Excellent thesis: "A civilization that cannot even explain itself to its children has already begun to end."
When I was in university (History major) I contemplated a similar thesis but was 'advised' out of it because the developing political climate within the university at the time, as I was advised, (and it only got worse since)would surely fail me for being politically incorrect. Pleased to see someone else had the balls to write about it.
So you’re saying it starts in the home… I agree. And that is currently my biggest challenge with a wife and now son. My wife, God bless her heart, does not value or know God as much as I can see. She puts herself before God, me, and our son is usually the first person on her list after her work.
I’m saying all this because it is my blessing and my curse to triumph. I need help. My wife has still not outgrown her previous life ambitions, and I am still waiting for her to really choose me second after God in everything—and so on.
I need help, and I believe family is important. I want to see my son grow up in a neighborhood with other children; where mothers are vested in a community under God.
I foresaw a coming human singularity. I saw that it is coming near August 2027.
I am not so certain, anymore; however, as I write this my faith returns.
Thanks, Connor. I have a question. My observation is that "free speech" is both an essential blessing and (as currently defined by the Supreme Court) an unavoidable curse. Can you imagine Xi allowing the postmodernists to invade Chinese universities and teach the educators to teach the children that the country's founders were corrupt men, that there is no truth except power, and that their culture is in no way superior to any other? With regard to free speech (or the absence thereof), in our ongoing competition with China we're like a boxer with one arm tied behind him.
"Fixing" education is obviously essential. But education (public education at least) is downstream from what's happening in the universities, and they seem, despite Trump's spanking, to remain wide open to malignant ideas. What more can be done to buttress the public mind in favor of sound ideas or inoculate it against malignant ones?
I think the Supreme Court went off the rails when it extended the liberty of free speech and press to broadcast media. Tucker Carlson spewing toxic ideas into millions of gullible minds daily bears little resemblance to the Founders' intention to guarantee a person's liberty to speak his mind in the local public square with his unamplified mouth.
I agree that family and education are foundational. But it will take a generation to grow a new generation. In the meantime, America may collapse from the rot in its superstructure... unless we can find more effective ways to advantage culturally adaptive ideas in the zeitgeist. -Dan
Free speech was never limited to a person’s liberty to speak in the local public square. Newspapers and pamphlets were already well known and clearly included. The only real alternative to free speech was, and is, government control of what is said.
The real problem with public schools is that they are government-run, and not directly accountable to parents, as the one-room school houses had been. A Facebook friend relayed that she had been initially educated in such a school, and when her class was eventually moved to the new public school, they were surprised at how far ahead of the public school students they were. Once AFSCME, enabled by JFK, worked with the teachers’ unions to turn them aggressive, it became the interests of the union and convenience of the teachers that was prioritized.
The problem with the universities was the idea of the Johnson administration that sending lots more students and subsidizing their education would make the country better off.
Russel, Yes, freedom of press is explicit of course, separately, in the 1st Amendment. But the reach of the press at that time, constrained by the slowness of printing and distribution of paper, was radically limited compared to today. Madison was relying on that (in Federalist 10, I believe) to constrain factionalism. He argued that in a large nation, distance makes it much harder for people with dangerous motives to communicate, coordinate, and organize a unified movement. No longer true. I suspect that if the Founders had much inkling of how rapid technological progress would be, and what it would lead to in terms of the dissemination of misinformation, they might have qualified the 1st Amendment. But that's only speculation, of course.
I share your concern about the limitation of speech, and I'm not suggesting anyone's speech be constrained; only that it might be wise to constrain dissemination. I concede that would be problematic to implement.
I agree that the teachers' unions are past their expiration date, as are most aspects of Johnson's war on poverty and succeeding embellishments, which have only entrenched it. -Dan
Excellent thesis: "A civilization that cannot even explain itself to its children has already begun to end."
When I was in university (History major) I contemplated a similar thesis but was 'advised' out of it because the developing political climate within the university at the time, as I was advised, (and it only got worse since)would surely fail me for being politically incorrect. Pleased to see someone else had the balls to write about it.
So you’re saying it starts in the home… I agree. And that is currently my biggest challenge with a wife and now son. My wife, God bless her heart, does not value or know God as much as I can see. She puts herself before God, me, and our son is usually the first person on her list after her work.
I’m saying all this because it is my blessing and my curse to triumph. I need help. My wife has still not outgrown her previous life ambitions, and I am still waiting for her to really choose me second after God in everything—and so on.
I need help, and I believe family is important. I want to see my son grow up in a neighborhood with other children; where mothers are vested in a community under God.
I foresaw a coming human singularity. I saw that it is coming near August 2027.
I am not so certain, anymore; however, as I write this my faith returns.
Solutions… solutions… solutions..
Thanks, Connor. I have a question. My observation is that "free speech" is both an essential blessing and (as currently defined by the Supreme Court) an unavoidable curse. Can you imagine Xi allowing the postmodernists to invade Chinese universities and teach the educators to teach the children that the country's founders were corrupt men, that there is no truth except power, and that their culture is in no way superior to any other? With regard to free speech (or the absence thereof), in our ongoing competition with China we're like a boxer with one arm tied behind him.
"Fixing" education is obviously essential. But education (public education at least) is downstream from what's happening in the universities, and they seem, despite Trump's spanking, to remain wide open to malignant ideas. What more can be done to buttress the public mind in favor of sound ideas or inoculate it against malignant ones?
I think the Supreme Court went off the rails when it extended the liberty of free speech and press to broadcast media. Tucker Carlson spewing toxic ideas into millions of gullible minds daily bears little resemblance to the Founders' intention to guarantee a person's liberty to speak his mind in the local public square with his unamplified mouth.
I agree that family and education are foundational. But it will take a generation to grow a new generation. In the meantime, America may collapse from the rot in its superstructure... unless we can find more effective ways to advantage culturally adaptive ideas in the zeitgeist. -Dan
Free speech was never limited to a person’s liberty to speak in the local public square. Newspapers and pamphlets were already well known and clearly included. The only real alternative to free speech was, and is, government control of what is said.
The real problem with public schools is that they are government-run, and not directly accountable to parents, as the one-room school houses had been. A Facebook friend relayed that she had been initially educated in such a school, and when her class was eventually moved to the new public school, they were surprised at how far ahead of the public school students they were. Once AFSCME, enabled by JFK, worked with the teachers’ unions to turn them aggressive, it became the interests of the union and convenience of the teachers that was prioritized.
The problem with the universities was the idea of the Johnson administration that sending lots more students and subsidizing their education would make the country better off.
Russel, Yes, freedom of press is explicit of course, separately, in the 1st Amendment. But the reach of the press at that time, constrained by the slowness of printing and distribution of paper, was radically limited compared to today. Madison was relying on that (in Federalist 10, I believe) to constrain factionalism. He argued that in a large nation, distance makes it much harder for people with dangerous motives to communicate, coordinate, and organize a unified movement. No longer true. I suspect that if the Founders had much inkling of how rapid technological progress would be, and what it would lead to in terms of the dissemination of misinformation, they might have qualified the 1st Amendment. But that's only speculation, of course.
I share your concern about the limitation of speech, and I'm not suggesting anyone's speech be constrained; only that it might be wise to constrain dissemination. I concede that would be problematic to implement.
I agree that the teachers' unions are past their expiration date, as are most aspects of Johnson's war on poverty and succeeding embellishments, which have only entrenched it. -Dan