Un-American education
Bookworm on Jun 12 2008 at 10:56 am | Filed under: Anti-Americanism, Education, Free speech
I just attended the end of year program at my children’s elementary school. I won’t run on here about how adorable my children were or how charming the other children ewre (accept that as given). Instead, I want to focus on the show’s content, which I found both fascinating and depressing.
A little background first: This school, as is typical for nice middle class schools all over America (and it is a very nice school, despite my carping about its systemic problems), boasts “character” as a big part of its curriculum. This doesn’t mean that character issues permeate every lesson or interaction with an adult in the school, which would make sense to me. That is, the teachers don’t use every history lesson to discuss a historic figure’s virtues or faults, nor do I see that teachers demand of their students’ every interaction a level of respect and kindness.
Instead, the school has bought into the “Character Counts” program, which has “character” taught as just another lesson, with the students viewing it as an abstract subject, unrelated to themselves and as easily ignored as geometry. (There are lots of posters too, although a friend has rightly pointed out that a school’s commitment to actually teaching an issue seems to decline in direct inverse proportion to the number of posters on the wall.)
This year, the school decided to integrate the character curriculum into the end of the year show, with the classes doing little vignettes to illustrate the various virtues, such as “trustworthiness,” “responsibility,” “fairness,” etc. When I first heard the announcement, and not having yet looked at the program, I instantly saw the show play out in my head, replaying the national myths of my own childhood. “Trustworthiness” could be Parson Weem’s wonderful story of Washington and the Cherry Tree; “Responsibility” would be Paul Revere; “Citizenship” could be about the Declaration of Independence; etc. Oooh, was I wrong.
Without giving too much away, I can tell you that every one of the vignettes drew from cultures other than America. Mexico, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia — they all yielded lessons for our children about the basic moral virtues the school was trying to teach. The school did not field a single lesson tied to our own American culture, myths and history.
I don’t think this was a conscious decision on the part of the teachers and administrators. I think, instead, that they’ve been completely Zinn’d when it comes to history: They accept unthinkingly that America is a nation without virtue. George Washington wasn’t an exemplar of honesty and freedom; he was a slaveholder. Paul Revere wasn’t a brave freedom fighter; he was a sleazy merchant trying to make money instead of doing the decent thing by shutting up and paying his taxes. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t a stunning moment in human history that turned away from autocracy and a subordinate citizenry; it was the opening shot in a sorry history of American jackbooted imperialism.
This learned, innate hatred of American exceptionalism is now seeing horrible fruit in university professors and media elites who want to destroy the one Constitutional right that makes America a better, freer, healthier nation than any other country in the whole world: Free Speech.
The New York Times has finally written about the Kangaroo Court in Canada that is prosecuting Mark Steyn and McLean’s Magazine in connection with the latter’s reprint of an excerpt from Steyn’s book, America Alone
What’s fascinating about the Times article is how it found prominent American thinkers who are anxious to jettison America’s free speech in favor of European censorship:
The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
[snip]
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of efforts to use the law to limit hate speech.
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — intended to stir up racial hatred surely does not.
Mr. Lewis wrote that there was “genuinely dangerous” speech that did not meet the imminence requirement.
“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”
Just so you know, these are the professors who are teaching your children and the writers who are disseminating their profoundly anti-American ideology at home and abroad. And I don’t feel at all as if I’m lapsing into disproportionate ad hominem language when I call them anti-American. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more American than virtually unfettered free speech. Therefore, nothing can be less American, more antithetical to core American values, than trying to shut that speech down.
No wonder my kids’ sweet little school, without a second thought, was incapable of looking to our own country and culture to illustrate abstract virtues. We don’t believe in ourselves any more, so much so that we are willing to destroy, not only the thing that makes us most American, but the thing that keeps us most free.
Email This Post To A Friend
63 Responses to “Un-American education”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oooh, was I wrong.
You forgot to think like a reactionary Leftist, Book.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Ever since the Left’s protestations over “civil liberties”, GitMo, and interrogation techniques applied on mass murderers, I have known with total certainty that the Left will be the first ones, Book, to destroy Constitutional rights, human rights, human liberties, and everything else that is good and just in law, if given the chance.
This has always been something they have considered and have done groundwork on before.
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.”
Their solution to terrorism and enemies of humanity is not to kill and dismember the enemies of humanity, but to imprison, oppress, and dismember the loyal and lawful citizens that are the targets of terrorism.
I suppose GitMo and the Left’s talk about torture and freedom of speech starts making perfect sense once you realize that they hold as a civil and human right that you should be miserable and always a victim. In fact, that has evolved beyond a simple right into a hard line and unmovable duty.
“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”
That means you’ll be the first ones to go to the wall, Mr. Lewis, for surely you and your ilk have been responsible for the excitement of much terrorist violence given your support of multiculturalism and anti-Americanism.
Socialists are great at uplifting a Hitler and Stalin into power, so that the dictator will purge the socialists from the face of existence.
Btw, the Left, like Stalin, loves Kangaroo courts. It’s a favored tactic, as can be seen given efforts to imprison American military forces because of what they did in war.
Today I dropped off my daughter at her school. They also had some kind of end-of-the-year event, but I did not stay. You just made me regret that. Her school also has this “Character counts” thing. I did not see anything wrong with the school so far. In fact, on Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day they were actually honoring the military. But I should monitor what they do more closely.
Eric.
Hello Bookworm,
The thought has occurred to me not a few times whether or not I would one day receive a knock on my door for what I have written. Say if Obama wins and the Democrats sweep into total control of Congress, it does not bold well for free speech.
An irony, isn’t it? The Democratic Party was built in modern times on the foundations of free speech since the radicals protesting in the 60’s are now seated in Congress.
Dick Morris said that if the Obama and the Dems win in November, the Fairness Doctrine, which ya’ll should all be familiar with, is just the beginning. He said on Foxnews a while back that he has seen and read the actual legislations written by the Dems to curtail freedom of speech. It’s already drafted and ready to go.
If the Dems win and win big in November with a Leftist President in the form of Obama and win a filibuster-proof Congress, you and I and all conservative bloggers and talk show hosts might be looking for another hobby or another job.
At that point, Canada’s freedom of speech outrage might be our reality.
I don’t know if what Dick Morris saw was accurate or not, but of the upcoming Republican election slaughter in November, he had the following to say:
I think it would be a grave mistake for conservatives to ignore this very real possibility.
The Democrats, agree with it or not, are appealing to idealism and the desire to hope on America and hope on the future of America.
What idealism do the Republicans present to the people? Apart from the tried and true political check lists of wants and what-to-do’s and small government philosophy, what are the ideals that conservatives aim toward?
Although I agree with many conservative platforms, I have yet to hear a single articulate expression of the conservative ideal. Truth be told, off the top of my head, I don’t even know they are anymore.
There’s just too much backbiting and naysaying among conservative pundits (much of which I agree with, but that’s beside the point) and not much proactive positives being expressed, and I for one would like to hear some.
Several years ago my wife and I lived in a relatively small — population about 8,000 — Connecticut town which was run by town meeting.
Some of the meetings got pretty hot, with people shouting, calling each other derogatory names, impugning one another’s intelligence, etc., etc. They never got physical, but there were some pretty strong verbal confrontations, and I’m sure there were several people who left each meeting with hurt feelings. Still, we managed to thrash it out and usually managed reach fairly reasonable resolutions.
For me, this was democracy in action and working as it should. It may not have been pretty, but in my book it was healthy. Certainly there is virtue in courtesy, but I don’t see how democracy can work if people become fearful of speaking their minds frankly and forcefully. And the alternative to democracy is not something I care to contemplate.
It’s scary to realize that much of what was said in these meetings would fall well within the category of hate speech as defined in the British Columbia regulations. I fear for my friends north of the border. Thank God — and our founders — for the First Amendment!
Americans have always been ignorant of American history and frightened by American ideals.
Some examples:
“In the early 1950s, Madison’s Capital Times editor John Patrick Hunter took to the streets with a petition, (which was actually the Declaration of Independence, along with portions of the Bill of Rights) and tried to get people to sign it. Only one in 112 did. The rest found it too subversive.
In May, 1956, Senator A.V. Watkins (R-Utah) “was almost bowled over” when, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on a new sedition law, an attorney for Americans for Democratic Action cited one of Thomas Jefferson’s more colorful quotes: “I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing.” Watkins responded, “If Mr. Jefferson were here and advocated such a thing, I would move that he be prosecuted.”
After some California state employees refused to allow statements from the Bill of Rights to be posted because they were too controversial, Chief Justice Earl Warren admitted: “It is straws in the wind like this which cause some thoughtful people to ask the question whether ratification of the Bill of Rights could be obtained today if we were faced squarely with the issue.”
Historian Charles S. Beard (who died in 1948), noted that, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”
And then recently, in the fall of 2002, a poll indicated that nearly half of all Americans think the First Amendment “goes too far.” (That poll didnt indicate whether the respondents were left, rigt or in between, but you get the gist).
David Yeagley, the Commanche conservative (also known as “Bad Eagle”) was teaching a class in which the concept of patriotism was being discussed. One white girl said the following:
“Look at your culture,” she said to me. “Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”
link
The article mentioned by David Foster (#7) is heart-wrenching. It is sad to think that someone would not be proud of who she is. But I believe it is the case. The problem, however, is not the fault of (bad) liberal teaching. It is not bad to learn about the goodness in other people’s cultures nor to learn the truth about one’s own. It is bad not to find one’s unique place in the great human story.
The US was conceived in rebellion. We did defy authority (the King of England.) And now conservatives smugly tell us how bad rebellion is – how awful the 60s were, how awful it is to dodge the draft, etc. The land we occupy did belong to the Native Americans. We did steal their turf. Our (white people’s) riches were made by the (free) slave labor of African Americans. We do owe them.
But there is hope, because we can correct these errors (national sins). We begin by acknowledging that these are historically true. And that they were not honorable. Pride begins with the truth. We can change our culture and give people such as this young woman a reason to be proud to be an American rather than just happy about it as she is. Our culture is not “nothing.” But there sure is room for improvement.
This story should convince conservatives of this, unless they continue to blame bad, liberals for teaching what’s really true. Seeing goodness in the culture of others doesn’t mean we must deny goodness in ours. The solution isn’t to deny our past; it’s to correct the errors we made so that we can all be proud to be Americans.
The US was conceived in rebellion. We did defy authority (the King of England.) And now conservatives smugly tell us how bad rebellion is
People die in rebellions. You may be cavalier about such things because you think less people will die now because the American government won’t send military occupations to execute the rebels and their families, but that is precisely why the Revolutionary Army and the American colonists thought long and hard about putting their honor and the lives of their family on line to break off ties with Britain.
You want change so bad you care not at all for how much blood will run in the street nor how many lives are shattered by this glorious “change” of yours.
It is not bad to learn about the goodness in other people’s cultures nor to learn the truth about one’s own.
When you don’t know the truth of your own culture, every other culture looks more admirable. Good and bad cultures are relative. When the only thing you know about your own culture is the bad, then anything in any other culture becomes “good”, including slavery, human exploitation, misogyny, and oppression. So long as they aren’t done by “Americans”, this is nothing but good to the fake liberal educated masses so long as it makes America look worse.
The land we occupy did belong to the Native Americans. We did steal their turf.
The Native Americans handled who owned land by warfare and talking scalps, including raping slave captives and cutting off their noses as punishment.
By those rules, the Native Americans lost their land fair and square to the settlers, who had more numbers and technology and didn’t take slaves.
We do owe them.
White people aren’t your slaves, Helen, to do with as you please. They aren’t your property and their lives are not for you to expend as you will simply because you wish. If you want to “owe” somebody something, then give them everything you can, but do not pretend that the sins of the father are inherited by the son, unless you want to go into eugenics and slave breeding.
Eventually if you keep playing these games blacks are going to get locked back up in the slave kennels because of what they owe to the whites for fighting a war to free them. Oh, my bad, I mean “steal” them back from the Southerners.
Using fictitious historical pretexts as a justification for entitlements in the present is a genie best left in the bottle, for it will not always favor your ideology.
But there is hope, because we can correct these errors (national sins).
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we can correct the crime of a murderer by cutting off the legs and arms of the son and daughter of the murderer.
Doesn’t seem very just to me, in spite of my taste for draconian punishments.
Pride begins with the truth.
Like a guy will have pride after the truth about how he is useless and narcissistic to boot comes out? Very funny.
Pride doesn’t begin with truth; pride begins with work, honest work at that.
Our culture is not “nothing.”
When your culture is all bad and all about stealing, it is nothing.
Few people will take pride in being a parasite that steals resources and exploits other people. And that is exactly what you made American history out to be, helen. Nothing but a parasite. Certainly it is not “nothing”, for a parasite is something. Something not good that is.
unless they continue to blame bad, liberals for teaching what’s really true.
You reject the truth every time you circle the wagons and defend fake liberal ideology and crimes.
Instead of taking personal responsibility or adivising fake liberals to take responsibilities for their delusions, lies, and misrepresentations, all you want to talk about is how conservatives are blaming people by challenging those people’s lies and distortions.
