Is America a nation at risk?
 

Is America a nation at risk?

In 1983, in its landmark report A Nation at Risk, the National Commission on Excellence in Education warned:

"Many 17-year-olds do not possess the 'higher-order' intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps."

“The religious believer assigns dignity to whatever his religion holds sacred—a set of moral laws, a way of life, or particular objects of worship. He grows angry when the dignity of what he holds sacred is violated.” Quote from The End of History and the Last Man.

To what does the non believer assign dignity? If the non believer does not assign dignity to rationality, upon what foundation does s/he stand? If the non believer does depend upon rationality for dignity how is it possible that so few know anything about rationality?

Our schools and colleges are beginning to introduce our young people to the domain of knowledge called Critical Thinking. CT (Critical Thinking) is taught because our educators have begun to recognize that teaching a young person what to think is not sufficient for the citizens of a democracy in an age of high technology. CT is an attempt to teach young people how to think. Like the adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish, a youngster who knows how to think is prepared for a lifetime rather than for a day.

What about today’s adult? Today’s adult was educated in a time when schools and colleges never gave universal instruction in the art and science of thinking—rationality.

If today’s adult wishes to learn CT s/he must learn it on their own nickel. I think a good read to begin with is this one:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

“ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate.”

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

There's no such thing as zero risk. So, yes. America is at risk.

That was an easy one.

Excellent. Nice one glatt. Now that's sorted what else can we talk about?

People (okay, mostly men in ye olde days) rose to greatness despite having what we would count as no education. Others had such religious learning that it's surprising they even bothered to get out of bed for fear of offending God.

Greatness will out.

Now, what do you think about Fit Flops?
Genuine help to toning, or gimmick which relies mostly on encouraging women to walk more?

I had never heard of Fit Flops. I had to google them. So the idea is that they are unstable, so you have to use your leg muscles more when you walk, and you get a workout. Interesting. Kind of like walking in the dry sand on the beach.

Well, I never heard of them, but now I want them! I notice different leg muscles working depending on what kind of shoes I wear to work, so I suppose Fit Flops work to some extent.

Fitflops sound gimmicky to me. Kind of like "Dr. Scholl's Exercise Sandals". But if it encourages people to walk more, that's a good thing.

Why not just walk silly? That would be a workout.

I'll take before and after pics of my derriere if you like :)
I'm a useful control anyway, because I won't be walking any more in them - I walk for up to an hour a day anyway as my primary form of exercise.

Oh - I'm not buying the branded ones.
Soz and all that - just can't afford them.
I'm buying the Avon knock-offs.
Bearing in mind I'm buying them from Mum's (Avon rep) friend I figure this gived me some come-back if I outwalk them within a month.

UT? Because I'm not a 6 foot 4 (or whatever) stick insect.
But I promise I'll do it for you when I reach a similar BMI.
Or take pictures from the hospital, csame difference.

Don't know if what's-his-name ever reads the replies; but thanks for the link.

"Is America a nation at risk?"

Why yes, in soooo many ways...

I won't wear fit flops because I'll be afraid of offending Al Gore.
Greatness will out.

The make sneakers based on the same concept - and that's what they say, that it's like walking in sand. If they were cheaper I'd try them.

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrWnahTiMo

Coberst has been trying to give the impression that he is an intellectual. He may actually be a sophomore-year psych major. There's something synthetic, artificial, bogus about his postings. I'm seeing textbookish excerpts, but no intellectual engagement on the ideas whatsoever.

I thought that name sounded familiar.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=440521

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3921

Nah, it's too easy.:right:

And while we're at it, right back at you. You know damned well you don't have arguments you can put up against mine and expect to prevail.

You wish to convey that you sneer in my direction? Ha ha ha. Took you long enough to carry the point across, but that's not hard to explain: if ever a man had less grounds or qualification to sneer at me than you do... curiously enough, now that I think about it some, that man is tw. He was louder about it, and hence more obvious. What you've got... well, it looks like a great big intellectual nothing from over here. I expect to outsmart and out-wise you regularly.

Did I leave anything out?

I think we need a new rule; a new law. Like Godwin's law. As Urbane's contribution to a thread increases, the probability that he will bring up tw approaches 1.

Whut aobut how dum we r?

Nah we is smart. They is dum.

Humanity, as usual. :rolleyes:

No.

Now put up proof, Shawnee, or shut the hell up.

:lol:

I am prepared to demonstrate that in not being led about by the nose by the Left and its shibboleths that I am more a human in full than you are, wiser and more independent of mind. So far, you have not mustered up a rebuttal -- strictly from childrensville, which is the necessary habitation of the leftists. But teasing simply won't win.

