- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Once again, you prove no knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Had you bothered to actually read the report, you would see that the school board is attempting to remove the results of censoring, massaging, and manipulating the curriculm.
Look it up.
Thats what you call an 'opinion'. Where there are SOME that promote bias, it is likely that there are others that will offer a COUNTER. One of this boards rather liberal members stated that the majority of HIS professors in college were liberal. I have seen more than a few liberal professors in my day as well. (Psychology Today has also done studies that confirm there is an OBVIOUS bias in higher education). My OPINION is that there is natural blowback to bias, and that is represented by that particular school board members curriculum offering.i never said you were not critical of this. I criticized your claim that this school board member was motivated by liberal college professors
A Koch Brothers funded private school would be even more dangerous.
Please post one example of any high school in Jefferson County censoring, massaging, and manipulating the curriculm.
They have liberal bias but don't understand they have liberal bias. To them bias is a good thing and all for the greater good.Thats what you call an 'opinion'. Where there are SOME that promote bias, it is likely that there are others that will offer a COUNTER. One of this boards rather liberal members stated that the majority of HIS professors in college were liberal. I have seen more than a few liberal professors in my day as well. (Psychology Today has also done studies that confirm there is an OBVIOUS bias in higher education). My OPINION is that there is natural blowback to bias, and that is represented by that particular school board members curriculum offering.
Is There a Liberal Bias Among American Professors? | Psychology Today
Sorry...I dont want conservative OR liberal bias in the presentation of education. I've consistently said as much. The best professors and educators I have had always challenged an individuals perspective and allowed them to see all sides.
There have been many professors who support Communism. Many have also supported the destruction of the United States. The Obamas were products of this environment.You must know this.Should we be open to discussing the relative merits and benefits of fascism or totalitarian communism?
There have been many professors who support Communism. Many have also supported the destruction of the United States. The Obamas were products of this environment.You must know this.
It would fall into the same category as Fascism or Nazism but, of course, created a lot more damage. These people ignred the human suffering it caused and supported it anyway.Should we allow that ideology to be just as present and seen as just as worthwhile as liberal democracy?
That has certainly happened, but they put a different spin on it whereby a government with the right attitudes (theirs) is acceptable totalitarianism.Could we promote the notion that perhaps this human rights and inalienable rights stuff is completely bunk?
What are the present day values of Americans? Do they feel the same pride and love of country as they once did; as optimistic of the future, secure in their place in the world? I doubt it.Should that be present day in day day out in our curriculum? Or do you prefer at best, a casual, occasional questioning of our values to satisfy the view that we are being impartial?
Should we be open to discussing the relative merits and benefits of fascism or totalitarian communism?
The profit motive encourages everyone to make more profit... the scrupulous in an honest manner, the unscrupulous in a dishonest manner (which, at least to a scrupulous person, would not result in a 'better job'). So... more conservative 'common sense' fails the 'smell test' :doh[...] The profit motive encourages everyone to do a better job.
Using your analysis, then it would seem that volunteerism (charity) alone in sustaining the entire effort to assist the needy would be unreliable. Have you clued in the rest of right-wing-world on that? :2razz:Volunteerism is great in certain areas but unreliable in sustaining an entire economy.
in a philosophy or government class? Sure...provided the teachers intent is to educate and not indoctrinate and the venue and subject matter is relative.
in a philosophy or government class? Sure...provided the teachers intent is to educate and not indoctrinate and the venue and subject matter is relative.
Like what exactly?
I ask because I don't believe that's true. In fact, I believe opposite is true. The simple fact that Columbus is celebrated is evidence of this.
The Koch's and other right wing organizations have, for some time, embarked on a 'win from within' strategy by focusing on state level politics vs federal. Elective school boards are the grass roots not only at the political level but at the educational level -- get your operatives/toadies elected and they can a) use that as a springboard for more powerful elective office, and b) indoctrinate the youth via curriculum control. Applied successfully this is a very effective way to take over a country, as long as your timeline is long and your persistence is strong.I had no idea they were investing so heavily in local school board elections on different sides of the country. That's very scary.
How do you define "right wing", and do you have anything to substantiate your charges?The Koch's and other right wing organizations have, for some time, embarked on a 'win from within' strategy by focusing on state level politics vs federal. Elective school boards are the grass roots not only at the political level but at the educational level -- get your operatives/toadies elected and they can a) use that as a springboard for more powerful elective office, and b) indoctrinate the youth via curriculum control. Applied successfully this is a very effective way to take over a country, as long as your timeline is long and your persistence is strong.
At the state level (vs county school boards) they have been effective at voter disenfranchisement, abortion restriction, and union busting -- all while a conservative federal judiciary is hamstringing the federal government's response (effectively repealing part of the Civil Rights Act, etc). It has been a brilliant strategy over the past decade or more, while the Dems have been caught snoozing at the local wheel.
Add financing for a strong nationwide media/political push for 'states rights' and, at least amongst the gullible, you can't lose (or at least you've won before most have even realized there was a war).
