it is the truth.

You ignore pretty much anything else except that which allows you to continue this sad charade longer.

Actually, I have responded to everyone who has posted an intelligent reply in this thread...and you.

You only need political knowledge of the past, say, 25 years to pass such a test. Furthermore, I advocated teaching students how to read and how to construct grammatically correct sentences -- I simply shied away from forcing them to read various (liberal) books.
But knowing only the past 25 years does not give you good knowledge as to why countries do what they are doing NOW.

For example, after North Korea detonated their bomb, many chicken littles on this board ran around screaming about how Japan was going to go nuclear in responce. Knowledge of Japan's history from August 1945 was needed to show that, no, they are not going to go nuclear any time soon.

25 years only takes us to 1981, I'm sure that seems long enough to YOU, but you're missing out on the civil rights movement (still having major effects on US politics), the Vietnam War, the large resession and inflation of the '70's, Watergate, and so on and so forth.

And all of those I can name just off the top of my head that have major effects currently. I can keep going back, and back, and back.

And what liberal books do you dislike? The books that are assigned in English class usually have a great deal to tell us about development of writting, or the human condition, a very important study.

You don't seem to enthusiastically support that statement due to the emoticon which you appended following it. However, it is the truth.

:headbang:

Actually, I have responded to everyone who has posted an intelligent reply in this thread...and you.

Oh, my replies are quite intelligent. And truthful. And that's why now you feel the need to make a not-so-subtle flame of your own just now.

If you were really so high and mighty as you pretend, you'd just ignore me. You'd ignore all those low-brow elitist terrorist liberals who call you a troll. But instead, you get down and dirty, because it's what you're here for: the attention.

Now it's your turn - pick one or two phrases from this post and pseudo-counter them with something irrelevant, dishonest and/or insulting. Prove me right. Again. :)

And if you want to learn about those systems, you should take a history course. However, you need not take such a course to function well in modern society -- all you need to know is that free trade is the best possible system of international trade, although there are other alternatives, including fair trade. Also, nobody cares if the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 or 1790 -- it makes no difference whatsoever.
Those who ignore history... How can I KNOW if free trade is the best if I do not learn about it historcally to prove it? Just take it on faith? Hardly, I take nothing on faith, probably because I know my history.

And actually it makes a great deal because the way the Federal Reserve was chartered has a great deal to do with the time it was made. The time period always leaves its stamp upon that which is created in it, and that means how I view the Federal Reserve, if it needs changing and so on, is based upon knowledge of what was going on when it was made.

Especially as the US kept giving up central banks before, so it is interesting to see why, suddenly, the US embraced it.

I'm sorry, I refuse to be a sheep and accept what YOU say, that's why history is so damn important.

But knowing only the past 25 years does not give you good knowledge as to why countries do what they are doing NOW.

If you want to learn why countries are doing what they are doing, take a history course. If you want to learn why computers function the way they function, take a computer engineering course. However, none of these are necessary to be a productive and informed member of society; all you need to know is what countries are doing and how to use a computer. I could care less about Japan-North Korea relations dating back to 1945; I simply need to know how the two countries feel about each other today.

Actually, I have responded to everyone who has posted an intelligent reply in this thread...and you.
But you still have not answered, how many years of economic study do you have under your belt?

Now it's your turn - pick one or two phrases from this post and pseudo-counter them with something irrelevant, dishonest and/or insulting. Prove me right. Again. :)

So if I respond to you, I am a troll. If I don't, I'm ignoring you because I'm a troll. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" thing, isn't it? No matter what I say or how I act, you'll think that I'm a troll. Oh, well, I'll just increase my post count while I'm at it.

If you want to learn why countries are doing what they are doing, take a history course. If you want to learn why computers function the way they function, take a computer engineering course. However, none of these are necessary to be a productive and informed member of society; all you need to know is what countries are doing and how to use a computer. I could care less about Japan-North Korea relations dating back to 1945; I simply need to know how the two countries feel about each other today.

