Out of curiosity, what percentage of permission slips will never make it home for parents or guardians to review? Of that percentage, I wonder what how many involve the children who might really benefit from the POTUS' message.

And those kids that may need to see it most have parents that couldn't give a hoot about insuring that their kids see it. Many kids avoid home at all costs, since things aren't pleasant there. I have to look out for and think about those kids, too.

 

So, you have never, ever turned your TV on during class? Never shown a live school broadcast? No live 9/11 converage in your class of the event or ceremonies that happened as a result?[/QUOTE]

 

I can honestly say that I have not turned on my TV for my students. If there is an educational broadcast I have it taped, preview it, and then decide if I will use it or not. I have turned it on for weather reports for myself. We do not use closed circuit broadcasts and as for 9/11 ---- I was teaching 4th grade at the time and I did not think that was appropriate viewing for 8 and 9 year olds. So, maybe it is the age group I teach that makes me a little more cautious . . . teaching older kids might make me a little more liberal (no pun intended) with my viewing philosophies.

In my experience on the SBDMC, that's not the case. Usually, the whole group involved discussed issues and agreed on them.

 

That used to be the case before I got onto the school-based council.:lol:

 

Seriously, it used to be that the principal would simply "tell" everyone what was going to be done and everyone would nod in agreement. I started contesting some things I felt strongly about, and now there is legitimate debate and split votes, but everything is businesslike and friendly. We actually have operating committees. We have told the district what they could do with themselves a couple of times.

 

I like the Board of Directors model much better than the consensus model.

And those kids that may need to see it most have parents that couldn't give a hoot about insuring that their kids see it. Many kids avoid home at all costs, since things aren't pleasant there. I have to look out for and think about those kids, too.

 

So, you have never, ever turned your TV on during class? Never shown a live school broadcast? No live 9/11 converage in your class of the event or ceremonies that happened as a result?[/QUOTE]

 

I can honestly say that I have not turned on my TV for my students. If there is an educational broadcast I have it taped, preview it, and then decide if I will use it or not. I have turned it on for weather reports for myself. We do not use closed circuit broadcasts and as for 9/11 ---- I was teaching 4th grade at the time and I did not think that was appropriate viewing for 8 and 9 year olds. So, maybe it is the age group I teach that makes me a little more cautious . . . teaching older kids might make me a little more liberal (no pun intended) with my viewing philosophies.

 

There you go. :thumb: I said earlier I thought high schoolers could decide for themselves.

OK, football games are on - I'm out. RTS will have to take up the torch from here.

People don't like being pigeon-holed, defined, or labeled in generality because they frankly don't like truth. I am OK with that, because its human nature, but the philosophical political spectrum (liberal-moderate-conservative-libertarian) is a convenient way to discuss issues. We do it in almost every aspect of our daily lives. I will continue to use those categories for generalizations.

 

Name-calling is entirely different.

 

The first part of your post is interesting. What, exactly, defines "the truth"? The person doing the pigeonholing or labeling? I reject that premise, especially on a discussion board. We have snapshots of people. We see what they post. I know that I post what I actually, hontestly believe. However, another could post counter-arguments for the sake of discussion, yet really believe differently than the position they're taking on this board.

 

I disagree that even for convenience that generalizations are either worthwhile or prudent, it the goal is honest, open dialogue. It serves to alienate a group who otherwise may participate.

 

I do like knowing that you will continue to use generalizations, and that you find labeling people convenient. It will help me be able to ascertain the intent of your post, without taking offense.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of permission slips will never make it home for parents or guardians to review? Of that percentage, I wonder what how many involve the children who might really benefit from the POTUS' message.

 

I feel like (perish the thought) Ben Stein. Anyone? Anyone?

I feel like (perish the thought) Ben Stein. Anyone? Anyone?

 

I feel that way all of the time.

Just like sex ed.

 

Who's Ed?

The divide in this country, folks, has little or nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or even Barack Obama - the divide is caused by the reaction conservatives have when they are lambasted by liberals as being small-minded, un-educated rednecks every time we have the unmitigated temerity to take issue with federal governmental intrusion that we object at the top of our lungs to. It happens every time - here, in the townhall health care meetings, everywhere. Conservatives object, well, they must be fearmongering.

 

The divide in this country is bred from those incapable of rational disagreement. Opinions are rejected, not on the merit of the argument, but on the perception of which “side” or “agenda” the opinion falls under. Taken to its dismal end, facts and reasoning become irrelevant, leaving nothing left but snide labeling. Some sort of emotional anger takes hold when those dissenting opinions fail to yield. All of this is to say that a divide in this country does exist, but it is not because conservatives are repressed. Rational dialogue is repressed. And no group is absolved.

 

People don't like being pigeon-holed, defined, or labeled in generality because they frankly don't like truth. I am OK with that, because its human nature, but the philosophical political spectrum (liberal-moderate-conservative-libertarian) is a convenient way to discuss issues. We do it in almost every aspect of our daily lives. I will continue to use those categories for generalizations.

 

The defining and labeling of persons is insulting as it rejects the complexity and depth of opinions for the convenience of the labeler. A convenience typically used for invectives, I would argue. Thus, I sincerely doubt the negative connotation associated with pigeonholing is the result of an aversion to the truth. As an example, using political ideologies as a shortcut is severely limited considering the large category of issues, often contradictory, associated with each. Two conservatives or two liberals may look nothing alike. At any rate, when those labels are applied in public discourse or on this forum, especially, they are usually accompanied with a snort of derision, not fair-minded sincerity.

GHWB addresses the nation's children in 1991.

GHWB addresses the nation's children in 1991.

 

 

And look how that turned out. Heck, most of them were probably indoctrinated into voting for GWB 13 years later.

The divide in this country is bred from those incapable of rational disagreement. Opinions are rejected, not on the merit of the argument, but on the perception of which “side” or “agenda” the opinion falls under. Taken to its dismal end, facts and reasoning become irrelevant, leaving nothing left but snide labeling. Some sort of emotional anger takes hold when those dissenting opinions fail to yield. All of this is to say that a divide in this country does exist, but it is not because conservatives are repressed. Rational dialogue is repressed. And no group is absolved.

 

 

 

The defining and labeling of persons is insulting as it rejects the complexity and depth of opinions for the convenience of the labeler. A convenience typically used for invectives, I would argue. Thus, I sincerely doubt the negative connotation associated with pigeonholing is the result of an aversion to the truth. As an example, using political ideologies as a shortcut is severely limited considering the large category of issues, often contradictory, associated with each. Two conservatives or two liberals may look nothing alike. At any rate, when those labels are applied in public discourse or on this forum, especially, they are usually accompanied with a snort of derision, not fair-minded sincerity.

 

 

There are two types of people in this world.

 

People who divide people into two types, and people who don't.

There are two types of people in this world.

 

People who divide people into two types, and people who don't.

 

I thought it was those with loaded guns and those who dig.

 

You dig.

The divide in this country is bred from those incapable of rational disagreement. Opinions are rejected, not on the merit of the argument, but on the perception of which “side” or “agenda” the opinion falls under. Taken to its dismal end, facts and reasoning become irrelevant, leaving nothing left but snide labeling. Some sort of emotional anger takes hold when those dissenting opinions fail to yield. All of this is to say that a divide in this country does exist, but it is not because conservatives are repressed. Rational dialogue is repressed. And no group is absolved.

 

 

 

The defining and labeling of persons is insulting as it rejects the complexity and depth of opinions for the convenience of the labeler. A convenience typically used for invectives, I would argue. Thus, I sincerely doubt the negative connotation associated with pigeonholing is the result of an aversion to the truth. As an example, using political ideologies as a shortcut is severely limited considering the large category of issues, often contradictory, associated with each. Two conservatives or two liberals may look nothing alike. At any rate, when those labels are applied in public discourse or on this forum, especially, they are usually accompanied with a snort of derision, not fair-minded sincerity.

 

I apply conservative, liberal, and libertarian titles to people. You have before as well. Plato and Cicero did to. I am satisfied with the practice.