Texas Republican Party Seeks Ban on Critical Thinking
- Thread starter Bubble181
- Start date
- Status
"Naw, it couldn't be," I thought to myself, as I clicked on the link, "It's just a sensationalist headline. Or it's just Bubble messing with us."
And then I read the article.
The next thing I know, I wake up in the hospital, just after the doctors had finished surgically removing my palm from my face.
And then I read the article.
The next thing I know, I wake up in the hospital, just after the doctors had finished surgically removing my palm from my face.
That's a rather interesting platform to run with. I do wonder if it is more about energising the base than an actual plan of how to manage public affairs, though.
Of course, I lack sufficient knowledge of US/Texas domestic politics to accurately evaluate whether parties there are really intending to push things such as these through. Some points in the official report seem like decent ideas, but many are eyebrow-raising.
Of course, I lack sufficient knowledge of US/Texas domestic politics to accurately evaluate whether parties there are really intending to push things such as these through. Some points in the official report seem like decent ideas, but many are eyebrow-raising.
So do most Americans. Most of the issues listed in that article are of the nature "These are things we wish for, but know won't happen. However it gives you an idea of the kinds of things our party stands for."
I wonder what all those engineers in Austin and Houston think about a ban on critical thinking. Maybe most of the smart people moved away once NASA shut down the shuttle program.
Dave
Staff member
Republican response: Oops. Didn't mean to do that. Oh, well. It's there now.
Zappit
Staff member
It reads like...evil. For the love of - critical thinking!?!
We don't want to challenge the beliefs these children hold - such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Monster Under the Bed. Plus, how can these children obey the "Honor Thy Mother and Father" commandment when they can think for themselves? Besides, we've already ingrained our beliefs in their parents, so that's how we pass on the mental cancer that is Texas Conservatism.
Honestly, I don't think even syphilis or The Jersey Shore could do as much damage to a mind like these people could.
We don't want to challenge the beliefs these children hold - such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Monster Under the Bed. Plus, how can these children obey the "Honor Thy Mother and Father" commandment when they can think for themselves? Besides, we've already ingrained our beliefs in their parents, so that's how we pass on the mental cancer that is Texas Conservatism.
Honestly, I don't think even syphilis or The Jersey Shore could do as much damage to a mind like these people could.
M
makare
Sometimes I wonder if the GOP at large looks at the activities of individual state parties and thinks "oh for the love of God! Ideas that are formed at the Republican National Convention stay at the Republican National Convention!"
Zappit
Staff member
Because you can never underestimate the stupidity of human beings, nor their determination to spread it.How is this a thing?
Someday I'll learn.
Not if they can help it.
Would this thread be a good place to discuss the relative merits of the republican proposals, as outlined in the article?
Opposition to corporate and estate taxation, in favor of consumer taxation. Some places like Estonia and Ireland have met with reasonable success with minimal or non-existent corporate taxes. Make the legal environment good for corps, they'll move in and create jobs for ordinary citizens. Or I guess that's the idea. The elimination of the estate tax is a bit funny, as is the increase in consumer taxes; as I understand, domestic consumption is a significant factor in the US economy.
Repealing minimum wage laws. I suppose it's easy to claim that predatory corporations are raking in huge profits while paying pittance to their employees. Well, successful companies try not to pay employees any more than their labor is worth, so minimum wage laws might in fact restrict them from hiring people for some tasks. Which means people who can't get a job. Little corporate taxation with lax minimum wage laws might help with unemployment.
Privatising social security. We're having some difficulties here in Finland with the opposite system, as changing age demographics leave fewer working people to pay for the pensions of the elderly, so a private system might have it's advantages.
Return to gold standard. It would seem to me that the gold standard is rather inflexible in case of financial turmoil, so I'm not sure if this is always such a good idea.
Repealing minimum wage laws. I suppose it's easy to claim that predatory corporations are raking in huge profits while paying pittance to their employees. Well, successful companies try not to pay employees any more than their labor is worth, so minimum wage laws might in fact restrict them from hiring people for some tasks. Which means people who can't get a job. Little corporate taxation with lax minimum wage laws might help with unemployment.
Privatising social security. We're having some difficulties here in Finland with the opposite system, as changing age demographics leave fewer working people to pay for the pensions of the elderly, so a private system might have it's advantages.
Return to gold standard. It would seem to me that the gold standard is rather inflexible in case of financial turmoil, so I'm not sure if this is always such a good idea.
Necronic
Staff member
Probably not, the majority of members here are FILTHY liberals (this needs an Invader Zim picture)
Current corporate taxation in the US is completely borked. The "base" rate is something like 30%, but quoting that number is completely disengenious because the tax code is such a complete mess replete with loopholes and grants from the government. I'm not sure what the "real" tax rate most companies pay is, probably like 20%.
Is that fair? Well, you tell me. The US has a couple of really unique value propositions for companies. First, it's where other companies are. Sure, that's a tautology, but it works (why do businesses operate in NYC?) Second, more important (but equally a tautology), the US has a TON of money. There is more money flying around here than in a New Jersey nightclub on "Make it Rain" night.
