Hello:

When Sarah Palin refers to the "elite", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about EDUCATED people. When she refers to her constituency as people with "common sense", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about UNEDUCATED people.

Consequently the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way. How do they do this?? Simply by keeping science and civics OUT of the classroom and bringing religion in.

You can argue with me by telling me this ISN'T happening. But, of course, it is. In fact, I believe the dumbing down of America is PURPOSEFUL. You?

excon

Wrong premise . When she speaks of the elites ,she speaks of progressive,liberal ,Washington DC ,or Hollywood elites. She is not referring to their level of education.

It is these "elites" she is referring to who think the people who do things like attend tea party rallies or oppose the progressive agenda are the uneducated ya-hoos.

They even wrote a book about the stupid people who don't see things their way.
'What's the Matter with Kansas?' tries to explain the ignorant folks who ,according to the author vote ,against their own self interest .
The elite progressives creamed when they read this because it affirmed all their misconceptions about the people in "flyover country".
It was on the bible of the elites ;the NY Slimes best seller's list for 18 weeks .

Like you ,the author of this book presumes that the unwashed masses are led like sheeple because they are too stupid to weigh the benefits of the opposing positions and come to conclusions on their own.

The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant. It is this group that they count on as a voting block.

Further ,the underlying assumption that it is manipulation of social issues that keeps us dummies stirred up is false. The tea party movement has been almost totally an economic revolt against a government that thinks everyone has a bottomless pocket.It is resistance to the expansion of government power, and intrusiveness.It is the national debt fueled by out of control spending that has fueled this movement.

And how have the "elites " those people you think are educated responded ? They are contemptuous of people who disagree with them . Tea party supporters are called tea-baggers .A legitimate grass roots movement is disparaged as "astro-turf". We are racists for not going along with the radical agenda of the President. We are nativists because we think the government should control illegal immigration . We are homophobic for opposing a radical redefinition of marriage .And now our phobias have extended to Muslims because we think it's a bad idea to build a towering mosque over the WTC site .

We the "bitter clingers" (Obama's words to a gathering of wine and brie "educated elites "in San Fran) are a bunch of Know-nothings according to Timothy Egan of the NY Slimes.

It is the progressives in this country who think that the masses are insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an aristocracy of educated(leftist) elites.

Now for the crisis in the class room. The real crisis in the class room is the system that has been constructed to manage the class room... not the subject matter . If you have any proof that conservatives do not want science taught or even better civics I'd like to see it produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

When Sarah Palin refers to the "elite", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about EDUCATED people. When she refers to her constituency as people with "common sense", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about UNEDUCATED people.

Consequently the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way. How do they do this??? Simply by keeping science and civics OUT of the classroom and bringing religion in.

You can argue with me by telling me this ISN'T happening. But, of course, it is. In fact, I believe the dumbing down of America is PURPOSEFUL. You?

excon

---

Your argument begins with the premise that the people weren't dumb in the first place. Teaching Christianity in the classroom doesn't make you dumb, some of the smartest people in the world have believed in God, what is dumb is a belief in science when it continually fails us with half baked explanations which are later overturned. What I have said for a long time, ex, is it's hard to find someone with below average intelligence yet they must live somewhere, could it be they all live in the same place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Your argument begins with the premise that the people wern't dumb in the first place. Teaching Christianity in the classroom doesn't make you dumb, some of the smartest people in the world have believed in God, what is dumb is a belief in science when it continually fails us with half baked explanations which are later overturned. What I have said for a long time, ex, is it's hard to find someone with below average intelligence yet they must live somewhere, could it be they all live in the same place?

---

Check your local trailer park ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Check your local trailer park ;)

---

Don't have them in the same way you do but we do have a whole northern section that ain't doing much

Hello again,

On my local TV, there's currently a commercial running that's paid for by The American Petroleum Institute. It features some really DUMB people saying they shouldn't raise taxes on the oil company's. I'll bet you've seen it.

I'm not talking about just dull people. I'm talking about REALLY DUMB ones. It's also no accident that they have southern drawls too. At least the corporations know WHO to appeal to.

I also think they have something to do with MAKING 'em that way. You? Not so much.

excon

You see them as really dumb . I call them working people. They think that raising taxes that will be added on to prices they pay is a bad idea. The really smart people think a windmill will fuel their cars.

Btw . What the government has to do is look at where subsidies are being granted. What is the point in raising taxes when subsidies are being granted to the same industry ? But I guess those really smart people in Congress know what they are doing too.

I was going to offer an answer but tom pretty much said it all in post no. 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant.

---

[citation needed]

I'll give a citation when the assumptions in the op are sourced..

Hello tom:

When you're the FIRST one to discover a problem, there AIN'T no source stuff.

excon

Here is the socio-economic breakdown for the 2008 cycle:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Ecook...lm/pewmaps.png

Hello steve:

I didn't say dumb people were poor. They're just dumb. I don't mean ignorant, either. I was ignorant once, until I decided to cure that deficiency. Dumb people don't even know they're dumb.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I didn't say dumb people were poor. They're just dumb. I don't mean ignorant, either. I was ignorant once, until I decided to cure that deficiency. Dumb people don't even know they're dumb.

---

Tom said: The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant.

NK said: [citation needed]

You said: When you're the FIRST one to discover a problem, there AIN'T no source stuff.

I merely provided a citation. Of course it doesn't provide education details but typically, poorer people are less educated wouldn't you agree?

You think "the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way." You then ask, "How do they do this???"

Since the poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the poor are generally less educated, it would seem the Democrat elites want to keep that constituency dumbed down. How do they do that? By keeping them dependent on the nanny state and dumbing down education.

