Users who Dugg This
Belhassen Ben Smail
1172 Followers
Belhassen Ben Smail
1172 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
Jerry James Stone
7541 Followers
bille3Jul 4, 2010
Yes Virginia, there are mentally challenged masses.
beerrulesJul 5, 2010
Am I the only one wondering what virginia has to do with the price of eggs?
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
It's a play on the quote "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".
theinformerJul 5, 2010
This shows empirical evidence of the failure of the public education system. It's time to sweep out the hubris and install old standards... reading, writing, arithmetic, and reasoning.
withearsJul 6, 2010
They're called "teabaggers."
lwhassellJul 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
withearsJul 6, 2010
I would take that bet.
Just look at the geniuses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/
jwe8kJul 6, 2010
I'd wager you're wrong. Check out the regions of the US, and how they fared on this test. 84% of the Northeast got it right compared to 68% of the South.
dkulikovJul 6, 2010
lwhassell how is it possible that you cant even troll without embarrassing yourself? Seriously trolling really isn't that hard. Oh and No the Midwest and the south had the lowest percent of the population get the answer correct.
withearsJul 6, 2010
32% of the South got it wrong.
Guess where most of the teabaggers are... the South.
lwhassellJul 7, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
joculatorJul 4, 2010
I find this hard to believe. I really hope it's BS.
protodonJul 5, 2010
It is
richnojutsuJul 5, 2010
Why is it hard to believe? Walk down the block and ask 10 people the same question. You'd be surprised.
brandonj60Jul 5, 2010
Lunch hour. Done. 8 said England (including a 9 or 10 year old kid), 1 said Great Britain, 1 said the UK.
Seriously, American's can be stupid, but not this stupid (I wouldn't be surprised if 26% didn't know their state's governor for example). The article's a farce.
acardwell3Jul 6, 2010
Americans*
oblique63Jul 5, 2010
If you think that's bad, just 2 days ago my friend legitimately asked me if the 4th of July was 'the same thing' as Independence day... I s**t you not.
then again, she is blonde...
dandoniaJul 5, 2010
I hope you told her no. The 4th of July is a date and Independence Day is a movie about aliens.
roontJul 5, 2010
That's funny, I found it extremly easy to believe.
groo68Jul 5, 2010
Is it? It's the same number as bushes approval rating at the end.
ramtanionJul 5, 2010
Do bushes get approval ratings? Maybe Bush's approval rating. You deserve to be grouped in with the 26%.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I refer to him as "the bush", though I think it's probably degrading to women.
groo68Jul 5, 2010
Jesus, I'm sorry I don't proof read every comment I post. I didn't know it meant so much to you.
shinobioliumJul 6, 2010
"I didn't know it meant so much to you." I'm curious-how long have you been on Digg?
cynicalbrit94Jul 6, 2010
BUT, MjCoffee, if you were referring tot heir approval ratings it would be "the Bushes'."
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
It'd actually be "the bush's approval ratings" (singular) or "the bushes approval ratings" (plural). Because I am gently tarring them with the brush of vegetables and unshaven female genitalia to show my disdain, and they deserve capital letters neither as shrubbery nor vaginas.
marx2kJul 5, 2010
You'd never know, since the Daily News doesn't link to any source. Of course... it is the NY Daily News, so it really wasn't expected.
sulthernaoJul 5, 2010
20% were undecided. 6% got it wrong. Seriously it's not as bad as it sounds. People also mess with pollsters when they hear really dumb or obvious questions. You can't take it at face value.
Marist is a good pollster, but this is an example of the media writing a narrative and not understanding the hazards of scientific polling.
jkmyoungJul 5, 2010
Perhaps a lot of the 20% were unsure whether England had officially become part of Great Britain at the time.
joehagueJul 5, 2010
Really it's a lot better than I would have imagined, most people are idiots. And not just in America either/
spazattack5000Jul 5, 2010
Also keep in mind that a small portion of the people that got the question right were likely just guessing.
diggmasterjJul 5, 2010
I bet most of the people who got it wrong said England instead of GB and the 5 or 6 people who gave answers like "China" were trolls.
angosturaJul 5, 2010
I wonder if some people got it wrong by saying the UK. Hang on, when was Irish Independence?
brandonj60Jul 5, 2010
I thought this too. They probably took "England" as a wrong answer.
toco8804Jul 6, 2010
Not really, if they took England as the wrong answer the percentage would be a lot higher. I know that England is a part of Great Britain but if someone asked me I would still reply England.
chrismgtisJul 5, 2010
Hard to believe? You're delusional.
coredump0x01Jul 5, 2010
Yes this article is total BS. Everyone knows the 4th of July commemorates the day George Washington single-handedly defeated Satan in the epic battle of the bulge.
dmm219Jul 5, 2010
I thought it was the day bill paxton gave a rousing speech to cheer on the world to defeat the evil alien invasion with a macintosh computer virus...no?
thefirewireJul 6, 2010
I thought the 4th of july was the day Will Smith saved us from aliens
and in celebration we blow s**t up to recreate that astounding event.
diguptruth77Jul 5, 2010
You ever seen that Jay Leno segment?
peacebyanymeansJul 5, 2010
People watch Jay Leno?
diggnabbitJul 5, 2010
no.
biohazard87Jul 5, 2010
I'm with Coco.
g8kprJul 6, 2010
Just watch Rick Mercer's talking to American's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OEqR71y_BQ
Or any of Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" and you'll see that there are some very very stupid people out there. I remember one Jay Leno show where they asked these college girls "what's closer to the earth. The moon or the Sun" They said "Umm, the sun, deffinately the sun"
kalucardJul 6, 2010
Not BS, but UK
drmangrumJul 4, 2010
Another win for the state-provided educational system.
zeitgeist6149Jul 5, 2010
the mass dumbing down of society.
fword07Jul 5, 2010
yeah, because that number would be so much higher without it.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
That's why the European masses are so much more retarded than those of the US.
Disclaimer: we do have our own "losses" too.
13point1Jul 5, 2010
... that Republicans have systematically crippled with funding cuts and attacks on teachers' unions.
juankovoJul 6, 2010
Funding cuts, eh? You mean the kind where the amount spent per pupil doubles in 30 years (even adjusting for inflation) and the test results are the same?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
13point1Jul 6, 2010
Perhaps we shouldn't be educating pupils to pass standardized tests. Perhaps we should try teaching them to THINK.
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
Answers from the home-schooled:
52% - The armies of Satan
27% - Homosexuals
21% - It's not in the Bible, so it never happened.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Sorry to spam this submission, but I honestly want to ask the people who think that the public education system is a failure,
How do you propose we fix it?
painkilla05Jul 4, 2010
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Is that a wheel of cheese?
marx2kJul 5, 2010
It's me stroking my gargantuan pride.
hmyauhnoJul 5, 2010
You popped in the refrigerator?
hastyboomJul 5, 2010
NO just a French dood.
theinformerJul 5, 2010
I really want to achieve independence from Justin Bieber.
olivestreetJul 6, 2010
Absolutely.
cheesewithwhineJul 4, 2010
just 26%? With the "you betcha" tards supported by the masses of retarded ignorant and retarded "real Americans", I honestly thought it would be more.
janincoJul 4, 2010
We're independent from the Canadians? Who knew?
laser314Jul 4, 2010
Well, independent is a strong word, I think of it more as 'under their protection, but free to leave the house to go to work"
jaymulderJul 5, 2010
Main difference: Hulu and Netflix
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Didn't we declare independence from the Ottoman Empire? Damn public education system!
chadsexingtimeJul 5, 2010
I still have a few Ottomans at my house. I like to keep them near the couch to remind me. And to put my feet on.
heliumflashJul 5, 2010
America was declared independence from the Russians and Jesus came down and defeated the commies. Fools
haikufuJul 5, 2010
The Ottawan Empire is still canada you dummy.
brassbudJul 5, 2010
I for one welcome our former footstool overlords.
jthesaintJul 5, 2010
Cheese - Well since Canada was part of the British Empire at that time, it wouldn't be oo much a stretch to say we did declare independence from Canada...
spandiaJul 5, 2010
Ummm...not true. Canada was not apart of the British Empire until the British North America Act of 1867...90 years after the U.S. declared independence. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dudemeysterJul 5, 2010
Um, no. Canada was part of the British Empire long before 1867. The BNA Act was part of what made Canada a federal dominion, even if still under the umbrella of the British Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#European_colonization
naganiezcheJul 6, 2010
Oh snap!
g8kprJul 6, 2010
Don't forget The Canadian's/Brits burned down your white house during the war of 1812. I wonder how many American's know or even believe that fact.
jthesaintJul 6, 2010
G8kpr - Oh I haven't forgotten... Canada you shall have your comeupance!
nimankalJul 5, 2010
Teddy Roosevelt freed us from the our oppressive Mexican overlords using an elephant musket and a sword.
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
His facial hair caused them to flee back over the Rio Grande never to return...
rpapi100Jul 5, 2010
Wrong. The US declared independence from the Aliens. They even made a movie about it with the fresh prince of bel-air can't recall the name tho, independence something.
themapleboyJul 5, 2010
hey we made you paint your house white
diguptruth77Jul 5, 2010
They're just sitting up there, on top of our heads, squishing us. I think we're paying too much attention to our southern border...
theinformerJul 5, 2010
The Canadians are thanking us now with Justin Bieber.
anoriginalnameJul 6, 2010
& celine dion, and nickelback... did I mention Bryan adams?
