Hi Arlo, not sure where you were coming from with the quoted sentence. "some things are better than others",
But, Yes. Ian On 6/9/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig/Ian, > > Are we confusing the sentence "some things are better than others" with > "some people are better than others"? Not "better at", mind you, just > "better"? Is that what drives this? The need to proclaim superiority? Or the > need to proclaim someone else "inferior"? > > What we are seeing is (as is most always the case) a pendulum swinging > perhaps too far in the opposing direction but one whose arc was defined by > the history it opposes. Have we gone "too far" in creating some ridiculous > situations to appease a false sense of "fairness"? Perhaps. Maybe. Sure. But > one has to remember where we've been, and the gross injustices of that > opposing swing before one can simply condemn where we are. > > For every kid that is given an award so "he doesn't feel left out", we have > children now who are given opportunities to learn in environments they may > have failed at in the past. I can accept (but still be critical of) excesses > in this direction, but I know the converse excesses, and they were no > better. So one can, in good talk-radio hype mode, cite those ridiculously > absurd cases that appear in the news where so-and-so school doesn't allow > its teams to keep score, or so-and-so's class gave every student an award > "just to make everyone feel good", but we now have a world where a child's > failure is examined critically and rather than simply pass the child off a > "loser" (as seems to be need for some), we can give that child an > opportunity to excel in alternate environments. Rather than get our > collective rocks off by hierarchically labeling people, we can do our best > to provide the opportunity for more to excel. > > And as far as I know, despite the hype examples trumpeted on talk-radio, > there are still Valedictorians across the country, there were winning > football seasons and losing football seasons. There was a spelling bee > champion and someone who has to repeat the tenth grade. The "right" can rest > assured that we are still very much a hierarchical people, who put those who > succeed on pedestals and brush aside those who fail. > > In the meantime, we should argue the case that "failure at" does not imply > "failure". Nor does it imply some fixed, unchanging status. Conversely, we > should remember that "better at" does not mean "better" in the sense of some > existential human worth. The star athlete may be undeniably "better" at > wrestling than his classmates, but can he build a wooden elephant that > lights when you pull the trunk? > > And as regard to "equalization" being the reason our schools "fail", I think > a far stronger argument shows that failures we do see are the result of a > lack of value; individual, familial and communal. Once again, Finnish > culture places an even far greater emphasis on "equality" than our own, and > yet their schools excel fantastically. > > And now onto the nonsense. The idiotic catch phrase repeated as nauseum, > "typical leftist...". I could argue (easily) that the most insidious assault > on "language" going on in the modern dialogue is the attempt to reframe good > and evil as "conservative" and "liberal", while it attempts to redefine the > far-spectrum wing-nuts as the "middle" (essentially defining even the > slightest movement to the left or right as "radical" and "evil" and a > "threat to liberty"). On both ends of the spectrum, we have ideologues who > do nothing but drumbeat fear, fear, fear while painting the grossest of > caricatures of any who digress in the smallest amount from there far-wing > beliefs. And while I expect this from ideological blowhards like Limbaugh > and Soros, it is the height of embarrassment that it appears here at all, > let along with such repetition and unabashed idiocy. > > The tenor, then, of Platt's post was not to draw criticism or conversation > to some examples of excess, nor to initiate a dialogue on the historical > points our modern situation is in reaction to. It offers nothing except the > glib, moronic "fear" that "leftists" are destroying education (the same way > they are destroying the family, the nation, the individual, the economy, the > environment, agriculture, science, healthcare, marriage and pizza pie). > > And to that end it uses the Big Bad Spectre of "Social Engineering". Except > I am just not sure what I am supposed to fear here? That wheelchair bound > kids are given respect and opportunity? That when a child fails, all > involved (child, family, teachers, school) should intervene to find out > "why", and then seek to do what is possible to give that child a chance to > excel? That if a gay child is in the classroom, the other kids are told to > respect that? Or does this go all the way back to the race issue? Is this > "social engineering" the latest buzzword for "integrating black kids and > white kids"? Was forcing the states to recognize inter-racial marriage an > example of evil social engineering? What about forcing communities to let > blacks drink out of the same water fountains? > > Now, are we passing kids who should not be passing. I see it often. And > there are many reasons. And none of them are "social engineering" or > "equalization". If you want to talk about that, I am game. If its just > moronic fear about "leftists destroying _____", then it should be condemned > as DMB did. > > Arlo > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
