How many times do you hear that our children are so much smarter these days or that our high school and college age students are so advanced compared to our school days?

I hear it a lot, but frankly, I don't see it. Yes, they know how to use technology, but it seems most young to middle age adults are pretty ignorant when it comes to civics, economics, and history.

If you watched any of the interviews on why voters chose their candidates on Nov. 4th, you will notice how woefully ignorant the masses are when it comes to civics and politics. RedState posted some of these interviews. Most didn't even know who Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi were!

The Red State interviews confirmed what USA Today concluded in Americans don't know civics: (My emphasis throughout)

From high-school dropouts to college graduates to elected officials, Americans are "alarmingly uninformed"USA's history, founding principals and economy about the — knowledge needed to participate wisely in civic life, says a report scheduled to be released Thursday.

..."Without knowledge of your country's history, key texts and institutions, you don't have a frame of reference to judge the politics and policies of today," says Richard Brake, head of the institute's American Civic Literacy Program.

You can take the same Our Fading Heritage Civics Quiz, and see how you compare to other average Americans. (I took it too--my score is at the bottom of this posting.) 

There was some correlation between age and higher education, but even there, the scores were still abysmal: (My emphasis)

[Across all economic and education levels] 71% earn an F; the average score was 49%. Ages 25 to 34 had an average score of 46%; ages 45 to 64 had a 52% average. Of 164 respondents who say they have held elected office, 44% was average.

Those with bachelor's degrees had an average score of 57% vs. 44% for those with a high-school diploma. The average score for advanced degree-holders inches up to 65%, or a D.

This correlation came as no surprise to me: 

Civic knowledge declines in proportion to time spent using passive media, such as TV. Reading and talking about history and current events, using the Internet and being involved in political activities has a positive effect.

I took it and scored 93.94% or 31 out of 33 correct. Most questions I knew without the multiple choice, a few I only answered correctly because of homeschooling (recently taught high school civics), some were educated guesses.

Neither of my parents went to college, although my mother went to a one year secretarial school. My father had to quit school in the 8th grade to go to work during the great depression. Yet they and others from their generation possessed a core knowledge of these necessary subjects that most younger American adults lack. They studied our nation's "key texts" in school.

Sadly, most people today do not know anything about our government or economy. If we ever want elections to be about substance instead of persona and emotion, we will have to teach the basic civics, history and economics classes again. Of course that is only if we want to ensure we have an electorate that votes intelligently.

Are you brave enough to take the basic history quiz too? Questions and how students scored in '07

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Most of us heard about Al Gore's JFK-like 10 year challenge last week for "America to run 'on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years." Bret Stephens wrote about it and Al Gore in his Wall Street Journal piece, Al Gore's Doomsday Clock. He wrote, "though that's just the first step on his road to 'ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels.'  Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it."

Do read the complete article. Bret Stephens presents many interesting statistics on where we have been and where we are going on our carbon-free electrical journey.

In Mr. Gore's prophecy, a transition to carbon-free electricity generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative." He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and biofuels.

Here, however, is an inconvenient fact (my emphasis throughout.) In 1995, the U.S. got about 2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.

Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs.

Interestingly, Mr. Gore does not suggest carbon-free nuclear or hydro power,* which are not affected by cloudy or windless days:

Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable sources were a positive one. It isn't. In his useful book "Gusher of Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity." Like wind power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency, which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't shine.

And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.

Stephens concludes with this question, "A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable. Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose task is to raise our sights..." and then he gives "The True Believer" author Eric Hoffer the last word, "It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of more environmentally favorable fuels and methods, as long as they make sense and cents! Fair Oaks Farm manure fueled electricity generators would be a good example of this. SC Johnson Co. (Johnson Wax) is also dabbling in methane from garbage fuel. But even these recycling methods are still carbon based.

Maybe some day, as technology improves, wind and solar might be able to more constantly supply the majority of our electricity. But for right now, we aren't there yet--not by a long shot.

Jay Weber spoke about this today in his 9 O'clock hour. 

*You would think hydro power would be favored by the environmentalists. Not true. While visiting the Grand Canyon 2 years ago, we heard of a movement afoot in the area to allow spring gushes. Seems the regular spring flooding of rushing water scoured the riverbed as opposed to the constant easy flow of a controlled river.

Links: