'Education' According To The Left.

[KnobbyWalsh]

Which century?

20th.


Which university?

I'm proud to say that I went to the one with the best fight-song in the nation!

Ohio A & M?

WHAT????


Now...you're askin' for it!


Hear this one time....and see if you can stop humming it.....




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]

Columbia, Georgia has a college?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ohio A & M?

WHAT????


Now...you're askin' for it!


Hear this one time....and see if you can stop humming it.....




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]

Columbia, Georgia has a college?

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
#4 after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.....but they don't have the nightlife!

Or school song!

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

WHAT????


Now...you're askin' for it!


Hear this one time....and see if you can stop humming it.....




Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube

Columbia, Georgia has a college?

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
#4 after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.....but they don't have the nightlife!

Or school song!

My son in law just graduated from West Point and they say they are #1 currently. All I know is that it was a blast helping him edit his military history papers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Columbia, Georgia has a college?

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
#4 after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.....but they don't have the nightlife!

Or school song!

My son in law just graduated from West Point and they say they are #1 currently. All I know is that it was a blast helping him edit his military history papers.

Congrats.....

All the best to him, and you.

We took the kids to West Point this past summer. Impressive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To re-establish the point of the OP:

"In place of education, the Left has substituted politicization. "

Nor should any mistakenly assume that the politicization remains at the level of higher education.


"WIS. 8TH GRADE CROSSWORD PUZZLE DEFINITIONS: CONSERVATISM = ‘RESTRICTING PERSONAL FREEDOMS,’ LIBERALISM = ‘PERSONAL FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE’

A mother at a Wisconsin public school said her daughter’s eighth grade class was assigned a worksheet with some eyebrow-raising definitions for “conservatism” and “liberalism.”

Conservatism, it stated in part, believes in “preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms” while liberalism is for “equality and personal freedom for everyone.”

“This is indoctrination,” Tamra Varebrook, a Republican activist in Racine, Wis., told TheBlaze on Thursday after her 13-year-old daughter showed her the crossword-style vocabulary sheet from Union Grove Elementary School earlier this week. Varebrook first talked about the assignment with the news arm of the conservative Education Action Group."
Wis. 8th Grade Crossword Puzzle Definitions: Conservatism = ?Restricting Personal Freedoms,? Liberalism = ?Personal Freedom for Everyone? | TheBlaze.com

 

[konradv]

Confiscation isn't.

Most of that land hasn't been confiscated, having been federal land since its acquisition.

Not even close.

1. TR and Gifford Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

I'm afraid you're the one that isn't even close. All the land except for the original thirteen and Vermont was federal, either by purchase, treaty, conquest or cession of the western claims of the original thirteen to the federal government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of that land hasn't been confiscated, having been federal land since its acquisition.

Not even close.

1. TR and Gifford Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

I'm afraid you're the one that isn't even close. All the land except for the original thirteen and Vermont was federal, either by purchase, treaty, conquest or cession of the western claims of the original thirteen to the federal government.

Well, then.
Let's examine the issue....I believe I can do this simply that you might be able to understand it....

From the OP:
2. One young faculty member gives a talk in which he criticizes homeowners for "participating in global capitalism." It is filled with plenty of rhetoric about "the hegemony of absolute space," and "ontological security,' and so on. His point: "We have no claim on family property." He goes further:
"When we succumb to pity for an old woman losing her house we abandon social justice." Mark the theme: no individual's monopolistic rights!

a. One can see the effects: the eco-fascists have imposed the same kind of thinking on the environment: " The delusion has led to the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!" http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_...LeakedMemo.pdf


The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

The conservationists like TR had no such view. Federal lands were permitted to be used for grazing, harvesting lumber, and even mining.

Not so according to the new breed.

Not only is private land confiscated, but restrictions 'steal' privately owned property to preserve some imaginary ecosystem.


More?
Sure.


For purposes of comparison, George Washington and his compatriots promoted the idea of saving the wretched land-poor peasantry of Europe. They believed that the postrevolutionary reconfiguration of America’s land was their mission from God, to rescue their brethren. [See Paul Johnson, “The Birth of the Modern: World Survey, 1815-1830,” p. 202-225]

Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

And, of course, President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act, which gave government-owned land to small family farmers ("homesteaders"). The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try his hand at farming for five years.


So, you see....your view is....what's the word?....Oh....horse-feathers.



Oh....one more thing: did you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" (John Locke)?

That's private property...not collective property.

 

[konradv]

Not even close.

