Becoming the Stupidest Country on Earth

[RedImperator]

Neither a hugely uneducated mob nor a class system is a threat to the stability of an empire. See the roman empire for that fact, which recruited large parts of its intellectuals from the greeks. I can see that happening in the future, and I believe it is still going on. Just look at all those European scholars flocking to the US universities. Granted, there have been some setbacks, but I do not see that the trend is stopping anytime soon.

I'm not worried about the American Empire. I'm worried about the American Republic.

[Penitent Tangent]

Yes, the Gay Rights Movement is still going on; it will go on until adequete reforms are put in place, or such protests are outlawed. Sure, sypathetic politicans and judges who actually understand the American judical system have allowed a few victories, but opposition is still harsh, and doesn't seem to be relenting at all. How many times has the Anti-Gay Marriage Admendment come before the Congress now? How many states have passed, or attempted to pass laws expressly banning the practice? There are still enough reasonable people in Washington to hold back the tide, but resistants in the states is still strong, and overwhelming in many places.

As to the eventual fate of this religious resurgence, only time can tell.

Opposition is harsh because this is a major leap forward in human rights that goes deeply against the fundamentalist teachings of the bible. State resistance is strong but so was resistance to abortion but the supreme court ammended the constitution and allowed it.

As I have noted above, there is just as much bigotry and ignorance in state governments as there is in the Federal, probably more, espeically in the South and much of the Mid West.

Granted but everywhere else there is less bigotry so it balances itself out.

You over-estimate humanity's ability to learn from it's mistakes; dress up segragation in misleading legislation, and many might not even notice until it was too late.

Perhaps, I dont really think todays geo-political climate would allow for this to happen. Even after 9/11 no middle eastern people were corraled into camps or forced to live in a segragated place.

And the internet can be controlled, just like all other meida. It may not be as easily manipulated as television or print publications, but it can be done nonetheless.

Tell that to the RIAA . Even now they are having trouble stopping illegal music downloads and those are far easier to catch because they are .mp3 or .aac files. Imagine how hard it would be to track a few words on a page or in an e-mail. No there is no chance of that happening even if you could you would need thousands of people to monnitor the millions of pages that exist today.

Any way back to the topic at hand I think the author of the article is focused on little details and not on the big picture. After 9/11 a lot of people were indeed traumatised and a new religious movement occured and some things were done that shouldnt have been. But since then Bush's poll numbers are in the crapper despite the killing of Zarqawi and the new war in the middle east and the recent moves in congress to ban abortion gay marrige and stem cell research. Right now Republicans have no more cards left to play right now only a miracle could save them. (pun intended)
The few states that mandated the teaching of intelligent design have were mostly all overturned, save for kansas. As for the brainwashed students the only difference is they are all in one place instead of at home so the news reported on it. Honestly nothing in the article has swayed me to believe that the U.S. is regressing.

[Noble Ire]

Opposition is harsh because this is a major leap forward in human rights that goes deeply against the fundamentalist teachings of the bible. State resistance is strong but so was resistance to abortion but the supreme court ammended the constitution and allowed it.

Perhaps, but I still fear that the blacklash will eventually all the progress that has been made.

By the way, Roe vs. Wade didn't invovle a Constitutional Amendment.

Granted but everywhere else there is less bigotry so it balances itself out.

The fact that we have a throughly partisan administration and a throughly syncophatic, Republican Congress indicates that the nation is most certainly not balanced. Additionally, while a majority of states haven't actually banned the prospect of Gay Marriage, many are still highly unsympathetic to it, shooting down moves like those in Mass. and California. Hopefully, some of this balance will return with the next election, but one can't say for sure if that will happen.

Tell that to the RIAA . Even now they are having trouble stopping illegal music downloads and those are far easier to catch because they are .mp3 or .aac files. Imagine how hard it would be to track a few words on a page or in an e-mail. No there is no chance of that happening even if you could you would need thousands of people to monnitor the millions of pages that exist today.

The Federal Government possess a great deal more power than an organization like the RIAA alone. Just look at China, and it's manipulation of the information that web searches can provide to it's people. Certainly, the internet is far more wide-spread and entrenched in the US, but I suspect that similar things could occur here as well.

[kheegster]

America wouldn't be the most stupid country in the world, simply because there are so many undeveloped countries filled with illiterates. However, it almost certainly already is one of the dumbest developed countries even compared with places like South Korea or Taiwan, and the only way it can maintain its technological edge is by attracting large numbers of foreign brains.

[Patrick Degan]

Neither a hugely uneducated mob nor a class system is a threat to the stability of an empire. See the roman empire for that fact, which recruited large parts of its intellectuals from the greeks. I can see that happening in the future, and I believe it is still going on. Just look at all those European scholars flocking to the US universities. Granted, there have been some setbacks, but I do not see that the trend is stopping anytime soon.

Problem is when the intellectuals stop coming. The Romans didn't quite import all theirs, but as a whole they got lazy, lapsed into superstition, and thereby set their civilisation into irreversible decline.

[McC]

The fact that we have a throughly partisan administration and a throughly syncophatic, Republican Congress indicates that the nation is most certainly not balanced.

Ehhh...maybe. I suspect there's a lot of this can be credited to excessive gerrymandering, which has the effect of unfairly altering the democratic representation of an entire region. Consequently, places that might not normally elect Republicans end up doing so because of the crazy weighting their votes end up having.

In short, it may be fuckball politics rather than a global representation of increased social conservatism.

Additionally, while a majority of states haven't actually banned the prospect of Gay Marriage, many are still highly unsympathetic to it, shooting down moves like those in Mass. and California. Hopefully, some of this balance will return with the next election, but one can't say for sure if that will happen.

