Pajamas Media

192 Comments

1. Bernard Chapin:

“That said, Scott, in my opinion, it is not your job to decide the politics of the students in your class, it is your job to expose them to the critical thinking skills that will help them make informed decisions and back them up in a reasoned way. This is what is sorely lacking in our present educational system.”

Amen. Reverse indoctrination only places us at the level of our enemies and doesn’t work anyway as the emotional crusade is the one that youths will relate to.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:36 am 2. C Smith:

Have the students read the Gospels in parallel with Das Kapital, and ask themselves a few questions:
1. What does life mean?
2. Is this Karl Marx attempting to preach the Kingdom of Heaven without the crucial ingredient?
3. If #2 is true, does a poor grasp of #1 explain the historical non-success of Marxist thought?
Cheers,
Chris

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:55 am 3. Bob:

Friedman’s “Free to Choose” would be an excellent title to recommend. You might also consider “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, as well as some of her shorter non-fiction pieces.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:20 am 4. Mary Jackson:

You might think that students would want to rebel by being conservative, just as their tutors once rebelled by being leftist.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:31 am 5. Helen Smith:

Mary Jackson,

“You might think that students would want to rebel by being conservative,..”

Good point, but it seems that the current generation of kids thinks they are rebeling by being just like many of their teachers and the media who they apparently worship. Perhaps they are more conformist then previous generations or just more influenced by media forces which are more prevalent today. Also, I will point out that there are no rewards for being a conservative and students are often treated poorly, mainly on college campuses. It is so much easier to be a Democrat as the media, educational system, and other people in general treat you with kindness and respect. Conservatives and libertarians spend their time trying to explain themselves and second-guess themselves constantly because of the negative media press. Perhaps kids have so many other pressures that they just give in.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:52 am 6. Huan:

Have them reason out for themselves issues that matter to them. Challenge them on whether their facts are true or not, but once they have made a conclusion based on true facts, leave them be.

This is what we need the most in the voting public, the ability to reason and questions rather than iignorant acceptance of media spins.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:52 am 7. Cato:

For the libertarian and generally anti-authoritarian, Robert Heinlein and Harry Turtledove are much better than Ayn Rand or Friedman at this age. For high school students, perhaps you could add Hayek and Friedman, but I don’t think those work for most kids. Good American and European history, from texts written by scholars trained before PC dominated academia should be helpful as well. To show the authoritarian mentality, but from an interesting twist, I’d recommend bright high school students read Machiavelli’s The Prince — I read in a high school and it was a powerful stimulus to distrust (or at least to question closely) the motives of those in power.

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:01 am 8. Mike T:

The answer is simple. Tell your kid that if they major in Political Science, Sociology or another, generally PC major, you won’t pay for their college education. Not only are these degrees almost always a waste of your money, but they are the ones where most of this indoctrination happens. Students who major in the sciences, engineering and business don’t tend to deal with this crap because they have too much real work to be doing.

Most of the conservatives I’ve met who have problems with this subject are majoring in subjects where this sort of idle idiocy reigns.

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:16 am 9. Cybergeezer:

That’s my experience; Too many people (and children) becoming “educated” by the Headlines meant for their shock appeal. Educators “code of ethics” is nonexistent or ignored. Beginning in the 1970’s, education has turned to indoctrination rather than education and critical thinking. In my opinion, the reason something like Islam can flourish as it has. I only hope to live long enough to see the pendulum swing back.

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:30 am 10. fred lapides:

I can not speak about lower grades in school but recent studies have shown that the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false. I too agree that you do not teach students to be this or that but instead allow them the full spectrum of ideas and LET THEM pick and choose. If you do not want students to be X then why should you require to be Y? Besides, Marx is long gone. Some disciplines use marxian analysis to get at things–and this proves helpful–but no one these days is going to hold out for a Marxist state. They do not have that in Russia or in China any longer.

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:40 am 11. Trey:

I think you would do well to teach some critical thinking skills. Expose them to several competing ideologies, and let them do a little comparison thinking. The key is to help them think, not tell them what to think.

Trey

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:48 am 12. Richard Cook:

Yeah Mike T. Simple answers for the simpleton. I know plenty of people in both sociology and poly sci that are very good analytical thinkers (and military members) in the intelligence field. Nah the kids can’t major in those “PC” fields and have an impact….

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:07 am 13. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dr. Helen, Mary Jackson, et al.
RE: Two Words

Home Schooling

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[An education replaces an empty mind with an open one.]

P.S. Too bad that the vaunted American public education system replaces it with a closed one….

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:15 am 14. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mike T
RE: Don’t Forget….

Tell your kid that if they major in Political Science, Sociology or another, generally PC major, you won’t pay for their college education. — Mike T

….Journalism.

RE: Additionally…

….you need to teach your children well from the very beginning of their education, as in age 2. You cannot wait until they’ve come out of the indoctrination mill known as American public education in order to teach them how to keep an open mind. By then they are thoroughly brain-washed by teachers who despise such thinks as religious beliefs, morals other than ‘anything goes’, Republicans, etc.

I know because I judge high school debate and the comments I hear in the ‘judges lounge’ between rounds, from the teachers who are judges, provide me with ample evidence of the malicious mental processing that goes on in the classrooms on a daily basis during the school year.

They have your children for 6 hours of prime time every day. When your children come home, you have them for how long? Between external activities, their friends and homework?

Oh YEAH!!!!! I just remembered.

These teachers refer to YOUR children as “MY KIDS” or “MY CHILDREN”. The possessiveness is self-evident. They should, if they were professionals, refer to your children as “My students”.

We’re talking a key indicator here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Don't let schooling interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain]

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:25 am 15. franco:

Ask them how they would change the world for the better and follow wherever that leads. Usually implementation of their leftist ideals will quickly require force and coercion. That is what has happened in every case in history.

Also point out that if they think war is wrong or bad ask if police using force is OK. In domestic violence cases? In racially motivated attacks? Isn’t that a kind of war?

Ask the question, What is freedom? Do they want it? How do we keep it in place?

Many students need to be asked if they are acting on faith or on facts and reason. Do not try to reason with them until they understand they are simply believers in a type of religion.

Bush caused 9/11? Ask if he believes this or knows it. How does he know it?

Also Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness can also be a good start. Just the title alone freaks out leftists and it is a frontal assault on their central concepts.

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:47 am 16. gradchica:

“the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false.”

Really? Or are they already “primed” by their high school teachers / the media so that any hardening and deepening of their mindset is no longer viewed as a conversion? I teach literary studies to college students and none of my students question the ideas that a) men and women are exactly the same and any possible perceived differences are completely socially conditioned, and b) gender is a performance and is in no way intrinsic to your identity but can be put on and taken off at will.

When the conditioning has been so thorough on such a deep level–ie, their view of the human person, not just of social systems–it’s hard to get them to think critically of these basic underlying assumptions.

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:48 am 17. Pat:

Scott seems to be completely unaware that the public education system is a government bureaucracy dominated by a powerful leftist union. The entire public education industry is totally committed to leftist indoctrination of students, and there is absolutely nothing he can do to change this.

Most universities are even worse these days; they are little more than PC brainwashing camps designed to turn out little Marxists by the busload.

The only way to combat this is to inoculate children with critical thinking skills BEFORE they are subjected to the indoctrination, which begins in elementary school. (Ask any grade-school kid what they are told in school about recycling and climate change.) It’s up to the parents to provide that kind of inoculation.

The kids Scott describes meeting in his substitute classes are already paranoid conspiracy theorists and religious zealots. There’s no hope for them; they are already beyond the reach of facts and reason.

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:56 am 18. Jim Baker:

You are swimming upstream, Scott. Even if you focus on teaching them how to use their reasoning skills, most of them are not up to using those skills for more than solutions to the problems at hand. At least you will be helping them on that level. The kids are being bombarded by agenda driven propaganda all the time. Most of them don’t have the inclination or the ability to sort out the facts from the bullshit and their parents were never any good at that either. Welcome to the age of mass communications.

Dec 15, 2008 - 8:01 am 19. Pat:

fred lapides wrote:

“I can not speak about lower grades in school but recent studies have shown that the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false.”

Please cite those studies. I would like to read them.

Dec 15, 2008 - 8:02 am 20. KeaponLaffin:

Heinlein is a good recommendation re:Cato’s comment. However you’d still need methods to have students figure out for themselves why TANSTAAFL is true.
I was lucky, I had an Algebra teacher who said something I’ll remember for the rest of my life at the beginning of my 1st class with her:

“I’m not teaching you Algebra, I’m teaching you how to think.”

Not ‘how to think’ in any political sense, but HOW to think. Logic, deduction, observation of the facts. Logic is the easiest to learn regarding ‘immunizing’ students against propaganda. Show lists of ‘The most common Logical Fallacies and how to Spot Them’. Better yet, make them Google such a list themselves(to improve modern researching skills).
Bug them to perfect these skills so that they can spot a glaring logical error even when barely paying attention. Like in class say something fairly fallacious and test them to see if anyone calls you out on it.

Try to teach basic Skepticism. Not just ‘Don’t believe everything you read’ but ‘Don’t believe Anything you read’. For a good non-political example find practically any Newspaper science article. Preferably regarding ‘health news’. Red wine is good for you. Next week’s article: No, it’s bad for you. Fish Oil prevents heart disease. Next month: No, it doesn’t.
Ask them what Herbal Remedies or Alternative Medicine they ‘believe’ in or their parents are taking(which may not be legal to ask?) and ask them to research what studies were involved, how and by whom, that back up the claims of such a product. This not only teaches them valuable research skills but also the basic idea that you need to know the facts (and this is the important part) -before- you come to an opinion on any issue.

All comes down to: Prove it.
Socialism works? Prove it.
Pure Libertarian FreeMarket works? Prove it.

Obviously teach them better English writing skills than the ones I’ve forgotten.

Dec 15, 2008 - 8:03 am 21. Tennwriter:

Have mercy on your poor kids. Don’t expose them to Ayn Rand. If you want a Randian mentality, have them read “The Sword of Truth” series by Terry Goodkind. He’s a far better writer, and as shown by his oh, ten books or so, far more enjoyable.

Kathy Tyers wrote “The Shivering World” which is superlatively crafted. Only after you read it do you realize that each of the major characters was a representative of a particular worldview. For sheer craftsmanship, she should get awards.

“Farmer in the Sky” by Heinlein and “Exiles to Glory” by Pournelle are good books.

Dec 15, 2008 - 8:08 am 22. Locomotive Breath:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

Teach a segment on Marx during which you identify the proto-Marxist students. Then grade the next test on this principle. Make sure that proto-Marxists get a grade lower than they would ordinarily deserve because you decided to give part of their grade to someone more “needy”.

Bonus points for the teacher if the phrase “Spread the wealth around” can be worked in the confrontation that’s sure to follow.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:33 am 23. Austin:

Here is a simple game.

Divide the students into two groups with the goal of going over to the other side of the room, finding a book, then returning with it.

The students in each group will elect the “seeker”.

Group A will then blindfold their seeker while group B will not. Group A will then elect a “leader” who will tell their blindfolded seeker what to do.

Both seekers will turn around while desks are randomly arranged in the room as obstacles.

Then the sekers will turn around and proceed to the other side of the room where the books are. The teacher will announce the title of the book each is to find and bring back.

The winner is the one who brings the correct book back.

Students will soon see it does not matter who the leader is, who the seeker is, or what the book is – they will be radically disadvantaged.

No doubt the following will occur:

1. Blame the leader.
2. Blame the seeker.
3. Blame the book.
4. Claim Group B should be blindfolded.

To make this even more interesting, the seeker in group B could be a kid in a wheelchair.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:37 am 24. Cybergeezer:

For good reading, how about Herman Melville, Shakespeare, Plato, Socrates; or more recently Antonin Scalia?

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:41 am 25. Jeff Perren:

The Ayn Rand Institute has a program for teachers in which they will provide free copies of her novels. It also offers essay contests with scholarship money. The Fountainhead is not too advanced for Middle Schoolers and its themes of integrity and independence help students stand apart from the crowd. That is the beginning of critical thinking, since it encourages one to think for oneself, a fundamental skill that’s useful life long.

As an aside, and as a professional writer who has read literally hundreds of novels of all types and periods, I disagree with Tennwriter’s assessment of Rand, Goodkind, et al. Rand is a superb stylist and a great plotter, in the league of any of the greats throughout literary history. Also, her continuing huge annual sales – 51 and 65 years after her major works were published – show that many people enjoy her writing, and her ideas.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:43 am 26. fred:

Mary Jackson,

We don’t want our kids “rebelling” just for the sake of being contrarian. That isn’t real intellectual formation, although it might fit in well with how adolescents are emotionally pre-disposed.

We just want them to have the ability to think, is all.

When I was a Jesuit seminarian in training, at one point I was in a masters’ program in Philosophy at Loyola of Chicago. I was one of those grad assistants who had to teach a survey/intro course to the history of philosophy. College freshman and all that attends. Mind you, in those days I was a Marxist (the decided bookish kind, not the knuckledragging activist kind). I could have used my perch to indoctrinate, but that never entered my mind. I stuck to the course material, the syllabus, and encouraged all viewpoints for discussion. To me, it would have been unethical to propagandize students.

But the kind of Gramscian cultural Marxists who have infiltrated the academy are sleazebags. They have no discernible ethics, save the ethics of expediency and advancing the revolution. I despise them, and they are one of the reasons (among many) why I left the Left in 1987. That, and finally coming to see that there is no possibility of a workable socialist utopia in this life. Like it or not, evil is a permanent fixture of this world. Many human beings are kind, loving, and spiritual beings. Not perfect mind you, but striving. But there are AND ALWAYS WILL BE feral, evil human beings who will destroy every attempt at communal spiritual advancement. The ripple effects of their deeds spread harm through the earth and history. We are basically selfish beings who will never be perfect. Socialism and Marx (or Muhammad) will not save us.

I think the main reason why I left the Left is part of the same reason we need our kids to be truly educated: critical thinking skills. Being able to look at a problem from a variety of angles and see merit in the arguments of the other. That is what happened to me. The writings of Michael Novak played a huge role in how I even slogged my way through my ten year sojourn into Marxism. His critiques of socialism and Liberation Theology compelled me to try to find a way around them. Believe me, I really went at it. I plunged into developmental psychology, psychotherapy, genetics, and (as best I could absorb it)neuroscience to see if human nature could change. I found that Novak was right. It cannot change or be changed. Evil has an organic basis.

That exploded utopian thought. Socialist thought, from Rousseau to Marx and on down to the Frankfurt School and to Antonio Gramsci, has a telos. And that telos is Utopia. It’s a dream and ontologically unrealistic.

But the kids won’t go on that kind of journey if they are intellectually stunted and thoroughly indoctrinated.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:56 am 27. Zifnab:

Maybe I’m out of the loop, but I never experienced any heavy political bias inside the classrooms themselves.

If anything, the real political swing came from students with parents who were themselves politically active. I went to school with the niece of a State Congressman and she was incredibly vocal in selling her uncle’s political views whenever the opportunity arose. By contrast, the teachers tended to dodge politically charges questions at every opportunity. I remember my 6th grade science teacher, when asked whether evolution was legitimate or not, specifically announcing that she was “not going to touch that one” and ending the discussion right there.

Likewise, my debate teacher (debate! of all subjects!) banned political discourse in general just to avoid angry telephone calls from parents (she still got them and bemoaned the fact regularly).

Maybe Texas schools are just a different breed, but the teachers down here avoid any political hot button issue like its covered in plague.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:59 am 28. StalemateAtChristmas:

I think they sound smarter than you. Give up teaching and take up something more suitable to your abilities – maybe a job with the RNC.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:11 am 29. The Other Steve:

It is important, especially in these times of free market failure, that we keep students from expressing viewpoints which may be favorable to government intervention. This can be especially problematic if these students are receiving these viewpoints from their parents, notably parents who voted for Obama this year. Schools should do everything they can to prevent parents from indoctrinating their children.

I highly recommend you buy copies of Ayn Rand’s novels and start indoctrinating your students immediately.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:11 am 30. stan:

And this is why Ayers decided to focus on education. He advanced his radical cause far more by spreading propaganda in classrooms than by spreading bombs in buildings.

Just as radical, but far more effective.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:13 am 31. Dan Collins:

Just take their lunches and redistribute them. For their own good.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:20 am 32. Steve™:

Have them read aloud the comments from lefties on political blogs.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:23 am 33. sugarbiscuit:

“I subbed for a fourth grade class in which a girl trotted out the “Bush caused 9/11″ bit. Are you kidding me?

What can I do to help counter this? I’d like to avoid a whole new generation running on Marxist ideology.”

How exactly is believing Bush caused 9/11 Marxist? Is “Marxist” just the catch-all term for people who refuse to support Republican ideology now? I would remind you that the most “Marxist” thing to happen in this country (or more directly, the most anti-economically conservative thing) was not the election of Obama or the creation of the Daily Kos, but the Bush Administration demand for a trillion dollar bailout of private industry and now the blatant advocation for foreign industry and interference in private industry wage and benefit packages.

It seems to me a true “economic conservative” would be far more alarmed at low-oversight, government handouts of our national treasury to crooks and incompetents rather than some off-hand remarks made by children.

Furthermore, a “social libertarian” should foremost champion the education of our children on all the political philosophies and allowed to decide for themselves what is preferable. That’s the very definition of a free marketplace of ideas.

Just because a child parrots the views of his or her parent (unless you think the “bush caused 9/11″ thing was taught in school, which seems highly dubious) or simply decides to adopt a political viewpoint that disagrees with your own doesn’t automatically make those views “radical.”

For god’s sake, don’t be so reactionary. Living in a truly free (i.e., “libertarian”) society demands a lot more respect for opposing viewpoints than Scott allows himself for his “radical” students.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:24 am 34. John the Libertarian:

Tell the kids you’re teaching them DEBATE skills.
Pair off two people to each major issue.
One must debate “for” an issue, the other “against”.
Tell the class to vote for the winner NOT on the position, but on the strength of the debater.

Advise the kids that one of the keys to winning a debate is to 1) be fully prepared with research (two HARD sources for each declaration of fact, nothing from blogs qualify), and 2) anticipate what the other side’s tactics will be.

You gotta know both sides of a debate in order to win it.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:30 am 35. SteveA:

@25:

Rand is a superb stylist and a great plotter …

I beg to differ. There’s a hole in the plot of Atlas Shrugged that you could drive a locomotive through. (The “frozen train” scene — Dagny grew up around trains, she’s head of operations for a major railroad, but she can’t crank up a diesel locomotive, even with a competent companion? And yet, an hour later, we discover that she can fly a plane solo? I’ve done both; I know which is harder.) As for styling, she tends to make her points, and make them again, and then drive them home with a twelve-pound sledge. And then make them again …

Start the kids on Heinlein; he’s fun to read. Hold off on Rand until college, unless the kid is really bright.

Off topic (mostly): David Friedman (son of Milton) has a draft up of a new book on future technologies and the changes they will require to the law.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:33 am 36. SteveA:

darned link:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Future_Imperfect.html

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:34 am 37. Cybergeezer:

I got graded on a curve, but never paid on one. And I’m retired now.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:35 am 38. Tom:

Good Grief, if this is true, students so easily influenced by professors then “dummying down” has really worked. Even as a 4th grader I never considered my teachers or schooling as any kind of authority on anything, just something I was required to do. By high school I considered school a prison, a place to escape from and by college, a meal ticket. As far as education and learning, that’s done out in the world.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:40 am 39. Penny:

Ignore current politics and get the kids to discuss basic questions like
“why do we have government?”
“what is government for?”
“what is the government’s job?”
“what aspects of your life should the gov’t be allowed to control?”
“according to the constitution, what are the federal government’s responsibilities?”
“what are your responsibilites to the government?”

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:42 am 40. Henry:

Advise the kids that one of the keys to winning a debate is to 1) be fully prepared with research (two HARD sources for each declaration of fact, nothing from blogs qualify), and 2) anticipate what the other side’s tactics will be.

Great advice, but…

My sister teaches college-level composition classes. One of her assigned essays is on persuasive writing. Over and over she emphasizes that when you argue one side of a controversial issue you must understand and attack the other side’s best arguments. Over and over her students are completely incapable of doing that. Every paper is a fight against the strawman.

I would assign Nicholas Taleb’s Fooled by Randomness — this may trigger some critical thinking and if they like it, they can move on to The Black Swan.

In economics — assuming we are talking little Marxists — a book that questions most common assumptions is Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:50 am 41. Moptop:

Four years of Obama should quite nicely provide the kind of aversion therapy the little pinkos need. Sometimes you have to give them what they want. Feel free to reply to me in four years when you know how Obama’s Carter Redux policies work out. I have seen them tried, and I know how the story ends, whatever your theories and feelings tell you.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:51 am 42. DSmith:

We should no more have teachers or professors that espouse Marxism, or anything resembling it, than we should have those that espouse Lamarckianism or the Phlogiston theory.

Marxism has been tried for 100 years and has produced nothing but misery and murder. No intellecutlaly honest person can believe in it, and we should not allow intellectually dishonest persons to reside in our institutions of learning.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:52 am 43. Arnold Williams:

One writing professor at a local college simply assigned PJ O’Rourke’s irreverent “Eat the Rich” — the provocative title got it past departmental review without them apparently realizing it makes fun of PC points of view. Led to some great class discussions, and the students seemed eager to try out the approaches.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:55 am 44. Lee:

“Studies show that students do decide whether they seek free market solutions or government ones from the style of teaching they receive in the classroom.”

Dr. Helen,

Fear not, not all is lost. In the early 70’s I was a long hair anti-war high school student that said stupid things like, “I wish we could have a social-democracy like Sweden and vote for McGovern for President.” Then, Joe Biden (I am originally from northern Delaware) came to speak at my high school. I can’t remember if he was a even a Senator yet, but he had won the election by that time. Old Joe “six-pack” Biden, a product of Delaware’s exclusive and elite Archmere Academy (2008/09 $18,450.00 per year, plus books & transport), lectured and harangued our class for 45 minutes on how we needed to sacrifice, not be selfish and to conserve energy. Then Joe, the working man’s hero, left the building, climbed into a particularly cherry blue corvette and sped away. Joe let me see the world as it really is. And the rest is history. Starting with my first vote for President Ford in 1976, with only two exceptions since (one a local contest), I have voted Republican ever since. Had Joe gotten into a VW bug, who knows what my voting pattern would have been.

A saying I have heard is: “A man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. A man that is still socialist at age 40 has no brain” A mortgage and children has a way of focusing the mind.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:56 am 45. Jarhead91:

At my college, the students fell into two political categories: those who drank the Kool-Aid and those who looked at liberal professors as annoying douche bags who couldn’t make a living in the business world, but stood between us and a degree.

Most of us fell into the later group and did what was necessary not to offend political professors so we could move on with our GPA’s intact. We are now out there in the real world. The Kool-Aid drinkers are probably all teaching sociology and annoying their students somewhere.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:58 am 46. Carl Pham:

This may not occur to you, Dr. H, because you’ve only got one (so far as I know), but I find the best possible counter to the fascist-collectivist folly that goes on in the dreamworld of the classroom is having multiple children in a family.

See, with siblings a child has a direct and natural experience of the clash of interests that is an inevitable part of being human — so they are less likely to fall for the PC garbage that if we all just communicate better, we’ll find we’re all the same, really, under the skin, want the precise same things, and therefore a One Size Fits All solution for any problem, economic, social, or of governing, is viable.

Furthermore, unless they have some kind of superhuman parents who are everywhere always, they have direct experience of the necessity for negotiation and compromise with people with competing interests, and the inadvisability of relying on some Supreme Leader to make all your choices for you. That gives them the skills and attitudes necessary to get along with their fellow man in a free society. (I think it’s no coincidence that younger children, who perforce must do even more negotiation and compromise, typically grow up more social and socially successful than first or only children.)

Finally, it’s probably useful to be poor, so that teenage children need to get a job to have some of the nice things (car, cell phone). That gives you a direct experience of being a producer, not a consumer, so you have some idea of what the other end of the pipeline is like. Stuff doesn’t just come out at the consumer end by magic — it’s got to be put there by people working at it. That gives you an understanding of how important the producers of the world are (what our dipshit media calls “the rich”) and an obsessive focus on the needs of the consumers (”the poor”) is ultimately self-destructive.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:59 am 47. Wayne Parman:

I’ve taught Sunday school for about 15 years in a socially liberal church in Chicago. I’ve had great luck using STORIES I find in newspapers and magazines about people wrestling with moral dilemmas or decisions. The Wall Street Journal is filled with stories every week, especially the back page of Weekend Journal on Fridays. I also enjoy using the short story that is the last page of the New York Times Sunday magazine. These are well-written and often sad or humorous, but usually about some family, relationship, or social situation requiring some thought about the right or wrong thing to do. I also have used stories from Richard Fernandez’s site called The Belmont Club because he has such an unusually good perspective on the “moral conclusion” from some politcal, military, or social event. In each story I bring,we read the story aloud and talk about it as we move through it. This is a good way to add history lessons, as well as to introduce other religious ideas. This is really helpful for 16 and 17 year-olds who don’t remember the 1960s or what happened in WWI. Good luck.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:59 am 48. Tom:

Have your children attend private school or homeschool. This can greatly reduce the amount of secular/collectivist indoctrination. However, if your children go to private school, read everything your child does and keep in close contact with their teachers. Also, ask your children to discuss the issues EACH day.

It’s your job as a parent to keep your child on the right path.

By the way, if your school is a religious private school, it can make your job easier. These schools can teach morals too and you can work with your child each day.

The key is to inculcate selflessness in your children, and self-reliance. It’s tough, but it is afterall your duty as a parent to make sure your child has all the tools of critical thinking and survival to leave the nest some day as a net plus to humanity (note how I didnt’ say the the world).

And,

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:00 am 49. DoDoGuRu:

@ 10: fred lapides

That’s actually not really true. In most of the studies on “conversion” in college the study was based on answers students gave to a range of questions. The same number of students claimed to be “conservative” seniors as had claimed to be “conservative” freshmen. However, the seniors answers to specific issue questions like welfare, guns, the environment and so forth were all noticeably further left than freshmen. And no wonder, given four years of hearing “Marx is so awesome I can’t even stand it” and never an opposing view in sight, the conversation itself moves away from the right.

College professors don’t convert students by dragging them to the left. They shift the entire discourse to the left.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:02 am 50. Ian Thorpe:

I get really annoyed when Americans speak of Marxism or Socialism in connection with American liberals. U.S. Liberals are not marxists or socialists, they are politically correct fascists who try to impose their point of view by bullying. Look at what happened in the election campaign, the voices of people who looked past the colour of Obama’s skin and tried to talk about what a deeply inadequate candidate he was were drowned out by shouts of racism.

Marxism is a philosophy which lke many philosophies, ignores human nature when proposing its solutions. Anyone who finds socialism a threat though should do some serious reading. The US Constitution starts out bt saying all people are equal in the eyes of the law. This is in fact the basis of all socialism.

To understand you have to think of where Britain and America were in terms of social development in the late 18th century. America was a new nation formed by people who rejected the oppressive, authoritarian monarchy. Britain was run by such a monarchy which was supported by an entrenched class system which in matters of justice always favoured those of higher social status rather than judging a case on its merits. People could not rise in society above the stratum into which they were born and “the word of a Gentleman” was sufficient evidence on which to bring criminal charges against a member of the lower orders.

Think yourselves lucky the founding fathers were proto-socialists.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:12 am 51. Mike T:

Richard,

Yeah Mike T. Simple answers for the simpleton. I know plenty of people in both sociology and poly sci that are very good analytical thinkers (and military members) in the intelligence field. Nah the kids can’t major in those “PC” fields and have an impact….

And those people are exceptions to the rule, and probably didn’t need their degree in sociology or political science to get them there.

Your own analytical skills could use some work. For some reason you see fit to go to town on a strawman version of my point that if your kids avoid fluff majors like Political Science and Sociology, they’ll be likely to avoid most of the indoctrination. I have never heard of an engineering program, hard science college or serious school of business where this sort of thing is a serious problem the way it is in the humanities and the social sciences.

If your kid wants to become an intelligence analyst, then make them prove it by joining ROTC or arranging to have the military pay for it in exchange for an agreement to go through OCS and serve after college. For most other students, a Poli Sci or Sociology degree is worthless, and a waste of a family’s money, unless it is a stepping stone to a good law school.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:24 am 52. SamIam:

I’m glad at least one person (26.Fred) mentioned the Frankfurt School and Gramsci. I think much of the deterioration of the West can be traced directly back to the strategies formulated by these men. Their writings read like a blueprint for the disheartening and observable phenomena undermining our civilization on a daily basis.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:26 am 53. PaulCO:

For middle and high school, classics like 1984, Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451 are always good combined with discussions of finding current examples in the media, govt, etc that reflect the lessons of each. As for 4th graders, I guess I remain naive in thinking that these students should actually be taught basics like reading and math, etc. before attempts at critical thinking.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:26 am 54. fred:

I think it’s normal for people to intellectually evolve. If we have active minds we are not static. The problem is not that students are cultural Marxists (although, in my opinion that IS a problem); it’s that they aren’t equipped to critically examine themselves or their received “wisdom.” They lack introspection and critical thinking skills. “Critical Thought” is NOT the same thing as the ability to peel oneself or another like an onion. In the academy “Critical Thought” is actually a branch of the Frankfurt School Marxists.

I evolved intellectually, but I was able to do so because my education prior to the university, and even in the university, equipped me with the skills and encouraged me to think INDEPENDENTLY.

Today, the kids truly do not know the provenance of the ideas they embrace. And when people like me point out where the logic of how they think comes from they don’t believe it. So, I am called an anti-progressive old fart and they are smug in their “progressive” certainty. They don’t know that the people I used to hang with re-labeled their ideology as “progressivism” and avoided calling themselves socialists. When I would honestly call myself a socialist or Marxist I was admonished to not do this. I am not making shit up. I actually lived this experience. I was told by some activists and a couple of academics that under no circumstances was I to call myself a Marxist or engage people in conversation or debate about Marxist thinkers.

You see, even back then I was a bad boy who broke away from the orthodoxy. They didn’t like that at all. But that was not the only reason why the various “leaders” in these Marxist organs of infiltration didn’t like me. I was a Christian and a Roman Catholic. They considered that quaint and retrograde. It made me a suspicious person they could not entirely trust. So, can you people imagine what they do, if they get power (and there is ample evidence from history of this), to “intellectuals” and those who don’t follow The Party?

The other way I broke from the orthodoxy and the group was the fact that I took some conservative arguments seriously. Seriously enough that I thought Marxist theory would have to be re-worked to find a way around the problems that the conservative thinkers would point out. The orthodox Gramscians considered that a waste of time.

A waste of time… Yeah, so much a “waste of time” that today Marxist thought is intellectually stale and a wasteland. I follow what goes on over there still.

But, I agree with what Moptop at #42 said. The only way the kiddies who voted for Oobonga will learn is by the inevitable Carter lesson coming their way.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:34 am 55. Von Cracker:

Given that this ’substitute’ uses terms such as “Kos-style”, while surely knowing that whatever style it truly is has been around longer than the Kos site, is evidence of an intellectually dishonest argument.

No wonder this hack is just a sub.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:48 am 56. Heather:

U.S. Liberals are not marxists or socialists,

Uh, B.S. They take money from people who earn a living and give it to people who don’t.

Unless there’s some fancy-schmancy interpretation of “to each according to need, regardless of input” that you left out…

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:50 am 57. Dana H.:

The most important antidote to indoctrination is to teach children thinking skills. Teach them that they must always have reasons and evidence for their beliefs. Teach them to never accept anything on faith, including what the teacher says.

Model this approach in the curriculum by presenting material in the proper order, from the simple basics to the more advanced concepts that build on them. Just as it is wrong to teach calculus before algebra, it is wrong to teach political or environmental ideas (even correct ideas!) before laying the groundwork in history, science, and logic.

If a child has this foundation, and someone tells him, “Bush caused 9/11!,” the response will be, “Prove it!” If no proof is forthcoming, the child will rightly dismiss the claim as worthless.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:55 am 58. Aaron:

If the student thinks that Bush caused 9/11 then have them read and do a book report on the “9/11 commission report”.
If what the student really said was “bush allowed 9/11 to happen” then clearly the teacher should read the 9/11 commission report.
Also, nobody on the left believes that “Bush caused 9/11″.
Maybe this teacher should actually check out DailyKos rather then regurgitating these dishonest and inaccurate republican talking points.
And maybe this teacher might try and figure out what marxism is since she obviously doesn’t know, and reading her little diatribe makes us think she is rather unintelligent.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:00 pm 59. ThinkLikeMe:

“They take money from people who earn a living and give it to people who don’t. ”

I’ll bet you $700B that conservatives do that, too.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:04 pm 60. M. Simon:

Business Simulation Games might help.

Hot Dog King looked interesting.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:04 pm 61. aconservativeteacher:

I write often about this on my blog- I’m a conservative teacher and constantly fight against the liberal bias in education. It is subtle and overt, and a continual battle.

My solution is to expose students to multiple viewpoints. Expose them to real fascists and socialists, and they’re recoil in horror. Expose them to real conservatives and libertarians, and they’ll advance in interest.

Also, teach them to think critically. I’m a conservative and a libertarian not because it is the right view, but because it is the only one that makes sense. If students can think intelligently, they’ll arrive at the same conclusions that I have.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:07 pm 62. fred:

Dana H @57 has it exactly correct. As it should be. That is the way I would have it and the way I would do it even if I had gone on to be an academic and remained a Marxist. That post is more constructive than the snarky diatribe in #58.

The Gramscian cultural Marxists will never consent to the program that Dana H outlined, because it would defeat their aims. They are not there to educate. Anyone who thinks they are does not really know how these people think and how they see their purpose in this life. In the world they ideally would create, people like me or Dana H would be sent to re-education camps or worse. Think that’s an exaggeration? Go check into the history of the 20th century, if you dare.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:19 pm 63. David:

The suggestion to use “The Propaganda Game” is excellent. Show an episode of Bonanza or the original Battlestar Galactica first, then say “Lorne Greene came up with this game.”

Also: an introduction to logical fallacies (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ for example). That kind of exposure to critical thinking should be well within the capabilities of middle school students, and might actually stick, given that it is fun to discover and point out stupid things adult “authorities” say.

(Wff’n'Proof maybe not so much – though I loved it – because the link between predicate calculus and the kind of informal reasoning that takes place in the public/political/policy arena isn’t that close. Might help kids understand how to evaluate the arguments for and against “global warming science” though.)

– David

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:29 pm 64. Chuck Pelto:

TO: ThinkLikeMe
RE: [OT] Let’s Apply Compare & Contrast….

I’ll bet you $700B that conservatives do that, too. — I’ll bet you $700B that conservatives do that, too.

….in the total calculation.

Let’s be sure to tabulate ALL the welfare that has gone on over the last 40 years and see which cost US more.

And, since you threw in the Wall Street/Bank bailout, let’s be sure to tabulate all the money going into recovering bad-loans on legislation that was initiated during the Clinton administration, being sure to notice that in 2005-7 there were warnings from Republicans that there was no control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spending.

Yes. There’s lots of blame to go around.

But try to stay ON-TOPIC, please.

In other words, stop your silly efforts to change the subject.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest we become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. -- Cicero, 55 BC]

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:46 pm 65. Pat J:

Any fourth grader trotting around the “Bush caused 911″ stuff isn’t getting it from critical thinking. They are getting it from home sad to say. That being said, this could have been an opportunity to start asking the 4th graders how they come up with ideas about the world around them. Maybe the teacher could have started a debate lesson. Take various groups of three, they are given a topic such as “Bush caused 911″ then give a 15 minute presentation of the pro and cons of the issue. I think the kids would have enjoyed that.

Please though. No Ayn Rand. I’d rather they listen to a Rush album instead.

Dec 15, 2008 - 12:52 pm 66. Observer:

Surprise surprise – parents check out on their responsibilities to teach kids how to think. And then blame everyone else but themselves for the result.

Parents that do teach their kids how to think expect there will be disagreements on the way. That’s what learning is all about. Anything else is indoctrination.

Funny old thing, life.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:10 pm 67. lieinveigleobfuscate:

You might want to warn the teacher against Bush-style voodoo economics, the penalty for lying to your country about WMDs, the importance of not letting major cities get destroyed in hurricanes, and the reasons we have a Constitution to protect us from gov’t overreach too, while you’re teaching critical thinking skills and all.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:11 pm 68. kwo:

I recommend Louis L’Amour. Particularly “The Empty Land”. It largely follows L’Amour’s formula, but has more depth. I had an Int’l Relations professor assign it as homework. He used it as a metaphor to demonstrate the conflict between idealism (law > guns) and realism (law only works when enforced with guns). We spent less than one day on it, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:13 pm 69. ThinkLikeMe:

“Let’s be sure to tabulate ALL the welfare that has gone on over the last 40 years and see which cost US more.”

Better yet, why don’t you name all the program you’d like to cut, total up the savings if those programs were cut. And then tell us about all the letters you’ve written demanding those cuts.

“there were warnings from Republicans that there was no control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spending”

BFD. There were warnings all over the place, from all kinds of people. The problem is that nobody, including the overwhelming majority of Republicans, paid any attention to them. They paid far more attention to people like Newt Gingrich, who were paid handsomely to lobby for fewer regulations.

“In other words, stop your silly efforts to change the subject.”

If the topic upsets you so much, why did you spend all that time talking about it ?

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:20 pm 70. Jim:

Mike T:

The very idea that Political Science is a “fluff” major is laughable. Not only are they broadly applicable in attaining employment (almost every business has a Government Relations office, there are always DoD and intelligence jobs, there are thousands of campaign jobs available, etc.), but the study is deeply divided between conservatives and liberals. For example, the number of textbook used in Advanced Placement American Government classes? James Q. Wilson’s text. He’s a moderate conservative. So much for that deeply biased field.

As to the original question: why don’t we just leave ideology out of education? Teach the kids to think for themselves, and let experience be the best teacher of all.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:24 pm 71. JohnR:

Heather: liberals “take money from people who earn a living and give it to people who don’t.”?! My goodness; here I thought that was a good working definition of 1. taxing agencies and 2. Boards of Directors. I must say I’ve rarely seen such a collection of knee-jerk prejudices and thoughtless slogan-spouting as in this commentariat. And you all preen yourselves on being intelligent, critical thinkers? I could equally well bad-mouth Ayn Rand as a pseudo-intellectual light-weight, and you would be well within your rights to slap me down, as I’ve never been able to slog through any of her turgid, tedious works of self-important muddled thinking. Karl Marx, for all his foolishness, was a deeper thinker and better writer than that woman (not that that’s saying much – Wile E. Coyote was a better writer, and he usually confined himself to “Mother!” and such-like).
As for all this silly uproar, did most of you even bother to read the actual letter before you mounted your hobby-horses for a wild, arm-flailing ride? I thought not.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:32 pm 72. Chuck Pelto:

TO: ThinkLikeMe
RE: As I Said…

…try not to be a complete schitzie and stay ON-TOPIC.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You're never alone with schizophrenia.]

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:34 pm 73. Pete:

You said: “I can not speak about lower grades in school but recent studies have shown that the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false. I too agree that you do not teach students to be this or that but instead allow them the full spectrum of ideas and LET THEM pick and choose. If you do not want students to be X then why should you require to be Y? Besides, Marx is long gone. Some disciplines use marxian analysis to get at things–and this proves helpful–but no one these days is going to hold out for a Marxist state. They do not have that in Russia or in China any longer.”

Fred, my experience contradicts yours… Marxism or its equivalent is very much alive on college campuses, if not always under that now-discredited name. I am an adult MA student in history, strictly for fun, and also conservative (not necessarily GOP, the two are no longer synonymous these days). Almost all of the professors are hard-left politically and ideologically, and the texts are often by such noted Marxists as Eric Hobsbawm. Political correctness is so rampant on college campuses that even profs inclined to be more-even handed cannot voice their views easily, not at least without qualifying them with some sort of statement about racism, sexism, economic repression, inequity, exploitation of the masses by capitalists, etc. That is, they must genuflect to the approved totems of the “progressive” movement before discussing capitalism and free markets at all. Friedman et al. are not taught, not in my department anyway.

In short, Indoctination U. is alive and well. I’d be equally upset at indoctrination from the other perspective, by the way. I agree that development of critical thinking skills should be the goal of anyone in academia, regardless of political persuation.

KWO: If your PSCI prof used L’Amour, he is to be commended for it. None in my neck of the woods would dare to do so. Then again, I live near Chicago, and some would say that our universities are as corrupt as our politics… draw your own conclusions…

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:37 pm 74. Rubicon:

Many of the ideas put forth here are terrific & if used by teachers “might”, make some differences. We must start somewhere & we must be sure to find many more teachers like this one. Teachers who do not question the who, what, where, when, and why they are teaching a subject to their students, are teachers who are painfully inept. Many simply obtain the syllabus at the beginning of the year, and then do nothing at all different from “the plan.” Its “the plan” or syllabus that has gotten us into trouble. They are created by administrator types who have an agenda or wish to spread what they believe as absolute truth.
Would that we had thousands more teachers like this one who want their students to get truth & to learn how to think for themselves. What Mom & Dad think are important & establishes a great deal of the mindset a child takes with them into adulthood. BUT, along the line, kids start to learn they have options. If they are free to explore those options, many seek to learn what is behind all of those campaign phrases & slogans. Depending on your age, most of us were free of the majority of the indoctrination style educational ploys that kids face today. We were left to develop independent thinking abilities and to decide for ourselves what was good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, just or unjust.
As for college, Mom & Dad might just want to steer their children to schools like Hillsdale College in Michigan. It may not be the “prestigious” Ivy League school like Yale, Harvard, Brown, Princeton, et al, but its a terrific school for many disciplines & it could provide kids with a truthful understanding of democracy, free markets, political sciences, Constitutional issues, law, etc.
Such colleges are generally overlooked as kids find out where friends are going & think they too should go along with their buddies. What they fail to realize is those same buddies will one day end up going their own way & such connections will become unimportant as their lives unfold before them. I am still in contact with my lifelong friends that I met in middle school, high school, and college. Many I thought would be lifelong friends I have not heard from in over 40 years. So in the end, the curricula and/or the instructors are what is relevant, not who is going where or the “big” name of the school!

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:38 pm 75. gnaztee:

I’ve been a public high school teacher for nine years. I am AMAZED at the ignorance of most of the commenters here. Our conversations at school don’t revolve around “Marxism,” or “socialism,” or “indoctrination,” or any other ridiculous label you’re throwing out there. We discuss reading skills and strategies, and the writing process, and thesis statements, and supporting evidence, and 21st Century Skills (like technology skills and media literacy and critical thinking skills). And my school isn’t the exception, it’s the norm. We don’t have time to worry about indoctrination, our goal is to give kids (yes, “our kids,” for the idiotic commenter who believes we are wrong in not saying “our students”…is it so bad that we care about them?) the skills to tackle whatever comes next after high school (hopefully college, maybe tech school, maybe the working world). I think it would be absolutely hilarious to read the specifics of what many of you think goes on day to day in a typical classroom. Seriously, if you think there is any truth to the fantasy-land BS most of you are spouting here, write up a unit plan that you think is typical “indoctrination” into a Marxist ideology, I would love to see it. Then try to find your way back to the reality-based world.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:45 pm 76. Dan:

To: aconservativeteacher

“I’m a conservative teacher and constantly fight against the liberal bias in education.”
“Expose them to real fascists and socialists, and they’re recoil in horror.”
“Expose them to real conservatives and libertarians, and they’ll advance in interest.”

I’ll assume first that by “real fascists and socialists” you mean people in the vein of Stalin, Marx, Chavez, Mussolini, etc. I’m hoping that, in the interest of intellectual honesty, you aren’t actually saying that the only choices in today’s world are between the aforementioned and “real conservatives and libertarians.” Because, you know, that wouldn’t be accurate, nor would it be a service to our youth.

Otherwise, if you’re telling your students that they’re either with you or with Stalin, Marx, Chavez, Mussolini, etc., then you have no place in our education system. You may want to play that Propaganda game yourself, paying special attention to the sections on casual oversimplification, faulty analogy, hasty generalization, attacking a straw man, and appeals to ignorance.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:54 pm 77. Whitehall:

“Starship Troopers” and “Farnam’s Freehold” are two good pieces by Heinlein with the right messages, easy to digest by a young one.

Ixnay on the Rand – Even I, an accomplished reader, quit half way through Atlas Shrugged. Sure, lots of people like that style but I don’t see the Harry Potter generation going for it.

Dec 15, 2008 - 1:59 pm 78. The Other Steve:

Be careful teaching children thinking skills. They might end up thinking about it for a while and reject conservative values.

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:05 pm 79. Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

“Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell.

Or simply ask this question and point out that the government of a locality, the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality, is a corporation.

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:20 pm 80. Dan:

To: Whitehall

“Starship Troopers” has the right messages? Granted, it made a thoroughly enjoyable cult sci-fi movie, but as an educational tool I feel it’s a bit lacking, both on a practical and “meta” level. Which message here is right? On a practical level: that people should be denied full citizenship until they’ve performed military (or a similar civil) service for a number of years? On a meta level: that we are engaged in an all out life or death struggle against a mindless foe hellbent on destroying us?

How is this useful in an educational setting at all?

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:22 pm 81. Dan:

To: Whitehall

Or maybe the correct message is that the entire planet should be united under a single governmental entity, with no regard for color, sex, religion, or nationality? Never would have pegged a conservative teacher as such a powerful advocate for the UN!

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:25 pm 82. Chuck Pelto:

TO: The Other Steve
RE: Perhaps….

Be careful teaching children thinking skills. They might end up thinking about it for a while and reject conservative values. — The Other Steve

….but only the loony ones would be so stupid. After all, conservative thought is more likely to be based on reason and fact.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. -- John Adams]

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:34 pm 83. david foster:

A couple of interesting Heinlein works from this standpoint:

1)”Tunnel in the Sky” is about a group of high school kids who get stranded on a planet far away. It appears to have been written as a response to “Lord of the Flies”—in “Tunnel,” the kids create a functioning society. The book is about the importance and nature of government, as well as being an adventure story and an analysis of adolescent psychology.

2)”Logic of Empire” (long short story) is about a colony on Venus which survives on indentured labor…poverty-stricken earth people voluntarily sign up as “labor clients” and find that they can never repay their bounty and transportation and hence are stuck for life. It could be the basis for an interesting discussion about the relationship between political freedom and economic freedom.

