65 replies to this topic

[Remodel]

I'm at a loss for words...

[tq2000]

Wow, just wow. So ban critical thinking because it might have the consequence of teaching people to think for themselves. That is some pretty funny shit right there.

[TornadoCAN99]

Wow, just wow. So ban critical thinking because it might have the consequence of teaching people to think for themselves. That is some pretty funny shit right there.

In LA it's even better:

Nessy Dispproves Evolution

A taxpayer-funded Christian school has become embroiled in a controversy for using a textbook that claims the Loch Ness Monster is real, to prove that evolution does not exist.
­From the next school year Eternity Christian Academy, a private school, will be eligible to accept students with state-sponsored vouchers, meaning the government will pay the school for their tuition.
And this is the education it will be funding.
“Have you heard of the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland? ‘Nessie’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur,” says a ninth-grade Biology textbook.
The existence of dinosaurs living alongside humans supposedly discredits the theory of evolution, showing there was no gradual replacement of species. Instead, it apparently confirms creationist beliefs that all animals were created several thousand years ago, but died out because they were not taken on Noah’s Ark, apart from “sea monsters” who were able to survive in the water. A different part of the same textbook says that Japanese fishermen once caught a dinosaur.
The entire curriculum of the academy is designed by Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) which explicitly boasts that it helps its students "to see life from God's point of view."
“True science will never contradict the Bible because God created both the universe and scripture. If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded,” claims ACE.
The junior science books open with a summary of various things God created during the first six days of creation.
Evolution is not taught at all.
"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children,” said Marie Carrier, the former pastor, now principle, of the academy. Most of the tests on the curriculum are multiple-choice and debate among “immature minds” is discouraged, in favor of rote learning.
The school has been allocated 135 state-funded places for the coming year, which means that it could receive over $1 million – money that was previously allocated to public education – providing enough students sign up.
The allocation is part of a drive to improve education by stimulating effective private institutions over badly-run state schools.
Louisiana is the third-worst performing state in the US for science and maths.

[Junkyard Dog]

Unfucking believable.

[Tejano]

Viva Tejas! Land of the free (to be stupid), and Home of the brave (as long as someone else's son/daughter fights her wars).

[RumBulls]

Educating our Children
American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.
Basic Standards – We favor improving the quality of education for all students, including those with special needs. We support a return to the traditional basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and citizenship with sufficient discipline to ensure learning and quality educational assessment.
Bilingual Education – We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years.
Career and Technology Education (Vocational Education) – We support reinstatement of voluntary career and technology education, including adjusting the 4x4 requirements as needed, without detracting from non-vocational program requirements.
Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.
Classroom Expenditures for Staff – We support having 80% of school district payroll expenses of professional staff of a school district be full-time classroom teachers.
College Tuition – We recommend three levels of college tuition: In-state requiring proof of Texas legal citizenship, out-of-state requiring proof of US citizenship, and nonresident legal alien. Non-US citizens should not be eligible for state or federal grants, or loans.
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.
Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Educational Entitlement – We encourage legislation that prohibits enrollment in free public schools of non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States.
Funding of Education – We urge the Legislature to direct expenditures to academics as the first priority.
Higher Education – We support merit-based admissions for all college and university applicants to public institutions. We further support the repeal of the 1997 Texas legislative act commonly known as the Top Ten Percent Rule. All Texas students should be given acceptance priority over out-of-state or foreign students.
Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.
Local Control for Education – We support school choice and believe that quality education is best achieved by encouraging parental involvement, protecting parental rights, and maximizing local independent school district control. District superintendents and their employees should be made solely accountable to their locally elected boards. We support sensible consolidation of local school districts. We encourage local ISDs to consider carefully the advantages and disadvantages of accepting federal education money.
No Taxpayer Paid Lobbyists – We support the prohibition of any paid public school employee or contractor to lobby the legislature or the SBOE, unless on an unpaid basis and in an unofficial capacity. No registered lobbyist should be allowed to run for SBOE.
Parental Rights in Education – We believe the right of parents to raise and educate their children is fundamental. Parents have the right to withdraw their child from any specialized program. We urge the Legislature to enact penalties for violation of parental rights.
Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.
Parental School Choice – We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options which fund the student, not schools or districts, to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private, or parochial education for all children.
Permanent School Fund – We believe that because the Permanent School Fund is not paid by taxpayers that the principle balance should be safeguarded and not viewed as a source of additional funding for our state budget.
Political Community Organizing in Texas Schools - We believe neither Texas public schools should be used nor their students should be instructed by groups such as SEIU or other community organizers as instruments to promote political agenda during the instructional school day.
Private Education – We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing.
Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents.
School Surveys and Testing – Public schools should be required to obtain written parental consent for student participation in any test or questionnaire that surveys beliefs, feelings, or opinions. Parental rights, including viewing course materials prior to giving consent, should not be infringed.
State Board of Education (SBOE) – We believe that the SBOE should continue to be an elected body consisting of fifteen members. Their responsibilities must include:
 Appointing the Commissioner of Education
 Maintaining constitutional authority over the Permanent School Fund
 Maintaining sole authority over all curricula content and the state adoption of all educational materials. This process must include public hearings.
The SBOE should be minimally staffed out of general revenue.
Textbook Review – Until such time as all texts are required to be approved by the SBOE, each ISD that uses non-SBOE approved instructional materials must verify them as factually and historically correct. Also the ISD board must hold a public hearing on such materials, protect citizen’s right of petition and require compliance with TEC and legislative intent. Local ISD boards must maintain the same standards as the SBOE.
Supporting Military Families in Education – Existing truancy laws conflict with troop deployments. We believe that truancy laws should be amended to allow 5 day absence prior to deployments and R&R. Military dependents by definition will be Texas residents for education purposes.
Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.
School Health Care – We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools. We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent.
U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.
Zero Tolerance – We believe that zero tolerance policies in schools should specify those items that will not be tolerated at schools. The policy should be posted on ISD websites.
Transparency – We support legislation requiring all school districts to post their expenditures online or made readily available to the public.
Foreign Culture Charter Schools in Texas – We oppose public funding of charter schools which receive money from foreign entities. We demand that these Charter Schools have accountability and transparency to local parents, taxpayers, the State of Texas, as do current public schools, including U.S. citizenship of public school trustees.

