Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer

[friedo]

I'm back in school, with the goal of eventually completing my long-unfinished bachelor's degree in computer science. I don't actually need it, having worked my way up through a variety of positions and having become successful at what I do. But the idea of gaining a more solid background in theory appeals to me, as does the prospect of doing master's level work in the field. And they don't let you do that before getting the BS out of the way. (That's why they call it BS, after all, right?)

So it came time for the abbreviated six-week summer session, where they cram an entire semester's worth of stuff into half the time. I work full-time, so I figured if I was going to maximize the efficiency of my summer, I should try to take two easy courses at once.

I had a requirement for political science/philosophy electives. So one of the courses I signed up for was US Government. This will be fucking easy, I thought to myself. I am a total policy nerd. I know that Schoolhouse Rock song by heart. I sometimes read interesting Supreme Court cases for fun. I know most of the minutiae about how the government works and what's in the Constitution. I eat the motherfucking Constitution for breakfast, sprinkled gingerly upon my Cheerios.

So I registered. And on the first day, we met Prof. Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer. I write his name that way because that's exactly how he wrote it on top of every stupid handout he handed out. Handouts printed on legal-size paper. Who the fuck prints shit on legal-size paper? You can't put it anywhere!

But back to the point: this guy is not qualified to teach US Government. I don't think he's qualified to teach banana-peeling to gorillas. Sometime in the middle of the first lecture, I stopped taking notes and started just writing down everything he said that was wrong. In six weeks, this class was to meet twelve times, for three hours a day. Most sessions lasted less than two. And two days were devoted to watching the excellent public policy documentaries Twelve Angry Men and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Having seen both films, I skipped those classes. And I skipped a couple other classes, too, when I couldn't bare watching his idiotic rambling 'neath his ridiculous Tom Selleck-wannabe mustache.

Behold now friedo's list of idiocies as "taught" by Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer:



The President has the power to dismiss Congress.
A head of government and head of state are the same thing.
People who sell illegal copies of DVDs "would be prosecuted under piracy laws." Yes, this guy does not know the difference between actual piracy, with eye-patches and Arrrgs, and metaphorical piracy, with copyright violations. (This was not an unfortunate choice of words. This discussion occurred amongst a lecture on enumerated powers in Article I § 8, specifically related to that section's statements pertaining to crimes upon the high seas.)
The federal government has criminal jurisdiction on the Interstate. (Seriously, WTF? Does he think the state trooper giving him a speeding ticket is a Fed?)
Gerrymandering is a synonym for redistricting.
States can set term limits for their Congressional delegations. (Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton).)
All members of the Cabinet must be natural-born citizens "because they're in the line of succession."
Congress sets the drinking age. (OK, kinda, but the fact that this statement is a vast oversimplification was never touched upon. I don't think he knows that it is an oversimplification at all.)
This one is a goodie: Congress could have impeached Nixon after he resigned. "But he was pardoned."
Even better: A federal impeachment can result in a prison sentence.
He doesn't know the difference between a Joint Committee and a conference committee.
He doesn't know the difference between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution.
The cloture rule is "in the Constitution."
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "only hears cases from within D.C."
The Supreme Court happily gives their opinion on pending legislation.
Residents of US territories are not citizens. (There were two Puerto Ricans in the fucking class!)
Defendants in military courts-martial are required to use their JAG defenders and may not hire civilian lawyers.
The Amish don't pay any income taxes. (Well, I dunno. Maybe most of them don't have taxable income. Sounds fishy though.)


His lesson on the federal judiciary was truly bizarre. He kept talking about the Supreme Court "watching" what the Circuit Courts are doing and "calling up" cases that look interesting to them. I don't think he has any fucking clue how the appeals process works at all. I guarantee he has never heard the word certiorari.

The assessments for this gem of a class consisted of two take-home essay tests, a "research paper" (1500 words? Come the fuck on, this is supposed to be postsecondary education!) and a final exam. The final consisted of another take-home essay, and the in-class portion consisted of writing one-sentence definitions of eight out of ten concepts discussed in class, which concepts were listed beforehand. The final exam was scheduled for two hours and took most of the class 15 minutes. I turned all my shit in, got 100 points on all of it, and got an A+ for learning nothing.

