<I believe that there are two major reforms that would greatly improve public education, both of them politically impossible: De-certify the teachers' unions; and <<remove the state and federal governments from all involvement in the schools.>>>

Really?

How would you have handled this situation differently from the way that President Eisenhower handled it?

<LRCHS was the focal point of the Little Rock Integration Crisis of 1957.[5] Nine African-American students, known as the Little Rock Nine, were denied entrance to the school in defiance of the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering integration of public schools.[5] This provoked a showdown between the Governor Orval Faubus and President Dwight D. Eisenhower that gained international attention.[5] On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 White Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[5] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[5] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 101st Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[5] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.[5] >

No.

<Do you agree with the inforwars site that says Zwick wants MMGW skeptics "tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground"? >

I am not sure what the inforwars reference is, but in reading the Forbes site, I'd say that would be an exageration.

<Do you agree that Prof Norgaard advocated for skeptics to be given "pharmacological or psychological treatment"? >

I am not inclined to search out whatever article Norgaard is cited. I would say this: <We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. <<Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued.>> Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?>

is extremely ugly language. I would like to see more of the original it was cited from to see if there was some contexual point that would moderate that de facto ugly language.

<Why not say something of substance, if you think you have anything that's actually defensible to say?>

I'll speak when and how I want to. I will note you are in the habit of ignoring some pretty straight forward points I make, points that are clearly the thrust of my posts. A few hundred words later, I guess I'm supposed to forget you aren't answering those points. As one example, he did not call his language a metaphor, although you saw fit to identify it as such. No problem. I didn't see fit to call my language an analogy, although your response was that you didn't see where I called it an analogy. You've had 2 shots at that already and still haven't dealt with it.

<OCF: I would like to see more of the original it was cited from to see if there was some contexual point that would moderate that de facto ugly language.>

Here is the original:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezw...

<As one example, he did not call his language a metaphor, although you saw fit to identify it as such. >

I think it became apparent that he was speaking figuratively when, immediately after mentioning the Tennessee firemen incident, he said:

<Zwick: We can apply this same logic to climate change.>

Then he began discussing the deniers. It's quite evident that when he said "let their houses burn", it was a reference back to the analogous Tennessee story, completing the "same logic".

Did it sound ugly? He did suggest that climate skeptics should have no reason to take offense, since the they would not be made to "pay" if they are right:

<Zwick: If the shirkers and deniers actually believe their propaganda, they’ll go along with this – because they only have to pay if they’re wrong and 98% of all climate scientists are right. >

If you still think I was out of line for supposing Zwick was speaking figuratively, he confirmed it himself on the 2nd page of the article:

<NOTE: After reading the comments, it’s clear I need to, well, clarify a few things.

First, I’m not advocating anyone go out and burn someone’s house down, just as the firemen didn’t burn anyone’s house down but rather withheld a service from people who didn’t pay their fair share. (A friend of mine did actually have his house burned down by a deranged animal rights activist, so I know there are crazies on both sides of this debate.)

I used the analogy of Tennessee firemen in part because their actions were roundly lauded by aficionados of the Tea Party, who don’t like the idea of someone getting something for nothing. I don’t advocate their inaction, but thought it would be interesting to see how people who supported them view this scenario. Also, since the victims of climate change are far away, I thought this analogy would provide some immediacy, which is why I added the phrase “until the innocent are rescued” in the eighth paragraph above for clarity.>

He continued on after that, but you can read it yourself if you are interested.

<OCF: I will note you are in the habit of ignoring some pretty straight forward points I make, points that are clearly the thrust of my posts. A few hundred words later, I guess I'm supposed to forget you aren't answering those points. >

Okay, I am not aware of any straight forward points you addressed to me that I didn't respond to. You are welcome to tell me which points they were. Afterwards, may I give you some straight-forward points that I directed your way which I believe you ignored?

<OCF: I didn't see fit to call my language an analogy, although your response was that you didn't see where I called it an analogy. You've had 2 shots at that already and still haven't dealt with it.>

I think your tactic is hardly passable as an "analogy" -- but whether it is or isn't wasn't the point of my objection. I was objecting to your implied logic, and I have addressed the flaws in your logic several times.

Notice <Ohio's> last post to <YouRang> there:

<I will try to do better about overreacting to disagreements. I know I need to work on it.>

<Ohio> and <YouRang> have been arguing over various topics for years, and yet still they remain civil, even when they get heated.

