Rick Santorum uncovers another liberal conspiracy.

[Lincoln Republican]

More coverage for the supposedly irrelevant candidate!

Acttually, the irrelevant candidate Santorum is covered for laughs and for a humorous diversion, rather than for anything substantial.

Let's face it, covering Presidential elections a year and a half before the event gets pretty bland, so in actuality, Santorum did the nation a great service by entering the race, because if there is one thing he does better than any other candidate, it is to provide comic relief.

[angus]

Well, I've read your most recent post, cowboy, and not only is it irrelevant with regards to the topic of the thread, it is perhaps more rambling even than mine, and that's no mean feat.  Neither Santorum nor anyone who posted in this thread has made the claims that you have set upon refuting, so it probably doesn't deserve a response.

I'll stand by my original comments.  If you care to debate the merits of Santorum's comments intelligently, I'm here.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Angus is a fighter for freedom.

[angus]

Angus is a fighter for freedom.

Well, I'd say a scrapoer for sanity.  A rascal for reason.  Coo-coo for Coco-puffs, even.

We have a link to a 52-second excerpt from a Santorum speech presented in a thread with a leering, tabloid title, put there by an extremely inflammatory and sensationalistic poster.  (Ever try to get a job at Fox News, px?  You're reporting style is right up their alley.) 

Now, Rick Santorum couched his analysis in language that I would not have chosen.  Then again, I am not running for political office in the USA, so I don't have to boil away shades of grey in a little crucible in order to be left with black and white soundbites, digestible to paranoid, overweight, underemployed American audiences.  So I can get away with rambling, thoughful analyses.

Nevertheless, what he said is true.  We suck at history.  You've probably seen the data that shows how many US high school grads point to Russia as the enemy in WWII.  And we suck at geography.  You've also no doubt seen the polls that show how few Americans could point to Iraq on a globe even as 52% of us supported the invasion.  And if you like to place blame--as opposed to, say, correcting the fundamental, underlying problems--then there's plenty to go around.  Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation certainly placed such a high priority on mathematics and reading, setting specific goals and offering material rewards for demonstration of proficiency in those areas, that geography, history, science, art, music, foreign language, and all the other subjects suffered from lack of funding and lack of focus. 

But the truth is that don't know our history.  And elevating historical figures based solely on superficial attributes that have placed them in underrepresented classes does no one any good, least of all those members of underrepresented classes.  Bush did few things right, but his recognition of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" was evidence that he wanted to at least try to rectify the huge education gap between these underrepresented groups and the mainstream.  But his insistence on pushing math and reading at the expense of other subjects--subjects like history and geography in which we Americans were already weak--was not the best approach.

It seems to me that Santorum was mostly trying to speak to a friendly audience and get them worked up.  You can't blame him for that.  Politicians of all stripes do that.  But if I look at that 52-second excerpt, and ask myself the question, "Is anything he said false?" then I'd have to answer, "No.  Poorly-worded, maybe, and overly simplified, but not false."  There is a view in primary and secondary education circles that we should take a new approach to learning, and that this approach should emphasize "inclusiveness" at the expense of proven, traditional methods.  In the long run, that approach may pay off, but it's an expensive and risky experiment.  There is a such thing as true inclusiveness, but enforcing equality on a cohort that is inherently unequal merely excludes all equally.  The chinese understand this.  Students there are tracked and segregated early on.  The Germans understand this as well.  And the French and the Koreans and the Argentinians.  We, too, understood it at one time.  There was a time, no so long ago, when "tracking" wasn't a dirty word.

One sure way to make all trees equal in height is to cut them all down. 

[porker]

Well, I'd say a scrapoer for sanity.  A rascal for reason.  Coo-coo for Coco-puffs, even.

We have a link to a 52-second excerpt from a Santorum speech presented in a thread with a leering, tabloid title, put there by an extremely inflammatory and sensationalistic poster.  (Ever try to get a job at Fox News, px?  You're reporting style is right up their alley.) 

