Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment
l4m3z0r writes "This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.".."
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.
Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content. Yeah, it can't stop ALL the content out there but it is getting closer and closer to that. With the scare tactics and every parent believing that every sensationalist news "story" on the TV is GOING TO AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN they are pushing this crap through without thinking about the consequences.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.
How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo. Why stir the pot when you can just report the silly rumors, scare tactics and sensationalism, and car chases above California?
"Only half the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"? Yikes.
Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.
But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past. If this is the way young adults have always thought, then things probably won't get any worse. What would be disturbing is a trend showing young adults finding restrictions on free speech increasingly acceptable.
If everyone except the kids understands the FA so well, why does the article have to clear up things like "...thought flag-burning is illegal. It's not", etc.
Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?
The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition. "Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.
People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?
Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm? Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.
The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."
Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...
Yeah, yeah, I know all about our English Common Law system and all that. I'm just saying, you can't blame people for not understanding the law...and frankly, the law is always a mushy, malleable pile of goo if the Supreme Court can change the meaning of pretty plain words.
Advice: on VPS providers
With USA schools today being so wrapped up in socalizing children, following the "A is for Average" and the Politically Correct mantra, I'm not surprised to hear that student's don't know much about the First Amendmentm much less other important documents that are the cornerstone of the USA. Heck, schools today are re-writing US history to be overly zealous about being politically correct to the point the text has lost the original reason why a group of people moved from England to Holland to the land now called the United States of America.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
Never confuse volume with power.
Just an FYI, civics classes (basing from your id #) like we had in high school haven't been around in nearly a decade. In fact, my junior year of HS (94 iirc) was the year civics was entirely phased out (and I went to good HS, properly sized classes, music and art programs in good check, etc). (I work in a public school system and I just checked the 2004-05 HS Catalog of classes just to make sure I wasn't misinforming)
American History is still taught, but it's basically as a timeline of events. Civics used to cover everything from your responsibilities as a US citizen to the goals and purpose of the amendments, Bill of Rights, etc.
Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.
It's how you can teach a religious studies class in a HS. You can learn the history, you just can't preach the subject matter. The same rules now apply to 'preaching US citizenship'.
Just FYI.
the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
since the dawn of the formal state educational system we have been creatinga purly artificial environment for our children with values, mores and codes of conduct that bear no resemblence to the real world whatsoever.
so... why should these results be a surprise?
2 1337 4 u!
I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, just pointing out that I doubt most kids in high school care. You leanred about your rights in a class you either skipped or wished you did. These things just aren't on the minds of kids.
However, I'm betting if this test were conducted on college students, the results would be a lot different. It's at about that age people start to get interested in such things and investigate into them. Which is probably why there are so many political protests at colleges or being done by college (or college-age) people. Most often when a high school student protests, it's in emulation of someone else.
Paul
TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV? And there are tens of thousands of them. Or did you think that "laser guided" bunker busters only blow up the bunkers?
Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.
Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.
Funny thing is, Americans sincerely believe that they enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada. US of A aren't as shiny an ideal of freedom as they once were.
You wonder why Americans are so fat, when most of them think carbs are something are bad for you, when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.
Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.[/rant]
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
So in other words their government-provided schooling is doing its job.
Liberty in your lifetime
asking:
can the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
will get a vastly different answer than:
should the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
but both question can be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet."
Good Red State American's don't want freedom . . . they want super bowls, super bowl commercials, and cold beer with a born on date. This life is supposed to suck ass, and the more it sucks the bigger the reward in heaven.
Freedom of the press, isn't that what leads to disagreements ? Can't we all just adopt the sanctioned viewpoint of our leaders, put this in the past, and look forward to all the great shopping opportunities we have available in this fine country ?
I am not at all surprised by the results, high school kids live in an opressive environment so it's no wonder they think the world is like this.
