Skipping the chapters on evolution avoids one of the obvious conclusions: There are some people with an evolutionary advantage that offers protection against intense ultraviolet radiation. Nevertheless, Florida has a history of devaluing such people.
It is really scary and distressing to consider how many generations will pass through the education system before it recovers from the current administration. Even in the unaccredited school of Duval Count in the 50s and 60s, I got a very good education with excellent, dedicated teachers who not only taught me facts, but challenged me to hunt for more. I have never tired of learning. I remember their names up through the seventh grade:
1st Mrs. Nelms
2nd Mrs. Sowder
3rd Mrs Garner*
4th Mrs Cherry (my favorite who comforted me during parent's divorce; and taught me cursive
5th Miss Guess (my first teacher crush; in my 30s she turned up at my father's house, a musician
friend of father and step-mother... amazingly still single and beautiful)
6th Miss Krueger
7th Miss Guess , Mr Adams
*noted for the report card that lived on the refrigerator for many years. It chronicled behavior:
1st.six week citizenship: Bruce talks in class.
2nd six weeks citizenship: Bruce disturbs students around him
3rd six weeks citizenship: Brice continues to cut up in class
4th six weeks citizenship: Bruce is a disturbing element in class
5th six weeks citizenship: Bruce insists on clowning behavior (she and mom were now friends)
6th six weeks citizenship: Doesn't this child ever shut-up. (that was mom's favorite)
Well done review of the current state of Florida Education:
✔️teachers paid so poorly they leave.
✔️governor (trying to) shut down teachers unions so they can’t stand up for safety and security in the school work place
✔️ censors loose on the school (and classroom) libraries overriding district curriculum
✔️$$$$$ paid incentives given families to leave public schools (weakening enrollment in public schools)that a lot of public ones have to close, mandating a co-location bill allowing charter schools to take over empty school classrooms/buildings.
Not just Florida. Back in 2009 here in Cherryfield, Maine, the school superintendent barred the middle school from having a whole-school assembly and program to watch on television and celebrate the inauguration of Barak Obama. The initiating teacher (whom you know, J.C.) decided instead to broadcast the inauguration to the entire student body during lunchtime in the cafeteria.
I must say our 10 yr.old grandaughter, who we have custody of , started 5th grade here in Naples, floriduh at a public school that I won't mention, and has already talked about climate change in her science class. They do not have textbooks, but are given a computer and work/homework sheets for the week. I am totally impressed with the school and teachers. Helping her with her math homework has been a learning lesson for us lol. Unfortunately we have tax payer charter schools, I don't know what they teach, just that they call themselves "Academies ".
I cannot quite remember the saying, but it means that if a man's livelihood depends on believing something, it is very hard to change his mind (or hers).
The satire’s basic argument is ‘their teaching is propaganda, ours is truth.’ That doesn’t challenge indoctrination; it just switches sides. Dressing your own political assumptions up as unquestionable truth is exactly the behavior you’re supposedly criticizing.
You are completely ignoring the fact that actual science, including climate science, is evidence-based, while propaganda is not. If I'm being "indoctrinated" with facts and evidence, then I'll gladly sign up and even pay for that kind of "indoctrination"...it's called an education. The last thing actual science could be called is "political assumptions". The actual science is what used to be taught in public schools, except perhaps in deep red states. Some Republicans, like Desantis, apparently don't like that. Watering down or taking out climate science from textbooks has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politicians going to bat for the fossil fuel industry. That's exactly the kind of politician we citizens should be voting out of office. And we will this November.
You are completely ignoring the fact that I never said climate science is propaganda. I said this article’s framing is.
What you’re replying to isn’t there. And it’s pretty funny that while we’re discussing political assumptions, you immediately supplied one for me.
If Florida is watering down established climate science, then put the science back in the textbook. Teach the evidence accurately. Fine.
But look at what this satire actually does: it takes children who are supposedly being misled by one political ideology and simply hands them over to another. Now the “correct” kids all follow the same activists, distrust the same politicians, repeat the same assumptions about motives, and somehow arrive at the author’s exact worldview.
You didn’t solve indoctrination. You just changed the instructor.
That is my criticism.
Climate science is science. The author’s politics are politics. Blending the two together and then calling the whole package “education” is exactly the problem.
Okay, so what's an approach in sudden flash floods in our local neighborhoods destroying property, continuous droughts, as just a few examples. I appreciate your insight on the writer's approach as well as other posts here clarifying science-based weather phenomenon (which btw the feds cut big funding to our federal weather departments, curiously). I've heard both sides for 4 decades....f o r t y years of climate change and deniers, talking about talking about it....when do we all just consider that if there's 1% chance that our global floods and droughts just might be the result of whatever you want call it...well just maybe we can make significant changes,also be better prepared with our local infrastructures....just a thought. Then again, one replies, this is all just a natural 100 year cycle...again, what if there's a 1% chance that is wrong and we can make a change, but we have to try, and that, we are not
I’m trying to read through what you’re saying, and I think your point is basically: climate risks may be serious, so shouldn’t we act even if there’s uncertainty?
