Then: Children brought their own lunches made by themselves, parent, or family member;Now: The socialist public schools will feed your child. Your child should realize they don't need you and the system can just as easily take care of them.
Then: Children would seek the comfort of their family or spiritual leaders when exposed to some emotional event;
Now: The socialist public school system will rush "crisis counselors" to the scene, removing the need for any dependency on family, close friends, or anyone - except the comfort of their socialist system.
Then: Children were rewarded with grades that reflected their achievements, hard work, and abilities;
Now: Children don't have to try as hard in the socialist public school system. They will lower the grading threshold so most all students will appear to be achievers. This takes pressure off (some) children and they are happy. Children of parents with standards and drive to achieve are taught they are no better than the children that don't work hard, are trouble-makers, etc.
Then: Sex education was taught at home - it was something that was personal and the parents had control over the how-and-when of such enlightenment;
Now: The socialist public school system will remove that personal aspect between a child and parent and will teach sex the way they feel it should be taught, in the timing they prescribe. They will even hand out free condoms for your young ones. Oh - let's not forget that in the socialist agenda everyone is okie-dokie, so they happily teach that homosexuality is normal - even encouraging children to discover of their own sexuality. If parents had any moral values they hoped to pass on to their children they can kiss them goodbye!
Then: There were a majority of teachers in comparison to administrators and non-teachers that made up the school system;
Now: Teachers are a minority compared to the non-teachers. With the backing of the National Education Association, this "terrorist organization" (as defined by Rod Paige, Secretary of Education) has managed to inflate the public school system to anything but an education system. The totally socialistic agenda uses the children as pawns both to obtain more and more monies as well as indoctrination of the socialist ways into the vulnerable minds of our children.
From Current Communist Goals (1963):
- 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
- 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
27 comments:
When is Then? 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago?
The only constant in life is change. Would you have us return to the days of the one room log cabin schoolhouse? Or maybe you simply yearn for the days in which the white kids went to one school and the black kids to another?
Then: Children brought their own lunches made by themselves, parent, or family member;
Now: The socialist public schools will feed your child. Your child should realize they don't need you and the system can just as easily take care of them.
I got some news for you. Parents TODAY can send their kids to school with a sack lunch. Most parents CHOOSE not to do this. Why? You ask should them.
Then: Children would seek the comfort of their family or spiritual leaders when exposed to some emotional event;
Now: The socialist public school system will rush "crisis counselors" to the scene, removing the need for any dependency on family, close friends, or anyone - except the comfort of their socialist system.
The CRISIS counselors are sent to schools when a CRISIS has occurred. The counselors are there to offer support for students WHILE in school. Once a child leaves school, they will go home and seek support from thie families or spiritual leaders. There's no problem with this approach. It sounds like you're saying less support is better.
Then: Children were rewarded with grades that reflected their achievements, hard work, and abilities;
Now: Children don't have to try as hard in the socialist public school system. They will lower the grading threshold so most all students will appear to be achievers. This takes pressure off (some) children and they are happy. Children of parents with standards and drive to achieve are taught they are no better than the children that don't work hard, are trouble-makers, etc.
Let's see some data to backup this assertion. BTW, I know of several PRIVATE church-backed universities (Willamette Univ. being one) where grade inflation is rampant.
Then: Sex education was taught at home - it was something that was personal and the parents had control over the how-and-when of such enlightenment;
Now: The socialist public school system will remove that personal aspect between a child and parent and will teach sex the way they feel it should be taught, in the timing they prescribe. They will even hand out free condoms for your young ones. Oh - let's not forget that in the socialist agenda everyone is okie-dokie, so they happily teach that homosexuality is normal - even encouraging children to discover of their own sexuality. If parents had any moral values they hoped to pass on to their children they can kiss them goodbye!
Today's parents must be very weak individuals! I mean, if they can't impart their values to their children, sounds like they have a serious problem.
Then: There were a majority of teachers in comparison to administrators and non-teachers that made up the school system;
Now: Teachers are a minority compared to the non-teachers. With the backing of the National Education Association, this "terrorist organization" (as defined by Rod Paige, Secretary of Education) has managed to inflate the public school system to anything but an education system. The totally socialistic agenda uses the children as pawns both to obtain more and more monies as well as indoctrination of the socialist ways into the vulnerable minds of our children.
