Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My friend Jim Babka has a post at Positive Liberty about Sarah Palin's views on creationism. I agree with much of what he said in that post, but not with the argument that her views don't matter because she won't be in a position to enforce them:
Now, if Mrs. Palin were running for school board I could better understand the concern (though I think government schooling is a terrible idea). But she's running for Vice President of the United States. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with the office.And her belief, one way or the other, is no threat to science education:
* Teaching creationism in a public school science classroom has not been legal since 1987.
* Teaching Intelligent Design in a public school classroom has been illegal since 2005.
* No federal candidate is likely to expend ANY energy to change that -- including Sarah Palin. It would be too controversial. Every gain would be matched by a loss. That's bad math for political success. Politicians don't like risk. And this particular politician now has a chance (unless she morphs into Dan Quayle) to be a front-running candidate for President in 2012 or 2016.
So why is there any concern over her opinions on natural history?
First, one technical criticism: it is not true that teaching ID in a public school classroom has been illegal since 2005. Judge Jones' ruling, unfortunately, applies only in the judicial district in which he resides. It may well be true that other courts will give that ruling value as a precedent due to its comprehensive nature and compelling reasoning, but they don't have to even acknowledge its existence if they don't want to.
Second, let me lay out the case for why this matters. First, I'll state the obvious: John McCain is old. He's really, really old. There's a reasonable chance that Palin will take over the duties of president in the next four years if McCain is elected, and even if she doesn't, as Jim notes, she becomes a frontrunner for the next open nomination to be president. So why does that make her views matter? Because she may well be appointing Supreme Court justices, if not in the next four years then in the next 8-16 years.
We are in the midst of a time when the ID movement is trying anything they can to get ID into public schools under one label or another. At some point, those efforts are going to succeed, a court case is going to be filed and it's going to go all the way to the Supreme Court. We all know this; it is inevitable. The composition of the Supreme Court during the next 15 years will almost certainly determine the outcome of that case.
We know there are at least two votes on the court currently to allow creationism into public school science classrooms (Scalia, who dissented in Edwards in 1987, and Thomas, who refuses to apply the establishment clause to state actions). We don't know where Alito and Roberts will come down on the issue, but there's good reason to suspect they may agree with their conservative colleagues. That means we may well be one vote away from having Palin's views become the law of the land and having Palin be the person who picks the justices makes that a lot more likely.
Politics
Comments
Good comments, Ed, but I think it sweeps more broadly than that. Pushing creationism/ ID demonstrates a fundamental contempt for science, which extends far more broadly than natural history. It's not a coincidence, for example, that the same people pushing ID also deny the existence of man-made climate change. When science is merely perceived as a point of view, rather than as a method for developing an empirical understanding of reality, you get, well, the Bush administration's well-documented war on science. It's the fundamental divide between the reality-based and faith-based communities.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | September 3, 2008 9:57 AM
This is not the most important issue we face. And if it doesn't get sufficient support from the American public, it won't pass. I'm much more concerned with the Socialist/Marxist views of Obama. And, being at the top of the ticket, his influence is much more likely.
Posted by: RR/FL | September 3, 2008 9:58 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 3, 2008 10:00 AM
This bullshit just makes me roll my eyes. I've heard a lot of people whining about how awful it is that the government operates schools, but I've never heard anything even vaguely resembling an explanation of just how we're supposed to educate the population as a whole without using public education.
Education is very important in a democracy, and public education is the only way I know of that can spread education beyond those who are wealthy enough to afford private education.
Posted by: Wes | September 3, 2008 10:01 AM
It's always a thrill to get on Ed Brayton's blog. And it's a good response.
I'm pretty sure the guy that said the same thing about the Dover case's judge was Bill Dembski. He thought this Rick Santorum-backed judge made the case a slam dunk for the ID side.
But I think the Lemon Test is far more important than the composition of the Court. Now, if one of the next appointees has a record of questioning the Lemon Test in their career, well then expect them to get "Borked."
Leaving aside that we don't know enough about Roberts or Alito yet to know what they'd do, it should be noted that seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were chosen by Republicans. Former Justice O'Conner. Stevens, Souter, and even Kennedy -- all Republican appointees. How did that happen? I'll tell ya.
The professional Republicans like having hot social issues tied up in the courts where they can blame "activist judges." They like pretending that the only solution is to propose constitutional amendments that have absolutely no chance of passing. These amendment campaigns give them huge political points because social conservatives are enamored by symbolism.
These campaigns have the added bonus that they fleece the flock of funds. The Robertsons, Dobsons, and so on, love to have problems that raise money that can never be solved. That makes the "real base constituency" happy.
Yeah, I know, I'm cynical.
As for right now, Sarah Palin is running on McCain's ticket. And he's real likely to pick a Souter, to keep these issues in play, and because he wants to protect his anti-First Amendment campaign finance law.
Posted by: Jim Babka | September 3, 2008 10:03 AM
For me it's a character issue. IDers and Creationists champion willfull ignorance and that is simply an unacceptable character trait for anyone in position of authority (or anyone else for that matter).
Posted by: Ericb | September 3, 2008 10:03 AM
Ok, what? Can you do that? I'm a bit fuzzy on your constitution (I'm Canadian), but doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment kind of contradict Thomas's opinion here?
Posted by: Alex, FCD | September 3, 2008 10:05 AM
Here's another reason it matters: because believing in creationism is to defy logic and reason in the face of what you -want- to believe. It's to look reality in the face and say 'no thanks, i'm going with my gut'. It's a testament to your intelligence and your ability to reason. Someone who can willingly defy logic and reason on an emotional whim isn't fit to be president.
Posted by: Louis | September 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Wes, you, maybe not deliberately, changed Babka's words from "government schooling" to "public education." There are ways to provide education to the public without having the government actually be the owner and operator of schools.
Posted by: nicole | September 3, 2008 10:07 AM
There is also the not-so-small matter that Palin is in a position to persuade McCain on issues related to ID (or anything else for that matter), so even if she doesn't get presidential power herself, she may influence those that do.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 3, 2008 10:11 AM
What the heck, let them win.
Let the Alaska Cutie and her boss [snigle] set the court up to rule their way, then we'll just have to be the ones doing all the home-schooling from that point on.
I also wonder what McCain's wife's thoughts are about aspects of his choice.
Posted by: marc buhler | September 3, 2008 10:23 AM
RR/FL - Concerning Senator Obama's Socialist/Marxist policies - such as?* -DJ
*Remember I have no dog in this race so I don't really care one way or the other, but SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2008 10:33 AM
If you were right, Dembski would have jumped at the chance to join the case. He backed out, and it would not be irresponsible to presume that he backed out because he knew it was a likely loser.
Additionally, there's a HUGE difference between a district court and the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices can go out on a limb and rule how they like without fearing being overturned later. The Supreme Court makeup matters, as it has for a long, long time.
As Ed pointed out, at least two people willing to support ID in schools have made it to the bench; what gives you such great confidence that another cannot make it past our oh-so-diligent Congressional confirmation process [/eye roll].
Really? Remind me of Alito's and Robert's views of Roe v. Wade again? Do you REALLY think they are going to vote against overturning it? Because, according to your analysis, the Republicans would NEVER put someone in a position on the court to invalidate one of their wedge issues.
One of the big complaints from the evangelical front is that the Republicans promise action on their social issues, but never deliver. Are you really that sure that the Republicans wouldn't gladly throw them a bone in the form of ID in schools to keep them happy?
