BCT Editorial – 2/20/06

This page was last updated on February 20, 2006.

Salutes & Boots; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Salute: To the Daugherty Township Supervisors for rescinding the municipality’s mercantile tax. It wasn’t so much a matter of principles as it was practicality. The tax only generated about $1,000. It’s another reason tax modernization should be at the top of the agenda for Gov. Ed Rendell and the Legislature.”

[RWC] If you’ll recall from previous editorials, the Times conceded its definition of “tax modernization” is really the shifting of taxes from the local to the state level. That is, eliminate local taxes and rely solely on federal and state taxes.

In truth, Daugherty Twp. performed its own true tax modernization by eliminating a tax no longer relevant to the township’s existing demographics. If the Times didn’t have a twisted view of tax modernization, it would have seen the true nature of the tax elimination.

“Boot: To the state Senate for rejecting an effort by the governor to adopt tougher automobile emission standards. Rendell had wanted to require that only lower-emission vehicles be sold in Pennsylvania beginning in 2007. Instead, the Senate voted to allow car dealers to continue to sell higher-emission vehicles through at least 2014. That’s a mistake. The state is going to end up there anyway, so why not get a head start?”

[RWC] Here’s the correct way to word the question in the last sentence. “Why shouldn’t the commonwealth force Pennsylvanians to buy more expensive cars that will consume more fuel and drive up gasoline consumption, spending, and prices?”

“Salute: To the Ohio Board of Education for voting 11-4 last week to delete a science standard and correlating lesson plan that encourages students to seek evidence for and against evolution. The Associated Press reported critics had called the material an opening to teach intelligent design, which holds that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority. Board member Martha Wise put it best: ‘It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about science.’”

[RWC] This is a disturbing “salute.” The theory of evolution is called a theory because evolution from specks of dust to humans cannot be proved.

From high school geometry through my graduate school studies, proofs were a key part of the learning process. For example, in many courses we were not permitted to use equations or theorems unless we provided the derivations and proofs.

What is wrong with challenging “students to seek evidence for and against evolution?” Seeking evidence for and against theories is how we learn. It’s also how we eventually prove – turning a theory into a fact – or disprove theories. Why is the Times afraid to have students challenge a theory?