NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering why so many liberals seem to have no faith in government and think that it is composed solely of greedy politicians whose sole concern is the acquisition of more wealth, morality be damned. Surely they're not born so cynical with so much hatred for our democratic system of government. Obviously, the liberal media is one factor, but I think there is a more pervasive problem in society. Young children are not exposed to a sufficient, healthy measure of governmental rhetoric. All they hear about is how the government "lied" without getting the benefit of an alternate viewpoint unless they actively search for one from such sites as the official White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/). How to rectify this problem is the question. There's no way that you can force somebody to listen to the inner workings and rationale of government, is there? And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. 30 minutes each day should be appropriated to a forum in which the government can broadcast a message talking about its latest decisions and the reasoning which led to them. The liberal media chastised Bush for lying about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda. But did he (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html)?
Knowing one side of the story and not the other tends to drive young, innocent children towards liberality. The government should have a chance to explain to gullible children who would otherwise believe liberal propaganda why they do what they do, in the interest of fairness. Here is how I propose this class should be conducted. First, a 20 minute video should be shown which is a recap of what happened in Washington the previous day, and why. The video would be produced by the current administration, whether Republican or Democrat. Then, there should be a discussion about the contents of the video. Children debate what they heard on the tape and say whether they agree or disagree. Unbeknowest to the students, there would be a hidden tape recorder in the room recording everything they say. Now, I know this sounds a bit Big-Brother-ish, but it's not like that at all. There would be no negative consequences for bad-mouthing the government. However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position. That way, we'll have a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country.

I was wondering why so many liberals seem to have no faith in government and think that it is composed solely of greedy politicians whose sole concern is the acquisition of more wealth, morality be damned. Surely they're not born so cynical with so much hatred for our democratic system of government. Obviously, the liberal media is one factor, but I think there is a more pervasive problem in society. Young children are not exposed to a sufficient, healthy measure of governmental rhetoric. All they hear about is how the government "lied" without getting the benefit of an alternate viewpoint unless they actively search for one from such sites as the official White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/). How to rectify this problem is the question. There's no way that you can force somebody to listen to the inner workings and rationale of government, is there? And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. 30 minutes each day should be appropriated to a forum in which the government can broadcast a message talking about its latest decisions and the reasoning which led to them. The liberal media chastised Bush for lying about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda. But did he (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html)?
Knowing one side of the story and not the other tends to drive young, innocent children towards liberality. The government should have a chance to explain to gullible children who would otherwise believe liberal propaganda why they do what they do, in the interest of fairness. Here is how I propose this class should be conducted. First, a 20 minute video should be shown which is a recap of what happened in Washington the previous day, and why. The video would be produced by the current administration, whether Republican or Democrat. Then, there should be a discussion about the contents of the video. Children debate what they heard on the tape and say whether they agree or disagree. Unbeknowest to the students, there would be a hidden tape recorder in the room recording everything they say. Now, I know this sounds a bit Big-Brother-ish, but it's not like that at all. There would be no negative consequences for bad-mouthing the government. However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position. That way, we'll have a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country.


Ann Coulter? Is that you?

Ann Coulter? Is that you?

I wish.

So you plan to make children watch government propaganda, and any who fail to "grasp what the video tells them" are made to watch extra propaganda? You claim that using information from a single source, and a biased one at that, is better than looking up the story on a few different news networks and working out the truth?

And then you are stupid enough to claim that all this propaganda forced down the throats of children will create "a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country"?

To be honest, I'd much rather be "brainwashed" by the media (who are far more neutral than your persecution complex would have you believe) than actually brainwashed by the government. Especially as the "prouder to live in our great country" makes it sound as if you plan to turn people into mindless, blindly nationalist drones.


But now that I've got the argument out of the way: are you joking? This whole thing strikes me as a joke. Not a particularly good one, but a joke nonetheless. In fact, I'm about 70% certain it is.

I wish.

Sorry. I smelled something senseless and inflamatory and I just assumed...

...nevermind. :p

So you plan to make children watch government propaganda, and any who fail to "grasp what the video tells them" are made to watch extra propaganda? You claim that using information from a single source, and a biased one at that, is better than looking up the story on a few different news networks and working out the truth?

The government is not a biased source. Remember, anyone can freely watch the video. If there is even so much as a hint of propaganda or bias, there will be hell to pay for the government, courtesy of the media. No, the video will have to be accurate because many people will judge the level of "corruption" in the government based on those videos -- it will be a way of keeping the government in check. The videos aren't going to say "Bush is God" or "Communism is good." They are going to be objective explanations of the news -- it will keep children more informed by telling them not only what happened, but why.

And then you are stupid enough to claim that all this propaganda forced down the throats of children will create "a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country"?

It's not propaganda -- it is important for children to understand what goes on behind the scenes and why certain bills are passed. Again, as I said, all administrations would have an equal shot at it, so it would not be conservative or liberal propaganda. Simply a chance for the govenrment to explain why it does what it does -- do you think that children should be left with a skewed impression of what the government does (ie, they do it for the money) or do you think that it's better they learn the trurth behind the rationale?

are you joking?

Hardly.

Big Brother Is Watching You

I was wondering why so many liberals

Query: what happens to all the other political orientations ? The real world is slightly more complex than "conservative" and "liberal".

Knowing one side of the story and not the other tends to drive young, innocent children towards liberality.

Actually it pushes them to being very religious and not trusting anything that conflicts with their beliefs.
I do however agree with you (shock horror) that teaching only one side is a bad thing which should be corrected.

Aside: Mr. Paragraph wants to be your friend.

I think it's interesting the way Realamerica claims in his first sentence that liberals have no faith in government when usually it's the liberals who are called fans of big government and who expect that government can solve all the world's problems. After all, it was Reagan who said government can't solve problems because it is the problem.

It's a cute rhetorical trick. By claiming that liberals have no faith in government, he associates Republicans and conservatism with government, making them the default for the discussion, and so while he means that liberals have no faith in Republicans and modern conservatism--a justifiable and quite reasonable point of view--he makes it sound as though liberals are a bunch of government hating traitors who need to be sent to re-education camps.

By the way, when I said "interesting" in the first line, I meant interesting in the same way that watching a train hitting a short school bus is interesting.

Ann Coulter? Is that you?
No, it is Corny or USBarryAlpenWaterStock. :p

And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. 30 minutes each day should be appropriated to a forum in which the government can broadcast a message talking about its latest decisions and the reasoning which led to them.

And what needless class do you intend to ditch to find time for this?

I was wondering why so many liberals seem to have no faith in government and think that it is composed solely of greedy politicians whose sole concern is the acquisition of more wealth, morality be damned. Surely they're not born so cynical with so much hatred for our democratic system of government.

And here I thought Conservatives were supposed be getting government off our backs, and liberals loved big government.


Obviously, the liberal media is one factor, but I think there is a more pervasive problem in society. Young children are not exposed to a sufficient, healthy measure of governmental rhetoric. All they hear about is how the government "lied" without getting the benefit of an alternate viewpoint unless they actively search for one from such sites as the official White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/).

Damn that market driven media and the sorry lack of governmnet propaganda aimed at kids.

How to rectify this problem is the question. There's no way that you can force somebody to listen to the inner workings and rationale of government, is there? And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. 30 minutes each day should be appropriated to a forum in which the government can broadcast a message talking about its latest decisions and the reasoning which led to them. The liberal media chastised Bush for lying about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda. But did he (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html)?
Knowing one side of the story and not the other tends to drive young, innocent children towards liberality. The government should have a chance to explain to gullible children who would otherwise believe liberal propaganda why they do what they do, in the interest of fairness.

Obviously gullible kids need to be persuaded by propaganda. Its not like their gullibility will make them any more likely to believe said propaganda.

Here is how I propose this class should be conducted. First, a 20 minute video should be shown which is a recap of what happened in Washington the previous day, and why. The video would be produced by the current administration, whether Republican or Democrat. Then, there should be a discussion about the contents of the video. Children debate what they heard on the tape and say whether they agree or disagree. Unbeknowest to the students, there would be a hidden tape recorder in the room recording everything they say. Now, I know this sounds a bit Big-Brother-ish, but it's not like that at all. There would be no negative consequences for bad-mouthing the government. However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position. That way, we'll have a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country.

We need government brainwashing to offset media brainwashing. Those who are resistant will be subject to more reeducation camps...er I mean will get extra attention. Also its not like these tapes will be saved and possibly used against the kids when they reach adulthood, right?

And what needless class do you intend to ditch to find time for this?And what do you do when the government refuses to give the actual reasons for why it passed legislation/ After all, they can't actually come out and say "we passed this law because we want XYZ Corporation to give us lobbying jobs when we leave Congress in two years."

First, a 20 minute video should be shown which is a recap of what happened in Washington the previous day, and why.

RealAmerica believes that the young people of the Colonies don't watch enough TV, and should be forced by law to spend more time in front of the idiot box.

And what needless class do you intend to ditch to find time for this?

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary, I respect the rights of the individual states and schools to make up their own minds about which classes they should remove to make way for this class. I'm not a fan of a big, centralized government. Usually, there are 8 periods in a day as well as a break period. I'd suggest taking off 5 minutes from the break period and 3.125 minutes off all the other periods to make way.

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary, I respect the rights of the individual states and schools to make up their own minds about which classes they should remove to make way for this class. I'm not a fan of a big, centralized government. Usually, there are 8 periods in a day as well as a break period. I'd suggest taking off 5 minutes from the break period and 3.125 minutes off all the other periods to make way.

You did realize that 1984 was a novel and not a textbook on good government, right?

I wish.
Done:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/c/coulter_adamsapple.jpg

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary, I respect the rights of the individual states and schools to make up their own minds about which classes they should remove to make way for this class. I'm not a fan of a big, centralized government. Usually, there are 8 periods in a day as well as a break period. I'd suggest taking off 5 minutes from the break period and 3.125 minutes off all the other periods to make way.

How long is a standard period? Half an hour? Forty minutes? You are suggesting that the youth of America receive about a tenth less schooling in all other subjects to make way for your hobby-horse? Doesn't that count as at least a year of school when you total it all up over the course of their education?

I always thought liberals just like civil rights and things like that….

And what about the other parties don’t they get videos? You already have a two party system where both parties are the same do you really want to start re-education programmes like North Korea?

You did realize that 1984 was a novel and not a textbook on good government, right?

Its a common mistake.The government of 1984 is so pleasant and utopian.

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary

which ones?

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary, I respect the rights of the individual states and schools to make up their own minds about which classes they should remove to make way for this class. I'm not a fan of a big, centralized government. Usually, there are 8 periods in a day as well as a break period. I'd suggest taking off 5 minutes from the break period and 3.125 minutes off all the other periods to make way.

Take 3.125 minutes off the end of a class? I can see it now: period 3 starting at 2:17 34.32 seconds...

You could have a maths lesson just learning when all the lessons start and stop.

i think that highschool students should be required to watch the daily show every day (every day that its new) with extra credit given for watching the colbert report.

they could agree or disagree, it doesnt matter, at least they would be encouraged to look behind the bullshit that ALL politicians put out. maybe we would raise a generation of citizens who are actually offended when they realize that "they think we are retarded"

You could have a maths lesson just learning when all the lessons start and stop.

Yes, and that additional math lesson would more than make up for the time missed. It all works out in the end. :)

You did realize that 1984 was a novel and not a textbook on good government, right?

You do realize that I am not advocating a government similar to the one found in 1984 -- I only want to make the populace more informed of what goes on behind the scenes in the government and of the current policies in general. They can agree or disagree, but at least they'll have an informed opinion.