Far more interesting would be to ask people in college the same question, and see how much an open environment led them to expand expectations of freedoms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Absolutely. Propaganda works wonders. After all, how else do you explain that half of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. It certainly doesn't suprise me that students don't understand what the government can and can't do when they don't learn it in schools and the media doesn't cover it because it isn't sex, violence, or an entertaining show.
From the FA:
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
Lack of money limits their media offerings, but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses than cut a football or basketball program, even if their program is losing money.
I don't doubt that schools and students benefit from sporting programs. But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Mr. Holland was right. If they quit teaching anything other than reading and writing, pretty soon the students won't have anything left to read or write about.
.sig wanted. Inquire within.
I think it comes down to public school atmosphere and neglected parenting.
Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job. Many parents, my friends included, think their kids education and well-roundedness will be the result of attending classes in school. They couldn't be more wrong. A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.
As far as the kids are concerned going to school is something that takes place when they aren't living their lives. I mean, learning is something they do in bits and spurts during a 1 hour course, and it can be thrown out the window during the after school trip to the mall with their friends.
It's really up to the parents to get involved and reinforce the ideas and priciples taught by the public school system. Only by making the student think and ponder the concept of Freedom of Speech will that concept become meaningful to the student, and they can then develop their own opinions about it. Making the student truly ponder it can be a simple dinner table discussion between the student and his or her parents and family.
Unfortunately I know too many parents who send their kids off to school so the parents can do their own thing, then send the kids off to play when the kids get home so the parents can continue to do their own thing. I wish more parents would take the education of their children farther than punishing or rewarding the kids based on the merits of their report cards.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
>
>witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few. And just as in school -- when it comes down to a sense of fairness or maintaining order, our leaders also don't care who started it.
Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school.
If they can convince the kids that such rights don't exist, then when the kids are grown up they can make the rights disappear without them noticing or caring.
Pity.
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
A person with such lack of culture might not know why touching the stove burned them. An idiot would touch it again.
Of course, being non-intelligent usually goes hand in hand with lack of basic knowledge.
The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS.
That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.
Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.
First take away their ability to practice religion. Second make them rely more on their govenment and state appointed officials. Third thing is to ban certain types of speech by law or itimidation (hate speech).
Do not read into the First what is clearly not there. The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.
The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
This really isn't all that surprising or even alarming to me. The Constitution isn't most holy writ, it's just a law. If you want people to know the law, you have to teach it to them. I firmly believe that basic con law and contracts should be taught in grade school, or at least in college (when people have attained majority and it starts to matter more). Yes the law is difficult and esoteric, but there's some amount of it we all need.
If someone refused to learn CPR because they weren't studying to be a doctor, we'd consider them to be lazy and a little hazardous to their peers. I think the law falls into the same camp. Certainly you're way more likely to sign a contract in a given day than you are to have a heart attack.
adam b.
Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.
Terrorism is a real threat now. I think the poster was likening the two, because they're both exaggerated for political purposes. The neo-conservative philosophy revolves around the idea of a nation striving against some sort of 'evil' entity. This can be real or fake, but it works best when it's a little of both. Once people have seen a terrorist attack, it doesn't take much to convince them that there's some worldwide organization that was behind it.
another bit on accuracy: when you fill out these little paper surveys in high school, how many people just put crap as an answer or how many people typically put what they think is the silliest answer? i'd say only 5 to 10% of high school students ever take such surveys serious unless the university doing the study actually phone or personally interviewed more than 100,000 students...which i doubt somewhere some company probably thinks at my high school, everyone got laid 5+ times a day and did every single drug known to man =)
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
I think you're correct about that - or at least that's how the schools see their role these days. They're really more of a venue for people to push whatever political agenda they personally have than for any real education to take place.
