And I don’t like the idea of local communities determining curriculum. For one thing, people move. And you know what? 2+2=4, and evolution is true, regardless of where in the country you live.

Right on.

I don’t like the idea of entire areas of the country going completely without schools because no company believes it can turn a profit on a class size so small.

And I don’t like the idea of local communities determining curriculum. For one thing, people move. And you know what? 2+2=4, and evolution is true, regardless of where in the country you live.

#9 Ron

Why not eliminate schools altogether? I can’t think of too many things more inimical to libertarian ideals than forced government indoctrination.

I’m all for eliminating government schools. In the modern world where failure is the primary requisite for funding, this admittedly wouldn’t be a popular concept, but I like the idea of an enterprise depending on its ability to satisfy paying customers in order to survive.

I also like the idea of a teacher’s job depending on her performance as evaluated by the school which depends on its teachers for its reputation and capacity to attract customers. I like the idea of school administration being a support function rather than a jobs program for clerical workers. I like the idea of a school being able to throw troublemakers out on their asses rather than letting them burden the entire school with their requirement for constant supervision. I like the idea that the school sets the dress code and behavioral rules based on what it believes is needed to make the school run effectively and efficiently. But, most of all, I like the idea that a school can teach the curriculum that its customer base values rather than getting direction based on politics from a central office in the state or federal capitol.

By the way, libertarians don’t promote the elimination of schools altogether. Your comment says far more about your own ignorance than it does about libertarians.

So quit forcing people to attend them, dumbass.

Apparently latent fingerprint analysis is much less reliable than using fingerprints for identification.

This looks like an interesting article, and I plan to check this story out. Forensic science does need to be treated like other sciences. DNA and forensic biology meet this standard, in my opinion, while other techniques (bite marks, some arson techniques, etc.) don’t measure up. However, I don’t quite agree with this quote.

Forensic science techniques weren’t cooked up in a police precinct over coffee and doughnuts. These techniques have been studied and applied by people from all walks of life since ancient times.

Take fingerprints, for instance. Fingerprints were used for business transactions in ancient Babylonia and China. The uniqueness of friction ridge skin has been noted by anatomy professors, medical doctors, anthropologists (like Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin), magistrates, police and laymen alike.

In 1247, Tz’u Sung wrote “The Washing Away of Wrongs” in China. The book detailed early forensic medicine. One popular passage describes the use of forensic entymology in a death investigation (blow flies were attracted to remaining blood and soft tissue on a sickle that was used in a murder).

Many influential forensic practitioners were never police officers. Edmund Locard, who developed the Locard Exchange Principle (“every contact leaves a trace,” etc.) was a medical doctor who convinced the police in Lyon, France to set up a crime lab. Paul Kirk, author of “Crime Investigation” (1953) and a participant in the Manhattan Project, had a Ph.D. in BioChemisry and specialized in Microscopy. Barry A.J. Fisher, author of “Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation” and director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Crime Laboratory, has a MS in Chemistry and an MBA. And even forensic scientists who were police officers, like Henry Lee, often perform investigations and provide testimony for the defense and the prosection.

I am all for a thorough examination of the field of forensic science and I believe major changes are warranted, but I just thought that quote was a misleading way to begin the discussion.

I would dump social studies, oh wait we also need American History. And we can’t dump P/E because kids are getting fat and lazy.

Sorry kids you are losing a study period.

Statistics so completely permeates all the information we receive today (including the information in this post) that I don’t see how one can be an informed citizen without some basic knowledge of it.