Yes, and that additional math lesson would more than make up for the time missed. It all works out in the end. :)

You could have the time done as a simultaneous equation to make it more interesting. Or even learn Integration learning when Assembly finishes.

Big Brother Is Watching You

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery Is Freedom
----------------------------------------------------

Never.

This class is a horrible excuse to begin brainwashing the youths. What is next on your list of ideas?

You do realize that I am not advocating a government similar to the one found in 1984 -- I only want to make the populace more informed of what goes on behind the scenes in the government and of the current policies in general. They can agree or disagree, but at least they'll have an informed opinion.

Your words: However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position.

If you don't see what's Big Brotherish about that, then you need to reread the book.

That way, we'll have a more educated society that's not brainwashed by the media and all opinions can be aired freely and people are prouder to live in our great country.Erp! Wrong! In order to achieve what you're looking to get, you need to stop watching American news broadcasts.

Yes, and that additional math lesson would more than make up for the time missed. It all works out in the end. :)

The American education system is so poor that learning to count in blocks of seven-and-a-half second chunks makes up for more than an entire school year of wasted time?

RealAmerica's agenda: less time for real classes, more time in front of the tube.

Your words: However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position.

If you don't see what's Big Brotherish about that, then you need to reread the book.

Don't forget the hidden microphone...

You do realize that I am not advocating a government similar to the one found in 1984 -- I only want to make the populace more informed of what goes on behind the scenes in the government and of the current policies in general. They can agree or disagree, but at least they'll have an informed opinion.Well, no. You haven't asked us all to wear overalls and join The Party...

Now that is truly funny.

The media....more neutral......That is just so hilarious.

I only want to make the populace more informed of what goes on behind the scenes in the government and of the current policies in general. They can agree or disagree, but at least they'll have an informed opinion.

However, under your system they have no real choice as to whether they become more informed or not, and face censure, discipline and punishment if they do not?

Don't forget the hidden microphone...

What I want to know is what poor slob is going to get the job of listening back to a ten minute tape from each and every class across the nation each and every school day, and how the hell they are meant to be able to recognise the vocies on the tape. Where's the funding for this job from hell coming from?

What I want to know is what poor slob is going to get the job of listening back to a ten minute tape from each and every class across the nation each and every school day, and how the hell they are meant to be able to recognise the vocies on the tape. Where's the funding for this job from hell coming from?Same place it always does--tax cuts for the wealthy. ;)

how the hell they are meant to be able to recognise the vocies on the tape

simple kids will be encouraged to inform on others

Big Brother Is Watching You

In Soviet Russia, You watch Big Brother!

Your words: However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position.

If you don't see what's Big Brotherish about that, then you need to reread the book.

Exactly. It's be difficult to try to be more Orwellian than this.

Now that is truly funny.

The media....more neutral......That is just so hilarious.
Ya huh. Fox News, and Big Bad Bill balance out all the Laberal Outlets.

What I want to know is what poor slob is going to get the job of listening back to a ten minute tape from each and every class across the nation each and every school day, and how the hell they are meant to be able to recognise the vocies on the tape. Where's the funding for this job from hell coming from?

That will be the job of the teachers. If they recognize that a student is failing to grasp the concepts, he/she will first take steps to rectify the problem. If it proves impossible, the government would be contacted. I'm not saying that extra attention should be given to those who don't agree, just to those that don't understand. For example, if someone says "the Iraq War is bad because the sky is pink," remedial action would be taken. However, if they said "the Iraq War is bad because the amount of lives lost is unjustifiable" they might not be given additional attention.

Your words: However, a little remedial action would be required for the children that consistently fail to grasp what the video tells them. Nothing bad, just a little extra attention and a chance for the government to more fully explain its position.

If you don't see what's Big Brotherish about that, then you need to reread the book.

It's not Big-Brother-ish at all. Would you claim that giving students who fail math extra attention is also symbolic of 1984? Surely not! This class is to be treated like any other class -- if you do poorly, steps must be taken to correct your viewpoint and inform you. However, that does not mean that governmental views will be forced upon you -- only that an adequate command of the logic of the government is necessary. say that "Bush is wiretapping Americans because he wants to find out if people prefer chihuahuas or golden retrievers" would be indicative of an elementary failure to grasp the concepts involved, just like in any other class.

That will be the job of the teachers. If they recognize that a student is failing to grasp the concepts, he/she will first take steps to rectify the problem. If it proves impossible, the government would be contacted. I'm not saying that extra attention should be given to those who don't agree, just to those that don't understand. For example, if someone says "the Iraq War is bad because the sky is pink," remedial action would be taken. However, if they said "the Iraq War is bad because the amount of lives lost is unjustifiable" they might not be given additional attention.So, what's next on the list? Handing the government your guns?

That will be the job of the teachers. If they recognize that a student is failing to grasp the concepts, he/she will first take steps to rectify the problem. If it proves impossible, the government would be contacted.

If it is the job of the teachers, who are there in the room as the discussion takes place, why tape the proceedings?

What exactly do you mean by 'remedial action'?

You want the government to have a list of six year old subversives?

For example, if someone says "the Iraq War is bad because the sky is pink," remedial action would be taken. However, if they said "the Iraq War is bad because the amount of lives lost is unjustifiable" they might not be given additional attention.

Cagey answer there: remedial action is applied if someone misapplies logic, and sometimes applied if someone correctly strings together an argument, but one which is at odds with government policy?

RealAmerica, are you planning that all school children receive the same video that they are forced to watch? Will it be targetted at the six year olds or the sixteen year olds?

So, what's next on the list? Handing the government your guns?

Of course not. I am a firm believer in our constitutional rights -- especially the 2nd Amendment.

Question: What happens if America elects a completely Democratic government in 2008? Would you still want them to have to have this class? What would you do? Create another medium for them to recieve right wing propaganda?

