The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
Reality-Based Chat. Speak!
Okay, just to be contrarian (because how else would you recognize me?):Given:
1) W's theft of the 2000 election, through the wonderful expedient of his brother's and Katherine Harris' phenomenally egregious purging of voter rolls in Florida (in conjunction with the coup d'état executed by SCOTUS)
2) W's theft of the 2004 election, facilitated by Kerry's dive to the mat and utter refusal to mobilize a single one of the zillion lawyers lined up to challenge that spectacular constellation of fraudulent activities (presumably because the S&B cult had instructed him not to, between sips of hemoglobin out of Geronimo's skull).
3) The theft, via gerrymandering, voter suppression, computer manipulation and outright disposal of ballots, that bequeathed us our now-gloriously Republican Senate...
Um... why on earth do we think we can win a presidential election when the overt and spectacular fraud has become five orders of magnitude worse, and the only thing that might inhibit the predictable forthcoming theft would be a UN peacekeeping force to supervise voting (and scrutinize any changes made to voter rolls) at every ballot box in America? And to do the counting? (And possibly to convey to the Hague all five Federalist Society sock puppets from SCOTUS?)
I swear, I am actually at the point at which I want our elections to be supervised by the UN! To quote their site*, "More than 100 countries have requested and have received UN election assistance since 1991." Are we actually less phenomenally corrupt than Ukraine or Uganda? Personally, I'm not willing to bet money.
At the very least, Democrats ought to be preemptively sending teams of a million or so lawyers and poll watchers into each of the five states you've mentioned, Dan.
* http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/un...
Krishna wrote: "i am saying that i have heard that in US every work is equally respected"I can't imagine from whom you would have heard that. In the US, one is often treated with utter contempt if not employed in a "prestigious," white collar, lucrative position. The Republicans have been wildly successful in stigmatizing the poor (and now, the middle class), but there's really always been that underlying sick rejection of egalitarianism.
Teachers are held in low esteem here also.
Yes, teaching is not considered to be a very prestigious or lucrative career choice and is only chosen by those who can't do anything else(that's the prevailing opinion of those not in the teaching field.) I have added a link to a YouTube video which you should find very enlightening. I promise you, it is accurate as to the attitudes of those in professions considered to be "above" teaching. The man in the video is a teacher and he was asked a question at a dinner party by a lawyer who obviously has no respect for teachers. This is the teacher's eloquent answer to the question, "What do teachers make?"http://youtu.be/h5yg0u1MkDI
Barbara wrote: "Yes, teaching is not considered to be a very prestigious or lucrative career choice and is only chosen by those who can't do anything else(that's the prevailing opinion of those not in the teaching..."That's perfect. I can personally attest that even most college professors tend to earn only a fraction of what successful lawyers or physicians do, but one thing teachers "make"... is successful lawyers and physicians.
What Americans actually most lavishly reward, however, is naked predation. I promise never again to blight this thread with any mention of the "F" word (Forbes), but this might be worth noting:"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's $35,293."
* http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndi...
I agree and disagree with you on how teachers are perceived, Mark and Barbara. Because we don't make much money, materialistic Americans often look down on us, and I remember hearing the "those who can't do, teach" crack when I was still in college. But teachers are more respected than lawyers, especially trial lawyers. Remember how they demonized John Edwards? And I think we are more popular (respected, admired, trusted) than journalists and politicians. That view might be changing, however, because of the bad behavior of a few molesters.I've noticed that many entertainers list teaching as the profession they would choose if they weren't entertainers, and Oprah always says that she sees herself as a teacher. Think about how often teachers are portrayed positively in movies and television. The Viola Davis character on "How To Get Away with Murder" is not a good representation of our profession, but the music teacher on "Glee" is supportive and wonderful. In fact, I remember complaining about the nineties show "Boston Public" because its portrait of teachers was unrealistic. Those too hard-working television teachers stayed at school until late at night.
Barbara, I agree with Mark that Trump, who is never going to run for President, is working for himself. He's just a narcissist looking for attention. In fact, he seems to switch sides depending on who's in the White House. I think he was more liberal or at least libertarian when Bush was President.But I've sometimes wondered if Ann Coulter was doing a more committed Stephen Colbert stunt. When I first became aware of her, she was working for JFK Junior's magazine George, and she really liked him. She also hangs out with comedians like Jimmie Walker (who is stupid enough to be conservative, so I'm not sure about his politics) and Bill Maher (who is liberal). Coulter is either demented, or she's a great comic.
Mary wrote: "Beverly, I agree with Mark that Trump, who is never going to run for President, is working for himself. He's just a narcissist looking for attention. In fact, he seems to switch sides depending o..."About Anne Coulter, I'm going with "demented."
Have you seen Maher and Coulter together? I think they must have had quite an affair. I saw her on his show once and he could barely keep his hands off her. He didn't really care about her politics.