Hi Y., Did you even read the article?
I think the choice of stories for the assembly was less a conscious effort to marginalize American exceptionalism and more an opportunity to showcase multiculturalism – which, granted, can be pretty close to the same thing. The pressure for public schools to demonstrate how diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance or whatever else you want to call it, is being taught is quite intense.
A program like Character Counts enables schools to prove they are teaching “character.” With the six pillars of character, perhaps a month can be dedicated to a particular trait, such as “November is for Trustworthiness” or something equally ridiculous. Fortunately at my school, we are encouraged to teach character as it fits into the existing curriculum and are trusted to do so. (But, of course, we have our 6 pillars posters and banners, never doubt that!)
The best conversations I have with my students happen when we can talk about character in the context of the lesson such as looking at real life case studies demonstrating plagiarism after a unit of learning about copyright. Those are the lessons that will be remembered.
Helen..why do you believe the moral you get from the story is so different from the one Bad Eagle gets from it?
Hi Helen,
No society is perfect. Ours has much room for improvement. But ours is also the best the world has ever seen. You and your liberal cohorts ignore that fact, and it is a fact. For example, you emphasize slavery and ignore the sacrifice our nation made, a sacrifice made by no other nation, to end slavery.
You are right that the solution is not to deny our past. But our past must be viewed objectively in its complex entirety. When you look at our entire past, not just focused on the mistakes and imperfections, you will see the greatest history of the greatest nation in history. Surely, you are also right that we should focus on those mistakes and correct them. But we should not focus only on the mistakes, and ignore the positives.
That, after all, was the point of the original post in this thread. The liberal dominated educational system found examples of virtue from around the world, but couldn’t find a single example of virtue in the most virtuous nation in history.
As you suggested, I did read the article. And I agree, it is terrible watching the greatest nation the world has ever produced destroy itself, led by those, like you, who focus exclusively on the negative and ignore the positive. Rachael had nothing to be proud of, because she was taught, by the liberal educational establishment and the liberal media, that she has nothing to be proud of.
It is the shame of our country beyond any shame you have ever named, that we have lost our sense of ourselves, of our virtues, of our history. We once believed we were the last, best hope of mankind, and we were! No longer. Thanks to your liberal friends, we no longer believe. And we no longer are. That will be your legacy.
No society is perfect. Ours has much room for improvement. But ours is also the best the world has ever seen. You and your liberal cohorts ignore that fact, and it is a fact. — D.Q
Where might a person find this fact?
I googled, “society,” best standard of living” and came across these facts:
On comprehensive measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top twenty, currently ranking number twelve. On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.[4] On the Economist’s quality-of-life index the United States ranked 13, in between Finland and Canada, scoring 7.6 out of a possible 10. The highest given score of 8.3 was applied to Ireland. This particular index takes into account a variety of socio-economic variables including GDP per capita, life expectancy, political stability, family life, community life, gender equality, and job security.[5]
Where migjht I find the fact that says the U.S is the best society the world has ever seen?
Well, D.Q, I actually googled “society,” “the best the world has seen” and this was the first thing that popped up:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597
It didnt answer my question, but I found it fairly funny.
“Helen..why do you believe the moral you get from the story is so different from the one Bad Eagle gets from it?”
Great question, David.
I’m not sure it is. I think both of us believe we should learn from others. Bad Eagle speaks of Native Americans learning from the white man. I think the white man should learn from the Native American. Countries are drawn up by people. They come and go. Wars often play a role. We are all a part of the human family who occupy planet earth. I think we all need each other. But to give, we must have self-pride. Bald Eagle and I both think that.
But you didn’t ask what was the same, now did you? You asked what was different.
I guess I see our nation born under Christianity. The Native American tribes were probably not. And yet I see a denial of hope in much of American society today. As a Christian, I will not abandon hope. “Faith, hope, love. . . and the greatest of these is love.” It’s a ladder: faith the first rung, then hope, then love. I continue to hope that my nation will rid herself of her sins. I continue to hope that she will be the great nation she can be.
DQ,
I think you are right. “We have lost our sense of ourselves, of our virtues, of our history. We once believed we were the last, best hope of mankind,” . . . and I hope we can find what we have lost and continue that path. But we cannot be “saved” if we don’t admit we are lost. Our national salvation (that is, regaining our sense of self and pride as a nation) depends on confessing the sins of the past and making them right.
It is not the fault of “my liberal friends” that we are in this position. I didn’t set up the problems and neither did you. But together I hope we can find a way to restore pride in who we are. That way means knowing what we have done and fighting to right the wrong. May God grace American with leaders who understand.
Just as it is good to believe one is of God’s chosen people (but not of God’s only chosen people), it is good to believe we live in a great nation (but not the only great nation). Life ought not be a competition. My country’s better than your country smacks of “my pa can whup yer pa’s ass!” Everyone needs to know where he/she fits in the history of the world. Pride in one’s counrty is a large part of that knowing.
DQ, as always, you’ve said what I would have said, only better.
Ozzie, there is no perfect society, and “best society” does depend on what you value. If you value freedom and the opportunity to achieve, there has never been a society like ours. We have the most fluid class system in the world (and in the history of the world), the greatest freedom of speech (as even the New York Times acknowledges), and the most opportunity to go from rags to riches (with the inflammatory French banlieus standing as the opposite of that principle). We have, in other words, the most equality of opportunity in the history of the world, and DQ and I both value that very much.
If your focus is, as I think Helen’s is, on equality of outcome, you can only have that with a heavy-handed government. That can work well for at least a while, as it did in Europe when the US was footing the national security bills during the Cold War. Economies eventually collapse, however, under the weight of heavy government programs, which demand money without creating it. Also, it turns out that equality of outcome is impossible, so government programs get more and more repressive, as they try to squeeze as many people as possible into the same equality arena.
The whole equality shtick also fails when you have a victim society, where everyone is focused, not on what they can achieve, but on the fundamental unfairness that someone else is possibly achieving more than they are. That’s the nature of Marxism, which is obsessed with bringing everyone down to the same low level, rather than giving everyone the opportunity to achieve the highest possible level (whether it’s a level of happiness, personal freedom or economic well-being). The European/Socialist model is a negative spiral, with both government and individuals falling into ever smaller and downward-tumbling grievance spirals.
No one can deny that America has become a powerful nation in her history, and she’s done so because she offers enormous opportunities to people to come and make something of themselves. This is a spectacular national achievement.
America is also a splendid country because she has a conscience and tries to right her own wrongs, with slavery being the most notable example. America is also the only country in the world that has fought for the freedoms of others, not just her own citizens. I find that a singular virtue too.