This ends at mandatory church service, doesn't it?

So, what's next on the list? Handing the government your guns?
Not like they matter anyways. I have yet so see someone take down an F16 with a shotgun.

say that "Bush is wiretapping Americans because he wants to find out if people prefer chihuahuas or golden retrievers" would be indicative of an elementary failure to grasp the concepts involved, just like in any other class.

You have made the assumption that the real motivation behind the actions of the dude in the White House isn't concerned with pet preferences. How do we know this to be true?

Of course not. I am a firm believer in our constitutional rights -- especially the 2nd Amendment.If you trust the government enough to have it directly teach children, why don't you trust them with your guns?

If you trust the government enough to have it directly teach children, why don't you trust them with your guns?

Guns are more dangerous than minds. FACT!

If it is the job of the teachers, who are there in the room as the discussion takes place, why tape the proceedings?

Sometimes, a teacher will prove unable to handle a particularly unruly child. Children may often be perverse simply for the sake of being troublemakers. If that is the case, the government would be contacted and given a copy of the tape for internal review. If the child is deemed inadequate, a government official would be dispatched to have a "talk" with the child and try to correct his/her errors in thinking. If the child still does not understand, he/she will, unfortunately, fail.

and sometimes applied if someone correctly strings together an argument, but one which is at odds with government policy?

No, of course not, dissent is necessary for democracy. However, sometimes "dissent" is completely ill-grounded and stupid. For example, if a child says that the minimum wage should be raised to $1000 dollars per hour, remedial actions needs to be taken to explain to the student the error of his/her ways. If the student says it needs to be raised to $7 dollars per hour, that would be acceptable.

RealAmerica, are you planning that all school children receive the same video that they are forced to watch? Will it be targetted at the six year olds or the sixteen year olds?

Yes, and it would be targeted at middle-schoolers.

That will be the job of the teachers. If they recognize that a student is failing to grasp the concepts, he/she will first take steps to rectify the problem. If it proves impossible, the government would be contacted. I'm not saying that extra attention should be given to those who don't agree, just to those that don't understand. For example, if someone says "the Iraq War is bad because the sky is pink," remedial action would be taken. However, if they said "the Iraq War is bad because the amount of lives lost is unjustifiable" they might not be given additional attention.

Congratulations citizen! For this double-plus-good-think plan you have earned the Minitrue Seal of Approval.

http://www.hall-of-mirrors.com/labyrinth/Minitrue.gif

Long live Big Brother!

Question: What happens if America elects a completely Democratic government in 2008? Would you still want them to have to have this class? What would you do? Create another medium for them to recieve right wing propaganda?

No, of course not. I want the children to hear what the government has to say, whether Democratic or Republican.

You have made the assumption that the real motivation behind the actions of the dude in the White House isn't concerned with pet preferences. How do we know this to be true?

Oh, for the sake of national security, we must know who the dog people and the cat people are. *nod*

Sometimes, a teacher will prove unable to handle a particularly unruly child. Children may often be perverse simply for the sake of being troublemakers. If that is the case, the government would be contacted and given a copy of the tape for internal review. If the child is deemed inadequate, a government official would be dispatched to have a "talk" with the child and try to correct his/her errors in thinking. If the child still does not understand, he/she will, unfortunately, fail.

Can we call it the Ministry of Love?

You have made the assumption that the real motivation behind the actions of the dude in the White House isn't concerned with pet preferences. How do we know this to be true?

There is no way of ascertaining that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it would be an unreasonable position to hold. It may be possible that George Washington died in 1775 and that a look-alike assumed his place, but that it a completely unreasonable viewpoint, and you would be severely fined if you put that on a history essay. The same applies to the civic education class.

No, of course not. I want the children to hear what the government has to say, whether Democratic or Republican.

Then why didn't you just say that instead of ranting about how the evil liberal media is turning holy god fearing American children into unholy fags?

Sometimes, a teacher will prove unable to handle a particularly unruly child. Children may often be perverse simply for the sake of being troublemakers. If that is the case, the government would be contacted and given a copy of the tape for internal review. If the child is deemed inadequate, a government official would be dispatched to have a "talk" with the child and try to correct his/her errors in thinking. If the child still does not understand, he/she will, unfortunately, fail.

Where is the connection between being unruly and failing to display a grasp of governmental activity?

By "talk" you don't mean 'talk', do you?



No, of course not, dissent is necessary for democracy. However, sometimes "dissent" is completely ill-grounded and stupid. For example, if a child says that the minimum wage should be raised to $1000 dollars per hour, remedial actions needs to be taken to explain to the student the error of his/her ways. If the student says it needs to be raised to $7 dollars per hour, that would be acceptable.



So you support the minimum wage?



You stated earlier - However, if they said "the Iraq War is bad because the amount of lives lost is unjustifiable" they might not be given additional attention - you appear to class this argument against the War in Iraq as requiring remedial action in some cases. Why?


Yes, and it would be targeted at middle-schoolers.[/QUOTE]

So, for the first few years of school the youngsters are going to be subjected to a load of videos which will go straight over their heads, and then in the last few years of school they will be subjected to watered down government for dummies videos?

If you trust the government enough to have it directly teach children, why don't you trust them with your guns?

Because if you find the tapes to be heavily biased propaganda, you can petition the government to change them. If it refuses, you can rebel against the government. However, if they take your guns and then broadcast heavily biased propaganda, there is absolutely nothing you can do to fight back.

It's not Big-Brother-ish at all. Would you claim that giving students who fail math extra attention is also symbolic of 1984? Surely not! This class is to be treated like any other class -- if you do poorly, steps must be taken to correct your viewpoint and inform you. However, that does not mean that governmental views will be forced upon you -- only that an adequate command of the logic of the government is necessary. say that "Bush is wiretapping Americans because he wants to find out if people prefer chihuahuas or golden retrievers" would be indicative of an elementary failure to grasp the concepts involved, just like in any other class.