Not cynical enough. The Republicans would gladly throw science under the bus to maintain their shaky coalition. You heard the rumblings this election cycle from the evangelicals...think how much worse it will get if a Republican gets elected and they pick a Souter.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Shygetz | September 3, 2008 10:33 AM
@Alex: Supreme Court justices are granted license to interpret the constitution, so Thomas is allowed to do that. If he's the only justice on the court who does so, it doesn't mean anything, but if four other justices agree with him, than that view prevails. This opinion then becomes binding on all courts in the US, no matter what the Constitution actually says, and it is likely to be decades before the ruling is reversed.
At the moment we can expect between one and three of the other justices (Scalia certainly, and probably Alito and Roberts) to back Thomas. That means that if the issue were to come before the Supreme Court this year the Dover decision would almost certainly be upheld, but if a Republican president were to replace one of the more liberal justices with another hard-core right winger, the balance of power would likely tip in favor of the religious right.
That is why presidential elections matter. The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices (and other federal judges too), who can remain in office for decades after the president leaves office.
Posted by: Eric Lund | September 3, 2008 10:41 AM
"No federal candidate is likely to expend ANY energy to change that -- including Sarah Palin. It would be too controversial. Every gain would be matched by a loss."
And a constitutional amendment to ban abortion isn't controversial? What sort of argument is that?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 3, 2008 10:45 AM
Hey RR/FL, here's a hint. As soon as you start throwing around terms like Socialist/Marxist you lose all credibility. No one that far from the political center is going to nominated by one of the major parties, let alone elected.
Posted by: Taz | September 3, 2008 10:48 AM
Although most VPs aren't as active as Cheney, they usually have their pet projects, and it's more than plausible that if getting Creationism into the classrooms became a sideline agenda for Vice President Palin, it could be helped along by President McCain.
Also, remember that when the faith-based initiatives program failed in Congress, Bush initiated the program by Executive Order. After the Bush Administration, it's difficult to view government as restrictively as Babka does. Job titles, institutional boundaries, and tradition has meant little to this administration, so far as its theory of governance goes.
Posted by: scott pilutik | September 3, 2008 10:54 AM
Re: "government schooling"
The most effective educational systems in the world are national education systems in Europe and Asia. Furthermore, you can credit a good amount of 20th century America's prosperity to mandatory secondary education starting at the turn of the century. If there is a system that is more effective than "government schooling," I haven't seen it yet.
Incidentally, Tom Friedman quotes the president of Caltech in The World Is Flat as saying about 90% of his students are coming from public schools. I tend to agree with the main thrust of that part of the book which is that the educational system isn't broken; the culture is. Kids don't want to learn or better themselves in any way, and that's what's screwing American education into the ground.
Posted by: Dan L. | September 3, 2008 10:55 AM
He's a democrat; that automatically means he learned politics at the knees of Marx and Lenin. Even though they're both dead. Didn't you get the memo the Republicans put out during the McCarthy Era?
I'm stunned that people could be opposed to public education. Ever heard of the Northwest Ordinance, the legal outline for statehood? It establishes public schools; it is the reason why the United States has always had a competitively educated populace.
Think about what you're saying nicole, taxpayers should pay for schools but have no say in how they are operated? This is the fundamental problem with voucher schools; they get government funds but don't have to follow the rules that every other federally endowed or employed (and if your paycheck is paid by the federal government you're a federal employee) organization has to follow. Charter schools can segregate their populations. They can refuse to teach students. In other words, they get all the curriculum control and discipline freedom that private schools but on the public dime. They are merely another example of the politically conservative trying to get the government to pay for their lifestyle.
Besides, most government oversight of schools is at the local and state level; the only federal school programs I can think of off the top of my head are the national science improvement orgs and the school lunch program. Do you oppose local oversight of school?
Posted by: Julian | September 3, 2008 10:58 AM
but her views on birth control are important!
some definitions : Birth Control
Democrat's definition: use condom, use "pill"
Palin's definition: abstain, whack off while looking at porn, suck cock
how can you support that, by the way it didn't work!
