Hacker News Reader

Comment by angrycoder | Hacker News Reader

> If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has to go pretty crazy.

Here's the real backstory.

You have Santorum mixed up with Romney. Santorum really believes all this stuff, he isn't just saying it to get elected. He is about as puritanical in his beliefs as you can get. While I respect him for being so open and being who he is, I frankly find it frightening that he is winning primaries.

View on HN

> Santorum really believes all this stuff

Maybe this is just being pedantic, but: what about his beliefs on higher education? The man has denigrated the idea of pursuing education beyond high school, yet he has more degrees than the current president. That just seems like pandering to me.

He home schools his kids, which is inline with what he is stating are his current beliefs.

As for the number of degrees, excess can breed contempt. Also, college is a great place to have lots of sex and be exposed to tons of secular ideas.

Sounds like you are trying to arrive to predefined conclusion. Given the sorry state of public education, where schools graduate illiterate people unable to read their own diploma, if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education. The second argument is even weaker - it sounds like if he had a lot of degrees, he'd be against education, and if he had none, he'd be against education. Solid argument needs more than that. You can see in parallel branch I am very far from being fan of Santorum, however disliking him does not mean getting to his level and starting to use prejudices instead of solid argument.

> if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education.

Commitment to what aspect, though? Actual educational and personal development or complete indoctrination in a bubble where no outside ideas can penetrate?

My point is that it's an ambiguous indicator, and can honestly be used by both sides until we know details about the homeschooling in question.

What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ. However, education and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive. The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle - otherwise describing the existence of the creationist theories, which is - the existence of the theories, of course - a scientific fact would not be controversial, but there's more to it than just that, right? And educational institutions themselves are deeply political - D/R ratio in some academic disciplines is 30/1, some institutions are completely ideologically monocultural, and teacher's union NEA is 6th biggest political donor, donating almost exclusively to one party. There are also numerous documented cases of teachers involving pupils into political activities for the causes of their choosing. So it would be very hard to find an education venue where indoctrination would not take place.

The whole point of the homeschooling (one of) is that people choose what is actual education for them, not for somebody else. Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?

> What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ.

A good education is one that reflects reality. If your opinion of what reality is differs from mine, you're welcome to show me wrong using experiments. Otherwise, you are wrong and are not likely to be a good educator.

> The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle

Not to the extent you seem to think: One side has facts on its side, whereas the other does not. If you can't see any asymmetry there I refuse to try to help you.

> Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?

Because I have to live with the laws they have the political clout to force through Congress. I have to deal with the fact they have just as much political clout as I do and no idea why the tides come in or why trickle-down economics is a terrible idea or why banning abortions doesn't magically make everyone into someone who can raise a child in a reasonable fashion.

Santorum has an extra one-year MBA degree. Both had Bachelor of Arts, both had Juris Doctor (a law degree).

Here's the scorecard for sport fans:

Santorum: BA (Hons) from UPenn; a one year MBA from University of Pittsburgh. Katz.; J.D. (Hons) from Dickinson School of Law

Obama: BA, Columbia University; J.D. (Magna cum laude) from Harvard Law

I am no Santorum fan, but you should at least reflect what he said accurately. He stated not every one should be encouraged to go to university for their chosen career path. i.e. plumbers should not feel pressure to get a BA. This concept is not entirely wrong and is embraced by very liberal cultures in Europe. US culture has a misguided impression that everyone has to go to university to be successful in life.

Errr, no. He actually said that 'satan' has taken over academics, and other such nonsense.

prooflink with a quote? He talked a bunch about Satan and about how corrupt some institutions are (one can easily find it by searching for satana+santorum+academics), but I can't find a quote where he explicitly says Satan has taken over academics.

I concur, Santorum is a sincere candidate compared to Romney. Hitler was sincere too. Sincerity is an overrated virtue.....

Aside from the ridiculously crass comparison to Hitler, you are patently wrong.

Hitler was a liar to the core. He framed the Invasion of Poland as a 'defensive war' which he convinced many Germans into believe Poland was actually invading Germany!

He spun deceptions regularly and was known for his ability to convince or make others look the other way while he planned military actions and genocide. Just because he was outspoken about his hate for the Jewish people does not at all make him 'sincere'.

I did not say sincerity is not a virtue, I said it is overrated. I don't think Santorum is even close to being Hitler, I believe he is overall an honest man who believes that he will do good for the country. My problem with him is that he is so certain with his beliefs. He's too dogmatic for my taste. “The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions” – Milton Friedman

Yeah you're right. I don't think Hitler was sincere when he negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. No one was listening to Churchill who has been warning for years about Hitler. Who would listen to a drunk discredited politician? This time pragmatism failed.

Being sincere doesn't mean to always tell the truth. Lies can be justified as a means to achieve a goal that is sincerely believed to be for the greater good.

That's what makes these people dangerous. If they had an obsession with telling the truth, they would be easy to defeat, because even though many people share some of their beliefs, very few people share the priorities of true fanatics.

I'm sure he is sincere, but a professional politician does not run his mouth, sincerely or insincerely, without a purpose behind doing so. Santorum isn't Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, or Sarah Palin--he knows exactly what he's doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com