You cannot hope to understand the dynamics of their interactions without understanding their history. Therefore you cannot hope to understand what is the proper path for political advancement. Therefore, you cannot know who to vote for.

But you still have not answered, how many years of economic study do you have under your belt?

I'm not going to answer. It would be pointless, seeing as how you have no way to verify whether I am lying or telling the truth.

So if I respond to you, I am a troll. If I don't, I'm ignoring you because I'm a troll. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" thing, isn't it? No matter what I say or how I act, you'll think that I'm a troll. Oh, well, I'll just increase my post count while I'm at it.

So ARE you a troll or aren't you? This is how I will be 100% sure.

Those who ignore history... How can I KNOW if free trade is the best if I do not learn about it historcally to prove it? Just take it on faith? Hardly, I take nothing on faith, probably because I know my history.

Then take a history course, for God's sake! I'm not stopping you!

So ARE you a troll or aren't you? This is how I will be 100% sure.

42. Do I win? There is no reply I can give to persuade you one way or the other, so I won't bother.

If you want to learn why countries are doing what they are doing, take a history course. If you want to learn why computers function the way they function, take a computer engineering course. However, none of these are necessary to be a productive and informed member of society; all you need to know is what countries are doing and how to use a computer. I could care less about Japan-North Korea relations dating back to 1945; I simply need to know how the two countries feel about each other today.
No, it does not.

I can tell you that North Korea and Japan hate each other. But you would not know why, you would not know what each country might do. They hate each other, does that mean they are going to war? No, it does not. Because history has shown us the trends. Do you know why they hate each other? It IS very important and has a lot to do with the current annoucements from North Korea about Japan and Japan's responce.

But you don't know, the world is a closed book to you.

Under your system, I wouldn't even be aware of what the US is doing in Japan, and why. I wouldn't know why the US is set up the way it is, and why we're doing more than half of what we're currently doing!

So if I respond to you, I am a troll. If I don't, I'm ignoring you because I'm a troll.

If you respond to my flames, but not my actual arguments, you're a troll. Simple. So simple you have to imply I'm stupid just to pretend you missed the point. ;)

Oh, well, I'll just increase my post count while I'm at it.

That would seem to be your main objective, yes.

42. Do I win? There is no reply I can give to persuade you one way or the other, so I won't bother.

You are a troll, then.

42. Do I win? There is no reply I can give to persuade you one way or the other, so I won't bother.

I stopped thinking you are a troll. I truly believe you are as crazy as you claim to be.

I'm not going to answer. It would be pointless, seeing as how you have no way to verify whether I am lying or telling the truth.
In other words, far less than Neu.

Then take a history course, for God's sake! I'm not stopping you!
Just pointing out how history is important, and should be taught to everyone.

Actually, I have responded to everyone who has posted an intelligent reply in this thread...and you.

I might have missed it, but I don't think you responded to me when I mentioned how the arts increase neural connections in children. I posted it about ten pages ago, though, so maybe you missed it or maybe you did respond and I didn't see it.

Economics classes are important, and that's why they're required for graduation (at least they are where I live). However, the arts are also very important. From what I've learned in psychology so far, it's important to expose children to the arts, music, etc, as it helps them to form more neural connections. Also, children should be exposed to many areas of study so that they can find where there interests lie. Of course classes like economics should be taught, but that doesn't mean that they should replace history and the arts.

I recently found some sources that support the idea that the arts enhance the development of neural connections in children.

Drawing and the Brain (http://www.asbj.com/specialreports/0606SpecialReports/S3.html)

Neurological Research Publishes New Study Which Suggests That Music Beats Computers at Enhancing Early Childhood Development (http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/news2/music.computers.html)

I stopped thinking you are a troll. I truly believe you are as crazy as you claim to be.

Nope, he's a troll. He hasn't even came up with a single one of his topics with his beliefs. These are all from issues you get for your country. Some have just a few refferences to them but others like this one are completely ripped off. This is clearly the banning art issue. There's one because of pornography reasons and a different one clearly is about banning art in schools. Very original. I'm having a hard time believing that he believes what he says when he didn't even think it up himself.