That you can't graps the difference between algebra and government propaganda is truly frightening. That you have the potential to breed is even more frightening.

No, of course not, dissent is necessary for democracy. However, sometimes "dissent" is completely ill-grounded and stupid. For example, if a child says that the minimum wage should be raised to $1000 dollars per hour, remedial actions needs to be taken to explain to the student the error of his/her ways. If the student says it needs to be raised to $7 dollars per hour, that would be acceptable.
How about an example you will actually hear?

Iraq was all about oil.
There are no weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraqi citizens do not want us there.
We will not be treated as liberators.

Which will get 'fixed'? Consider 2 and 4 before the war.

Then why didn't you just say that instead of ranting about how the evil liberal media is turning holy god fearing American children into unholy fags?

Because it is. Well, not in those words exactly.

OP snip
A few problems:

First, your rather loose use of the term "liberal" to encompass people that distrust the government and politicians. Besides the fact that anyone with a healthy dose of cynicism is not automatically liberal, reducing reliance on the government because of distrust in it has traditionally been a conservative trait. As others in the thread have mentioned, even conservative Presidents like Reagan often remarked on the dangers of the government.

Second, the format of the "class". While you seem to be trying to allow for a counterpoint to what you see as an anti-government bias in the media today, you're response is to force the government view on children. Exposure to media viewpoints is voluntary, and most kids in public school are probably spending more time on MTV than CNN. As long as you're trying to present a fair debate, then add in a counterpoint during this "class" period to make sure the students don't become oversaturated with the government viewpoint.

Also, while you may not see recording the kid's comments without their knowledge and requiring remedial actions for the ones that "don't get it" as Big Brother-ish, I think most other Americans would see it as just that. This is about education, after all, not the enforced understanding of a single viewpoint.

Finally, your underlying assumption that media is inherently biased against the government and politicans to the point that enforced dialogue is necessary. There are plenty of viewpoints presented in the media today, and grouping stations like Fox alongside CNN and MSNBC as part of a homogenous group that universally disparages the government and politicians seems to be very uninformed.

That you can't graps the difference between algebra and government propaganda is truly frightening. That you have the potential to breed is even more frightening.

It's not propaganda -- it is a look into the inner workings of government. The government expounds on the logic of its actions, and you must understand the logic. If you disagree, that's perfectly OK. Algebra and civic education are two classes based on two different kinds of logic. There is nothing frightening about that.

Why not just let children learn how to make their own decisions? That, and issuing a "license to vote" that everyone must pass a political-knowledge test to get...

Because if you find the tapes to be heavily biased propaganda, you can petition the government to change them. If it refuses, you can rebel against the government. However, if they take your guns and then broadcast heavily biased propaganda, there is absolutely nothing you can do to fight back.
Again, a bunch of men with guns vs an F16. Unless the pilot plows into the side of a building, the F16 will always win.

Sometimes, a teacher will prove unable to handle a particularly unruly child. Children may often be perverse simply for the sake of being troublemakers. If that is the case, the government would be contacted and given a copy of the tape for internal review. If the child is deemed inadequate, a government official would be dispatched to have a "talk" with the child and try to correct his/her errors in thinking. If the child still does not understand, he/she will, unfortunately, fail. No.

No, of course not, dissent is necessary for democracy. However, sometimes "dissent" is completely ill-grounded and stupid. For example, if a child says that the minimum wage should be raised to $1000 dollars per hour, remedial actions needs to be taken to explain to the student the error of his/her ways. If the student says it needs to be raised to $7 dollars per hour, that would be acceptable.Read what you wrote. We're talking about children here.

It may be possible that George Washington died in 1775 and that a look-alike assumed his place, but that it a completely unreasonable viewpoint, and you would be severely fined if you put that on a history essay. The same applies to the civic education class.

Damn right that is an unreasonable viewpoint. Any fool knows that the switch between George Washington and Adam Weishaupt took place in 1787. To suggest it took place a full twelve years earlier is clearly ludicrous.

It's not propaganda -- it is a look into the inner workings of government. The government expounds on the logic of its actions, and you must understand the logic. If you disagree, that's perfectly OK. Algebra and civic education are two classes based on two different kinds of logic. There is nothing frightening about that.You don't need to involve the government in giving people a look into the inner workings of it.

I was wondering why so many liberals seem to have no faith in government and think that it is composed solely of greedy politicians whose sole concern is the acquisition of more wealth, morality be damned. Surely they're not born so cynical with so much hatred for our democratic system of government. Obviously, the liberal media is one factor, but I think there is a more pervasive problem in society. Young children are not exposed to a sufficient, healthy measure of governmental rhetoric. All they hear about is how the government "lied" without getting the benefit of an alternate viewpoint unless they actively search for one from such sites as the official White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/). How to rectify this problem is the question. There's no way that you can force somebody to listen to the inner workings and rationale of government, is there? And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. 30 minutes each day should be appropriated to a forum in which the government can broadcast a message talking about its latest decisions and the reasoning which led to them. The liberal media chastised Bush for lying about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda. But did he (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html)?

I'm surprised that nobody seems to have pointed out the blatant mistake/misrepresentation in this paragraph: RA makes the assumption that all media is 'liberal' and anti-Republican so a class is needed in schools to balance it out.

Mistakes:
1. If a child is already exposed to only Republican media due to their parents' views then this class will serve only to indoctrinate them further; not to give them both sides of the argument.

2. Suppose a 'liberal' government was to be elected. Given that RA is under the delusion that all media is 'liberal' then it follows that all media will support the government in which case the propaganda class (sorry, 'Civic Education') will only be reinforcing the liberal message contained in the media.

This leads be to conclude that RealAmerica is either:

a) guilty of posting without really thinking about the subject.

or

b) secretly wanting 'Civic Education' to mean 'Republican Education', regardless of the government of the day, as a counterbalance to the 'liberal' media.