This is a crummy college in a public university system. While I could commiserate about this guy's ineptitude with the students in the class who knew better, a lot of people there were immigrants who actually don't know this stuff, and people with shitty educational backgrounds who are now trying to better themselves. And while I would raise my hand at least once or twice a class to gently point out this guy's fucktardedness, there's only so much one can do when entire lessons are predicated upon incompetence. Sure, some of the stuff on that list is a bit obscure, but this is a college-level class on how the fucking government works.

So fuck you, Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer, for apparently using your creepy mustache powers to con the polisci department into thinking you know fuckall about the government of this country. Fuck you for teaching wrong stuff to students who don't know better and who will be unprepared for future classes taught by your betters. And especially, okay, fuck you for inserting-okay the word "okay," okay, three times into every sentence.

What a dick.

[bump]

In McDumbass' defense...


A head of government and head of state are the same thing.

In the US, this is true. Is it possible that perhaps you misheard or misunderstood him?


Defendants in military courts-martial are required to use their JAG defenders and may not hire civilian lawyers.


Well, I don't think they *have* to use JAG lawyers, but at the very least, any civilian that gets hired ought to work with the JAG guy; the UCMJ is sufficiently different than the standard state laws that it likely pays to have someone specifically trained in that kind of thing. Kind of like trying a court case in Louisiana, in many ways.


The Amish don't pay any income taxes. (Well, I dunno. Maybe most of them don't have taxable income. Sounds fishy though.)


I think it's Social Security that the Amish don't pay- they worked something out with the govt. years ago- something to the effect of "We agree not to ever use it, so don't make us pay in."

[friedo]

In McDumbass' defense...


A head of government and head of state are the same thing.

In the US, this is true. Is it possible that perhaps you misheard or misunderstood him?


No, believe me, he was talking about the general case, in response to a student asking if there was a difference between the two terms. I don't think he knows the difference, nor do I think he knows the US President performs both roles.

[Boyo Jim]

If you won't tell us his name, at least tell us what school not to enroll in.

[friedo]

If you won't tell us his name, at least tell us what school not to enroll in.

The school is fine, overall. This is one of the many colleges of CUNY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUNY). I haven't had any negative experiences aside from this one class, and the occasional excessive bureaucracy of CUNY as a whole. In fact, my other class for the summer was my first and only online class, and I was impressed with how rigorous and difficult it was. Dude threw a lot of work at us and it was challenging and relevant, resulting in Knowledge.

ETA: I got an A in that one, too. But that A was actually earned.

[Smeghead]

I think you should send that list to the head of his department, as soon as you're safe from any repercussions.

[robby]

Now that the course is over and you have your grade, do you not get the opportunity to fill out an evaluation on the guy?

I would also consider speaking to his department head--and bring your list.

[Gorsnak]

The President has the power to dismiss Congress.
A head of government and head of state are the same thing.

I find this conjunction particularly amusing as in Westminster-style governments the head of state does have the power to dismiss parliament. Once, anyways. Well, actually lots of times so long as she only does so when the head of government asks her to. That would be the head of government who doesn't have the power to dismiss parliament, except that the head of state will always do so upon request. :p

[Randy Seltzer]

Residents of US territories are not citizens. (There were two Puerto Ricans in the fucking class!)He's wrong on this one, but he's almost right. Residents of insular areas -- like Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- are not guaranteed citizenship under the constitution. Congress has created legislation giving all residents of those places citizenship. The three exceptions are American Samoa, Swain's Island, and the Minor Outlying Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands). If you're born in one of those places, you are a "national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Nationals_who_are_not_citizens)," but not a "citizen." It would be interesting to see a test case where someone from Swain's Island tried to run for president, but as far as I know there is very little law surrounding the privileges and duties of a non-citizen national.

[El Presidente]

In McDumbass' defense...


A head of government and head of state are the same thing.

In the US, this is true. Is it possible that perhaps you misheard or misunderstood him?