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:36 pm 84. Chuck Pelto:

TO: gnaztee
RE: Really?

We discuss reading skills and strategies, and the writing process, and thesis statements, and supporting evidence, and 21st Century Skills (like technology skills and media literacy and critical thinking skills). — gnaztee

Then you are truly blessed. And thank God for you.

As I stated earlier, I judge high school forensic meets, to include the state finals and national qualifications.

And continually, I hear teachers in the judges’ lounge spouting how wonderful their ‘progressive’ instruction of THEIR ‘children’ is teaching them how to think. Thinks like the Vagina Monologues. One school even had a HUGE MEChA meeting poster hanging in a the main stairwell window. I asked the school district about that, I asked them about whether or not they were aware of MEChA’s manifesto as described in El Plan de Aztlán (EPA) and El Plan de Santa Barbara (EPSB). I got no reply.

These teachers are from all over the state. Not just one school.

So you are indeed, blessed. And thank you….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. -- Michel de Montaigne]

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:47 pm 85. ken Pinehill:

parents are primarilly responsible for this: not teachers. If we could not afford private school we surely would have homeschooled. To poster 71: Rand? Muddled? You must be joking. Her most valuable skill was clear and simple statements that cut through the clutter and clarified terms. Makes me skeptical you’ve even read her. Have you? Anyway, this mess with the kids is what comes from government education.

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:51 pm 86. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dan
RE: Starship Troopers Political Structure

“Starship Troopers” has the right messages? Granted, it made a thoroughly enjoyable cult sci-fi movie, but as an educational tool I feel it’s a bit lacking, both on a practical and “meta” level. — Dan

It’s interesting but in 1967-8, in high school debate we argued this matter.

RESOLVE: That the United States government should establish a system of universal military service.

It wasn’t as ‘lacking’ as you might care to think.

My team-mate and I came up with a variation on the proposal. Not universal military service, but universal governmental service.

We won ALL of our rounds. But because our ‘coach’ didn’t do squat, we weren’t able to go on to compete at state-level competition.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, c. 1835]

Dec 15, 2008 - 2:52 pm 87. Ronnie Schreiber:

I like the suggestion of putting PJ’s Eat the Rich on the curriculum.

Either that or lots of Hayek.

Thought it’s easy to see how Eat The Rich would make it past the gatekeepers easier than The Road To Serfdom.

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:17 pm 88. Cam Edwards:

Seems to me like making 4 years of Western Civilization required to graduate might not be a bad idea.

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:38 pm 89. SteveL:

On question of majors, I agree that “hard” majors in the sciences or engineering (i.e. a BS degree) produce better critical thinkers than social sciences programs (i.e. a BA degree).

As to the comment of social science majors in the intelligence field, good ones are definitely exception to the rule. I have worked in the IC for 25 years. Most social science majors run screaming away from any analytical tool that requires Boolean logic to form a query. On the other hand, few analysts with a BS degree have difficulty getting up to speed on political climate of xxxx-stan as fast as an analyst with a BA degree.

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:44 pm 90. fred:

Why is it that, by and large, the people to the Left of Center who have placed remarks on this blog have posted comments that are, more often than not, flip, sarcastic, snarky, and condescending?

We respect the topic and think it’s valid. I used to be on the Left and I’ve been on the inside: living with and daily rubbing elbows with academic intellectuals.

#75, gnatzee, I have friends who are high school teachers (I’m now a stock analyst at a small investment firm in New Hampshire)and they all tell me that there are teachers and administrators in the school system they work for who do indeed indoctrinate their students. I don’t want to make light of your experience and I take you at your word. I’m sure there are plenty of h.s. teachers who are not indoctrinating. But there are plenty who are. Don’t universalize your experience.

#73, Pete, I was at Loyola of Chicago 1985-87 and not all of the professors were Marxists in the Philosophy department. Neither were most of the Jesuits in the Jesuit community I lived in. Some were. But I do not recall any of us pushing our agenda on our students. Now, I cannot speak for what happened in the Nineties and beyond. Things may have gone south rather quickly (and I understand they have). When I was in college and graduate school there were no p.c. codes imposed on us. In my grad school experience at Loyola, towards the end you began to see some of that. A couple of years later, after I had left the Jesuits, I went to Boston College’s M.B.A. program and you could see more of it creeping in. But, I graduated from that program in ‘91 and a LOT has happened since. Thus, my experience is dated. Yours sounds like it is far more up to date.

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:45 pm 91. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cam Edwards
RE: Heh

Seems to me like making 4 years of Western Civilization required to graduate might not be a bad idea. — Cam Edwards

Two problems….

[1] Whatever happened to World History in K-12?
[2] You think the Leftist college instructors would give an ‘honest’, i.e., balanced report?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Education improves earning capacity. Ask ANY college professor.]

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:46 pm 92. Chuck Pelto:

TO: fred
RE: Obviously….

Why is it that, by and large, the people to the Left of Center who have placed remarks on this blog have posted comments that are, more often than not, flip, sarcastic, snarky, and condescending? — fred

….because they have no rational defense. Therefore, they apply the 3d option of the Lawyers Rule….

….they call the other side ‘names’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. But we also have ThinkLikeMe who just tries to change the subject.

Dec 15, 2008 - 3:59 pm 93. David S:

82. Chuck Pelto:
TO: The Other Steve
RE: Perhaps….

Be careful teaching children thinking skills. They might end up thinking about it for a while and reject conservative values. — The Other Steve

….but only the loony ones would be so stupid. After all, conservative thought is more likely to be based on reason and fact.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. -- John Adams]
…

I’d wager conservative values are more likely to be based on tradition, superstition and misinterpreted religious texts than on reason or fact. Thankfully the founders of this fine Republic were well aware of this, and provided a framework fit for a society free of religious indoctrination. It’s just a shame that so-called conservatives seem determined to undo all the progress of the last five centuries.

In my experience of public education, one is more likely to face indoctrination of a nationalist or religious bent than any form of Marxism. Of course, if you allow students to think critically about the world, they will generally reject the idea that social safety nets are a “bad thing”, recognize that religion is mostly used as a destructive force in the world, and see that war and violence do not contribute to the general welfare.

Of course, it is much easier to label the critical thinkers “loony”, and continue with the indoctrination.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:03 pm 94. Blue Collar Todd:

I too would recommend home schooling. But the ideology we are dealing with cannot tolerate such a thing to exist free of rediculous regulations. Joy, that looney lady on the The View, called homeschooled kids “demented” and social workers are biased against home school families.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:11 pm 95. Bugs:

gnaztee, since we’re doing anecdotal evidence, how about this: I attended a high school graduation out in California a couple of years ago. The principal gave the most PC, multi-culti graduation speech I’ve ever heard. Basically a litany of social ills he expected his graduates to get out there and cure – never mind what their own dreams and ambitions might be. He summed up his main point in the following statement: “If the American Dream cannot be shared equally by all Americans, then it is not worth having.” I won’t call him a Marxist, but he’s definitely a Socialist. And he was the principal. What are we to make of that?

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:12 pm 96. Thom Jeff:

To Chuck Pelto et al:

Scott’s “letter” is an excellent example of (what passes for) Conservative Deep Thought™. A “letter” is posted claiming a beloved right-wing truism (”The — is liberal”; in this case “Public Schools”); with virtually no facts (actually only one: “Bush caused 9/11″); and it provokes a plethora of first-hand, second-hand, and third hand anecdotal “evidence” supporting The Widely Accepted Fact.

Not one of you has any questions about the original letter, for example:

1. What geographical location was this?
2. Why is a “high school/middle school teacher” subbing for a fourth-grade class?
3. What does Scott consider “the most insane, Kos-style concepts”? Progressive taxes? National healthcare (Gasp!)? The minimum-wage?
4. In what context would a fourth-grader make the 9/11 claim (and what exactly was the claim)?
5. In what way are the beliefs “really doctrinaire hard-liberal stuff”?

How about this: When the Idaho grade school kids chanted “Assassinate Obama” (http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11021801) on the bus, were they promoting their parents’ values, their school’s value, or their own personal beliefs?

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:21 pm 97. Thom Jeff:

To Bugs:

Another perfect example of my point. Your claim:

“The principal gave the most PC, multi-culti graduation speech I’ve ever heard.”

Is given with absolutely no examples except this last one:

“If the American Dream cannot be shared equally by all Americans, then it is not worth having.”

What, exactly, do you think the American Dream is, and why shouldn’t it be shared equally, and why do you think that this statement is inappropriate for a high school graduation?

…I think there’s something in the Declaration of Independence about this.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:27 pm 98. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Heh

I’d wager conservative values are more likely to be based on tradition, superstition and misinterpreted religious texts than on reason or fact. — David S

You have NO IDEA how long I’ve been waiting for you to make a statement like that.

So….

….as I asked some dimbo on another thread in this venue….reason THIS away….

In Revelation 8:10-11, John talks about a vision of a ’star’ burning on the Earth. And this ’star’ causes many men to die. Furthermore it poisons a WHOLE LOT of water. And the ’star’ has the name of Wormwood.

Now….

….in 1986 there is a runaway nuclear reactor in the Ukraine at a town named Chernobyl.

When you translate the name of the town, Chernobyl, from its native Ukrainian to English, it turns out to be “Wormwood”. This is because the most common plant found in the vicinity, according to an emigre from the area. It was also confirmed as a accurate translation by the [then] resident linguist at the Denver Public Library. And the town was established before they started naming communities after people.

So….

….speaking of ‘religious text’ and your concept of ’stupidity’, please explain how a man of the First Century, given a vision of a technology he has no knowledge of could explain to his contemporaries a runaway nuclear reactor accident in the 20th Century and GET THE NAME OF THE TOWNSHIP CORRECT.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Just to stay on topic. When I heard the report that Chernobyl translates from Ukrainian to English as “Wormwood”, I contacted the Professor of Slavic Studies at Colorado University. He tried his level best to dissuade me that it did not translate as such. But he was using the Russian translation. He totally ignored/repudiated the Ukrainian.

I think that ties in well with this topical thread about how you can’t trust a ‘University’ teacher to tell you the truth of a matter. They are too PC and indoctrinarian in their habits.

P.P.S. By the by….

….I’ve got a LOT more where Chernobyl/Wormwood came from. And I can back it up with facts and witnesses.

You got ‘game’?

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:29 pm 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Thom Jeff
RE: Why Not?

Not one of you has any questions about the original letter…. — Thom Jeff

Probably because, if you’ve read some of my other comments here, you’ll realize that I’ve seen the same thinks he’s reporting in my general area.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll fisk your ‘for example:’ items tomorrow. Right now I have to focus more on preparing supper.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:33 pm 100. Thom Jeff:

To Chuck:

Thanks for showing that irony is not dead.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:45 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Heh — Part Deux

By the way, you’re playing right into my hands regarding this topical thread about Marxists and ‘educators’.

At least in THIS venue, I don’t have to worry about getting an “A” from YOU as I tear your ‘reason’ to pieces in this oh so ‘public’ venue.

God bless you for affording me this opportunity.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Have very Merry Christmas. And consider the forthcoming as my gift to you….

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:48 pm 102. vb:

How about having kids summarize a transcript of a speech. Then have them read news reports from across the political spectrum on that speech. Then discuss. It might help teach them that there can be as much bias in what is not said as in what is said.

Dec 15, 2008 - 4:52 pm 103. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Stupidity and Political Correctness Are Self-Evident…

….in David S.

Over on the thread about Winning This War Requires Language of Faith introduced by Elizabeth Scalia, our ‘esteemed’ David S has abandoned the field because he, as far as I can tell, can’t cope with reason and/or logic, let alone {Heaven forefend!} facts.

Therefore, I suspect he’ll attempt the same here.

Why? Well, as I stated in a recent comment here, he cannot cow some people with the idea that they might not get an “A” from him in their GPA.

In truth, these people have no grasp on truth. Let alone facts and therefore, when they encounter someone who is willing to stand up to them and present factual material that will contradict what they have to say….

….they have what I call a Monty Python Moment. Gutless wonders that they are.

I had such an encouter with the local form less than a fortnight ago. A covey of ‘progressive’ quail in my own house after a dedication ceremony. When they couldn’t refute the facts I presented, they fled. Just like David S is doing in another thread.

Probably a number of them will never talk to me again; of their own volition. No great ‘loss’….for me…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Flee at once. All is discovered....about 'progressives'.]

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:14 pm 104. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Thom Jeff
RE: Irony? Dead??!!?!?

Thanks for showing that irony is not dead. — Thom Jeff

It never ‘died’. It’s just unappreciated by the illiterate being cranked out by the vaunted American public education system.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As promised….more tomorrow…in greater detail…..

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:16 pm 105. fred:

Those who call religious faith superstitious best examine their own beliefs. Yes, atheism is also a religion. When I was in the seminary under the tutelage of good Thomists we did a Husserlian phenomenology about how human beings actually live. We determined that every human being as an a priori faith in something. “Faith” is an anthropological dimension that cannot be avoided. There is always something a human being takes on faith, since some things cannot be “proven” by the scientific method. See the book, “Faith and Ideologies” by Juan Luis Segundo, S.J. for a more extended and very excellent explanation of this point. All human beings MUST DECIDE some unconditional value to put their ultimate trust in. And we usually decide this by the referential witness of adults we see already living out their values in a seemingly satisfying way. We take their example on trust.

So, what do atheists put their trust in? What is their unconditioned value? A healthy dose of introspection would seem to be in order.

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:21 pm 106. joeblough:

* Any real education you give (in any subject) them will help.

* Anything you can teach them about the proper methods of determining truth will help — i.e. what it true and how can I tell.

* Anything you can teach them about the relation between freedom, human well being and wealth will help. There is a clear relation between them, simple observation of the facts is all that is needed. People in Communist countries suffer terribly. People in socialist countries lead economically stagnant lives, experience shortages and do not rise quickly in the world. People in comparatively free countries do way better on all fronts — even the free poor are richer than the unfree poor.

* Anything you can share with them of heroic ideals will help.

* Anything you can teach them of the western cultural tradition will help.

* Any real facts about the horrifying blood soaked history of 20th century socialism will help.

* Any real facts about the miracles of the industrial revolution and the rise of modern capitalism will help.

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:30 pm 107. Dr. Shalit:

YO SCOTT -

From one “SCOTT” – to another – as my parents prefered me to have an “Anglo” name rather than “SHLOMO” – ask your students this ONE QUESTIONS

1. When you wake up in the morning and “Go To Work” – do you expect:
a. An “ATTABOY” or:

b. To Be PAID.

Bet that “PAID” is the answer.

2. After they are “PAID” – ask them what they would think of a person or institution that would take 30+% of what they just earned.

Bet the answer would be “THIEF!”

Use those two questions and answers, and bet your students will have a better handle on Real Life.

Dr. Shalit

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:50 pm 108. jlo:

Shorter “Scott”:

“Dr. Helen, please give me advice on how I can counterindoctrinate those I believe have been indoctrinated, although I have no proof of the latter save this one time when this 9 year old kid told me that “Bush did 9/11.

Thanks in advance,
A Social Liberal.”

Dec 15, 2008 - 6:58 pm 109. myth buster:

Chuck, nice try, but unfortunately the whole Chernobyl thing doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of other fulfilled prophecies that you can use to testify to the Bible’s validity, but the Wormwood prophesy isn’t one of them. That one won’t be fulfilled until the Tribulation. Side note- the Greek word translated “star” is “aster,” which literally translates as “celestial body.” A nuclear reactor does not qualify, but neither does it make the absurd claim that a natural fusion reactor rivaling the sun will crash into the Earth. An asteroid could qualify.