But hey we also gave Pamela Anderson, Shannon Tweed & Elisha Cuthbert
bakamasJul 6, 2010
There is nothing wrong with Celine Dion. Where do people get off bashing someone with a great voice like her's? One of the best singers alive today.
ravediggerJul 6, 2010
eh?
datagodJul 6, 2010
Someday we will win you back to us. You broke our heart, but not our spirit. Now just stay away from that Latino hussy, and shake those american buns back up this way...
g8kprJul 6, 2010
We also gave you Captain Kirk, Austin Powers, Ace Ventura and Alex Trebek... err
laser314Jul 6, 2010
and Red Green
michichaelJul 6, 2010
In the words of Southpark: "Who believes in government conspiracies anyway!" "Dude, 25% of Americans are retarded."
janincoJul 4, 2010
Thank you Unions and public education.
lolcoelacanthJul 5, 2010
Yes, the unions are responsible for ignorance in society. You must be wise beyond your years. /s
davidhierJul 6, 2010
You clearly don't realize the detrimental effects of unions.
pintomp3Jul 6, 2010
"the detrimental effects of unions." Like being able to not work on the 4th of July or weekends?
lolcoelacanthJul 6, 2010
Sure, past a point unions outlive their usefulness, and become detrimental to socialism. They are self-serving organizations at their heart. But they are certainly not responsible for the widespread ignorance in American society, that is an absolute loony claim.
ajajadudeJul 5, 2010
I blame the parents. If they'll file complaints about teachers for failing their kids and school administrators have to follow up, then there's something seriously wrong.
But that would require personal responsibility. God forbid people in this country have anything close to that.
13point1Jul 5, 2010
You mean the ones that your party has been systematically crippling for years? I bet that letting retards like you and the other 'baggers teach your children American history will result in a much, much better educated society.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I blame people like you for lowering the bar.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Sorry to spam this submission, but I honestly want to ask the people who think that the public education system is a failure,
How do you propose we fix it?
lolcoelacanthJul 6, 2010
Science, science, and more science. NO Creationism.
Only facts in social science classes.
...okay, I realize curriculum is not the problem, but these are still good ideas!
13point1Jul 6, 2010
The anti-intellectuals will give nonsense answers like "let the kids decide! Teach the controversy!" This is because they want children to be intellectually crippled. The right wing loses when the population becomes well-educated, because a well-educated voting base can see right through the Republicans' crap. If instead we keep children ignorant under the guise of teaching "critical thinking," they'll just mindlessly follow because they're living in a self-constructed fantasy world, not the real one.
lolcoelacanthJul 8, 2010
I know this is an old thread now, but I want to say that teaching critical thinking is the most important thing the school system needs to do. What Creationists want taught will not help foster critical thinking: it will only confuse students as a scientific theory would be held on the same level as religious dogma in a science classroom.
cheezinternJul 15, 2010
Actually I'd agree with you that teacher's unions are partially to blame, but only partially. Teacher's unions do have a great deal of power and it's almost impossible for a district to fire a teacher once they have tenure, no matter how bad that teacher is.
I'm pretty smart (I think) and went through the public education system. It is most definitely is not a failure, but it isn't the best in the world either...Remember America attempts to give everyone an education; most countries don't; they separate students into various trade and occupational schools and only the top tier students go to Universities.
amyvernonJul 4, 2010
Having worked in a newsroom for 20 years and spoken to many members of the general public in that time, this does not surprise me one bit.
bsmangJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
thegreatone2009Jul 5, 2010
^^^^Being a former customer service rep...I know that as well....
kb9vgrJul 5, 2010
^^^ being that "computer guy" for family and friends yeah it really is like that
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I am more surprised so many got it correct!
gellfexJul 5, 2010
Here's the text of a news clipping I have from 20 years ago, it is my touchstone for whenever Americans voters believe something irrational. Profoundly ignorant people are easily misled. Calling them stupid is too easy, it's like calling a car with an empty tank slow.
This just in: Earth revolves around sun!
CHICAGO (AP) More than 450 years after Copernicus proved the Earth revolves around the sun, millions of adult Americans seem to think it’s the other way around, a researcher reported yesterday.
On very basic ideas, vast numbers of Americans are scientifically illiterate," said Jon Miller of Northern Illinois University, who conducted a nationwide survey for the National Science Foundation.
In the July telephone survey of 2041 adults 18 or older, people were asked about 75 questions testing their knowledge of basic science. Miller said.
Asked whether the Earth goes around the sun or the sun around the Earth, 21 percent replied incorrectly. Seven percent said they didn’t know.
Of the 72 percent who answered correctly, 45 percent said it takes one year for the Earth to orbit the sun, 17 percent said one day, 2 percent said one month and 9 percent didn’t know.
The responses indicate that about 55 percent of adult Americans, or some 94 million people, don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun once a year, Miller said.
brandonj60Jul 5, 2010
A lot of Americans aren't well educated in the sciences. I think it's unfair to expect everyone to know this. Workings of the solar system isn't exactly a requirement for daily function for your average blue-collar laborer.
And besides, the article is wrong anyway. The Sun does revolve around the Earth just as much as the Earth revolves around the sun. Gravity isn't partial to one object over another, and motion is relative. Next time you mention being ignorant or misled, might not want to post an article that uses science from the 1700s.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
taikyokukenJul 5, 2010
No. The Sun might revolve around an area of the galaxy, but it certainly does not by any definition revolve around the Earth. It revolves, just not around the Earth. Absolutely, and unequivocally false. You sir have failed the same test mentioned in the article.
gellfexJul 5, 2010
No, he's right in a know it all kind of way. In any binary gravitational system the primary DOES orbit around a center of gravity offset from it's own. It's just that the sun outweighs the earth by so much that the center is only a fraction of the sun's diameter offset from it's center of mass. This is however how planets are detected around stars.
That said, it's a douchy comment, because we all know what the poll meant, and that people who don't know this basic physical fact can't be expected to figure out science public policy issues like vaccination, stem cells, power generation etc.
metalteeth9Jul 5, 2010
If you want to get technical, the Sun and the Earth revolve around their Center of Mass. However, the Earth is so small compared to the Sun that the center of mass of the Sun-Earth system is equivalent to the center of the Sun.
Also, the article may be wrong depending on terminology. If they define a year as exactly 365 days (or even 365.25), it is wrong. If it defines a year as the time it takes the earth to fully revolve around the sun, then it is a year.
/physicist
gellfexJul 5, 2010
Metalteeth, it appears that they had a choice of:year; month; day; don't know.
I see we responded at the same time. I'm no physicist, but I basically said the same thing as you, and the last physics course I passed was in high school over 30 years ago. If our schools actually succeeded at science or history, this country might be very different.
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
I'm in Law School, and honestly, I wouldn't know for sure.
People learn different things. You forget a lot of the basics you learn in early education.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
littledasJul 6, 2010
Props on being the first person I've ever seen in this sort of article that admitted to being one of the so called "ignorant masses." Usually it's just a circle jerk of people talking about how everyone else is so f**king stupid. On the other hand, this is some basic s**t. Don't say "You forget a lot of the basics" as if everyone is like that. It's not everyone. We remember. You forgot.
gellfexJul 6, 2010
visionaryIX: God help your clients if you can't remember whether the sun goes around the earth or not. Or it could simply be another sign there are too many law schools.
taikyokukenJul 7, 2010
I have to comment on this again as Gellfex said that bj is right in a "know it all kind of way". He's not right at all. The Earth may affect the Sun's center of gravity, but how does that mean the Sun then orbits the Earth? With that logic shouldn't the Sun be said to orbit every other planet in the solar system? Let's be clear: the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth.
whitegripesJul 5, 2010
Here's some more idiots.
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/bill-nye-bood-in-texas-for
navspecwarcomJul 6, 2010
The movie "Idiocracy" was right on years ago. Whom are we kidding?
ymegJul 5, 2010
These people better be poll trolls.
libertyprimeJul 5, 2010
Probably are, I just want to know where did they even hold the poll.
therednewtJul 5, 2010
Seriously, they claim all sorts of things about the poll, but they don't provide a reference.
idiggaponyJul 5, 2010
I agree, not providing a reference was lame. Here's the reference: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/72-don’t-know-much-about-history/
They chose people by dialing random phone numbers.
srgordyJul 6, 2010
My ex-gf went to Marist, and I would often go visit her and get high with her and her roommate before the roommate went to work at the polling center.
syntheticbadgerJul 5, 2010
Probably trying to get to the boy's soul
aspork2727Jul 6, 2010
It sounds like you are saying, "boy's hole."
zardayJul 6, 2010
I doubt it. I mean look how many people go to church.
Recent poll shows that 78% of people believe that a dude in white robes in the clouds listens to everything you whisper to him by your bed at night.
jaybolJul 5, 2010
I can't believe they didn't know we declared independence from Mars
marx2kJul 5, 2010
Thank you, Zak McCracken for defeating those alien mindbenders!
fugeesnfunionsJul 5, 2010
OHhhhhhh... hahahahaha is funneey because he make fun of people for not knowing then saying wrong answer himself!
brezzzJul 5, 2010
I never trust polls that ask obvious questions, way too many people answer wrong to mess with them.
storiginalJul 5, 2010
Completely agree. It's easy to be misanthropic, I mean there are a lot of stupid people, but if you look at the wrong answers; China and Japan you see something's wrong here.
misteratozJul 5, 2010
Mexico?
killerfilmJul 6, 2010
Well, Mexico is a not entirely stupid answer, since Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836. So, if you were a really drunk historian from Texas you might say Mexico I guess.
fugeesnfunionsJul 5, 2010
This isn't anything unique with any group of people. I've seen legit polls where the question asked whether the earth rotated around the sun or visa versa and a surprising amount of people got it wrong.