Defendants in military courts-martial are required to use their JAG defenders and may not hire civilian lawyers.


Well, I don't think they *have* to use JAG lawyers, but at the very least, any civilian that gets hired ought to work with the JAG guy; the UCMJ is sufficiently different than the standard state laws that it likely pays to have someone specifically trained in that kind of thing. Kind of like trying a court case in Louisiana, in many ways.


The Amish don't pay any income taxes. (Well, I dunno. Maybe most of them don't have taxable income. Sounds fishy though.)


I think it's Social Security that the Amish don't pay- they worked something out with the govt. years ago- something to the effect of "We agree not to ever use it, so don't make us pay in."

The Amish absolutely do have to have documented income, and must file and pay income taxes and social security taxes, just like everyone else.

Trust me, the IRS doesn't let anyone off the hook. :D

[astro]

So... are you just bellyaching or are you going to send your opinon, in writing, to the administrators to help get him out of the system?

[friedo]

Residents of US territories are not citizens. (There were two Puerto Ricans in the fucking class!)He's wrong on this one, but he's almost right. Residents of insular areas -- like Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- are not guaranteed citizenship under the constitution. Congress has created legislation giving all residents of those places citizenship. The three exceptions are American Samoa, Swain's Island, and the Minor Outlying Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands). If you're born in one of those places, you are a "national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Nationals_who_are_not_citizens)," but not a "citizen." It would be interesting to see a test case where someone from Swain's Island tried to run for president, but as far as I know there is very little law surrounding the privileges and duties of a non-citizen national.

I've heard about the "national" vs. "citizen" thing before, but always wondered if there's an actual difference in practice. That minutia is even too minute for me. :cool:

So... are you just bellyaching or are you going to send your opinon, in writing, to the administrators to help get him out of the system?

Mostly bellyaching. The class ended a week ago and I've been pissed about it for almost a couple months now. I've thought of writing a (more polite) version of this to the department. Given that he's an adjunct it might actually carry some weight, but I have my doubts that they'd listen to the rants of a whiny part-time undergrad, even if I am Mr. 4.0.

As for evaluations, I didn't get one. I have a feeling he may have given them out on one of the movie nights :rolleyes: which I skipped out on. At least he stuck to his syllabus.

[Odesio]

I
The federal government has criminal jurisdiction on the Interstate. (Seriously, WTF? Does he think the state trooper giving him a speeding ticket is a Fed?)


Are speeding tickets usually a matter of criminal law? It's a fine, sure, but it doesn't count as a misdemeanor or a felony for the most part. (In Texas they automatically arrest you if you're going X MPH above the limit.


So fuck you, Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer, for apparently using your creepy mustache powers to con the polisci department into thinking you know fuckall about the government of this country.


I was incredibly fortunate that during my undergraduate days I did not have a single incompetent instructor. I had two that I felt did poorly in certain areas but both of them at least knew their subjects. My Government instructor was a practicing lawyer who once ran for Lt. Governor and he did a great job.

When it comes to evaluations fill them out with your complaints. People do read them. Yours was a rant I can fully get behind.

Odesio

[Dr. Drake]

I think you should send that list to the head of his department, as soon as you're safe from any repercussions.Seconding this. Department chairs will usually treat this sort of thing seriously, especially if you state that you are not complaining about your grade in the course. State that you are concerned, the presentation of factually incorrect information is not consistent with CUNY's reputation or mission, and is inconsistent with your other experience there, and so forth. You might also note, as other posters have, that much of his information was comprehensible to someone familiar with the nuances of the subject matter, but was have been irresponsible to present in an accelerated summer class.

[Taenia spp.]

Ah yes, I just completed a course who I think might be a cousin of Prof. McDumbass. This was a course offered by the extension service of my alma mater, so theoretically the lecturers should be held to at least a modicum of the standards and prestige of the main campus, no? Supposedly this guy had a degree in biochemistry, and did his postdoctoral work in virology. However, this guy confused the most basic aspects of DNA replication, transcription, and translation. Though his section on virology was a bit better, he ascribed characteristics of bacteriophage to animal viruses and vice versa. I'm seriously thinking about writing a letter to the dean of the department. Convince me otherwise?