Dec 15, 2008 - 7:36 pm 110. Pat:

fred lapides wrote:

“I can not speak about lower grades in school but recent studies have shown that the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false.”

I’m still waiting for you to post citations for those studies . . . assuming they actually exist. Your failure to respond makes me wonder.

Dec 15, 2008 - 8:50 pm 111. Allison:

–The Fountainhead is not too advanced for Middle Schoolers and its themes of integrity and independence help students stand apart from the crowd.
Yeah, and that whole opening rape scene is really appropriate for 6th grade boys and girls.

please, no Rand. She was formative to me, too, but that’s really just telling you how deeply broken I was. If you want to teach about anti-statism, use Friedman.

Comments about Heinlein show how old we are. Tunnel in the Sky was cute and fun, but it would be so dated nowadays–kids marrooned for a few months create a society and end up MARRIED? It’s like Mote in God’s Eye, where the humans stay virgins until marriage unlike those frisky aliens…

and asking people to cite sources will not create critical thinkers. People driven by emotions can’t be made into critical thinkers just by pushing them to think. As you as you remove the pressure, they will go back to thinking emotionally. you must inoculate them against their emotions first.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:06 pm 112. Steve J.:

Conservatives and libertarians spend their time trying to explain themselves

There’s no possible justification for foolishness. Anyone who thinks Ayn Rand
or “efficient market theory” Milton F. have anything worthwhile to say about
the real world are delusional.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:23 pm 113. Steve J.:

Pat:

fred lapides wrote:

“I can not speak about lower grades in school but recent studies have shown that the notion that professors “convert” students in college is absolutely false.”

I’m still waiting for you to post citations for those studies . . . assuming they actually exist. Your failure to respond makes me wonder.

HERE IT IS -
Faculty Are Liberal — Who Cares?
Inside Higher Education
March 27, 2008

A study that will appear soon in the journal PS: Political Science & Politics accepts the first part of the critique of academe and says that it’s true that the professoriate leans left. But the study — notably by one Republican professor and one Democratic professor — finds no evidence of indoctrination.

The scholars find some self-selection, with students who enter college as conservative slightly more likely to be found at relatively conservative institutions, and so forth. But over all, they found only slight shifts in political leanings (albeit to the left) during the students’ four years. The analysis also found explanations other than faculty ideology — gender and wealth, for example — that correlate with the modest political shifts that took place. Whether the students attended a college that was more liberal or conservative did not correlate with the shift — which it would have had liberal professors been engaged in indoctrination, the authors write.

Even with the slight shift to the left of students, the authors write, college students graduate with a smaller share of people identifying as “far left” than does the 18-24 year old cohort of the U.S. population.

LINK -
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/27/politics

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:45 pm 114. Jeff Perren:

Not that it’s the topic, but perhaps Steve J could enlighten us as to why an advocacy of capitalism is “delusional.” Is it delusional to suppose it’s both possible and desirable for individuals to respect property rights and engage in voluntary trade? Is it delusional to
believe that humans possess volition, are capable of reasoning, can pursue their self-interest without injuring, indeed by trading with others fairly, and that they can create and live in a society in which individual rights are defined and protected by limited government?

That was the norm, after all, for much of the 19th century in millions of interactions and transactions (though far from all, certainly). Is it delusional to believe that people like J.J. Hill, Henry Ford, and others were good men, highly productive, not to say ingenious? If that is delusional then, by all means, tell us what the real world is necessarily ‘really’ like. Us psychotics really want to know.

Dec 15, 2008 - 9:54 pm 115. Steve J.:

Not that it’s the topic, but perhaps Steve J could enlighten us as to why an advocacy of capitalism is “delusional.”

You missed the point. Do a little research on “efficient market theory” and then we can start to have a discussion.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:15 pm 116. Johnny:

Teach a few aphorisms. Kids like to toss them at other teachers, parents and their Uncle Fred… and it may make a few think.

#1 The trouble with communism is communism.

#2 The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

# The trouble with Christianity is Christians.

# The trouble with aphorisms is aphorists.

Dec 15, 2008 - 10:33 pm 117. Jason S:

Ayn Rand was totally right about virtually everything she said. I just got done rereading “Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal” and her essays on what’s wrong with conservatism are so perceptive and relevant to today’s situation, it’s uncanny. Of course she completely demolishes the leftist/collectivist/altruist mentality too.

Over the years I’ve encountered much hostility toward her writing, usually from people who fail to understand her basic premises and claim that her philosophy forbids helping others and other such crap. I’ve listened to all of the arguments against Objectivist ethics and none of them make a grain of sense compared to the overwhelming sense of reason I get from Rand.

I think that a lot of the hostility toward her comes from a reluctance of many to accept the primacy of reason, from people who are so emotionally devoted to the idea of mysticism, spirituality and the idea that there are “other ways of knowing” that accepting Rand’s straight forward, objective view of life would seem like a betrayal to them.

Arguments against the primacy of reason often take the form of things like: “Marxism was based on reason – and look what it resulted in.” Yet to those who fully understand how the primacy of individualism flows naturally, via reason, from the basic metaphysics of our objective existence, Marxism – or any other form of collectivism – is not based on reason at all.

Even if you have trouble accepting the abstract, theoretical basis of the primacy of reason and its importance to human survival, the empirical evidence is overwhelming. The lot of mankind changed little in thousands of years, in terms of living conditions, life quality and life expectancy. Then, the philosophy of the Enlightenment which brought individualism and reason to the fore and elevated it above the old dogma of spirituality and serfdom, brought forth a political and technological revolution which exploded in the most profound and significant advances in human life so far on Earth. In just 200 years, we doubled our average life expectancies and slashed infant mortality rates leading to a population explosion. We are living the freest, most comfortable lives in human history, because of the application of reason to the problems of survival. Meanwhile the philosophies of Kant et al never did a damn thing to improve human life.

I thank Ayn Rand from the bottom of my heart for putting into words elemental feelings that I’ve had since childhood – feelings like my inalienable right to my own life, that I don’t belong to anyone, that my life is an end in itself, that governments can’t grant “rights” – they can either protect them or destroy them. I also from an early age felt that mysticism was little more than wistful, wishful thinking and that the world around us was knowable only through a process of rational thought. Those who think that Ayn Rand’s writing has no relevance to the real world are obviously unaware of just how important philosophy is to our most fundamental ways of thinking and how it shapes every single thought, every action, every attitude we have. Everyone on Earth has a philosophy – yet the maintenance of a rational, objective philosophy is an act of volition which most of us evade all of our lives. Most of us have inconsistent philosophies which are comprised of a patchwork quilt of random, contradictory perceptions and integrations. The kids who pass through school parroting the shopworn left wing bromides they absorb from popular culture are in dire need of a rational philosophy.

I would start them off on a book like “Philosophy – who need it” by Rand and then progress onto “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “Capitalism.” They are not dated in the slightest – most of what’s in there bears astounding relevance to the world today.

Dec 15, 2008 - 11:45 pm 118. RAH:

I agree that Rand is hard for many students to read. She makes a point and then spends many pages belaboring it. Heinlein is better for middle school and high school. ” Time Enough for Love” pithy truisms are great quotes. ” Tunnel in the sky” is good for students figuring how to survive in the wild and how to govern themselves.

” Get the first shot off fast, that gives enough time to make the second perfect” That quote is not conservative or liberal but is does make sense in reality. Heinlein does get these points across and he was a more libertarian thinker. He helped me in the early 1970’s conteract the liberal thinking that was just strating to appear.

Kids get the emotional grounding from home, liberals have been a great majority in cities and the children ideas reflect their parents ideas.

If a child states ” Bush created 9/11″ then ask why the child believes that. It may not help that child but the other students may think critically when the student fails to give reasons and facts to back up her statement. A teacher should not belittle a child but gently challenge the assumption.

Most schools do require “1984, AnimalFarm and Farenheit 451″ to be read. Most students don’t get the parable or how thoses stories relate to their own lives.

But high school and middle school students love lessons that challenge dogma. That is easy to do and engages most kids. Those lessons help open minds to think.

Dec 16, 2008 - 1:21 am 119. Asher:

The best antidote to Marx is Darwin

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:37 am 120. A Conservative Teacher:

Be careful about looking for overt liberalism, fascism, or progressivism in schools- you’ll find it, but the real scary stuff is the subtle messages that students continually receive.

For example, open up your child’s history book, and read passages about the Great Depression, Reagan, Clinton- you’ll get a version of events that will make Zinn proud.

Or listen to how students are taught to deal with bullies- run to teacher, turn the other cheek, talk to the bully- never to fight back.

Or read about some of the presentations that students are forced to sit through- I write about anti-Vietnam war protestors brought in to speak about Vietnam, about the FIA sprouting propaganda on welfare, etc.

It’s the subtle ways that students are brainwashed that are scary, not the overt ways.

Dec 16, 2008 - 5:04 am 121. njcommuter:

Have them watch a few episodes of Babylon 5, especially the fourth season episode The Illusion of Truth, number 8 (408). The whole series is a conspiracy theorists dream, but this one is about the use of half-truths.

Of course, the sordid history of Walter Duranty would be a good place to start.

Dec 16, 2008 - 5:21 am 122. Cybergeezer:

Reading these comments brings me back to Sunday sermons.

Dec 16, 2008 - 5:27 am 123. Mike T:

The very idea that Political Science is a “fluff” major is laughable.

The average low-paid, student loan debt-burdened Poli Sci major isn’t laughing.

Not only are they broadly applicable in attaining employment (almost every business has a Government Relations office, there are always DoD and intelligence jobs, there are thousands of campaign jobs available, etc.), but the study is deeply divided between conservatives and liberals.

Many of those DoD and intelligence jobs require far more skill in language, GIS and knowledge of the cultures of other countries that students don’t get in a normal Poli Sci major.

Furthermore, the government relations people I have met all have backgrounds in business and having either worked government contracts or in a government agency. A Poli Sci degree is nowhere near as valuable as actual experience with a potential government customer, and that’s something that a business background better prepares you for.

Dec 16, 2008 - 6:31 am 124. Karin:

I think a good class exercise would be “How to recognize spin.” Using real life examples and lots of class discussion, maybe a game show format, have fun with it. Call it Duped or Not Duped?

In order to keep an open mind, students first need to learn to not believe everything they read. Just because it’s in print doesn’t make it necessarily true. Do you know I was almost all grown up before I really internalized that? I was nearly indoctrinated.

Dec 16, 2008 - 6:36 am 125. Max:

Play “Pit” with them. I have kids make the game cards using companies they’re familiar with instead of commodoties. I myself make a couple bull and bear cards. Then I let ‘em play in a huge, chaotic group. My job is to be an “invisible hand” refereeing only when a skirmish breaks out.

They love it. The next day we play “Marxist” Pit in which all trades must be made through central planning … me. They hate it.

Then we discuss the difference between the chaotic, wisdom of the crowds marketplace versus the organized, wisdom on the ministry of whatever controlled system. It’s quite eye-opening to them.

I do this after reading “Animal Farm” and/or “Anthem” with them, two very easy reads (at least superficially).

Dec 16, 2008 - 7:25 am 126. Duncan Frissell:

Keeping kids from becoming commies is best done by parents. You have to provide your children with a world view or ideology or someone else will (if only their peers).

In the late ’70s in SF, I attended the trial of the Moonie 4 which determined whether or not parents of adult children could take custody and deprogram them after they joined the Moonies. I noted from the background testimony that these kids had had a vague squishy-liberal upbringing and were therefore vulnerable to a strong ideology – however bizarre.

A word to the wise.

Dec 16, 2008 - 7:39 am 127. Jim Baker:

Steve J,
I believe you think much too highly of yourself. Why don’t you just answer the question that Jeff Perren asked, since it was you who introduced the unsupported assertion in question. I have read some Milton F and delusional was not my impression. All I can get from your assertion is that you are certainly up on the Democrat talking point ( he is delusional ) for this week. Don’t worry, I will try my best to understand whatever you have to say.

Dec 16, 2008 - 8:16 am 128. Karin:

What a great idea Max!!

If someone doesn’t have a classroom, but does have neighborhood kids, you can do other business games. Experiment with a lemonade stand or something. Tax the hell out of the little critters, and “spread the wealth around.” See what they think of that.

Dec 16, 2008 - 8:48 am 129. Pat J:

I think Heinlein is a great read for middle and high school students. But avoid the godawful Starship Troopers movie like the plague.

Orwell is always a great read.

Dec 16, 2008 - 8:51 am 130. Ian Thorpe:

@ 56 heather
You say that I am wrong in stating that US liberals are neither Marxist nor socialist Unless there’s some fancy-schmancy interpretation of “to each according to need, regardless of input” that you left out…

Well although “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need;” is a principle of Marxism, which I did point out is a flawed philosophy, what you left out because I did not actually quote any part of the phrase, is the part that goes “from each according to his ability.” Instead of correctly quoting that you added your own words “regarless of input.”

Socialism is quite different to Marxism though the difference is subtle. In fact socialism it often said to owe more to the Moravian, Unitarian and Methodist churches which practice a very different form of Chistianity that the creeds of selfishness and hatered preached by the Swiss money worshippers John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli.

The churches I mention (I’m not religious myself btw) all aimed to incorporate into their belief system the philosophies inculcated by the gnostic gospels which predate the New Testament by over a thousand years.

So I think “from each according to his ability” more than covers what you say is missing from Marx’s argument. Or would you advocate throwing babies born with birth defects on the town dump and leaving them to die because they will never be able to contrinute much to society.

Socialism, apart from believing all are equal in law, also embraces the principle of education and healthcare for all. These services are not “free” but paid for though taxes because a socialist society believes it is to the benefit of society that all are given the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

Sorry if I appear harsh Heather, perhaps you are not quite ready for the hurly burly of political debate yet.

>”Uh, B.S. They take money from people who earn a living and give it to people who don’t.

Dec 16, 2008 - 8:56 am 131. David S:

Chuck,

Unfortunately I’ve just been informed that moderator bias makes it impossible to cite facts here. I guess conservatism doesn’t need facts anyway.

I hope you enjoy living in ignorance. Don’t let reality impact your values. That would jeopardize your immortal soul, right?

Toodles,
D

Dec 16, 2008 - 9:18 am 132. Steve P.:

The tough part is not keeping your students from becoming Marxist. Marxism is just a word shrieked by vapid blonde bimbos on Fox News to scare fat old white people in retirement homes, and most kids today are too dependent on video games, clothes and iPhones to give up their materialism. The tough part is keeping your students from discovering that Conservatism, as a movement, is basically a group of sedentary caucasians of advanced age who:

1. Believe that white Christians are, and should continue to be, the favored citizens of the United States.
2. Have thoughout the past century fought against civil rights for minorities, fought against the right for workers to assemble for better wages, have fought against womens’ rights to make decisions over their own bodies, and have fought to limit life-saving scientific research because of religious opinions.
3. Are callous enough to think it’s okay that they have a yacht and a Gulfstream while millions of American kids starve.
4. Have an ideology that can essentially be summed up by “I got mine, screw you.”
5. Continue to use religious arguments to support their political agendas and beliefs instead of reason.

When faced with that ideology, and the last 8 years of Republican failure, it’s not hard to see why college-educated kids and students of all ages are flocking to the Left.

