I saw this and thought also:
It is impossible to speak in a manner where no one could be offended. Reality is different than the projected idea of political correctness. In application, it is the limitation of speech the libs don’t want to hear. I like having a blog where my thoughts can be presented without an English teacher reading portions to the class and describing why the thoughts presented were incorrect. (Yes, that happened to all but one essay in that class) I remember having a discussion with siblinginbox and including in my next essay the idea that if all cultures are identical in value, we need to allow daughter sacrifices to voodoo in Haiti, and have the British apologize for stopping the widow murders in India. The teacher actually read that and tried to defend those practices. Amazing.
education
21 May, 2012
24 January, 2012
I understand it was Thomas Sowell that said instruction in sex education would only take a couple of classes. The only reason for 12 years of instruction is to change the training of the parents.
I believe that thought is generally applicable to the school system and its curriculum as a whole and was reminded of this with an article from the Thinking Housewife:
The most insidious part of modern Dewey-ite education is its claim to being morally neutral. All education is moral; that is inevitable. By definition, when you instruct someone, you are claiming to do so from a position of moral authority.
15 June, 2011
7 June, 2011
from an article mentioning the gulf between understanding at the level of policy vs ball game, there was this comment:
Weary G
2011-06-03 12:15:10
““a man who can do what he is accused of doing should never be given authority over the nuclear button, something the more sophisticated were OK with — look at John Kennedy. The gatekeepers may to have no problem with that; and may be right to say that when something is “all about sex” it is not necessarily about character. But that is a matter of judgment, not self-evident fact.”
I was thinking along similar lines in light of the Wiener fiasco, but believe its more basic and less dramatic than the nuclear button. I think it undermines the whole idea of government power.
Politicians, whether it be Wiener, or the Guvenator, are continually displaying poor judgement even when it comes to screwing up their OWN life. I think the public then begins to understand, even if only at a gut level, that if these guys can be such complete screw-ups and/or so corruptible even when it comes to damaging their own self-interest, then how badly are they likely to screw the public, state or country when it something IS in their self-interest?
What Ellen Ratner is not getting is that while she is right that much of this stuff is “trivia” compared to the larger issues, it only magnifies how screwed we are on those big issues with these clowns running things. These guys are getting tripped up in the pursuit of the most base and silly things, and showing inept they are in covering their ass posteriors.
What hope should we have that when it comes to the “non-trivial”, that they are capable of doing anything but making everything much, much worse?
None, and THAT undermines the entire concept that government is the answer, which those of both parties have embraced to different degrees. What possible rational basis can anyone have for handing over more and more power to a political class to run our lives when it is incompetent to even run their own? One does not need to be a PHD to figure out that something does not add up.”
This is why I consider personal lives important. One who can’t behave in their personal live has no business telling me how to conduct mine – even if he has a good understanding of quantitative easing. That understanding may be used to bypass the laws we are required to follow – think Charlie.
It also reveals the gulf of education that is designed to force the bulk of the population into a servant roll.
For a wider understanding of this phenomenon read The Underground of American Education. No kid should ever be forced into a government school again. I have advocated removal of the entire system, however it won’t happen due to the power given to the political class by having direct control of what is presented to the next generation.
As example: is there any kid out there who can state the reason for the second reference in the marine hymn? I had to look it up myself this last year. It was quite a find. Our progeny are being deprived intentionally of knowledge that would make them detrimental to the ‘rulers.’ It isn’t a gulf existing by people who can’t understand, it is there by intent to keep people at that level.
6 February, 2011
From here.
“More than a half century of affirmative action and job quotas and preferential admissions have yielded little else than more affirmative action, job quotas and preferential admissions, which means generations of affirmees are in positions formerly requiring high standards of competence. The subterfuges to simulate merit would do credit to Byzantium: admissions standards that aren’t standard, curriculums designed to evade education itself, and job competency tests that don’t test competency are chief among them. Our part is to applaud this immorality play, apparently for its entertainment value, after all, injustices are created, not remedied.”
Of course, read the rest.
16 December, 2010
showed me the advanced state of our school system.
*snort*
I had change due of 74 cents. As this clerk pushed the total and the drawer opened, I passed the same clerk a penny. She looked at the register and started to pull out the two quarters, two dimes…
“Ahh, three quarters.”
She directed her attention back to the penny and then apparently the advanced mathematical equation finally completed allowing me my three quarters.
14 November, 2010
There is a power that is available, but not know to the public at large due to a concerted effort by the government to maintain their power. The power is that of a jury to nullify a bad law.
Here is the reference and history.
Telling quote: “As time went on fewer incidences of jury-veto actions occurred as the courts began concealing jurors’ rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that “one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none.” (California’s charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: “It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you . . . You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial as the law as stated to you by me.”) Today, no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.”…
“When juries are not allowed to judge law, it becomes trial by the government. “In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.” (Lysander Spooner,”Jury Power” by L. & J. Osburn)”
25 September, 2010
By the way
Posted by nurseinbox under education, government, philosophy, politics, UncategorizedComments Off
The blog from which the previous post came has been added to my links. Down the page a little bit, there is a video about what happens to a country about 10% muslim. We are seeing the start in Michigan right now. France is showing us our future. Let’s learn quickly and respond appropriately. This is not a religion on which people base morals and social interaction. This is a tribal warfare philosophy. Think about it in political terms and the answers are much easier. Note that in the video the narrator mentions the political acts of this group.
3 September, 2010
from here. Be sure to look at the comments.