[Camus]

Are speeding tickets usually a matter of criminal law? It's a fine, sure, but it doesn't count as a misdemeanor or a felony for the most part. (In Texas they automatically arrest you if you're going X MPH above the limit.


They can be. Just as you mentioned, in many states, speeding within a certain range above the posted limit is a civil infraction, while speeding above the previous range can be a criminal offense.

[asterion]

[QUOTE=friedo;12774196]
He's wrong on this one, but he's almost right.

Like he's wrong on cloture, but kinda right. I mean, nowhere in the constitution does it say that it will take any kind of supermajority to stop debate in the Senate, but it does say that the houses of Congress are allowed to set their own rules. But much like his over-simplification of Congress using the commerce clause to tie state drinking ages to federal highway funding, to say that cloture is in the Constitution is factually wrong and you'd have to be very generous in cutting slack.

[Thudlow Boink]

I think you should send that list to the head of his department, as soon as you're safe from any repercussions.Seconding this. Department chairs will usually treat this sort of thing seriously, especially if you state that you are not complaining about your grade in the course. State that you are concerned, the presentation of factually incorrect information is not consistent with CUNY's reputation or mission, and is inconsistent with your other experience there, and so forth. You might also note, as other posters have, that much of his information was comprehensible to someone familiar with the nuances of the subject matter, but was have been irresponsible to present in an accelerated summer class.Wholeheartedly agree. Please please please let the department head or dean or someone like that know. They need to know whether to hire him back to teach there again.

[RadicalPi]

Add my voice to those who have suggested that you complain to the department about your experience in the course. I would not necessarily go to the department chair though. I could be mistaken, but there might be a professor who is in charge of all the adjuncts for the department, as a sort of supervisor, and who would be much more familiar with the course's objectives and teaching methods. If you wander through the department's web site (or perhaps call the department's administration), you might be able to find this person. If you can't, then I would send it to the chair.

One thing to keep in mind, that I just thought up. The lecturer may not have designed the course. Especially if it's a gen ed. The department may have a "packet" it gives the adjuncts detailing the lectures and assignments and whatnot, which itself may be in error, and he was blindly reciting from it. I am not familiar with the CUNY system, so this may not be true, but if it is, there are a whole bunch of people learning things that are wrong, or a whole bunch of other adjuncts miserably pretending to follow the packet in an attempt to avoid the errors.

[BrightNShiny]

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment):

Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension).

[Peremensoe]

I think it's Social Security that the Amish don't pay- they worked something out with the govt. years ago- something to the effect of "We agree not to ever use it, so don't make us pay in."

The Amish absolutely do have to have documented income, and must file and pay income taxes and social security taxes, just like everyone else.

Trust me, the IRS doesn't let anyone off the hook. :D

Apparently you are not to be trusted.

From the introductory essay, "The Struggle to Be Separate," from The Amish Struggle with Modernity, University Press of New England, 1994:

The Amish have always insisted that the church should care for the material needs of its members. When asked to cooperate with Social Security they refused because in their eyes the program was an "insurance" that would erode their mutual aid commitment to the church. Amish convictions collided with the Internal Revenue Service in 1955 when the Social Security program was extended to cover self-employed farmers. The dispute continued for a decade until Congress in 1965 exempted self-employed workers if they were members of a recognized religious sect that opposed accepting public retirement and disability benefits. The exemption was expanded in 1988 when new congressional legislation stretched it to Amish persons who work for Amish employers. Although non-Amish employers of the Amish must withhold Social Security, most Amish employees do not tap its benefits. Exclusion from Social Security was indeed a major victory for the Amish.

And from the IRS site, here's the form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf) each member needs to file.

[friedo]

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment):

Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension).