Hmm. One-sided documentation. Where's your documention for your nebulous "Then" time period?
Finally, there's a big difference between "socialist" and communist". (BTW, I wrote my master's thesis on "The Concept of Democracy within the Structure of 2nd Generation Marxism".)
I've been trying to figure out what it is that drives you and others like you. The only rational answer I can come up with is FEAR. You're a very SCARED person.
You're scared of people who don't look like you. You're scared of people who don't think like you do. You're scared of people who don't act like you do. You're scared of ideas that aren't your ideas. In essence, if you read the various posts on this blog, you're scared of lots and lots of things.
It appears that you'd like to return to the days of yore when people lived in caves. You would surround yourself with people who are weaker than you are. You would lay down the law -- Tell your people what to THINK, what to DO and how to ACT. As far as your little community in the cave would go, you'd get to play the role of the supreme commander, GOD.
In the end, that's what all your rants are about. You don't like living in a democracy; you want to live in a monarchy where you are the king. You want to be the dictator.
You don't like the public school system because schools present all sorts of ideas to students. Since you're scared of any idea or concept that's not YOUR ideas or concepts, public schools are to be vilified.
You're scared of "illegal aliens" because they don't look like you, some of their ideas are different from yours and their culture is different from yours.
And you really can't stand liberals because they welcome people who look, think and act like you AND different from you.
I think you should rename your blog. It should be called "I'm Very Scared of Anything That's Not of Me."
Socialism in a Democracy is pushed by the unions. In a democracy the union bosses get the benefits and control. In Communism, those same unions belong to the Communist government. Communism requires socialism to exist – it would not exist in a Democracy.
I’m not surprised you did your master’s thesis on that topic - one that public school officials love. Pretty much a kiss-ass EASY topic to appease the public school “professors” - no work needed, just get the format of the thesis and grammar correct. Please don’t come back and claim you went to Harvard or Yale, we will just laugh at you more than we already do. Then, as an admitted socialist, you would have no point in doing a thesis based on empirical research since the added effort you would have had to make would not be rewarded – the socialist way, right? And yes, my thesis was an empirical one,
for a private university, requiring much work. I don’t find it rewarding to kiss ass. I also found it rewarding to have marketable skills.
Then, after kissing ass in public school you whine and complain that you have no marketable skills, then instead of blaming yourself and doing something about it you blame others – it’s the fault of the
capitalists, of free enterprise, etc. You then feel you somehow deserve what others have worked hard for and you chose not to. You dare not work hard for something because that’s not the socialist way.
You want links? Well here’s some from your own pool of socialist scum:
So a link on what the socialists stand for? The best place to look is a socialist site: http://www.socialistalternative.org/wwsf.html
How about the communist party? Well try the “Communist Party USA” link – under “Who we are” – oh my – is this a surprise? Gee – “Socialism USA”: http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/
In their very first paragraph of the Communist Party USA website:
"We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people."
You still want to try to convince my readers there is no connection? Guess that sort of blows your assertion out of the water huh trey? Exposed by your own ideology - your greatest fear, being exposed.
I have read your comments here a number of times Trey, and have noted that you are fond of jumping to irrational and unfounded conclusions in order to make your own arguments palatable. For instance, how do you come to conclusion that JustaDog would like to return to "log cabins" and see blacks segregated, because she believes that certain values are worthy of being maintained? Where is the link there?
Of course change is inevitable. We live in a capricious physical environent, where we cannot control the weather, let alone much else. The world , indeed the universe, is in a constant state of flux, as humanity is, as it evolves, in its brief sojourn upon this earth.
The point is that change for change sake is not always such a good thing. If we were unable as a species to enact change within ourselves, then we would be like all the other species on this earth, subject to external changes, and not much to do about it, except to adapt. But we have a special role here. We can cause change. And we can choose for the better or the worse. And therein lies the challenge.
You tell me this: why do you think that the abdication of personal responsibility is a good thing? How does being part of a collective mind that refuses to see any argument but its own, spell the evolution of mankind? How does the dismissal of anyone else's ideas other than your own help you to understand or get closer to the truth?
You are guilty of having dismissed JustaDog's ideas, because they do not align with your own. And you have responded with hyperbole and anger, when you should respond with logic and thoughtfulness.
It is not JustaDog who wants to be a "monarch". It is you.
Thank you for your post of logic simoncat. Some want BORG, some are smarter and more independent than that. Go ahead, call us rebels but call us free!
Very interesting points. Makes me think twice about some things.
I’m not surprised you did your master’s thesis on that topic - one that public school officials love. Pretty much a kiss-ass EASY topic to appease the public school “professors” - no work needed, just get the format of the thesis and grammar correct...And yes, my thesis was an empirical one, for a private university, requiring much work. I don’t find it rewarding to kiss ass.
You certainly are a pompous ass! You have no idea where I went to school nor the trouble I had fighting the administration to ALLOW me to write my thesis on the topic I selected. You see, I went to grad school in Kansas (think Bob Dole) at Pittsburg State University (PSU). The Dean of the Grad School twice rejected my topic and I was only able to write on the topic because my advisor and I fought him tooth and nail.
My thesis was 110 pages long and typed without use of a computer. I worked on it for 3 semesters. I read hundreds of books and magazine articles. I think I ended up with about 200 footnotes. I worked my butt off!
While at PSU, I helped found a Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) campus chapter. We never received official standing from this CONSERVATIVE PUBLIC university, though DSA recognized us. As a Graduate Teaching Assistant, I almost got thrown out due to my activities with this group. When I graduated and walked through the line, the Graduate Dean looked at me and said, "Thank God you're graduating and you won't be here to stir up any more trouble."
Oh yes, you're soooo right. Those PUBLIC universities just LOVE socialism.
Your reasons are why I took my kids out of the public schools...we taught them and home...my daughter graduated cum laude from law school and is taking the bar next month...the heck with letting the NEA have our kids brains.
For instance, how do you come to conclusion that JustaDog would like to return to "log cabins" and see blacks segregated, because she believes that certain values are worthy of being maintained? Where is the link there?
Did you read the orginal post? Justadog wants to return to a day when there weren't any school lunches, crisis counselors to help kids understand tragic situations or any type of sex education. A day like that would be many, many years ago. Like the 40s when we had segregated schools or the 1800s when children were schooled in one-room schoolhouses.
It's not much of a jump at all, if you read what he/she wrote.
my daughter graduated cum laude from law school...
Great! But that proves absolutely nothing. There are lots of students who attend public schools who go on to graduate from law school cum laude. My dad, for example.
Yes makrothumeo - there are options to the pubic school system and good for you for home schooling your children! Home schooling, along with private schools, are hated by the public school unions - it's not the socialist way.
This year, the Bush administration blithely gave a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations-sponsored International Baccalaureate program designed to make students citizens of the world, not proud citizens of the United States. In the midst of our war on terrorism, the IB teaches "peace studies."
"Our educators have also become legal drug pushers," said Blumenfeld. The problem is so bad that in May 2003 the House of Representatives passed the "Child Medication Safety Act" intended to prevent a parent from being coerced into medicating a child so that child could attend school. The demand by teachers and administrators that children be forced to take Ritalin, Adderal, and other mind-altering drugs is a national disgrace. "Why is 80 percent of the world’s methylphenidate being fed to children?" asked Dr. William B. Carey, director of behavioral pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, when he testified before a House panel.
The present educational system does not effectively and successfully teach children to read or write well. It does not teach history or civics well. Pocket calculators have replaced the learned ability to compute anything in any way. It requires large numbers of those children to be medicated with mind-altering drugs. A growing number of school districts around the nation are either in revolt or finding creative ways to fudge the numbers required by "No Child Left Behind." The largest teacher’s union is more interested in political activities than educational ones. A high school diploma is too often a worthless piece of paper.
There’s a reason why home-schooling children has become the desperate and heroic option of parents who want to insure they receive a good education.
There’s a reason why the schools seem more concerned with teaching about things such as sexuality, cultural diversity, and global citizenship. The reason involves a deliberate effort to render American school children unable to compete in the real world and disengaged from the values that underpin our society, and our nation’s survival and future.
In 1940, teachers were asked what they regarded as the three major problems in American schools. They identified the three major problems as: Littering, noise, and chewing gum. Teachers last year were asked what the three major problems in American schools were, and they defined them as: Rape, assault, and suicide. -- this is what socialist are fighting for - and it's getting worse. Why they want to defend a sick system like this is in itself sick.