Hell, if you asked enough people whether the earth was flat or round I guarantee you could get a pretty solid number of people saying it's flat.
We are just slightly evolved monkeys btw, some of us more than others.
zb757Jul 5, 2010
"What is man, but at best a monkey shaved?"
- I don't remember
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
the world IS flat
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
read about it, it will change your life!!!
need i say..../s
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
Apes! evolved *apes*! Which granted, have a (relatively) recent common ancestor with monkeys. But still. Monkeys have tails. Apes don't. We're apes.
thealliedhackerJul 6, 2010
And yet I've also had conversations with people who believe crap like that.
See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siCdtu9JQIE
olivestreetJul 6, 2010
Frightening.
mymindgrapesJul 5, 2010
Americans are stupid.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
No. It's "ignorant", not "stupid".
mymindgrapesJul 5, 2010
-12? How unAmerican! You guys should be burying me in greater numbers.
jefftsJul 5, 2010
Another win for our outstanding educational system...
homercles337Jul 5, 2010
Jeff"TS"? Do you know what a TS is? Are you also a teabagger?
jefftsJul 6, 2010
"TS" is my middle and last initial. Stop with the name calling and grow up, child.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Sorry to spam this submission, but I honestly want to ask the people who think that the public education system is a failure,
How do you propose we fix it?
jefftsJul 6, 2010
1. Remove tenure. Becoming a tenured teacher helps to remove the incentives to become better at your job and, if you are horrible at it, makes it difficult to fire. If there are no consequences for your actions, there is no, or less, ambition to succeed.
2. Cut school administrators. There is no reason for the number of administrative positions in most school systems. This money would be better served by going to the teachers to encourage them to improve their skills or to the schools themselves to improve equipment and resources.
3. Pay for performance. If your classroom has a medium or high failure rate on a consistent basis, then chances are, it isn't the students but the inability to teach.
4. Stop teaching students what to think; teach them how to think and teach them the truth. There should be absolutely no ideological bias in the school systems. Students be should be taught ALL of the facts and left to make their own decisions on the subject.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Alright spending my morning giving my rebuttals to these claims. I'm replying here so that there's a greater chance of you seeing this. Again, I'm making it clear that this is my stance on things so I don't necessarily think that my points are the absolute "right" way to think about it. But lets give it a go.
1. Getting rid of tenure would get rid of a major incentive of becoming a teacher. If they were paid more (as addressed in your later points) it would balance out. However, as it stands their wages are too low for their to be a great interest in education careers without the chance of job security in the way of tenure. Sure, this would get rid of those who are looking for the job for those meager financial benefits. However, if we get rid of them, we may be left with a better stock of teachers. However their numbers would be severely diminished. I don't care how good the teacher is, when teaching basic skills that require one on one attention, having one teacher to 60, 70, or more children isn't going to work. But that's probably not something that you thought about, right?
2. I agree that schools are becoming more bureaucratic but cutting administrators wouldn't do nearly enough. I've seen statistics that state that public education can cost as much as 13,000 a year per child. I've got a feeling that those numbers are inflated, but a quick search shows that public school administrators make around 45 grand a year. Even if the cost per child was half what I listed and even if we got rid of a dozen administrators, that would only cover the costs for about 80 students. That's great if you focus on that itself, but if you look at the fact that the average public high school has over 700 students, then it's clear that cutting administrators is not enough to do anything meaningful.
3. Pay for performance, we're already doing that with No Child Left Behind. If the students perform poorly, then schools lose funding. That means cutting programs that may be helping develop more well rounded and intelligent students for the sake of the "core" curriculum that only stresses the knowledge needed for the standardized test but is quickly forgotten after it's not needed. Also, basing the teacher's salary on the performance of the students will put undue stress on both the teachers and the students. The teachers will become more frantic if they have a stock of kids one year that's lower performing because of bad luck and they'll respond by putting more and more intense pressure on children that may just need a more nurturing and more attentive learning environment. This in and of itself would debase the special education system too. No one would want to teach the special needs children because the performance would always be low, and there'll be high competitions to get to the advanced placement groups to guarantee financial security. This would leave the mid ranged students out in the cold and prove to be further incentive against people wanting to become educators. I know I wouldn't want a job if my livelihood depended on a population of people who are generally at their most rebellious, have nearly no attention span and have brains that aren't developed to the point of being able to plan very far ahead (frontal lobe development is still occurring at high school aged children. This is the area in which executive function occurs. This includes things like planning for the future. It's important because most children do well in school so that they can get into a good college. But if they lack the ability to plan as well as adults, then children would fall into certain groups. First would be those who aren't interested because they want to have fun in the moment. Next would be those who are interested because their parents are pushing them. Finally those who are interested because they are generally interested. There's no way to predict year to year what the distribution into each of these groups. So, that amount of variability can greatly change a teacher's performance from year to year and in turn effect their economic stability. I know I'm repeating myself, but I know that when I get into my career, I want to know that my life will be stable.
4. The nature of teach children is to teach them what to think. There's no intrinsic "how" when discussing things like WWII ended in 1945. However, I agree that the quality of the information provided should be as free of ideological bias as possible. However, it's not an issue with school systems in general, but the people running it. For example, the Texas school board voted to de-emphasize Jefferson in history. Because they have a greater influence on textbook publishers, that curriculum is not going to be forced on the rest of the country. Therein lies the problem. It's the people who are the issue. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but going to a more private system wouldn't help. Because, the same type of people would be in charge of the system making the same kind of bad choices.
jefftsJul 7, 2010
1. Although tenure may be an incentive to become a teacher, it's my belief that its negatives far outweigh the positives.
Between tenure and the unions, it can become extremely difficult for a school system to fire a teacher no matter how poor of a job they do. A prime example is NYC where for the past several years, suspended teachers would have to report to what they deemed "rubber rooms". They received full pay but did not work while waiting for the Department of Education or a hearing officer to decide their fate. Teachers were held in these places for weeks, months and I even heard reports of years. I also once saw a chart of the steps that some school systems must take in order to fire a teacher and it was unbelievable. To be honest, I can't think of any other job in which an individual is essentially guaranteed their job outside of the teaching profession. In any other job, an individual would be let go.
Not all individuals are suited to be teachers but the incentive that tenure provides encourages those very same people to become teachers. Once the goal of tenure is reached, they don't have much reason to show ambition or to do their job properly.
As far as pay goes, teachers in the Hudson Valley region of NY can expect a starting salary, on average, around $40-$45K a year. Including Summer, Christmas and Easter breaks alone, they have almost 3 months off plus vacation, sick time and personal days. They also have great retirement and health benefits. I'm not sure where you live but as far as I'm concerned, teachers in this region are paid a nice, livable salary.
2. Again, I don't know where you reside but most, if not all, school administrators in the Hudson Valley are paid 6 figures with several nearing $200k/year. In my school district alone, there is an administrative building where the superintendent and other administrative personnel reside. I couldn't tell you how many administrative personnel there are. The high school has a principal and at least 4 vice-principals along with their secretarial staffs.
3. I wasn't referring to special needs children. I was referring to your standard K-12 classrooms. Obviously, pay shouldn't be determined by grades alone. If a teacher is making an active effort to try to help the students, and to let it be known that they are doing so (e.g. contacting and encouraging parents to participate, meeting with the the principal to explain the situation, etc.), as well as attending classes to further their own education, then there should be additional consideration given.
4. The role of a teacher is to teach students how to think and how to solve problems. For history in particular, they should be taught the unbiased facts but they should be allowed to form their own decisions and judgments on those facts. They should be taught about the good and bad things that Jefferson did and they should, likewise, be taught about the good and bad things Wilson did. There have been biases from both sides of the aisle that I believe have harmed the educations of a great many children. Political correctness, in particular, is a pet peeve of mine. You can't form an honest opinion on a subject if you are not provided with the unvarnished truth.
charlesdkraussJul 5, 2010
40% of Americans don't believe in evolution either. You might as well say 40% of Americans think the earth is flat.
talphinJul 5, 2010
60% percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center.
charlesdkraussJul 5, 2010
"Treaty of Tripoli, Section 11, signed by President John Adams and ratified by a unanimous Senate (339 out of 339): "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....."
talphinJul 5, 2010
Try explaining that to an overwhelming 60% of knuckleheads out there who believe that it was.
charlesdkraussJul 5, 2010
I know right? We're probably doomed.
vroomeryJul 5, 2010
Yeah. Being founded as a Christian Nation and being founded by Christians is a pretty big difference.
Yeahhhh I know they weren't all Christians.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ezflipJul 5, 2010
85% of all statistics are made up 60% of the time.
charlesdkraussJul 5, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
http://www.icr.org/article/poll-majority-americans-dont-believe-evolution/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
That enough? If not, google it.
shawn4168Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
ugen64Jul 5, 2010
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=darwin%27s+finches
charlesdkraussJul 5, 2010
We don't need to "witness primates evolving in to homo sapiens" to know that evolution is correct. Do you know very much about science and the scientific method? If you want to talk about a shallow minded comparison, well, you just made one.
I don't care to put enough effort in to trying to explain to you why/how we know the theory is correct, but if you really care I think you are capable enough to look it up and read it for yourself. I'm pretty certain no matter what evidence I put in front of you, you'll still disagree with the theory, just like every other religious delusional.
Technically if you want modern proof that you can see with your own eyes you can look at dogs, they came from wolves. They were selectively bred, not naturally. Most dogs would not survive in the wild because they don't carry traits for that. They have traits that humans selected and bred in to them, but they ALL came from wolves, we know this for a fact. If it can be done selectively it can be done naturally. You'll probably argue that doesn't really prove that you can create organs or new species. All you have to do is look at this process over millions or billions of years instead of thousands. But you'll still refute that too, so f**k it.
Enjoy being ignorant.
ausjpJul 6, 2010
"last time I checked, it has not been observed nor repeated in a controlled setting."
Lets be honest, shall we, you've never really checked, have you?
Have a look at Podarcis sicula some time. The species underwent rapid (relatively speaking here) evolution since being isolated from its population some 40 years ago.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1207686/pdf/ge14441331.pdf
This details a reproductive isolation barrier contributing to a divergence point resulting in speciation. It details work done by Dobzhansky, and essentially confirms the primary postulate of Darwin's. Drosophila has been studied quite a number of times -- google it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183728
This paper highlights selection (another Darwin postulate confirmed!) through a random mutation of a phage being 'selected' for because it had a high infection rate:
"After 20 cycles of random substitution at sites 12-130 of the initial random polypeptide and selection for infectivity, the selected phage showed a 1.7x10(4)-fold increase in infectivity"
Speciation in Heliconius:
http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4131/1/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf
Morphological/phenotypic changes? Sure:
http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/147/4/995
Oh wait, single celled organisms giving rise to multicellularity? Replicated in a lab, as well:
http://jolly-roger-graphics.com/Boraas%20Evolutionary%20Ecology%201998.pdf
A unicellular organism stayed unicellular for thousands of generations, and then a predation process was applied and the result was multicellularity. The multicellular organisms would have been apparent in earlier generations, but unicellular organisms were more optimally suited to the environment until predation was applied; then multicellularity thrived.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.139.4872&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"We use an evolutionary process to zoom in on gene-regulation networks which lead to cell differentiation. Morphogenesis is not selected for but appears as a side-effect. The evolutionary dynamics shows the hallmarks of evolution on a rugged landscape, including long neutral paths. We show that a combinatorially large set of morphologies occurs in the vicinity of a neutral path which sustains cell differentiation. Thus, an almost linear molecular phylogeny gives rise to mosaic evolution on the morphological level."
"Nobody's ever personally witnessed a line of primates gradually evolve into homo sapiens"
You do realize that we're primates, right? Nevertheless, we don't need to witness every single speciation event (as the cretinists would like us to do) -- not only would it be extremely expensive to run (given that it could potentially take hundreds of thousands of years for the mutation to manifest: the fused telomeres of chromosome 2 that is perhaps the strongest evidence for our ancestry with the apes), but it's a fairly fruitless endeavor. We've demonstrated, conclusively, that the postulates of evolutionary theory are indeed accurate and represent reality. They're tested each and every week, with thousands of papers on evolution being published weekly. Creationists, intelligent designers, "creation scientists", the rest of the non-scientific community with a wild, unsupported hypothesis - they've all done nothing to confirm their hypothesis... It's not even worth being called a hypothesis; a hypothesis requires a testable mechanism to falsify the theory.
You've just provided more weight to the notion that the theists need to stay the hell away from schooling.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Oh, there are two possible outcomes to this thread. Either Shawn never responds to the wall of evidence he incited or he'll come back to claim that he knows all he needs to know to disprove evolution without reading the materials provided to him here or citing a (reputable) source to explain why he believes what he believes.
zardayJul 6, 2010
Evolution is 100000x more fascinating and mind-blowing than anything religion could ever provide.
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
Science is not the be all and end all... It helps answer -some- questions in a way that -some- people can understand... Religion is the same, as well as spirituality. Meh, choose your poison.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ausjpJul 6, 2010
I'd have to ask what questions that _religion_, in particular, can answer any better than secular society?
charlesdkraussJul 6, 2010
Actually it is. Religion is not necessary at ALL for man to survive/thrive.
I'm not on a high horse. I'm interested in what's true and what isn't. Religion is false.
mnementh2230Jul 6, 2010
@CharlesDKrauss - "I'm not on a high horse"
I'm on a horse!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Have to agree with you, though, religion isn't necessary at all.
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
@AusJP - You do realise that the scientific theory of 'how we came to be' takes as much of a leap of faith as the religious side, right? It's not about side-by-side comparison, its about understanding that neither has a definitive answer.
@CharlesDKrauss - Religion, whether you agree with its use or not, has provided structure for our societies for thousands of years. I'm not entirely sure how you can claim it isn't necessary at all when what we have today is built upon the structure's that were put in place by organised religion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 6, 2010
@dlllb
There's no faith involved in examining the large body of available evidence and recognizing the patterns therein. All you are doing is making a poor "faith in science" equivocation.
At the risk of being highly tedious and pedantic, let me just reiterate what I mean: Confidence in careful procedures and collection of evidence is not the same as unevidenced faith in the supernatural.
ausjpJul 6, 2010
dlllb:
Without getting on any form of horse, donkey or mule, there is no "faith" to be taken whatsoever when it comes to naturalistic explanations for naturalistic events and phenomena. I understand that you're probably largely unaware of the literature surrounding the origins of life (I assume you've probably heard of Miller-Urey), but there are a number of theories being posited -- all of which are backed by observations grounded in reality (and therefore evidence). I submit that there is a naturalistic explanation for life (I wouldn't be as bold to explicitly state where/how and under what conditions), which requires 0 faith (but rather a confidence in the body of knowledge we've established over the last 300 years or so)
In contrast, believing in a divine entity that showed himself 13 billion years ago to create the universe, 4.5 billion years ago to create our planet, life 3.5 billion years ago, then sent his son/himself/some guy on His behalf (depending on which cult you subscribe to) to perform some miracles, spread his word, die to relieve us of our sins, then revive himself and disappear into the abyss never to be heard from again (not to mention that his "word" is rife with errors). Although, I think the second coming is coming... soon (real soon!). Even if you don't subscribe to the Abrahamic god in particular -- s**t, that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
Now, you're going to _honestly_ sit there, with a straight face, and tell me _my_ position requires faith? Intellectual dishonesty is in the air.
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
@ApokalypseNow - I'm guessing you took the phrase 'leap of faith' literally. Let me break it down;
Christians have 'God', Muslims have Allah, Hindus have Bhagwan, Sikhs somewhat have Waheguru and Atheists have Darwin.
You see, what you are doing is taking the origins of our universe as fact, letting your mind skip over a few billion years of details, then filling it in at the end with the origins of life; hence why I used the phrase 'leap of faith'.
@AusJP - Your faith, or confidence as you like to call it, has simply shifted into another body of knowledge that wasn't available until a few hundred years ago. Your intellectual arrogance is the reason why you have a difficult time in dealing with people of faith. 'If only you read the books I read then you could be great like me' sort of thing. A fundamental aspect of any organised religion is to discount and discredit all others.
I am not a person of faith and I don't take all scientific theories as fact. It is also interesting to note that no-one took issue with spirituality, which was of equal weight in my initial point.
My final input on the subject: it is all bulls**t that people choose to believe strictly as fact because someone seen to be in a position of 'knowing' tells them so. I have never walked down the street alongside a piece of bacteria nor have I sat on the bus next to Jesus. I just sit on the fence and do other s**t while you guys play your little games and pipe up when something strikes me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnementh2230Jul 6, 2010
"Atheists have Darwin."
Atheists do not worship Darwin. If we did, we would have accepted everything he wrote as dogma. We do not - we have found errors in what he posited, and refined them. However, the vast majority of what he posited has been borne out by evidence as it has become available.
"You see, what you are doing is taking the origins of our universe as fact"
The origins of the universe are immaterial to Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. Our universe could be the cosmic droppings of an extra-dimensional rabbit, and it wouldn't effect Evolutionary Theory in the slightest.
"Your faith, or confidence as you like to call it, has simply shifted into another body of knowledge that wasn't available until a few hundred years ago."
This body of knowledge is built upon a foundation of objective, empirical evidence. Religion is not. Thus why religion has faith, and science has confidence. Are you incapable of differentiating between the two?
"it is all bulls**t that people choose to believe strictly as fact because someone seen to be in a position of 'knowing' tells them so."
It seems to me that you've never done the research into Evolutionary Theory yourself to examine the available evidence, else you couldn't honestly be making this statement.
Please, educate yourself on the relevant subject matter. This is not a matter of faith, but a matter of what is empirically demonstrable. Evolutionary Theory is so. Religion is not. You can be as agnostic as you like, and I applaud you for it, but vocal skepticism without the the curiosity to actually investigate that which you are skeptical of is just being a douche bag.
ausjpJul 6, 2010
"Your faith, or confidence as you like to call it, has simply shifted into another body of knowledge that wasn't available until a few hundred years ago."
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? You're just hand-waving at this point.
"Your intellectual arrogance is the reason why you have a difficult time in dealing with people of faith."
