Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

[BigBallinStalin]

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

No. His statement doesn't equal your statement.

His statement is absolutely a part of any basic health class I've ever seen in schools.

A part is not the whole, Woodruff. Are you still looking for an internet fight, or would you rather rephrase your question?

What I'd rather have is you to try to discuss the issue honestly. No, a part is not the whole...but it absolutely is a part. If "teaching healthy eating habits to kids" is a part of "any basic health class I've ever seen in schools", and you agree here that it is, then you must agree that teaching healthy eating habits to kids does NOT necessarily need to be voluntary and that there is no reason at all for it not to take place in a school. Unless you're going to now argue that primary education should be voluntary?

Ok, since it's part of it, then my opinion on natty's statement shouldn't be applied to your larger statement. That's why you need to rephrase your question, but apparently you don't want to.

This is retarded (see underlined). I'm not saying that, you are. So rephrase your question or continue with your lame Internet street fighting.

T minus 3 posts until Woodruff resorts to something about "reading comprehension" and "being idiotic."

[BigBallinStalin]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

How should I treat bendejo statements like "inflation doesn't mean jack shit"? __? With a respectful answer? hah. You think saying such jackass statements provides a great argument that invalids what I said earlier? Please. Put away your cross, and I'll treat you with respect.

_______________________________________________


Regarding your example, it depends on inflation and the base year for the price in order to determine the real GDP. There's nominal GDP (which are the two GDPs you stated in your example) and real GDP. Adjusting for inflation is performed via the GDP-deflator, which makes evident the real GDP relative to a set base year and its prices.

Which means that depending on one's base year for the price, the numbers will vary. I can't succintly express to you the differences between real and nominal values, GDP in general, inflation, and the GDP-deflator on here. It's up to you to educate yourself through wikipedia or through a simple book on economics or maybe through someone on here who's willing to spend the time to do so.

Besides, your example and the statistics used do not rely on other data. Other data is important, like specific tax brackets, and adjusting for inflation, etc. I don't know how to convince you that other data matters. If you believe only one thing and ignore other relevant factors that weren't mentioned, then how certain can you really be?

Feel free to educate him on the importance of inflation and nominal v real value.

[Woodruff]

No. His statement doesn't equal your statement.

His statement is absolutely a part of any basic health class I've ever seen in schools.

A part is not the whole, Woodruff. Are you still looking for an internet fight, or would you rather rephrase your question?

What I'd rather have is you to try to discuss the issue honestly. No, a part is not the whole...but it absolutely is a part. If "teaching healthy eating habits to kids" is a part of "any basic health class I've ever seen in schools", and you agree here that it is, then you must agree that teaching healthy eating habits to kids does NOT necessarily need to be voluntary and that there is no reason at all for it not to take place in a school. Unless you're going to now argue that primary education should be voluntary?

Ok, since it's part of it, then my opinion on natty's statement shouldn't be applied to your larger statement. That's why you need to rephrase your question, but apparently you don't want to.
This is retarded (see underlined). I'm not saying that, you are. So rephrase your question or continue with your lame Internet street fighting.
T minus 3 posts until Woodruff resorts to something about "reading comprehension" and "being idiotic."

I should have realized you didn't want to seriously discuss it. I shouldn't have bothered.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

[Phatscotty]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

Um, sorry to jump in so late, but I got nutrition in C-mite hockey, boxing, 6th grade wrestling, 3rd grade gym, 4th grade gym, 5th grade gym, 6th grade gym, home ec 6th grade, 7th grade health, 8th grade health, 9th grade gym, 10th grade weight lifting, 11th grade health, weight lifting, 12th grade health, volleyball in college personal health and fitness college, the charts on every school cafeteria wall I've ever been in, not to mention my parents all my life.

vitamins, minerals, amino acids etc = good
junk food, fried food, heavily processed food = bad

[Timminz]

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

How should I treat bendejo statements like "inflation doesn't mean jack shit"? __? With a respectful answer? hah. You think saying such jackass statements provides a great argument that invalids what I said earlier? Please. Put away your cross, and I'll treat you with respect.

_______________________________________________


Regarding your example, it depends on inflation and the base year for the price in order to determine the real GDP. There's nominal GDP (which are the two GDPs you stated in your example) and real GDP. Adjusting for inflation is performed via the GDP-deflator, which makes evident the real GDP relative to a set base year and its prices.