You are guilty of having dismissed JustaDog's ideas, because they do not align with your own. And you have responded with hyperbole and anger, when you should respond with logic and thoughtfulness. It is not JustaDog who wants to be a "monarch". It is you.
That's pure crap! I haven't dismissed her ideas at all; I've disagreed with them. There IS a difference.
I would fight for her or your right to have your say. I don't think you would reciprocate that sentiment and fight for my rights. For me, this offers the starkest difference between conservatives and liberals (and those of us to the left of liberals).
Conservatives will fight to the death for THEIR rights. As long as you're "one of them", they believe that rights are of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, if you're not in "the club", then they don't give diddly squat about YOUR rights.
Liberals, on the other hand, will half-ass fight for the rights of those they agree with AS WELL AS those they DISAGREE with.
Radical Leftists will STRONGLY fight for the rights of those they agree with AS WELL AS those they DISAGREE with.
Back at PSU, some liberal group (I don't remember which one) came to Pittsburg and applied to hold a rally downtown. Initially, the City Council denied their request. My comrades & I at the PSU DSA rounded up a bunch of groups to lobby the City Council to reverse their decision. They did and the rally was allowed.
A few weeks later, David Duke of the KKK applied to hold a march through downtown Pittsburg. Again, the request was denied by the City Council. Again, the PSU DSA tried to rally folks to lobby for a reversal. In this case, however, many of the groups who lobbied for the first group were reluctant publicly to lobby for the KKK.
We socialists believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. While we vehemently oppose the message of the KKK, we firmly believe they, just like anyone else, should be afforded an equal opportunity to have their say. Though we didn't have as many people lobbying as before, the City Council still reversed their decision. Later, due to an illness (I believe), Duke cancelled the march.
But the point still stands -- We fought for the right of the KKK to be allowed their right of freedom of speech.
How many conservatives readily fight for the rights of those they oppose? Very few. And that's the big difference.
Right and logical you are pundit! It is the socialist way to treat children - make them think they need the system, that they can not handle anything on their own. In addition to this these staff (or on-call) counselors are paid for monies that should be going to the education of the students - but (like most of the monies) is not.
I saw no feedback from trey about the links he begged for, nor did he choose to defend his claim that there's a big difference between "socialist" and communist" (his words) - you know, the one he wrote histhesis on (bulk is easy, just consider the wasted paper of the writings of Karl Marx - bulk without substance). How about it trey - what's the BIG difference you're ranting about? I provided the links of the socialist party and the communist party, now tell us that BIG difference trey!
WE need more kids whining and crying in high school over all the little things in life that bother them so.
Pundit, I didn't realize you were such a compassionate soul!
Of course, you're right. Why do those sniveling brats need crisis counseling after someone has shot up their school and killed some of their classmates? Hey, death is a part of life -- They need to get used to it.
And why should those whiny crybabies get extra attention because a drunken classmate drove he and his date off the road into a tree?
And why should those wimpy kids be upset because a beloved teacher died suddenly after being murdered by a crazed stranger? People get murdered all the time -- It's NO big deal.
You're right. Kids today are such weenies. Don't coddle them or they'll fall apart as adults.
[note: dripping sarcasm above.]
Justadog,
I asked you to define "Then" and you still haven't done it! Obviously, you only like to ask questions, not answer them!
"Then" is the time prior to socialism taking over the public school system. This term was obvious to intelligent readers as well as obvious and simple in the context. Only trey needed help to understand this simple usage, and I have no problem helping the helpless (sometimes).
How about it trey - what's the BIG difference you're ranting about? I provided the links of the socialist party and the communist party, now tell us that BIG difference trey!
I have an average of over 1,400 visitors a month so I'm giving you the spotlight trey - enlighten us.
Alright, depite the fact that Justadog tends to ignore MY questions, I'm not going to play HER silly game.
What is the difference between communism and socialism? There are two answers to this question: theoretical and applied.
The goal of communism is the dissolution of the state. The proletariat is to rise up against the bourgeoisie and take over the reigns of government. In time, the proletariat will give up these reigns and peaceful anarchy will follow. Communism is an end.
Socialism, on the other hand, is a means, not an end. Socialists believe that people should come before profits, that a person's economic standing should not confer special rights. Socialists are in favor of living wages, unions, universal health care, public education, occupational safety, etc.