Iraq was all about oil.

If you are able to back it up, that's OK. However, if you mindlessly drone on about it without knowing the economic principles behind it, you need to be given additional attention.

There are no weapons of mass destruction.

As long as you are able to back it up with facts, certainly. You can say that Saddam had disposed of his weapons following the First Gulf War, etc., and that the intelligence agencies of many countries had failed to find any WMDs in Iraq, including the weapons inspectors.

We will not be treated as liberators.

As long as you can say why. It wouldn't be too difficult to say that although Saddam Hussein was a horrible ruler, Iraqis would not want their country occupied by a foreign force.

I don't intend to ditch any class -- while I think many classes are unnecessary, I respect the rights of the individual states and schools to make up their own minds about which classes they should remove to make way for this class. I'm not a fan of a big, centralized government. Usually, there are 8 periods in a day as well as a break period. I'd suggest taking off 5 minutes from the break period and 3.125 minutes off all the other periods to make way.

I have never seen a school with an eight period day. The most periods I've seen in a day was seven. And the only break period aside from transit from class to class is lunch, which isn't actually a period here, but a thirty-minute slot within a period.

I believe what you are suggesting could fall under the category of brain-washing. Students already learn plenty about the government, at least in my area. We have a mandatory U.S. Government course in senior year of high school. Also, wedo hear different viewpoints. We often get in debates in U.S. History about current issues, and many sides seem to be presented. By the way, the majority of students in my school appear to be quite conservative.

Again, a bunch of men with guns vs an F16. Unless the pilot plows into the side of a building, the F16 will always win.

Yeah, and that's why we were able to beat the Iraqi insurgency so quickly. Imagine the Iraqi insurgency times 10...an F16 can't do that much against it, especially over a country much bigger than Iraq.

There are no weapons of mass destruction.

As long as you are able to back it up with facts, certainly. You can say that Saddam had disposed of his weapons following the First Gulf War, etc., and that the intelligence agencies of many countries had failed to find any WMDs in Iraq, including the weapons inspectors.

Hang on there, a kid faces remedial action if he asserts 'there are no weapons of mass destruction' without backing this statement up with facts, but GWB who calimed 'there are weapons of mass destruction' and spectacularly failed to back his statement up with facts faces no remedial action?

What kind of crazy system are you trying to put in place where six year olds are held to higher standards of intellectual rigour than the politicians they are meant to be learning about?

1. If a child is already exposed to only Republican media due to their parents' views then this class will serve only to indoctrinate them further; not to give them both sides of the argument.

No, it will give them a vantage point completely different from that taken by the media. The media says "X did Y and it was good, or A did B and it was bad." It does not say the reasoning which led to those decisions. It will be something that cannot be gleaned from the media -- you will be taken into the brains of the current administration, free to explore their logic. Be it liberal or conservative, you should always know what the government is thinking when it makes a decision. The point is to get children to understand the thought processes leading to decisions made in government, not indoctrination.

Yeah, and that's why we were able to beat the Iraqi insurgency so quickly. Imagine the Iraqi insurgency times 10...an F16 can't do that much against it, especially over a country much bigger than Iraq.The Iraqi insurgency is beaten? When did this happen?

The Iraqi insurgency is beaten? When did this happen?

http://static.flickr.com/36/123796318_dc236b65d5_m.jpg

What kind of crazy system are you trying to put in place where six year olds are held to higher standards of intellectual rigour than the politicians they are meant to be learning about?

Unless you are very gifted, you do not go to middle school when you are 6. Furthermore, it is necessary for children to be engaged in a debate with conflicting viewpoints -- they are given various information and told to draw a logical conclusion. If they cannot, then they will do poorly. If they can draw an acceptable conlcusion that runs contrary to what the government says, that is also excellent. Either way, they will be informed. Bush was given information regarding Iraq's WMDs from which the logical conclusion was that Iraq did indeed have WMDs.

It may be possible that George Washington died in 1775 and that a look-alike assumed his place, but that it a completely unreasonable viewpoint, and you would be severely fined if you put that on a history essay. The same applies to the civic education class.

you wouldn't be fined for putting that you can put that he was a Neanderthal so long as you use sources as least that how it works in England

Hmmm I wonder what would happen if someone said the Earth revolved around the Sun in one of your classes…

The Iraqi insurgency is beaten? When did this happen?

It's not, that's exactly my point. Despite our F-16s and whatnot, we still have not beaten an Iraqi insurgency. What makes you think that an American insurgency will be defeated by F-16s if the one in Iraq cannot be?

It's not, that's exactly my point. Despite our F-16s and whatnot, we still have not beaten an Iraqi insurgency. What makes you think that an American insurgency will be defeated by F-16s if the one in Iraq cannot be?What makes you think that I agreed with that statement?

Unless you are very gifted, you do not go to middle school when you are 6.

Ah, you're first post either didn't make this clear, or you have changed your plan.

Furthermore, it is necessary for children to be engaged in a debate with conflicting viewpoints -- they are given various information and told to draw a logical conclusion. If they cannot, then they will do poorly. If they can draw an acceptable conlcusion that runs contrary to what the government says, that is also excellent. Either way, they will be informed. Bush was given information regarding Iraq's WMDs from which the logical conclusion was that Iraq did indeed have WMDs.

So the whole thing isn't actually based on facts, or governmental process but on logical structure. Here's an idea. Dump all this government liberal/republican malarky and instead teach the kids some basic philosophy and logic instead of wasting their time with the mind-numbingly dull passage of some minor bill through some endless committee meeting.

Result: a range of skills that can be applied to any field of thought or discussion and a lot less fannying about with videotapes, audio recordings and men in black from Washington having (ahem) little "talks" with children.