Which means that depending on one's base year for the price, the numbers will vary. I can't succintly express to you the differences between real and nominal values, GDP in general, inflation, and the GDP-deflator on here. It's up to you to educate yourself through wikipedia or through a simple book on economics or maybe through someone on here who's willing to spend the time to do so.

Besides, your example and the statistics used do not rely on other data. Other data is important, like specific tax brackets, and adjusting for inflation, etc. I don't know how to convince you that other data matters. If you believe only one thing and ignore other relevant factors that weren't mentioned, then how certain can you really be?

Feel free to educate him on the importance of inflation and nominal v real value.

You know as well as I do, that inflation doesn't make a difference to that ratio. Both the amount of tax collected, and the GDP are measured in the same year, and thus are comparable. It's not like they're comparing the tax collected in 1940 with the GDP of 2010.

[BigBallinStalin]

You know, you're way better at sounding like a dick than explaining things, but I'm interested. So, please, for my general edification, if 2007 GDP were $30 trillion, and tax revenues were $3 trillion (numbers I just made up) giving us a rate of 10%, and the 2008 numbers were $40 trillion and $3.2 trillion, giving us 8%, go how it is impossible to deduce that we were in fact less highly taxed in 2008.

How should I treat bendejo statements like "inflation doesn't mean jack shit"? __? With a respectful answer? hah. You think saying such jackass statements provides a great argument that invalids what I said earlier? Please. Put away your cross, and I'll treat you with respect.

_______________________________________________


Regarding your example, it depends on inflation and the base year for the price in order to determine the real GDP. There's nominal GDP (which are the two GDPs you stated in your example) and real GDP. Adjusting for inflation is performed via the GDP-deflator, which makes evident the real GDP relative to a set base year and its prices.

Which means that depending on one's base year for the price, the numbers will vary. I can't succintly express to you the differences between real and nominal values, GDP in general, inflation, and the GDP-deflator on here. It's up to you to educate yourself through wikipedia or through a simple book on economics or maybe through someone on here who's willing to spend the time to do so.

Besides, your example and the statistics used do not rely on other data. Other data is important, like specific tax brackets, and adjusting for inflation, etc. I don't know how to convince you that other data matters. If you believe only one thing and ignore other relevant factors that weren't mentioned, then how certain can you really be?

Feel free to educate him on the importance of inflation and nominal v real value.

You know as well as I do, that inflation doesn't make a difference to that ratio. Both the amount of tax collected, and the GDP are measured in the same year, and thus are comparable. It's not like they're comparing the tax collected in 1940 with the GDP of 2010.

The inflation does matter because it depends on how one wishes to measure the real value of the output (i.e. GDP) over a certain period of time--especially since the time frame is roughly 1980 to now. When inflation isn't adjusted to nominal GDPs/values, then all you have are nominal values, which are not real values.

How much does $20 trillion (2008) differ from $20 trillion (1980)? If it is true "that inflation doesn't make a difference to that ratio [of GDP to taxes], then your answer would have to be: "It wouldn't be different at all because inflation doesn't make a difference over those two different GDPs."


tl;dr

Is $20 trillion in 2008 the same value as $20 trillion in 1980?

show: Answer

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

I didn't say that. It's all been taken out of context, and then on the previous page or two pages ago, player inserted her misinterpreted opinion "of mine." It wasn't even quoted, and Woodruff was looking for a way out, so he took player's misunderstanding of my standpoint, applied it to his internet street fight, so he could immediately procede to banging his macho chest after he hit the "Submit" button for his forum reply.


This happened over 6 pages, and I laughed all the way through it because now there's really no point. If Woodruff really wants to understand my position, he could simply rephrase his question at me--instead of misconstruing my response to natty's remarks around 6 or so pages ago.

[Woodruff]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

I didn't say that. It's all been taken out of context, and then on the previous page or two pages ago, player inserted her misinterpreted opinion "of mine." It wasn't even quoted, and Woodruff was looking for a way out, so he took player's misunderstanding of my standpoint, applied it to his internet street fight, so he could immediately procede to banging his macho chest after he hit the "Submit" button for his forum reply.