A great post and one that most adults understand to be absolutely true.. Thank you!My son, who graduated from public high school in 2001, used to bring his history books home from elementary and junior high school, so I can tell you first hand that there was significantly less focus put on the founding fathers then there was when I went to school in the 70's and early 80's, They also didn't put a lot of emphasis on explaining the various amendments in constitution, and the reasons behind the way they had been worded. It was taught more as a "memorize this" for testing purposes, without my son actually being taught just how innovative and unique the document was. I never got the sense throughout his school years, that he was ever taught how truly great the United States was, or how truly great so many of our founding fathers were.
I do remember one specific example of how history was being taught to him differently than it was for me. He was in 6th or 7th grade and studying WWII. More specifically, dropping the A-Bombs on Japan. I was taught that Japan simply refused to surrender so we dropped the bomb because we believed it was the only way we could prevent invading Japan and the war going on for years longer. Basically I was taught that it was a difficult decision, and president Truman did what he though was best at the time to end the war and stop the the senseless killing. I was also taught that unlike other countries, we did not conquer any land or become occupiers of any foreign governments, and we spent millions and millions of dollars and thousands of American men helping Japan rebuild their country. We were definitely the good guys, we weren't the aggressors, our cause was noble, we fought with honor, and we lived up to our responsibilities.
My son was being taught things a little differently than me. He had an entire chapter that focused on the Japanese perspective. It had first hand stories from survivers, who talked about the pain and the deaths of their family and friends due to the bomb. It talked about how poor the people in mainland Japan were and how nobody came to help them for more than a day. It also discussed how underfed and under equipped the Japanese soldiers were who fought on islands like Iwo Jima. But the biggest difference was Truman's rational for dropping the bomb. They actually present speculation about the presidents motive and decision making process from people who opposed Truman's decision, as well as people who were in the Japanese military who believe that the war would have ended in a few short weeks without dropping the bomb... In a nut shell, all that extra crap serves no positive or useful purpose, and only serves to create doubts about the country that shouldn't have been created.
Why in the world would someone decide to write a history book for schools that casts unnecessary doubts on the decision to drop the bomb, and leads some to question whether or not America was the bad guy in WWII?
Why would someone write a history book that tells of the difficult decision our president made to drop the bomb, that teaches us that that decision was based on the best information available and done without malice, and done so in order to end the war with Japan and save thousands of American lives... and then in the same book, publish speculation from the presidents detractors and from enemy soldiers from the war, that basically accuses America of uselessly murdering 100's of thousands of innocent Japanese and casts doubt on the presidents motives and intention?
Why would anyone think it's a good idea to make our kids have to live the pain and suffering of the bomb through the eyes of the victims, when the kids already know the number of people who were killed instantly and were told about the countless thousands who suffered from radiation poisoning long after the bomb was dropped? It's bad enough as a kid just knowing the ramifications of that decision, but to then turn around and make them have to live it through the eyes of the victims is just wrong. It's an attempt to try an over ride the logic and rational behind the decision, and create animosity through sympathy.
That is an example of how 20 years of gradually altering the history books is in fact the political indoctrination our kids, and shows clearly how that indoctrination can, and without a doubt does, result in many of our kids growing up and becoming pessimistic adults, who don't take much pride in the country and don't believe in American exceptionalism.
I'm sure you will simply laugh this whole thing off, but believe me it's nothing to laugh at. If things don't change soon, we are going to end up with a society full of people that no longer see America as a champion of freedom, but the enemy of it. We'll end up with a country controlled by people who view America with the same contempt as Ward Churchill and 60's radicals like Bill Ayers do. We'll be finished because a people without pride = a nation without value.
Thats what you call an 'opinion'. Where there are SOME that promote bias, it is likely that there are others that will offer a COUNTER. One of this boards rather liberal members stated that the majority of HIS professors in college were liberal. I have seen more than a few liberal professors in my day as well. (Psychology Today has also done studies that confirm there is an OBVIOUS bias in higher education). My OPINION is that there is natural blowback to bias, and that is represented by that particular school board members curriculum offering.
Is There a Liberal Bias Among American Professors? | Psychology Today
Read the damn report!!!! It's been referenced here multiple times ... geesh!!
the only evidence you posted was that they don't teach about the first three presidents in every single history class, which isn't evidence of bias. It's a sign that they're smart enough to know not to teach material that has already been covered.
read the report!!!
You're welcome!A great post and one that most adults understand to be absolutely true.. Thank you!
you've got nothing.
Where's the report on the liberal "censoring, massaging, and manipulating" of the current curriculum? (there's 647 posts in this thread, if you're going to task others with formulating your argument for you then you need to at least point them to the material).Read the damn report!!!! It's been referenced here multiple times ... geesh!!
Where's the report on the liberal "censoring, massaging, and manipulating" of the current curriculum? (there's 647 posts in this thread, if you're going to task others with formulating your argument for you then you need to at least point them to the material).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?