No, it will give them a vantage point completely different from that taken by the media. The media says "X did Y and it was good, or A did B and it was bad." It does not say the reasoning which led to those decisions. It will be something that cannot be gleaned from the media -- you will be taken into the brains of the current administration, free to explore their logic. Be it liberal or conservative, you should always know what the government is thinking when it makes a decision. The point is to get children to understand the thought processes leading to decisions made in government, not indoctrination.

I don't know what sort of media you get your news from but any decent (i.e. not a tabloid or Fox News) reporter will have quotes from or an interview with a politician explaining why they want to do something. If this is all you want in a class then it's utterly unnecessary, not to mention undesirable.

So the whole thing isn't actually based on facts, or governmental process but on logical structure.

No, it serves two purposes. The first is to inform children of the inner workings of government, the logical processes that lead to decisions, etc. The second is to create students that are proficient in logic, which will help them throughout life and school.

I don't know what sort of media you get your news from but any decent (i.e. not a tabloid or Fox News) reporter will have quotes from or an interview with a politician explaining why they want to do something.

Their explanations are most likely insufficient. It is better for the student to be presented with a wide range of information, and then told how the decision is derived from that information, in a method analagous to mathematic proof. Hell, it'd help them a lot in geometry.

No, it serves two purposes. The first is to inform children of the inner workings of government, the logical processes that lead to decisions, etc. The second is to create students that are proficient in logic, which will help them throughout life and school.

You assume that the inner workings of government are based on logic.

And neither the inner workings of government nor logic have anything to do with your imagined Republican/Liberal divide, so why all the hoo-ha about that? Oh, hang on, I see - you were asserting that the 'Liberal' position is intrinsically illogical.


I'm still waiting on an explanation of these little 'talks'. Obviously you don't mean just talks, or you wouldn't have used the inverted commas. Are we talking gentle beatings here or the full treatment?

You assume that the inner workings of government are based on logic.

If they're not, they'll look pretty stupid on tape, won't they?

Their explanations are most likely insufficient. It is better for the student to be presented with a wide range of information, and then told how the decision is derived from that information, in a method analagous to mathematic proof. Hell, it'd help them a lot in geometry.

Are we to conclude that good politicians are also good geometers?

No, it serves two purposes. The first is to inform children of the inner workings of government, the logical processes that lead to decisions, etc. The second is to create students that are proficient in logic, which will help them throughout life and school.

And eventually bring about Oceania. I still see this as Big Brotherish. Even children have fredom of choice and trying to impose a certain view on them is against basic human rights. Ironically I'm listening to a song called Save Us, which is something I would and a majority of people would say if the government tried imposing there views on everyone else

If they're not, they'll look pretty stupid on tape, won't they?

Yes. And?

It's not propaganda -- it is a look into the inner workings of government. The government expounds on the logic of its actions, and you must understand the logic. If you disagree, that's perfectly OK. Algebra and civic education are two classes based on two different kinds of logic. There is nothing frightening about that.

If you want to learn about the innerworkings of government, if you want to see how laws are made, we have a resource for that. It's called C-SPAN. What you're describing is government self-justification for its actions, but it sounds like you're limiting it to the executive branch. That's propaganda, plain and simple, and when you force testing on the subject and won't pass anyone who doesn't "understand the government's logic" that's even more despicable.

Obviously you don't mean just talks, or you wouldn't have used the inverted commas.

No, I mean more of a discussion in the form of a lesson. Not a friendly conversation -- more of a teacher-to-student kind of talk.

Yes. And?

That would kind of hurt their re-election prospects, I should think. Who the hell wants to look stupid on tape for all the US to see?

That would kind of hurt their re-election prospects, I should think. Who the hell wants to look stupid on tape for all the US to see?Then how would those be representative of how government works?

No, it will give them a vantage point completely different from that taken by the media. The media says "X did Y and it was good, or A did B and it was bad." It does not say the reasoning which led to those decisions. It will be something that cannot be gleaned from the media -- you will be taken into the brains of the current administration, free to explore their logic. Be it liberal or conservative, you should always know what the government is thinking when it makes a decision. The point is to get children to understand the thought processes leading to decisions made in government, not indoctrination.

I am sort of getting tired of this.

I disagree with this class due to its nature of containing dangerous amounts of propaganda (whether intended or not, either pro-government or anti-government view would be squeezed in there. It's human nature to slant a presentation to their views; that is just psychology.). Also, i find it disturbing that certain viewpoints are treated with a remedial stance. Opinions cannot be remedial; they are not provable (ergo your algebra example is total crap and should be disregarged by everyone). Furthermore, the government teaches itself already (in a class called GOVERNMENT).

And finally, school already is taught in the republican viewpoint. (Such is proven in the misuse of the word democracy. A democracy is not what the US is. The US is a republic. A democracy is where every citizen decides the laws and actions of the government and NOT where the people get to elect their leaders.)

As for adding more work to schoolchildren, that part is also misguided, but I'll leave that for another argument.

Half an hour of government propoganda a day for Alphas, 20 minutes a day for Betas, 15 for Deltas, 10 for Gammas, and 5 for Semi-Morons.


I could get into this. Maybe we could put cameras in every house as well, so that we make sure people follow the government's line.

What Did You Learn In School Today
Tom Paxton

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school


http://www.ocap.ca/songs/learnsch.html

Half an hour of government propoganda a day for Alphas, 20 minutes a day for Betas, 15 for Deltas, 10 for Gammas, and 5 for Semi-Morons.


I could get into this. Maybe we could put cameras in every house as well, so that we make sure people follow the government's line.

What Did You Learn In School Today
Tom Paxton

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school


http://www.ocap.ca/songs/learnsch.html

I thank you for addressing the next steps of this class.

Propaganda 101-->Blind Nationality--->Stronger Executives---->Less Freedom----->Oceania (1984 reference)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

i suggest all viewers of this topic to read up on 1984 (the novel). Then you will understand why people have cause for alarm at what seems like a minute law breach/ power change.