This happened over 6 pages, and I laughed all the way through it because now there's really no point. If Woodruff really wants to understand my position, he could simply rephrase his question at me--instead of misconstruing my response to natty's remarks around 6 or so pages ago.

Woodruff did nothing of the sort. I did not at all take you out of context. I responded directly to your response to natty_dread...PLAYER was not even involved in that part of the discussion. But if mischaracterizing me is the only way for you to score your point, then so be it.

Oh, and I wasn't involved until page 8. This is page 9.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

I didn't say that. It's all been taken out of context, and then on the previous page or two pages ago, player inserted her misinterpreted opinion "of mine." It wasn't even quoted, and Woodruff was looking for a way out, so he took player's misunderstanding of my standpoint, applied it to his internet street fight, so he could immediately procede to banging his macho chest after he hit the "Submit" button for his forum reply.

This happened over 6 pages, and I laughed all the way through it because now there's really no point. If Woodruff really wants to understand my position, he could simply rephrase his question at me--instead of misconstruing my response to natty's remarks around 6 or so pages ago.

Woodruff did nothing of the sort. I did not at all take you out of context. I responded directly to your response to natty_dread...PLAYER was not even involved in that part of the discussion. But if mischaracterizing me is the only way for you to score your point, then so be it.

Oh, and I wasn't involved until page 8. This is page 9.

To which I said, sorry, Woodruff, but my response to natty's comment can not be correctly "copy and pasted" onto your comment because natty's and yours differ.

That's what I responded with, then I said, either 1) rephrase your question or 2) continue with the lame Internet street fight.

So far, you've picked 2 over and over and over again. It's boring, Woodruff, so just rephrase your question. Your ego won't be damaged for admitting that you wrongly superimposed my response to a different and much broader issue.

[Woodruff]

Sorry BBS, I'm with Woodruff on this technicality.

Do you want healthy eating taught in schools? Yes or no.

You said no.

Woodruff said he disagreed and healthy eating should be a part of every health class.

Where is the part/whole nonsense?

I didn't say that. It's all been taken out of context, and then on the previous page or two pages ago, player inserted her misinterpreted opinion "of mine." It wasn't even quoted, and Woodruff was looking for a way out, so he took player's misunderstanding of my standpoint, applied it to his internet street fight, so he could immediately procede to banging his macho chest after he hit the "Submit" button for his forum reply.

This happened over 6 pages, and I laughed all the way through it because now there's really no point. If Woodruff really wants to understand my position, he could simply rephrase his question at me--instead of misconstruing my response to natty's remarks around 6 or so pages ago.

Woodruff did nothing of the sort. I did not at all take you out of context. I responded directly to your response to natty_dread...PLAYER was not even involved in that part of the discussion. But if mischaracterizing me is the only way for you to score your point, then so be it.

Oh, and I wasn't involved until page 8. This is page 9.

To which I said, sorry, Woodruff, but my response to natty's comment can not be correctly "copy and pasted" onto your comment because natty's and yours differ.

That's what I responded with, then I said, either 1) rephrase your question or 2) continue with the lame Internet street fight.

So far, you've picked 2 over and over and over again. It's boring, Woodruff, so just rephrase your question. Your ego won't be damaged for admitting that you wrongly superimposed my response to a different and much broader issue.

Except that I did not. It has nothing to do with my ego. I've rephrased things in these fora plenty of times.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, Internet tough guy. Still waiting for you to rephrase whatever you wanted to ask me.

[Woodruff]

Ok, Internet tough guy. Still waiting for you to rephrase whatever you wanted to ask me.

Internet tough guy? Where'd you get that? At any rate:

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

You don't believe schools should require a basic health class? Particularly given the nature of the expenses our society is taking on as a result of shitty health?

[PLAYER57832]

So, BBS, you think kids should be able to decide what they learn in school?

or that parents should be, individually, able to decide the same?

[Mr_Adams]

or that parents should be, individually, able to decide the same?

Yes, the parents should decide. A few parents are smart enough to decide. They home school their kids. I know families where the dad works 2 jobs and the mom home schools the kids, because they know how bad the school system is.

[PLAYER57832]

or that parents should be, individually, able to decide the same?