This is the problem with public education in the first place. The government will seek to interfere if given control and the ability to do so. IMHO, the only reason we avoided that kind of crap for a long time in this country was because public education was largely decentralized - funded, run, and controlled by local and state government. But notice that these days the federal government is seeking to interfere more and more all the time? As soon as a central government (or at least ours) takes over total control of education, then it's over for our country. They will produce generations of students who don't know how to question authority in its many forms or be creative, and everything (economy, civil society, etc) will eventually implode. This is why the $50 billion+ budget for the Department of Education really scares me. The reason that money has been appropriated has little to do with improving education and a lot to do with gaining federal leverage over school funding - and by extension, school curriculum.
Alternatively, you could view this as a business opportunity, since you're one of the "smart ones" who realizes what's happening. Just find some sort of useless shit to sell that all the idiots being turned out by public education will just snap up, and you could become rich! Personally, I'm leaning towards trying to figure out a way to exploit the overly religious (since so many people will just buy anything if they think it comes from a "Christian company", etc).
Hi there.
/. are in the same boat, and a greater percentage of my citizens are in worse shape.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about the first amendment. Or any of 'em, for that matter. Sure, I can say "freedom of the press" for one, and "you can't touch my guns" for the other - but that hardly qualifies.
Moreover, the older I get (I'm about to hit 36) the more I realize the less that I know.
My point - I'm being honest. I'd spectulate that a significant percentage of people who read
What's to be done? The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education." About the best that people do, is parot back what their preacher or some other illuminary said during the coffee hour. Our attitude is once you've graduated, you're done. Game won, time to score up some $$$! But, if anything, we need to stay refreshed now more than ever.
I, personally, view this as the principle problem in public edutainment. Schools are viewed by the general population as having the first priority of "meeting the needs of the students", or something along those lines. They're always talking about building "high self-esteem" or providing a ground for enlightenment. Though I don't think this is "bad", it's the wrong focus and the wrong approach.
First things first. Public schools first priority should be to teach children how to be "good citizens"-- and no, I don't mean in any fascist sense of "good citizen". Upon completion of twelfth grade, kids should know, at least, the laws they're expected to follow, and the ideals behind these laws. They should be taught about the system of self-government into which they'll be entering, and how to navigate it. The other subjects, such as math, reading, writing, and science, students should know well enough to take care of their own finances, read street signs, write a letter, and not do stupid things like cut into a car battery with a chain-saw.
I'm certainly not saying education should *stop* there, but the priority of public schools should be to make sure that everyone graduating is a functional citizen capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the citizenry. Meet that level of education first. Otherwise, we're doing children a disservice, by expecting them to be good citizens without providing them the means.
You want to know the real bottom line?
Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.
The best propaganda is that which people do not believe is propaganda. If it is accepted in schools as "cirriculum," then it can't be propaganda, can it? Furthermore, propaganda can take the form of silence on a specific issue, or acting upon an implicit assumption. Very rarely did Americans hear "the hijackers were from Iraq," which is blatantly false, but rather they heard "Iraq had a part in 9/11," and saw us act as if the hijackers were from Iraq. These implicit assumptions are perhaps the strongest and most insidious of the forms which American propaganda takes today.
#define DRM chmod 000
That in itself is arrogant but tolerable. But when schools and other institutions started forcing this political belief upon the general population, principally through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities, that it became "fascism through other means".
You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.
The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat. Terrorists have neither the ability nor the desire to destroy all life on this planet (as a full blown nuclear war would have). The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my freedoms.
Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security? The war on terror is a joke, and so is Mr. Bush.
You're wrong.
From your own article:, "The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime."
Bin Laden doesn't like Saddam because it directly opposes what he wants: a new Middle East governed by an Islamic fundamentalists theocracy. Saddam represented a direct contradiction to that - Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalistm because he was afraid it undermined his authority with the people. Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws? Think about it.
Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.
"ARTICLE [II.} A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
You can't justify infringing on the latter because the People haven't yet organized the former. How effective would a well-regulated Militia be if their rights to bear arms had been revoked ten years earlier?
