jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (61 posts)

We are not equal, life is not fair, there are winners and losers

  1. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    We are not equal, life is not fair, there are winners and losers - Deal with it.

    Forums of polite discussions. Threads of polemic rhetoric. Well, we can still be polite, but it is time to not be afraid to call a spade a spade. Or would you feel less offended if I did the... "a rose by any other name..." route?

    Open minded folks trying to understand and speak to close minded ones. I got a study that proves up is down, and you have a poll that proves black is white. Bull hockey! All that is needed is common sense, anything else is just somebody's form of persuasion.

    Geez Louise. Enough is enough.

    Men and women are not equal, and they certainly are not the same.

    Some kids are dumb and some are smart. And some babies are ugly.

    Some people are winners and some are losers.

    Ten people don't have to suffer for the benefit of one.

    Being offended is not a tragedy - dealing with it just might improve your life.

    Political Correctness is an agenda - not "the right thing to do" or the compassionate way of dealing with with other people. Feelings get hurt - some words hurt - euphemisms don't turn a turd into a sausage - that's life.

    And 415 kids do not have to do without fish because one is allergic! - Headteacher bans fish from school dinners and lunchboxes

    We have always had scoundrels, crooks, and corruption, but I think the political correctness agenda is doing more damage to us then all the others put together.

    You can thank Wilderness for instigating this rant because he thinks honesty and common sense are things of the past - and I think he is too close to being right.

    Along with honor, integrity, and personal responsibility - all in the name of social evolution. Well, I am no longer sure it is worth the price.

    Here is a start:
    - if you can afford a cell phone, oops, I forgot the government will give you one, OK, if you can afford cable or satellite TV - you do not deserve food stamps - your priorities are screwed.

    - 26 weeks of unemployment checks, 6 months, is long enough. If you haven't found some kind of work by then - you aren't hungry enough.

    - if you are still in a minimum wage job after a year - you are not trying hard enough - take some responsibility.

    I got loads more folks, I'll be here all week. Shows start at 11 . Don;t forget to tip your servers.

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ga,just found this, most provocative. bUt it is late and I will elaborate on my contrary point of view in the morning....... And I can hardly wait

    2. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Mr. Anderson, you have stated what others only think about.  The fact is that different people have different attributes and talents.  The fact is that some people HAVE IT whether physically, intellectually, and/or socioeconomically while others DON'T HAVE IT  in such areas.   There is no need to fret about  it, people have to work with what they have and make THE MOST of their natural attributes.  Mr. Anderson, this is a highly provocative thread which will garner many negative responses from those who will vehemently refute this statement.   However, if one is an analytical thinker, he/she will realize that each of us have different attributes, pure and simple.  Truth may sting but it IS.

      George, you are succinct in your statement.  Of course, there are winners and losers.  Some people are highly successful in whatever they do.  What they do turn into GOLD.   Oprah Winfrey is one of the winners in life.  Most of the things she undertakes become successful.  Whereas there are people who through their mindsets are cursed whatever they do.   Besides natural attributes, all depends upon mindsets.  Some people complain about their "lot" in life whereas others use their natural attributes to make something out of themselves.   

      Sadly, many millenials and younger generations are told that they are ALL WINNERS.    Children  NOW receive trophies just for participating in an activity.  Don't say winners and losers, heaven forbid, their precious self-esteem would be irreparably damaged.  I remember as a chld, if a child missed the mark, HE/SHE was TOLD about it, straight, no chaser!

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It sounds like I found a song you like. Thanks for responding.

        Just remember to tread with caution though, my next outburst might not be so much to your liking. When the Curmudgeon awakens - I can be the devil on extremes.

        GA

    3. Old Poolman profile image82
      Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      GA - How refreshing to read something that just tells it like it is.  The heck with the PC Police, just put it out there and speak about reality for a moment.
      I too have become a fan of Wilderness who has made me step back and think about my own opinions on some matters.  He has a way of making others see things in a whole new light.
      As others we have not done children a favor by giving each of them a trophy for just participating.  Trophies were designed as rewards for those dedicated individuals who put forth the effort to excel in whatever they were doing.  No, we were not all created equal and all of us will not be trophy winners.
      I have often stated that our welfare system takes away incentive from a great many who find themselves in the system.  Why work when the various programs allow one to "survive."  We now have huge numbers of citizens who are content with living in survival mode, and plan to do that for the remainder of their lives.
      I see people just getting by on unemployment and food stamps when there are help wanted signs hanging all over our city.  You are so correct, anyone who is still at minimum wage at an entry level job after a year is not putting forth much effort.
      The question now is can this be turned around or have we created masses of people who fear the competition we all face in this cold, cruel world.
      Great writing and thinking on your part.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The "cold, cruel world" is the answer to you question of how to turn it around.

        Quit enabling the freeloaders and let them face that cold cruel world on their won - they will soon leave that minimum wage job behind.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hold on, I did not say I was a fan of Wilderness. I would not go quite that far. Admitting that would imply that somebody else could be as right and wise as I am - am I can't have that can I? Besides, he can be a little too extreme. I once heard him argue against Obamacare.

        I also agree with you that we have not done our recent generations of children any favors by smoothing all the bumps, sanding all the sharp edges, and stroking their image of themselves -  they are only special in that the essence of life is special - as a person it is up to them realize that it is their job to become special. Participating is not the same as winning and a D+ is not the same as a B+.

        I completely agree with you that our current system of welfare and government support is more harmful than helpful. It may add some creature comforts, (like eating everyday - *thought I would beat the extreme-view liberals to the punch)), but it does it at the cost of self-reliance and esteem.

        How can we beat it? By being more assertive and loud and uncompromising, (the same way they put us in this place), in our own lives first, refuse to be Politically Correct.

        Your mission OP, should you decide to accept it, is to find the line between inconsiderate and purposeful rudeness and values destroying Political Correctness - then walk it.

        Don't worry about saying Indian instead of Native American - until a specific individual tells you it offends them personally. Then, in your interactions with that person, it is only common courtesy for you to say Native American. Let's start dealing with realities and specifics - instead of perceived possibilities.

        GA

    4. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think it comes a large part from the educational thrust in our schools. Instead of teaching the children how to think they are more preoccupied with teaching them what to think. The children are not allowed to know that they failed at a task and who is better than them at something. Just think of how this can screw up your thought process. If as a child you see yourself receiving the same accolades and recognition for something as someone else that you clearly know is better at it, where does the trust come in the people who are telling you differently than you know? We have generations of young adults who blame the employer or the judge or the government for not giving them the same consideration as another who is clearly better at the task or job you are seeking. In the process of teaching self esteem the teachers have created another loser with a victim complex. And worse yet neither know what happened.