Yes, the parents should decide. A few parents are smart enough to decide. They home school their kids. I know families where the dad works 2 jobs and the mom home schools the kids, because they know how bad the school system is.

Yeah, they actually have the GALL to teach kids science! instead of what Dr Morris and the other Creation "scientists" decide is the truth.

Note.. homeschooling has its place, but whenever I hear people just blasting the public school system and claiming homeschooling is the answer, it usually has to do with narrowing kids thinking, not expanding it. EXACTLY why we need public education.

[Mr_Adams]

or that parents should be, individually, able to decide the same?

Yes, the parents should decide. A few parents are smart enough to decide. They home school their kids. I know families where the dad works 2 jobs and the mom home schools the kids, because they know how bad the school system is.

Yeah, they actually have the GALL to teach kids science! instead of what Dr Morris and the other Creation "scientists" decide is the truth.

Note.. homeschooling has its place, but whenever I hear people just blasting the public school system and claiming homeschooling is the answer, it usually has to do with narrowing kids thinking, not expanding it. EXACTLY why we need public education.

It amazes me how full of shit you are. Could you, PLEASE, not demagogue for ONE thread? There are a large portion of homeschooling who are completely atheistic. I, for one, have a very different plan of education for my kids, should I have them. And it involves a lot of classical literature, a lot of math, and a lot of physics. You know, the things they might actually USE in life. If they want to move onto biology or chemistry, they will have the physics background already necessary for a thorough understanding of the other fields of science.

[PLAYER57832]

It amazes me how full of shit you are. Could you, PLEASE, not demagogue for ONE thread? There are a large portion of homeschooling who are completely atheistic. I, for one, have a very different plan of education for my kids, should I have them. And it involves a lot of classical literature, a lot of math, and a lot of physics. You know, the things they might actually USE in life. If they want to move onto biology or chemistry, they will have the physics background already necessary for a thorough understanding of the other fields of science.

Well, if you are skipping biology and evolution, then your kids will not be ready to move into other areas. Physics is nice, but not the end all. (it is required to truly understand biology, but not the reverse).


Anyway, I have been heavily involved with the homeschooling movement, came close to homeschooling my son (he has some special issues the school was not dealing with effectively at first). This is why I know it is HIGHLY dominated by the religious right. This is less true for the voucher cadre, but even then, the bottom line is that our society is already fractured. Offering diversity is good, but there absolutely MUST be a fundamental and consistant core that all children must learn. Most of the attacks on public education are not about creating a better system, they are about destroying the fundamental idea of public education, universal education. Even when that is not the goal, it will be the result.

(oh, and full disclosure.. I am working on creating a public charter school, so its not that I think our current model is perfect, its that I believe we must have public education above all else).
The fact that there are so many voices out there is precisely one of the things kids need to learn in school.

I agree that no child left behind stinks, but we got it because, right now, folks have allowed the far right, to move into all areas of the government, including education. That means the current government is doing a poor job, it does not mean that the idea of federal guidelines itself is wrong.

Also, there is a big difference between saying we need more and "harsher" (for lack of a better term-- better standards, anyway) universal educatation standards and saying that I want the federal government to micromanage. No child left behind is not only a poor plan, but makes innovation impossible by micromanaging far too much.

and, if I harp on the creationism bit in education, its because whereever I look, whenever I dig, creationism advocates and ideas rear their ugly head.. including, by-the-way in "no child left behind" (but I admit the trail is hard to follow... and I am not going to bother to get into it here, since you make it clear you are just not interested).

[Mr_Adams]

But it shouldn't be a federal issue in the first place! Universal education is not a function of the US constitution. You would have to take the preamble as a mandate instead of an introduction to even come to the conclusion that the public education, in it's current form, has a right to exist in the USofA. No Child Left Behind should not exist. The DoE should not exist. The National School Board shouldn't exist. It's AGAINST THE LAW, but they do it. What I advocate above all is the respect of the constitution.

And I apparently didn't make myself clear enough with the pattern I tied to lay out. First and foremost, I would teach mathematics. Engaged children have the ability to grapple complex mathematics at a younger age than they are give credit for. Calc 3 by 15 should be no problem for about 1/3-1/2 of all students. You can't really teach physics until you have that mathematics, because physics is applied mathematics. You can't teach chemistry without a qualified background in physics, because chemistry is applied physics. You can't teach biology without chemistry, because biology is applied chemistry. You can't teach medicine without a strong basis in math, because you need math for physics, which you need for chemistry, which you need for biology, which, applied, is medicine. My point is that I wouldn't have may kids step foot inside a public school, because the math curriculum will never meet my standards under the current system.

As for evolution, it isn't real science, it can't be tested. but that's besides the point. It isn't necessary in the teaching of biology at all.

[PLAYER57832]

But it shouldn't be a federal issue in the first place! Universal education is not a function of the US constitution. You would have to take the preamble as a mandate instead of an introduction to even come to the conclusion that the public education, in it's current form, has a right to exist in the USofA. No Child Left Behind should not exist. The DoE should not exist. The National School Board shouldn't exist. It's AGAINST THE LAW, but they do it. What I advocate above all is the respect of the constitution.

Education is a fundament to Democracy.

And I apparently didn't make myself clear enough with the pattern I tied to lay out. First and foremost, I would teach mathematics. Engaged children have the ability to grapple complex mathematics at a younger age than they are give credit for. Calc 3 by 15 should be no problem for about 1/3-1/2 of all students.

LOL... I am currently teaching the 4 year olds in my care addition and substraction... but I also teach science, pre-reading, art, etc.

You can't really teach physics until you have that mathematics, because physics is applied mathematics.

NOT at all true. You have to teach the concepts long before you get into the math. Even to take cub scouts, Webelos science badge requires kids to know the Bertoli principle. Now, I personally don't think that itself is that important. however, I teach pressure by letting the kids experiment with balloons, teach osmosis, etc, etc, etc. (not to mention some basic astronomy, etc,..)

You can't teach chemistry without a qualified background in physics, because chemistry is applied physics.

Only true for some aspects. My kids know that if you mix baking soda and vineger it bubbles, causes a reaction. I expand this (in time.. being very short here) to don't mix cleaning products, etc.

Some things taste sour, some sweet.. why is chemistry. water is H2O...e tc, etc, etc

You can't teach biology without chemistry, because biology is applied chemistry.

Getting closer to truth, but because biology is so encompassing. however, very wrong in that kids can and should learn to observe nature, learn to plant seeds, what animals and plants need, that plants clean air, make food,e tc, etc etc,

YOur kind of thinking... that you have to learn advanced math before any kind of science, is exactly why our system is so poor at teaching science. Sure, math and statistics and equations are important (actually ... you seemed to have skipped over statistics. Sampling is probably FAR more critical for most kids to understand today than calculus.. though I do love calc)

You can't teach medicine without a strong basis in math, because you need math for physics, which you need for chemistry, which you need for biology, which, applied, is medicine.

True.. but not true.
I can point to a lot of skilled tribal type healers that don't know a lick of math. You also don't need math for first aid, to understand many concepts. Note, I firmly believe in math, and absolutely no one can be a doctor without it. However, I don't believe in holding back learning until someone has math. Kids learn in different ways. In fact, your "plan" hits on part of what is so very wrong with no child left behind. You look only at those things most easily testable and verifiable. You are looking at rote learning rather than an overall comprehensive understanding of how the world works.

My point is that I wouldn't have may kids step foot inside a public school, because the math curriculum will never meet my standards under the current system.

Well... your system absolutely would not meet MY standards by any stretch, and I do send my son to public school.

As for evolution, it isn't real science, it can't be tested. but that's besides the point. It isn't necessary in the teaching of biology at all.

LOL..there we have it!

"evolution is not tested". Actually, it is.. but you would have to have studied real science, something beyond just math and what you seem to know of physics and chemistry, to understand that.

[natty dread]

As for devilution, it isn't real science, it can't be found in the bible. but that's besides the point. It isn't necessary in the teaching of biology at all.

phicsed

[Mr_Adams]

And I apparently didn't make myself clear enough with the pattern I tied to lay out. First and foremost, I would teach mathematics. Engaged children have the ability to grapple complex mathematics at a younger age than they are give credit for. Calc 3 by 15 should be no problem for about 1/3-1/2 of all students.

LOL... I am currently teaching the 4 year olds in my care addition and substraction... but I also teach science, pre-reading, art, etc.