I'm guessin that most of the members of NRA are aware of the full text of this rather succinct Amendment.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
I don't agree with you.
The US Supreme Court has determined that the freedom to read is strongly associated with freedom of speech; the patriot act has a chilling effect on the freedom to read by state enquiry into reading, for such an enquiry immediately suggests that some topics are off limits.
As a ISP, there is one aspect that is of particular concern, the enforcement of silence about investigations, which is a dangerous loss of executive accountability and itself an infringement on free speech; granted, a gag order could be issued by a judge in the past with much the same results, but a gag order was hard to get by law enforcement in the past because it was a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
That's kinda funny, because it's a bad thing when they get all control-freakish over other areas of thought, but it would be a good thing if they only pushed the official party line for science.
No. It's bad when they present non-scientific hypothesis (such as creationism/intelligent design) as "scientific theories" when in fact they are anything but scientific.
It's one thing to say "There are two prevailing views on how we came to be here. One is religious, and you'll learn about it on Sundays in Church, and the other is the scientific theory of evolution, which you'll learn about in this science class." (an appropriate disclaimer prior to teaching students about the theory of evolution) and presenting creationist psuedo-science that fails the basic test of falsifiability and the most basic definitions of science on an even footing with the theory of evolution, when one is a philosophical hypothesis that is not scientific, and the other is science.
If you want religious education in school, go to a religious school (the country's lousy with them), but keep your religious dogma and pseudo-science out of our public, secular schools.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The whole school system is fucked up.
:)]
Everything is being taught in order to pass a test...in the end the whole class ends up learning absolutely nothing.
Teacher's dont tech kids to think more open mindedly, and the students who are free thinkers are usually put down.
example:
1.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper. Because teachers are so biased, many students are reluctant to actually write what they think and usually just end up just kissing ass for a good grade.
2.In class my friend and I usually end up fighting against the rest of the class on topics of discussions, such as weather or not people of different cultural backgrounds (i.e Muslims) should be "watched by Big Brother". The scary thing is that most of my classmates think that its ok for the government to control the media and limit the rights of citizens (and especially those of specific cultural backgrounds). [I'm not 'Middle Eastern', in case you think that I'm defending muslims for personal reasons. I believe in freedom - especially to express yourself. Excuse the horryfic grammar, I'm also an immigrant
Side note: I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me, and I think that it is a very ignorant thing to say - it's a bullshit counter to the flaws I usually bring up. There are many flaws in the American system, just like any other system, and it is those who rebel - fight for our rights - that, I believe, will reform this country to a better place.
These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-Muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere.
I more or less agree with you, but do you really think that inaction will lead to our destruction? These radicals you speak of could never rival the military or economic might of the Western world. Furthermore, "their turf" isn't their turf alone. There are plenty of innocents in the Middle East who do not deserve to live in a war zone.
I could see how this all might be justified if the radicals could be wiped out in this manner. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our aggressive actions do more to fuel extremism than to destroy it. What is our end goal? The end of Islam?
even moral support all count as "involvement"
Yeah. Communism is the same way. If you support welfare or subsidized housing for the elderly then you are supporting the communist regime. The Reds are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support communism, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the house un-American activities committee. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless commies are trying to kill us all. The Russians would love to stomp on the heads of every free American baby and squish their brains....what? Oh we're against the Muslims now? Sorry, I have not been keeping up. I'll start over.
If you support anti-globalism or free speech and rights for "suspected" terrorists then you are supporting the terrorist regime. The Muslim fanatics are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support Islam, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the republican party and department of Homeland Defense. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless terrorists are trying to kill us all....
The political theorist Hannah Arendt predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it happened. It was inevitable and had very little to do with the Reagan administration. The only way people can achieve freedom is to act freely, and that's what the Soviets did. The social movement spread and society's power increased. It got to the point where so many people were assuming a freedom that they didn't have that the government couldn't squash all dissentience. The economic and social collapse of the Soviet Union came from the political action enacted by the people. The people achieved action through plurality, not isolationism. It's the reverse of this government's strong-man approach to foreign policy: Power and strength are gained not from idealistic isolationism, but from plural debate within the public polis.