As for Helen’s point about the conservatives’ disdain for current rebellions, all rebellions are not created equal. The American Founders fought for the freedoms we now value: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of economic opportunity. The Islamic rebels in Iraq fight for the opportunity to subjugate the world to their harsh form of religion. The Talibani, of course, were a perfect example of this. They were rebels, but they sought enslavement, not freedom, for the citizens affected by their rebellion.
In America, our home-grown rebels have tended to be self-centered navel gazers, fighting for nothing more than the right to have the world revolve around them, or Marxist acolytes, attempting to turn us into little Cubas. Neither rebellion appeals to me.
Helen…it seems very clear to me that Bad Eagle is appalled at the woman’s lack of respect for American culture.
“When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure.”
Note also his comparison of her behavior to the collaborators of 1941.
I think what you are getting out of the story is about 175 degrees away from his intent.
book…”all rebellions are not created equal”…quite true. The American Civil War was the result of a rebellion against the Federal Government. The Nazi movement was in rebellion against the Weimar Republic.
“This story should convince conservatives of this, unless they continue to blame bad, liberals for teaching what’s really true.Seeing goodness in the culture of others doesn’t mean we must deny goodness in ours.”
I think Helen has itexactly backwards. I don’t know of too many conservatives who don’t see any goodness in other cultures.
I do, however, know of more than a few leftists who can see no good in our American culture.
“But we won’t get there by listening to empty praise from guilty white women.” David A. Yeagley
I value truth above all, and I’m not so sure what you’re saying is “a fact,” as Don Q put it.
I think you’re buying into myths.
For example, you write that the U.S has “the greatest freedom of speech” and cited the New York Times to back your claim, but from what I’ve read that’s simply not true. If freedom of the press is a facet of freedom of speech, the U.S isn’t faring too well.
According to the Washington Post, the U.S ranked 17th in Reporters Without Borders 2002 “press freedom”scale, but by 2006, was ranked #53. (It ranked 48 in 2007).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html
Other statements appear to be wrong, too. You say say that “if you value freedom and the opportunity to achieve, there has never been a society like ours” and the assert that “We have the most fluid class system in the world (and in the history of the world)” Do we really have “the most opportunity to go from rags to riches” and “the most equality of opportunity in the history of the world”?
According to a July, 2007 article in the New York Times that’s simply not so:
“Recent research surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a governmental think tank for the rich nations, found that mobility in the United States is lower than in other industrial countries. One study found that mobility between generations — people doing better or worse than their parents — is weaker in America than in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain and France. In America, there is more than a 40 percent chance that if a father is in the bottom fifth of the earnings’ distribution, his son will end up there, too. In Denmark, the equivalent odds are under 25 percent, and they are less than 30 percent in Britain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/opinion/13fri2.html
I’ve read study after study that places the U.S. below other countries on a variety of scales. . . not only regarding freedom of speech and the upward mobililty of American citizens, but regarding the health and well-being of our children.
Yet D.Q says it’s a fact that the U.S is the best society the world has ever seen.. Based on what?
Ozzie, there is no perfect society, and “best society” does depend on what you value. If you value freedom and the opportunity to achieve, there has never been a society like ours. We have the most fluid class system in the world (and in the history of the world), the greatest freedom of speech (as even the New York Times acknowledges), and the most opportunity to go from rags to riches (with the inflammatory French banlieus standing as the opposite of that principle). We have, in other words, the most equality of opportunity in the history of the world, and DQ and I both value that very much. — Bookworm
My last post got lost in the ether, but this simply isnt true.
I value freedom, freedom of speech and the opportunity to achieve, but the idea that the U.S. is No. 1 in any of these categories is is a myth, not a fact.
For your consideration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/opinion/13fri2.html
And:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html
Amen, Don Q.
When I was a student at Brkeley I didn’t appreciate this country. I loved Europe. Cultured, sophisticated Europe. I din’t know enough about the American experience to value our uniqueness.
Thankfully, I’ve grown a bit since then. This country is imperfect and has made some big mistakes. Show me the country that hasn’t made mistakes and I’ll show you one without freedom of the press. But the US has always struggled to right past wrongs- unlike many other places.
This country was built on ideas An immigrant could come from
anywhere and become an American. People found opportunities here unheard of in the old country. On my street I have neighbors from countries in Asia, the Middle East, South America, Africa and Europe, oh yeah, and some like me, born here in America. We
are all considered to be Americans here, and
we are. That is one of the great beauties of this country. Contrary to myth, we are welcoming to outsiders. We make them insiders.
Believe it or not. this doesn’t happen in too many other places. Judge a country by how many want to move there and how few want to leave.
B,
Talk to your kids’ school about the program and ask them to include something about America next time. Gently offer a suggestion with some specific examples and explain why it would be important to include the American stories you mentioned. Tell them how important it is for the children’s self-esteem to have positive self-regard in their identity as Americans and that it
would help them to love themselves. Suggest that as a conclusion they can point out that people come to America from many lands and that we embrace them asevidenced by these stories from all the world.
Y pluribus unum
@ Ozzie
On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.
The average European dwelling has 396.7 square feet per person. The average American dwelling has 721.6 square feet per person. For poor Americans, their dwellings average 421.6 square feet per person. So, the poor in America have more dwelling space than the average European.
Immigrants come to the US and work, for the most part. You might find it of interest to research the proportion of Muslim immigrants to Europe who work, compared to the proportion that are on some sort of government support.
Book, a comment got eaten. Something you need to work on is the issue of visibility of links. How noticeable is the fact that “links” in the below comment is actually a link? Green link on lavender back ground is not visible at all. My suggestion is to make it boldface, which is what I do, and which is why my comments get eaten.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/06/12/un-american-education/#comment-24782
Ozzie: you cited a study referring to freedom of the press etc., where the US did not come off as well as Europe. I suggest that you read Brice Bawer’s While Europe Slept, before you make any further comparisons between freedom of the press, diversity of views expressed in the press, etc. between Europe and the US. Those studies are very Eurocentric, and the metrics they use will favor Europe.
I also suggest that you read the following, if you are convinced that the European press is so superior to that of the US. The drivel the article discusses was written by an award-winning German journalist based in the US: very mainstream, not fringe.
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/markus-gnther.html
“I also suggest that you read the following, if you are convinced that the European press is so superior to that of the US. ” — Gringo
I am not making the argument that the European press is superior to America’s, though Reporters Without Borders certainly is is. (I do, however, believe that the mainstream media in America is lacking in many areas and that censorship is alive and well).
I am saying that people who believe that the U.S is the best society the world has ever seen are relying on opinion, not fact.