You can't really teach physics until you have that mathematics, because physics is applied mathematics.

NOT at all true. You have to teach the concepts long before you get into the math. Even to take cub scouts, Webelos science badge requires kids to know the Bertoli principle. Now, I personally don't think that itself is that important. however, I teach pressure by letting the kids experiment with balloons, teach osmosis, etc, etc, etc. (not to mention some basic astronomy, etc,..)

You can't teach chemistry without a qualified background in physics, because chemistry is applied physics.

Only true for some aspects. My kids know that if you mix baking soda and vineger it bubbles, causes a reaction. I expand this (in time.. being very short here) to don't mix cleaning products, etc.

Some things taste sour, some sweet.. why is chemistry. water is H2O...e tc, etc, etc

You can't teach biology without chemistry, because biology is applied chemistry.

Getting closer to truth, but because biology is so encompassing. however, very wrong in that kids can and should learn to observe nature, learn to plant seeds, what animals and plants need, that plants clean air, make food,e tc, etc etc,

YOur kind of thinking... that you have to learn advanced math before any kind of science, is exactly why our system is so poor at teaching science. Sure, math and statistics and equations are important (actually ... you seemed to have skipped over statistics. Sampling is probably FAR more critical for most kids to understand today than calculus.. though I do love calc)

You can't teach medicine without a strong basis in math, because you need math for physics, which you need for chemistry, which you need for biology, which, applied, is medicine.

True.. but not true.
I can point to a lot of skilled tribal type healers that don't know a lick of math. You also don't need math for first aid, to understand many concepts. Note, I firmly believe in math, and absolutely no one can be a doctor without it. However, I don't believe in holding back learning until someone has math. Kids learn in different ways. In fact, your "plan" hits on part of what is so very wrong with no child left behind. You look only at those things most easily testable and verifiable. You are looking at rote learning rather than an overall comprehensive understanding of how the world works.

My point is that I wouldn't have may kids step foot inside a public school, because the math curriculum will never meet my standards under the current system.

Well... your system absolutely would not meet MY standards by any stretch, and I do send my son to public school.

As for evolution, it isn't real science, it can't be tested. but that's besides the point. It isn't necessary in the teaching of biology at all.

LOL..there we have it!

"evolution is not tested". Actually, it is.. but you would have to have studied real science, something beyond just math and what you seem to know of physics and chemistry, to understand that.

All you have listed are the applications of said sciences, not the sciences themselves. there is a huge difference. My Chem 152 class I took last semester was a complete joke because they tried to teach basic quantum mechanics and equilibrium reactions without the use of calculus. There were literally limit problems presented as algebra, which made absolutely no sense, and could be easily compressed into simple derivatives, should the class have had a calc 1 as a pre-rec, or even a co-rec.

But it shouldn't be a federal issue in the first place! Universal education is not a function of the US constitution. You would have to take the preamble as a mandate instead of an introduction to even come to the conclusion that the public education, in it's current form, has a right to exist in the USofA. No Child Left Behind should not exist. The DoE should not exist. The National School Board shouldn't exist. It's AGAINST THE LAW, but they do it. What I advocate above all is the respect of the constitution.

Education is a fundament to Democracy.

yes, it does. guess what? This isn't a democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

[PLAYER57832]

All you have listed are the applications of said sciences, not the sciences themselves. there is a huge difference. My Chem 152 class I took last semester was a complete joke because they tried to teach basic quantum mechanics and equilibrium reactions without the use of calculus. There were literally limit problems presented as algebra, which made absolutely no sense, and could be easily compressed into simple derivatives, should the class have had a calc 1 as a pre-rec, or even a co-rec.

LOL LOL LOL

Sorry, but I had to stop right there. at "my chem 152 class".

anyway.. I gotta go to my son's baseball game now. More important than this discussion, sorry. Will pick it up later. (assuming no one else has taken it up already)

OH, OK, I will bite on one point quickly ... the reason they do it with algebra 2 is because they have discovered that they can teach basic chem without calculus and therefore reach many more students. Now, understand, I absolutely would like to see more high schoolers learning calculus, but it is not absolutely necessary to learning chemistry. Its nice, and does get important later on, but there is a LOT of chemistry that doesn't involve calculus.