The applied version of communism has melded with totalitarianism. Everything is run through a dictotorial central party and individual rights have been trampled on severely. Order is upheld through the use of internal spies and a secret police. It's a disgusting political system.
Socialism, on the other hand, is employed in varying degrees by most western democracies. France, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Japan have utilized socialist principles. Even the US has employed some socialist doctrine to a VERY LIMITED EXTENT.
So many of you on this thread rail against the "socialist" element in US society. As a socialist, I can tell you that most of what you're bitching about is NOT socialist at all. Elect me president in 2008 and then you could have the chance to see what GENUINE socialism in action is all about.
"Then" is the time prior to socialism taking over the public school system.
This is a NON answer. When/Where (year/place) did the so-called socialists take over the school system? And please provide links to support whatever date you pull out of your...
There in is the problem - more and more people ARE seeing the action of socialism in the public school system and they do NOT like what they see.
Sorry - but your words do not match the words of both the socialist web site and the communist web site that I provided. Another re-definition of the world according to trey, just like he would like to redefine Taoism.
This is why I referenced their own sites and not my own words.
Trey, everyone else understands the meaning of when I use "Then". If you can't grasp the concept in the context of the post then I'm not going to babysit you like your socialist mindset is use to.
Thanks for your enlighted comment on my blog.
As for your insight into how todays children are raised - it is only the "socialist" way if a parent chooses that as the method of raising their child. Plenty of parents are still doing the old fashioned family thing. Pull your head out of the toilet and take a look. Good, loving families are all around you.
Good post soh - and you're right - socialist should pull their heads out of the toilet if they can't get it. Good loving families are essential to a good and free Ameerica!
Thanks again!
From Democratic Socialists of America:
"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
From Socialist Party USA:
"Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.
Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.
People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.
Radical democracy is the cornerstone not only of our socialism, but also of our strategy."
From Solidarity:
"We're Solidarity—we're about working for a society based on human need and democratic collective decision-making in our communities and workplaces. We want to end capitalism and the exploitation, discrimination and hierarchy that characterizes such a profit-driven system. We are committed to building a society that rejects racism, sexism, and homophobia.
We in Solidarity believe that socialism can come about only through the power and energy of a mass working-class movement, capable of replacing capitalism with a society that will be organized and controlled from the grassroots."
As you can see, I've provided information from the 3 largest socialist organizations in the US that pretty much agree with the answer to the question you posed. So, it's not a question of me defining things in my own way, this is the majority socialist opinion in the country.
"We in Solidarity believe that socialism can come about only through the power and energy of a mass working-class movement, capable of replacing capitalism with a society that will be organized and controlled from the grassroots."
hmmm, kinda sounds like Marxism to me. This of course , is the also the foundation of unions. Like most high sounding ideals, however, it tends to come out fairly different in actual practice. Unions began years ago when workers got together in reaction to exploitation by their employers. And were a good thing to start. Until the power base of unions grew. You cannot, I repeat, cannot, do anything about the natural stratification that occurs in every organization, company, society, and even family unit. You cannot sidestep the fact that the more powerful, the more ambitious, the strongest, will rise to the top and tell everyone else what to do. And will then invariably proceed to abuse that power to their own ends/agenda.
Socialism is predicated on a lie. That all people are created equal. They are not. As much as you would love to see a society "controlled by the grassroots" you will not. The best you can do is have a society with equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and press, and a governmental system that prevents the seizure of power by one political party. As you do in the States.
And tell me this: if the workers rule, who is going to employ them?
JustaDog: pass dat joint back...:)))
Cat
Apparently your preference, cat & dog, are for a society controlled by big industry. Guess what! You win!
And that's a lot of hatred for the public school system, dog. Is someone feeling like they could've achieved more? Or just missing prayer in school?
Check my comment in Fridays post about how one of the scams used by socialists is to try and make people feel guilty.
I don't hate the public school system - just the socialist unions that control it. I'd be all for a privately operated public school system as along as unions were kept out of it. In such system teachers that were good teachers would get the pay they deserve and not get some low pay just because the union says they're no better than a bad teacher.
--- END OF THIS THREAD - ANY FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE REMOVED! ---
Post a Comment