I might have missed it, but I don't think you responded to me when I mentioned how the arts increase neural connections in children. I posted it about ten pages ago, though, so maybe you missed it or maybe you did respond and I didn't see it.


Maybe I didn't respond to your post, but I responded to someone who said the same exact thing later on. I said that chess also helps form neural connections, yet it is not taught in school as either a mandatory course or an elective. Sure, people can choose art as an elective, but it cannot be imposed upon them against their will for the same reason that chess cannot.

Just pointing out how history is important, and should be taught to everyone.

How our system of government functions is a modern issue, whereas why it was constructed the way it was is irrelevant. The situation between modern countries is relevant, while the reasons leading to them are tangential to that. As for the issue of US troops being stationed in Japan: why are they there? Because of what Japan did in the past? Well, that's not a valid argument anymore.

Maybe I didn't respond to your post, but I responded to someone who said the same exact thing later on. I said that chess also helps form neural connections, yet it is not taught in school as either a mandatory course or an elective. Sure, people can choose art as an elective, but it cannot be imposed upon them against their will for the same reason that chess cannot.

Well if that's your beef, that a class is being forced upon people, then what about in your idea. Economics classes being forced upon people. Why is that any less unfair. Just because on Friday you probably got an F on a Historical Literature doesn't mean we should abolish our children's education.

Why is that any less unfair.

Because everyone can benefit from such a course. Many poor people are in poverty because they never learned how to manage money well -- I want to help them. Don't you?

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

Then condider yourself insulted, troll.

How our system of government functions is a modern issue, whereas why it was constructed the way it was is irrelevant. The situation between modern countries is relevant, while the reasons leading to them are tangential to that. As for the issue of US troops being stationed in Japan: why are they there? Because of what Japan did in the past? Well, that's not a valid argument anymore.
The why of how our goverment is constructed is not relivent? You ARE ignorant then!

And all the more dangerous because you vote.

And the security treaties are older than your 25 year time frame, and depend a great deal on history. But then, you wouldn't know that, would you?

Because everyone can benefit from such a course. Many poor people are in poverty because they never learned how to manage money well -- I want to help them. Don't you?
And as it has been shown, they beifit from English, History, and music/art.

Me thinks it's more your problems with said courses than any real problem with them that drives this thread.

The why of how our goverment is constructed is not relivent? You ARE ignorant then!

No, it's not. Why some aristocrats did what they did centuries ago is of no concern to modern society.

And all the more dangerous because you vote.

Who says that I do? In fact, I clearly stated that I don't, because it's pointless. Do you honestly think that my vote will make a difference?

And as it has been shown, they beifit from English, History, and music/art.

Anybody can benefit from almost any course; however, not all of them are mandatory because some benefit someone more than others. Art and music have the least benefit, as well as literature and history. Economics has the most.

No, it's not. Why some aristocrats did what they did centuries ago is of no concern to modern society.
Why SCOTUS can do what it does. Why Congress is divided into two chambers, one based upon popluation, one not. Why the president is elected on the electorial college vote and not the popular one. All of these have some very real relivence to today's world.

But you do not understand that.

Who says that I do? In fact, I clearly stated that I don't, because it's pointless. Do you honestly think that my vote will make a difference?
Thank God for THAT at least!

Anybody can benefit from almost any course; however, not all of them are mandatory because some benefit someone more than others. Art and music have the least benefit, as well as literature and history. Economics has the most.
We've been proving you wrong the whole of the tread!

All of these have some very real relivence to today's world.

Of course, because they are part of our current world -- they are not quaint historical artifacts. Madison's mindset when writing the Constitution, however, is not important.

We've been proving you wrong the whole of the tread!

Perhaps in your dreams (and imaginative ones at that). :)

Because everyone can benefit from such a course. Many poor people are in poverty because they never learned how to manage money well -- I want to help them. Don't you?

Then why aren't connected brain neurons important.