What bugs me is that the typical cited reason for shooting down Gay Marriage (rather than the obvious real reason of religious belief) is that the constitution does not contain anything therein guaranteeing the rights of homosexuals to marry, and thus the cases are typically dismissed on technical grounds.

I wasn't aware that the constitution contained anything guaranteeing the rights of heterosexuals to marry, either.

Ultimately (pardon me fo the brief tangent), I'm for Gay Marriage in our current system, but in an ideal world I'm against federally-backed social institutions in general. So, in one sense, you could call me "anti-Gay Marriage" when it comes to putting it in the constitution, but so too am I "anti-Straight Marriage" for the exact same reasons. This should not be construed to indicate that I don't think 'marriage' or rather 'permanent pair bonding' is a bad thing -- I think it's a fantastic thing. I just don't think the government should have any say in the matter one way or another.

I know a lot of "anti"-gay marriage people who feel the same way, interestingly. Of course, I'm in Massachusetts, which isn't exactly representative of much beyond liberal ideology.

The Federal Government possess a great deal more power than an organization like the RIAA alone. Just look at China, and it's manipulation of the information that web searches can provide to it's people. Certainly, the internet is far more wide-spread and entrenched in the US, but I suspect that similar things could occur here as well.

China's control over media outlets is eroding, as evidenced by the frequent studies of and attempts to break through (both inside and out) China's firewall system. I'd be surprised if this persists much longer, personally.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Additionally, while a majority of states haven't actually banned the prospect of Gay Marriage, many are still highly unsympathetic to it, shooting down moves like those in Mass. and California. Hopefully, some of this balance will return with the next election, but one can't say for sure if that will happen.

What bugs me is that the typical cited reason for shooting down Gay Marriage (rather than the obvious real reason of religious belief) is that the constitution does not contain anything therein guaranteeing the rights of homosexuals to marry, and thus the cases are typically dismissed on technical grounds.

Actually;

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

And I think that the US senate signed that document.

[McC]

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

And I think that the US senate signed that document.

I note that "sexual orientation" is distinctly omitted from that quote.

I'm not saying it's ethically right (it's obviously not), but in terms of the technicalities by which SCOTUS (and other U.S. courts) are supposed to abide, there's nothing mandating it.

[wolveraptor]

I can only point such assholes to the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Molyneux]

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

And I think that the US senate signed that document.

I note that "sexual orientation" is distinctly omitted from that quote.

I'm not saying it's ethically right (it's obviously not), but in terms of the technicalities by which SCOTUS (and other U.S. courts) are supposed to abide, there's nothing mandating it.

Men and women, according to that document, have equal rights as to marriage. Not equivalent, but equal.

If a male has the right to marry a woman, a woman must have the same right.
If a woman has the right to marry a man, men must also have that right.

That's what 'equal' means.

[McC]

Men and women, according to that document, have equal rights as to marriage. Not equivalent, but equal.

If a male has the right to marry a woman, a woman must have the same right.
If a woman has the right to marry a man, men must also have that right.

That's what 'equal' means.

Ah, fair point. Hadn't thought of it in those terms.

[Darth Servo]

I wish I had that article when I was debating that ID retard on StarTrek.com who kept insisting that the mass of people in the U.S. being creationists was due completely to evolution not being a sound theory.

Then again, this same idiot insisted that evolution meant atheism and didn't know the difference between ID and theistic evolution, blaming all the nation's problems on teaching atheism in school (he didn't even comprehend the difference between saying out-right that God does not exist (athiesm) and not mentioning the guy one way or the other) and a horde of other idiocies and lies that are par for the course with your basic religious fundie idiot.

[Thanas]

Neither a hugely uneducated mob nor a class system is a threat to the stability of an empire. See the roman empire for that fact, which recruited large parts of its intellectuals from the greeks. I can see that happening in the future, and I believe it is still going on. Just look at all those European scholars flocking to the US universities. Granted, there have been some setbacks, but I do not see that the trend is stopping anytime soon.

Problem is when the intellectuals stop coming. The Romans didn't quite import all theirs, but as a whole they got lazy, lapsed into superstition, and thereby set their civilisation into irreversible decline.

Intellectuals was never a problem of the roman empire. Even during the breakdown around 450 there were still a huge number of intellectuals. You are forgetting that the east survived till 1453, and that the ERE was the shining beacon of civilization during that period. Even when Constantinople finally fell, the escape off all those scholars jumpstarted the renaissance movement.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit - and the whole thing the romans got lazy is not a feasible theory in ancient history anymore. The decadence of rome is not a vital argument for the collapse of the empire if it continued to survive for another 1000 years after the supposed leap into decadence.

[Coalition]

The two classes will go to different schools

The curriculum will still be the same. The standards for graduation will still be the same. Laws will ensure of that.

An easy way to keep the laws intact, and still have the two separate classes, is private schools. The schools require a certain fee to enter, and teach the standard curriculum. However, they also teach an advanced curriculum, imparting their students with more knowledge. They use the fees the parents pay to acquire advanced educational materials, field trips, and keep the schools in excellent shape.

Public schools though, would have their budgets cut (declining tax revenues), use older textbooks (conservation of effective teaching materials), etc to reduce the actual effective learning that goes on, and laws could change the standards of graduation (improve the graduation rate of our schools to recognize the practical learning that students receive outside schools). (yes, the stuff in parentheses is the spiel given to the public to justify the changes, no it is not supposed to make logical sense)

Make the graduation standards for public schools easier, and you can still get high numbers of graduates. They don't really know anything useful, but they have graduated.

This would be a fairly effective method to create two classes in the United States, one educated, one effectively not.