Intellectual arrogance? I'd posit that you (and they) were being anti-intellectual in their fruitless endeavors at explaining truths of the universe. It's not a matter of being arrogant -- it's a matter of _requiring evidence_.
"'If only you read the books I read then you could be great like me' sort of thing."
It has nothing to do with reading books whatsoever. It has to do with being learned in what the f**k you're forming an opinion on. Saying "goddidit" is not helpful, not an answer, and not grounded in reality. There is no evidence for a god. Even if a god exists, there is no evidence he/she/it created life. Why is this incomprehensible? In stark contrast, we've established how nucleotides could have into fruition with evidence, we've established how polynucleotides could have come into fruition with evidence. We'll hopefully someday be able to say, as a categorical fact, that this is how life came to be.
"I am not a person of faith and I don't take all scientific theories as fact. It is also interesting to note that no-one took issue with spirituality, which was of equal weight in my initial point."
Personal spirituality usually doesn't have the metaphysical attachments that organized religion does (i.e. holy book establishing how their particular god is the greatest, created earth, etc.). But, if you want to, then yep, you'd have to demonstrate what _truth_ spirituality (and, again, religion -- as you're still yet to successfully demonstrate anything besides falling back onto caricaturing science as "faith") can bring to the table.
"it is all bulls**t that people choose to believe strictly as fact because someone seen to be in a position of 'knowing' tells them so."
Unfortunately, science doesn't quite work like that and you're welcome to scrutinize every conclusion drawn from the evidence (as well as the methodology used to obtain said evidence). To do that, though, you'd have to educate yourself on the relevant literature instead of sitting in the peanut gallery and making bald, baseless assertions that you can't even justify.
"I have never walked down the street alongside a piece of bacteria nor have I sat on the bus next to Jesus"
Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of rice in China. (You know microbes are everywhere, right?)
Religion may give you _an answer_ for certain questions, but they're certainly yet to establish one iota of evidence supporting their answers. Bottom line: you're yet to demonstrate that religion (or spirituality) can provide any truth in the known universe that secular society (including scientific inquiry) cannot. The rest of your post is anti-intellectual and misinformed f**kwittery.
catchthemiceJul 6, 2010
18% of Americans don't know that the earth revolves around the sun. That is probably one of the saddest statistics I know (according to a Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx).
testiculeseJul 7, 2010
That's horrifying.
trashyamericanJul 5, 2010
why is this news? we already knew americans weren't bright.
wishninjaJul 5, 2010
I would like to see similar historical questions asked in other countries and see the results. People like to pick on the worlds only superpower but I have traveled around a bit and find uneducated people and just plain stupid people everywhere.
olivestreetJul 6, 2010
Uneducated in the formal sense, perhaps, but I bet most people who haven't allowed religion to rule their lives in ANY part of the world display much more common sense than the fat-ass Wal-Mart shopping dolts here in the US.
dreadpirateJul 6, 2010
As you demonstrate on a daily basis here on digg, TA...
brakes4turtlesJul 5, 2010
If it makes you guys feel better (or worse) I went to a private school and about half my European History class didn't know who were the belligerents in World War II.
digg2point0Jul 5, 2010
But that's unpossible!
Private schools are always superior to public schools since you have to pay money!
ashura001Jul 5, 2010
...And then the UN unNazied the world...
haikufuJul 5, 2010
Maybe it's just because they didn't know what the word "belligerents" means.
dteleJul 6, 2010
Can anyone guess who the non-european belligerent was?
haikufuJul 6, 2010
Mexico.
pintomp3Jul 6, 2010
I thought public schools were bad until I went to a private school. The teaching there was actually worse. The only reason those kids are there is so they don't have to mix with the general public. A few of them were there because they had gotten kicked out of public school but daddy had enough money to pay for the private school.
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal....
daleetmehJul 11, 2010
The Irish duh, they're obviously the most belligerent people i can think of.
sirmasterboyJul 5, 2010
Were all of the people questioned even originally from the US? If they have moved here from another country I wouldn't assume they know the answer.
Would you know the answer about what happened about 200 years ago in France if say you moved there and have been living there for a few years?
edwarddouglasJul 5, 2010
Exactly. More immigrants move into the US than all other countries combined. The majority of them would probably not know this.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The illegals wouldn't know it but all the naturalized immigrants would know it.
hipmanJul 5, 2010
Anyone in the world can tell you who the US President is.French President?.Not so much.
marx2kJul 5, 2010
Really? Can we see your source of the scientific polling you've conducted to make that statement?
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Indubitably.
louiscipher777Jul 5, 2010
any immigrant with any intention of becoming a citizen would know this....
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
I thought a few countries went about nationalising its (legal) immigrants. I read that here in England immigrants are given some sort of declaration and have seen classes to help them fit in to our society.
yancyfryjrJul 5, 2010
Uh, the French Revolution?
But yes, I agree.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Com'on... Maybe not every immigrant knows, but anyone with a good education whether that be in the US or outside has some background knowledge, certainly if you migrate towards a country.
Don't blame foreigners of whatever goes wrong in the US.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
You have to know this to get naturalized. That is the point of naturalization, to learn the basic civics of the culture you are becoming a part of.
waitasecJul 5, 2010
You know cake was much more nutritious then bread. Stupid peasants.
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
I have found, surprisingly, that most of my U.K. friends and peers know American history better than many of my acquaintances born and raised here in the U.S.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
isn't that about the same as george bush's approval rating?
well there you go.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I don't know what GW's approval rating but it IS about the Obama current approval rating. But I don't see what that has to do with anything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
13point1Jul 5, 2010
His approval rating has been hovering at a 50/50 split for some time now. 50/50 is not the same as 26/74. This math lesson is now over.
hydesJul 5, 2010
26% is just a little over half of Obama's approval rating. he was referring to GW's approval rating when he left office which i think was a little below 26%
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Herr derr.
sam0007Jul 5, 2010
God, Guns and Guts! Who needs education!
bobh1234Jul 5, 2010
I assume you're talking about the rednecks in certain states. Well, I'd say its unlikely they are the ones that don't know. Look towards the "urban" population for the discrepancy in this poll.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
RIGHT! Because education statistics are so impressive in rural areas of states in the midwest and south. Those areas alone are enough to bring the correct response percentage down about 40 points.
Ever seen a tea party rally and the signs they hold?
Because I have. And some of the s**t they believe is WAY worse than not knowing who we fought against for our independence.
tarantulusJul 5, 2010
I found this /s, I though maybe you'd dropped it...
mahadigaJul 5, 2010
Education system should ideally create employers and not employees.
therednewtJul 5, 2010
Not everyone can be the boss.
darkphenoxJul 5, 2010
This fact destroys so many dreams.
the4thaggieJul 6, 2010
^Like a Boss
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
...so not everyone needs education, is what he's saying. "Somebody has to clean the toilets & make the french fries" is the quote I often reference.
solkreJul 5, 2010
K-12 makes employees, College 1-4 makes better employees, College 5+ makes employers.
Actually people who drop out of College to follow a dream seem to make kick-ass employers!
muffinmonkJul 5, 2010
Bill Gates is the most well known example.
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
Who the f**k is Bill Gates?
the4thaggieJul 6, 2010
Don't forget about Sam Walton (Walmart). That redneck started the whole Walmart culture.
neutron7Jul 5, 2010
The education system is performing its function. that is to create consumers who believe advertising.
lclemmerJul 6, 2010
Or "good workers", as was the original intention of the public education system. I suppose you could say (correctly, IMO) that good workers make enough wages to be good consumers.
njdoo7Jul 5, 2010
If this poll is even true/real...shows how well public "education" works
13point1Jul 5, 2010
...when Republicans systematically cripple it by attacking teachers and slashing funding. If you break a person's leg, he can't walk and you can't criticize him for it.
njdoo7Jul 5, 2010
Not sure what point you are trying to get across here. This is not a partisan issue. It is a philosophical issue. People thing government run education is the solution...my point was that it doesn't
13point1Jul 6, 2010
You think that education is "indoctrination." Your argument is invalid.
njdoo7Jul 6, 2010
public education is indoctrination..to say otherwise is refusing to live in reality
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
The whole funding argument with regards to education is a great big sack of rotten, steaming s**t (at least here in the UK). You know what the previous government did here with all their funding? They had a nationwide campaign to knock down pre-existing schools known for the 'naughty' children, built new ones with all the latest technology (the latest computers, electronic registration, autoflushing loo's with soothing background music, etc), put the 'naughty' kids back into those at a staggering cost of millions, if not billions of pounds and what do ya know, the problem didn't go away.
The -only- thing that was semi-decent that our previous government did here with regards to educational funding was to give each child from a 'poor background' (define however you wish) a laptop with a years free internet.... And i've heard first hand how some parents went and sold them....
13point1Jul 6, 2010
No, to say otherwise is to say "no, thanks" to whatever Sean Hannity is offering today. You're a ignorant nutjob and probably a creationist.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
Sorry to spam this submission, but I honestly want to ask the people who think that the public education system is a failure,
How do you propose we fix it?
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
Variation... As in, offer a variety of theories on every subject, not one definitive answer or solution.
njdoo7Jul 6, 2010
This video does a good job of explaining my point of view:
http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/7/6_R4ZOzr-f4
njdoo7Jul 6, 2010
I also agree with dlllb. Our educational institutions do not teach children how to think for themselves, but what to think. This is not education, it is indoctrination. They have removed subjects such as economics, philosophy, and entrepreneurial skills from being taught in state education. The solution lies in the free-market where the desire to compete will drive the creativity and initiative to constantly improve education. It would also make education more efficient and less costly.