Currently, the US government has been masterful in dividing words from the deeds they describe, and according to this study, it's paying off. When the government talks of spreading freedom and liberty and then begins censoring speech within its country, a very dangerous form of propaganda is created. It's sad that this conditioning seems to be infiltrating the US school system.
Oh, I know. We (in the U.S. especially) have made sure of that. The message we've effectively sent is: vote in the communists, and we'll send in the death squads. Try reading up about Nicaragua, for one.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Right-wing Americans claim that Reagan did it.
Conservative Brits contend that Thatcher did it.
Liberal Americans name Jimmy Carter and his focus on human rights issues as the reason for the fall.
Catholics believe the Pope made it happen.
Islamists attribute the collapse to Osama Bin Laden and militant muslims and call Americans arrogant for not acknowledging this
Most Slashdotters see nobody else but Cowboy Neal behind all of this
But I ask you. Can it be a coincidence that the dissolution of the USSR took place in the very year Linus Torvalds posted version 0.0.1 of the Linux kernel on Usenet? I think not. Isn't it obvious? Soviet communism was supposed to be just an immediate form until a new and truly communist society would start to exist. With true communism in the form of Linux out(*), there was no need for the USSR anymore.
(*) MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism
The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.
Home schooling is worthless and private non-religious schools are not an option for many people. Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway. Right? Sorry, but the public schools are better than anything the private sector could ever offer even with all their warts. I know that I don't want my daughter going to the Walmart of private schools once that comes along. And I certainly don't want to be doing home schooling when I know that my own skills in math are pretty abysmal. We're all fucked anyway now that G.W. is in office again. He will make sure that Americans continue to get more ignorant every year he is in office. The only way a Republican run government can keep a hold on stupid people: Make them think that Christianity + the opposition of "evil" (read: gay rights and terrorism) makes you intelligent.
...if I can manage to afford it. In case you can't tell, I didn't vote for Bush. :) Gah! Politics suck ass.
Here's the real truth: I trust a government run by a mix of liberals and conservatives with a heavier lean towards liberals more than I trust any conservative corporation. I don't trust a government overrun with "middle-of-the-road" politicians where the real balance leans towards the conservatives. Right now the government can't be trusted at all. It wasn't so bad during Clinton, but it could have been better. Probably the best president this country ever had was F.D.R. and he was shaped by the time he lived in. Sadly, the history books of this once decent nation will be twisted to paint G Dumbya with the same brush that F.D.R. EARNED by his great works. Personally, I've given up and I hope to make a plan to be out of this hell and in the E.U. within the next decade.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The extremity of their threats is not related to the probability of their success. If a mad old tramp declares that he'll kill everyone who wears brown shoes on a Thursday, how many billions should we spend on monitoring and fighting him? How many freedoms should we give up to make sure he can't possibly kill a single innocent person?
The threat from extremists must be weighed against the threat from reactionaries, and the numbers are pretty clear: terrorists have killed thousands of people, but repressive governments have killed millions.
in Sweden (IIRC), where in some cities, police have admitted that they no longer have control due to hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos.
Thank you for making the real (racial) motivation for your argument completely clear. Please name a single Swedish city where the police "no longer have control". I would have thought that widespread anarchy, riots and looting in Scandinavia would have made the news. Or perhaps you're just talking about ordinary inner-city crime, which you'd never mention in the same breath as terrorism if the criminals weren't Muslims?
You mean censorship like how Dan Rather published a report critical of George Bush he was dragged out into the street and shot?
Oh wait he wasn't.
Please note that people pointing out your mistake and demanding you correct it is not censorship. When you do a protest by doing something illegal. It is not censorship when you are arrested for that activity, or shouted down for outright lies and inaccuracies.
Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA.
Ohh, there was almost certainly the usual Arab-Isreali nonsense going on, but where did you get the idea that Saddam was trying to do anything against the US? If you had actually been following the story, not only did Saddam destroy his WMD's in the hopes of getting the sanctions lifted (yeah yeah, stupid petty politics made him resist the inspectors and look like he was hiding stuff), but the final US intelligence conclsion was that Saddam actually had hopes of eventually restoring good relations with the US! Remember, the US had formerly been Saddam's benefactor. And why had the US been Saddam's benefactor? Because of the dangerous fundamentalist Iran next door. And that dangerous fundamentalist Iran was still next door, still a threat to Iraq, and still at the top of the US's list of undesired governments. Iran still provided a very same motivation for Iraq and the US to play buddy-buddy. And Saddam really did hope to get the sanctions lifted and get back his cozy position as one of the US's allies-of-convenience.
Saddam was a bastard, but the US has a long track record of being quite generous to politically convient bastards.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
My wife is studying to be a teacher here in Canada, and I have to agree - the problem is not a matter of wages. If anything is needed in terms of resources for teachers, its simply a matter of making sure they have enough prep time.
The real source of the problem is multidimensional. First, the fact is that teachers are totally unsupervised through their entire workday. Nobody watches the teacher do their daily thing. Even if you have class testing to check for results, that's only one performance review per year. Find me other jobs like that. Besides that, pop-culture of today has moved away from that brief burst in the tech-boom when technical knowledge was considered worthwhile. We've gone back to the '80s - the breakdown seems to be as follows:
- left-wing hippy kids who go into liberal arts to do nothing
- amoral right-wing assholes whose highest aspirations are to be coke-snorting business aristocrats
- mentally fucked-up kids who might be geniuses, but will drop out anyways due to nihilism
- girls who think a blowjob is the highest gesture of love, and anorexia is cool, and therefore have better things to do than school
- keeners who care about nothing but good grades, which are increasingly disconnected from actual learning and intelligence.
- jocks, rappers, and every other subcategory where they only have their eye on one goal, one they've a 1-in-10000 chance of acheiving.
None of those kids will succeed (except the asshole - and he'll only be successful on a personal level, but destructive to everyone around him).
Besides, standardised testing doesnt work - numerous studies have shown this. It dumbs down the kids, it gives kids with particular skills an unfair advantage, has bad biases in poor neighborhoods where kids weren't reared as well as in wealthy neighborhoods, and is generally unhealthy for a school system. There is no clear solution.
I find it funny how people always talk about hiring "coaches" in the States. You'll never hear those words together here in Canada. Coaches are volunteers, or teachers.
The fact is that the only subjects that are really quantifiable are math and science classes, and those aren't the ones that I see the biggest problems in. The only time that I see bad math/science teachers is cases where the Principal doesn't give a hoot about math and science and has simply retasked unqualified teachers into those departments - and in that case, they don't really seem to care about poor performance.
The problem seems to lie in ambiguous arts classes, which are really too unquantifiable for standardised testing. I see many people who breezed through school, through teachers college, and now through work teaching those classes. Nobody notices.
I would argue, though, that the "communism" 50s paranoid politicians thought they were fighting against was similarly non-existing bogeyman: the supposedly powerful american communist organization(s), bent on getting revolution in the US, and forming an imminent internal threat. That is; although Soviet Union was a (real) powerful adversary, it was NOT the enemy, supposedly, but these pesky "american traitors". And that was the strawman.
I agree in that terrorists are in the same sense strawmen; created by the hyper-active imagination of people who are lacking enough real-world threats (would a good old famine caused by cricket swarms fix this?). Just like it's suspected that human immunosystem manages to create itself new problems (allergies, other auto-immune diseases) if it gets bored with the lack of external threats, politicians seem prone to similar mental diseases. It feels unnatural NOT to be scared shitless by "someone somewhere"; and there's alway s the need to paint the face of your enemy, real or imaginary.