Third, the US is a secure place to do business. It sounds strange, but some companies can see the US and say "Ok, they won't be invaded. They only border two countries and they are not going to invade." Although, the way things are going in Europe and have gone in South/central America from time to time, they may be saying this: "The US will NEVER nationalize our industry". There are few countries in the world that have our level of security where this is as sure as it is here.
So...I dunno. Tax system needs to be cleaned up, but I don't think the tax rates are that high. Where else are they going to go? Greece? LOL.
Repealing minimum wage laws is stupid/immoral. It implies that there are jobs that are worth less than minimum wage, which there aren't. And what it does is open people up to exploitative working conditions that have existed THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY. Like seriously, worker protections exist for a reason. Republicans are stupid to forget that (one reason I still vote Dem)
Dangerous, but could work. Trick is that it still needs to be heavily monitored/regulated. Investing SS in anything other than US treasury bonds is a terrible idea though.
Mind bogglingly stupid. There are a handful of things that I hear from people that say to me "hey ok this guy has never actually thought about his political stances and just regurgitates crap." Gold standard is one of them. Here's why it's dumb:
1) At current prices there ISNT ENOUGH GOLD IN THE WORLD to back the US currency. That's right, we outgrew gold. Which leads us to the next problem.
2) Gold backed currencies can cause deflation. If we had a gold backed currency from 1901 to present day we would have had massive deflation in our currency in that time period. Deflation is BAD. Deflation MURDERS investing, and businesses as well.
3) Gold is easily manipulated. There are only a handful of gold mines in the world. And they are in bad countries and run by pretty bad companies. Their output would directly affect the strength of the US dollar. Yeah. That's smart.
Well, if it works in Estonia...
A 20% corporate tax rate would be nothing all that special. Solid business ecosystems can be found in many places. And money moves across borders quite fast and easy nowadays at the touch of a button. As to nationalisation, some of the US actions during the bailouts did hint something to that effect; because of an emergency I'm sure, though one could argue few modern economies would nationalise companies in anything but.
I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is that it's a pretty competitive place out there nowadays. And the US hasn't been doing all so well in relative terms in the race for some time now, and projections indicate might lose it's top spot in the near future.
How about China?
I'm not arguing for the elimination of worker's protection laws in general. I'm approarching this from a demand/supply point of view, and theory might indicate that a minimum wage functions as a price control, potentially leading to an inefficient outcome.
I don't consider the gold standard as a good idea either. But there are some noted economists who seem to be in favor of the gold standard or other form of hard currency, as an alternative to the fiat money economy we now have. So I'm guessing there might be some merit to the idea, and that it might not be quite as disasterously stupid as that.
There are a couple of causes for the irish economic situation. I'm not sure the low corporate tax rate they had can really be counted as one of them.
fade
Staff member
I have tried to make this argument so many times, only to get weak responses that I don't feel like arguing against. Free market did exist. It existed for millenia. Only completely free markets tend to go by other names like "monarchy" and "dictatorship" and "hegemony". The filthy liberal in me already sees this country as a corporate oligarchy. That's why I keep using silly terms like "private tax", because we pay them all the time. Only it's cool, you know, because OMG the company is private. Which is apparently a magical balm that absolves the taxer of all sins.
EDIT: On the other hand, I've never read the Austinist, but it's quite clearly a biased publication. I would like to see a more objective account.
Necronic
Staff member
That's true enough, but I really don't see many alternative for businesses at the moment (not that that's a good argument for staying.) Europe is in a lot of trouble as is the Middle East, both represent a large amount of risk to a company.
China has only entered the realm of reasonable locations for international business in the last decade really due to it's history of unenforced copyrights/patents. With that out of the way they are in a better position to be a serious contender, but they still have a long way to go (10 years does not a stable country make.)
There's a good report/debate on this here:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/de...544-china-does-capitalism-better-than-america
One particularly good section on China:
Y'all realize that Texas already exerts significant (some would say undue) influence over the Nation's education system, right? Now they're just more comfortable coming out of the closet about it.
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
Reading some of those changes, I have to say - sometimes they're sort-of right. I mean, I don't see a problem with teaching children about the Black Panthers besides MLK Jr. Pretending the whole of black empowerment and antiracism etc etc was entirely without any violent forefighters is just as much rewriting of history as some of the idiocies the Republicans are promoting/introducing. Of course, if you're including the Panthers, you're probably going to have to include the violent movements it was a reaction to, such as the KKK and whatever. Just an example, not intending to start a debate on anything etc etc.
Anyway, what I find especially terrifying in that article is how much of their changes aren't in any way "conservative" - they're partly revisionist, partly negationist, but the most dangerous of all: paving the way for a theocracy. The "ideal" of a USA as a Christian state strikes just as much fear into my heart as does that of countries lead by blind/fundamentalist muslims - say, Iran. More - the USA has atomic bombs and the willingness to use them.