I thank you for addressing the next steps of this class.

Propaganda 101-->Blind Nationality--->Stronger Executives---->Less Freedom----->Oceania (1984 reference)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

i suggest all viewers of this topic to read up on 1984 (the novel). Then you will understand why people have cause for alarm at what seems like a minute law breach/ power change.1984, Brave New World, Player Piano, and A Handmaid's Tale were all part of my 10th grade curriculum.

Actually, in this case "Brave New World" is more accurate, since 1984 didn't bother with preconcious propogandizing, just with observation and hell on earth. "Brave New World" on the other hand talks about Hypnopaedia, which is much closer to what indoctrination of children with the government opinion is. Especially when it's done with the intention of preventing a certain type of political idea.

"...all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides, they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta. Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They..."

i suggest all viewers of this topic to read up on 1984 (the novel). Then you will understand why people have cause for alarm at what seems like a minute law breach/ power change.

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You know what the key word in that saying is? It's "will," because it shows a conscious determination to remain blind to the consequences of an action. Think about that for a while, buddy, because it sure as hell applies to you on this issue.

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.

I suggest all veiwers take a look at history to see that the slope is steep, and after the first step is taken, the next ones are inevitable and almost irreversible.

I suggest all veiwers take a look at history to see that the slope is steep, and after the first step is taken, the next ones are inevitable and almost irreversible.

What slope are you talking about? Give an example of a country in which a policy such as this was employed that led to an inequitable situation.

Hm... examples...

-Qin Dynasty

-Nazi Germany

-Rome

-lots of other places


What's the need, RealAmerica? You get what I'm saying.

The biggest danger to the US is blind nationalism and anything supporting it. That and The Polarized Right, since it will probably pwn The Polarized Left when it gets to that point.

Anyway, you are poking holes in a very obvious argument. It is not so much about where it has happened or the odds of it happening.

I believe the proverb An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure describes it best: Don't put the US in CI (authoritarian right).

We need it to join me (along with Ghandi and the Dalai Lama) in the center of CIII (left libertarian).

Don't put the US in CI (authoritarian right). We need it to join me (along with Ghandi and the Dalai Lama) in the center of CIII (left libertarian).

What the hell are you talking about CI? You do realize that quadrant is spelled with a "Q" right? Or are you talking about something else, completely? And I seem to recall the Dalai Lama's country getting steamrolled by China -- do you want the same thing to happen to the US? Do you want us to forget all our wordly possessions and let the economy go to hell in a handbasket? Do you want us to put down our arms and let terrorists walk all over us?

Just some food for thought:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=AtfEo5n9vBSfVbD6XTXEc0Dzy6IX?p=terrorist+liberals

What the hell are you talking about CI? You do realize that quadrant is spelled with a "Q" right? Or are you talking about something else, completely? And I seem to recall the Dalai Lama's country getting steamrolled by China -- do you want the same thing to happen to the US? Do you want us to forget all our wordly possessions and let the economy go to hell in a handbasket? Do you want us to put down our arms and let terrorists walk all over us?

'CI' refers to 'Cartesian I' (as in the Cartesian quadrant where both values are positive).

Don't ask. it's a math term to substitute for Quadrant I.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I am saying that the US should be a left-libertarian state and am not referring to anything with the military. The 2D graph doesn't have a 'Military' axis, so don't say anything about what is not plotted.

The economy needs to be HELPED, btw.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*More holes are poked into a valid, solid argument*

Just some food for thought:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=AtfEo5n9vBSfVbD6XTXEc0Dzy6IX?p=terrorist+liberals

A bunch of bullshit from the underinformed and childish? When I want that I come to NSG!

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.

You advocate that law enforcement agencies likewise take a similarly cavalier attitude to the statutes? If the government is allowed to get away with wanton disregard for the rules as written, then why shouldn't the common man?

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.I have read both The Sky is Falling and Brave New World and BNW is by far the better literary work.

I suggest all viewers of this topic read up on Chicken Little (also called The Sky is Falling or Henny Penny). Then you will understand why people have no cause for alarm at what is a minute law breach or power change.

Just some food for thought:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=AtfEo5n9vBSfVbD6XTXEc0Dzy6IX?p=terrorist+liberals

A child's story and Yahoo search results?

I've seen some really weak support in a lot of debates on NSG, but you outdid them all. Congratulations.

Just some food for thought:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=AtfEo5n9vBSfVbD6XTXEc0Dzy6IX?p=terrorist+liberals
It is interesting that you would throw that out during a debate about teaching Civics in school, especially since you think that liberals are terrorists. :p

However, tit for tat:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=Alny9AjkAOb4RpIkohj8slYjzKIX?p=terrorist+conservatives

:D

Think about your idea for a minute:
If you tell the children in detail what the government does and why, would that not lead to a general bias towards the government?
If you have a general bias towards the government, the party in power will tend to stay in power.
If the party in power tends to stay in power, that would expose more childern to your little idea.
If more children are exposed to your idea, that leads to a general bias towards the government.
(You see where I'm going here, don't you?)
The point being, eventually we'll only have one political party, and of course, a monopoly on the government is bad for everyone.
Thus, 1984.
BTW, I don't care if the Democrats have taken over by the time you start this. Even having my own party being the only one is a bad idea.

? And then it hit me. A civil education class is required. .

I agree that a class in how government operates and what the Constitutional limits of that government should be, should be required. But a "current events" class that is, basically, an apologia for government action is a bit much. I think that political education, like sex education, should be a parental responsibility - though I know most parents find the whold prospect embarassing.

I agree that a class in how government operates and what the Constitutional limits of that government should be, should be required. But a "current events" class that is, basically, an apologia for government action is a bit much. I think that political education, like sex education, should be a parental responsibility - though I know most parents find the whold prospect embarassing.

Parents: Blaming Schools For Not Doing The Parents' Work Since 1984. :p