Dec 16, 2008 - 11:08 am 133. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Thom Jeff
RE: Let the Fisking Begin

Scott’s “letter” is an excellent example of (what passes for) Conservative Deep Thought™. A “letter” is posted claiming a beloved right-wing truism (”The — is liberal”; in this case “Public Schools”); with virtually no facts (actually only one: “Bush caused 9/11″); and it provokes a plethora of first-hand, second-hand, and third hand anecdotal “evidence” supporting The Widely Accepted Fact. — Thom Jeff

You can go ahead and claim that Scott presents no facts. That’s not a problem for me. All we have is his word. Just like, from you, all we have is YOUR word on the matter.

On the other hand, as I’ve stated here, have first hand experience that what Scott has said is true. Whether or not you accept Scott’s report or mine is not my particular problem.

Not one of you has any questions about the original letter, for example:

1. What geographical location was this? — Thom Jeff

For my part, the state of Colorado.

2. Why is a “high school/middle school teacher” subbing for a fourth-grade class? — Thom Jeff

Perhaps the school district was desperate for a sub that could teach at that level. Maybe there was a flu running through their system and it had all the other subs qualified for fourth-grade occupied. After all, don’t you think that a high-school level sub can teach fourth-grade?

Well….actually….considering you offered this argument….maybe you don’t think, after all.

3. What does Scott consider “the most insane, Kos-style concepts”? Progressive taxes? National healthcare (Gasp!)? The minimum-wage? — Thom Jeff

I would suspect that just about 80% of what is passed on Daily Kos is pretty much ‘insane’.

Especially the Bush caused 9/11 stuff.

4. In what context would a fourth-grader make the 9/11 claim (and what exactly was the claim)? — Thom Jeff

Have to ask Scott. Or perhaps you can find the fourth-grader in the report.

For my part, I’ve heard a good number of high school students spouting thinks that sound politically correct, as opposed to rational.

5. In what way are the beliefs “really doctrinaire hard-liberal stuff”? — Thom Jeff

See my reply to your item #4 (above, in this comment).

And…at this point, you’re grasping at straws.

How about this: When the Idaho grade school kids chanted “Assassinate Obama” (http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11021801) on the bus, were they promoting their parents’ values, their school’s value, or their own personal beliefs? — Thom Jeff

Yeah. I’m familiar with that despicable incident. It’s just as bad as what I’ve seen on the so-called major media; “Snipers Wanted”, with a picture of President Bush.

But these are children who will play stupid games if someone will get them to do so. Like the way school children of the same age were singing praises of Obama just before the election. And they were put up to it by adults.

On the other hand, maybe the school bus driver put them up to it. Just like the school teachers at Die Obamajugend Singt!

And this was organized by teachers in a public school, which is supposed to be apolitical.

So we have prima facia evidence supporting the premise provided in this article.

Hope that helps….but…as with all such people as you….I have serious doubts…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Lab called... Your brain is ready!]

Dec 16, 2008 - 11:57 am 134. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Myth Buster
RE: [OT] Really?

Chuck, nice try, but unfortunately the whole Chernobyl thing doesn’t make sense. — Myth Buster

Actually. I heard about the translation on a PBS special in 1990. The host opened the special with the words, “Chernobyl. Wormwood. That star of apocalyptic import.”

But if it doesn’t make sense to you…maybe you should learn a bit more. It makes excellent sense if you open your mind to the idea of a man of the First Century, given a vision of a future event involving a technology he has know knowledge of would use terms his contemporaries would understand: star burning on the earth, what does a runaway nuclear pile in melt down look like; killing many men, as I understand it all the men who ran back and forth throwing carbon bricks on the molten core through the hole it had burned in the roof of the containment structure died of radiation poisoning; and the sarcophagus poured over the ruin did not stop the radioactive isotopes from getting into the water table…which is slowly making its way to the Black Sea.

Hope that helps….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It's later than you think....]

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:06 pm 135. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Myth Buster
RE: More

There are plenty of other fulfilled prophecies that you can use to testify to the Bible’s validity, but the Wormwood prophesy isn’t one of them. — Myth Buster

I’m well aware of the other prophecies. But this one, along with Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, strike closer to home. Don’t you think?

That one won’t be fulfilled until the Tribulation. — Myth Buster

Three guesses. First two don’t count…..

Side note- the Greek word translated “star” is “aster,” which literally translates as “celestial body.” — Myth Buster

Go back and re-read Revelation. Notice how ‘stars’ equate to ‘angels’ and ‘principalities’. And notice that ‘fallen angels’ are frequently mentioned throughout the text. And are not angels considered ‘celestial’ in their nature?

A nuclear reactor does not qualify, but neither does it make the absurd claim that a natural fusion reactor rivaling the sun will crash into the Earth. An asteroid could qualify. — Myth Buster

You expect John to tell his contemporaries that he saw “a runaway nuclear reactor”?

Remember what I said about how a man from the First Century would explain such an incident to his contemporaries in words they could understand.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Atheism is a non-prophet organization.]

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:19 pm 136. Blue Collar Todd:

And now we have to worry about gay high schools. So much for real education, as long as they feel good about themselves. Little Johnny can’t read but he feels good about himself.

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:27 pm 137. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

Unfortunately I’ve just been informed that moderator bias makes it impossible to cite facts here. I guess conservatism doesn’t need facts anyway. — David S

Fascinating. I present facts and the moderators don’t seem to mind.

Additionally, I’ve seen facts provided by ‘progressives’ and the moderators allow them through as well.

I suspect that David S is upset that his ‘facts’ were accompanied by a dose of vitriol that the moderators truly took acception too.

I hope you enjoy living in ignorance. Don’t let reality impact your values. That would jeopardize your immortal soul, right? — David S

Look who’s talking about ‘ignorance’. And ‘reality’.

As I stated earlier, David S has serious issues regarding those two AND clinical-level ‘projection’ too boot.

RE: Additional Observation

David S had said he was abandoning this field. But, he apparently either forgot or he is a liar. Or maybe he’s just like those childish ‘progressives’ who, in run up to the 2004 General Election whined that they’d leave the country if Bush was re-elected. And yet, after the election, they were still with US.

At any rate, it’s obvious that David S cannot be taken at his word about anything in particular. And this latest pout and whine is probably like the earlier one.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[As a dog returns to its vomit, so does a fool to his folly. -- Proverbs]

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:33 pm 138. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Errata!

That should read “exception” instead of “acception”.

My error….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The only Guy who was perfect got nailed to a tree for it.]

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:35 pm 139. Helen Smith:

Chuck,

“I suspect that David S is upset that his ‘facts’ were accompanied by a dose of vitriol that the moderators truly took acception too.”

I asked the moderators to keep out comments calling people names such as “dittohead” and others that insult but make no point. If comments contain these insults, they will no longer get through. I do not have to provide a platform for it. These commenters are perfectly free to go to their own sites to call names and make insults.

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:45 pm 140. Susan:

I’d like to see this discussion taken to kids in the elementary age group. “Indoctrination” starts early. In most cases I don’t have a problem with the information shared in my kids’ public school social studies and science units. The problem is, often the material presented is incomplete. With “Time for Kids” as the current events supplement for my daughter’s class, she’s inundated with global warming scare tactics. In history, it seems more time is spent on the negative events in our nation’s history than on the principles of how our nation came to be and learning about the founding fathers and the sacrifices that have been made in the name of freedom.

As a parent, it’s my job to monitor what’s being presented at school,discuss with my kids and provide additional information that’s missing. Ideas on the best kid-friendly resources available to not only enable their critical thinking skills but also provide them with the facts they need to put the information they’re receiving into perspective????

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:55 pm 141. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dr. Helen Smith
RE: Rules Of Engagement

If comments contain these insults, they will no longer get through. I do not have to provide a platform for it. These commenters are perfectly free to go to their own sites to call names and make insults. — Dr. Helen Smith

Acknowledged…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Integrity has no need for rules. As it behaves properly in and of itself.]

Dec 16, 2008 - 12:58 pm 142. David S:

Chuck,

Your bible stories will keep the kids entertained, but they don’t bear any resemblance to critical thinking or have any basis in fact.

In my unpublished response, I simply cited an easily googled refutation of your assertion regarding Chernobyl. If you care to research where your talking point came from, you will find the same rebuttal. And true to form you will no doubt claim that any source contradicting your world-view is biased and revert to shameless foolishness.

If you can’t offer more than a story about falling angels to support conservative values, why do you cling so tightly?

Did you notice that your indoctrination into religious fanaticism has rendered you impotent to argue logically?

And if you were paying attention for the last eight years, you would have noticed that GWB was installed by the SCOTUS in 2000, not elected. You might have also noticed that Ken Blackwell had a hand in his re-installation.

But of course conservative values need no justification – and have none.

The only way to further a conservative agenda is to brainwash kids before they have the capacity to think critically about the world they live in.

DS

Dec 16, 2008 - 1:28 pm 143. Baron Screwtape:

Tennwriter: “If you want a Randian mentality, have them read “The Sword of Truth” series by Terry Goodkind.”

While I agree with you in principle about this excellent series, I did find the ever increasing amount of rape in the series taxing over time. So I really think it should be kept to adult readers, or that is my opinion at least.

Dec 16, 2008 - 1:51 pm 144. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: [OT] Critical Thinking

Your bible stories will keep the kids entertained, but they don’t bear any resemblance to critical thinking or have any basis in fact. — David S

Then be ‘entertained’, as you obviously have nothing to offer to refute this matter.

RE: [OT] Easily Googled?

In my unpublished response, I simply cited an easily googled refutation of your assertion regarding Chernobyl. — David S

You actually TRUST ‘Google’? After the report, just a couple of days ago about how they ‘censor’ what you can find using their search engine?

How very ‘trusting’ of you.

Personally, I prefer the information I’ve reported in this thread (above).

RE: [OT] Arguing Competently

Did you notice that your indoctrination into religious fanaticism has rendered you impotent to argue logically? — David S

Maybe if you offered some facts instead of such statements as you just uttered, you’d be more effective yourself.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ve got a LOT more than the Chernobyl translation. But you needn’t fear….yet….

[Ignorance here is less than bliss. -- Newsboys, Truth Be Known]

Dec 16, 2008 - 1:56 pm 145. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S, et al.
RE: [OT] More Evidence on Chernobyl

Try this one on for size/

There are few Russian words that have entered the American vocabulary as quickly or with as much impact. The literal translation of Chernobyl is “wormwood,” the name of the great star that fell from the heavens in the Book of Revelations, poisoning the Earth’s waters and heralding the day of judgment. — The Killer Comment from the article cited above

Hope this helps.

I’m researching the PBS item I reported earlier.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Facts. Not fiction.]

Dec 16, 2008 - 2:34 pm 146. David S:

Chuck,

Again, please provide one little example of a conservative value that is not based on tradition, superstition or misinterpreted religious texts. You can’t. There is no logical reason to believe in so-called conservative values. They are the values of small minded tribal societies writ large, and woefully inadequate to the task at hand.

Thank you for reinforcing my point about your inability to defend conservative values using reason or facts.

Students will continue to ignore conservatives so long as conservatives refuse to employ reason.

DS

PS – Here’s that link for your reading pleasure:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Chernobyl.htm

The city is named after the chornobyl’ grass, or mugwort. The word itself is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks.

Sometimes it is erroneously translated as wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), with consequent apocalyptic associations, probably originating from a New York Times article by Serge Schmemann, Chernobyl Fallout: Apocalyptic Tale, July 25, 1986. There, an unnamed “prominent Russian writer” was quoted as claming the Ukrainian word for wormwood was chernobyl.

Dec 16, 2008 - 2:39 pm 147. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Black Stalks

The city is named after the chornobyl’ grass, or mugwort. The word itself is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks. — David S

Yeah. That’s what the professor of Slavic Studies at Colorado University tried to tell me.

However, I think I’ll stick by the reports from the Ukrainian emigre who is personally familiar with the area and the linguist from the Denver Public Library. As they seem to be (1) closer to the ‘facts’ and (2) less politically motivated.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Dec 16, 2008 - 2:51 pm 148. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: [OT] Speaking of ‘Black Stalk’ and Mugwort

Maybe you should do some deeper research. Try THIS!

Notice the identical genus with ‘wormwood’. Notice the comment about….

Mugwort with flowers. Note the black stalks. — Picture of ‘mugwort’/wormwood in the picture.

As a caveat, I offer this item in the article….

Actually, wormwood and mugwort, though closely related, are not identical. Rather correctly, Russian and Ukrainian Bible translations render the Greek plant name apsinthos not as chernobyl or chornobyl, but as polyn (Russian imya sej zvezde polyn [имя сей звезде полынь], Ukrainian a jmennya sori tij polyn [а ймення зорі тій полин]). Confused by the inherent ambiguity of that word, some Western journalist have tried to make a case that the herb mentioned in the Bible is indeed the same that is called chernobyl, which actually may be true (for a Russian or Ukrainian Bible translation), because polyn and chernobyl have indeed overlapping denotation — Article at URL

I think it’s close enough. What you make of it is completely up to you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Are we learning yet? -- Young John Conner to the T800 in Terminator 2]

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:01 pm 149. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I doubt if the current form of scientific identification, i.e., genus and species, was not fully implemented at the time John wrote his book of Revelation. So I’ll give him credit for being close enough.

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:03 pm 150. Jeff Perren:

Susan,

The following is on one subject only, the environment. But since that is such a major topic today, it might be of some help.

Facts Not Fear – A Parents Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment.

by Michale Sanera and Jane S. Shaw

Objective, simplified without being simplistic.

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:09 pm 151. David S:

Chuck,

Can you provide one example of a conservative value that is not based on tradition, superstition or misinterpreted religious texts?

DS

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:11 pm 152. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: [OT] Heh

Can you provide one example of a conservative value that is not based on tradition, superstition or misinterpreted religious texts? — David S

On the one hand, prove that it is ‘misinterpreted’.

On the other hand, prove it is ‘traditional’.

On the third hand, didn’t I just do that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I notice that you have failed to refute my reports and understandings. Instead, all you do is require me to prove even more.

And as annoying as you may be wishing you make yourself to be, all you are doing is allowing me to gather MORE information SUPPORTING my understanding.

This mugwort business is an additional blessing of understanding YOU have provided to ME….and any others who have observed this discussion…..

God bless you for motivating me to seek additional information…..

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:23 pm 153. David S:

Chuck,

Glad to be of service.

If you decide to actually address the original question, your research may be even more enlightening.

Here’s one more tidbit for you: if you read those scriptures carefully, you will come to understand that the holy spirit and satan are the same entity.

Happy Holidays!

DS

Dec 16, 2008 - 3:57 pm 154. Jim Baker:

Steve P,

I am still waiting for your explanation of the delusions of Milton F. By the way, diatribe #132 was just pathetic. Do you not see prejudice in the mirror. Spreading that kind of stereotyping is exactly what this article was about.

Dec 16, 2008 - 4:23 pm 155. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: [OT] Actually…

If you decide to actually address the original question, your research may be even more enlightening. — David S

….I believe I was the one who asked the principle question. See my question at item #98 to refresh your ‘memory’. Something to do with Chernobyl. Which you have failed to refute.

If I am mistaken, please site your post which preceeds my item at #98 to refresh my memory.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Dec 16, 2008 - 4:24 pm 156. David S:

Chuck,

Try taking a look at post #93. I’m sure with practice you will be able to read a comment thread without someone holding your hand.

I was responding to your assertion that for thinking people to reject conservative values, they would have to be “loony”.

I even restated my question for you in post #151, in case you forgot. That was only four posts ago.

Have you suffered some sort of brain injury that would explain all of your confusion?

David

Dec 16, 2008 - 6:39 pm 157. Pat J:

Remember what I said about how a man from the First Century would explain such an incident to his contemporaries in words they could understand.
————-
Wow. This is the first time I’ve actually seen Chuck Pelto write something I agree upon. And no. I’m not being sarcastic. And that’s based on John’s prophecy in the Book of Revelation. How would John explain what he saw in his vision to his fellow men?