How do you know that those poor people aren't poor because of a lack of brain neurons. You don't. You know why you don't? Because you haven't studied on this at all. I want to see a specific, legitimate statistic that proves what you just claimed.

The more feasable and proven reasons why a lot of people are poor are all based in history. Which you wouldn't know anything about as you have proved already. Many reasons why people are poor are a lot do with lack of opportunity because of actions or lack of opportunity of their ancestors. If you're grandparents lived in a box 50 years back, in most cases you will too. But then you wouldn't that either because I'm guessing you come from a white upper middle class home that makes at least 50,000 a year. That's just my guess by your complete lack of economic sense. As the gravedigger said in Hamlet "The hand of little experience hath oft the daintier touch." Then again you proabably think a hamlet is a pork cut.

Of course, because they are part of our current world -- they are not quaint historical artifacts. Madison's mindset when writing the Constitution, however, is not important.
No, it is very important because it tells us WHERE the bloody thing came from! It did not just spring out of the ground fully formed!

Why SCOTUS can do what it does. Why Congress is divided into two chambers, one based upon popluation, one not. Why the president is elected on the electorial college vote and not the popular one. All of these have some very real relivence to today's world.

But you do not understand that.


Thank God for THAT at least!

I personally myself don't see the use of the electoral college. I'm sure it was made for some practical useful reason, but I don't see the point in it. Why should someone's vote count more because they live in California?

Perhaps in your dreams (and imaginative ones at that). :)
Really? And here I thought how we have shown you know nothing about economics, you fail at understanding history, or English education, or the connections between music and art with mathmatical ability, has constituted proof.

Of course, since you ignore anything you cannot answer to, perhaps you missed that.

Or perhaps you are indeed a troll. I am not sure which.

I personally myself don't see the use of the electoral college. I'm sure it was made for some practical useful reason, but I don't see the point in it. Why should someone's vote count more because they live in California?
I feel it should be reformed myself, but as noted, if you don't study history you would ahve no idea WHY we have the electorial college as opposed to popular vote.

Maybe I didn't respond to your post, but I responded to someone who said the same exact thing later on. I said that chess also helps form neural connections, yet it is not taught in school as either a mandatory course or an elective. Sure, people can choose art as an elective, but it cannot be imposed upon them against their will for the same reason that chess cannot.

Okay.

I think chess is taught as an elective at some schools, but maybe they're private schools.

At least at the elementary level, I see no reason why art and similar classes should not be taught. At least at the elementary school I went to, we had one "Specials" class per day. These included computers, art, music, the media center, PE, and other subjects. I think they added Spanish and some sort of life skills class a while after I left. It wouldn't be too hard to just add a class to teach about basic finances and it wouldn't require the other classes to be sacrificed.

I think they already teach about money in class though, during the math lessons, anyway. I know that we studied compound interest in pre-calculus in high school, and economics is already a required course for graduation here, anyway. I don't see any need to increase the economics requirement at the expense of the already small arts requirement.

No, it is very important because it tells us WHERE the bloody thing came from! It did not just spring out of the ground fully formed!

Why is it so important? All we need to know is that it exists, what it says, and why it says what it says.

Why is it so important? All we need to know is that it exists, what it says, and why it says what it says.
Because you cannot understand why it says what it says without knowing where it came from.

At least at the elementary level, I see no reason why art and similar classes should not be taught.

At that level, it is acceptable because young children cannot adequately comprehend the intricacies and complexities of even basic economics. Several people struggle with it at the high school level, let alone 5th grade.

I don't see any need to increase the economics requirement at the expense of the already small arts requirement.

I'm sure that some equitable balance can be reached. I don't really see the purpose of arts classes, however. Some people may enjoy drawing and the like, but many people don't and they do not need to be subjected to such a class against their will, because it will not help them and they may do poorly in it. However, anyone can learn from an economics class, and they can apply that to real life.

Because you cannot understand why it says what it says without knowing where it came from.

I think he really doesn't understand. From a science standpoint:

The Earth revolves around the sun. However, from his standpoint, it is not important as to why it does, it just does.

That kind of logic.

The same can go against his arguments. Why does one need to know how economics works? It works, you don't need to know why, you just need to know that it does.

I win using his own logic.

Because you cannot understand why it says what it says without knowing where it came from.

Sure you can. It creates for checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot have full control. Do I need to know about good old George to understand that much? No, absolutely not.

It creates for checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot have full control.

Why is this desirable?

Sure you can. It creates for checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot have full control. Do I need to know about good old George to understand that much? No, absolutely not.
Alright, where did the electorial college come from, and why, in a republic democracy, is our legislative house based upon a system where the lower house is elected on population and the upper fixed at 2 per state?

Why is this desirable?

I see exactly where this is going. Nice tangle job...

I shall wait to see the response.

The same can go against his arguments. Why does one need to know how economics works? It works, you don't need to know why, you just need to know that it does.

No, you need to know how it works so that you can apply it to your own life and be successful -- that's the entire point. You don't need to be crammed full of useless knowledge; you must understand the practical aspects because they can be used in your life.

I think he really doesn't understand. From a science standpoint:

The Earth revolves around the sun. However, from his standpoint, it is not important as to why it does, it just does.

That kind of logic.

The same can go against his arguments. Why does one need to know how economics works? It works, you don't need to know why, you just need to know that it does.

I win using his own logic.
Sad part is, I think you nailed his arguments down.

Why is this desirable?

Because if that happens, the will of the people will not necessarily be expressed, meaning that it will lead to a decreased quality of life among the populace. It is necessary so that there cannot be tyranny by a few people.

Sad part is, I think you nailed his arguments down.

No, he has not. I have answered his post; he has misconstrued my arguments.

No, you need to know how it works so that you can apply it to your own life and be successful -- that's the entire point. You don't need to be crammed full of useless knowledge; you must understand the practical aspects because they can be used in your life.

Same can be said for history-in order to shape the world henceforth in a positive light, you need to understand why it is the way it today. If you do not understand why, you do not understand how. If you do not understand how, you cannot be effective in shaping the overall world.

I can go all night like this MTAE.

Alright, where did the electorial college come from, and why, in a republic democracy, is our legislative house based upon a system where the lower house is elected on population and the upper fixed at 2 per state?

There is no good reason for it that I know of.

Because if that happens, the will of the people will not necessarily be expressed, meaning that it will lead to a decreased quality of life among the populace. It is necessary so that there cannot be tyranny by a few people.

And how do we know this? History has shown it. Thus is why history is taught: To show not only how our system works out the way it does, or even why it does, but why it must work this way.

Because if that happens, the will of the people will not necessarily be expressed, meaning that it will lead to a decreased quality of life among the populace. It is necessary so that there cannot be tyranny by a few people.

And how did that concept that "the will of the people be expressed" come about?

Alright, where did the electorial college come from, and why, in a republic democracy, is our legislative house based upon a system where the lower house is elected on population and the upper fixed at 2 per state?

That was from the connecticut compromise, while they were drafting the constitution, Virginia put out their own plan for representation, based on Pop. The south was keen on this because they had much bigger populations than the North(slaves-hint hint), Connecticut wanted 2 per state because that was only fair, to states with tiny populations anyway, VA and the South argued that it was unfair, and that it was only logical to give states with bigger pop. more clout, that way the people are represented fully. So to stop the bitching they split congress into the Connecticut plan based Senate and the VA plan based House, and the rest is dysfunctional history....

Also, when population was calculated, slaves counted for only 2/3 of a person(isn't that lovely?).

in order to shape the world henceforth in a positive light, you need to understand why it is the way it today.

You don't need to understand the past in order to ascertain how the world functions today. Knowing why the world works the way it does is extraneous information. You can change the world for the better by replacing a bad system with a better one; history is not necessary for this change.

There is no good reason for it that I know of.

Many reasons. First off, the Founding Fathers were very suspicious of the "people" in general, and did not trust them to make good decisions. Second, the huge expanse of the US meant that tallying all of the votes would have been time consuming, and near impossible to do so in a timely manner in those days. Also, it gave votes to states that had to low of a representation of population.

Now that one understands why the system was set into place, one can now argue for or against it either way.

History gives us reasons for arguments.

At that level, it is acceptable because young children cannot adequately comprehend the intricacies and complexities of even basic economics. Several people struggle with it at the high school level, let alone 5th grade.


Yes, and elementary school is the time when the main neural connections are made and thus when they receive more benefit from an art class in that respect. And, of course, in early elementary school, kids are still learning how to count money and how to add and subtract.


I'm sure that some equitable balance can be reached. I don't really see the purpose of arts classes, however. Some people may enjoy drawing and the like, but many people don't and they do not need to be subjected to such a class against their will, because it will not help them and they may do poorly in it. However, anyone can learn from an economics class, and they can apply that to real life.

Yes. I think that's why there are many options for what satisfies the "arts" requirement. And that's basically the same way I feel about P.E. courses, since I've always been horrible at sports. I was relieved when I found that the grade was primarily based on participation.

I agree that economics and classes like it should be required, I just don't think that it should replace classes like art, music, or geography.

And how do we know this?

By employing logic. We see that if the will of the people is not expressed, that may result in a decreased quality of life for the people. We see that if there is a tyrant, the will of the people may not be expressed. We see that if one branch has absolute control, that can lead to tyrany. From this we can conclude that there must be a separation of powers.

Also, when population was calculated, slaves counted for only 2/3 of a person(isn't that lovely?).

Actually, they counted for 3/5 of a person. Does knowing that actually help me in day-to-day life? Of course not!

First of all, I'm fine with teaching modern history to students. However, I draw the line at anything prior to WWII -- it is completely tangent to our life in the 21st century. Second of all, when I say economics, I am also referring to a broader course which incorporates elements of economics, personal finance, etc.

yes, the problems in the middle east have nothing to do with anything pre- WW2 right? What you're preaching is ignorance and we see how well it's worked on you. Are you reasy to admit the major influence in homelessness 20-25% is due to mental illness, or are you still hiding from me on that one. I had to leave and stimulate the economy for dinner with my wife. MTEA was voted best troll in another thread. At least you win somewhere MTEA. :eek:

Actually, they counted for 3/5 of a person. Does knowing that actually help me in day-to-day life? Of course not!

It does when you're making jokes in the ghetto.

It does when you're making jokes in the ghetto.

So the point of our history education is to better prepare us for making jokes in the ghetto? :eek:

You don't need to understand the past in order to ascertain how the world functions today. Knowing why the world works the way it does is extraneous information. You can change the world for the better by replacing a bad system with a better one; history is not necessary for this change.

Yes, yes you do. People look to the past for the reasons as to why their cultures are the way they are. If you do not understand why, you cannot even begin to change a damn thing. And you cannot understand why systems are bad without looking as to how they were represented in the past.

For example, Communism, under your logic, is a perfectly fine system. However, as History has shown, when applied in a governmental form, it is very destructive.

Or Iraq, for a more modern example. Had the past been studied, it would have been realized how politically polarized the region is, and that overthrowing a government which kept at least some stability in the region would likely cause a swell of violence in the wake. Had we studied the reaction of the cultures in teh past towards similar events, much could have been avoided.

By employing logic. We see that if the will of the people is not expressed, that may result in a decreased quality of life for the people. We see that if there is a tyrant, the will of the people may not be expressed. We see that if one branch has absolute control, that can lead to tyrany. From this we can conclude that there must be a separation of powers.

And logic is based largely on history, and observation of past reactions towards similar events.

Really, you are easy.

For example, Communism, under your logic, is a perfectly fine system.

No, it's not, as anyone who has taken an economics course will realize. You cannot disprove a system of government through history; only through logic.

Or Iraq, for a more modern example. Had the past been studied, it would have been realized how politically polarized the region is

No, only the present of Iraq needed to be studied. Our policy in Iraq wasn't based on the fact that Iraq was polarized in 1243, only that it was polarized in 2003.