      1. gmwilliams profile image87
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement.  The premise now is that EVERY child is a winner and is smart although such is not necessarily the case.  Nature decrees that some of us will have more intelligence than others. 

        There are children who are quite apt, learning quickly and have a photogenic memory, breezing through school, earning straight As while there are others who will plod along just to earn a mere C.  However, the present school system does not believe in granting the former child accolades for academic acumen for fear that the latter child would feel inferior.   

        Even failure is not directly address for fear of "lowering" a child's self-esteem.   In my day, if a child was academically prodigious, he/she would earn an award; if  the other children were jealous, the teacher will tell them if they studied hard, they can earn the award.  There also was no sugarcoating if a child fail, the teacher flat out told the child that he/she failed, that's it!

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I too think a large part of the blame lies with the schools. But, I do not think it is because teachers do not care about the education of their students. With the caveat that every profession has its slackards and bad apples, I think a dedicated teacher is a valuable asset to our children.

        But... they can still be as wrong or misguided, or even misled, as any other person. I remember that everybody loved the teacher that graded on the infamous bell curve, and we hated the hardnose teacher that insisted on correct answers - regardless of what the rest of the class did. And I can see subjects and instances where bell curve grading is appropriate - subjects that are subjective and intended to develop thought processes, but not core courses like math and history.

        And the damage you speak of is not just to the under-achievers that are told they are as good as the A+ students - imagine the frustration and demoralization that the achievers can feel. "What the hell, I studied my butt off and the lazy kid got a good grade too?" "Why bother?"

        I am not at all familiar with the apparently controversial "Common Core" initiative, I understand there may be a lot of political and "backdoor" consequences for the teachers - but what could be wrong with expecting our kids to reach grade level knowledge benchmarks?

        Now wait, EducationAnswer, let's not turn this into a conversation about that particular initiative - instead, the question is what could be wrong with expecting kids to have basic grade-appropriate levels of education?

        Do failing kids get held back a grade anymore, or is that just too wrong because it hurts their self-esteem?

        What we need is more centrist conservative teachers and less liberal left "feel good" teachers. And of course we also need to provide them with realistic education mandates and support. Fire the damn "NO YMCA" and "NO fish" and "NO Christmas decorations" administrators first. Because if those are the supervising minds out teachers have to deal with then we can expect no more from them then we are currently getting.

        GA

    5. God shet profile image61
      God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That view has come down from a Darwinian worldview. Alternatives exist.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Alternate views, yes.  Alternate truths, no.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Damn! I wish I had said that.

          GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I probably do fit the mold of a Darwinian thinker. Or maybe not. It depends on the specifics of the topic.

        But, I think my perspective, even if Darwinian, is a lot more realistic than the "alternatives" you refer to.

        That doesn't have to mean a dog-eat-dog until only the fittest remain view. It could also mean dealing with reality instead of "kumbahya" fantasies.

        I took your comment to mean you aren't a fan of a Darwinian world view. Care to discuss the realities of an alternative perspective you would prefer to consider as reality?

        Do you not see any problems with our current state of affairs?

        Pull up a chair, let's discuss it.

        GA

    6. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well, GA, who says that I have to be a lord and you a serf? The divine right of kings? Such is the stuff of which revolutions are made.  I am not for controlling outcomes so that we are all equal, but for this 'system' to be viable in the long term there needs to be a principle of merit to support how the goodies are distributed, otherwise if too many people believed that they are perpetual underdogs, slipped a mickey, or the Wile e. Coyote's of the universe,
      I would be concerned for my safety as an aristocrat.
      You are right, of course in the concept that if 99 people can eat fish, why ban fish because 1 person is allergic? In history, the 'status quo' is always acceptable to those that find themselves at the top of the food chain, but if the situations were reversed would the 1 percent be so complacent? In America, the meritocracy based on your desire to better yourself and self-improvement is preferable to right of kings. Our credo here should be to promote the idea that anyone can rise to whatever it is they wish to accomplish with their innate ability and hard work. I talk about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, because as you say we are not all the same. That idea is what allows most of us to have continued faith in the our economic system.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Welcome Cred, I have missed your participation, and for some strange reason always find myself hoping that you will pop in on a topic. Maybe we will meet in person someday and I will discovery that I really don't like you after all, but until then I continue to anticipate your visits as I would those of a long-lost friend.

        But, as Reagan said, "There you go again...,
        " Lord and Serf?" Is that really the alternative you see to acceptance of a Politically Correct mindset?

        "Divine right of kings?" Do you really think that ideal is the norm for anti-Political Correctness folks, instead of being pinned to the narcissistic rich folks that make the news or do the deeds, that lead to that perception? 

        I don't think so. I think you are standing on staked-out ground that you don't fully support. Or at least that has been my impression in past discussion - after a couple responses that draw you away from the progressive rhetoric you toss out first. It almost always seems to be at odds with the final detail-specific positions you discuss. Give it up Cred, you are not bright Blue - you are Purple like me, and you do see there are middle roads between the liberal left "everybody is equal" and the far right "God, Guns, and Glory." crowds.

        "...for this 'system' to be viable in the long term there needs to be a principle of merit to support how the goodies are distributed..."

        You see! That is a "Red" perspective. I don't see how you follow the logic behind lords and serfs, and divine kings, with that.

        And it gets worse... you continue with an intelligent, (my opinion of course), and rational finish to your comment.

        You always keep me guessing where the left-sounding 1% rhetoric - followed by common sense explanations come from.

        I do see your point, I just don't see the degree you seem to worry about. Maybe I should be more cynical. Or more concerned. Am I being fooled?

        Glad to hear from you. It seems we can agree that we do need to push for progress, and just maybe we agree that some folks, (your leftie buddies smile), don't see the consequences of their utopian views.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to take a while getting back, I sliced my left hand in an accident, 100% klutz!  We are heading to settle in Florida in a couple of weeks, and I am sure that if we met we would get along even though we may disagree over a thing or two.

          I guess that I was focused on the main theme of your thread, did I overreact?

          Ok, I agree that some people are winners and others are losers, that is the nature of things.

          Let me explain a bit using your example of "men and women are not equal and they certainly are not the same'. Well, the genders are equal in the eyes of the law. I don't think that we want to comfort ourselves with accomodating inequality because of what appears to be the nature of things.

          Yes, i do see the idea that everbody is not equal in innate ability and desire to work, but why should Prince Harry be wealthy beyond dreams of avarice? I guess what I am saying is that I did not advocate leftist utopian view, but as in The Lord and serf anology, the status quo of the way things are are many times not acceptable for its own sake.

          For example
          How are winners and losers determined? In the 'before time' the 'common sense' point of view of the inequality of women was used against them, it is not politically correct to acknowledge that this inequity could well contribute to who are winners and losers and why. I suppose that this needs to be recognized. I could take this across racial lines, socio-economic, etc.

          It is always great to chat with you as more stimulating than my cup of hot java in the morning

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "...Well, the genders are equal in the eyes of the law. I don't think that we want to comfort ourselves with accomodating inequality because of what appears to be the nature of things.
            "


            I certainly agree with that. My point was that the PC agenda is/has taking/taken it beyond that. To be PC, it appears to me that the PC folks are insisting that men and women must be viewed as equals in every way - not just in the eyes of the law. I also think the extreme Feminist movement is an equal partner in the PC agenda. A gentleman is a chauvinist if he opens or holds a door for a lady? Girls in the Boy Scouts? A woman wants to participate in some physical activity, but she cannot match the physical requirements - as the men do - so the activity has to change its rules and requirements to facilitate her participation. And ten thousand more examples.

            And "in the eyes of the law" has some PC problems too. Look at the schools/colleges that have dropped complete athletic programs in the last couple of years - because they cannot meet Title 9 equality requirements.

            Prince Harry? I am not sure how to take that one. He is an heir of a monarch. Do you intend that example to extend to the children of millionaires? Are you speaking to the inequity that everyone doesn't start from the same gate? Hah! I would like to see you rationalize that one - if that was your implication. I must be misunderstanding your point.

            To your last point, the pertinent part was "before times." Yes, you are right, that was a valid inequity, and there were the many others you allude to. We must, and do, learn and grow with the evolution of our societies - that change is called progress, not Political Correctness. And that change is due, (in my opinion), to our improved perception of right and wrong - not to the correctness of Political Correctness.

            I love my morning cup too. Too bad you won't have a "Rise-Up Coffee Shop" in Florida - best coffee I have ever had.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ." To be PC, it appears to me that the PC folks are insisting that men and women must be viewed as equals in every way - not just in the eyes of the law."

              GA, for the concept of equality to really  work it must be more than something that we do because we are compelled to.

              " I also think the extreme Feminist movement is an equal partner in the PC agenda"

              Feminism was a necessary bridge to cross. You had to  read Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique", required reading for a university social science course during the seventies. It took extreme measures and many had to experience discomfort to make the changes needed, so that the status quo would change.

              " A gentleman is a chauvinist if he opens or holds a door for a lady?"

              GA, I lament  the idea that  being a gentleman is in many circles passé. Much of that associated with 'protecting women' has had an effect of exacerbating the problem of the attitude of paternalism which keep women from opportunities.  But, I will say that girls in the boy scouts is extreme.

              We may draw the line at differing points. I like to think that we are always going to have separate restrooms for each gender. But geez, GA, I came along in the day of coed dormitories, men on one wing and women on the other. It was revolutionary at the time.  I have people speak to me about some of these schools today with coed rooms, shared bathrooms etc., that is beyond me. But I guess that is progress, the differences in the genders are being acknowledged less.

              " A woman wants to participate in some physical activity, but she cannot match the physical requirements - as the men do - so the activity has to change its rules and requirements to facilitate her participation. And ten thousand more examples"

              Here is an example for women who want to be a fire fighters. We should not reduce standards, if you are  required to carry 150lbs of dead weight, that standard is necessary for satisfactory job performance and must remain. But while a stringent standard has to be met, there are a few amazon ladies that can meet the grade and they must be afforded the opportunity and not be treated with disdain by the men on the team, just because they are women. The thinking of so many people need to be on the high road beyond the letter of the law, but acknowledging the spirit as well.

              In my humble opinion, we are heading for a unisex society. Look at the military, just a generation ago, it was unimaginable that women would be fighter pilots,  infantry fighters or serve on submarines. But that is what is happening now, because if the women want to be taken seriously in the drive for equal opportunity for advancement within the military, the "Operation Petticoat" stuff has to go away. I believe that chivalry and paternalism are becoming  quaint concepts of the past, as it is inconsistent with the changes that we are witnessing.

              Prince Harry is an example of a structural inequality, the circumstances that put the prince where he  is currently is not because he earned it by merit. Am I whining? No! The unearned advantages many have could have been the product of many centuries. While you and I did not steal the land from the Indians, we certainly have profited from holding on to 'stolen property' and don't dare even mention returning the land to its original owners.

              Sometimes what many call PC is just the reality of things. Much of the change in in our society has been as much revolution(shaking things up as opposed to evolution(antagonists willing to cooperate from improved perception of right and wrong to  change things that would not be to their advantage) .But like Ronald  Reagan once said, "when you turn up the heat, people begin to see the light".

              I will keep you posted as to our arrival in the 'Sunshine State'.

    7. 82
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "Some kids are dumb and some are smart."

      This is precisely the point I make about Common Core and No Child Left Behind. 

      Let's be totally clear here.  Common Core is not about raising standards.  That's a farce.  It's about teaching the same concepts several different ways, so it can better reach average children and below.  It's about more work to solve the same problem, four times the work and half the accuracy.  Gifted kids hate both Common Core and No Child Left Behind, because both slow their instruction.  With Common Core, a teacher might have to teach four or five different ways to divide.  Here is what one of my highly gifted children, a genius, had to say about Common Core.  "Why do I have to use repeated subtraction to divide?  I know how to divide.  This is a waste of time.  I would have to subtract thirty-four times to come up with the quotient.  Common Core is a waste of my time."  The comments that he made on a test are very telling, and I wish I could write, "I couldn't agree more," but I need the job.  Instead, teachers are forced to treat all students as if they have the same ability.  We're told what to teach and often, how to teach it.

      The Common Core standards promote credit for math work.  You can, quite literally, get the wrong answer to a math problem but get an "A" on the problem.  I wonder if NASA, Harvard, and MIT will be so generous.  How about one of the greatest promoters of Common Core, Microsoft's Bill Gates.  Will Microsoft  continue to give checks to employees who show their work but get the wrong answer time after time? 

      This is what happens when you use the one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to teaching.  Some kids have to slow down if you're going to make sure that everybody is teaching the same concepts.  How is that good for America?  How is it a good thing to slow down your best and brightest students just so you can say that we have a unified set of standards?  How is it right to say that the right answer isn't that important, that you can get an "A" by ending up with the wrong answer?  My mechanic better not expect to get paid, because he can show me how hard he worked but can't fix the problem.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oops, was that the Red button I wasn't supposed to push?

        OK, it is obvious that I know very little about Common Core. I read the explanation that it would require meeting benchmarks of competency. I read lots of discussions and articles about teachers complaining about it. But I left all that with the impression the problems were teacher-centric; as in concerns about performance evaluations based on student results, and forcing teachers to follow a mandated curriculum path.

        Hang in there. I will try to learn more and jump back at you because my logical side refuses to see a problem with mandating that kids can read and write and do math at grade level.

        But.... given my perception, (and second-hand experience from my kid's stories), I do see the validity of your - teach something four or five ways to accommodate varied accomplishment levels in the same class - statement.

        As I said, kid's don't get held back now. Failing kids move up with the rest - they just migrate to the back of the class.

        Quick anecdote; my daughter was an accelerated academics student, (of course,  would I admit it if she were one of the dumb kids), and she dropped her 3rd year Spanish course because she was actually proficient enough to be ready for the 3rd year course level. But, her Spanish classroom was divided, (by chair rows), into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year students. Her teacher would spend x-amount of minutes of each period in front of the chair rows teaching the appropriate level of the language to that row's students.

        The worst part... as is true in all things, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The 3rd year students needed the least help, so they also got the least attention. My daughter was essentially in a self-teaching class!

        GA

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Hang in there. I will try to learn more and jump back at you because my logical side refuses to see a problem with mandating that kids can read and write and do math at grade level."

          IF Common Core actually did this, I'd be for it.  It mandates that teachers slow down to teach basic concepts in multiple ways.  When some kids don't need to learn how to add, subtract, multiply, or divide in multiple different ways, it means that they cover less math.  If a student fully understands a concept, why do I have to listen to some bureaucrat who says I should continue to teach that same concept in four more different ways?  Shouldn't I move on to the next new concept, pushing that student to do more complex math?  That's not what Common Core is about. 

          Let me be clear about the fact that my students are among the best performing students in America, for their age.  My students are very successful.  I have no problem with standards; I have a problem with some bureaucrat a thousand miles away telling me that I should slow down and teach concepts over and over again when my students are ready to move on to a new concept.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            OK, Ok already. Gimme a break. I have not had time to become more acquainted with the basics of Common Core yet.

            So, since you are a teacher, and directly affected, and I will assume knowledgeable on the topic - I will skip my infamous "20 minute Google search," and let you educate me.

            Point one: Isn't the purpose of Common Core to establish benchmarks of grade-level knowledge?

            Point two: What do you see as the #1, the most important, misconception of Common Core among the general populace like myself? After all, if the general under-informed public, (again, like myself), are told Common Core is to make sure our kids are learning at levels comparable to the rest of the world - what are we missing?

            Point three: Generally, why is Common Core so wrong?

            I hope you understand these are earnest questions - so don't abuse my trust in your opinion as an educator by trying to frame your answers to suit a particular perspective. I am not a fan of teacher's unions, or their priorities.

            GA

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "Point one: Isn't the purpose of Common Core to establish benchmarks of grade-level knowledge?"

              Yes, the stated purpose is to unite as many states as possible in having a unified benchmark for each grade level, consistent standards.  Every state, prior to Common Core, already had benchmarks, standards.  People say that Common Core raised standards, but that may or may not be the case.  Did it raise the standard for every state?  No.  Some states had to dumb down their standards in order to meet somewhere in the middle.  This one-size-fits-all set of standards isn't really all that it's being billed as.  It may be an improvement for some states, but it's a step backwards for others.

              We, all fifty states, already had grade-level benchmarks.  The difference now is that instead of deciding what these benchmarks are at the state level, they are largely selected by people who aren't necessarily even in your state. We're losing control of our schools, at a local and state level, in order to become unified with neighboring states.  It's a large price to pay; one has to wonder if this unified vision is the right one.  We're virtually all in, and I'm not convinced the bet is a good one.

              "Point two: What do you see as the #1, the most important, misconception of Common Core among the general populace like myself?"

              Common Core has been touted as a more rigorous set of standards.  It's different and more time consuming, but it's not necessarily more rigorous.  Students will crash on initial tests, but that doesn't mean it's more rigorous.  It's different, more aggravating busy work. 

              If you were asked to make five hundred hamburgers at McDonalds, four different ways, would that be rigor or busy work?  Common Core mistakes varied busy work for rigor.  Having children learn and relearn concepts in different ways isn't necessarily rigor; it is, however, a monotonous waste of time for those who are ready to move to a more challenging concept.

              "After all, if the general under-informed public, (again, like myself), are told Common Core is to make sure our kids are learning at levels comparable to the rest of the world - what are we missing?"

              IF Common Core helped us achieve levels that are comparable to the rest of the world, I might agree, but Common Core isn't really going to achieve that goal.  Those who support Common Core continue to argue that it is more rigorous.  Having completed significant training, I disagree.  Having taught a year of Common Core, I disagree.  Busy work isn't necessarily rigor.  Should our best and brightest be slowed down in order to unify our standards?  Will our country ever elevate our standard of education if we slow down the brightest learners so that a one-size-fits-all approach is the priority?

              "Point three: Generally, why is Common Core so wrong?"

              Unfortunately, teaching is a soft science lead by people, bureaucrats, who think they know how to teach.  Every few years, we teachers see the next trend.  Trends come and go.  Common Core is just the latest fix-it-all trend.  We already have standards.  Common Core is just a new set of standards, but it's not necessarily more rigorous.  How much time and money do we have to waste changing our standards every few years?  Common Core is more of the same, new goals without a plan to get there.  The only real difference is that now we, at the local and state level, don't have as much input.  Great. 

              Common Core supporters state that teachers will be teaching less material but that we'll go deeper into the concepts we teach.  That's code for:  You'll have less time to teach concepts, because now, you'll have to teach the same concepts over and over again, in different ways, and regardless of whether or not your children need this instruction.

              Twenty years ago, a lot of parents kept asking if we were teaching "the New Math."  I never really knew what that was, until now.  Common Core isn't really a step in the right direction for many students, because it really focuses on the process rather than the result in math.  That sounds great until you realize that kids aren't really learning, with consistency, how to solve math problems, and they don't even really have to actually get a correct answer. 

              I'm for improving education.  I'm for accountability.  I have no problem with testing.  I have no problem with rigor.  Common Core isn't the solution.

              By the way, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a union.  I am, however, one of the highest achieving teachers in the nation.  My math averages hover around 97% on standardized testing, with every one of my students, year after year, achieving the highest levels and rankings.  I am absolutely fixated on achievement, on being the best.  Common core slows my students down and makes it less possible for them to achieve at the highest levels.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well Damn! Such a sincere response deserves more than I can offer now. It is almost 2am and I am 2+ martinis into the night. Thanks EA, I will get back to you in the more decent AM. (like 9 or 10).

                GA

              2. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why would any state have to "dumb down" their standards? If they are already exceeding Common Core benchmarks, why can't they continue as they are without "dumb down" changes?

                Isn't Common Core a set of minimum standards? I don't see why states that already meet or exceed those standards have to change, or why it is wrong to think that states that do not meet those standards have to step-up their game. It sounds like you are saying the program isn't a set of minimum standards, but are instead a set of "must do this only" mandates.

                If the benchmarks are minimums, and they deal with educational competency, why does it matter if the framers aren't from your state?

                Maybe I better pause here and ask - isn't that the foundation of Common Core - a set of minimum standards of achievement? You repeatedly refer to slowing down the achievers, how does setting a minimum standard force you to do that? Can't you just fail a student that can't make the grade and needs remedial education efforts?

                Are you saying that the program forces you to keep low-achieving students in the same class with high achieving students? Again, can't a student fail a subject and not advance until they reach proficiency?

                The rest of your response just keeps leading me back to a basic question that I guess I will have to find the specifics of the program to read for myself. "Isn't Common Core a set of minimum benchmark standards?"

                Does the program tell you how you have to tech, or just the proficiency levels you have to reach? I do not understand how a minimum requirement can lead to you having to accept a wrong answer because the right process was used to get it.

                My take on the gist of your response is that the program is more of a how-to than a set of standards. Mandates that you must do it this way instead of benchmarks you must achieve. Does the program require that you must teach how to cook a burger four different ways - or that your students must be able to cook a burger? Did I read you wrong? Do I completely misunderstand the program?

                GA

                1. 82
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "My take on the gist of your response is that the program is more of a how-to than a set of standards. Mandates that you must do it this way instead of benchmarks you must achieve."

                  Yes!  The word "standards" has a different meaning in education,  It doesn't refer to a benchmark of achievement; it refers to a concept that is to be taught, perhaps multiplication.  When educators say that Common Core has a different set of standards, they usually don't mean that it has higher requirements but that, instead, we will be teaching different concepts.  Common Core cut some of the things that we were teaching and, in place, added what the makers of Common Core refer to as depth.  In other words, students will be learning fewer concepts.  Instead of teaching fractions when my students are ready to move on to that concept, I might have to spend more time teaching division, in different ways.  Why should I have to do this if my students already understand division?  Yes, Common Core is a "what" and "how" but not a "to-what-level" set of concepts we are to teach.

                  "Why would any state have to "dumb down" their standards? If they are already exceeding Common Core benchmarks, why can't they continue as they are without "dumb down" changes?"

                  President Obama is a supporter of Common Core.  He didn't force states to switch, but he did offer a large incentive, grant money.  States that wished to apply for grant money, through Race to the Top, had to meet certain requirements with their list of things they taught.  The easiest and least expensive way to do so was to adopt Common Core.  Supporters of Common Core often say that states were not forced to adopt Common Core, but President Obama's intentions were pretty clear; no state that failed to adopt Common Core won the grant money.  Remember, all of this happened during the economic crisis, when states were slashing budgets.

                  Politicians make the decisions for education, at least at the state and federal level.  If they are told that the new standards are about truth, justice, the American way, more rigor, extra meat for each worker, global competitiveness, a new car, peace, ending cancer, rainbows, unicorns, lollipops, smiley faces, and warm hugs, many, sadly, believe it without question.  In other words, supporters of Common Core did a great job of selling Common Core as the best way to become globally competitive by increasing rigor.   Few stopped to look at whether or not the new goals, standards, were any better than what their state already had.

                  "If the benchmarks are minimums, and they deal with educational competency, why does it matter if the framers aren't from your state?"

                  In education, standards refer to goals, what we are to teach.  It doesn't stand for the quality level.  A standard, might mean that students will learn multiplication. 

                  If standards, what we are to teach, are developed somewhere else, we don't have any control, and you'd be surprised to see what kinds of asinine things politicians think students need to know.

                  " You repeatedly refer to slowing down the achievers, how does setting a minimum standard force you to do that?"

                  Again, in education, a standard is a concept that we teach, not a level of competency.  If those concepts that we're being told to teach are busy work, then it's a  waste of time.  If a genius understands how to multiply, should I have to teach him/her how to multiply four different ways, or should I move on to division?  Common Core assumes that all students will not understand how to do basic math, so it forces all teachers to teach all basic math in multiple different ways.  We're literally being told to slow down and teach less math so that the slow learners can have the math taught to them in different ways.  This is a total waste of time for quick learners.

                  "Are you saying that the program forces you to keep low-achieving students in the same class with high achieving students? Again, can't a student fail a subject and not advance until they reach proficiency?"

                  No.  The federal government does encourage this, but I can't say that this is part of Common Core. . .yet.  Students should and do fail when it is beneficial.  In Arizona, a teacher's decision to retain a student carries a lot of weight.  Only a school board can legally overturn the teacher's decision.

                  "Isn't Common Core a set of minimum benchmark standards?"

                  Common Core is a list of things we are to teach.  It's a list of how we are to teach those concepts.  It's a bad list with a lot of tedious and inefficient  ways to teach it.  It is not a minimum benchmark of standards.  It is a list of what and how.

                  "Does the program tell you how you have to tech, or just the proficiency levels you have to reach?"

                  It tells you how to teach it, though the people who push Common Core deny this.  For example, in math you might have to teach division four different ways, ways most people wouldn't understand.  Then, it will be on the test that way.  If you haven't taught division in multiple formats, your students fail on the test.  That's linked to your evaluation, perhaps your salary. 

                  Supporters of Common Core say that we can teach their concepts any way we wish.  Great, we can teach an easy math concept, say addition, in any way. . . .as long as we use five different models, chosen by Common Core advocates, in the process.  Common Core is a big mistake.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for the illuminating response. It appears my misunderstanding was a matter of semantics - standards apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant - in the educational realm perhaps.

                    I think I will just hold on to your explanation and forget spending any more time digging.

                    GA

    8. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In his brilliant short story, "Harrison Bergeron," Kurt Vonnegut satirizes the perfectly equal society. We have been headed in that direction for decades. If a government mandated equality produces a perfect society then the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China would have all been paradise.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

      Fiction often informs fact, everyone who loves liberty should read this story.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the link, I will pursue finding the full short story. I agree with your ending statement, as I frequently use a similar one, (most frequently to my grown kids), but in the science and technology fields.

        I am an avid reader and a big good science fiction, (not fantasy fiction), enthusiast, and many times in my life I have been amazed with the accuracy of science fiction of 30 -50 years ago at foreseeing the real technology and science we have today.

        Two greats come to mind; Asimov, in his Foundation series where a primary component is the centralization of government, and the evolution of almost the entire home planet - Trantor population being employed in the service of the central government. Sound familiar?

        ps. I bet a lot of Voltaire readers will pop in with a reference and an Amen on this one.

        The second is Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, which is a treatises on religion and beliefs.

        GA

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Though Vonnegut is inappropriately relegated to Science Fiction, I think he belongs with George Orwell.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I am not very well informed on Vonnegut Jr., but I will be soon, thanks to your link and seed for thought, but regardless of the specifics, I understand and agree with your basic point.

            GA

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Kurt Vonnegut grew up in the same neighborhood as my dad. There is a great museum in Indianapolis dedicated to Vonnegut.

        2. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Most interesting GA, I was a fervent Arthur C. Clarke fan!

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah Ha! More common ground. You see, I told you I could help you leave the Dark Side.

            I liked Clarke too. I devoured his Rama series books as fast as I could find them. Almost as good as Asimov's Foundation series.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              yeah, I liked him, because his fiction was always well grounded in science fact. I was mesmerized by the film "2001" when I was a kid. Did not understand the cosmic significance until I read the book sometime later. No ridiculous fantasy, far fetched space drives and the like. As 2001 revealed, the technology featured in the film was easily seen as a possibility 30 years into the future (from 1968) (flat screen video display pads for example) but not cryogenic hibernation or sentient computers ) This was a remarkable film, a quantum leap from the Flash Gordon serials of previous times with erroneous scientific concepts, all the fake wires and improbable situations.
               
              I guess it is still possible as purple people to find common areas of interest....

    9. tsmog profile image86
      tsmogposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hello GA. Being much less of a commenter or forum participant and more a spectator or a reader I share I do write comments, however very few do I post. I dun'no why . . . shy? Not really . . . maybe cautious and careful in regard to common sense and just where the common consensus is and who reads and spectates. I feel sometimes it is prudent to have good sense, even though not of a particular presence of 'common sense'.

      That said, I forgo the 1,200 word rhetoric explaining, of which I am not sure if it that was polemic or not. That leads to a response most likely in agreement, yet maybe a little different perspective. Consider it is a response maybe of likeness and maybe not to the 'words' and their meanings while not the author or the inspiration.

      Bottom Line:
      Some have more liberty to call a spade a spade for reasons, therefore some don't push the envelope

      Some realize for every winner there is a loser until another comes along then there are two losers. The winner is then a winner, but now out-numbered, so there now is a choice to lead or get out of the way

      Some know there are gender differences without reading a book

      Some know there is a difference between smart and intelligent. The person who possesses both is extremely advantaged. Capitalism says hire someone if you don't possess both or partner up. To the one who has both . . . make a decision or get out of the way

      Some accept UGLY as Understanding God (Creator) Loves You no matter your take on God. They don't even have to be a Christian to say that. Enough said . . .

      Some know there were/are Eagle Scouts who sat on the lawns protesting war

      Some know common is not average and average is common

      Some know before "no child is left behind" there was "no one is left behind" as a soldier's creed (a nod of respect with a Thank You! Especially on the nearing day Memorial Day)

      Reminding at times is nice. Telling them may be obtuse and is usually a personal thang’ outside of family, work environment, or on duty with the military. Be sure to check that family or work thang' bucket to be sure it holds water.

      A teacher is always needed, for there usually are many who will listen, in agreement or not . . .

      History teaches emphatically there are more readers than writers . . . one may consider what to write before writing. Of least, where and who the common consensus is while applying 'that' common sensibility (definitely myself included)


      A server is a person or thing that provides a service or commodity. Tip of the Day Tires pretty much always go up in price when gas prices go up along with other polyester products. Keep an eye on coal production too

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Glad you popped in. The more participants the more varied and enjoyable the discussion.

        But... did you have to start right off making me work to try to understand what you mean?
        [i]"That said, I forgo the 1,200 word rhetoric explaining, of which I am not sure if it that was polemic or not. That leads to a response most likely in agreement, yet maybe a little different perspective. Consider it is a response maybe of likeness and maybe not to the 'words' and their meanings while not the author or the inspiration. "[i/i]

        Can you boil that down to one sentence?

        And thank you for the participation of the rest of your comment.

        GA

        1. tsmog profile image86
          tsmogposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          smile I see . . . Generally I respond to what is said and 'Not' who said it. I wrote a response of 1,200 words explaining a view of 'common sense' relational to 'where' common is, how big common is, and how many times 'that' does contrast with 'common' elsewhere. Sensibility does differ regionally, nationally, globally especially with societies, cultures, and sub-cultures. For instance the new legislation with marijuana in Colorado and Washington state contrasts 'positional' common sense.

          Forums are near to global with opportunities and common could be odd with a forum for some regarding common sense and other times not. The question may become when 'a common sense' is an absolute, of least thought of as an absolute.

          Every work written has an audience. The 1,200 word short rhetorical essay mentioned 'audience' was myself and not the OP or its inspiration. It was seeking understanding common sense. It was not posted. That response not posted probably was not polemic, yet may have offered difference with perspective. Instead, the above was posted. (I never was any good at summarizing with one sentence.)

          The response posted IMHO is common sense, therefore may agree with following common sense is best. Yet someone may disagree with the common sense I am exposed to, which I must live with daily, where I live, and whom I live with.

          I hope that helped and apologize for the length. smile   

          Another Tip of the Day (regarding the server). Keep a close eye on Europe especially the Scandinavian region for advancements with reduce, reuse, and recycle. Aluminum (Bauxite) has become a corporate asset according to some circles lessening it as a national resource. Today's bauxite miners in the US are the recyclers thus lowering acquisition costs affecting raw bauxite necessity. RE: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley for corporate, region, and individual regarding abstract thought and a world view, while remembering who reads that today.

  2. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    Wow.  Wilderness and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue.  So far, from what I've seen from you, we're as often in agreement as we are not.  On this particular issue, we are almost in complete harmony.

    My forum participation has developed my skills of tact and diplomacy, but I often hold back from saying some things for fear of offending someone.  It's in my nature to try to be kind.  Often, however, I find myself just wanting to say that what is just IS.  No matter how you dress it up, how many frilly words you use, facts are facts and they are inescapably true.  Don't misunderstand me, I'm the first to say that I hold beliefs that are irrational and illogical, for whatever reasons, and I will also come across as highly charged emotionally about issues that actually cause me sadness or pain. 

    But, I, like you and wilderness see many things slipping away these days.  My mother would have been 78 this year, but I'm a Gen Xer.  Perhaps because my parents were older, or just because I have what they like to call an "old soul," I am sometimes appalled these days by a lack of common sense, work ethic, drive, and motivation. 

    I, however, can't throw everyone into the same pot. There are more among us youngsters ( wink ) than you know who long for a more concrete understanding of what IS. And, a lot of us just want to have what people have had before us - a real desire to change the world and make things better.

    I'm an in curable idealist, this I know, but you can't make something "ideal" until you know what "real" is.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings Motown, From reading your past comments, I think your self-evaluation is pretty spot on.

      But you did provide an opportunity for me to pick a point that I think is a problem unrecognized by many - possibly including yourself.

      You don't want to offend anyone... Well good for you. I totally agree. Courtesy and civility are admirable traits. To purposely be offensive is the sign of a small mind, (at least that's my take), but, the Political Correctness agenda has taken the concept a step too far. We have come to the point where it is no longer enough to be concerned about obviously offensive behavior - the N-word, gay-bashing, spitting on someone, etc. etc.,  to a point now where even the slightest possibility that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason might find something offensive is enough for us to censor our thoughts and words, or even be condemned by the "more enlightened" folks around us.

      To this I say, it is time to stop. If you are looking to be offended, it is your problem - not mine.

      Here are some sketchy details of a recent event in the news that illustrates what I mean;


      And yes, I said Indian and not Native American. If I said Red Skin, then you can justly accuse me of being offensive - if you have a problem with Indian - too bad, put on a shirt.

      And, as you said, you can't throw everyone in the same pot, well duh! But that is what the Political Correctness agenda wants us to do.

      So buck up Motown, stay polite and open-minded, but put your foot down and say so when you have an opposing opinion - from what I have seen of your style, if it offends someone, it is their fault - not yours.

      GA

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for that, Mr. Anderson. smile

        When I say that I sometimes pull back because I'm afraid to offend, I offer it as a self-criticism.  I definitely try to be kind...but nice sorta irritates me. I don't like to see myself being "nice" rather than being honest.  I'm growing into my more honestly vocal side as I get older though. smile

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, that is one of the perks of becoming one of the older folks - You can speak your mind and folks will just say, "Bless your heart," and chalk it up to senility.

          I am enjoying the hell out of my "golden years." I am also studying hard to learn Quill's technique for telling someone to go to hell - and have them thank you for it. He must be ancient.

          GA

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah.  My mother passed away at only 64.  She too had that gift.  smile That's what I'm looking forward to.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image89
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Gus. How goes it?

            Although I am not really that ancient, I am willing to wait until you catch up. smile

            I am enjoying your remarks. Keep it up.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hah! Glad to hear from you. And I mean that sincerely. I am always anxious to prod you into jumping into  a conversation as more than just a fact checker.

              Your penchant for backing up your declarations with  "just the right" sources for your apparently unbiased responses is legendary. And as I have intimated more than once, you have a finesse I strive to achieve.

              *ps. I am still in awe of that "ignorance, etc..." finish in one of your posts. I admit I do have a high opinion of my own capabilities, but when I read that one I was humbled.

              But... the Quilligrapher is always stating his point, he just cloaks it in the guise of "Fact Checking."

              So come on Quill, what is your opinion of my contention that Political Correctness is really an agenda more than it is an effort to be considerate of our fellow man?

              pss. I must give credit to Bill O'Reilly for the "Political Correctness is an agenda" premise. I am becoming less and less an O'Reilly fan, but on this one I think he is right

              psss, (how many ps' can you have?), I hope you aren't projecting a long wait - I do think I am close.


              Take a stance Quill, Is it possible that I have more confidence in your opinions than you do?

              GA

              1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hah! To you too my friend. Your words are very flattering. I sincerely thank you for your kindness.

                The OP wrote:
                “I am always anxious to prod you into jumping into a conversation as more than just a fact checker.”

                The very least I can do now is to allow you to goad me into commenting in your thread. roll You may find it less than you had hoped. smile

                I am truly flattered by this invitation but it seems I am being asked to bring my opinions to the party but to leave my facts at home. That would be very sad if true. An opinion without facts is nothing more than someone’s uneducated guess.

                I have been lurking in the darkest corners of these forums long enough to realize that many of the “new” topics are just leftovers from last Sunday’s dinner, reheated and served up again as an encore for Wednesday’s evening meal. The one commodity in abundant supply among the thousands of archived Hubpages threads has to be personal opinions. I might even venture to guess that nearly everyone has at least one opinion that they believe is superior to all others. In reality, however, it is rare indeed to see a poster abandon his stand on any issue because he heard another opinion he thought sounded better. Although I have a keen respect for my own opinions, I just do not think anyone really cares to read them. Who, I wonder, needs more opinions when there are so many already being hawked as so much better than all others?

                “The Quilligrapher is always stating his point, he just cloaks it in the guise of "Fact Checking."

                Some may downplay the importance of facts but I do not. Facts are the building blocks of rational conclusions. I do make an effort to assure myself that some accepted authority in the real world supports my mental world view. Facts, I have found, are rarer and far more valuable in a forum setting than most of the quirky, ideology driven hyperbole masquerading as intellectual discourse. Nobody really needs another opinion but everyone can use facts either to bolster their existing notions or to reach a fresh new conclusion. 

                “Your penchant for backing up your declarations with  ‘just the right’ sources.”

                Any idea (substitute opinion, statement, claim, solution, conclusion, etc.) that is worth tossing into a discussion should, at a minimum, be coherently stated. It should be supported by either widely accepted truisms or by verifiable real world facts that will stand up to criticism. Finally, it must be presented within a context that encourages the targeted audience to listen and to accept the suggested premise. All unsupported opinions can be rebutted by other opinions but verifiable facts can only by refuted by superior facts.

                “I must give credit to Bill O'Reilly for the "Political Correctness is an agenda."

                I have also learned that some facts may be completely worthless. For example, Bill O’Reilly and I are alumni of the same high school but this fact is worth less than a wad of secondhand chewing gum. Never the less, Political Correctness is a great deal more than an agenda. It is a social mechanism designed to enforce self censorship and to stifle free speech.

                Five years ago I wrote, “No discourse on censorship would be complete without mentioning one of its more recent and perhaps most insidious manifestations. There is convincing evidence that a major social trend in this country is intended to change speech and thought patterns by implying that vocalizing some beliefs is tantamount to being disrespectful to others and, therefore, such statements should be avoided at all costs. This notion is in fact promoting self-imposed censorship with a doublespeak label to make it sound positive: "Political Correctness."{1}

                “For censorship to be beneficial in our society it must promote and support Liberty and Justice but it must also be the only reasonable means available to achieve that end.” {2}

                “Take a stance Quill, Is it possible that I have more confidence in your opinions than you do?

                As you can see, I took a stance on this issue five years ago, before you and Bill O’Reily turned it into a rant craze. Like I said yesterday, “Although I am not really that ancient, I am willing to wait until you catch up.” {3}

                Thank you, Gus, for your very kind praise. It is a pleasure to watch you moderate such a lively and provocative dialog.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://quilligrapher.hubpages.com/hub/censorshipUSA
                {2} Ibid.
                {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2586054.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It appears I was wrong, you do seem to have as much confidence in your opinions as I do. But you are mistaken to think I was asking you, or anyone participating in these forum topics - to leave your facts at home.

                  It also appears we have a similar opinion of the PC movement. I am not new to my dislike of it, but I have recently become more concerned with its dangers. What I first viewed, (years ago also), as creeping tendrils now seem to be blunt instruments.

                  "...to realize that many of the “new” topics are just leftovers from last Sunday’s dinner, reheated and served up again..."

                  And we usually get to see the truth of that at the end of the thread comments, when the auto-generated list of "Similar Topics" appears, and there it is... the same thought put forth by someone else months and years ago.

                  But I do not participate here because I think I will change anyone's mind, (but sometimes I do try), or because I think I have some new and unique perspective that no one has ever considered. I do it because I enjoy the discussions, whether it be ones I learn something from, or ones where I get to point out how chuckleheaded I think some perspective is.

                  Of course it is a lot more fun when I am right, and not the one being a chucklehead.

                  Glad you popped in.

                  GA

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    I am not a fan of rants in general, feeling that the biggest result is to spread hate and dismay over everyone around them, but this one...this one needs said.  There is much truth here, truth that we have somehow forgotten and left behind us in the goal of equality for all.

    1. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wilderness, there are some people who are loathe to broach the subject that there are differences between us.  They are also hesitant to acknowledge that some of us have MORE than others whether it is intelligence, advantages, and other related factors and variables.   In essence, to acknowledge such in America is considered elitist thinking. 

      I have been called elitist many times because I dared to broach the subject at hand.   As a Black woman,  I have been called unBlack because of my strong views on the subject.  In college, I voiced this same view in sociology class in the 1970s much to the consternation of many of the students there.

      (Demonic smile)  I simply LOVE  this thread, thanks to your immensely logical thinking and  the ever illustrious Mr. Anderson who started the thread.  Well off, to revamp some hubs that have falllen in disrepair!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, the best I can say is that the illustrious Mr. Anderson is fast becoming my hero.  There just so much here that I not only agree with but hug close to my own way of thinking.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        OMG! You are Black! Why didn't you tell me! Good thing I went with the Indian vs Native American instead of the Black vs, African American example.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It IS a good thing for I, I will have you know, am European American.  The term "white" is quite offensive as it does not suggest the Irish, Scot and Brit that went into me.  Nor the German, French and Russian, not to speak of the Indian, Arabic and Asian.  Why, it doesn't even mention the Nigerian, Somalian and Kenyan!  (I don't think there is any aborigine, but won't swear to it)

          Funny, isn't it, how it is totally PC to call us a melting pot, while demanding that our personal heritage be known and proclaimed to all, even if woefully incomplete and for no perceptible purpose?

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And of course that demand is that you lead with your differences rather than your similarities. That seems pretty counter Politically Correct to me.

            Why is an African American an African before they are an American? Is a Jewish American different than an American Jew?

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Let's see here.  An American Jew is an American of the Jewish religion.   A Jewish American would then be an American of Israeli heritage.

              I think - I'm usually totally lost when people begin talking about their race as if means something more than their recent ancestry or as if they aren't a mix of a dozen different things. 

              But (backtracking here) I don't see it as differences.  In other parts of the world, people are often of a specific race or ethnicity.  Not so in the US where all but very recent immigrants are a melting pot of everything on earth.  All the same, then, just trying to show differences by claiming this ancestor or that one as more important somehow.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the thought.

      We both knew we would sound like echos responding to each other on this one didn't we.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, pretty much.  I guess even the curmudgeon has to be right SOME time! big_smile

  4. Aj Sethuraman profile image61
    Aj Sethuramanposted 2 years ago

    This is what most people simply refer to as Darwinism. I agree with many of the things you said, the things that pop out at me most are the most trivial: one allergy means hundreds of kids don't get to eat something, etc. What kind of society is that?

    I have the same ideas about equal pay and such. I don't find it good that women, on average, are paid less than males but let's face it: if males are the ones actively looking for jobs specifically to tell their bosses that they want a raise then it's nobody else's fault that their female counterparts aren't.

    Not sure if what I'm saying follows the current discussion, just figured I'd throw a comment in there after reading the original post.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think the fish example is trivial at all. I think it is a very significant signpost announcing the road we are on.

      Oops, I fully support equal pay for equal work. Whether it be men, women, or donkeys. And I don't want to go anywhere near your "why men get more" rational. Good luck with that.

      Yes, I think you are on topic, and I am glad you joined the conversation. Sincere participants are always welcome, regardless of their perspective. If it's the right one you get high-fives. If it's the wrong one you get to argue. If it's a stupid one - heaven help you in these forums.

      GA

  5. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    Where are all the liberal dissenters? I expected more than a few of the "it's not fair" crowd to be gathering to burn my effigy by now?

    Where is the "kumbahya" crowd? Where is the "we are all equal" folks?

    Or, is a discussion of "life's truths" the wrong soapbox for the "the way things should be" thinkers?

    GA

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Hey, Mr. President!  In very plain English:

    1.) Equality of outcome
                      vs
       Equality of opportunity

    2.) The former is not obtainable. The latter is obtainable.

    3.) Working for the former will diminish the latter.

    4.) Obviously.

 
working