Necronic
Staff member
That "theocracy" crap that the republicans have been spouting for the better part of 30 years is such a shame too. I want to be a conservative, I really do. I hate entitlement programs, and I think California and Detroit are great examples of what's wrong with liberal politics.
But I will NEVER vote republican as long as they include religion in their platforms the way they do. All the other "Social Conservatism" really. Every bit of it clashes with my views of "small government" to such an extreme that I would rather vote for economic policy I don't agree with than social policy that I think is flat out evil and unamerican.
But I will NEVER vote republican as long as they include religion in their platforms the way they do. All the other "Social Conservatism" really. Every bit of it clashes with my views of "small government" to such an extreme that I would rather vote for economic policy I don't agree with than social policy that I think is flat out evil and unamerican.
I can understand that. If you had an honest choice between economically liberal and economically more social, that's a fair choice. Ethically conservative or progressive, both perfectly ok. But the choice between anything and "Give up your freedoms and let yourself be led by the Bible, literally and completely" is just the opposite of anything the US is supposed to stand for. I don't understand how that message got mixed up in the regular conservative stuff.
I'm not sure where or when, but somewhere along the lines, the gop got hijacked by a ultra right wing, fundamentalist religion crazy train
The 1980's. Reagan was an evangelical, if I remember correctly, and brought a hard Christian slant into the GOP. It was seen as restoring morality to a party that had just been rocked by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's behavior.
Necronic
Staff member
The irony is that Reagan was the first of a new generation of Republicans, the ones that really started cowtowing to the religious right, and he was a student of Goldwater. Goldwater will always go down in my books as a conservative hero for how he lambasted Republicans for their evolving relationship with the religious right. Some of his quotes are pretty amazing considering how often you hear his name brought up by conservatives today as "an inspirational figure" in their political development etc:
Could you imagine a Republican saying this today?
See, the thing about Regan that I really can't get behind is that he is an actor at heart and was one through his entire presidency. He wasn't even replublican until he was pretty much forced to become one by Nancy's father in order to marry her.
He was a figurehead, and that's what I find scary about what he represents to America. He ushered in the era of presidents who don't generally make their own policy, they allow others to do it for them. I'm including Clinton in that as I still think Hillary had a much bigger say in his policy making than he did.
He was a figurehead, and that's what I find scary about what he represents to America. He ushered in the era of presidents who don't generally make their own policy, they allow others to do it for them. I'm including Clinton in that as I still think Hillary had a much bigger say in his policy making than he did.
GasBandit
Staff member
FTA:
One word rebuttal: Galveston.[DOUBLEPOST=1341353049][/DOUBLEPOST]
One word rebuttal: Galveston.[DOUBLEPOST=1341353049][/DOUBLEPOST]
Goldwater was the last true conservative in the GOP.
GasBandit
Staff member
Did any of the others do any better, really?
Religion is not the root of all evil guys, no matter how much you think so.
Even including religion in politics isn't necessarily bad either. Blaming religion on the GOP's "craziness" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of religion and the part it plays in politics, people's lives and the world. Removing Christianity, for example, from the GOP likely wouldn't make the GOP seem any less "crazy" to a giant portion of Democrat supporters (Unless your sole beef is with religion in general) because a lot of fundamental policies of the GOP wouldn't necessarily change. Furthermore, people who hold extreme views would likely hold those views or views similar to it with or without religion as their personality already lends them towards such thoughts. Proposing that religious people follow the bible like a computer executes a program is an intellectually dishonest position and is more said to mock or discredit religious believers than any attempt to actually understand. There are just as many atheistic idiots in the Democratic party as there are Republican zealots and I say religion has nothing to do with it. They'd be that way regardless. The flavor of their arguments are shaped by belief but not, I believe, fundamentally changed.
Fun Fact: A lot of Chinese blame their current state of social disorder on the destruction of religion through Maoist policies that removed the "heart" from society.
Even including religion in politics isn't necessarily bad either. Blaming religion on the GOP's "craziness" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of religion and the part it plays in politics, people's lives and the world. Removing Christianity, for example, from the GOP likely wouldn't make the GOP seem any less "crazy" to a giant portion of Democrat supporters (Unless your sole beef is with religion in general) because a lot of fundamental policies of the GOP wouldn't necessarily change. Furthermore, people who hold extreme views would likely hold those views or views similar to it with or without religion as their personality already lends them towards such thoughts. Proposing that religious people follow the bible like a computer executes a program is an intellectually dishonest position and is more said to mock or discredit religious believers than any attempt to actually understand. There are just as many atheistic idiots in the Democratic party as there are Republican zealots and I say religion has nothing to do with it. They'd be that way regardless. The flavor of their arguments are shaped by belief but not, I believe, fundamentally changed.
Fun Fact: A lot of Chinese blame their current state of social disorder on the destruction of religion through Maoist policies that removed the "heart" from society.
- Status