I am persuaded, instead, that you have no idea what humanity is.

lol...UG, you really don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such bogus claims as being more left wing makes you less human. Having a different view doesn't remove anything from your DNA you know, and in some cases, it doesn't even make you less intelligent or intellectual.

Don't be a big silly billy UG. ;)

Aliantha, that's where the evidence takes you: the history of all the Left is the history of man's inhumanity to man, and of active calls for such inhumanity in the service of this or of that. Check Hitler, check Lenin, check Mao, check Pol Pot, check the hundred million or so slain in internal genocides by the most conservative estimates. This is the kind of thing that happens when sociopaths gain power, and they are invariably about extending government, which is a Left thing. Were government never enlarged or extended, would the world suffer so?

The Left has been exhibiting inhumanity since shortly after it was conceived, circa 1800. Before that time, the inhumanity was more in the realm of kings. The politics of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the early modern era have been aptly compared to a country club -- one run by a brute. Collegial atmosphere and beheadings, courtesy and carnage -- these were the order of the day. Eventually, a new wrinkle came along -- and the remaining royal rulers left the oppression business, and the big-government-to-control-everything set took it over. Political science being the fuzzy art it really is, the sterile perfection of "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" was never realized.

The left wing of politics gathered power for a century, getting tested in 1848 -- Paris Commune -- and turning truly virulent sometime after 1905. A hundred or so million dubious killings later, we arrive in our day. As I'm a decent enough man to be offended by pogroms large or small, I'm here to say this sucks bad enough you'd best reserve for yourself any killing tools you think suitable -- against the day, hopefully distant, the pogrom should come for you. You can bet it would come as a surprise; they always do. Otherwise they can't actually be managed.

That the world suffers is a big reason why I'm a conservative. It's also the reason I think the conservatives are a lot more humane than the radicals.

There's good "different" and there's bad "different." I am firm as a rock against the abuses of too much government -- it is an essential ingredient of the American republic's mindset, not so firmly established in the Australian. That's really the one thing I'm ever always on about.

And Shawnee isn't managing a rebuttal. She's locking horns with a mind here, and I don't think she's used to the idea yet. She's not coping.

UG, do you not realize that it was the liberal elements in the minds of the founding fathers that made your constitution what it is? America is meant to be the land of the free, and yet you're trying to condemn those who'd think differently to you. How is that freedom?

You can't have your republic if everyone thinks the same. Then it's just another form of socialism, and not a very attractive one at that.


eta: I know this makes no difference to your way of thinking, but not all people from the left are raving lunatics and nor are all conservatives.

Oh, I've noticed that. But the ones that are stink up the whole operation and bring the very word "liberal" into disrepute -- first by their illiberal thinking, and then by the "you wanna fix what problem by doing what?" phenomenon -- those are the lunatics and the less-lunatic but bereft of wisdom.

Liberal was once an honorable condition. Regrettably, in our Republic it's gotten hijacked by the hard Left, and that's doing real damage. Nothing that can't be repaired, but we do need to discourage the Left from interfering.

There are some ideas that are so bad they can only be held by left-wing intellectuals.

Rightwingers manage to steer clear of such things. That's why I think the weight of the brainpower is over on the right, nearish to the center. The too-far-Right is both off the deep end and colliding with the Left coming around the other way.

I'll rebut your face.

Seriously, what in the hell am I supposed to be rebutting?

Keep calling me stupid, UG. It makes no difference to me. That is the difference between you and me: I may not agree with your beliefs but I believe in your right to have them. I don't think you a lesser person because somewhere along the line someone filled your head with mush.

Now get off my ass, and respond to the people who are better equipped to play your little tit for tat game. I honestly don't have the time nor the energy, nor even the gumption, to bring myself to care that much.

Ho hum.

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize right wing authoritarianism if it locked him in a cattle car and sent him to Auschwitz. Arguing is pointless.

I'm actually really curious as to how one goes about rebutting someone's face. lol

Well, first you remove the asshat...

Haggis in the office!

:lol:

'Rebut your face' just sounded so Flintonian!

He's going to rebut-fuck you in the mouth!

There we go. That's Flint.

Perfect! :)

Ha. Remember when Homer Simpson presented his rebuttal?

What to rebut? Well, this tells me you're not thinking. I wonder what would happen if you actually concentrated? You ever wondered?

Anyway, post #22, per you:

You seem to contend I'm something inhuman. I call bullshit.

The reason you "don't have the gumption" is because you don't have the winning ideas, Shawnee. I do. Few of them are mine -- except in the sense that I sought them out and found them. I'm a beneficiary of some really wise people, and that's a pretty good way to make a life, I think.