13point1Jul 6, 2010
WTF, you dolts? "Let the children decide"? Could there be a more transparent attempt to sneak in anti-scientific garbage that everyone else knows isn't true? It would be mentally crippling to teach that either creationism or evolution could be true because they are both equally valid. To teach that the kids get to choose whether the Earth is flat or round. You f**king idiots just want to cripple the educational system even more because you lose when the population is truly educated!
njdoo7Jul 6, 2010
@13point1
You only make up things we didn't say and attack us. Our views are both formed by logic and evidence, which is much more than we can say for yours.
13point1Jul 7, 2010
Oh, stop lying, you disgusting excuse for a human being. Nobody believes your garbage for a second.
intenseboredomJul 6, 2010
I'm replying here because I put a lot of work into this and I want to increase the chance of you actually seeing this. I gritted my teeth and got through the video and I have a two and a half page response to that video. But before I paste it here. I'll ask that whatever response you give me to this (if any at all) be something other than an incredibly biased video based mostly on appeals to emotion, logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence. So here we go with a wall of text.
Point one that he posited is that there was an amazing increase in literacy and IQ after we moved out of the religious school system into a private one. I suggest that it's more because the religious schools were only open to those of higher social status. Any increase in the availability of education would drastically raise things like literacy and IQ. I mean if you made college free, I'm sure IQ would skyrocket again for a short period of time. But eventually we would reach another asymptotic level of learning. There's only so much that we can improve as a society based on basic education.
Uhg... "breeding the lovely little kill robots." During any time of conflict a government is going to expose the masses to propaganda. They do it because it works. Not only on children but on full grown, supposedly intelligent adults. It's because it plays on fear and fear makes us all stupid. Not that this makes it okay in anyway. But propaganda is in no one just the responsibility of the school system. I don't think I'm going to be able to watch this for much longer because this guy is obviously a paranoid libertarian nutjob. Anyone running the education system would try to indoctrinate the children they teach. Wither the government to say that this nation is awesome or the corporation running the school to say that their product is awesome. It's the parent's role to step in a guide the children's development. School should only provide the tools necessary to succeed in life.
Another point that makes me think that this guy is an idiot. He criticizes modern art as contributing to the first world war. That avant garde and abstract art somehow represents a sense of irrationality because he lacks the ability to understand it. So he criticizes it as to change the situation from being he-doesn't-understand-so-he-needs-to-get-more-education to one that more it's-weird-so-lets-see-how-it's-hurting-society-so-I-don't-have-to-make-an-attempt-to-understand-it. The guy is a closed minded nut.
His statistics broken down:
The literacy stats, all skewed because they're from a very selective population. Pauper homes and textile factories are in no way representative of the public at general.
The British statistics don't line up either. 80% of children received an education while only 2-3% were found to be no properly education. That number should be closer to 20% if we were to attribute the level of education to the contribution of the private schools. What was probably going on is that they had a very lax definition of properly educated that related to common sense type skills and those who failed were probably those with mental illnesses.
The 4 vs 8 month argument is moot now because we have our children go to school around 9 months a year with certain systems actually going year round. The reason for the 4 month school year was probably because a good portion of children were on farms and their parents needed the help. We can still see relics of that system in our summer and spring breaks that, until pretty recently, were set aside, not to give breaks to our children, but to allow them to help their parents tend to the farm.
The Lancaster system he talked about was not a free market system. It was a token economy system that was very loosely structured but worked because it constantly put immediate incentives on positive behaviors. We can see this kind of enthusiasm and performance in public schools based on stickers if the conditions are right. All that is necessary is the time and effort necessary to set up the system and to get the children to buy into (accept and desire) whatever token is to be used as currency. However, because of efforts on both sides to strip down the education system to observable facts (standardized test scores), schools have neither the funding nor time to implement the system anymore. I mean, I remember having the jar with marbles in my class in 4th grade and it worked fine for me. But beyond the anecdotal evidence, there is tons and tons of research on behavior modification that can explain the techniques. It's up to the parents and, to a lesser extent, the schools to be able to implement them and do it in a way that's purely for education.
Though I do oppose corporal punishment. His use of this in his argument is purely to play on emotions. Basically he's hoping for a "hey, I don't like people hitting children, so I must like this system" type of response. The use of corporal punishment in and of itself plays no bearing on the quality of the education provided. A school can have a stellar academic record and still hit the kids attending. He does this a plethora of times throughout the video. So, if you don't pay attention and guard yourself against it, you'll find yourself accepting his irrational points as fact because you feel like you SHOULD accept it. Re-watch the video and keep that in mind. You'll find that when you tease out this plays to your emotion, he really stops making sense very quickly.
He talks about the basic math literacy rates in DC. It's a notoriously poor area so again the stats are skewed toward the lower end. Also, he's relating this point back to the stats about education levels in the past from certain areas that are sure to be the best that he could find. However, the standards have vastly changed since then. It's like comparing the most cutting edge computer in the 1980s to a crappy one today. If you purposely choose a bad example from the present and the best example from the past then judge both based on their relative standings to the rest of what existed, then the old computer is relatively better than the new one. However, if you compared one to one, then new one would blow the old one, not only out of the water, but out of the friggin atmosphere.
Again, he makes these leaps that are based in no logic. Just because schools in the past cost 40 dollars doesn't mean that they'll be affordable now. The standards are much, much higher now. So they'll need teachers with far more training which in and of itself would raise tuition. A proper venue is needed and the way property taxes and utilities are structured now it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than the shed in the field these kids went to. I could go on and on, but this is already a wall of text. I'll just say, for this part, that the conditions now are nowhere like they were back in the 1800s.
He talks about how an article states that the education system was set up because people felt threatened by the Lancaster system. However, he didn't mention who wrote the article or the source. It could have been from their version of Glenn Beck. As far as I could tell, it wasn't from a government source. So, it could just be from some paranoid nut that saw this system indoctrinating children from the god fearing systems of letting learn through working their asses off.
Haha, never mind, I found the source. It was an article written by a libertarian source. That source was already skewed towards an anti-government stance to begin with so it's not entirely credible. The fact that he didn't mention it in his video says to me that he realizes this too.
One thing I do agree with him about is that the parent's need to take a more active role in their children's lives. But he sensationalizes it too much to gain emotional support for his points.
He says public schools causes our children to be raised by the state and it's harder for us to break from the state after that. But look around. The anti-war protests of the 70's, the tea parties protests of today and the protests my college campus had pretty much every week. The vast majority of these people had to have been educated in the public school system. There is dissent from government influence everywhere. But only the most vocal are seen. But it's the nature of things that the MOST vocal are in the minority. Just because we don't see people disagree with the actions of the government, doesn't mean they don't oppose them. Just because they don't picket in the street, doesn't mean that they don't vote against policies they don't agree with. So, that argument of his is also moot.
His final argument that the free market is the reason why we have many of our technological advances is faulty too. Because many (I can't claim most because I'm not sure of the ratio) of the things he mentioned, technology for weaponry and derived from weaponry (in the way of computer technology) can be drawn back to technologies developed by the private sector ONLY BECAUSE the government contracted them to develop it in the first place.
njdoo7Jul 6, 2010
Well to start, I think you are missing the broad argument he is putting forth. Additionally, a lot of things you are picking out don't necessarily relate to educaion so I do not want to get into them now.
True libertarians believe that violence is immoral. Any state solution must be rooted in violence to fund it and get people to conform. State solutions are also historically much less efficient than private ones. This is fundamental for understanding libertarian philosophy.
"During any time of conflict a government is going to expose the masses to propaganda..It's because it plays on fear and fear makes us all stupid...But propaganda is in no one just the responsibility of the school system."
The point here is that public education is free and is all that is affordable to most people. Public education is also forced on children, unless their parents have the time and resources to home-school them or send them to a private institution. The indoctrination of any being is evil and leads to non-intelligent behavior and thought processes. It is especially evil when this indoctrination is forced on children. This is undoubtedly a failure of public education, arguably the biggest/worst one. The fact that the government also does it in oher areas, does not make it acceptable that children are subjected to it 6+ hours a day for over a decade.
"That number should be closer to 20% if we were to attribute the level of education to the contribution of the private schools."
Maybe some children received an education outside private schools?
"The Lancaster system he talked about was not a free market system."
He is referring to it as a free-market alternative to the standard education model. Yes there are forms of incentives that could offer some comparable results in the current public education model. However, I have yet to hear of one that teaches negotiation skills, budgeting skills, etc. The point is not that this was the best or that some forms of this model don't exist today; it;s that the free-market is much more likely to result in increased creativity and efficiency of the system.
"The use of corporal punishment in and of itself plays no bearing on the quality of the education provided. A school can have a stellar academic record and still hit the kids attending. He does this a plethora of times throughout the video. "
This may be true, but it breeds children to accept violence or force as a solution to conflict. We should not be indoctrinating children to accept agression as valid conflict resolution, even if it works.
"It's a notoriously poor area so again the stats are skewed toward the lower end."
This is just more proof that our public system is a failure, even after 100+ years of refinements and increased funding.