It ain't conservatives that run the public schools in this country, and it ain't conservatives that run the vast majority of colleges and universities in this country. So I'd say your logic is not just a little but entirely flawed on this one, ex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tom said: The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, that's what tom said. I said something different. The poor that he's talking about is a much different constituency, than the uneducated that I'm talking about. Yeah, the poor tend to be uneducated - true. But, there is a HUGE segment of the population that ISN'T poor, yet remain uneducated... That's who I'm talking about.

For example, civics. If this segment of the population understood CIVICS, this whole thing about the mosque wouldn't amount to a hill of beans... I mean, if you understood civics, wouldn't you want to support the American way? Wouldn't you be against torture? Wouldn't you be for the freedom of all people?

I think you would. Or, do I misunderstand what we're about? Nahh. I don't misunderstand... At one time WE were the beacon of civil rights in the world. That was an HONOR we could claim... We lost it, and haven't reclaimed it, no matter what Beck says. If you understand civics, how can you let torturers off the hook?

excon

Hi, Ex:

You're absolutely right. The leaders of the uneducated are trying to keep them that way by keeping science and civics out of the classroom. The Feudalist Liberals have been eradicating the sciences, including political science, from public education since the 70s. One could argue it started with Benjamin Spock in the 50s but took awhile to get going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

The Feudalist Liberals have been eradicating the sciences, including political science, from public education since the 70s.

---

What? Isn't the conservative fundies that want that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Yeah, that's what tom said. I said something different. The poor that he's talking about is a much different constituency, than the uneducated that I'm talking about. Yeah, the poor tend to be uneducated - true. But, there is a HUGE segment of the population that ISN'T poor, yet remain uneducated... That's who I'm talking about.

---

Both are products of the elitist liberals that tom, catsmine and Palin are referring to. The liberal elite is responsible for the nanny statism that keeps the poor enslave, and for the state of education in this country. You know darn well who is in control of education in this country and it ain't conservatives.

You have Deemocrats in control of both houses and the WH, and this is just one more argument you're losing so your trying to turn the tables on us for the mess the left has created. It won't work, the people are not fooled any longer and that's what has you riled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What? Isn't the conservative fundies that want that?

---

Who wants what is not my point. It is happening so the ones in charge of the school curriculum for half a century must be the ones who desire it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Who wants what is not my point. It is happening so the ones in charge of the school curriculum for half a century must be the ones who desire it.

---

My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

---

Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories? Are they being taught the difference between the scientific method and the scholastic method? In many public school systems the only "yes" answer is to the first question.

Wait a minute, you talked about science being taking out of the classroom and suddenly you changed the conversation to evolution and climate change. How did that happen?

I didn't know what the scholastic method was so I looked it up (Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it sounds horrible, more like preaching.

What's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

Don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

what's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

---

Hi Tom,

Difficult question to answer in limited space.

The Socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose Socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The Christian Schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with Hegel and Marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of Marx and Hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.The other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of Idealism and largely an European phenomenon.As such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

Tut

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*

Quote:

---

Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved "mastery of human consciousness," then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning "cultural hegemony," to use Gramsci's own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism's opponents. Men will indeed "love their servitude," and will not even realize that it is servitude.

---

Antonio Gramsci

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tut317

hi tom,

difficult question to answer in limited space.

The socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The christian schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with hegel and marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of marx and hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.the other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of idealism and largely an european phenomenon.as such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

tut

---

Thanks .that was a fantastic summary !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .

---

Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

If everybody was educated, the GOP would be toast.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

---

So liberals, who overwhelmingly control the public school and university systems aren't actually educating our kids and controlling the agenda, conservatives are. You certainly aren't going to win the argument with that 'logic.'

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible. What I do see is many, many of my conservative friends and family members that opted - through great sacrifice for many of them - to send their kids to private schools or home schooled them. Both regularly outperform their public school educated counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Case in point. If the kids you mentioned are being home schooled the way Cats would have them home schooled, they're going to wind up DUMB!

You say you don't know WHAT benefit conservatives receive from a dumbed down population, but I can tell you one. DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

Booya!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

---

Citations needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Citations needed.

---

Hello again, steve:

Turn on your TV, and watch the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired to influence the public. They're certainly not trying to influence SMART people. THAT is all the citation you need.

excon

That's not evidence at all, ex. When faced with the facts here you're just making stuff up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired

---

The ones with the Ph.D's?

By the way, the education I prefer teaches the scientific method where the data is questioned, rather than the authority of the people interpreting the data. When you test the data, you get facts. When you test the authorities, you get opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time period the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*
Antonio Gramsci

---

Hi Tom,

Sounds a lot like Orwell's 1984.

I am not sure to what extent (if any) Orwell was influenced by Gramsci . He was no doubt influenced by the Spanish Civil War and the events taking place in Russia.

I think the idea of 'indoctrination' is more of a totalitarian phenomenon( battle for the mind) rather than being particular in terms of Communism or Fascism

Regards

Tut

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves "... sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired end result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves " ...sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

---

Hi again Tom,

I can see you line of reasoning here but I have a few problems with a couple of terms used.

From my point of view Marxism is a very misunderstood . As you probably know there has never been the revolution that Marx wanted. There are and have been governments that call and have called themselves Marxist, but that doesn't make them them Marxist. Strictly speaking there can't be a Marxist bureaucracy. Because according to Marx; the state will wither away.

"long March through institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious"

I am not sure how to understand 'relativism' in the context of this sentence.


Regards

Tut

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism ... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .

---

Hi Tom,

Yes, Marxism is an utopian theory.

Gramsci might have though he was a Marxist, but he wasn't.

Marx did not have a goal as such. The goals that were to be achieved were the goals of history. In other words, the inevitable movement towards an end was seen as 'a natural process' of history.

Gramsci may have been a relativist but as to whether Marx himself was a relativist? Highly debatable.


Regards

Tut