Mary wrote: "I agree and disagree with you on how teachers are perceived, Mark and Barbara. Because we don't make much money, materialistic Americans often look down on us, and I remember hearing the "those wh..."Truthfully, Mary, I think that professors are viewed with respect disproportionate to their income* by educated people who aren't rabid zombie Republicans -- and certainly by their students -- or at least, that's been my experience. Other than by anti-intellectual wingnuts, though (who positively loathe professors), I think it is really public school teachers who are grotesquely unjustly viewed with contempt by society (partly on the same grounds, I suspect, as those in other "helping" professions: that they're ill-paid, and have a materially positive impact on other people's lives). Of course, public school teaching has also been a historically "female" role, so there's a gross element of misogyny as well.
* I'm stipulating the utterly insane desideratum that respect should accrue to those with massive wealth, because they (like camels) pass so easily through the eyes of needles (if they are lightly greased). In no sane or moral society would there be any sort of "proportionality" between the wealth of a person and the respect accorded that person (except, plausibly, an inverse one, on the basis that extreme wealth very commonly accrues from ruthless predation).
Mary wrote: "Beverly, I agree with Mark that Trump, who is never going to run for President, is working for himself. He's just a narcissist looking for attention. In fact, he seems to switch sides depending o..."I think Coulter is exceedingly intelligent, arguably demented, spectacularly narcissistic, and doesn't necessarily believe a word she says. She's lavishly funded (her deranged screeds are purchased in bulk lots by -- *oxymoron alert* -- Republican think tanks), and I feel confident that she'd happily purvey the ideology and theology of cargo cults or Bokononism, if she were sufficiently well paid for it. But she's found her "shtick" niche and she'll stay there. (None of which is remotely to minimize the most salient fact -- which is that she's profoundly evil.)
Krishna wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Yes, teaching is not considered to be a very prestigious or lucrative career choice and is only chosen by those who can't do anything else(that's the prevailing opinion of those not..."I think college professors make pretty good money, but teachers in public school (elementary, high school) are among the lowest paid professionals. Teachers don't go into teaching for the money.
As Mary pointed out, some teachers do get recognition for what they do. Books are written about them and movies are made. Unfortunately, all teachers are not venerated. In fact, many times teachers and the public school system are blamed for many of this countries ills. The politicians are bleeding the school systems dry while at the same time raising expectations to impossibly high standards. There are plenty of kids "left behind" because the same measuring stick is used to measure every student, from the gifted all the way to the severely disabled. No, all children are not "created equal." Students and teachers alike are severely stressed by all the testing. All the "extras" are being squeezed out of the schools by lack of money, but also a lack of time due to test preparation. Many schools already have no music or art programs, and some schools are doing away with "recess" altogether. Children have no room to just be children.
Sorry I'm kind of on a rant about this, but I see it everyday and I'm not sure how much longer the public school system is going to survive the push by conservative law makers toward "privatization." There is just too much money to be made for them to let it stand the way it is.
Hello all,At Mark’s invitation, I’m going to begin to participate in this thread. First, a little bit about me. Though I’m a recently retired nurse practitioner, I am now a nearly full-time environmental activist so I might not contribute as frequently as I’d prefer. Please forgive me going in (or you might be grateful, after my provocative post! Politically, I’d describe myself as a pragmatic socialist, if there is such a thing. My heart resides with Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein.
I live in Kansas. Yeah, I know. It’s terrible. I spent yesterday at our capitol, watching the legislative “process” at work and it made me fear for democracy, or what is left of it. And it reminded me that though liberals believe they can sway arguments with facts, that is a dangerous, delusional myth. People, even well-educated ones, decide stuff based on beliefs/values/worldview. We pick the “facts” to confirm our biases. Research on climate communication strategies repeatedly confirms that, though you can’t convince liberals. We are a sucker for a good, factual, scientific argument and then wonder why we lose so many of them.
But enough about my own biases, on to today’s post. Pew Research released a poll today that bears reading and studying . You can find it here: http://pewrsr.ch/1Euz9kA
There is a lot in here that could be a troubling portent for 2016. On the surface, the Dems look like the Good Guys. But when you dig deeper, you discover that we continue to fall too far behind on issues of foreign policy, Homeland security, terrorism and the economy and these still rank very high on the "worry list" of many, many Americans. There is still widespread opposition to ACA, for reasons that baffle me. But it persists, despite the positive impact it has had on many (my suspicion is that those who benefitted are NOT likely voters).
The attitudes of Independents has shifted (for now) to the Republican orbit on many issues. As we debate the policy positions that Dems need to take and the qualities our candidate needs to exhibit, we can’t ignore credible pollsters like Pew. Regardless of what internal Dem polls tell us and our candidates, polls like this one will frame the impressions and expectations of the general public and the media.
At the risk of really stirring the pot here, I’ll openly confess that I did not enthusiastically support Obama in 2008 and have been deeply disappointed in his Presidency. Yes, he’s done some good things. Yes he was re-elected. Yes, he can still make me cry. But even the party is not enthusiastic about parading him around the country during election season. My complaints about the President (then and now): he was a novice, he hates politics (but loves policy), he isn’t a relationship builder, he is naïve, he can be professorial (apologies to Mark!), and arrogant. Regardless of the barriers the Republicans put up, he was too often inept at circumventing them and/or mobilizing his base and the general public against them. He can be inspiring and charismatic, but once he hooks you, he retreats into his inner sanctum. This is not a long-term political strategy that works (sorry Mary; I know I will agitate you with this paragraph!).