Please extend the same courtesy to our esteemed forum host.

unlike what pgp seems to imply, i haven't claimed he's a "liar". after spending a couple of posts on trying to provide him a way to moderate himself or define himself out of a corner he painted himself into, i figured i had wasted enough time on that approach and stated the obvious: he was *not* describing the teacher unions' attitude to "education reform" in an accurate, representative and truthful way.

i will totally respect your idea that it's ok (or "civil") to provide misleading or wrong information - when one should know rather well what the facts are (and when someone's trying to learn something about a topic) - while it's not ok (or that someone is *not* civil) to point out that information is wrong or untrue. i'm very much in disagreement with you, though.

here's the core:

<Both unions have succeeded in blocking any education reform ever proposed.>

this is simply not true, unless one assigns some very specific and artificial meaning to "education reform". i even offered pgp the option of nailing that very specific meaning (and i suggested my own artificial interpretation where this would be true, too) - but the claim as it stands is wrong, and pgp seemingly thinks it's possible to have a meaningful/fruitful debate/exchange about us education without arresting claims like that and without being precise and representative about teachers' conditions. i clearly don't agree - i find that impossible.

again, i called nobody a liar - i pointed out an untrue/false claim, framing it in terms of being truthful only after numerous attempts of getting somewhere without doing so. the amount of condescending language routinely used by <yourang> and <ocf> in their recurring disagreements makes my insistence on some coherence regarding facts in this exchange look like sunday school speech. (and yes, i've been a sunday school teacher.)

finally, you're right that i pressed pgp hard, but i've been absolutely civil all along. i did hope that a group of christian people would be able to discuss a topic without misrepresenting things for no good reason, and in particular when my clearly stated motivation is to better understand attitudes (to teaching and health care) that i quite don't understand without further explanations.

but as some sign of courtesy to the esteemed forum host i will leave the forum, as i appear no longer to be welcome - for reasons i find sad.

The way I was raised, it was expected that a guest should not offend the host, if he ever hoped to be welcomed back. But it was likewise expected that a good host should provide a hospitable and comfortable environment for the guests, if indeed he wishes to have them.

No, I was thinking about, for instance, the New Jersey Dept. of Education lumbering the local school districts with all sorts of unfunded mandates, and state legislatures signing contracts with teacher unions that the local districts have to pay for. The teachers ought to negotiate with the districts in which they actually teach.

First, I admit I went off half-cocked in my description of Steve Zwick's article. Does that answer your question? If not, I don't know what else to say. My description of it was not accurate--all right?

This morning I re-read the article carefully (with the "addendum")--and it still cheeses me off. In fact, I don't see how you can defend it.

Zwick assumes a "denial machine" that spreads "disinformation" and "propaganda." He names no names--his readers, apparently, are asked to take his word for it. He insists the "models [for MMGW] have proven incredibly accurate." Have they? By whom? And where does he get his figure of "98%" of scientists believing in MMGW?

And are there no liars, no distorters, on his side?

I find Zwick's essay inflammatory, bigoted, and altogether objectionable. If he thinks he's going to convert anyone to belief in MMGW with that stuff, he's wrong.

Now that I have answered your question, let me ask you one--a hypothetical question.

You are the duly elected president/prime minister of an industrialized Western country. Your "science" advisers tell you that in order to avoid disaster, millions of your country's citizens, roughly half of the population, somehow must be removed. They advise you do do "whatever it takes" to solve the problem--even if it means breaking the laws you swore an oath to uphold, and circumventing the democratic process by which you were elected. Presumably their "science" credentials are greater than yours, or they wouldn't be your advisers.

Then we've got Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proposing all kinds of munificent starting salaries for teachers (I think the last figure I heard was $160,000)--but without, of course, any changes in the accountability of teachers, etc.

The usual answer from me and most others is something like <I know it when I see it>. That's not very edifying.

<No, I was thinking about, for instance, the New Jersey Dept. of Education lumbering the local school districts with all sorts of unfunded mandates, and state legislatures signing contracts with teacher unions that the local districts have to pay for. The teachers ought to negotiate with the districts in which they actually teach.>

I won't argue with your last sentence, but do you think that all <funded mandates> from the state are ok? Or just some? Which ones?

<Teacher! Teacher! I know! I know! Just the ones I happen to like.>

<You are the duly elected president/prime minister of an industrialized Western country. Your "science" advisers tell you that in order to avoid disaster, millions of your country's citizens, roughly half of the population, somehow must be removed. They advise you do do "whatever it takes" to solve the problem--even if it means breaking the laws you swore an oath to uphold, and circumventing the democratic process by which you were elected. Presumably their "science" credentials are greater than yours, or they wouldn't be your advisers.

What do you do?>

You could try a version of this:

<Sinking Maldives would like to buy land in India

Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed is trying to prevent his island nation from going underwater, literally, due to climate change, but if that doomsday scenario does play out, among the options seriously being considered by his government is relocation of some of the country's population to India.>

Here's one way to solve the problem of over-population.