An uncited assertion from Wikipedia is not exactly persuasive. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, but I'd like to see an actual example of a federal official being impeached after leaving office.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Another voice to the pile that says to friedo "tell the administration about the poor quality of teaching". Do it shortly after you graduate if you feel that you must. They will be particularly interested, since it will clearly NOT be a case of a student bitching because they got a poor grade. Phrase it in a way that makes it clear that you're wanting to help them maintain the high quality of the institution.

We had an adjunct faculty member once who was teaching a summer course - abbreviated, 6 weeks like yours. I asked one of my students how it was going about 3 weeks in. She told me that the teacher had not shown up for the past week. They had emailed and called her office, but nobody knew where she was. She just had not been showing up. I tracked down her home number and found out that she had gone to Europe. It was not an emergency - her mother said she was 'on holiday for 2 weeks". She had left without telling her class (or the administration) a thing. 2 weeks out of a 6 week class. I blew the whistle on her. The administration was dumbfounded.

[Freddy the Pig]

An uncited assertion from Wikipedia is not exactly persuasive. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, but I'd like to see an actual example of a federal official being impeached after leaving office.It has never happened. However, in at least two cases--those of Senator William Blount (1797) and Secretary of War William Belknap (1876)--the Senate continued with impeachment trials long after the defendant had left office (Blount by expulsion and Belknap by resignation), for the purpose of possible implementation of the disqualification clause.

In neither case did the Senate eventually convict, but they could have done so. Logically, by extension, the House could probably initiate the process after an official had left office. In the event that they ever do so, it's unlikely that a court would strike it down. The issue will probably remain academic.

However, on one point your professor is unequivocally wrong--Ford's pardon had no effect on Nixon's eligibility for impeachment. Impeachments are specifically placed beyond the pardon power.

[BrightNShiny]

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment):



An uncited assertion from Wikipedia is not exactly persuasive. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, but I'd like to see an actual example of a federal official being impeached after leaving office.

From Wiki on William W. Belknap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap)

He was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments.

Impeachment is such a rare process that it's going to be difficult to find an example of any particular thing. However, we can look at the Constitution itself:

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

That's from the Constitution's impeachment clause. If the only punishment allowed was removal from office, then it would be clear that an impeachment could only occur for someone in office. But the fact that the punishment can include other things indicates that post-resignation impeachment is something contemplated by the Constitution. If you couldn't impeach after resignation, then these additional punishments would become meaningless. Everyone could just resign from office a few days before the final vote was taken.

This article (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/why_i_think_pre.html) lays out the main arguments in favor of the idea that post-office impeachment is allowed. Here's another article (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm) which lays out other arguments in favor of the idea. I suppose one could make this an issue of esoteric debate, but if you had to simplify the issue for a class, then I'd go with post-office impeachment being allowable.

[friedo]

William W. Belknap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap)


Interesting stuff! Thanks.

I still maintain my position that Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer, is both a moron and a dumbass, though.

[Captain Midnight]

*The President has the power to dismiss Congress.

This is blatently untrue. If it was true, then a lot of Presidents would of dismissed Congresses of other parties who did not agree with policies. The Congress is a member of the Legislative Branch, which is one of the three branches (other two Executive and Judicial) who counterbalance each other in power

*A head of government and head of state are the same thing.

In the USA, this is more or less true. Many nations however have both a Prime Minister and a President, the PM is the head of government, while the President is head of state. However a teacher who is teaching college level civics should know better than to call those two interchangable.

*People who sell illegal copies of DVDs "would be prosecuted under piracy laws." Yes, this guy does not know the difference between actual piracy, with eye-patches and Arrrgs, and metaphorical piracy, with copyright violations. (This was not an unfortunate choice of words. This discussion occurred amongst a lecture on enumerated powers in Article I § 8, specifically related to that section's statements pertaining to crimes upon the high seas.)

The Feds have piracy laws on the books, copy a movie and selling it is a criminal offence.

*The federal government has criminal jurisdiction on the Interstate. (Seriously, WTF? Does he think the state trooper giving him a speeding ticket is a Fed?)

The FBI has jurisdiction over state and local authorities. Usually the FBI deals with crimes that happen over more than one state and special crimes like kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting money and a host of crimes that span local jurisdictions. More or less, the Feds rule in the "cop realm", highways or not.