That’s a completely fair question, but it’s also outside the scope of what I said. My criticism is about how this article teaches people to think, not whether climate policy should exist.
Separate point: “what if there’s even a 1% chance?” is not, by itself, a sound argument for policy. A possibility of harm tells you almost nothing unless you also consider the probability, severity, cost of prevention, effectiveness of the proposed response, tradeoffs, and risks created by the response itself.
I’m not even making a climate argument there. I’m talking about the logic. A non-zero chance of something bad happening cannot automatically justify whatever policy is proposed in response.
So I’m not sure what you’re asking me. Are you asking what I think climate policy should actually look like?
Dylan, what you refer to as the "author's exact worldview" is based on science, i.e. real evidence. A science-based "worldview" is not really a worldview but is instead the truth as we best understand it. Craig Pittman is an environmental scholar who is also an excellent and clever writer. He has written about a theoretical future Florida classroom scenario, based on Florida government censoring of science. Also, keep in mind that this is satire.
Ironically, you just stated my criticism more clearly than I did: “The author’s worldview isn’t really a worldview; it’s the truth.” That is exactly the problem.
Climate science can establish empirical facts about warming, emissions, sea level, etc. It cannot scientifically establish an entire political worldview. The moment you move from empirical claims to judgments about politicians’ motives, fossil-fuel interests, political morality, policy choices, and who deserves your vote, you have left climate science and entered politics.
Calling that whole package “the truth” doesn’t make it non-ideological. It just means you’re so confident in your ideology that you’ve stopped recognizing it as ideology. Sound familiar? It’s the same thing people criticize MAGA for. I’m assuming you don’t like it when they do it either.
And “it’s satire” is not a defense. Satire is still making an argument. In this case, it imagines a classroom where every enlightened child conveniently shares the author’s politics and then presents that outcome as education.
You didn’t rebut my criticism. You demonstrated it.
Wouldn’t it be awesome (and inspiring) if you were right about kids!
Skipping the chapters on evolution avoids one of the obvious conclusions: There are some people with an evolutionary advantage that offers protection against intense ultraviolet radiation. Nevertheless, Florida has a history of devaluing such people.
It is really scary and distressing to consider how many generations will pass through the education system before it recovers from the current administration. Even in the unaccredited school of Duval Count in the 50s and 60s, I got a very good education with excellent, dedicated teachers who not only taught me facts, but challenged me to hunt for more. I have never tired of learning. I remember their names up through the seventh grade:
1st Mrs. Nelms
2nd Mrs. Sowder
3rd Mrs Garner*
4th Mrs Cherry (my favorite who comforted me during parent's divorce; and taught me cursive
5th Miss Guess (my first teacher crush; in my 30s she turned up at my father's house, a musician
friend of father and step-mother... amazingly still single and beautiful)
6th Miss Krueger
7th Miss Guess , Mr Adams
*noted for the report card that lived on the refrigerator for many years. It chronicled behavior:
1st.six week citizenship: Bruce talks in class.
2nd six weeks citizenship: Bruce disturbs students around him
3rd six weeks citizenship: Brice continues to cut up in class
4th six weeks citizenship: Bruce is a disturbing element in class
5th six weeks citizenship: Bruce insists on clowning behavior (she and mom were now friends)
6th six weeks citizenship: Doesn't this child ever shut-up. (that was mom's favorite)
End of saga for the week! ;-)
Thanks for your indulgence.
bruce and ernie
"If you don't stand for something...
You will fall for anything."
"Creativity is Intelligence having a good time."
Sir Bruise, Rover of Ivories
Ernie d'Baskerbeagle Arfbitchup
Muttastery of St. Dogmael
Evenhowl with Whine & Cheese
Good one
Well done review of the current state of Florida Education:
✔️teachers paid so poorly they leave.
✔️governor (trying to) shut down teachers unions so they can’t stand up for safety and security in the school work place
✔️ censors loose on the school (and classroom) libraries overriding district curriculum
✔️$$$$$ paid incentives given families to leave public schools (weakening enrollment in public schools)that a lot of public ones have to close, mandating a co-location bill allowing charter schools to take over empty school classrooms/buildings.
Not just Florida. Back in 2009 here in Cherryfield, Maine, the school superintendent barred the middle school from having a whole-school assembly and program to watch on television and celebrate the inauguration of Barak Obama. The initiating teacher (whom you know, J.C.) decided instead to broadcast the inauguration to the entire student body during lunchtime in the cafeteria.