Is the U.S #1 for Freedom of Speech? That is debatable. If you want to argue that the U.S has the greatest protections for hate speech, however, I’d agree.
I read that article more than a year ago, helen. It is not something new to me, as it may be to you.
Just like history may be new to you but it isn’t to me. Most things can’t be resolved by thinking your opponent is ignorant, helen.
On comprehensive measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States
It is a fact that those using the United Nations in order to calculate the standards of better living should consider including better living through UN Peacekeeper rape as a “Human Development index”. That may be better living for the UN, but not for anyone else. Not even for the US that pays the mercenary fees that go to these “peacekeepers”.
Wars often play a role. -helen
When you choose not to play a role in war nor the study of war, then war does not play a role for your ideology.
But we cannot be “saved” if we don’t admit we are lost.
Admitting to the Left that the world is as they say and thus lost and in need of the Left, is what caused the problem in the first place. Now we have to be “saved” from the problem the Left caused by adopting more Leftist world views? Incredible.
depends on confessing the sins of the past and making them right.
It is like the never ending cycle of violence.
**************
All Ozzie is doing is being a consumer of propaganda, interpretations of facts, and other people’s opinions about things. He speaks of such things as being facts that counter-act the current status of the US, but they are only ever second and fourth hand reports. It is not independent and objective analysis nor is it even deductive logic. O could never explain the independent variables that can be checked out experimentally by the rest of us, because these studies are meant to be digested and used as interpretations of facts. They are not facts themselves. The problem with interpretations of facts is that there are many mutually exclusive interpretations and unlike a factual event or some such, it isn’t one dimensional. For example, it is a fact that such reports exist but it is not a fact that such reports prove anything about the US. They suggest something negative about the US, China, and Russia because all those nations operate differently than Europe does.
The source is flawed, the methodologies are flawed, and so is the data set used flawed as well. They are not just flawed in a “tolerable way” but are inaccurate way beyond tolerable to any one interested in the truth.
In Denmark, the equivalent odds are under 25 percent, and they are less than 30 percent in Britain.
When you have government welfare increasing each generation, it’s easy to cook the books on next generation earnings. Many people earn more on welfare than they ever did working a real job in Europe. Of course, that would be a fact leading to a right conclusion and interpretation, which Oozie does not consider at all.
Taking studies as the end all and be all “fact” is like mistaking propaganda for reality. Sometimes you may be lucky and have propaganda that does reflect reality, but most of the time you won’t be.
but the idea that the U.S. is No. 1 in any of these categories is is a myth, not a fact.
The myths are the data collection agencies you use and believe in.
There are only ever 2 objective criteria to measure a nation’s relative level. Those would be how many wars have they won and how superior their military forces are to other nations. The second would be how much absolute production is being produced by the citizens of that nation, whether per capital or GDP.
A small nation with a weak military and lower than average GDP growth yet has high marks in “human rights” is what is known as a parasite.
Green link on lavender back ground is not visible at all.
I don’t have any problem with that. You just have to notice the black text compared to the text that has a different color. If you pay more attention to the background, then it will start to wash our your color distinction.
All Ozzie is doing is being a consumer of propaganda, interpretations of facts, and other people’s opinions about things-
OK. then. Show me where its a FACT that the U.S is the greatest society ever.
That seems like propaganda, interepretation and opinion to me.
It’s subjective, no?
11 trillion GDP + with a population a third of China or India.
Protected the world against totalitarian governments, which Europe and Asia produced.
Created the first republic and democracy that was stable, self-sustained, and prosperous. France tried around the same time as the US, but they failed in their Revolution.
Lincoln, the mothers of Union soldiers and the mothers and wives of black slaves, proved that justice, equality, and liberty were not just convenient tools to be used for a nation’s greatness. They discovered and proved that without justice, equality under the law, and liberty, no nation could ever become great, power, nor prosperous.
As Harriet Tubman said, Lincoln won’t be able to win the war until he frees the slaves. That is what God has decided, in Tubman’s view. Thus national self-interest and the classical liberal values of free will, personal virtue, integrity, duty, and liberty became intertwined in America’s history. No nation has ever been able to replicate this feat of becoming stronger while adhering to classical liberal values. Not even Athens, nor Sparta, nor Briton, nor the Romans ever acquired power and defeated their enemies using classical liberal values of liberty and free will/conscience.
Europe has always failed in this respect because they would always look to and depend on their aristocracy for power and prosperity. They were looking in the wrong place and they still are.
The more enemies America defeats, the more enemies become friends and the more neutrals become allies. For Rome, it was more or less the opposite way. The more they conquered, the more enemies they created. The superiority of their civilization allowed them to assimilate even the Gauls, but it was not enough to defeat or assimilate the Germans or Persians.
For America, every nation and people that America has defeated became its ally or friend. Ideologies and fanatics, of course, are excluded from this for they do not adhere to classical liberal values. But then again, neither does Western Europe. Can’t hold too much against the Nazis if we aren’t holding grievances against the French and Germans.
It’s subjective, no?
About as subjective as the Eu’s totalitarian methods to unify individuals into a Monarchian god-state solely to spite the US and “balance” American power.
That seems like propaganda
Propaganda is not defined as “whatever I disagree with”. It is an independent art and skill set.
Ozzie.
“ On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.”
I quote from the link at the bottom of my posting.
The poor in the US have more living space than the AVERAGE EUROPEAN. So the poor in the US are worse off than the poor in Europe. Good nuance. Makes sense to me.
Another point with regard to alleged poverty indices and upward mobility has to do with immigrants to Europe and the US. By and large, immigrants to the US work. I would suggest that you research the proportion of Muslim immigrants to various European countries who work compared with those who are on the dole. How does that relate to upward mobility? Also as regards upward mobility, you might research how teenagers and twentysomethings are doing with regard to obtaining work in Europe, compared to the US.
As regards your crack that the US has the highest protection of hate speech, I suggest that you research prosecution for same in Europe. Such as Oriana Fallaci. There is an interesting case of a blogger in Finland. Or Canada, where Mark Steyn was prosecuted for having quoted what Muslims had said. Do you really want to live in a place like that?
In short, your postings lack nuance, precisely what EUROSNEERS and Liberals accuse others of lacking.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
Ozzie.
“ On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.”
I quote from the link at the bottom of my posting.“As Table 3 shows, U.S. housing (with an aver¬age size of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as large as European housing (with an aver¬age size of 976 square feet per unit.) After adjust¬ing for the number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans have an average of 721 square feet per person, compared to 396 square feet for the average European.
The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. (This comparison is to the average European, not poor Europeans.)”
The poor in the US have more living space than the AVERAGE EUROPEAN. So the poor in the US are worse off than the poor in Europe. Good nuance. Makes sense to me.