In my knowledge, the individual states are mainly responsible for the upkeep of the highway, with the Federal government kicking in most of the funds. (This is importantwhen talking about the drinking age below.)

*Gerrymandering is a synonym for redistricting.

Redistricting is when enough people leave a district to make that district obsolete. That district will be absorbed by others to make new districts. Gerrymandering is a district that is grossly out of shape that does not follow natural boundries, but share a similar voting block or group. Fairly different things.

*States can set term limits for their Congressional delegations. (Nope.)

A member of Congress is a Federal position with no term limit. I guess a state could try this, (and should actually, to kick out old motherfuckers like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and others who have been around forever.) but I don't think it would work.

*All members of the Cabinet must be natural-born citizens "because they're in the line of succession."

I guess your teacher never heard of Henry Kissinger. If he has never heard of Kissinger, he should not be teaching University!!!

*Congress sets the drinking age. (OK, kinda, but the fact that this statement is a vast oversimplification was never touched upon. I don't think he knows that it is an oversimplification at all.)

Congress made a law withholding highway funds to states whose drinking age isn't 21 by a certain date. The ages went up as soon as I became 18 and developed a taste for alcohol.:mad:

*This one is a goodie: Congress could have impeached Nixon after he resigned. "But he was pardoned."

No need to impeach if the person being impeached has already left office. Now, what would be interesting to see if the Congress can strip an ex-President of his pension and his title if it was seen after they left office that there were crimes committed.

*Even better: A federal impeachment can result in a prison sentence.

Impeachment more or less means that the person impeached is being charged with not doing their duty in the office. Clinton was impeached in office. If a President did nothing all day but drink Wild Turkey, played golf and went to titty bars every night and did not even try to do the job, he could probably be impeached for dereliction of duty. Maybe, mayeb not. Now I am sounding like your professor.

*He doesn't know the difference between a Joint Committee and a conference committee. I don't know either, but I have heard these terms and if I was doing a lesson plan, i would know what they are. Again, if the guy is a Uni. teacher in Poly Sci, he should know this already.

*The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "only hears cases from within D.C." The Court of Appeals is the court that one can appeal to after a conviction in a Federal Court. There are several federal court districts. For example, Timothy McVeigh was convicted in a Federal District court, and appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals. Teacher needs to watch more Law and Order.

*The Supreme Court happily gives their opinion on pending legislation.
The Supreme Court members are not politicos and have gone out of their way most of the time through their history to NOT give their opinions publically. The Judicial branch is the one branch out of the three that is not political, at least not one after one gets the job.

*Residents of US territories are not citizens. (There were two Puerto Ricans in the fucking class!)

Maybe these guys can show the teacher their passports! Territorial citizens cannot vote for President (or have their own electors) but other than that have every right that the rest of us do.

*Defendants in military courts-martial are required to use their JAG defenders and may not hire civilian lawyers.

BULLSHIT! Are you kidding me? One can choose or have any kind of counsel one wishes or represent oneself. There have been many military cases with civilian defenders. For example, William Calley of the infamous My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. From Wiki..........

Taking the witness stand, Calley, under the direct examination by his civilian defense lawyer George Latimer, ................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley


*The Amish don't pay any income taxes. (Well, I dunno. Maybe most of them don't have taxable income. Sounds fishy though.)

The church, or any church does not pay taxes. However, if it is not part of the church, they do. Probably in the Amish realm, everything that is done is part of the church. I am sure there are Amish people who do work in companies or for other people, and the law stipulates reporting the income for tax purposes. But to say that the Amish themselves do not pay taxes is a bit ridiculous.

Your teacher couldn't teach first graders, much less college students. On the final exam, just pick all the wrong answers. Since this guy is about 90% wrong, you should get a 90, or an A. I like Political Science and took a lot of classes on government and civics in school. I don't know it all, and I am the first to admit it, but this teacher doesn't know shit, but the way colleges work, the students are stuck with the buffoon teacher without the right to drop, move or refund the class. It's a waste.