I must say our 10 yr.old grandaughter, who we have custody of , started 5th grade here in Naples, floriduh at a public school that I won't mention, and has already talked about climate change in her science class. They do not have textbooks, but are given a computer and work/homework sheets for the week. I am totally impressed with the school and teachers. Helping her with her math homework has been a learning lesson for us lol. Unfortunately we have tax payer charter schools, I don't know what they teach, just that they call themselves "Academies ".
I cannot quite remember the saying, but it means that if a man's livelihood depends on believing something, it is very hard to change his mind (or hers).
Kudos to Craig. I didn't realize kids can talk. Perhaps if they were texting.
Craig Pittman rocks!
The satire’s basic argument is ‘their teaching is propaganda, ours is truth.’ That doesn’t challenge indoctrination; it just switches sides. Dressing your own political assumptions up as unquestionable truth is exactly the behavior you’re supposedly criticizing.
You are completely ignoring the fact that actual science, including climate science, is evidence-based, while propaganda is not. If I'm being "indoctrinated" with facts and evidence, then I'll gladly sign up and even pay for that kind of "indoctrination"...it's called an education. The last thing actual science could be called is "political assumptions". The actual science is what used to be taught in public schools, except perhaps in deep red states. Some Republicans, like Desantis, apparently don't like that. Watering down or taking out climate science from textbooks has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politicians going to bat for the fossil fuel industry. That's exactly the kind of politician we citizens should be voting out of office. And we will this November.
You are completely ignoring the fact that I never said climate science is propaganda. I said this article’s framing is.
What you’re replying to isn’t there. And it’s pretty funny that while we’re discussing political assumptions, you immediately supplied one for me.
If Florida is watering down established climate science, then put the science back in the textbook. Teach the evidence accurately. Fine.
But look at what this satire actually does: it takes children who are supposedly being misled by one political ideology and simply hands them over to another. Now the “correct” kids all follow the same activists, distrust the same politicians, repeat the same assumptions about motives, and somehow arrive at the author’s exact worldview.
You didn’t solve indoctrination. You just changed the instructor.
That is my criticism.
Climate science is science. The author’s politics are politics. Blending the two together and then calling the whole package “education” is exactly the problem.
Okay, so what's an approach in sudden flash floods in our local neighborhoods destroying property, continuous droughts, as just a few examples. I appreciate your insight on the writer's approach as well as other posts here clarifying science-based weather phenomenon (which btw the feds cut big funding to our federal weather departments, curiously). I've heard both sides for 4 decades....f o r t y years of climate change and deniers, talking about talking about it....when do we all just consider that if there's 1% chance that our global floods and droughts just might be the result of whatever you want call it...well just maybe we can make significant changes,also be better prepared with our local infrastructures....just a thought. Then again, one replies, this is all just a natural 100 year cycle...again, what if there's a 1% chance that is wrong and we can make a change, but we have to try, and that, we are not
I’m trying to read through what you’re saying, and I think your point is basically: climate risks may be serious, so shouldn’t we act even if there’s uncertainty?
That’s a completely fair question, but it’s also outside the scope of what I said. My criticism is about how this article teaches people to think, not whether climate policy should exist.
Separate point: “what if there’s even a 1% chance?” is not, by itself, a sound argument for policy. A possibility of harm tells you almost nothing unless you also consider the probability, severity, cost of prevention, effectiveness of the proposed response, tradeoffs, and risks created by the response itself.
I’m not even making a climate argument there. I’m talking about the logic. A non-zero chance of something bad happening cannot automatically justify whatever policy is proposed in response.
So I’m not sure what you’re asking me. Are you asking what I think climate policy should actually look like?
Dylan, what you refer to as the "author's exact worldview" is based on science, i.e. real evidence. A science-based "worldview" is not really a worldview but is instead the truth as we best understand it. Craig Pittman is an environmental scholar who is also an excellent and clever writer. He has written about a theoretical future Florida classroom scenario, based on Florida government censoring of science. Also, keep in mind that this is satire.
Ironically, you just stated my criticism more clearly than I did: “The author’s worldview isn’t really a worldview; it’s the truth.” That is exactly the problem.
Climate science can establish empirical facts about warming, emissions, sea level, etc. It cannot scientifically establish an entire political worldview. The moment you move from empirical claims to judgments about politicians’ motives, fossil-fuel interests, political morality, policy choices, and who deserves your vote, you have left climate science and entered politics.
Calling that whole package “the truth” doesn’t make it non-ideological. It just means you’re so confident in your ideology that you’ve stopped recognizing it as ideology. Sound familiar? It’s the same thing people criticize MAGA for. I’m assuming you don’t like it when they do it either.
And “it’s satire” is not a defense. Satire is still making an argument. In this case, it imagines a classroom where every enlightened child conveniently shares the author’s politics and then presents that outcome as education.
You didn’t rebut my criticism. You demonstrated it.