Griff, this is the biggest flub I've seen you make. Don't forget that Radar (he's gone dark lately, it seems, having been shown that Obama was not indeed the "more libertarian candidate" he thought he was voting for) notwithstanding, I am a libertarian.

If by "right wing authoritarianism" you mean "Bush at war," your argument will have more holes than a badminton net. And now that the GWOT is being conducted in pretty much the same way by the Democratic Administration, the idea fails at the nonce. Sinks without a trace.

Arguing from bad initial premises -- that is what's pointless. At least if your goal is to persuade someone of the quality of your thinking.

UG...while there certainly are some continuations of the Bush/Neo-con approach to terrorism, more than I would like, there are also significant differences:

Ending the highly questionable (in terms of legality and effectiveness) policy of enhanced interrogation (ie torture) of detainees

A restoration of basic rights for detainees as proposed in the (preliminary) recommendation of Obama's Detention Policy Task Force including prohibiting the admission of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; providing detainees greater latitude in the choice of counsel; affording basic protections for those defendants who refuse to testify; reforming the use of hearsay by putting the burden on the party trying to use the statement...

The shutting down of CIA black prisons and the limiting extraordinary rendition (now prohibited to countries that torture their own citizens)

On the domestic front, ending the Bush administration program to expand the use of spy satellites by state/local law enforcement agencies.

And most importantly....restoring diplomacy and dialogue to gain the support of allies and engage adversaries rather than bullying, belligerency and unilateralism, resulting in the restoration of the US image among those allies and adversaries.

IMO, your characterization of those who disagree with your neo-con BS as weak-minded "pacifists" rather than having a respect for the rule of law, is another feeble attempt to justify a failed policy.

Actually, if there is any BS to be found in the neocon approach to foreign policy, this has never come to the attention of anyone trying to actually execute it.

No one's ever been able to demonstrate that it's a "failed policy," either. They merely allege that it must be one, and solely because they disagree with it. How's that again?? It's the antidemocracy Left that's doing the grousing! Don't mistake rationalization for wise thought!

"More than I would like," quotha. How about democracy fucking winning and undemocracy fucking going extinct? Ever thought about that one?? I'll answer for you: you, Spexx, have never once thought in those terms, or evidence of it would appear as much in your posts as it does in mine.

If I'm wrong, show proof. Otherwise, amigo, the ash heap of history is out through the back door.

And pacifists -- they do have an incredible weakness in their philosophy which causes me to reject it as a way of life: pacifism does not help you stay alive in trouble. No other philosophy has that handicap. Under lethal attack, either the pacifist must die, or the pacifism must be abandoned. Either the pacifist or the pacifism must die then. Pacifism, it seems, sets human life at a higher value than human goodness. It doesn't take very much thought to see the weaknesses in this concept -- sociopaths have very little good in them, and the more pronounced the sociopathy the less the decency. Are such monsters to be kept in anything but a cage or the grave? Not on your tintype.

UG...I (and others) demonstrated the failures in other threads and you ran away without responding. And you still haven't responded here..just more of the same "anti-left" rhetoric.

And once again, you ignored the facts (reversals of policy with greater respect for the law) that I noted above.

As to the broader neo-con policy issues, I will rerun the proof for you.

The failures of Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra fiasco (10 administration officials served jail time) and subsquent Bush (both) policies of supporting right wing thug "democracies" in the region ....the long term result of which was a growth in anti-American sentiment that resulted in the election of the same person that Reagan "defeated" and a stronger South/Central America and Caribbean (ALBA) alliance (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Dominica and, most recently, Honduras and to a lesser extent, Ecuador, Paraguay, Grenada, Belize....) with Cuba than the US.

The failures of the Reagan/GHW Bush policy to arm both Iran and Iraq. Please tell me what that accomplished?

And the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by G Bush. While it is too soon to know the long-term outcome, I will grant you that Iraq now has a democratically elected government. I prefer that democracy result from the will of the people, rather than the invasion and occupation of a foreign power.

The cost of the war against a country that posed no direct threat to the US, and leaving aside the $1 trillion and 4,000+ US lives and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives:

- the US invasion/occupation serving as a "cause celebre" (according to NIEs) for terrorist organizations around the world.

- the displacement of more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes, characterized by the UN as the worst refugee crisis in the Middle East in 40 years and resulting in more than an estimated 2 million Iraqis, many the former middle class, still living in refugee camps or slums in Syria, Jordan, etc. and afraid to return home or have no home to return to.