I adore Elizabeth Warren. Yet I believe she is the Obama of 2016, in that she is the darling of Democrats who crave changes in policy but have no taste for politics. She has zero foreign policy experience and we do not need another candidate who we believe will be good enough because they are a “quick study”. The times are too harrowing for that. We desperately need Warren’s voice in the Senate and Bernie’s there too. They more accurately reflect my positions and beliefs, but I will not support them as a candidate, though I think either or both fulfill a critical role in our primary season. Hopefully, they will push our candidate further to the left without impairing electability (pay attention to those damn Independents!). After reading this poll, I have no stomach for someone who can’t talk intelligently and from *experience* on global issues as well as domestic ones. You can guess who I support (at the moment), despite her clear liabilities. And yes, I'm acutely aware of her imperfections and I disagree with her on many things.
So, chime in. How do you evaluate Pew? Does it provide clues to 2016? Do you care?
Hi Gail! I just finished reading your link to the Pew Research poll. Honestly, as I often do, I find the results contradictory. I suppose the results represent just how split into two 'camps' our country really is. It isn't that I'm questioning the results or methodology of the poll… I demonstrates to me just how uninformed and uneducated many (most) people are. As far as the majority of people trusting Republicans on foreign policy and terrorism, it seems to me that the videos of the poor people being beheaded has really upset and frightened people. When people are afraid, they want to be protected. Perhaps because Republicans are PERCEIVED as being tough on terror, that is why they are trusted more. And perhaps the neocons have a lot to do with that perception. They haven't met a crisis that they haven't wanted to bomb our way out of.As far as 2016, I'm not sure this poll says anything that hasn't been true for the last 6 years or so. Politics and public opinion are very fluid and I'm sure things will come up that could change things in ways we haven't thought of between now and November, 2016. I have to admit… I'm just not particularly optimistic that we will ultimately elect a candidate that will actually be able to meet all of the challenges we are facing.
Darlene, you make some very important points. There is much contradiction I think in part because if you ask "good guys vs bad guys" you get a glimpse of the public's general feelings but when you dig into specifics, you run into people's perceptions in a whole different way (Republicans good with money, Democrats not, even though data over and over again proves that's a myth). I agree... the events with ISIS are scaring the bejesus out of people. Obama seems less assertive when I think he is probably moving appropriately. He isn't one to scream for blood like Dubya did, which leaves a less patriotic impression with some people, but confirms that whether I agree with him or not, POTUS is thoughtful and measured (and I like that). Yes, the wild card is always real life events. In all likelihood, world events won't get better. Some days I'm torn between wanting to blow stuff up (and I'm fundamentally a pacifist), hide under the bed, sink into Netflix bingeing just to avoid reality, and trying to be rational about how to address all this stuff. It ain't easy.
I absolutely agree that we won't get everything we want. I had a friend who used to say, "You can have anything you want, but not everything you want". I hated that. Still do. But it behooves us to realistically prioritize, taking into account what we think will be the best leadership we can put forward, even though we all know that how it works out after an election is a crap shoot. The prime example of good intentions run amok? Rahm Emanuel.
Actually, Gail, I agree with most of your assessment of Obama's weaknesses (too cerebral at times, not as into or as good at politics as Bill C and Joe B are but better than Gore and Kerry). He's also not as good at selling his achievements (this weak President got Osama, folks!) as people like George W. and Rudy G. were. But I'm coming after you on one point. Are you using the term "professorial" as a synonym for "dull," Gail? Good professors are not dull. We don't drone on and on. We engage our students, we joke, we debate, etc. Even the good professors who only lectured were entertaining and often fascinating.The problem with the polls is that the Obama voters don't participate. That's why he tended to do better than the polls in his elections. Of course, the Obama voters also don't always vote, which is why the Democrats who chose to run away from Obama didn't do better and some did worse.
But speaking of polls, has anyone seen one of those polls that show how teachers rank in terms of respect among other professions? I'm thinking that we are below doctors, nurses, soldiers, and firemen, but ahead of lawyers, politicians, and journalists. When Austrian Arnold was trying to cut our state pensions back in the aughts, the unions (teachers, nurses, firemen, police) ran ads. I thought in that group the teachers were probably the least admired. I really think the nurses and the firemen took out Arnold.
Don't worry about being from Kansas, Gail. I spent my first fifteen years in Kentucky, and Mark is still in Texas, so we feel your pain. Even blue-state California hasn't been blue that long. The legislature was always Democratic, but we've had Pete Wilson as our governor fairly recently, and just before Brown returned, we had actor/bodybuilder, failed union-buster Austrian Arnold.
Dan, when Bill mentioned Coulter once and the audience booed, he said, "She's different in bed." He could have been joking, but. . .
Hi Mary! First, whew!