"Just because schools in the past cost 40 dollars doesn't mean that they'll be affordable now. The standards are much, much higher now. "
This is true. In 1999 the average cost per student was probably somewhere in the ballpark of $6000-8000 for an average public school. Do the increased standards or modified conditions account for a 15000% or higher increase in cost? (15000% was using 6000)
It is pretty obvious to me that the education system has failed a lot of people. It has resulted in the indoctrination of millions. You seem to agree with me at some level on both counts. I believe alternative solutions should be explored. Solutions that do not advocate violence, as any state solution does. Ones that are not essentailly monopolized by the state. Ones that allow for more parental control and involvement. Ones that teach our children philosophy, economics, etc. Kids today do not even learn how to budget unless taking specialized classes. The system is designed to breed nationalists whom are dependent on the government. It does not come close to teaching children to be self-sufficient, how interact with others in the real world, or logic.
Another libertarian perspective on education, this one may suit you better:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/gatto4.1.1.html
State run educatiion and state compliant media do extraordinary harm to children's ideologies and though processes.
njdoo7Jul 7, 2010
By interact with others in the real world.. i really mean interacting with socieyt...such as business interactions, how to solve societal problems (state solutions only reinforce the use of force), and other things of this nature.
hotleperJul 5, 2010
In the beginning the settlers all used to speak chinese, and then they declared independence.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
This is the fouth time that this story (different news agencies) has reached the front-page.
tarantulusJul 5, 2010
as well it should...
catalysisJul 5, 2010
It's supposed to enrage your patriotic sensibilities. Like those stupid stories about some kid somewhere having to remove his flag pin. It's supposed to make you want to grab your shotgun and a can of chewing tobacco, do a line of meth and rant about how "they" are taking away "your" country.
bobh1234Jul 5, 2010
And their votes count the same as mine. Ugh.
theinformerJul 5, 2010
That explains our Federal Government.
digg2point0Jul 5, 2010
The correct answer is: Everyone.
AMERICA, f**k YEAH!
carlososJul 5, 2010
Except the middle east...
digg2point0Jul 5, 2010
*Israel
Clearly we don't give a s**t about any of those middle eastern countries... except Israel, who we pay out the ass to.
kanockJul 5, 2010
Except crude oil.
onlydlbJul 6, 2010
COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERF**KING DAY, YEAH!!
jman5Jul 5, 2010
Why is this story being spammed on digg so hard? I've seen it 3 or 4 times on the front page and there is even one on the previous page.
rmxzJul 5, 2010
Perhaps digg voters really like to feel smarter than 25% of the people?
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Duh. There are a lot of US haters on digg. They love this type of story.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I submitted it because I thought it was interesting. I love the USA, but I've also seen Jay-walking.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
/s
If by 'a lot of US haters on digg' you mean that there are people on here who realize the U.S. is on a slippery slope and wants to bring that to other people's attention before it's too late, I'd say you're right.
If you mean 'they love this type of story' because it shows how dumb many Americans are, I'd say you're also right.
Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between silently consenting to the bulls**t in this nation or speaking out against it. Just because you carry the flag around and wave it once in a while sure as f**k doesn't make you a patriot.
A patriot is informed, intelligent and cares about the future of his country. And when he realizes that a huge percentage of Americans are dumb as a box of rocks, he wants to make sure that other people know so maybe we can start to fix it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Wow. I never thought I'd see Algae call ME a patriot.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
because its hilarious..... whats even more hilarious is that you know damn near half of them support the tea baggers
brandonj60Jul 5, 2010
What's more hilarious is that you're ignorant enough to think that's true.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
got any proof that its false?
theinformerJul 5, 2010
What's even funnier is that you must go through life making up statistics with no hard data to support any position you have.
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
wow... didnt know you followed my every move... listened to all that i say.... plus, having no proof doesnt mean something is false.... PLUS since when did everything said on the internet have to be 100% factual....seems people cant poke fun without someone with a 2 foot rod up his ass butting in and showing us the stuff he learned on wikipedia just 5 minutes ago.....
oh... and you still have no data of your own to prove im false......
cersadJul 5, 2010
To all of those who are lamenting that the wrong answers included France, Spain, and Mexico: you do realize that, although the US never declared independence from these nations, that the US still acquired territories formerly "owned" by each of these countries, right? Texas and some of the American Southwest from Mexico (which itself came from Spain); Florida also from Spain, and a good chunk of the Mississippi River Basin from the French. It's a wrong answer but not an unreasonable (or uninformed) one that could simply arise from misunderstanding the question.
Not that big of a deal. Besides, they were probably drunk/high/messing around.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
angosturaJul 5, 2010
As a Brit, even *I* know that New York was originally New Amsterdam (hence Harlem etc.).
kibblesnbittsJul 5, 2010
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam / Why they changed it, I can't say / people liked it better that way.
vinng86Jul 5, 2010
Is a sample size of 1,004 really representative of the entire population of 300 mil+?
harabeckJul 5, 2010
You'd be surprised how few you need. Take a statistics course if you ever get the chance.
kb9vgrJul 5, 2010
I had a friend who was a statistician he said at any sample size the numbers don't lie but what they say is up for interpretation
helicockterJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
It usually has more to do with the sampling process than the quantity sampled.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Now we know how Bush and then Obama were able to get elected.
solkreJul 5, 2010
s**tty voting methods and wanting to punish the Republicans for screwing up 8 years?
leif777Jul 5, 2010
I donno... that number seems about right.
slvrbullet87Jul 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
312139Jul 5, 2010
Nationalism or patriotism mean nothing if you don't know your history.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Well, isn't it 24% that believe that Obama is not an American citizen and that Jesus will return in their lifetime?
kb9vgrJul 5, 2010
there may be 24% of each but i would hope that some of each are independent of each other
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Actually, it's the exact number who thought Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Poll_26_think_Obama_deserves_Nobel.html
ramtanionJul 5, 2010
Why digg him down if it's true?
krieggerJul 5, 2010
Could be because "the exact number" is actually not exact by 2%, heh...
matt11952Jul 5, 2010
I'm pretty sure that was a poll of just republicans. But either way, it's scary.
g8kprJul 6, 2010
I actually got into an argument online with some 15 year old American Citizen who claimed she was from the UK. She was adament that Obama was not American born. I said proove it. she said "he slipped up, and said it one time."
WOW.. old the phone!
She eventually "didn't want to argue" because "I wouldn't change my mind". Yea, it's hard to disproove bulls**t views. She even claimed that Obama was doing a "terrible job" and "McCain and Palin" would have been a better pair.
Palin...
Palin!!!!
WTF!!!!
Ok, I'm not American, and in Canada, we have our fair share of f**ked up politicians, we even had a pentecostal minster who felt that dinosaurs and people lived together 5,000 years ago. But still. PALIN!!!!???
laser314Jul 6, 2010
Your country is forgiven because it gave us The Red Green Show.
allisonv12Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
adc86Jul 5, 2010
America has a vast number of problems, and most of them relate in some way to the stamping out of liberty by some oppressive group.
That said, the US provides some of best opportunities in the world, with the greatest net amount of liberty. That makes it great. To celebrate our independence and liberty does not need to imply that America is a perfect (or even, theoretically, 'good') country.
allisonv12Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
adc86Jul 5, 2010
The only time I agree with pessimism is when it coincides with realism. In this case, you're very right-- many people would rather get drunk than worry about the political problems facing them.
...But isn't that kinda awesome, in a way? Throughout history, a vast majority of the populous couldn't afford to eat, much less mindlessly drink themselves stupid whenever they might want. I see nothing wrong with celebrating what liberty we have, even in the face of the other problems we're facing.
idiggaponyJul 5, 2010
They polled people by dialing random phone numbers. So they probably reached a lot of people who aren't actually Americans, or are Americans but didn't go to school in America.
Also, there's no column for "declined to answer." It's quite possible that people who answered "f**k you, stop calling me" were coded as "unsure."
I suppose the situation is probably very bad, but it's probably not as bad as these numbers make it out to be.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sulthernaoJul 5, 2010
There is a decline to answer. It got 20%. Only 6% got it wrong. I'm guessing the vast majority of both were a "you're annoying me" answer. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
idiggaponyJul 5, 2010
No, there's no "decline to answer" option. 20% said "unsure," and those are being included in the 26% who supposedly don't know the answer. I agree with you that many of the supposedly wrong answers were probably people who just didn't feel like answering.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US100617/July%204th_summer%20vacation/Country_From_Which_US_Declared_Independence.htm
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Actually they didn't use a random sampling. They selected phone numbers based on area codes to get their sample and then randomly selected some cell phone numbers. Having said that, depending on their methods, it may have been more accurate to do a random sampling.
Americans that didn't go to school in the America probably scored higher than those that did go to school in America. For example, all nationalized immigrants have to know this to get their citizenship.
I don't know how the 'f**k off!" answers were coded but usually that gets the sample thrown out of a survey.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
"For example, all nationalized immigrants have to know this to get their citizenship."
I was going to say that, in my experience, some recent immigrants are more well-versed in history than some people who are third and fourth generation.
idiggaponyJul 5, 2010
Yes, I have a good friend who became a nationalized citizen, and he had to learn all sorts of things about American history and government. Not just obvious factoids like this, but, for example, how many members of congress there are currently. Most Americans couldn't tell you that. I would think that naturalized citizens would be the subgroup who would score the highest on this test.
But I meant that the polled sample probably included some nonresident aliens who happened to pick up the phone, or American residents who weren't American citizens.
skidellsJul 5, 2010
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
ahahah!)))
lolComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
i thoroughly enjoy your +0/-9 rating..... dont see that too often..... thats what you get
dash1986Jul 5, 2010
How many times must a story be buried before it goes away? These kinds of polls are not exactly scientific anyway.
Even if it is true, this isn't a failure on the part of schools. Every American hears this fact in school, on TV, in movies, etc all the time. People who answered this question incorrectly are just blissfully ignorant. Every nation has it's idiots.
summerofgeorgeJul 5, 2010
yes but these people also get to vote
consider yourselves f**ked
bermygoonJul 5, 2010
Not necessarily most of these people don't vote, some of the people polled could be children, convicts, mentally ill or blacks.
summerofgeorgeJul 6, 2010
i really can't tell if you're joking or not
windsortenorJul 5, 2010
ummm.....it's? Which stands for it is. So, how about using its. Some people have knowledge in different areas I guess.
rawclyceJul 5, 2010
its*
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
What bulls**t.
This country is in the shape it's in because people like you who make excuses for the throngs of idiots who don't know basic history or basic knowledge.
Time to hold ourselves to higher standards.
When you make it OK to be a f**king uneducated idiot in America, you've opened the door to the end of days in terms of being the 'greatest nation in the world.'
Remember when we were that country?
Yeah. We're not anymore.
And much of it has to do with the huge amount of uninformed, blissfully ignorant Americans out there you're defending.
If someone doesn't know basic knowledge like that about their country, LAUGH IN THEIR FACES. Quit making excuses for ignorance. You're paving the way to the most idiotic, mediocre nation in the history of the world. Period.
Because it's a really f**king slippery slope.
dash1986Jul 6, 2010
I agree with your point, more or less, but you'll be more effective if don't use vulgarities. You come off as crass, ill informed, and ironically, uneducated.
Laughing in the faces of the ignorant will do nothing to educate them. A positive thing about this poll, whether accurate or not, is that it should serve to get Americans thinking. As I went through the public school system I watched as the standards were lowered to spare the egos of those who simply refused to learn. This method of "fixing" the problem has failed, like anyone with half a mind knew back in the day.
Also, it does no good to blame me, or people like me, for the idiots out there. Get a hold of yourself, man. If you know how to "fix America," then get off Digg and get out there and do something.
g8kprJul 6, 2010
The U.S. just has 'more" of these idiots due to having a higher population then many countries.
As a comparison, most of Japan feels that they did nothing wrong in World War II, many even think that they won.
Go figure.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
actually i think this is near a question on the immigration exam
skyyoJul 5, 2010
I though we declared independence from George Bush
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Is there anything more mindless and lame than the typical Bush hater?
I think not.
adc86Jul 5, 2010
The typical Bush lover? Hehe...
Probably the typical Obamabot, too.
Ahh, the search for a king.
skyyoJul 6, 2010
I vote for bush the second time...
I was making a not so obvious joke.
supradaveJul 5, 2010
All you people blaming the schools and the teachers, ask anyone over 40 if they know the correct answer. It wasn't until the Glorious Reagan Revolution that our society decided to vilify education as being elitist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Uh huh . . . it can all be traced back to that great GOP campaign for national illiteracy.
Where do you leftist kooks come up with this stupid s**t, anyways?
supradaveJul 5, 2010
You said it.
The facts speak for themselves that Sarah Palin is treated like the second coming of Christ.
supradaveJul 5, 2010
Armageddon? 2012? Stupid s**t?
Seriously?
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
lol, so it's Reagan's fault?
supradaveJul 5, 2010
Did I say it was Reagan's fault? I said "our society decided to vilify education as being elitist." Can't you read? You're probably younger than 40.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fugeesnfunionsJul 5, 2010
Hell yeah man! But it's not even close to being as f**ked up as when Bush used secret military technology to conjure up hurricane Katrina. f**kin dick..
And these sheeple just keep on believing otherwise.. WAKE UP!
topcat5Jul 5, 2010
Interesting this statistic, is about the same as the percentage that support Sarah Palin for President.
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Awesome, another unoriginal and unfunny Palin hater post.
chijim70Jul 24, 2010
Awww... you're right we should stop making fun of the disabled.
adc86Jul 5, 2010
And, as was pointed out earlier, the number who think Obama deserved a Nobel... Correlation! I think we can deduce... exactly nothing from any of it.
rantipoleJul 5, 2010
Nobody. Now, "From whom did U.S. declare independence?" -- that's a different story.
bdbrJul 5, 2010
The specific question: "On July 4th we celebrate Independence Day. From which country did the United States win its independence?"
tehjaiJul 6, 2010
Howard the Duck?!?
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
This doesn't surprise me at all. There is a large group of people who are HEAVILY invested in making sure Americans don't know or understand history. These are the same people who tell us that the Civil War was fought because of taxes and not slavery, that FDR destroyed the country, Reagan NEVER raised taxes and so on and so on.
And they take control of school boards to make sure that is what is taught. And we sit and allow it to happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
Right, it's the conservatives to blame for the failures of public education! It's the conservatives running the NEA, it's the conservatives ruling the DOE, it's the conservatives who flood the ranks of the school boards.
Just keep telling yourself that, moonbeam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
So, the Texas school board altering history in their textbooks was actually done by a union? Someone tell Rick Perry!!!
Just look at how education has fallen since the Moral Majority/Falwell groups stated their intention to take over schools at the grass roots level in 1978. Then again, you probably won't, since you obviously don't know history and get your news from Fox.
But hey, Keep lovin' Palin!
fugeesnfunionsJul 5, 2010
Dude... EXACTLY!! There's OBVIOUSLY a conspiracy going around that wants people to believe we declared independence from China. I still remember when that guy came into my junior high and made us watch that movie about China's oppression and our fight for freedom..
kantenJul 5, 2010
So what if we don't know about Britain, they're allied with those Germans who bombed us as Pearl Harbor.
g8kprJul 6, 2010
I pray that you're being sarcastic.
kantenJul 6, 2010
Should it have been more obvious? I'm not a fan of putting </s> at the end, ruins the subtlety.
g8kprJul 6, 2010
There should be a poll to see how many americans think that Britain allied with Germany and bombed Pearl Harbour. I`m sure it`d be 26% =)
azathothhJul 5, 2010
pagan, commies and terrorists?
hunterclarkeJul 5, 2010
Way to go America, do us proud
louiscipher777Jul 5, 2010
you should probably compare that percentage against the number who don't believe in evolution or who think Obama is the antichrist.... bet there is a corrolation there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zerocubedJul 5, 2010
If it had been an internet poll, I would have said that the majority were just trolls wanting to f**k up the results.
But a call in poll....now that's just sad.
tigerstar337Jul 5, 2010
The people who control the USA like dumb people:
George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
People rally behind those like Sarah Palin because it makes them feel better about themselves.
"Well, she's really dumb and uninformed and that makes me feel better about being really dumb and uninformed."
Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid. But there are a lot of stupid people out there. So when they hear an educated person talk to them, they feel like they're being talked 'down to' because they don't know those 'big 3-syllable words.'
So they rally behind Joe Six Pack. That guy was as dumb as a f**king rock and that meant a lot of Americans could relate to him. And Sarah Palin. And guys who brag about driving a broken down pickup truck, even though he's a millionaire.
Stupidity loves stupidity. Ignorant people resent educated people. That's why having an education is considered 'elitist' by the right. They want their leaders to be dumb as them and speak with a southern accent. That's all it takes for most republicans to cast a vote for someone.
It's the most obvious divide in this nation that exists right now but the right will never acknowledge it because if they do, they have to accept the fact that educated people really DO know more than uneducated people.
fugeesnfunionsJul 5, 2010
That's the dumbest f**king video. There is absolutely NO benefit to the majority of people being dumb. I mean the whole premise is so f**king stupid and out of touch with reality I don't get how people like you are still citing it. There are more college graduates, and a bigger reason to get a college education right now then ANY OTHER TIME IN THE WORLDS HISTORY. These major corporations (that really do run certain things) are CONSTANTLY upping their hiring standards; places that you could have been hired with only a decent amount of experience are now DEMANDING 4 year degrees. If they want people to be dumb they're doing a pretty s**tty job because the average IQ of the general person is exponentially higher than ANY OTHER TIME IN THE WORLDS HISTORY.
As far as a working class population to empty garbage's and bag our groceries, those people CHOOSE THAT LIFESTYLE. Not everyone wants a high stress, demanding job. The fact is, even those people have a higher IQ now then ever before because of education becoming more and more available as time goes on.
crudeJul 5, 2010
I'm honestly surprised the percentage isn't higher.
rectagonJul 5, 2010
Better question. Why did the US declare independence? Answer: 1. They were spoiled brats. 2. The ruling elite of the colonies wanted even more power. 3. They didn't want to end up like Canada... and have independence without killing people... that wouldn't be sporting. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
danj484Jul 5, 2010
Continuing to grovel to the crown 120 years later is hardly "independence."
jessie1024Jul 6, 2010
actually, Canada DID gain it's independence from the UK through war. It wasn't officially it's own country until after WWI when it proved it can handle it's own international affairs.
What you celebrate on Canada day is the day Canada gained it's right to amend it's constitution by becoming a Dominion of the UK (ie. still under UK rule)
In 1931 Canada signed the Statue of Westminster which has often been called Canada's "declaration of independence."
"When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy"
-quote from Constitutional scholar Andrew Heard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Canada_and_Confederation
http://www1.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution/constitution15_e.html