If you look very closely at the First Testament you see some amazing things. The book of Genesis for instance states the progression of life as it originated on the planet. Sodom and Gommorah’s description resembles a nuclear holocaust. How would BC man explain it otherwise. And Ezekial? He saw the wheel. Then he took a ride and saw the earth from above. Hard to put into detail for a man 2100 years ago. But today? How would a man of Ezekial’s time exlains such an event other than then current references. And the Flood? An almost universal story across ancient mythologys of several civilizations. I for one believe it happened.

There’s a lot of mythology in the Bible. A lot of what was written was based on how mankind tried to figure out what was going on at the time using then contemporary imagery.

Which getting back on topic, would be a fun exercise for some grade levels. Take an “event” in the Bible and try to explain how it would translate into contemporary society. Get their brains thinking instead of the “Bush caused 911″ or “Obama is a Muslim Socialist” close-minded rhetoric they are getting from other sources.

Dec 16, 2008 - 7:09 pm 158. Jason S:

Ian Thorpe:

It’s always amusing to see someone attempt to defend the ideology of socialism, although rather tiresome to then have to roll up the sleeves to point out, for the umpteenth time, the rather obvious fact that socialism does not work and is 100% immoral.

First – it never ceases to amaze me the frequency with which socialists and leftists in general stoop to the time-old “argument from intimidation” – a futile attempt to demonize the moral character of their adversary by various fraudulent means, in your case by suggesting that those who don’t subscribe to the altrusist/collectivist school of thought are in fact hideous monsters who would “throw disabled babies on the town dump.”

As someone who advocates laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, I can quite happily propose to you that it is not the job (nor the moral right) of the state to force people to contribute to the welfare of others, even disabled babies. But that doesn’t make me a monster. I merely believe that such charity should be provided on a voluntary basis and a voluntary basis only. To put a gun to someone’s head and demand that they contribute to the welfare of strangers is morally wrong. I believe in the inalienable right of the individual to choose his own hopes, dreams, priorities, attitudes and aspirations. If I or anyone else wish to live my life as an end in itself and to contribute to nobody else’s welfare except my own and that of the people I love, then that is my business alone – not yours, not the states or anyone elses. The fact that our present system disagrees with me and agrees partially with you does not make it morally right. As long as I do not abrogate the rights of others to live life as they please, then my life is my own to dispose of how I wish. However, if I wish to donate to a private charity which cares for deformed babies then I am free to do that also – and I will do it, of my own volition, to my own extent and in my own time.

If socialism believes that “all are equal in law” then that begs the question: what and whose laws? If the legal equality you have in mind is that “everyone’s lives belong to the collective equally” then simple “equality under the law” in such a form is not moral because you are proposing laws which abrogate the most basic of rights, the inalienable right of the individual to dispose of his life as he pleases. The “equality” that socialism aspires to is not political equality, i.e. equality of rights, but “equality of outcome,” i.e. a guarantee that outcome will be the same for everyone regardless of ability, attitude or character. I can’t think of any better way to stifle the spirit of creativity and innovation which raised our living conditions to unprecedented levels in the last 200 years and which were the result of the liberation of the individual.

Whenever a socialist attempts to morally justify his ideology by proclaiming that it will provide “healthcare and education for all,” the underlying assumption is that healthcare and education are “rights.” Indeed, ask any socialist if he thinks they are rights and he will answer in the affirmative. But there are no such rights. To assert that everyone has a “right” to healthcare and education is to assert, quite explicitly, that everyone has the “right” to demand that others pay for it if they cannot afford it. You say that they are paid through taxes under socialism – well, if everyone is “equal under the law” then of course you cannot then disagree that everyone should pay the same taxes. If socialists believe that people who earn more should pay more in taxes, then of course everyone is not “equal under the law.” So what next? Oh that’s right – to rectify this, everyone should earn the same, no matter what they do, whether they’re a janitor or a nuclear scientist. No matter what effort they’ve put into life.

No matter which way you look at it, socialism amounts to the same thing – the subordination of the individual to the state, the collective, or whatever else you want to call it. The abrogation of the most basic rights of the individual.

To those who don’t see how such rights are abrogated under socialism, to those who believe that socialism equals “freedom”: well, in a socialist society, what do you propose to do with someone like me, who wishes to put the welfare of himself and his loved ones above everyone else (but who does not propose to physically coerce others against their will or abrogate their rights in any way), who does not wish to provide for the welfare of strangers? Who wishes to trade with like minded people on our own terms for our own mutual benefit? The only way you’re going to stop me being free and practicing free trade is by holding a gun to my head and forcing me to submit to the collective “plan” of socialism. And therein lies the spanner in the socialist works. There is no such thing as a “common purpose.” Everyone is different. We are individuals with our own priorities, not some grotesque collective fusion of skin and bones with a collective conscience. Your idea of “charity” is not necessarily mine. Individuals want to live their lives as they please, to their own ends. Those who wish to act collectively, to live communally, are free to do so in a free society. Those who wish to act individually, to live for their own purpose and nobody else’s, are not free to do so in a socialist society.

The reason why every attempt at Marxism, socialism and every other form of collectivism has ended either in economic stagnation, poverty and oppression or outright bloody slaughter, is because a) prosperity results from freedom, not coercion and b) the only way to ensure that everyone submits to a collective plan is to physically force them against their will.

The only system which fully recognizes and respects the rights of the individual is laissez-faire capitalism, a system based on individual freedom and property rights.

Dec 16, 2008 - 8:14 pm 159. Jason S:

Steve P.:

I’ve never read anywhere, or heard from anyone, that conservatism is an ideology which states supremacy for white Christians or which opposes civil rights for minorities. It really helps in these debates to refrain from telling outright lies.

Secondly, your claim that conservatives “think it’s OK to have a yacht while millions of American kids starve” deserves a mention – right after I quit laughing.

OK. First of all, “millions of American kids” are not starving. That is another brazen lie on your part – seriously, how can you so shamelessly put your name to this unmitigated bull? In fact I will just cut the crap here and say it: there are no American kids who are “starving.”

Secondly, it’s perfectly OK to have wealth, if you’ve created that wealth, or if someone has given it to you of their own free will. There is nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about. But to suggest that the idea that owning wealth is OK is a “conservative” trait is the worst kind of evasion.

It’s like you’re denying the existence of rich liberals. Are you really? I cannot believe that anyone would be that stupid. Let’s take the likes of, say, Sean Penn or Danny Glover. Both advocate socialism and indeed both have traveled to Venezuela to heap praise at the feet of Hugo Chavez. Yet, incredibly enough, both men are stinking rich, live in huge houses and are swimming in wealth. I haven’t yet seen or heard any evidence of either men sharing their wealth equally. How many “starving kids” could Sean Penn support with the millions he earns every year? He chooses to live a life of luxury. The same goes for millions of other rich, wealth liberals and leftists who reel off endless left wing bromides about the evils of wealth and greed – yet who live lives that a poor person in a 3rd world country could never dream of.

This stinking hypocrisy is far worse than the attitude of a conservative who believes that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy and who believes that it is not up to the rich to provide welfare to the not-so-rich.

By the way, the argument against abortion is not that women shouldn’t be free to make decisions with their own bodies, it’s that women should not be free to kill an unborn child. Let’s make that distinction.

Next up – your belief that conservatism is an ideology which says “I got mine, screw you.” As above – if I see any evidence of rich liberals offering to share their wealth equally with others then fine, I’ll believe you. But let’s do a little growing up here – the ideology you’re talking about is one which advocates individual responsiblity and which recognizes that it is not the role of the state to force people to give to each other.

Next – I will agree that it is wrong when religious conservatives use religious arguments, but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that liberals are exponents of reason. In fact, as a right-leaning Objectivist/libertarian who believes in the supremacy of reason I find much to complain about when it comes to conservatives, especially religious conservatives – but I sure as hell find more evidence of reason in conservatives than I do in leftist liberals like you.

Finally, a small point – unions have never, ever been responsible for “better wages.” If you would like me to expand on this point (it would involve me explaining to you the difference between nominal and real wages and what happens when unions coerce businesses into giving them wages above the market rate) then please feel free to do so. It is a point I have made many times and I would be only be too happy to explain it over again.

You’re right that it’s not hard to see why so many college-educated kids flock to the left, but you’re wrong about the reason. The reason is because leftism is attractive to those with minds that deal primarily with concrete percepts instead of integrated concepts. The gravity toward leftism results from minds that fail to integrate percepts into a proper heirarchy of concepts, that fail to take into account context, that live in fear of reality. Kids are largely the result and consequence of years of exposure to a progressive education system which emphasizes emotion over reason and which fails to instill the basic cognitive processes required of objective thought. This is not just conjecture, the empirical evidence is overwhelming – ever since the late 60’s and early 70’s when the progressive teaching methods began to dominate in schools, educational standards have gotten progressively worse to the point where they’re leaving school without the basic intellectual tools needed to make it in society. They can’t spell, they can’t read properly, they can’t do basic arithmetic, they have no idea how to judge ideas or arguments, they have no idea how to integrate abstract concepts into wider concepts, how to reason. You can go to any internet forum frequented at high school or college age kids to see what I mean. Reading some of the views of these kids on forums nowadays, I’m struck by how intellectually immature they are. The leftism they gravitate toward as a result will only leave them in later years after a long, hard struggle with a reality their education left them poorly equipped to engage.

Dec 16, 2008 - 9:07 pm 160. fred:

Excellent, excellent post, Jason S. I could not have stated it better. Furthermore, a lot of the things that socialists describe as “rights” really are dependent upon two things:

1. A society that has the productivity and prosperity to pay the taxes that grant these “rights.”

2. The willingness and patience of citizens to fund them.

If any of these conditions is not present, no can do baby!

Every single day I go to work, doing stock research, I have to crunch the numbers on spreadsheet data. I look at how to value a company’s stock, based on some sum of discounted cash flows, and the discount rate used in the formula for the Net Present Value of Future Cash Flows is highly dependent upon the kinds of financial risk that the tax environment presents. Higher taxes mean that the value of the stock is lower, all things equal. Lower stock prices mean less investment. Marginal investments which might be made under less risky conditions become less feasible under greater conditions of uncertainty or higher tax rates. Bottom Line: if government keeps upping its ante, there is less prosperity and job creation.

Dec 16, 2008 - 10:12 pm 161. Karin:

To: David S.
RE: Conservative values

Since this thread has devolved out of control, let me just name four:

The value of the individual
Personal responsibility
Promotion of prosperity
Strong defense

I would hardly think those are based on religious superstition or other wingnuttery bases.

Dec 17, 2008 - 6:22 am 162. Jim Baker:

Jason B,
Thanks a lot, buddy. Now Steve P will never come back and explain the Milton Friedman delusions for me.

Dec 17, 2008 - 7:23 am 163. another view:

mama says ” aligators are angry because they have so many teeth and no way to brush them”.

there’s your home schooling. You don’t want our kids to make educated decisions. You rather do exactly what you preach against” indoctrination”.

Our kids are smart enough to realize our previous political policies have left the country in debt and at constant conflict.

Dec 17, 2008 - 8:27 am 164. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: [OT] 98 to 93

Try taking a look at post #93. I’m sure with practice you will be able to read a comment thread without someone holding your hand. — David S

If you re-read the sub-thread, you’ll likely realize that item #98 was in reply to your #93. I was applying the socratic method on you. Which you fell for.

In your #93, you implied that there were no facts involved in ‘conservative’ thinking. In my #98, I offered you a challenge of facts based on an understanding that you obviously despise.

Since then you’ve been pussy-footing around, as well as—on occasion—providing me with additional evidence that supports the understanding you despise.

So NOW you’ve backtracked to say no one has answered your question. When in reality, I have and provided evidence that you are ignorant of facts and proud of it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Facts do not go away because they are ignored.]

Dec 17, 2008 - 8:34 am 165. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jason S
RE: Well….

I’ve never read anywhere, or heard from anyone, that conservatism is an ideology which states supremacy for white Christians or which opposes civil rights for minorities. — Jason S

….actually, you probably have.

However, it’s from the Left. And not from ‘conservatives’, let alone REAL christians.

Merry Christmas and God Bless All Here,

Chuck(le)
[A good conscience is a continual Christmas. -- Benjamin Franklin]

Dec 17, 2008 - 8:38 am 166. Jill:

Wow. Want to understand how kids get polarized? Read the comments on this post. All you have to do to expose yourself as a rational fraud is to use the term “liberal” or “conservative.” Way down deep inside, the problem for this teacher isn’t student rationality. The problem is that he doesn’t agree with them; it is written all over his post in his assumptions.

I agree that home-schooling, in the way that it is used today, is much more a measure to control the ideas that kids are exposed to than it is to improve the quality of education. There’s no argument that the home-schooling crowd is predominantly evangelical Christian, at least here in the Southern US.

I also agree that as educators, a primary focus is to teach kids how to think critically. They’ll dabble along the way – we all did it when we were young – and that ought to be okay. That’s how children gain their footing in a world that is constantly changing, and raising them to think exactly as their parents (or us as teachers, for that matter) do puts them at a great disadvantage.

Finally, we have to expect a backlash in the younger generation for the way that we’ve handled our affairs as a nation. There’s not much that is going right, and no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, you have to admit that the folks in charge hold some responsibility. I’ve been around for a while, and this is the first generation that I’ve witnessed that is truely worse off than the last. Don’t think for a minute that kids don’t know it.

Dec 17, 2008 - 9:05 am 167. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jill
RE: Nice Idea, But….

I also agree that as educators, a primary focus is to teach kids how to think critically. — Jill

….the ‘educators’, at least a goodly number, if not a majority, of them AREN’T doing that. And that is based on the MY personal experience as a high school forensics judge for several years.

What’s your basis of ‘understanding’? What ‘experience’ have you had with these ‘educators’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you REALLY want to know what teachers are teaching children these days….

….YOU should get yourself involved with your American public school system forensics competitions as a judge.

SERIOUSLY! The program in my state is crying for intelligent adults to participate in judging these events. And if you don’t have a ‘dog in the fight’, i.e., child attending school, they’ll appreciate you all the more.

You’ll have some eye-opening experiences, in a number of ways.

• If you decide to judge debate, you’ll learn how to think rationally, as long as you can keep your personal politics out of the evaluation.
• If you go in for Cross-X, you’ll learn to speed-listen. [Note: Think REM's It's the End of the World as We Know It.]
• If you judge Humorous Interpretation, you’ll have some of the greatest laughs in your life….these kids have got a gift.
• If you judge Dramatic Interpretation, bring plenty of chill-pills and uppers. It’s all maddness, murder, and mayhem. The distaff does these and she needs a LOT of cheering up after a day of depressive insanity.
• If you judge original oratory or you’ll learn what these young adults think when they have the time to think for themselves.
• If you judge extemporaneous events—national or international—you’ll appreciate the mentality that Scott it talking about here. You’ll notice it in the topics selected: thinks like “Why is President Bush’s policy on the Middle East insane?”, or words to that effect.

But…PLEASE….get involved with your local high school forensics competitions as a judge. It’s interesting. It’s exciting. It’s educational….in more ways than one…..

Dec 17, 2008 - 9:32 am 168. David S:

@161. Karin:
To: David S.
RE: Conservative values

Since this thread has devolved out of control, let me just name four:

The value of the individual
Personal responsibility
Promotion of prosperity
Strong defense

I would hardly think those are based on religious superstition or other wingnuttery bases.
…
Karin,

None of these are specifically “conservative” values. Folks across a large swath of the political spectrum, from left to right, are in agreement on the above. Differences on these questions are in methods, not values. What makes a conservative different from a liberal in your eyes?

