Friday February 12, 2016
Jump to content
Our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and largely undervalued, particularly within the political apparatus dominating our own state government. We want them to be "social workers", "child psychologists", "policeman", "government testing agents"..... everything but effective teachers. Now in addition to walking the fine line between teaching about "evolutionary biology" (for one example), but not too much about it, for fear of wandering into an area of parental ignorance while the child is still "developing" and within the parental authority (for good or bad), you want them to "teach" morals and ethics, too?
I wouldn't have wanted the public schools to step on my responsibility as a Father by "teaching" morals to my children. That was my job. They would NOT (IMO) have done a sufficient job. You shouldn't want teachers "teaching" morals to your child either. Your child might end up leaving you behind if they adopt "morals" that reveal your own values to be lacking.
On a side note. I thought there was no anonymous posting on this board?
"Paysonmom" seems to me to qualify as anonymous. Have the rules changed?
I haven't posted in years.
Fairly telling comment Paysonmom. It is interesting. "Hmmmm"........... I wonder whose real responsibility it IS to "teach" your children "morals and ethics"? Take a look in the mirror!
My daughter is a teacher and it is decidedly NOT her job to teach morals to your kids. That would be your job. Ethics, too.
Her job is to inform and deliver education in a manner that challenges and educates the children who she has the opportunity to teach. Her own ethics and "morals" should reflect positively on our society as a whole--and the educational "structure" (including within the classroom) should re-enforce and inform students of the fine particularities of "ethics" and what they really mean, but it's NOT the job or place of a teacher to "impart" morals. That would be the home. A child has guardians, hopefully parents. That's where that responsibility lies.
Most times, without an adult's love and guidance imparting responsibility and values, the child is lost before he or she ever enter the public school system. If no personal responsibility and individual morals have been learned by then; the "peer pressure" and group culture within the large mix of humanity present in ANY integrated school setting will render that child "lost" without the rudder of "loving guidance" that is needed at that young age in order to develop and grow into a caring, thinking adult. (Apologies for the long run-on sentence)
Our schools reflect us. They are full of our children AND our community adult members. How could it be otherwise? Give the teachers some freaking help!! Parent! You instill some responsibility, values, and yes morals into your kid BEFORE he/she leaves your home to go into the public arena. Then I'm quite sure my daughter will deliver a high quality educational opportunity to your child. In an energetic, entertaining and high quality fashion. Should your child have been taught the "value" of a quality education at home and therefore had the sense to seize the opportunity in school--he or she would have a very high chance of attaining success in the world at large.
(continued to next post)
The first person I remember to openly speak out against immigration (both illegal and legal) was the much maligned, (and often thought of as a "leftist") and often despised for his blunt observations, novelist and "crank" Edward Abbey.
You don't have to like him to admit he spoke the truth on that issue and many others.
He was no "leftist" by the way, though crank may be accurate in some ways. It's OK to call him that, too, because I think he'd be proud of THAT title. :-)
There is a videotaped interview available on Youtube with some Phoenix journalist taped sometime in the 1980's (Abbey died in 1989) in which he openly espouses his opinion about ending immigration. Just do a google search if you'd like to view it.
Of course, he was called a "racist" for his views on the subject, but I suspect he LOVED to be called by some "derogatory" label. I think it just validated (in his mind) that he was on the right track with his stated opinion.
Of course Abbey just enjoyed pushing people's buttons. Used to openly say Carl Hayden ruined Arizona. Not a statement meant to endear one to most Arizonans. LOL.
We need a few more cranks like Abbey nowadays and a LOT less sheep IMO.
He used to state----------you want to know what Arizona will look like if we have open borders? Take a drive to Sonora and look around. You'll have your answer.
Of course he also railed about global population, yet Fathered 5 children. LOL
I just want to agree with both of you guys on that beautiful rifle and that wonderful movie.
Quigley Down Under (though a rather modern "western", and set in Australia) was just a super film.
The movie had tons of "heart" and a quality message. Not to mention the basic excellent story telling and the gorgeous cinematography. One of my all time favorite movies, EVER.
Now, that Sharps.
I'm not a weapons expert or a "collector" or otherwise knowledgeable about fine rifles, etc.
However, having read numerous books (fiction and non-fiction) about the time period of the mid-1800's, I've read many accounts of the buffalo hunters and their pursuit of Buffalo hides. The Sharps rifle was the "preferred" weapon of choice for the most proficient of them.
Could either of you inform me? Was this fine weapon used in "Quigley" the same weapon spoken of within the tales of Buffalo hunters??
I suspect it to be "one and the same" gun but would appreciate confirmation from the more knowledgeable.
Man, that Quigley guy could sure shoot!!!
Tom Selleck fit that role about as well as anyone could have imagined IMO.
You have your "A" game on today!!
More good advice. Those 10 would be a wonderful starting place.
You have a nice day also!!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
MY remark had NOTHING to do with lawyers. It is re-quoted below:
"could it be that BOTH parties are to be suspected???"
The remark was aimed at the two parties.
I indicated only that lawyers are abundant in BOTH parties.
Re-read the entire thread. Comprehension should follow!!
Unless it is way too simplistic for you. :-)
"When a woman gets more jail time for writing a bad check than does a man for shooting his neighbor, there is something seriously wrong with our system."
Very well stated Mrs. Chittick!!!
There IS something seriously wrong with our system, I'd contend many serious things wrong.
Too many to list IMO, but apathy among our citizenry is certainly among the top 10!
Our prisons are full, and we keep building more, to house all those "bad check writers" and other non-violent offenders, while (at the very same time!) we refuse to really seriously penalize those that commit horrid acts of violence. I'll quote Waylon Jennings here:
"It's a crazy mixed up world cotillion" I don't know who cotillion is, but I agree that it's crazy out there anymore!
The simple point is Mr. Lemon, that (just like the Democrats in Washington), the Republicans in Washington ALSO are comprised of a vast majority of lawyers.
If "lawyers" is a dirty word, then it follows that Republican lawyers are no different than Democratic lawyers, and as BOTH parties consist of a "majority" of lawyers, well then...........
could it be that BOTH parties are to be suspected???
I did NOT use the word "liberal" anywhere in my post.
What's not to understand??
Last login: Wednesday, February 10, 2016