HOTS

HOTS provides the greatest value to those Title I and LD students in grades 4-8 who are low in reading or are low in reading and math, but have the ability to perform at higher levels with the right help.

Title I
Students in grades 4-8 between 15th – 40th percentile in reading.
Students below the 15th percentile in reading should be considered
individually and should be placed in HOTS only if they have the
ability to generalize and/or be reflective in any activity.

LD
Mildly disabled students in grades 4-8 who are above 80 verbal IQ.

Outcome-based education is a performance-based approach to creating, implementing and evaluating physician assistant (PA) curricula. The emphasis of instructional design is on the product—the type of physician assistant graduate that the program wishes to graduate. In outcome-based education, the outcomes dictate curriculum content, teaching methods, assessment strategies and curriculum organization and structure. Performance outcomes also provide a framework for curriculum evaluation.

[Junkyard Dog]

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Its still unbelievable.

[tikipete]

Wow, just wow. So ban critical thinking because it might have the consequence of teaching people to think for themselves. That is some pretty scary funny shit right there.

[Saorsa]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

[Junkyard Dog]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

I could be wrong, but I think this is representative:

http://www.criticalthinking.com/getProductDetails.do?id=05242&code=c

Edit

Note that HOTS and Critical Thinking are not necessarily the same thing.

[TornadoCAN99]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

I could be wrong, but I think this is representative:

http://www.criticalthinking.com/getProductDetails.do?id=05242&code=c

Now don't go applying any of that critical thinking crap to this....

[d'ranger]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

If you read post #1 and click on the linky thing it takes you to an article where there are more clicky linky things one of which is the PDF for the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform. The PDF is kind of long so the 2nd of those clicky linky things takes you to the Austin newspaper article which has the text also quoted in this thread and explains it.

The GOP is not providing course materials for schools. yet. that i know of.

hope this helps. Having a bunch of people learn to think for themselves won't help the party much, which is why the bumper sticker
"Vote Republican It's Easier Than Thinking" is funny for those of us who live here and do think. We are an endangered species, I only know of a few and some of them post here.

[Junkyard Dog]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

If you read post #1 and click on the linky thing it takes you to an article where there are more clicky linky things one of which is the PDF for the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform. The PDF is kind of long so the 2nd of those clicky linky things takes you to the Austin newspaper article which has the text also quoted in this thread and explains it.

The GOP is not providing course materials for schools. yet. that i know of.

hope this helps. Having a bunch of people learn to think for themselves won't help the party much, which is why the bumper sticker
"Vote Republican It's Easier Than Thinking" is funny for those of us who live here and do think. We are an endangered species, I only know of a few and some of them post here.

chew muss min dis wun

http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/

[Saorsa]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

If you read post #1 and click on the linky thing it takes you to an article where there are more clicky linky things one of which is the PDF for the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform. The PDF is kind of long so the 2nd of those clicky linky things takes you to the Austin newspaper article which has the text also quoted in this thread and explains it.

The GOP is not providing course materials for schools. yet. that i know of.

hope this helps. Having a bunch of people learn to think for themselves won't help the party much, which is why the bumper sticker
"Vote Republican It's Easier Than Thinking" is funny for those of us who live here and do think. We are an endangered species, I only know of a few and some of them post here.

I clicked on the link to the HOTS program which lead me to

Not Found
The requested URL /training.html was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.2.19 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.19 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8 Server at www.hots.org Port 80

Now, that wasn't in the original post so I went back there. Hmmmmmmm, no link to course curriculum or material that I could fine on any of the links that you seem to think are cute clicky thingies. I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.

Obviously, you think clicky thingies are critical thinking. Thanks ever so much for your time.

So, does anybody with an IQ in the double digits know what the Texas school system thinks is critical thinking and how is it being taught.

[plchacker]

WTF!!

[d'ranger]

Can we have a look at the course material or just react to a nice title.

If you read post #1 and click on the linky thing it takes you to an article where there are more clicky linky things one of which is the PDF for the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform. The PDF is kind of long so the 2nd of those clicky linky things takes you to the Austin newspaper article which has the text also quoted in this thread and explains it.

The GOP is not providing course materials for schools. yet. that i know of.

hope this helps. Having a bunch of people learn to think for themselves won't help the party much, which is why the bumper sticker
"Vote Republican It's Easier Than Thinking" is funny for those of us who live here and do think. We are an endangered species, I only know of a few and some of them post here.

I clicked on the link to the HOTS program which lead me to

Not Found
The requested URL /training.html was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.2.19 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.19 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8 Server at www.hots.org Port 80

Now, that wasn't in the original post so I went back there. Hmmmmmmm, no link to course curriculum or material that I could fine on any of the links that you seem to think are cute clicky thingies. I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.