@164. Chuck Pelto:
TO: David S
RE: [OT] 98 to 93

…In your #93, you implied that there were no facts involved in ‘conservative’ thinking. In my #98, I offered you a challenge of facts based on an understanding that you obviously despise.
…
Chuck, you didn’t even come close to the question. You offered a misinterpreted religious text for its own sake, and didn’t even approach the issue of values. You’re not even trying.

…So NOW you’ve backtracked to say no one has answered your question. When in reality, I have and provided evidence that you are ignorant of facts and proud of it.
…
Karin is the first to actually try to address the question directly. If anyone here has been pussy-footing around, it would be yourself in your lame attempt to redirect the issue to your favorite fable. Facts are well and good, but you are employing tried and true methods of redirection and simply ignoring the actual issues.

Tolerance is one of the basic requirements of a free society, and something lacking in conservative circles. Abortion rights, gay rights, religious rights, habeas corpus rights – all are issues that demonstrate a refusal to think on the part of conservatives. Turning religious dogma into law has a long tradition in this country, but it is always counter to the best interest of the Republic to do so. It is almost exclusively a practice of conservatives.

If you decide to offer an example of a conservative value, that would be great, Chuck. Until then, have fun.

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 10:30 am 169. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: You…

Chuck, you didn’t even come close to the question. You offered a misinterpreted religious text for its own sake, and didn’t even approach the issue of values. You’re not even trying. — David S

…are either completely ignorant or much, much worse. And I suspect, based on all our discussion here, the latter.

Vaya con Dios,

Chuck(le)
[There is no defense against plain 'dumb'.]

Dec 17, 2008 - 10:44 am 170. David S:

Chuck,

Yes, I am much, much, much worse. I’m a thinking person.

I see that you have nothing to offer but baseless personal attacks. Shall I move along, or would you like to take another shot at the question?

Your sign-off is a great encapsulation of the difficulties faced when debating conservatives such as yourself.

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 10:53 am 171. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Obviously….

….David S does a great job of projection. But I do appreciate his admission that he is much, much worse than being ignorant. And his claim of being a ‘thinking person’ figures in on it quite appropriately.

After all, as the saying goes….

In wickedness there is a strong strain toward rationality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. He never did effectively refute my query to him at #98…..

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:09 am 172. David S:

Chuck,

For your enjoyment:

…please explain how a man of the First Century, given a vision of a technology he has no knowledge of could explain to his contemporaries a runaway nuclear reactor accident in the 20th Century and GET THE NAME OF THE TOWNSHIP CORRECT.
…
He can’t explain it, and he didn’t. I’ve provided a reference refuting your conclusions, but as I predicted, you prefer your own interpretation. A man of the First Century was babbling on about angels and heaven. This has nothing to do with conservative values, unless willful ignorance is one of the conservative values that you treasure.

If being rational is wicked – sign me up. Satanic Bible Study meets on tuesdays if you are interested.

DS

PS – I don’t really think you are dumb, I just think you’ve been indoctrinated so heavily that it may no longer be possible to extract a rational argument from you.

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:27 am 173. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: David S….

I don’t really think you are dumb — David S

…and the spinning of perceptions.

Interesting. Isn’t it. Earlier he was referring to me as a ‘moron’, i.e., someone who is ‘dumb’. Now he denies he ever thought such.

These people hang themselves by their own words.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Yesterday's 'truth' is today's 'lie'. -- Typical 'Progressive' mentalithy]

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:35 am 174. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I seriously doubt if anyone in their right mind would say something like…

If being rational is wicked – sign me up. Satanic Bible Study meets on tuesdays if you are interested. — David S

[The Truth will out.....]

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:38 am 175. David S:

Chuck,

Moron is a more technical term, referring to your apparent mental age, but that was a different thread.

Of course, I didn’t expect you to actually address the topic at hand. Calling yourself dumb was pretty smooth, but you haven’t answered the question.

Apparently you agree that conservative values have no basis in rational thought. Apparently in your eyes, reason is wicked. How 14th century of you!

Religious fanatics have fought against reason for all of recorded history. I don’t expect you to stop doing so for my sake.

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:47 am 176. David S:

Chuck,

@174

Satanic Bible Study at my high school met on tuesdays, opposite the Christian Bible Study group.

Of course, the Satanic group was much more fun, more peaceful, and had better snacks, but I digress.

Is it really that hard to believe that the same freedom that allows Christians to meet a our public schools provides equal access for Satanists?

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 12:00 pm 177. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: David S

Can we REALLY trust someone at their word when they’ve indicated they were leaving this discussion, and yet they remain?

Then we have THIS bit of lying….

Moron is a more technical term, referring to your apparent mental age — David S

According to MY dictionary….

Moron, n., a stupid person. — Macintosh Dashboard Dictionary

As I see it, David S is your typical ‘progressive’ who will twist the English language to their own purposes. And, they can be rather clever at it.

My personal experience with such people has a similar experience at a Denver Mensa General Meeting, held in the 1990s, where a professor of Constitution Law from Denver University addressed us about such insignificant thinks as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

During the discussion, she said there are, “no such things as Constitutional Rights”. That there are only “textual rights”. The concept, from her perspective being that if you change the ‘text’ you change the ‘right’.

This is, as much as I’ve seen from the likes of David S, here, and others elsewhere.

They have no regard for anything other than power. And they’ll use and twist whatever is necessary to achieve it.

We’ve seen it demonstrated here.

We’ve seen it demonstrated in politics.

You have to judge for yourself the truth of this matter.

And these people are ‘teaching’ our children? Three guesses what the outcome will be…..first two…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. I find it an additionally poignant ‘indicator’ that he refers to people who disagree with him and can make their point ’stick’ as “religious fanatics”, where he says….

Religious fanatics have fought against reason for all of recorded history. — David S

It’s just more dehumanizing of those who disagree with his world-view. And perhaps its a bit of ‘projection’ as well.

Additionally, when he says….

I don’t expect you to stop doing so for my sake. — David S

I’ll be happy to satisfy his request. Albeit, I’ll be doing it in this ‘bug under a magnifying-glass’ approach: pointing out the flaws in his ‘logic’ and ‘reason’.

Dec 17, 2008 - 12:11 pm 178. David S:

Chuck,

I’m using the same dictionary you are. Try reading the entire definition. The origin of the term is as a technical medical description of a person with a mental age about 8-12 years. Seems to fit.

Your Constitutional Law anecdote is quite apropos. Anyone who thinks that a “piece of paper” (in the words of GWB) grants rights is delusional. What the professor was acknowledging is that the devil is in the details of implementation.

If you take a look at your dictionary entry for fanatic, you will find it is a most appropriate term to describe the nature of the reactionary response to reason from religious persons. It describes a single-minded zeal for religion that makes rational thought impossible.

Religious fanatics have fought against reason for all of recorded history. You have now explicitly confirmed that you are one of them.

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 12:54 pm 179. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

Satanic Bible Study at my high school met on tuesdays, opposite the Christian Bible Study group.

Of course, the Satanic group was much more fun, more peaceful, and had better snacks…. — David S

You can’t make this shi’ite up.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Convicted from their own words....]

P.S. See Jude 15 for the, pardon the expression, ‘prophetic’ evidence….

P.P.S. And I’ll wager a goodly number of the ‘educators’ in the vaunted American public education system think the same as David S.

Dec 17, 2008 - 12:55 pm 180. David S:

Chuck,

Convicted of being reasonably rational? I’ve already pled guilty.

It’s the educators who argued with foaming mouths that we couldn’t have Satanic Bible Study that are an embarrassment in my estimation.

Thankfully the school board respected the constitution, and both Christian and Satanic groups were allowed to meet and advertise on an equal basis.

Of course, the Satanists had more trouble keeping their posters up – apparently the conservative folks don’t understand the constitution. Or maybe they believe integrity needs no rules?

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 3:59 pm 181. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: David S and Admissions of ‘Guilt’

Convicted of being reasonably rational? I’ve already pled guilty. — David S

I guess it depends upon what one considers a reliable source of ‘reasonbly rational’. In his case, he seems to prefer Satan over everythink else.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people get the 'governance' they deserve.]

Dec 17, 2008 - 7:08 pm 182. David S:

Chuck,

@181

Students are subjected to pressures to conform from a very early age. The goal of a responsible educator is to assist students in keeping an open mind and using it to understand the world around them.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. Few students resist the indoctrination. Starting with the pledge of allegiance, and often a moment of ’silence’, the school day is an exercise in trying to fit in.

Most kids don’t question the dominant culture of consumerism, nationalism and greed. In your eyes, to do so would be ‘loony’ – right?

DS

Dec 17, 2008 - 8:51 pm 183. Someone75:

David S:

Just forget about Chuck Pelto. He doesn’t listen to reason. He’ll just play infantile semantics games all day long, continually changing what the discussion is about. In the course of what started out as a regular discussion, he ended up accusing me of supporting child abuse and murder. Sound rational?

He’s a sorry old man. Best just to leave him alone. I applaud you for having the patience to pretend like he’s not a moron, but he WILL continue to waste your time until you just end it. That’s basically his thing: he goes on all sorts of forums and argues with anyone about anything.

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:52 pm 184. Dark Helmet:

someone 75 You are not worthy to polish Chucks boots. As many time as he’s put you under the heal of them, you’d think you would at least want them to be clean. Try being open minded and maybe he’ll let you so that you get just a little less doggy doo in your eye.

The best way to cure someone of wanting to be a marxist is to let them hang out in the places like cuba, north korea or china. It’s also a promised cure for liberalism and political correctness. Then take a tour of izslime. Very very tolerant group of people who really encourage free thinking.

Dec 18, 2008 - 8:45 am 185. kabud:

the best vaccination against Marxism is pages 147-155 of J.R.Nyquist book

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-4th-World-War/dp/B000EVFCK8/ref=sr_1_2

i could not find quotations online but some similar is here

http://marxwords.blogspot.com/
A violent man will beget violent ideas. As noted earlier, Bruno Bauer had taught that a world catastrophe was in the making. From an early age Marx was possessed of the idea that Doomsday was around the corner. Johnson notes that Marx’s poetry includes expressions of “savagery . . . intense pessimism about the human condition, hatred, a fascination with corruption and violence, suicide pacts and pacts with the devil.” A poem about Marx, variously attributed to Engels and to Bauer’s brother Edgar, describes him as “A dark fellow from Trier, a vigorous monster, / . . . / With angry fist clenched, he rants ceaselessly, / As though ten thousand devils held him by the hair.”

In Marx’s personal life, violence was never far from the surface. He was verbally abusive, and arguments were common within his family. According to an Encyclopedia Britannica account on Marx, his father even expressed fears that Jenny von Westphalen was “destined to become a sacrifice to the demon that possessed his son.” Jenny commented early about the rancor and irritation she often experienced in dealing with her fiance.

Summarizing Marx’s animosities, the late British historian Sir Arthur Bryant wrote: “Among his innumerable hates were the Christian religion, his parents, his wife’s uncle—’the hound’—his German kinsfolk, his own race—’Ramsgate is full of fleas and Jews’, the Prussian reactionaries, the Liberal and utopian Socialist allies, the labouring population—’Lumpenproletariat’ or ‘riff-raff’—democracy—’parliamentary cretinism’—and the British royal family—’the English mooncalf and her princely urchins,’ as he called them. His self-imposed task he defined as ‘the ruthless criticism of everything that exists.’”

Dec 18, 2008 - 10:34 am 186. David S:

kabud,

Personal attacks against Marx, now?

I suppose if you can’t argue your case on the merits, this is the tactic of choice.

Peace.

DS

Dec 18, 2008 - 11:36 am 187. kabud:

>David S

why do you have to resort to lying?

read marx biography by Robert Payne, read marx letters to engels,
read SOMETHING if you don’t have learning disability of course

and don’t make a clown out of yourself
marx effectively killed his 3 children in a slummy place he put them in London, fathered a child from his servant and on and on..

marx as it is known from any source on his life

was one of the filthiest and devilish human being ever lived

Dec 18, 2008 - 11:59 am 188. joeblough:

Jason S.:

A big 10-4.

Well said.

Dec 18, 2008 - 12:11 pm 189. joeblough:

BTW, for those of you that think that Rand is too hard for high school or junior high, remember Anthem. A simpler, more graceful sci-fi novel is hard to find, and it is directly relevant to the challenges we face today.

We the living, while somewhat more mature in its outlook and content is a rich and moving romance, with very little formal philosophical exposition. It too is directly, almost journalistically relevant to our continuing confrontation with Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

Both are in their own ways celebrations of the heroic spirit and the importance of reason and intellectual independence.

They are well within the reach of a moderately literate high school student. And Anthem particularly is easy for Junior High students to grasp.

=======

I will add that I and most of my friends read most of the dystopian novels before the end of high school.

That is: Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Island, Fahrenheit 451.

Most of us were well served by the experience.

It has been a tragic disappointment and a real eye opener to watch over the years as some of us remembered and applied the lessons we learned then, and others simply forgot and became the villains and victims we read about back when.

So yes, Fountainhead and Atlas may be a bit much for the average student till college (we produce so many semi-literates and illiterates these days) although they are within the reach of the brighter kids.

But Anthem and We The Living should be fine, and I strongly recommend them.

Dec 18, 2008 - 12:26 pm 190. Paul S.:

My thirteen year-old niece, here on Fantasy Island AKA San Francisco, thinks George Bush is worse than Hitler. But, as a product of the sixties, I didn’t start using critical thinking consistently until I was deep into my twenties. Looking back, however, I think the kernal of a conservative perspective must have always been there. Naturally? Influenced/nurtured by parents? I’ll never know what the deciding factor was, I suppose.

What’s sad to me is hearing people here around my age (61) sounding like my niece. Some age but don’t mature, I think. Uncritical belief feels so much better for some and requires so much less mental effort than the complexities of harsh reality.

Dec 18, 2008 - 5:33 pm 191. Pesky Pundit:

Traditionally, youthful “rebellion” would see our younger generations espousing more conservative can-do perspectives instead of parotting the Marxist-in-sheep’s-clothing ideologies of their teachers and professors. But we CANNOT EXPECT to EVER see that from the aforementioned generations because they have been “cleansed” of the allegedly nefarious influence of testosterone. Generations of feminist extremism have produced generations of “pink men” incapable of acting upon the traditional male instinct to ASSERT individuality and freedom, at least within the context of ‘personal space”. But there is no “male space’ left for males to share and/or stake a claim to. That has been sacrificed at the altars of various leftist ideologies, too.

My wife and I NEVER regretted our decision to make the necessary sacrifices in order to send our children to private schools dedicated to EDUCATION and not BRAINWASHING.

Today, our sons are MEN who – unfortunately for them, btw – MANAGE legions of these “pink men”/eunuchs in industry. I hear about the challenges they confront getting these eunuchs to PRODUCE anything virtually every weekend. But it makes for great laughs! Our daughter is a fully realized woman – a orthodontist, btw – with a husband and kids of her own (also in private schools, like our sons’ children).

Raising children who can THINK FOR THEMSELVES and MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES can still be accomplished, but it takes personal sacrifice. Ultimately, it’s worth every penny!

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:33 am 192. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dark Helmet, et al.
RE: Someone75 and Healings

someone 75 You are not worthy to polish Chucks boots. As many time as he’s put you under the heal of them…. — Dark Helmet [emphasis added]

Clever! Was that misspelling intentional? Or an act of the ’spirits’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Sometimes, all it takes to get people thinking right is a swift kick in their fourth-point-of-contact. -- CBPelto, as inspired by Dark Helmet]

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:02 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: