Never understimate big groups of stupid people

[xclusiv8 35]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies

 

 

and

 

 

http://www.undispatch.com/texas-school-board-wants-spread-misinformation-about-united-nations-texan-children

 

 

oh man....

[FastCargo 412]

Hmmm...lets look at those articles in detail shall we?

 

The Texas State Board of Education adopted a social studies and history curriculum Friday that amends or waters down the teaching of the civil rights movement, slavery, America's relationship with the U.N. and hundreds of other items.

 

Really? In the rest of the article, the only thing addressed by this statement is the relationship to the UN. Nothing else in this first statement is mentioned other than the general "hundreds of other items". Nothing on civil rights, slavery at all. Specifics please.

 

In final edits leading up to the vote, conservatives rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D.

 

Dumb...why did they even bring this up. Doesn't matter to me either way, they both reference the same thing.

 

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

 

McLeroy offered the amendment requiring students to evaluate efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty, saying they threatened individual liberty and freedom.

 

The UN, like every other organization, is not perfect. Now, specifics on 'undermining US sovereignty' might be a bit far, but why shouldn't we put the UN under a microscope? We certainly have been putting US history and policies on the dissection table lately, seems only fair to me to do the same to the UN.

 

During the months long process of creating the guidelines, conservatives successfully strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state.

 

Okay, there are 2 statements here. First statement says "strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers". This could be interpreted as either "the basis of moral authority from which the Constitution was derived" or "the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a theocracy". Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure it was the former...using guidelines and examples from history and their own lives, including Christanity, to develop what became the Constitution and the US government. The second statement is "attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state." Note the first word...attempted. Seems they were unsuccessful...imagine that.

 

The standards will refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

 

The US Government IS a constitutional republic (as is most modern "democracies"). The US Dollar has declined in value, and the US abandoned the gold standard a long time ago.

 

Educators have blasted the proposed curriculum for politicizing education. Teachers also have said the document is too long and will force students to memorize lists of names rather than thinking critically.

 

These are both probably true...and not new critiques of any educational system.

 

As far as the UN article goes, lets again look at the statement..."efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty". Again, this does not assume that they have been successful, and the US does have veto power. What it might suggest instead is looking at instances of UN actions working directly against US interests. Could this be considered an 'effort' to 'undermine' US 'sovereignty'? Maybe...each instance would have to be evaluated on it's own.

 

For all the 'fear mongering' being thrown around, I see a whole lot of nothing here...no other specifics are mentioned. If they were, maybe we could evaluate what was actually passed a little better. The whole "UN" thing might be a little overboard...but certainly they should be looked at as sternly as US history and policies are...seems only fair.

 

FC

[Ruggbutt 45]

It's about time that Texas did something. There's a movement afoot in AZ to stop with what the left has done to public schools and return to the old standards we had 20+ years ago. Focusing on the basics and ignoring all the PC garbage that's been shoved down kids' throats all these years.

[eraser_tr 29]

Sanctions come with action behind them. Cutting of diplomatic, economic ties, embargoes, travel restrictions. And military action is the final stage.

 

And FC, see the language used in talking about the UN, the intent is very clear they're teaching a particular view, that the UN and international organizations undermine the US. Knowing the UN very well, it's so terribly absurd I can only begin to explain. Very simply, the only things that have any force of law is the Security Council, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. The ICJ resolves disputes between states much like a civil court does between people, the ICC tries war crimes. You already know we have veto power, so the security council can never take action against us.

[JediMaster 451]

The proper language would be "efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine international sovereignty."

 

Really, any UN organizations beyond the central one of nations getting together and talking are interfering with nations' internal business and telling them what to do or not to do. Within the first 10 yrs of its existence the UN was shown to be nothing, especially with the "resolution" of the war in Korea...the war that was never ended. Great work, UN!

 

Anyone who wastes their time with UN bashing is just trying to find another enemy. It has zero power and little influence, as nations still do what they want to do. The UN's pronouncements are either pointed to as good (when they support that position, like freeing Kuwait) or ignored or dismissed as the work of unfriendly nations (when they are against it, like Iran's nuclear program).

 

Quite simply the UN never has and never will work. Imagine if your local police department and courts were replaced by you and your fellow citizens. Would you really respect the authority of people who are literally the same as you?

[MigBuster 2,875]

" I am surprised that Iceland would have volcanoes since it's such a cold country. - Rick Sanchez, CNN"

 

[macelena 1,070]

Lastly: Please explain the difference between an ultimatim and a sanction. I'm a bit fuzzy on that one

 

If you are talking about the UN, it is a different texture of toilet paper

[shotdown 8]

The standards will refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

 

Wasn't Eastern Germany the "Democratic republic of Germany"?

[Gr.Viper 131]

Wasn't Eastern Germany the "Democratic republic of Germany"?

So is North Korea

[JediMaster 451]

Wow, Kim Jong Il calls his country the "Democratic republic of Germany"? He really is loony!

[Gr.Viper 131]

He might but thanks to media blackout we'll never know.

Still, it's People's Democratic Republic of Korea. I think, "Yes, Minister" already made a joke on such names..

[eraser_tr 29]

Still, it's People's Democratic Republic of Korea. I think, "Yes, Minister" already made a joke on such names..

 

Now that's a blast from the past.

 

Gotta love the communist names and all the extra s**t they tack on. I remember seeing a name from some online nations game "the great freedom loving peoples socialist federal democratic republic of (whatever the actual country was)"

 

Now if you want a real kick, look up the all inclusive title of the queen of England!