Now, Rick Santorum couched his analysis in language that I would not have chosen.  Then again, I am not running for political office in the USA, so I don't have to boil away shades of grey in a little crucible in order to be left with black and white soundbites, digestible to paranoid, overweight, underemployed American audiences.  So I can get away with rambling, thoughful analyses.

Nevertheless, what he said is true.  We suck at history.  You've probably seen the data that shows how many US high school grads point to Russia as the enemy in WWII.  And we suck at geography.  You've also no doubt seen the polls that show how few Americans could point to Iraq on a globe even as 52% of us supported the invasion.  And if you like to place blame--as opposed to, say, correcting the fundamental, underlying problems--then there's plenty to go around.  Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation certainly placed such a high priority on mathematics and reading, setting specific goals and offering material rewards for demonstration of proficiency in those areas, that geography, history, science, art, music, foreign language, and all the other subjects suffered from lack of funding and lack of focus. 

But the truth is that don't know our history.  And elevating historical figures based solely on superficial attributes that have placed them in underrepresented classes does no one any good, least of all those members of underrepresented classes.  Bush did few things right, but his recognition of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" was evidence that he wanted to at least try to rectify the huge education gap between these underrepresented groups and the mainstream.  But his insistence on pushing math and reading at the expense of other subjects--subjects like history and geography in which we Americans were already weak--was not the best approach.

It seems to me that Santorum was mostly trying to speak to a friendly audience and get them worked up.  You can't blame him for that.  Politicians of all stripes do that.  But if I look at that 52-second excerpt, and ask myself the question, "Is anything he said false?" then I'd have to answer, "No.  Poorly-worded, maybe, and overly simplified, but not false."  There is a view in primary and secondary education circles that we should take a new approach to learning, and that this approach should emphasize "inclusiveness" at the expense of proven, traditional methods.  In the long run, that approach may pay off, but it's an expensive and risky experiment.  There is a such thing as true inclusiveness, but enforcing equality on a cohort that is inherently unequal merely excludes all equally.  The chinese understand this.  Students there are tracked and segregated early on.  The Germans understand this as well.  And the French and the Koreans and the Argentinians.  We, too, understood it at one time.  There was a time, no so long ago, when "tracking" wasn't a dirty word.

One sure way to make all trees equal in height is to cut them all down. 

Angus, perhaps we agree more than we disagree. I'm a 19 year-old "punk" with a tendency to be combative and use inflammatory language to prove a point. With that said, I greatly respect opinions coming from experts in their field, so I'll defer to your experience in higher education.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I wasn't discounting Santorum’s comments about history because he’s a bigot – I was merely pointing out that because bigotry is, in my estimation, so prolific in American culture that perhaps a bit more “political correctness” is appropriate. And what appears too PC to you has probably been influenced by your values and experiences (which may themselves be rooted in bigotry!) Just as you dislike how liberals discredit Santorum’s points about education because of his comments about homosexuality, I dislike how conservatives automatically discount progressive viewpoints that stand up for the rights of groups that have repeatedly been denied the right to stand up for themselves just because they are deemed “too PC.”

I agree with the grunt of your post. We don’t focus enough on geography, history, science, art, music, foreign language, etc. That’s fine. I’m just curious why you blame this all on political correctness. Like I mentioned before, I think we should be critical of sexist undertones that exist in the English language. If that means writing “he or she” then I don’t see what the big deal is. If using foreign names in addition to traditional English names creates an atmosphere of tolerance, then so be it. I’m not an expert, but if you have better examples of how *political correctness* in particular is destroying our education system, I’m all ears.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

[Badger]

Why do I feel like Santourm is going to announce one day that we've all been punked and his entire political career was an extended practical joke?

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

It was conservatives that championed civil rights (Coolidge for Native Americans, JFK in a lot of ways for African Americans) Liberals like Wallace and LBJ were racists. Need I also remind you that Goldwater was pro-civil rights but felt that the issue should be handled at the state level. It was a conservative (Susan B. Anthony) who led the charge for women to get the righ to vote.

LBJ was a centrist that conservatives seem to love nowadays. Lyndon Johnson was originally racist but turned around when he became president. Civil rights were championed by liberals/moderates, not by most conservatives. The Northeast voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where southerners mostly voted against it. The Republicans were more liberal/moderate back in 1964 then they are today.

[angus]

Angus, perhaps we agree more than we disagree. I'm a 19 year-old "punk" with a tendency to be combative and use inflammatory language to prove a point.

Well, I'm a 44-year-old punk who likes to get tanked up and argue policy.  Especially education policy.  We don't have lots of those threads, but when we do I generally cough up my opinion.

Don't let old farts like me push you around though.  You are certainly entitled to your own opinions.  But "tolerance" is a sad goal.  "I tolerate you."  That's hardly a ringing endorsement.  On the other hand, it's probably better than "I do not tolerate you."   Still, political correctness is a poor substitute for genuine cultural sensitivity, and too often it gets in the way of honest debate. 

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having foreign names in test questions.  (My own surname is Slavic, and I'm rather used to mispronunciations.)  And there's nothing wrong with having examples of girls as well as boys.  Today, for example, I took an American REd Cross CPR certification class.  I noticed that both the teacher and the voice in the video we watched never said "he or she."  It was refreshing.  When the teacher asked us to do something, she'd say "Now, each student should take his mannequin and practice the following steps."  In many examples, the video would say, "When a person does this, he is usually...."  And other times they'd say, "She does this..."   Mix it up a little if you like, and throw in some female examples.  Nothing wrong with that.  But keep it simple and gramatically correct.  Otherwise, it becomes a distraction. 

But back to Santorum, he's just saying that he thinks that we have let our feigned sensitivity get in the way of curriculum.  We certainly have let something get in its way. 

Welcome to the forum. 

[patrick1]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

How droll...

[Badger]

Angus, perhaps we agree more than we disagree. I'm a 19 year-old "punk" with a tendency to be combative and use inflammatory language to prove a point.

Well, I'm a 44-year-old punk who likes to get tanked up and argue policy.  Especially education policy.  We don't have lots of those threads, but when we do I generally cough up my opinion.

Don't let old farts like me push you around though.  You are certainly entitled to your own opinions.  But "tolerance" is a sad goal.  "I tolerate you."  That's hardly a ringing endorsement.  On the other hand, it's probably better than "I do not tolerate you."   Still, political correctness is a poor substitute for genuine cultural sensitivity, and too often it gets in the way of honest debate. 

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having foreign names in test questions.  (My own surname is Slavic, and I'm rather used to mispronunciations.)  And there's nothing wrong with having examples of girls as well as boys.  Today, for example, I took an American REd Cross CPR certification class.  I noticed that both the teacher and the voice in the video we watched never said "he or she."  It was refreshing.  When the teacher asked us to do something, she'd say "Now, each student should take his mannequin and practice the following steps."  In many examples, the video would say, "When a person does this, he is usually...."  And other times they'd say, "She does this..."   Mix it up a little if you like, and throw in some female examples.  Nothing wrong with that.  But keep it simple and gramatically correct.  Otherwise, it becomes a distraction. 

But back to Santorum, he's just saying that he thinks that we have let our feigned sensitivity get in the way of curriculum.  We certainly have let something get in its way. 

Welcome to the forum. 

That's reading a lot into Santorum's typically asinine statement to say it was a mere attack on political correctness. He is reading poor history comprehension into a liberal plot to make children more malable. That's jaw droppingly ignorant.

Of course as the recent Texas textbook debate showed, the main source of politically correct rewriting of Amercian history is being engaged in by the right.

[angus]

Malleable?  Maybe, open minded.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.

For example, we used to think that economic progress for all, or at least for the average among us, comes only with increasing democracy, increasing transparency, and increasing industrialization.  And for a couple of centuries all the evidence suggest that this was the way.  Then China wakes up after its four-century nap and shows another way.  Suddenly we are faced with the reality that there is more than one way to achieve peace and prosperity for all.  The American Model is not the only path.  It's good to let our schoolchildren understand this.  It's helpful to teach our schoolchildren to wrap their minds around exotic concepts, and a malleable mind lends itself to such wrapping.