Obviously, you think clicky thingies are critical thinking. Thanks ever so much for your time.

So, does anybody with an IQ in the double digits know what the Texas school system thinks is critical thinking and how is it being taught.

Here is another clicky linky thing

It's called Google and there are pages and pages of clicky linky things. And you are most welcome. ( I was raised to respect my elders)

edit: I have a degree in education and many years ago did my student teaching in a conservative district where my first day I got the welcome lecture with the principal and the prof from the university (who just happened to attend the same Baptist church) and the crux was Christian values were the most important thing a teacher can have. Everyone at the school had good Christian values including the Jewish woman who worked in the office. My family comes from a long line of educators in Texas, and you just can't make this shit up.

[Saorsa]

I clicked on the link to the HOTS program which lead me to

Not Found
The requested URL /training.html was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.2.19 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.19 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8 Server at www.hots.org Port 80

Now, that wasn't in the original post so I went back there. Hmmmmmmm, no link to course curriculum or material that I could fine on any of the links that you seem to think are cute clicky thingies. I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.

Obviously, you think clicky thingies are critical thinking. Thanks ever so much for your time.

So, does anybody with an IQ in the double digits know what the Texas school system thinks is critical thinking and how is it being taught.

Here is another clicky linky thing

It's called Google and there are pages and pages of clicky linky things. And you are most welcome. ( I was raised to respect my elders)

edit: I have a degree in education and many years ago did my student teaching in a conservative district where my first day I got the welcome lecture with the principal and the prof from the university (who just happened to attend the same Baptist church) and the crux was Christian values were the most important thing a teacher can have. Everyone at the school had good Christian values including the Jewish woman who worked in the office. My family comes from a long line of educators in Texas, and you just can't make this shit up.

OOOhhhhh, thank you very much.

Looky what the document at the clicky thingy you 'think' is critcal sais says

(A) Critical Thinking Skills: to include creative thinking, innovation, inquiry, and analysis, evaluation and synthesis of information;

(A) Communication (6 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Teamwork, and Personal Responsibility.

( Mathematics (3 SCH).
(iii) The following three Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, and Empirical and Quantitative Skills.

© Life and Physical Sciences (6 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Empirical and Quantitative Skills, and Teamwork.

(D) Language, Philosophy, and Culture (3 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Personal Responsibility, and Social Responsibility.

(E) Creative Arts (3 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Teamwork, and Social Responsibility.

(F) American History (6 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Personal Responsibility, and Social Responsibility.

(G) Government/Political Science (6 SCH).
(iii) The following four Core Objectives must be addressed in each course approved to fulfill this category requirement: Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Personal Responsibility, and Social Responsibility

etc. etc. etc.

What a load of pap. That is a set of goals and list of things that must be considered in developing the curriculum for a course.

I did try googling texas HOTS and all I got was hot dog joints.

Based on your normal run of posts and now a claim of being an educator, I would figure your level of critical thinking is if it isn't proposed by a democrat or the union it's wrong.

So far, every post I see here has the buzzwords 'critical thinkings' as though that were the specific definition of a course. Sounds like critical thinkis is whatever the teacher says it is.

Wow.

[frenchie]

I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.

There's isn't a specific course to look up. The Texas GOP's stated issue isn't with a specific course, it's with an entire approach.

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

They're opposing ANY program where the purpose is "challenging the student’s fixed beliefs".

critical thinking, my ass. more like sloppy reading.

[Saorsa]

I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.

There's isn't a specific course to look up. The Texas GOP's stated issue isn't with a specific course, it's with an entire approach.

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

They're opposing ANY program where the purpose is "challenging the student’s fixed beliefs".

critical thinking, my ass. more like sloppy reading.

No, I quoted the exact passages of the clicky linky thingy that the deranged one posted. Those are a call for teaching that includes critical thinking. But, there seems to be a program called HOTS that seems to teach it as an abstract concept and not as a component of other course material.

The objection seems to be to 'teaching the test' and not the course material. One might suspect that word problems in math are a way to encourage and demand critical thinking. In fact, I can't think of any way of teaching math that didn't lead to some sort of critical thinking without putting the label on it. I didn't see any GOP objection to that nor have I seen a defense of course material from the democrats.

That's why I am asking what specific material is being objected to by the Republicans and why the Democrats are so upset. You don't need to teach anyone (and in fact probably aren't teaching them anything) simply by saying they are wrong. You should not need to argue any specific belief to teach critical thinking. But, teaching critical thinking and encouraging reading and learning will lead people to question their own beliefs.

So other than an attack on buzzwords, what's the problem?

[tikipete]

"I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.'

You're gettin' it! To treat people like cattle you first have to make them as ignorant as cattle. There is no room for critical thinking in the plutocrat's great scheme for us all; hence no need to teach it.

[Saorsa]

"I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.'

You're gettin' it! To treat people like cattle you first have to make them as ignorant as cattle. There is no room for critical thinking in the plutocrat's great scheme for us all; hence no need to teach it.

Just submit when coach says "Lean forward"

[tikipete]

"I don't give a shit what the GOP says about the course, I want to see what is being taught in the course. See, that's the kind of information you want if you actually want to apply some critical thinking instead of automatically believing what the reporter tells you.'

You're gettin' it! To treat people like cattle you first have to make them as ignorant as cattle. There is no room for critical thinking in the plutocrat's great scheme for us all; hence no need to teach it.