<Huntsville (Ala.) Times: Student rocket launch teams use project to reach more than 45,000 middle-schoolers>

Okay. Obviously it's your place to respond to <frogbert>. I'm just an observer here, and I notice that some visitors, such as <Deus Ex Alekhina> and now <frogbert> have decided to leave.

Yes, that answers it, and I appreciate the admission. Credibility is the issue here, and when someone gets a reputation for exaggeration and distortion, it costs them dearly in terms of credibility.

<This morning I re-read the article carefully (with the "addendum")--and it still cheeses me off. In fact, I don't see how you can defend it.>

As I said earlier, I wasn't defending his *proposal*. I even described it as "completely unworkable in real-life". I was really only defending Zwick from your misrepresentation of his article. Even someone guilty of one crime may be rightfully defended if falsely accused of a different crime, no?

<Zwick assumes a "denial machine" that spreads "disinformation" and "propaganda." He names no names--his readers, apparently, are asked to take his word for it.>

Yes, he could have done a better job of giving some examples of who he was talking about.

<He insists the "models [for MMGW] have proven incredibly accurate." Have they? By whom? And where does he get his figure of "98%" of scientists believing in MMGW?>

Well, here I think you're going a bit astray. His article did include a links supporting his claim regarding the accurate models: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph.... Now I know that you're going to want to discredit realclimate.org, but you shouldn't imply that Zwick didn't provide a source.

Also, you misquoted him. He didn't say <98% of scientists>. He said <98% of *climate* scientists>, which is a very different thing. Again, your question implies that he offered no source for the 98% figure, and yet he did provide a link for that: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...

<And are there no liars, no distorters, on his side?>

I didn't say that there aren't -- in fact I'm sure there are. But if there are, does that in any way excuse distortions by your side (or by you)?

<I find Zwick's essay inflammatory, bigoted, and altogether objectionable. If he thinks he's going to convert anyone to belief in MMGW with that stuff, he's wrong.>

I don't think the point of his article was to "convert" anyone. He was just raising a point that I think has some merit. That is, *IF* MMGW happens to be true and it results in famines for future generations, you can bet that future historians will look back with the harshest condemnation toward those who opposed the efforts to avoid the problem. Todays deniers may be seen as worse than the way we see Nazis.

Perhaps most of today's deniers will be dead by then. However, the people of the future may still express their hatred toward groups identified with MMGW denial. I expect that one such group will be Christians. There are already polls published that show a strong correlation between Christianity and MMGW denial. Interestingly, the Bible foretells a time when (1) there will be worldwide famines, and (2) Christians will be literally hated to death.

<Now that I have answered your question, let me ask you one--a hypothetical question.

You are the duly elected president/prime minister of an industrialized Western country. Your "science" advisers tell you that in order to avoid disaster, millions of your country's citizens, roughly half of the population, somehow must be removed. They advise you do do "whatever it takes" to solve the problem--even if it means breaking the laws you swore an oath to uphold, and circumventing the democratic process by which you were elected. Presumably their "science" credentials are greater than yours, or they wouldn't be your advisers.

What do you do?>

A *very* hypothetical question indeed, lol. If "removing" millions of citizens means killing them, I'm not going to do that. So, I think I would go on TV and officially declare that if the scientists are right, we're screwed.

The realclimate link is: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...

It's a perfectly valid question, and one that theologians have long struggled with, and I suppose there is no small disagreement among them.

My own view (subject to change) goes like this:

Evil is not actually a created "thing" in its own right. It's best thought of as a "falling short of good".

In the Bible, God is "good" by definition. All of the purposes and expressions of His will are good. Therefore anything less than good (i.e. evil) cannot be of God.

However, the Bible also teaches that evil exists, which implies:

(1) That some other beings must exist that have the free will to deviate from "good".

(2) That God, being supreme and the creator of all things, permits the free will and it's consequent evil.

So where did evil originate?

Theologically, I think the origination is described in Is 14:12-14 <12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star <some translations say "Lucifer" here>, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’>

This may be interpreted as God effectively looking past the king of Babylon (mentioned in v4) and speaking directly to the spirit that influences him. This spirit is commonly believed to be Satan, once a prominent angel to whom was given free will, but who (at some point in the ancient past) became prideful and, ironically, wanting to have the Glory of God himself, fell short of it. Thus he became evil and has been influencing people since the beginning of mankind to also be evil.

If God is good, how can he permit this?

Like I said above, God's purposes are good, and he is able to blamelessly use even evil for good purposes. As Joseph said to his brothers, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20).

What good purposes comes about from evil?

Nobody can say for sure. IMO, it appears that it serves the purpose of putting certain attributes of God on display that could never be known otherwise. For example, mercy and forgiveness. Also, justice and wrath.

Unless Doonesbury comics have lied to me.