Posted by: richCares | September 3, 2008 11:03 AM
Thanks Ed, I needed someone to scare the shit out of me this morning ... *sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 3, 2008 11:12 AM
Wow, richCares. That certainly explains the recent proliferation of Young Republican clubs at schools. Kind makes me wish I'd joined one myself back in High School. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 3, 2008 11:19 AM
Her influence on this issue also presents another problem we face now that's gone uncommented upon here.
In Florida we know that evolution is not properly taught even at the high school level given it being politicially incorrect spite of the fact that evolution is legal to teach. When I went to public school the same was true. There is virtually zero political support to properly teach evolution in many public schools throughout the country, including whole states.
The main-stream media is completely unprepared to ask the type of questions that show how easily discredited creationism and ID are. For example, this past Sunday Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press allowed Gov. Palwenty to assert that many scienctists have not made up their minds on the veracity of evolution relative to creationism. Brokaw (and I have seen this from Chris Matthews as well) are so ignorant of of the facts of this debate, allowed this comment to go unchallenged in spite of their stated support for science and keeping religion out of the science classroom.
We need political leaders that live and promote living in the fact-based world. The GOP is pushing us towards an idiocracy faster than I ever could have imagined.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 11:20 AM
Socialist? Marxist? You don't know the meaning of the word. The Democrats are a centre-right party - the Republicans a far-right party. Obama is about as far left as David Cameron and/or Gordon Brown. If you want to know what Marxist politicians are like, google Derek Hatton and Arthur Scargill. Barack Obama doesn't even come close.
Posted by: Deacon Barry | September 3, 2008 11:21 AM
here are ways to provide education to the public without having the government actually be the owner and operator of schools.
Nicole,
Which ways, precisely, are these? If you're talking about voucher and charter schools, you must not be aware that the vast majority of these school are, at best, a mess, at worst, a catastrophe. An analysis of the voucher schools in Milwaukee found that over 90% of the schools were dismal failures ripe with corruption, failed implementation of curriculum, unqualified teachers, and in some cases, no actual students attending. The same can be said of the schools in Ohio. In Arizona, the charter schools have the highest dropout rate in the nation and have more students fail to pass the AIMS standardized test than actually pass it. San Francisco tried a pilot program to have a private company run some of their schools, the program failed miserably because the company found ways to get rid of the low achieving students in an effort to "up their profit margin." The district had to cancel the program because it was such a dismal failure.
So really, explain to me Nicole, what system works better than a government operated and owned system?
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 3, 2008 11:36 AM
Jim Babka wrote:
The Lemon test is on very shaky ground with the court. There are two votes to overturn it outright and the rest of the court invokes it only when they want. I think it's very likely that, with another conservative on the court, establishment clause jurisprudence will shift significantly -- away from O'Connor style balancing and perception tests, which the right generally hates (and I generally hate too, but I'm afraid they'll be replaced with bright line rules that are even worse). You're right that we don't have much to go on with Alito and Roberts, but given how consistently they vote with the hard right on virtually every other issue, it's probably safe (even if it ultimately turns out not to be true) to assume they'll continue to follow that trajectory here (though I suspect they would be more incremental about it than Scalia or Thomas). But as a general rule, I think it's dangerous to vote for politicians with terrible ideas on the premise that someone else will stop them from getting it done.
I disagree with that. As I've written many times, I think he'll be picking off a short list provided by Dobson and his ilk. I think that deal has already been struck.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 3, 2008 11:38 AM
dogmeatib - provoctive comments regarding your perspective voucher and charter schools are failing miserably. Do you have a general source that validates your claims?
I've always been opposed to vouchers because I believe they'll primarily be used to send kids to religious indoctrination day camps rather than used to educate these students, not to mention diluting the resources necessary to competently run a public school. I've never heard a bad thing about a charter schools in general. I'd love to have your arrows in my quiver but given their provocativeness, want to footnote my source (the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence theroem).
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 11:44 AM
I'm much more concerned with the Socialist/Marxist views of Obama.