I had to chuckle re: "professorial"! No ... I don't mean dull. I absolutely agree that the best teachers are anything but. In fact, I will also confess that I have a degree in education and love to teach adults a variety of things. Personal stories, case studies, humor ...they go a long way towards getting information to stick and engaging people in the pure joy of learning.
I think many people experience the term as meaning that he's distant and uses language that isn't easily accessible; it also implies lecturing at rather than engaging people. While the term may malign teaching professionals who are exceptional, I've watched mediocre ones (or very old-school ones) who fulfill the stereotype.
It is so, so unfortunate that we don't seem to value teaching and teachers any longer. When I was a child, it was a profession to be admired and my own family had plenty of them. I consider it a calling and feel it is not rewarded sufficient to its importance. Sadly, I may be a minority. They are certainly under siege in KS and my home state of WI.
Nice to know that I'm not alone by keeping company with others who have lived in states that seem to be part of the dark side sweeping the country, Goodness knows what awaits given the trends out there.
Barbara wrote: "Krishna wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Yes, teaching is not considered to be a very prestigious or lucrative career choice and is only chosen by those who can't do anything else(that's the prevailing opin..."You have every imaginable cause to rant, both on your own behalf and on that of your innocent charges, who are, wholly by design, being cognitively diminished to the point at which they can be drowned in the economic bathwater. It's the patented Norquist method: starve the teachers with Walmart-worthy salaries, starve the schools with budgets asymptotically close to zero, make sure the children are impoverished, have inadequate nutrition and nonexistent healthcare... and then point out that the system "isn't working" and needs urgently to be "privatized." This is actually the moral equivalent of committing murder and then pointing out that the victim's breathing isn't working, so that the police and the ACA healthcare insurance systems aren't working, either, and need urgently to be privateered... er, I mean, "privatized." *
The Republican Algorithm:
1) Kill something (as viciously as possible),
2) Point out that the thing you've just murdered is dead, and that it must accordingly follow that government doesn't work. (No other explanation is possible for anything. If a meteor hits one of the moons of Neptune, it proves that government doesn't work.)
3) Redirect government funding to Republican murderers.
Wash, rinse, repeat
ETA:
It occurs to me belatedly that I have just invidiously compared Republicans to murderous pirates. I am thus compelled to apologize... to the murderous pirates.
Krishna wrote: "Barbara, be happy that the condition of students is not the worst there. They still get much more relaxation in school. The condition here is much more terrible."Our concern, Krishna, is for the students. You're absolutely right (as Barbara points out) that depriving young students of "relaxation" (recess) is highly problematical, and subjecting them to unremitting stress by constraining them to study "16 hours a day" (if you really mean that such a regimen is typical) might be even more problematical. Americans don't impose the latter requirement, though. Instead, right-wing elements of our government want to move to the very opposite extreme, in which no student who isn't able to afford a private school will be able to learn anything, ever. Obviously, neither complete educational deprivation nor intolerable extremities of stress would seem desirable, and I can certainly appreciate your distress if you feel you're under that kind of pressure. (I hope you can understand that, given the apparent vast differences in our respective public education systems, it is almost unimaginable to Americans that anyone -- not prepping for doctoral comps -- would ever study 16 hours a day on a consistent basis, so it would be very helpful and educational for us if you could provide links describing the typical student experience in your country.) Thank you again for your contributions.
Gail wrote: At Mark’s invitation, I’m going to begin to participate in this thread. Welcome, Gail! Especially given the length and density of substantive content of your "opening remarks," I couldn't be more delighted that you've responded to my invitation!
First, a little bit about me. Though I’m a recently retired nurse practitioner, I am now a nearly full-time environmental activist so I might not contribute as frequently as I’d prefer. Please forgive me going in (or you might be grateful, after my provocative post! Politically, I’d describe myself as a pragmatic socialist, if there is such a thing.
I am, personally, an avowed and unrepentant socialist, and most (perhaps all) of us are, I think, very pragmatic in our political outlooks (though Dan probably wins the 2015 William James Memorial LibPol Award for Conspicuous Pragmatism under Right-Wing Fire for his forthcoming opus, "Let's Do Whatever Works and Call it Capitalism.") In any case, as a "pragmatic socialist," you couldn't have found a more congenial crowd to hang with. :)
My heart resides with Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein.
Naomi Klein occupies a special place in many hearts here (to say nothing of our brains, livers, and metacarpal tendons), and her environmental cri de coeur probably speaks for all present. :)
I live in Kansas.
I live in Texas. We both mean this, clearly, to be interpreted in a metaphorical sense, since obviously, human life is not actually sustainable in either venue. :)
Yeah, I know. It’s terrible. I spent yesterday at our capitol, watching the legislative “process” at work and it made me fear for democracy, or what is left of it. And it reminded me that though liberals believe they can sway arguments with facts, that is a dangerous, delusional myth. People, even well-educated ones, decide stuff based on beliefs/values/worldview.
Yes, we've had lengthy and impassioned harangues, here (and I've composed a few of them), on the lamentable, seemingly incurable liberal penchant for believing that reason has an effect on other people. Drew Westen's The Political Brain and Chris C. Mooney's The Republican Brain have also frequently been referenced in that connection. Lamentations and the rending of garments have also both been prompted by our contemplation of the heinous size of Republican amygdalae, and their consequent atavistic proclivities. New strategies are very evidently desperately needed, but we have as yet failed to devise an amygdala-shrinking ray. (Not my area of research specialization, I'm afraid.)
We pick the “facts” to confirm our biases.
I would certainly affirm that, but since I believe it already, my inclination to credit you might be construed as "confirmation bias!" :) :)
There is a lot in here that could be a troubling portent for 2016.
You must be referring to the fact that people have been rendered anencephalic by Faux News, and are hence utterly impervious to facts (cannot absorb them, actually). :) :)
Whereas it's certainly true that many Americans have been looking for Republican Abusive Daddies to deal with perceived foreign threats, and also that Consolidated Mind Control Central (the six right-wing media corporations that control the dissemination of virtually all news in this country) has them rooting with ravening enthusiasm for the opportunity to die in the streets without healthcare... I think I might have to take issue with you on the relevance of Warren's lack of "foreign policy" bona fides as a disqualifying factor. Since the apparent Republican conditioned response to jaywalking in Greenland is to start World War III, even utter ignorance of the existence of other countries (which most of the Repub candidates actually exhibit) would be immeasurably better than any Republincan strategy for coping with perceived threats. But Warren is actually prodigiously knowledgeable about a phenomenally broad spectrum of things, and I literally cannot imagine that she is not immeasurably more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than the entire slate of Republican clown car candidates, taken in the aggregate and multiplied by 5. Of course, she won't be perceived that way, but then, neither will Hillary. Democrats are ipso facto clueless nannies in matters of defense, and Republcan morons who want to inaugurate Götterdämmerung are ipso facto military geniuses. There really is no way of changing the narrative, irrespective of whom the Democrats nominate, so we might as well just ignore the issue entirely and focus on the economy. The people who loathe Warren's intelligence and professorial demeanor will never vote Democratic, anyway (and are usually stymied by the problem of locating their ears)... so they're utterly hopeless dross, and all Democrats can do is to mobilize their base and endeavor to appeal to the middle. I will have to look at the Pew figures, but it's early days, perceptions are incredibly fluid, and I think Warren's sheer charisma might trump the appeal of Choleric Daddy Bellicose for a great many moderates and independents. (But you certainly wouldn't want to enter an echo chamber of total agreement, now would you? :))
Again, welcome, and as Mary has made clear, neither of us (ceaselessly droning and unremittingly tediously ratiocinating) professorial types proposes to burn you in effigy for suggesting that we're not consistently hilariously entertaining! (Though we clearly are.) :) :) (And besides, I see that you have revised and extended your remarks, and cited your own degree in education, so you are officially absolved. :) :))
Krishna wrote: "Mark, there is a documentary known as 2 million minutes made by US only. U can see that."Many thanks for the reference, Krishna! I was able to locate these two excerpts on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bFmWl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05gbOw...
From the brief segment I watched, it certainly does seem to validate that Americans place extraordinarily little emphasis on education, relative to other nations. Looks like good fodder for discussion. Thanks again!
Mary wrote: "I'm thinking that we are below doctors, nurses, soldiers, and firemen, but ahead of lawyers, politicians, and journalists. ..."Mary, I actually have no problem taking fourth place after three groups of people who routinely save lives. As a devout pacifist, I might have just the slightest cavil with one other element of that ordering, though... :)
Krishna wrote: "Mark , without teachers, life is meaningless. They should be in the 1st place.And a question came into my mind that why US didn't join league of nations, but took part in its functions?"
Krishna, President Woodrow Wilson, who was actually involved in its formation, was a very strong supporter of the League... but there was considerable opposition in the Senate, and Wilson (despite strenuous efforts for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize), was unable to secure enough votes for ratification, and so the US never officially joined. (The US has a rather odious history of refusal to ratify international agreements -- as witness our behavior in the matter of the Kyoto Accords.) As I understand it, though, given the support of the executive, lack of official membership would not have prevented US diplomatic consultation with the League. I am a scientist and not a historian, though, so perhaps another member of the group is familiar with more of the particulars. How do you come to be exploring the League of Nations, though, Krishna? I can tell you for a virtual certainty that most Americans have never even heard of it.
Krishna wrote: "Mark, it's in the history book!"I'm sure it's in virtually all history books treating of that period, but as I've said, most Americans are quite astonishingly unfamiliar with history, and a high percentage cannot distinguish between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, or indicate when either occurred. The governor of the state I live in supposedly suggested that he thought the Revolutionary War had taken place sometime in the 1500's: https://consortiumnews.com/2011/10/12...
I have some rudimentary knowledge of that period (early 20th century), but as I say, I'm not a historian and have never taken a college class in American history. Why were you asking?
Krishna wrote: "Cause this question came in exam and I failed to write the answer."It seems to me peculiar that you would be expected to know this detail of American history that even most Americans would know nothing about (though, of course, they should). The history of India is most emphatically not covered in American high schools. As I've said, though, our high schools are deficient in much worse ways. I think I can guarantee that virtually no American high school student could even identify Hindi, Telegu or Tamil as languages, let alone identify the country in which they're spoken. (I think that's lamentable, of course, but it's also probably factually true of students in most public high schools. We *really* need to do something about the state of education in this country... but of course, that will never happen with a Republican Congress.)
Krishna wrote: "Mark, it's in the history book!"I'm not sure how we got started on this dated topic. Mark is correct about The League of Nations being Wilson's baby and the senate not ratifying it.
Now to get back to the school question. I can't compare and contrast American and India school systems because I have no personal experience with Indian schools. I can say that standardized testing is robbing American students of the one strength we always had. Thinking outside the box. American students have never led the world in test scores in math or science, but we had the advantage of being problem solvers. Rote memorization will not put a man on the moon. Americans always get paranoid when someone points out the gap between scores of American students and those of say, India, or China and Japan. This is what has led to all the standardized testing. It isn't working. American students are simply not built like those in other countries. We do not study 16 hours a day, and we never needed to. We need to get back to what we do best. Thinking, exploring, experimenting, innovating. We need to stop worrying about "how everyone else does it." We need to focus on the future, not the past.
Krishna wrote: "But I don't understand , history of world wars and the world after that and also formation of world body are there in the syllabus."Perhaps you should try the History group. I'm sure they would love to discuss this topic with you.
Krishna wrote: "But I don't understand , history of world wars and the world after that and also formation of world body are there in the syllabus."Which syllabus? America does not have a uniform syllabus. (It's absolutely nothing like the British system.) Academic curricula in public schools are determined at the local level, and whereas I recall having been exposed to some rudimentary world history in the 7th grade, there really wasn't much content. High school students who want to attend college are interested in achieving high scores on standardized exams and good GPA's, but most of them do virtually no extracurricular reading, these days (beyond popular novels). I predicate this on my experience of teaching the graduates of American public high schools.
Krishna wrote: "Barbara, like in one previous post Mark has pointed out that there r more foreign college graduates in America. So I don't think what is happening is right."Right or not. That's the way it is.
I would like to introduce a new topic. Namely, the distractibility of the American public away from important topics onto trivial nonsense.
In many states the public school curriculum is set by state authorities, even the selection of textbooks. I know that the textbook selection is done statewide in Texas because the right-wing state board is always getting into the news for some of the stupid things they do. Virginia also had a controversy a few years ago when their mandated American history textbook was somewhat Confederate-oriented and not exactly factual about some things about slavery and the Civil War. There still are places in the South where the Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression, or minimally, the War Between the States. In New York, where I went to public junior and senior high schools, the state determines the curriculum. New York was one of the pioneers in standardized testing. They have what are called "Regents" exams, which cover the courses generally required for college admissions.
The Regents were such big deals that Exam review books were published and widely used. They included past exams and examples of right answers, plus discussion. Basically, they could be used as textbooks. (Now, essentially the same information is available by course on-line).The exams are given twice a year, even those that cover full-year courses. Those exam books were very useful because it was possible to accelerate by taking the June exam in January, learning the second part of the course on your own. I did that three times, with Biology, Chemistry and 11th Year Math (Intermediate Algebra and Trigonometry).
It is in the states where there is not statewide mandates of curricula where local school boards sometimes cause controversies because they are controlled by, or are bullied by, the idiot right-wingers and religious kooks.
Not to mention Texas buys so many textbooks that whatever Texas wants is more or less forced on other states as well.
Dan wrote: "In many states the public school curriculum is set by state authorities, even the selection of textbooks. I know that the textbook selection is done statewide in Texas because the right-wing state ..."This is the sort of thing that makes me want to take Chuck Thompson seriously, because the epidemiological spread of textbook stupidity-infection is certainly accelerating, and as Barbara cogently notes, the lowest common denominator (Texas) exerts phenomenal influence. There is a certain invincibility to impenetrable stupidity that almost makes me want to shrug and produce the ultimate, reductio ad absurdum, Antebellum Glory, Slackjawed-Cletus, 100% Science-Free, God-imbued textbook -- something so awesomely, devastatingly stupid that it might give even Southern fundamentalists pause.
The Book of Stupid
Forward
And so is it written (and inscribed on tablets in fancy, 24-pt. lettering, with a Georgia font): Science is stupid, therefore shall ye reject anything whatsoever that makes sense. (If this sentence makes sense to you, you should reject it. Also, you should pull off your ears.)
Chapter One
Biology
We were made by God, who actually looks exactly like Charlton Heston. He used playdough. ALL fossil remains that have been found were actually planted there by evil liberal scientists who want to corrupt you and the purity of your bodily fluids. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity, and has never been proven. If you jump off a skyscraper, you will not actually fall. The concept of gravity is an evil liberal conspiracy. Humans do not have "genomes." "Genome" is a made-up word. Humans have rubber bands. These are twisted, and that is what makes us go.
Math
2+2 = 17. Or 9. Or 73. All of these are just theories. The only important number is a billion. If you have a billion dollars, then you are close to God, because you will be able to pass through needles. If you don't have a billion dollars, it is very important to find someone who does and worship him. (It cannot be a woman.)
Physics
I don't know what that is, and neither should you. God will punish you if you repeat the word.
History
The greatest of all countries was (and is) The Confederacy. "The United States" is the name of a false idol usurper of Southern manhood.
...
You know what? It's impossible. The "book" I've just written would probably receive the wildly enthusiastic endorsement of every local school board in the South. We've hit bottom. There's no further "downward there" there, so parody has become impossible, just by definition.
Mark wrote: "Dan wrote: "In many states the public school curriculum is set by state authorities, even the selection of textbooks. I know that the textbook selection is done statewide in Texas because the right..."Forever and ever amen.
I'm having trouble adding links to the comments. I used to be able to do it, but now something isn't letting me anymore.Anyway. Kansas GOP Senator wants to criminalize "harmful" books. There is an article on Forward Progressives. Now that is scary. Also, it would allow teachers to be prosecuted for assigning "harmful" books to there students, which they are currently protected from.
I do think it's interesting that Krishna is learning more about American history, especially America's relation to the world, than our students learn. And unless we are linguists like Mark or world travelers, we also know fewer languages than supposedly less well-educated people in other countries do. I guess that's because we are the superpower, so they have to learn about us and learn our language while we can be happily provincial.Gail, I've been annoyed about the use of "professorial" as a slur since the days of Gore. I am 100% certain that it was being used to mean "dull" in 2000. I even remember a skit on SNL where the guy playing "President Gore" had taken over television and was lecturing the country for hours. But I agree that intellectuals can be detached and maybe a little cold. I liked something Sonia Sotomayor said in her book about the need for emotional intelligence. She said that as a lawyer, she learned that she couldn't always rely on cold facts to make her case. She sometimes had to appeal to the jurors' hearts as well as their heads.
Speaking of cold facts, I just left a google+ debate on gun control, and goodreads folks, we have a problem. I'm not easily shocked, which is why I can google. But did any of you more paranoid and depressed people (looking at you, Mark and Dan) realize that there are people who believe that the many mass shootings in America are fake? There are crazy people who believe that the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings were a hoax. I don't know what source they are watching or reading (I suspect crazy Beck might be involved), but they are on google+ telling us sane people to wake up. These fake mass shootings, they claim, are all conspiracies to frighten sheep like me so that we will demand to take everyone's guns. I don't think all of these people live in Texas and Kansas. These nuts are everywhere, which is why we have people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and numerous crazy Representatives (at least 50) in Washington.
I don't usually get depressed because I've known since childhood that life is difficult, so I don't expect as much from life as others might. But I can get worried, even scared, and today I'm worried. Part of the problem is the lack of a good education, but a bigger problem is the media. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all of the other conservative talking heads are doing as much damage to our culture as they claim Hollywood and the "liberal media" have done.
I have heard that argument before. Social media just makes it easier for them to spread their delusions to more idiots.
Mark, I'm still laughing over your 'textbook'!! I particularly enjoyed the 'Biology' section!!! :) And Mary, I share your concern. As I mentioned before (and I'm sure my state is not unique in this), I live in Pennsylvania and I can't tell you just how many 'conspiracy theorists' I run across on a regular basis. There is a HUGE gun culture here and it has seemed to me that amassing HUGE arsenals of weapons seems to go hand in hand with the belief that every tragedy and/or incident which occurs is at the instigation and plotting of the U.S. government and because of that belief , you must assemble as many weapons as possible as you just may need to defend yourself from the government someday very soon. I know it probably sounds ridiculous and like an exaggeration but sadly it really IS true!! There was a story on the news at the end of last year concerning a house fire which turned into a huge ordeal. Apparently, the elderly man living in the home had started a fire by smoking… even though his wife was using oxygen. The fire quickly got out of control and became a problem because of the huge cache of ammunition and weapons he had been storing in his basement… including rocket launchers!! I really believe people, for some reason not understood by me, feel as though they are going to be attacked by their own government. That belief leads to all sorts of crazy theories… just as you described!!!
There is one particular website that I can't find right now that specializes in the theory that the government is behind almost everything. It simply is amazing how much power and capability these people think the government has. I have seen the guy on TV who is the big name in the conspiracy theory world. He shows up at news conferences and asks the officials if it is a fake, and then acts like he knows that it is, and they are lying.
This stuff is big in the unreality world. You can see some of it if you got to world nut daily, I mean www.wnd.com. These are the folks who published Sen. Imhofe's book that alleges that climate change is a big fraud.
There is an interesting Scientific American article on why people believe this stuff: http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
If you are trying to argue, or debate, with gun nuts, forget it. They are the most paranoid people you will ever find and there is nothing you can say that will change their minds. I used to have a friend who was one of them. He was a really good person overall, generous and helpful, but on guns he was just crazy.