In the end, "communist" and "terrorist" threats (from US perspective) are very similar: in the first case it's the problem that the military machine lots its enemies after WWII (Germany and Japan), in the second case it was once again the military machine losing good ol' Soviet Union.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
absolute pish.
We in britain have had the "spectre of terrorism" for longer than you whiny yanks care to mention.
Hell it was you fuckers that were financing it.
Terrorism is only an issue if you let it be one.
Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism
paranoid little fuck
Peace may require the end of Islam, because it is based on the Qur'an and the Hadiths. These works are based on an Arabic flavor of theocratic fascism and there is no room for competing ideologies.
Hey, as long as we're throwing out religions with sacred texts that promote hatred and intolerantly condemn those of all other religions, why stop at Islam? Might as well get rid of Judaism and Christianity too.
"Oh wait he wasn't."
No, he was just fired, his staff canned, the entire news organization replaced with more Bush-friendly types. His rep was smeared with an unproven charge of forged evidence that his provider was unable to refute for fear of ruining his source's life.
The story of Bush's golden slide from the Guard was permanently stamped as "false", even though Palast broke - and proved true - that story four years ago. NO ONE will take on on Bush's people, else they get the Wilson/Rather treatment. Hell, Rove was willing to nuke an entire CIA front company to get the WIFE of Wilson! That's showing anyone who's thinking og growing a pair that their life is worth exactly one tub of used kitty litter. Who needs government censorship when corporate censorship works so much better?
Moreover, mentioning the sordid affair in Nicaragua isn't flamebait; even if you happen to disagree with the BorgCopyeditor's POV, it's a real expression of a valid point whose merits one can argue, not some totally ungrounded attack on America. Modding that as "Flamebait" is uncalled-for.
I'm a high school junior myself, and was prompted to investigate the actual research behind these findings because I was pretty sure they were bullshit. For the most part, they are.
An unsurprisingly brief examination of the methodology and response percentages of the survey itself (readily available in PDF format online at http://firstamendment.jideas.org/downloads/future_ final.pdf) reveal a truth jarringly absent from both the CNN article and the survey's own final conclusion: students are actually considerably more defensive of First Amendment rights than their own teachers, principals, and American adults in general (statistics on responses of American adults were taken from an independently run annual survey conducted by the organization Freedom Forum.) While teachers, principals and adults rather seriously outstrip students in their supposed approval of the right of a free press and the right to express unpopular opinions, they prove themselves dramatically less capable than their students and children in understanding what those rights mean.
For reference, turn to page six of the complete survey. Observe that 99% of all high school principals agree that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," compared to only 83% of high school students. Yet only 43% of these exact same high school principals believe that "musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics others may find offensive," compared to 70% of all high school students. The urge to use bold font or italics here is almost overwhelming. Despite their near unanimous patriotic exhortations of First Amendment rights, the interviewed principals apparently feel this right does not extend to those damned rappers. 58% of teachers and 59% of adults agree with this same statement; both percentages are dramatically lower than that of student respondents.
A good, solid eighty percent of high school principals believe that newspapers should be allowed to publish articles without government review; except in cases where that government is themselves. In that case, just 25% of high school principals agree that student newspapers should operate without the "approval of school authorities." The same pattern is found among adult and teacher respondents -- overwhelming majorities approve a free press, except when that free press consists of students whose opinions might run contrary to their own. The vested interest of schools in maintaining a degree of control over student publications has already been established by other posters, but the hypocrisy is nevertheless remarkable.
