SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (205148)11/27/2001 11:31:23 PM
From: RON BL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Time for outrage!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001 Linda Bowles

It was in 1983 that members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a brutally honest report entitled "A Nation at Risk." The members of the commission wrote, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might have viewed it as an act of war."

The report was obviously calculated to awaken a stuporous public to a national disaster. It didn't work. Neither have any of the hundreds of other reports and studies issued since then giving the same message.

We now have in hand a new report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as "The Nation's Report Card." NAEP measured the scientific knowledge of students in the fourth, eighth and 12th grades across the nation. They used three scoring levels: basic, proficient and advanced.

Having previously reported that our children are doing poorly on reading and math, NAEP currently reports that, for the United States as a whole, only three in 10 students are proficient in science at their grade level. The proportion that scored below the minimum basic level rose to almost 50 percent.

If one digs into the full report, some interesting truths emerge. For example, the everlasting gap between the achievement of blacks and Hispanics and their white classmates actually closed slightly at the 12th grade level. Alas, this was not because blacks and Hispanics improved, but because whites did worse. As an added embarrassment to the education industry, this entire decline in 12th grade science achievement took place in public schools. Twelfth grade scores in private schools rose sharply.

The overall results included scores from private schools, the three largest of which are religious schools: Catholic, Lutheran and Conservative Christian. Whites, blacks and Hispanics in these schools did significantly better at all educational stages than did their counterparts in government schools. This means, of course, that national scores would be even lower if these private schools were omitted from total results.

Based on other objective assessments, if home-schooled students had been included, the superiority of private education over "public" education would be even more striking. That is why teachers and politicians, more so than average folks, send their kids to private schools.

California came in dead last among the states. Democrat Governor Gray Davis, who claims that education is his top priority, was not discouraged by the results, said his spokeswoman, Hilary McLean.

One wonders what is his threshold of discouragement, given that year after ruinous year in the Golden State, hundreds of thousands of minority children languish in poor, unsafe, drug-infested, mind-wasting ghetto schools, held captive there by dirty politics and the governor's own incestuous relationship with old-fashioned, big-time, heavy-handed labor unions representing teachers.

To one extent or another, California's problem is the nation's problem. William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal's chief editorial writer, explained it this way: "This integration of the NEA [National Education Association] into the Democratic Party goes a long way toward explaining how a monopoly that today leaves nearly two-thirds of African-American and Hispanic fourth-graders illiterate, has insulated itself against political accountability."

Education union leaders are open about their mission to get more money for teachers and protect them from the consequences of incompetence as individuals and from accountability as a profession. As one union leader boasted, "as for the kids, they don't pay dues."

What most people, including many teachers, don't fully realize is that the NEA is a left-wing institution with an active agenda, involving support for homosexual causes, abortion, affirmative action, secular humanism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and open borders. They have insinuated these causes into the teaching profession.

Hard to believe? Hear the words of Robert H. Chanin, NEA general counsel, as he responded to massive documentation assembled by the Landmark Legal Foundation, which supported a formal allegation that the NEA has illegally used millions of dollars of tax exempt union dues on partisan political activities, in full coordination with the Democrat National Committee.

In a brash and revealing speech to the National Council of State Education Associations, Chanin said: "Someone really is after us ... [the NEA and its affiliates] have been singled out because of our political power and effectiveness at all levels – because we have the ability to help implement the type of liberal social and economic agenda that [they] find unacceptable."

In the simplest of terms, the quid pro quo deal is this: In exchange for NEA money and votes, Democrat politicians will not allow consequential school reforms to take place. Only an informed and outraged people can change this.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (205148)11/28/2001 12:07:00 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
J.F. First of all, no I did not make a remark about college campuses. You must have me confused with someone else.

Second, At home my children are with their father and mother. The ones who love them more than life itself. It's the safest place in the world for them. I know how to protect my family. Nuf-said...

Third, The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right to keep its membership secret. The poor man who had his son tortured, raped and murdered by these disgusting cretins, wants to sue the entire organization but cannot find a list of its members. He wants to sue the members, because, the membership posted motivational messages on their web-site which inflamed one pedophile member to torture, rape and murder his son.

It has next to nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with protecting NAMBLA's sick pedophile members ability to remain hidden in order to be free to rape again.

It's similar to protecting the membership list of a terrorist network, after a known member has tortured, raped and killed a young child for the cause.

As a side note... I could give a rats ass if a group of practicing child rapists has free speech. And if this hits the top chart of concern for the ACLU to spend its legal resources on, then that tells you where their priorities lie. Sick pediphilic NAMBLA should be able to defend themselves in court, without the aid of one of Americans largest repositories of free legal talent.

You sound as if you would be willing to put them on Oprah in order to promote their right to free speech or something. Let me ask you JF. Do you think they should be allowed to advertise for more recruits on television, radio, or in magazines?

Even in our wonderfully free and open democracy, free speech has its limits JF. Criminals who openly promote more of our children being raped, don't deserve a bit of consideration in my eyes.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (205148)11/28/2001 12:45:34 AM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769670
 
sheepherd, I think you and tiggerpuss should get together..I am sure you will have a good time sniffin around each other,,,,er,,,,suporting your cause...as it were...



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (205148)11/28/2001 2:22:01 AM
From: DavesM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Sorry,
I had written a message that I thought, that speech inciting violence against a group of people was not protected speech.

But I read that the ACLU wants something else (which IMHO is almost just as bad).