They believe we are coming to get their guns. They've been believing it since I can remember without any evidence that it is going to happen. My father-in-law was a conservative Republican - not a kook but just the classic intelligent conservative - but he was a fanatic about not letting the government control guns - and the only gun he had was an old shotgun.
With the homicide rates dropping rather dramatically almost everywhere, the pressure for gun control is dropping. I don't see anything happening above the state level for the foreseeable future, and I don't even think it is worth arguing about. There are bigger issues.
Dan wrote: "There is one particular website that I can't find right now that specializes in the theory that the government is behind almost everything. It simply is amazing how much power and capability these ..."Let's make a deal. We'll leave their guns alone if they will leave our books alone.
Barbara wrote: "I'm having trouble adding links to the comments. I used to be able to do it, but now something isn't letting me anymore.Anyway. Kansas GOP Senator wants to criminalize "harmful" books. There is ..."
We need to hear from Gail on this point. I think I will message her.
"Harmful" books would presumably include (along with all of those on the Index Prohibitorum):
The Origin of Species
Native Son
Madame Bovary (French; also adjudged "obscene" as recently as 1857)
Harry Potter (all 7 volumes)
The Invisible Man (either version: Wells was a socialist)
Fahrenheit 451
Johnny Got His Gun
Anne of Green Gables (Canadian)
Candide (French)
The Wretched of the Earth (they deserve it)
The Importance of Being Earnest (Wilde was gay)
Ulysses (obscene)
The Collected Works of Shakespeare (too many big words)
The Collected Works of Charles Dickens (socialist)
The Hobbit (involves a wizard, whom you should not suffer to live)
The Color Purple (the author is the wrong color)
The Chronicles of Narnia (also contains a witch; Lewis is supposed to have been a Christian, but that cannot be true, because he was British)
The Book of Matthew (contains icky statement, "love thy neighbor;“ 5:39-44 promotes evil pacifism)
A Christmas Carol (for denigrating Scrooge)
The Butter Battle Book (pacifist)
Krishna wrote: "Mark, can Russian membership can be a reason?"You mean, in our refusal to join the League of Nations? It seems plausible. Conservatives were certainly in a froth about that awful Russian Revolution, two years prior (and have remained apoplectic, ever since). But again, I'm not a historian. (I don't even play one on television.) Ask me about Gödel's Theorem or the decidability of the equivalence of two nondeterministic pushdown automata.
Mark wrote: "Barbara wrote: "I'm having trouble adding links to the comments. I used to be able to do it, but now something isn't letting me anymore.Anyway. Kansas GOP Senator wants to criminalize "harmful" ..."
Mark, you forgot The Butter Battle Book. Pacifist
Mary wrote: " But did any of you more paranoid and depressed people (looking at you, Mark and Dan) realize that there are people who believe that the many mass shootings in America are fake?"I actually find it less credulity-straining than their belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that they have neurons. :)
But you're right. We have become the Nation of Stupid and Scary, and there is no going back. Once again, I hear the siren call of Chuck Thompson. It would be fine for you, Mary, since you live in California (which would not be annexed to Gilead). Gail and Barbara and I might be compelled to migrate there (or to Vermont), but the time may have come to "cut our losses." (I am not -- entirely -- serious. Lisa and I actually once had a long dialogue about this, which we were going to post (unexpurgated :)), but I had second thoughts. I might do it now, though.)
* for those of you new to that "modest proposal," the reference is to: Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.
Barbara wrote: " Mark, you forgot The Butter Battle Book. Pacifist "Thanks, Barbara! I have remedied the omission!
Darlene wrote: "Mark, I'm still laughing over your 'textbook'!! I particularly enjoyed the 'Biology' section!!! :)..."Thanks, Darlene! I'm actually hoping to realize significant income from purveying arrant, ignorant, psychotic nonsense to idiots! It is, after all, the American way! :) :) (And I might use the proceeds to buy myself an apatosaur. I hear they get good mileage. :))
Krishna wrote: "Mark, what is Gödel theorem?"It's a theorem that states that every predicate logic axiomatization of a non-trivial universe will either be inconsistent or incomplete. If it's inconsistent, then you can prove absolutely anything. whether it's true or not. If it's incomplete, then there will necessarily be an infinite number of true facts about the universe that are nevertheless logically unprovable. This was proven to be true beyond any doubt by the mathematician, Kurt Gödel, and what it means is that there will always be truths about the universe that are logically unprovable, no matter how you axiomatize the universe.
I appreciate your curiosity, Krishna, so I'm answering your question, but what I really meant to emphasize is that I'm not a historian so I can't answer questions about history, and this forum is about liberal politics, not about history or mathematical logic (which I can answer questions about, but it would be the fastest way to kill the group), so we should probably try to stay on the topic of politics. Gödel's result has potentially significant philosophical implications, so I hope you find it interesting, but although I'm very willing to get diverted briefly, most of our posts should really be about liberal politics. Thanks!
The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Gift Upon the Shore (other topics)Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
More...
Krishna, there is certainly no guaranteed right to be employed, or to be employed at a job that isn't a phenomenal affront to human dignity... but I'm not sure if that's what you were asking about. Would you explain a little more?