The most telling part of the survey is that only 51% of students agree that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories, it is that 58% of those same students believe that high school newspapers should be permitted to discuss controversial issues without the approval of the school's administration. This statistic is central to the discussion at hand. Students may not be so well trained as their parents and school faculty to recognize statements they are supposed to agree with, but they are strongly defensive of First Amendment rights when they are confronted with the practical application of them -- much moreso than grown adults. There is still a need for greater discussion and understanding of the Bill of Rights in public schools, and perhaps a need to widely revive American Civics courses -- my own public school does not offer any. 58% is still an uncomfortably small majority in favor of the free press. The hysteria of the CNN article and much of this discussion, however, is unwarranted. The need for more widespread education and appreciation of the American civil liberties is not limited to teenagers. In fact, they apparently already have a better grasp on their meaning than most adults.
Ironic then, that we never had anything like the USA PATRIOT act when we were worried about the Russkies, but now that the USSR is gone, this study comes out and shows our own damn population (and by extension leadership) doesn't even understand what America is founded on.
Remember when the big difference between Us and Them (the reds) was that we had the freedom to travel, without having to "show your papers?"
There's also the asymmetric threat of al-qaeda. They spent $500,000 on 9/11. Our response is to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000. Oh and then there's the fact that so long as we keep using oil, we'll keep funding Al Qaeda.
The threat is very different, but I don't think it's any lesser. To be honest I never felt that threatened by the USSR but we'll skip that for now. I'm worried that there won't be a "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" in twenty years because some guy in a cave who got one lucky shot tricked us into oustpending him at a ratio of four-hundred-thousand to one.
Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before.
Exactly my point. We have met the enemy, and he is us. What would FDR say to a color-coded Fear level?
I get the impression that our government is simply trying to have us limit our own freedoms because of fear.
They want us to be afraid of everything these days. Things like "homeland security" and there idiotic "terrorist threat level" are examples of this. What is your average joe suppose to do? Board themselves up in there house and hide in the basement everytime the stupid color scale hits red? This is America, we are suppose to laugh in the face of terrorist and there attempts to make us fear, not run and hide.
The worst part about it is that it seams to be working. Lots of people do seam to be afraid of things... and not just terrorism.
News flash... Seeing a bare ass on TV isn't going to make your child a sex offender. Hearing an expletive won't turn a kid into a degenerate loser.
Education is, and always has been, the best method for making sure kids keep on the right track. I think it is a parents responsibility to make sure there children aren't scared to ask them questions about anything and everything. If your kid sees a word written somewhere (like the inside of a bathroom stall or the back of the seat on a bus) he/she should know they can always ask there parents and get a straight, correct, answer without any chance of getting in trouble. We should teach our kids about sex. We should tell them about "alternative" lifestyles they might be exposed to.
Anyway... I know when I was 13 my friends and I had already gotten our hands on numerous dirty magazines and other things of that nature and all of us managed to grow up, go to college, and live a decent life.
If you want censorship then get the hell out of this country, there are plenty of places you can go live if you want others making all your decisions for you. You don't deserve to live here if you believe in limiting others freedoms.
This is the extreme opposite of the military-religious "war on/of terror" approach, but it is almost as far from solving the issues that cause all that hatred that leads to terrorism.
Bunch of Irish guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the IRA. They had their reasons for fighting the British establishment.
Bunch of Basque guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the ETA. They had their reasons for fighting the Spanish establishment.
Bunch of Arab guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the Al-Qaeda. They had their reasons for fighting the American establishment.
Bunch of Chechen guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create their liberation army. They had their reasons for fighting the Russian establishment.
Bunch of Tibetan guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to... oh wait, they're freaking non-violent freedom-fighters so they can be conveniently ignored in favour of doing business with their occupiers...
Anyway, there is a certain pattern that would suggest that nations (often large and with imperialist tendencies) which insist on controlling people and territories outside their natural domain tend to be more affected by terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter") than smaller, democratic states which do not project their power outside their natural borders.
Perhaps recognizing and supporting all peoples' right of self-determination would help remove one of the major root causes of "terrorism"? If you lived under foreign occupation, what would you do?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?