Obviously you're not "concerned" enough to take any time to describe what those views really are.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 3, 2008 11:46 AM
So why is there any concern over her opinions on natural history?
Because her opinions are based on, and tailored to serve, ignorance and religious bigotry. There is no place for religious bigotry at any level of government.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 3, 2008 11:53 AM
here's another reason why this matters -- even if the Republicans don't win. It provides a bully pulpit for an otherwise questionable idea, and helps to stretch the window of plausibility to include these ideas.
For example: almost no one, not even the most scientifically illiterate, currently believes in a hollow-earth theory. Now lets say that a number of public activists start pushing the idea that untold oil wealth is available, if only we find the entrance to the earth hidden within the Antarctic snows. At first, these folks are ridiculed, then various political and religious hangers-on chime in, giving them a bit more of a hearing in the public space, working with a "at least hear them out" message of tolerance. Finally, a major political party adopts this as a wedge issue to highlight the perceived need for greater fossil fuels exploration.
Year after year, they hammer away for the need for greater investigation of the riches of Our Hollow Earth. "Teach the controversy," they say. "Why don't our opponents want America to have cheap oil??".
Ok, enough fantasy. My point is that each airing of the meme in a public space by supposedly prestigious politicians helps to maintain it within the window of plausibility for the uninformed, which in turn nourishes the funding machines of Dobson et al. Exposure breeds familiarity breeds acceptance.
Posted by: greginnj | September 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Socialism? Obama would fit pretty nicely into Europe's conservative parties. He'd have some trouble fitting into Europe's Social Democratic and Socialist parties, even though the latter (in fact different names for the same thing) have been shifting to the right for the last 20 years.
nicole, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Would surprise me if that were worse in the USA than in, say, Europe! I think the reason lies elsewhere. In the USA, the schools -- as opposed to the universities! -- are drastically underfunded, to the point where some buildings start to crumble. The result is a vicious circle: Teachers are underpaid, so the best potential teachers don't become teachers, so "those who can, do; those who can't, teach", so there are no good teachers, so there's no point in paying the teachers a reasonable salary because all teachers are bad. Over here, the university buildings crumble, but the schools are in good shape outside and inside.
"Money isn't everything! But without money everything is nothing!"
-- Scrooge McDuck
It's like with healthcare: some things must not be run for profit.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 3, 2008 12:08 PM
Nicole,
How does one set-up a system where children are educated with public funds without these funds going to religious indoctrination day camps rather than legitimate places of learning?
In my little town we have a Christian school who indoctrinate their children into believing that America was founded as a Christian theocracy, that evolution is a false religion and no "missing links" have ever been discovered, and that any claims that contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible are false regardless of the weight of the evidence.
How does public funding that does not go to government schools insure that does not happen? Has such a system already been established and if so where? I have not seen evidence though I admit I live in a pretty remote area of the country.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 12:10 PM
Re greginnj
I will be accused of invoking Godwins' law but this is very much in the tradition espoused by Josef Goebbels. That is, if one is going to tell a lie make it a big one, tell it often, tell it loudly and eventually people will come to believe it.
Posted by: SLC | September 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Am I missing something because I also thought McCain has come out in public support of Intelligent Design, basically saying that "all views should be taught", so something similar. Forget Palin, wouldn't McCain be just as bad?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | September 3, 2008 12:19 PM
I disagree with that. As I've written many times, I think he'll be picking off a short list provided by Dobson and his ilk. I think that deal has already been struck.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Once he's in office, what's to stop him from reneging?
Posted by: steve s | September 3, 2008 12:21 PM
Obama is not the governor of the state that pays its residence from collectivist activities.
Posted by: gwangung | September 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Am I missing something because I also thought McCain has come out in public support of Intelligent Design, basically saying that "all views should be taught", so something similar. Forget Palin, wouldn't McCain be just as bad?
No, because everybody believes that Palin is actually a creationist, but nobody really thinks McCain is a creationist or that he really means anything he says about it. Not one damn person on the planet.
Posted by: 386sx | September 3, 2008 12:29 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 3, 2008 1:02 PM
"Unless she morphs into Dan Quayle..."
You think she'll improve that much?
Seriously, she is not just a creationist, she DOES oppose public education and mandatory school leaving ages -- see the responses to the infamous Eagle Forum questionaire.
But with all her other flaws, the one I'd expect to see highlighted the most here at SciBlogs was her initial asking, as mayor, the local librarian how she could go about getting books banned. (See TIME's blog on this, the entry from Wasilia dated Sept. 2nd.)
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | September 3, 2008 1:06 PM
To Babka's point that "it's real likely" McCain will nominate a Souter-like SCOTUS justice and steve s' query on why McCain would have to follow through with an Alito-like candidate once elected:
McCain has been very precise in his campaign promises to nominate only strict constructionists whose politics align with Scalia and Alito, there has been no wavering on that count with the exception that his "models" have changed from Thomas to Roberts as one of multiple "examples" he notes. Why should we risk a vote for McCain assuming he's lying rather than believing him and voting for Obama to stop the constitutional insanity? If anything, all the evidence strongly argues he will carry through on that promise, especially given his VP nomination. This happens to be my wedge issue for this election, though I believe Obama beats McCain in nearly every other category as well with few exceptions (I supported the surge).
Steve S - McCain assumes in this election he needs social conservatives to win re-election, that makes at least three elections in a row where they've been pandered to more than any other voting constituency from either party. If McCain wants to win in 2012, we should assume we'll get someone more like Thomas than Roberts in his first term.
Let's assume McCain wants to retire after his first term, the presumptive GOP candidate would then be Palin, where all evidence argues that she would nominate someone at or to the right of Clarence Thomas. One can even argue she'd go with someone the christian dominionist Constitution party supports given her statements align more with that party's positions than the GOP's (though it appears to be more from ignorance than any other factor, though we need more info to validate that notion).
Therefore to those that enjoy your liberty, a vote for McCain is a vote against that liberty interest in spite of that fact that McCain personally is most likely more mainstream. Like Bush 41 and Bush 43, I find McCain has no appreciation or respect for the role of SCOTUS in protecting our freedoms, it appears this is so in regards to the historical ignorance they all display and their not even understanding the basics of the various constitutional theories and how to reconcile those theories with our founding ideals and principles. All they appear to know are the conservative talking points. I doubt they could handle one drill down question on any aspect of their supposed constitutional philosophy.
IMO, the speculation by Babka is beyond reason given the plain evidence we have right in front of us (McCain's explicit and repeated promises and his VP nomination). A vote for McCain is vote is a vote for extreme conservatives to take-over SCOTUS. That just got re-emphasized with the Palin nomination with nearly zero evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 1:16 PM
To Ed's point that a deal may exist that McCain nominate conservative SCOTUS justices to garner social conservative support:
While I'm skeptical that has occurred, unless a Palin-like pick was part of the deal, my skepticism on that matter is irrelevant. See my above post, my reasoning in that post argues that even without a deal, McCain is obligated to nominate only Dobson-friendly picks to insure social conservative support for a 2012 GOP presidential victory, especially now that Palin is the VP candidate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 1:21 PM
I agree that her shortcomings need to be pointed out clearly and often. That said, am I the only one who's getting really sick of all the media attention surrounding Sarah Palin?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 3, 2008 1:30 PM
Sadie - I am not sick of the media coverage, I want more, and I want more aggresiveness on shining the light on her. The only comparable examples of insanity I can think of is nominating Dan Qualye, Harriet Meiers and Clarence Thomas and I believe those nominations pale in comparison to the insanity of this pick.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 1:52 PM
dogmeatib - provoctive comments regarding your perspective voucher and charter schools are failing miserably. Do you have a general source that validates your claims?
Michael,
I'm not sure where my comment is "provocative," but I will respond to your question. There are a number of articles published examining the state of voucher and charter schools in their respective states. Arizona has had a number of reports stating that the experiment has failed miserably:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12648
In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had an 8 part analysis where they went through the records and the sites to examine the voucher school program. Unfortunately they appear to have implemented a "pay-per-view" archival system since the last time I went there. There are a number of other journals, available through university subscriptions, showing the massive failures associated with the voucher and charter programs. Also, simply typing Charter schools failing in Google produces over 600,000 results. I did the analysis a couple of years ago when I was working on my MA and found that, with the exception of the existing religious schools (Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) available for voucher programs, and the selective schools like Basis, etc., the vast majority of charter and voucher schools fail to provide educational services that even approach the level of the public schools, let alone superior opportunities.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 3, 2008 1:56 PM
The result is a vicious circle: Teachers are underpaid, so the best potential teachers don't become teachers, so "those who can, do; those who can't, teach", so there are no good teachers, so there's no point in paying the teachers a reasonable salary because all teachers are bad.
David,
Your argument is flawed in the same basic way that claiming homeschooling is superior is flawed. You are making a broad sweeping claim regarding literally hundreds of thousands of schools, millions of teachers and their students, and thousands of school districts. There are truly exceptional public schools and districts in just about every city in the United States, just like there are failing schools and districts. There are also truly exceptional teachers in just about every school in the nation. The problem of funding is an issue, but it doesn't create the terrible cycle of absolutes that you envision. Also, remember that the United States requires that the schools teach every student, and that all students are subject to state testing, etc. Many countries only educate the children who pass state sponsored tests, others either go to vocational schools, or leave school entirely; neither group is included in comparative testing artificially elevating the test scores and perceived quality of the schools of those nations.
The overall issue is a complex one, not a simple, we need more money, or better teachers. Schools are a reflection of society, American society might not be broken, but it sure isn't looking so good right now. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 3, 2008 2:07 PM
Moreover, his father, whose contribution is likely to be just as important, died at the age of 70, that is, two years younger than McCain's current age.
Posted by: Bill Poser | September 3, 2008 2:31 PM
My father was an actuary. I shot him an e-mail asking about the statistics on McCain's demographic. He says that the life expectancy of a 72-year-old man in average health is around 12 years. Half of all 72-year-old men will have shorter lifespans. Half will live longer.
But McCain has all these other factors: He's outlived his father, but his mother is in her 90s. He was a Hanoi POW. He will be in an extremely stressful occupation. He's had skin cancer. He has the best medical care available.
There's just no way to know. Will McCain die in office? If I was perverted enough to bet on it, I'd bet on him living through two terms, but I am not willing to risk the possibility that his incapacitation will put Sarah Palin in charge.
Posted by: FishyFred | September 3, 2008 3:46 PM
Posted by: Danon | September 3, 2008 4:22 PM
Another thing to remember:
The fact that Palin was chosen indicates that McCain feels he owes something to the faction who identifies with Palin's positions on these issues. Once in office, he himself may feel compelled to throw a few more bones to these supporters.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 3, 2008 6:25 PM
I was on this earlier: I think the real problem isn't that teaching creationism could happen with a crazy McCain SCOTUS (though that is a great great point!). The problem is that creationism evinces a divorce from reality that, in our politicians, is dangerous in the extreme. To excuse creationism because it's not acted upon is to ignore what believing in creationism says about someone's ability to separate spin from sense; politics from fact. By advocating creationism, Palin proves she's "unfit for command" in that she doesn't see reality, save through the distorting lens of religion.
Posted by: Ames | September 3, 2008 7:07 PM
Btw, I thought the "Palin-tology" label was particularly clever...
Posted by: Ames | September 3, 2008 7:08 PM
Did McCain look at Palin's tits and think: "want"?
Has anyone asked the current Mrs. McCain her opinion concerning Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin spending much time together?
Posted by: khan | September 3, 2008 8:02 PM