- the enhanced influence of Iran in Iraqi internal politics and thus greater influence on the politics of the region, with Iraq no longer serving as a buffer against the influence of the Iranian theocracy pulling the strings .

Added:
As to the "anti-democracy" left, I only speak for myself and as I said, I prefer democracies "of the people and by the people" and not imposed by force of invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, the unintended consequences of which are not always the cheery outcome you and the neo-cons suggest.

Just as a small point: there are more positions available than just the two extremes of warmongering and pacifism.

I didn't agree with the Iraq war....that doesn't make me a pacifist. It just means I believe that particular war was wrong. Not that all war is wrong. Mind you: the word pacifism covers a range of views. Not all pacifists are against all war.

From wikipedia:

Given the highlighted sentence, Urbane's contention that under lethal attack 'pacifism' must be abandoned is somewhat erroneous.

Well, I can see this will take a while -- and most of what Redux claims are failures (for he believes it with a religious intensity) are not, I think, failures in the end. Further remarks to follow.

Briefly, DanaC -- I for one could hardly oppose the demolition of a fascist regime, now could I? Could you -- in anything like good conscience? How can a democracy taking down a dictatorship be a wrongness, when dictatorships are invariably about the oppression? They differ only in degree, after all -- the less virulent that way are suffered to exist by the rest of the global community, but such suffrance doesn't add up to improvement, or even good. Dictatorships and autocracies are the ones that go easily to war; democracies, driven and steered by popular consensus, far less so. This is evinced even in this last decade and the one before it in the United States: who is seriously arming their nation against the US military? No one, except perhaps the North Koreans, who are sharply constrained by their lack of resources and so-so intel. Even Cuba, which professes to be greatly worried, isn't meeting its words with action.

Why is this? Try this idea on for size: it's because of the way we use it. No one is concerned that they will be randomly, arbitrarily plucked like low-hanging fruit by American marauders.

UG....come on, dude!

It shouldnt take that long if you are a true neo-con.

Oh, this is an example of the discussion you tend towards. I get it. :rolleyes:

Yep...no partisan links from either UG or me!

Its called dialague and discourse.

He pushes and I push back.... and we do it in our own words and with our own thoughts...and maintain an equal level of respect.

On the other hand.you must have a partisan link to contribute. That is your contribution to most threads.

You always have a partsian link..or two..or three...or four...or five..that are always facutally correct regardless of what others may offer.

Let me see if I can dig one up for ya...

Ok, I see. You say partisan things to him and call him a few names to suit you; he says partisan things to you and he calls you a few names. And that is somehow a respectful conversation??? :lol:

Ok. :rolleyes:

Yep.

We got class...UG and me :)

I think he is full of shit but I recognize him as an independent thinker and I respect his intellect and gamesmanship and I would hope he has the same respect for me..despite the name calling.

On the other hand.....

:lol: Ok.

Watch how the adults play (no links!) ...when he shows his face again to defend his neo-con crap :)

One day, you too can play wiith the grownups....just not yet, sonny boy

You're not ready for the big time. :D

:lol2:

Sorry, not interested in your game. Nothing respectful about your "exchanges".

I have never heard of fit flops but I have heard of Earth Footwear.

They are very intriguing.

http://www.earthfootwear.com/tabid/95/Default.aspx

Fuck off, Jack. I think, despite your protestations -- or urgings -- to the contrary. You had best not have been serious.

UH OH....a cyber threat? I'm shaking in my boots. :D

Why is it so hard to answer simple questions:

What was good about the early neo-con policy of supporting any govt that wasnt communist, even it was a right wing regime? Look at South/Central America to start...What did it accomplish other than raise anti-American sentiments in Venzuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuagara, Uruguay,....

What did Reagan/GHW Bush accomplish by secretly funding both the religious extremist government of Iran and the dictatorship of Saddam?

How was US national security enhanced by attacking and invading a sovereign nation that posed no direct threat to the US while virtually abandoning the attack against the greater threat posed by those forces (al queda) in Afghanistan (and the Talliban govt that supported them) who were responsible for the attack on the US?

I tried these out at the store (Walking Co.), and decided they are completely retarded. Felt like i was wearing Pinoccio's shoes, they were all huge and stupid feeling. Didn't stop the sales whore from trying hard to sell them though. What a ridiculous store, really. It's entire raeson d 'etre is to sell overpriced inserts ($80!). I did end up buying sneakers there (the sales chick asked my size and then brought out all the sneakers they had in it for me to dig thru on my own, then proceeded to try to shove the inserts up my ass), but I bought my inserts at Footlocker for a mere $30. [/rant]

As long as everyone's got comfy shoes on, America will never be a nation at risk. :)