But we're putting the cart before the horse.  It's sort of like Maslow's triangle on a large scale.  A sociological hierarchy of needs.  Just as an individual needs food before he can start thinking about shelter and clothing, and shelter and clothing before he can start to think about self-actualization, so do societies need the basics, before they can begin to flourish.  Sociologists have technical terms for these concepts, but I forget them.  Anyway, just as one cannot be expected to wax philosophic while his belly groans with hunger, neither can a population begin to contemplate the advantages and disadvantages of various forms of government while many of its numbers are out of work owing to the fact that it hasn't kept up educationally with folks in far-flung places who not only are better at solving problems, but who will do so at a fraction of the price that ours will.

We need to focus on our understanding of history and geography as well as math and science before we worry about the subtleties and nuances of relative morality.  You don't teach primary school children that Washington grew hemp or Socrates liked showing up at parties with nine-year-old boys on his arm.   You teach them that Washington was a stud a gentleman who established the two-term presidency, and Socrates was a brilliant philosopher who taught us self-reflection.  Later, in university, you can get into the gritty details of their lives, or the wounds they may have inflected upon others.

And while we're at it, would it kill them to learn to pledge allegiance to the flag?

Malleability in the absence of grounding is basically silly putty.  And you can't build a structure with silly putty.  You need a few bricks as well.

[angus]

I realize I didn't respond to your comments about the history textbook situation in Texas.  I think I probably agree with you about that.  We have had a thread about that on this forum, and I remember pointing out that Texas public school officials have a big effect on textbooks nationally.    So obviously we are all concerned about that situation.  I'm certainly not defending their decisions.  But you can't conflate that with anything Santorum was saying.  He seems to be suggesting a return to tradition, which is not quite what the Texas legislature did.  There, the state school board wanted to erase Jefferson from the books in order to make more room for Reagan.  I say put 'em both in.  There, they claim that Country music is an important modern cultural movement, but hip-hop isn't.  I say that they're both worth mentioning when you get to the history of musical forms.  There, they claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy was a major hero.  I say that we shouldn't call him a hero or a villian, but point out what he did, analyze its effect on our society, and let the children decide for themselves whether he was a hero or a villian, both, or neither.  I don't think you can automatically assume that Santorum wants the Texas School Board writing his children's books.  But he also doesn't want the Vermont School Board writing his children's schoolbooks.  It's fair enough. 

[pbrower2a]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

No, he is for the people who never fear having to do any work that poses either a threat of injury or muscle pain.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

No, he is for the people who never fear having to do any work that poses either a threat of injury or muscle pain.

Well, considering the fact that you never work your brain - meaning no threat to injure it - we'll be sure to get you a Santorum 2012 bumper sticker right away.

[metalhead2]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

No, he is for the people who never fear having to do any work that poses either a threat of injury or muscle pain.

Well, considering the fact that you never work your brain - meaning no threat to injure it - we'll be sure to get you a Santorum 2012 bumper sticker right away.

He can stick it on his rear bumper, I presume?

[The Mikado]

The critical irony shortage in Angus' posts in this thread makes them almost painful to read.  I require a certain level of irony and sarcasm in my reading material, and earnest praise of wholesome, "traditional" education (as if schoolboys in the 19th century or prior weren't taught that Socrates liked to screw young boys) has the same effect on me that water did on the Wicked Witch of the West.

[The Dowager Mod]

Well thank god we have the Rickster to protect us from these things!

[King]

I don't get why conservatives are so damn paranoid about everything.  Nobody cares about brainwashing their inbred children.  It's quite obvious that it just doesn't take.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Santorum is for hard-working Americans who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

How droll...

Folks are talking about Obama pulling an October Surprise, but there’s no bigger surprise than a Santorum Surprise.