Another point with regard to alleged poverty indices and upward mobility has to do with immigrants to Europe and the US. By and large, immigrants to the US work. I would suggest that you research the proportion of Muslim immigrants to various European countries who work compared with those who are on the dole. How does that relate to upward mobility? Also as regards upward mobility, you might research how teenagers and twentysomethings are doing with regard to obtaining work in Europe, compared to the US.
As regards your crack that the US has the highest protection of hate speech, I suggest that you research prosecution for same in Europe. Such as Oriana Fallaci. There is an interesting case of a blogger in Finland. Or Canada, where Mark Steyn was prosecuted for having quoted what Muslims had said. Do you really want to live in a place like that?
In short, your postings lack nuance, precisely what EUROSNEERS and Liberals accuse others of lacking.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
>But ours is also the best the world has ever seen. You and your liberal cohorts ignore that fact, and it is a fact. — D.Q>
>>Where might a person find this fact?>>
“20 million Mexicans can’t _all_ be wrong”!
Watch which way the doors are swinging – when people start leaving the US for other countries, then I’ll start questioning whether or not the US is the best the world has ever seen.
Helen
If it’s a given that blacks were so horrendously treated, why don’t they leave? Why don’t they go back to Africa? What does it say that they don’t?
Some went back to Africa in the form of Liberia. They then returned to killing each other, once free from the protection of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberian_Civil_War
The ones that went to Liberia were African-Americans that thought African culture superior to the white culture. Guess all the loot and rapine and killing was preferred over America’s one single Civil War for some reason.
Some went back to Africa in the form of Liberia. They then returned to killing each other, once free from the protection of America.
Link
The ones that went to Liberia were African-Americans that thought African culture superior to the white culture. Guess all the loot and rapine and killing was preferred over America’s one single Civil War for some reason.
To get this posted, avoiding the comments-eating software, here are some tweaks to a previous comment.
Ozzie.
“ On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.”
“As Table 3 shows, U.S. housing (with an average size of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as large as European housing (with an average size of 976 square feet per unit.) After adjusting for the number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans have an average of 721 square feet per person, compared to 396 square feet for the average European.
The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. (This comparison is to the average European, not poor Europeans.)”
The poor in the US have more living space than the AVERAGE EUROPEAN. So the poor in the US are worse off than the poor in Europe. Very logical.
Another point with regard to alleged poverty indices and upward mobility has to do with immigrants to Europe and the US. By and large, immigrants to the US work. I would suggest that you research the proportion of Muslim immigrants to various European countries who work compared with those who are on the dole. How does that relate to upward mobility? Also as regards upward mobility, you might research how teenagers and those in their twenties are doing with regard to obtaining work in Europe, compared to the US.
As regards your crack that the US has the highest protection of hate speech, I suggest that you research prosecution for same in Europe. Such as Oriana Fallaci. There is an interesting case of a blogger in Finland. Or Canada, where Mark Steyn was prosecuted for having quoted what Muslims had said. Do you really want to live in a place like that?
In short, your postings lack nuance, precisely what EUROSNEERS and Liberals accuse others of lacking.
No the US isn’t perfect, but anyone who maintains that the homeland of EUROSNEERS is superior should make sure that they really know what they are talking about. You know, the good ship Nuance, the one that all the liberals and EUROSNEERS travel on.
link for previous posting
http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
Watch which way the doors are swinging – when people start leaving the US for other countries, then I’ll start questioning whether or not the US is the best the world has ever seen. – Suek
Mexicans flock here because the U.S. offers opportunites their country does not. (Who wants to live in Mexico? Ugh)
You dont see Canadians clammoring to come to the U.S. in similar numbers.
In fact, fewer Candians are emmigrating to America, as more Americans are moving north. it USED to be that America was more attractive to Canadians than Canada was to Americans, but that’s changing.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3433005
If Ireland, Iceland and Norway were bordering countries, would you see more U.S. citizens leaving? There’s no way of knowing.
Suek, The fact that African Americans stay in America proves that the USA is their homeland. They speak English as their first language. They have more in common with Americans than Africans although they have some things in common with each group. They call themselves African Americans not American Africans. Their property, jobs, family, etc. are in the US. They want to improve the equality in their homeland, but they have no desire to leave. And why should they leave? Why should anyone leave his/her home?
Ozzie:
“it USED to be that America was more attractive to Canadians than Canada was to Americans, but that’s changing.”
As the saying goes, one swallow does not a summer make. IOW, one data point does not make a trend. The numbers still say that a much greater number of Canadians move south as Americans move north, and that as a proportion of population, the ratio is even greater. For example, if twice as many Canadians move south, as a proportion of population that is about 20:1 in favor of Canadians moving south.
From your source:
“In 2006, 10,942 Americans went to Canada, compared with 9,262 in 2005 and 5,828 in 2000, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies… Last year, 23,913 Canadians moved to the United States, a significant decrease from 29,930 in 2005.”
From another source:
“Nearly 21,900 Canadians were admitted to our southern neighbours in 2005 – a total up from 15,600 in 2004 and 11,350 in 2003. The number of Americans coming into Canada also hit a high number. In the first nine months of 2005, 7,300 Americans moved to Canada. The final figure is expected to surpass the 8,014 record Americans who migrated here back in 1993.”
As regards the different 2005 figures, no point in arguing which is right, as the point here is to show trends.
http://content.monster.ca/10216_en-CA_p1.asp
You dont see Canadians clammoring to come to the U.S. in similar numbers.
Been tracking Canadians coming to the US for medical reasons, yet?
Why do they need to stay when there’s an open border?
They want to improve the equality in their homeland, but they have no desire to leave.
General Robert E. Lee had a choice of staying in the Union forces and using his influence to help his homestate in the South that had just rebelled. Instead of betraying his oath that he took upon graduation from West Point, Lee resigned his commission in the US Army and instead fought for his original home state.
And why should they leave? Why should anyone leave his/her home?
Oh, I don’t know. Integrity and divided loyalties and those kinds of inconvenient things.
Lee knew he couldn’t be both loyal to the Union and to his home state that rebelled and betrayed the Union.
Lee wanted to abolish slavery, yet he resigned his commission in the US Army in favor his home state because his integrity prevented him from betraying either oath.
Now you, helen, say that blacks can’t meet that kind of standard? The standard of one who gave up his life’s work to defend his home state, regardless of his distaste for slavery, simply because that was his home? Now you say that African Americans are free to be loyal to African culture and origins while still taking advantage of living in America and exploiting American resources for African culture?
I’m pretty sure Lee gave a thought to staying in the Union and using his time in the Union to help his home state at the same time, or not. Adults have to make choices, oftentimes hard choices.
When your people cannot even match the honor and integrity of your enemies that once fought to maintain slavery, you might want to take a good look in the mirror and rethink things.
Y., Your argument that blacks can’t be loyal to both America and Africa is like saying Bookworm can’t be loyal to America and to Israel.
As regards the different 2005 figures, no point in arguing which is right, as the point here is to show trends. – Gringo
More Canadians are coming to America than Americans to Canada, tis’ true. But U.S emmigration to Canada is at a 30 year high, while fewer Canadians are heading south.
I still wonder what would happen if Ireland, Iceland or Norway were neighboring countries. If I could hop on the New Jersey Turnpike and end up in County Cork, would I want to stay? From what I hear, most likely.
(After all, didnt I read on this message board that people want to move to Ireland if Obama wins?)
Ah, but none of that proves anything. It’s still subjective.
(After all, didnt I read on this message board that people want to move to Ireland if Obama wins?)
You’re confusing things with Hollywood liars and actors.
Y., Your argument that blacks can’t be loyal to both America and Africa is like saying Bookworm can’t be loyal to America and to Israel.
Israel gave up tens of thousands of Palestinian terrorists and mass murderers for a handful of Israelis. Do not even presume to claim that Bookworm would approve of such a transfer of Palestinian terrorists that had killed Americans in return for Israeli citizens, live or dead.
There are no such things as loyalty to two factions. Even modern American recognizes the quaint phrase of “conflict of interest”.
Ah, but none of that proves anything. It’s still subjective.
Just cause you can’t argue real history doesn’t mean your subjective view of the world has equal weight to mine.
Helen,
I did not think that I will get into an argument with you again, but you brought up a canard that needed a response. I don’t presume to speak for Bookworm, but I will again use my own views and experience to illustrate a point.
I am a Jew and a supporter of Israel. But, while nothing will change my conviction that Israel has an inherent right to exist and live in peace, my support for Israel, or for Israeli Government, to be exact, is not unconditional. I will not support Israeli Government’s actions that I consider wrong and immoral. Although, you and I might disagree on what particular actions are wrong.
Accusations of dual loyalty are usually brought by anti-Semites. I did not expect that from you, even though you did not mean it the same way that anti-Semites usually do.
Eric.
>>Why should anyone leave his/her home?>>
Because they were brought here under duress?? Presently, it’s more like an abused wife who continues to stay with her husband, cries to the courts to make him stop abusing her, but won’t leave. If blacks feel they’re being abused, they should sell their property, pick up their families and go where they _won’t_ be abused. Their property sold in the USA will probably buy them much more in Africa, and give them time to get jobs and get on their feet.
(After all, didnt I read on this message board that people want to move to Ireland if Obama wins?) – me
You’re confusing things with Hollywood liars and actors. –Ymarsakar
Um, actually, I’m not. Within the last week, people posting here have discussed moving to Ireland if Obama should win.
Someone even wondered if County Cork has a “right of return.”
No sense of humor, Ozzie??? Guess not.
Ozzie – what country do you live in? Obviously, you must think it’s pretty good. That’s a good thing – I’d be interested in what country it is.
Ozzie, you strike me as the quintessential nit-picker and hair splitter. Helen is always Helen.
Ozzie, You Google, (for pete’s sake) and come up with a list of the best societies (compiled by whom?) related to various criteria. This compilation, which magically becomes authoritative, does not rank the U.S. at the top of any criterion. So, proof that the U.S. is not top tier? Really?
Why didn’t you cite the UN Human Rights Commission? That would certainly seal your argument. Or not.
I have a few other reactions to some of what I read on this thread.
It is nice that people have the option to leave the country if they choose; and there might be several motivations–other than draft dodgers. Just to name one, the MSM and the Democrat Party have painted the Canadian health care system as a Nirvana. A lot of people actually believe that. What an incentive for older citizens. Good luck to them. Recent events have demonstrated that you might choose to go to Canada, or many parts of Europe, if you want controls on what people can say. Ireland? Oh Ireland is such a romantic place–in legend. Now that the “troubles” are over, the economy is booming and I am sure it has some appeal. Of course a snarky person could say their economy had no where to go but up. But, the EU has not given up getting them under control, so wait awhile before the final judgement.
For someone who prefers a more regulated society, in which distasteful speech is more closely controlled, I expect that any number of places would appeal.
There are many countries that appear attractive at first look. Of course in almost every case you must prove financial independence; and in many cases you must prove good health before admission. Often you must be a productive worker with job skills which are in short supply–certainly not job skills that would make you competitive with the indigenous work force. Most countries are not going to take on burdens. Well, some have imported cheap labor in varying quaintities. Some seem to have second thoghts about that.
I was fascinated by the attempt to equate rebellion against an Imperial Monarch who ruled from afar, with rebellion against a constitutional Republic.
So far as the quote from Jefferson. If taken in context, I think a reasonable person would understand that he was talking slightly “tongue in cheek”; but meant that the People should never let the Government forget that it serves at the pleasure of the governed.
Just in the interest of accuracy; Hitler, strictly speaking, did not rebel against Weimar; he won an election. The means may have been nefarious, but nevertheless he got the most votes. Kind of like Hamas. Only there was no Jimmy Carter to certify the elections under UN auspices.
Some posters used a few threats to immigrate in the event the election goes against them as evidence that this society does not measure up. Actually, I think that it is evidence of fear this this society would not survive long after the election. To paraphrase a well known candidate. . .”this is a great country. Join me in changing it”. (But, don’t ask how)
Well, it is always interesting to see what kind of thinking is flying around the blogosphere–even on a refined site such as Bookwormroom.
PS
I have been privileged to visit, and work in, a fairnumber of countries both in Europe, and North and South of our borders. Some of those countries are nice enough, but I haven’t found any that were particularly compelling as places to live.
Some folks might be shocked at how many of my former British Aerospace co-workers who, after assignments in the States opted to settle here. They were very clever; they had children while here. Then their U.S. citizen children sponsored the parents for permanent residence. Now, why would they do that?
Oldflyer…you are correct of course about Hitler winning an election. But the ground for this was prepared by many years of violence by his supporters, which made things very difficult for those who favored democracy. I think this level of sustained violence, with the intent of changing the government, counts as rebellion.
Ozzie – what country do you live in? Obviously, you must think it’s pretty good. That’s a good thing – I’d be interested in what country it is. -Suez
I live in the U.S, Suez. And yes, I like it here. Very much. I just dont believe it’s a fact that the U.S. is “the best society ever.”
(I agree with D.Q that America’s golden years were between the late 40s and the late 70s, however. I also agree that the Bill of Rights is one of those things that has made America marvelously unique, but sadly, I think many would gladly scrap the Constitution to save their own necks, even as they praise soldiers past and present for “fighting for our freeedoms.” )
And Old Flyer, just because it’s I dont think anyone can rightly prove that the U.S is the world’s greatest society, doesnt mean it’s not a better place to raise kids than England. (I dont even have to google to know that, according to Unicef’s annual report, England comes in dead last of all industrialized nations for raising children. America was next to last.)
>>according to Unicef’s annual report, England comes in dead last of all industrialized nations for raising children. America was next to last.)>>
That’s pretty unbelievable…what standards did they use?
And…what standards do _you_ use, Ozzie? What is your basis for your evaluation? What society do _you_ think is “the best society ever”?
>>according to Unicef’s annual report, England comes in dead last of all industrialized nations for raising children. America was next to last.)>> me
That’s pretty unbelievable…what standards did they use? suek
My memory’s not THAT good, so (sorry Old Flyer), I had to Google.
From the Times Online:
“The UK finished in the bottom third of 21 industrialised countries in five out of six categories — material well-being; health and safety; educational well-being; relationships; behaviour and risks; and subjective well-being — ending up overall last, after the United States. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1384238.ece
I read the study, and one thing I recall was that, when answering the question, “I find my peers generally helpful and kind” (Or something to that effect ), the U.S. and the Ukraine were the only two countries where children did not find that to be generally true.
Suek: “And…what standards do _you_ use, Ozzie? What is your basis for your evaluation? What society do _you_ think is “the best society ever”?
Well, Suek, my contention is that it’s NOT a fact that the U.S is “the best society ever,” and that such observations are a matter of opinion.
I have NO IDEA which society is the best ever, but things like high infant mortality, diminished educational achievement, etc, tell me that the U.S. is not living up to some of its citizens’ boastful claims.
Hitler never won a majority of the votes necessary for a Prime Minister/President to put his party in power. What happened was that President Hindenberg gave Hitler the Chancellorship in a “Grand Alliance” (like the One Merkel has with SPD in Germany now) to divide up the administration seats between a party and another party which together has a majority of the seats in Parliament.
Without the aid of the Nazi party’s MPs, Hindenberg would have faced a crisis in leadership and lost all powers. In point of fact, Hindeberg’s party experienced numerous elections one after the other. Obviously Hitler won more votes the more elections you gave him to corrupt.
But his power first came from the emergency powers given to the Chancellor. After that, he really didn’t need the Prime MInister slot, cause he would then be able to control the entire Parliament from that position.
All of these are very good reasons why Parliamentary systems are extremely corruptible and prone to internal dissent and sabotage. They are even more corruptible than your basic democracy or republic. Which is saying a lot.
and that such observations are a matter of opinion.
You must also think factual statements about who has won the war also a “matter of opinion”. I disagree.
I have NO IDEA which society is the best ever, but things like high infant mortality, diminished educational achievement, etc, tell me that the U.S. is not living up to some of its citizens’ boastful claims.
To be the best society only requires that every other culture, nation, and civilization is worse. Being “best” is not about living up to your boastful claims of perfection, O.
people posting here
And exactly what would be their names?
>>things like high infant mortality, diminished educational achievement, etc, tell me that the U.S. is not living up to some of its citizens’ boastful claims.>>
The high infant mortality is bogus. Other societies don’t consider some births as live births that we do. We also manage to save high risk births that others don’t count – though those two might be the same thing. It’s like having a hospital that specializes in high risk heart treatment having a higher rate of deaths from heart problems than a GP hospital – that’s where the high risk heart problems go…so they have more deaths. You can’t save them all!
On the educational achievement front, I’m less disagreeing – I am really unhappy with the educational system in general, and attribute much of it to the teacher’s unions and lower standards. Still, I suspect there is also an inequality in the comparison…in many other countries, education is limited to high achievers. We educate all comers. That in itself can be a problem which manifests itself by lowering the achievements of the brightest, but even without that, when you talke off the top 20 percent, they’re going to have a higher average than if you measure the average of the entire 100%. My only direct experience is with Germany of some 40 years ago…universal education only went to about 8th grade. After that, you had to qualify to go to high school, and only a relative few went to the university.
How about literacy levels? That _might_ be a universal measure, although even there, I question the measurement of literacy – does that mean 6th grade comprehension? 12th grade? You know – there are two major problems with educational comparisons – the level and organization of teaching offered, and the level and opportunity of learning.
In fact, comparisons probably are pretty futile. “Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home” – pretty well describes how I feel about it.
If you don’t think the US today is the best place to be _now_ even if not _ever_, why would you not go to wherever you think _is_ the best place to be? If you don’t know of any place better, then why would you argue against the US being the best? Just because nowhere is _perfect_ and you don’t want to give the US a “10″? I could probably understand that – but nowhere is ever going to be perfect – so why not give us a “best” award for here and now? Why can’t you do that?
If you don’t know of any place better, then why would you argue against the US being the best? — suek
You’ve got to be kidding.
I have never lived anywhere else, so how on earth could I compare and contrast?
If I’d lived in 10 countries, I could tell you which society I believed was best, but as of now, I only know this one and I doubt that anyone can say for a FACT that this is the best society ever.
I’ve watched a lot of TV, however, and and can assert, without a tremor of doubt that the Wire was the best show on TV. EVER. How’s that?
>>I have never lived anywhere else, so how on earth could I compare and contrast?>>
Heh.
Amazing.
I have never lived anywhere else, so how on earth could I compare and contrast?
Having an opinion means making the most use of your ignorance.
You might also want to think about making other people’s objective truth into opinions as well, solely to even the playing field.
but as of now, I only know this one and I doubt that anyone can say for a FACT that this is the best society ever.
You can’t say for a fact so logically, this must apply to reality itself for if you cannot see the facts that exist, then they surelly cannot be claimed to exist by others.
Amazing logic, O.
Ozzie,
I have lived “somewhere else”. I grew up in the former Soviet Union.
I also have many relatives and friends in Israel and Canada. I visited them. I can form my opinion from everything I have learned from my own experience and from my relatives and friends. I won’t pretend to be objective. But in my subjective opinion, this country is the best to live in.
If you couple my subjective evidence with the objective evidence showing that this country is very good, you can make a claim that this country is in fact the best.
Eric.
Reds II…
Ronald Radosh: What Conservatives Need to Know About Joe McCarthy I was not happy when Ann Coulter was singing Joe McCarthy’s praises — though it did inspire a lively debate at FrontPage Magazine! I knew from personal experience that Joe McCarthy’s …