Just submit when coach says "Lean forward"

There ya go! Don't think just do as your told. These kids today are still too smart though, some of them still understand they were fucked!

See to truly, successfully fuck somebody, ya gotta make 'em think yur doin' em a favor.

[Gnarly]

Thanks Texas! You make Alabama look intelligent!

[Gouvernail]

This would be funny if and only if it were not true

[tikipete]

Nah! It's true and funny as hell, in a sick bizarre kinda way.

[Grrr...]

It makes you sick, doesn't it?

It's a homophobic anti-gay platform with illegal abortion frosting and a nice side order religious fanaticism.

[frenchie]

there seems to be a program called HOTS that seems to teach it as an abstract concept

No, see - that's exactly it. There isn't a course that teaches it as an abstract concept. You came with that all on your own.

That is a set of goals and list of things that must be considered in developing the curriculum for a course.

Exactly. And the Texas GOP doesn't want "critical thinking" on that list.


Maybe if you take out all the buzzwords, that'd help you get it.

"We oppose the teaching of programs which challenge the student's fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority."

[austin1972]

I'm sure glad politicians know how to instruct teachers on how to teach.
Teachers have a liberal bias. Bunch o' smarty pants-s.

[Saorsa]

there seems to be a program called HOTS that seems to teach it as an abstract concept

No, see - that's exactly it. There isn't a course that teaches it as an abstract concept. You came with that all on your own.

That is a set of goals and list of things that must be considered in developing the curriculum for a course.

Exactly. And the Texas GOP doesn't want "critical thinking" on that list.


Maybe if you take out all the buzzwords, that'd help you get it.

"We oppose the teaching of programs which challenge the student's fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority."

OK then, how do you teach critical thinking? In fact, define critical thinking. Can this only be accomplished by challenging the student's fixed beliefs, whatever those may be? Since their isn't a course, tell me how you teach it. Because, most of what I see called critical thinking seems to be simple efforts to debunk, for example, history. The dogma of the left is no better than the dogma of the right.

Will there be a list of fixed beliefs that are unchallengable? Or, will those fixed beliefs approved by teachers be OK?

Will the teachers all teach the students to challenge the teachers authority? Or, the states authority?

Say, in regard to fixed beliefs, how about the teacher who was telling a kid he could go to jail for criticizing to Obama but that complaining about Bush was OK. Yeah, that's the woman I want teaching kids.

Sorry, there isn't much of anything that you can learn without critical thinking. OK, maybe the multiplication tables. As you say, there isn't any course for it. It is in there as a buzz word that sounds good but, there isn't anything backing it up.

What is it in the curriculum for the courses that constitutes teaching critical thinking?

[jimbot]

And then there's Wiki. http://en.wikipedia....thinking_skills

The Texas Republican Party expressed their opposition to the teaching of certain HOTS by included the following item in their 2012 Party Platform [3]:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

However, the final wording of this item was evidently a 'mistake' according to Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam who said, in an interview with talkingpointsmemo.com, that the plank should not have included the phrase 'critical thinking skills' and it was not the intent of the subcommittee to indicate that the RPT was opposed to critical thinking skills". When asked to clarify the meaning of the item he said, "I think the intent is that the Republican Party is opposed to the values clarification method that serves the purpose of challenging students beliefs and undermine parental authority

[Tom Ray]

I clicked through to another article and found this:

Sadly, this is just one of 30 pages of head-in-the-sand, pretend-the-Enlightenment-never-happened thinking from the state's dominating party. Other gems include:

...
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)

Making the District a state is the only sane, non-head-in-sand position? Can someone explain why?

[Saorsa]

I clicked through to another article and found this:

Sadly, this is just one of 30 pages of head-in-the-sand, pretend-the-Enlightenment-never-happened thinking from the state's dominating party. Other gems include:

...
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)

Making the District a state is the only sane, non-head-in-sand position? Can someone explain why?

The democrats want two more safe seat senators.

[Clove Hitch]

OK then, how do you teach critical thinking? In fact, define critical thinking. Can this only be accomplished by challenging the student's fixed beliefs, whatever those may be? Since their isn't a course, tell me how you teach it. Because, most of what I see called critical thinking seems to be simple efforts to debunk, for example, history. The dogma of the left is no better than the dogma of the right.

Actually, teaching critical thinking has less to do with dogma then you might think.

A quick example is the difference in Basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiencies (CALPS) in English language learners. When teaching English language learners you have to be aware that many students that seem to speak fluently only know how to get around in the world-- their use of language is solely pragmatic (BICS). When you teach them abstract academic words (CALPS) like "compare," "summarize" or "differentiate" you have to teach them the concept, not merely the definition. This is a very specific example of teaching critical thinking, so I suppose Texas youngsters will be banned from doing anything academic above the first grade.

Hope this quick example helps.

[Saorsa]

OK then, how do you teach critical thinking? In fact, define critical thinking. Can this only be accomplished by challenging the student's fixed beliefs, whatever those may be? Since their isn't a course, tell me how you teach it. Because, most of what I see called critical thinking seems to be simple efforts to debunk, for example, history. The dogma of the left is no better than the dogma of the right.

Actually, teaching critical thinking has less to do with dogma then you might think.

A quick example is the difference in Basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiencies (CALPS) in English language learners. When teaching English language learners you have to be aware that many students that seem to speak fluently only know how to get around in the world-- their use of language is solely pragmatic (BICS). When you teach them abstract academic words (CALPS) like "compare," "summarize" or "differentiate" you have to teach them the concept, not merely the definition. This is a very specific example of teaching critical thinking, so I suppose Texas youngsters will be banned from doing anything academic above the first grade.

Hope this quick example helps.

Well, it helps but, it confirms my thoughts that all education is critical thinking. Since it has less to do with Dogma then using the parents teachings as an example to be stamped down on probably isn't the right approach.

Teach the kids to think without raising the issues that seem to be objectionable and the kids will start asking their own questions and making their own decisions.

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

The idea is to teach them fundamentals and how to think. Most of the arguments seem to come about when people start teaching kids what to think. They will get plenty of that outside of school anyway.

Abstract concepts like 'critical thinking' aren't something that you can actually have a course in. Sure you can have some examples and problems but, the real issue in critical thinking is analysis and synthesis. But, that needs to be integrated with the actual course work. For example, more emphasis on plane geometry and proofs of theorems ws extremely good for teaching observation and analysis.

[JBSF]

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting teaching genetics without "bringing up" evolution???? I was a biology major and I'm having a REALLY difficult time getting my head around how that would be possible.

[MoeAlfa]

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting teaching genetics without "bringing up" evolution???? I was a biology major and I'm having a REALLY difficult time getting my head around how that would be possible.

You can do it, just as you can teach basic astronomy and leave out the fact that the universe is expanding.

Saorsa, genetics, even at the high school level, has moved on quite a bit from Mendel and discussing most of the really fun stuff, such as the fact that the same gene makes an eye in a fly, a fish, and a human when it's turned on, loses quite a bit when divorced from an evolutionary context.

[Saorsa]

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting teaching genetics without "bringing up" evolution???? I was a biology major and I'm having a REALLY difficult time getting my head around how that would be possible.

You can do it, just as you can teach basic astronomy and leave out the fact that the universe is expanding.

Saorsa, genetics, even at the high school level, has moved on quite a bit from Mendel and discussing most of the really fun stuff, such as the fact that the same gene makes an eye in a fly, a fish, and a human when it's turned on, loses quite a bit when divorced from an evolutionary context.

Certainly. And there is a point where that is germane. I realize that genetics has moved on a long way. Suppose you teach genetics and point out the similarities without outright statements of evolution. Isn't critiical thinking there to teach you to develop answers and not repeat rote answers.

But, still, nobody has provided what course materials are actually objectionable.

[Saorsa]

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting teaching genetics without "bringing up" evolution???? I was a biology major and I'm having a REALLY difficult time getting my head around how that would be possible.

In teaching anything, you need to get the point across in a functional and memorable way.

The problem here is that there are elements of faith which you cannot change by direct argument. Attempting to do so simply starts a conflict.

Here is a recent newspaper article which discusses the origins of the universe. Which takes a reasonable approach. It points out the functional component without attacking the faith based component.

Now, if you follow the chronology of the universe, either according to either the priests or the physicists, it's the same.

If you must, start your physics course with a two second sentence "God created the universe, and here is what we have observed" then go on to teach the observed facts.

If you must, start your biology course with "God created all living things, and here is how it works" then go on to the observed and documented facts.

You can't argue with faith and will always lose,. The best you can do is to remove faith from the equation and teach the functional facts. If faith becomes an issue, refer the student to someone else.

As I have tried to point out many times, the issue of whether or not there is a god or which religion is the true one is irrelevant to discussions of science. Just present facts and argue the other issues outside of the classroom. If there is some requirement for certain views to be presented, just do it, get it over with and move on.

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

[MoeAlfa]

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

I think you're indulging in a bit of scholasticism yourself. Of course mendelian genetics still applies, but we now know it applies only to the inheritance of a minority of phenotypes. Sure you can teach just the molecular mechanisms, but I don't think that's going to hold the attention of a general audience for very long. Any semi-attentive auditor of a genetics course will want to know how genomes got here and why so much of ours is identical to a fruit fly's; how behavioral traits are passed on and why the strange-seeming ones persist; and how the environment triggers gene expression to mold phenotypes. This and much more is what good genetics survey courses now consist of and the material would be much bowdlerized by omitting evolution. Nevertheless, I'm sure people are hard at the task.

[tq2000]

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

I think you're indulging in a bit of scholasticism yourself. Of course mendelian genetics still applies, but we now know it applies only to the inheritance of a minority of phenotypes. Sure you can teach just the molecular mechanisms, but I don't think that's going to hold the attention of a general audience for very long. Any semi-attentive auditor of a genetics course will want to know how genomes got here and why so much of ours is identical to a fruit fly's; how behavioral traits are passed on and why the strange-seeming ones persist; and how the environment triggers gene expression to mold phenotypes. This and much more is what good genetics survey courses now consist of and the material would be much bowdlerized by omitting evolution. Nevertheless, I'm sure people are hard at the task.

I think Saorsa's next response should include the line "it is just a flesh wound" at some point

[Saorsa]

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

I think you're indulging in a bit of scholasticism yourself. Of course mendelian genetics still applies, but we now know it applies only to the inheritance of a minority of phenotypes. Sure you can teach just the molecular mechanisms, but I don't think that's going to hold the attention of a general audience for very long. Any semi-attentive auditor of a genetics course will want to know how genomes got here and why so much of ours is identical to a fruit fly's; how behavioral traits are passed on and why the strange-seeming ones persist; and how the environment triggers gene expression to mold phenotypes. This and much more is what good genetics survey courses now consist of and the material would be much bowdlerized by omitting evolution. Nevertheless, I'm sure people are hard at the task.

Those are all good questions. And, so long as you are teaching genetics, I'm pretty sure they will come up. If you really wanted to you probably could just teach genomes as a building block or source code for living matter. You teach them that changes in that code will affect the outcome.

We are talking about grade and high school level courses here.

[MoeAlfa]

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

I think you're indulging in a bit of scholasticism yourself. Of course mendelian genetics still applies, but we now know it applies only to the inheritance of a minority of phenotypes. Sure you can teach just the molecular mechanisms, but I don't think that's going to hold the attention of a general audience for very long. Any semi-attentive auditor of a genetics course will want to know how genomes got here and why so much of ours is identical to a fruit fly's; how behavioral traits are passed on and why the strange-seeming ones persist; and how the environment triggers gene expression to mold phenotypes. This and much more is what good genetics survey courses now consist of and the material would be much bowdlerized by omitting evolution. Nevertheless, I'm sure people are hard at the task.

Those are all good questions. And, so long as you are teaching genetics, I'm pretty sure they will come up. If you really wanted to you probably could just teach genomes as a building block or source code for living matter. You teach them that changes in that code will affect the outcome.

We are talking about grade and high school level courses here.

I think those are the levels you have to suck in with cool stuff. You can bore the shit out of grad students who already have the big picture and know what they need to learn.

[opa1]

And you thought the Taliban was in Afghanistan? Wrong, they're really in Texas and Florida. Wisconsin has a Taliban Governor. Can't speak for the rest of that state's population.

[Saorsa]

While Moe says that genetics has moved on since Mendel, I don't think that's true. Genetics is still the same as it always has been except for some recent human interference. Our knowledge of it and it's mechanisms have certainly changed and expanded considerably since Mendel (who, incidentally was an Augustinian friar) but the functional mechanisms are still the same. That knowledge of genetics was not changed by Darwin, whose contributions were primarily social, not scientific.

I think you're indulging in a bit of scholasticism yourself. Of course mendelian genetics still applies, but we now know it applies only to the inheritance of a minority of phenotypes. Sure you can teach just the molecular mechanisms, but I don't think that's going to hold the attention of a general audience for very long. Any semi-attentive auditor of a genetics course will want to know how genomes got here and why so much of ours is identical to a fruit fly's; how behavioral traits are passed on and why the strange-seeming ones persist; and how the environment triggers gene expression to mold phenotypes. This and much more is what good genetics survey courses now consist of and the material would be much bowdlerized by omitting evolution. Nevertheless, I'm sure people are hard at the task.

Those are all good questions. And, so long as you are teaching genetics, I'm pretty sure they will come up. If you really wanted to you probably could just teach genomes as a building block or source code for living matter. You teach them that changes in that code will affect the outcome.

We are talking about grade and high school level courses here.

I think those are the levels you have to suck in with cool stuff. You can bore the shit out of grad students who already have the big picture and know what they need to learn.

Those levels work with why does Susy have red hair. Then you show them same gene covers red cows and horses.

[Tom Ray]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

His father (half Aussie, half Border Collie) smiled at people. I thought I was about to lose part of my hand when I first met him. Most people have that same reaction to Luke.







He and all of his litter mates did this from before they opened their eyes, so it is not learned behavior. That's how he reacts to any human and the funny part is, he's trying to be friendly. He does not understand that the teeth are a bit scary. He will smile at anyone until they have been sniffed, then he won't smile at them any more. We can't get him to do it on command.

It has to be genetic, but seems strange to me. How is something like that actually built into his genes?

[MoeAlfa]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

Here's my offhand comment, which is probably not much further than you've gotten in your thinking: Stereotyped motor patterns, such as facial expressions in humans and animals are more or less hard wired, in this case in the brain stem. Their triggering by external stimuli involves brain areas that are less determined, to allow learning, so there is more lattitude to develop weirdos like your woofer and his ilk. They probably have some sort of mutation affecting the bit of wiring linking the perception of social stimuli to the place where facial expressions are stored, which could be a very minor addressing error. There are some analogies in humans: For instance, there are people who sneeze when they get emotional and diseases affecting the pathways from the cortex to the brainstem often cause inappropriate emotional expression. Many people, especially children, smile in appropriately too, and presumably for simple wiring, not psychological, reasons.

[Remodel]

I clicked through to another article and found this:

Sadly, this is just one of 30 pages of head-in-the-sand, pretend-the-Enlightenment-never-happened thinking from the state's dominating party. Other gems include:

...
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)

Making the District a state is the only sane, non-head-in-sand position? Can someone explain why?

The democrats want two more safe seat senators.

Republicans don't mind taxing people wthout representation. Same goes for Guam, Peurto Rico etc. etc.

[dogfish]

For example, in a biology class, teach genetics without bringing up evolution. It isn't necessary and the kids will quickly grasp genetic differences, dominant and recessive traits, etc.

And you would be leaving out evolution because....????

[Saorsa]

I clicked through to another article and found this:

Sadly, this is just one of 30 pages of head-in-the-sand, pretend-the-Enlightenment-never-happened thinking from the state's dominating party. Other gems include:

...
– Opposing statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia (who writes this crap, Rand Paul?)

Making the District a state is the only sane, non-head-in-sand position? Can someone explain why?

The democrats want two more safe seat senators.

Republicans don't mind taxing people wthout representation. Same goes for Guam, Peurto Rico etc. etc.

Guam has had their elections and the desire seems to keep commonwealth status.

Puerto Rico seems of two minds on the subject. They have had several referendums on the subject and statehod has always lost but by small amounts.

As to your bullshit about political parties.

The Republican Party platform of 2008 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[20]


The Democratic Party platform of 2008 says:

We believe that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to the political status of their choice, obtained through a fair, neutral, and democratic process of self-determination. The White House and Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the next four years.[21]

Seems both parties are willing to do whatever the people of Puerto Rico want.

As to DC. There is that odd little thing in the constitution about the formation of the federal district that would not be a state.

[Tom Ray]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

Here's my offhand comment, which is probably not much further than you've gotten in your thinking: Stereotyped motor patterns, such as facial expressions in humans and animals are more or less hard wired, in this case in the brain stem. Their triggering by external stimuli involves brain areas that are less determined, to allow learning, so there is more lattitude to develop weirdos like your woofer and his ilk. They probably have some sort of mutation affecting the bit of wiring linking the perception of social stimuli to the place where facial expressions are stored, which could be a very minor addressing error. There are some analogies in humans: For instance, there are people who sneeze when they get emotional and diseases affecting the pathways from the cortex to the brainstem often cause inappropriate emotional expression. Many people, especially children, smile in appropriately too, and presumably for simple wiring, not psychological, reasons.

That got me a bit further. My mother is one of those who sneezes when distressed. As a youngster who sometimes caused this distress, I learned it was a good sign that I should make myself scarce.

I had not really connected the two things, nor thought of it as an addressing error. It's a pretty funny glitch.

[Saorsa]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

Here's my offhand comment, which is probably not much further than you've gotten in your thinking: Stereotyped motor patterns, such as facial expressions in humans and animals are more or less hard wired, in this case in the brain stem. Their triggering by external stimuli involves brain areas that are less determined, to allow learning, so there is more lattitude to develop weirdos like your woofer and his ilk. They probably have some sort of mutation affecting the bit of wiring linking the perception of social stimuli to the place where facial expressions are stored, which could be a very minor addressing error. There are some analogies in humans: For instance, there are people who sneeze when they get emotional and diseases affecting the pathways from the cortex to the brainstem often cause inappropriate emotional expression. Many people, especially children, smile in appropriately too, and presumably for simple wiring, not psychological, reasons.

That got me a bit further. My mother is one of those who sneezes when distressed. As a youngster who sometimes caused this distress, I learned it was a good sign that I should make myself scarce.

I had not really connected the two things, nor thought of it as an addressing error. It's a pretty funny glitch.

That dog has no poker face. It sounds like suspicion and he's letting it show as taking an agressive posture when meeting a stranger for the first time. It looks like his hackles are up too.

I used to volunteer at the animal shelter and saw that with a lot of dogs when they first came in.

[Remodel]

The Republican Party platform of 2008 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[20]


The Democratic Party platform of 2008 says:

We believe that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to the political status of their choice, obtained through a fair, neutral, and democratic process of self-determination. The White House and Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the next four years.[21]

Seems both parties are willing to do whatever the people of Puerto Rico want.

As to DC. There is that odd little thing in the constitution about the formation of the federal district that would not be a state.

Yes, the Dems are equally guilty.

Answer two simple questions:

• Do residents of the various protectorates, territories, commonwealths and the District of columbia pay federal US taxes?
• Do these same residents have voting representatives in the US Congress?

Taxation without representation is a bad thing, or at least I was so taught in elementatry school.

[Remodel]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

Here's my offhand comment, which is probably not much further than you've gotten in your thinking: Stereotyped motor patterns, such as facial expressions in humans and animals are more or less hard wired, in this case in the brain stem. Their triggering by external stimuli involves brain areas that are less determined, to allow learning, so there is more lattitude to develop weirdos like your woofer and his ilk. They probably have some sort of mutation affecting the bit of wiring linking the perception of social stimuli to the place where facial expressions are stored, which could be a very minor addressing error. There are some analogies in humans: For instance, there are people who sneeze when they get emotional and diseases affecting the pathways from the cortex to the brainstem often cause inappropriate emotional expression. Many people, especially children, smile in appropriately too, and presumably for simple wiring, not psychological, reasons.

That got me a bit further. My mother is one of those who sneezes when distressed. As a youngster who sometimes caused this distress, I learned it was a good sign that I should make myself scarce.

I had not really connected the two things, nor thought of it as an addressing error. It's a pretty funny glitch.

That dog has no poker face. It sounds like suspicion and he's letting it show as taking an agressive posture when meeting a stranger for the first time. It looks like his hackles are up too.

I used to volunteer at the animal shelter and saw that with a lot of dogs when they first came in.

Agree 100%. I'd keep my hands away until it showed a different posture...

[Tom Ray]

That dog has no poker face. It sounds like suspicion and he's letting it show as taking an agressive posture when meeting a stranger for the first time. It looks like his hackles are up too.

I used to volunteer at the animal shelter and saw that with a lot of dogs when they first came in.

Agree 100%. I'd keep my hands away until it showed a different posture...

Saorsa, you're wrong about the hackles, he's just fluffy. The general body language from him is friendly when he does this. Same with his dad, which is why I did stick my hand out when he approached. I was a bit nervous about it. He reacted just like Luke does: sniffed me and then wanted to play.

It is somehow related to suspicion, but he reacts this way to my wife and me. He seems convinced that an imposter is one day going to show up perfectly disguised as me, but that person will not get past the smell test. Except that EVERYONE passes the smell test.

[Saorsa]

The Republican Party platform of 2008 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[20]


The Democratic Party platform of 2008 says:

We believe that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to the political status of their choice, obtained through a fair, neutral, and democratic process of self-determination. The White House and Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the next four years.[21]

Seems both parties are willing to do whatever the people of Puerto Rico want.

As to DC. There is that odd little thing in the constitution about the formation of the federal district that would not be a state.

Yes, the Dems are equally guilty.

Answer two simple questions:

• Do residents of the various protectorates, territories, commonwealths and the District of columbia pay federal US taxes?
• Do these same residents have voting representatives in the US Congress?

Taxation without representation is a bad thing, or at least I was so taught in elementatry school.

They don't have to live in DC. There is nothing in the constitution precluding it but, there is that non-state federal district thing. It was there before there were residences so, they made the choice to move there and raise their children. They are not held there against their will.

[Tom Ray]

Answer two simple questions:

• Do residents of the various protectorates, territories, commonwealths and the District of columbia pay federal US taxes?
• Do these same residents have voting representatives in the US Congress?

Taxation without representation is a bad thing, or at least I was so taught in elementatry school.

Yes and no. Did they also teach you that the people who fought for independence over that issue (among others) are the ones who decided to write this:

The Congress shall have Power...

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Do you think they made a mistake and forgot to provide that the District should have voting reps, or maybe there was a reason or two?

[tikipete]

I think they made a mistake on slavery.

[Remodel]

I think they made a mistake on slavery.

Bullseye.
The framer's weren't perfect. Neither is the constitution. It's damned good though, just not perfect.

[Saorsa]

Answer two simple questions:

• Do residents of the various protectorates, territories, commonwealths and the District of columbia pay federal US taxes?
• Do these same residents have voting representatives in the US Congress?

Taxation without representation is a bad thing, or at least I was so taught in elementatry school.

Yes and no. Did they also teach you that the people who fought for independence over that issue (among others) are the ones who decided to write this:

The Congress shall have Power...

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Do you think they made a mistake and forgot to provide that the District should have voting reps, or maybe there was a reason or two?

No, I think the point was that all representatives and senators served the district. It was a place that was to be neutral ground for the individual states to act in congress as a federation of states.

[Saorsa]

I think they made a mistake on slavery.

Bullseye.
The framer's weren't perfect. Neither is the constitution. It's damned good though, just not perfect.

Actually, had slavery been outlawed in the constitution, there would have been no United States of America. That was always a major point with near equal sides in terms of power. Much like abortion today. A lot of the politics in the time between the War of 1812, where we preserved our independence, and the civil war involved slavery. If not directly, it had a major impact on expansion westward as states were defined as slave or free.

The founders were establishing a foundation. The foundation had to be strong enough to support all. What we did after that defines us as a country. In the end, we did the right thing.

[Tom Ray]

I think they made a mistake on slavery.

Bullseye.
The framer's weren't perfect. Neither is the constitution. It's damned good though, just not perfect.

That does not answer my question. Do you think forming the District the way they did was a mistake, accident, oversight, or were there reasons?

[JBSF]

I think they made a mistake on slavery.

Bullseye.
The framer's weren't perfect. Neither is the constitution. It's damned good though, just not perfect.

I think the slavery issue during the Constitutional Conventions was much like the healthcare issue is now. We were too divided to ever get to a best case solution right away, so it took decades of incremental work to get there. Not saying it was right, it was just reality at the time.....

[austin1972]

Hey Moe,

This is a fun hijack and you may actually know the answer to a question I have:

Why does my cowdog smile?

It has to be genetic, but seems strange to me. How is something like that actually built into his genes?

Same reason my German Shorthair Pointers are godless killing machines. It got bred into them. They came from Field Champ bloodlines. My mom claimed that Caesar could re-train them, so I could too. I went to an animal behavior specialist and they laughed, pretty much saying if I didn't want godless killing machines I shouldn't buy ones that have hundreds of years of hunt instinct optimization bred into them.

Your cow dog probably smiles because it elicits a good herd response for the cattle and serves as a warning to potential predators.
That's my guess anyhow.

[Tom Ray]

Same reason my German Shorthair Pointers are godless killing machines. It got bred into them. They came from Field Champ bloodlines. My mom claimed that Caesar could re-train them, so I could too. I went to an animal behavior specialist and they laughed, pretty much saying if I didn't want godless killing machines I shouldn't buy ones that have hundreds of years of hunt instinct optimization bred into them.

Your cow dog probably smiles because it elicits a good herd response for the cattle and serves as a warning to potential predators.
That's my guess anyhow.

Hah! Neither of us has any business having these dogs!

I don't know if he would smile at cows or not. All I can say for sure is that smiling is not disqualifying because his daddy is "a good cowdog" according to the youngster on the farm. The rest of the litter went to be working cowdogs and all were smilers.

[JBSF]

Same reason my German Shorthair Pointers are godless killing machines. It got bred into them. They came from Field Champ bloodlines. My mom claimed that Caesar could re-train them, so I could too. I went to an animal behavior specialist and they laughed, pretty much saying if I didn't want godless killing machines I shouldn't buy ones that have hundreds of years of hunt instinct optimization bred into them.

I hate when my dogs are godless. You just can't trust 'em....

[craigiri]

The founders were establishing a foundation. The foundation had to be strong enough to support all. What we did after that defines us as a country. In the end, we did the right thing.

Did the right thing? Well, 200 years LATER, we are on the way. That's for sure.

That's a lot of generations....many hundreds of millions of people and lives that didn't have the blessings of full liberty.