1. TR and Gifford Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

I'm afraid you're the one that isn't even close. All the land except for the original thirteen and Vermont was federal, either by purchase, treaty, conquest or cession of the western claims of the original thirteen to the federal government.

Well, then.
Let's examine the issue....I believe I can do this simply that you might be able to understand it....

From the OP:
2. One young faculty member gives a talk in which he criticizes homeowners for "participating in global capitalism." It is filled with plenty of rhetoric about "the hegemony of absolute space," and "ontological security,' and so on. His point: "We have no claim on family property." He goes further:
"When we succumb to pity for an old woman losing her house we abandon social justice." Mark the theme: no individual's monopolistic rights!

a. One can see the effects: the eco-fascists have imposed the same kind of thinking on the environment: " The delusion has led to the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!" http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_...LeakedMemo.pdf


The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

The conservationists like TR had no such view. Federal lands were permitted to be used for grazing, harvesting lumber, and even mining.

Not so according to the new breed.

Not only is private land confiscated, but restrictions 'steal' privately owned property to preserve some imaginary ecosystem.


More?
Sure.


For purposes of comparison, George Washington and his compatriots promoted the idea of saving the wretched land-poor peasantry of Europe. They believed that the postrevolutionary reconfiguration of America’s land was their mission from God, to rescue their brethren. [See Paul Johnson, “The Birth of the Modern: World Survey, 1815-1830,” p. 202-225]

Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

And, of course, President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act, which gave government-owned land to small family farmers ("homesteaders"). The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try his hand at farming for five years.


So, you see....your view is....what's the word?....Oh....horse-feathers.



Oh....one more thing: did you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" (John Locke)?

That's private property...not collective property.

You're ignoring the point that except for the original thirteen, Texas and Hawaii, most of the rest of the U.S. was federal land from its acquisition. The fact that you reference the Homestead Act proves it. If it wasn't federal land, how could the government have given it away?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm afraid you're the one that isn't even close. All the land except for the original thirteen and Vermont was federal, either by purchase, treaty, conquest or cession of the western claims of the original thirteen to the federal government.

Well, then.
Let's examine the issue....I believe I can do this simply that you might be able to understand it....

From the OP:
2. One young faculty member gives a talk in which he criticizes homeowners for "participating in global capitalism." It is filled with plenty of rhetoric about "the hegemony of absolute space," and "ontological security,' and so on. His point: "We have no claim on family property." He goes further:
"When we succumb to pity for an old woman losing her house we abandon social justice." Mark the theme: no individual's monopolistic rights!

a. One can see the effects: the eco-fascists have imposed the same kind of thinking on the environment: " The delusion has led to the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!" http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_...LeakedMemo.pdf


The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

The conservationists like TR had no such view. Federal lands were permitted to be used for grazing, harvesting lumber, and even mining.

Not so according to the new breed.

Not only is private land confiscated, but restrictions 'steal' privately owned property to preserve some imaginary ecosystem.


More?
Sure.


For purposes of comparison, George Washington and his compatriots promoted the idea of saving the wretched land-poor peasantry of Europe. They believed that the postrevolutionary reconfiguration of America’s land was their mission from God, to rescue their brethren. [See Paul Johnson, “The Birth of the Modern: World Survey, 1815-1830,” p. 202-225]

Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

And, of course, President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act, which gave government-owned land to small family farmers ("homesteaders"). The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try his hand at farming for five years.


So, you see....your view is....what's the word?....Oh....horse-feathers.



Oh....one more thing: did you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" (John Locke)?

That's private property...not collective property.

You're ignoring the point that except for the original thirteen, Texas and Hawaii, most of the rest of the U.S. was federal land from its acquisition. The fact that you reference the Homestead Act proves it. If it wasn't federal land, how could the government have given it away?

The principles upon which the nation was founded allowed individuals to claim land.
This became private property.

Even land claimed by the federal government was allowed to be used as stated in the post.

 

[konradv]

The principles upon which the nation was founded allowed individuals to claim land.
This became private property.

Even land claimed by the federal government was allowed to be used as stated in the post.

You're quite the tap-dancer!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The principles upon which the nation was founded allowed individuals to claim land.
This became private property.

Even land claimed by the federal government was allowed to be used as stated in the post.

You're quite the tap-dancer!!!

So.....which statement do you deny?

 

[there4eyeM]

So, you are against confiscating public funds for the benefit of private industry and business?

Just to address other points of your characteristically long and complex post (much of which is hearsay, allegation and presumption), I agree that education is horribly carried out, or rather not done at all, in various levels of schooling, parenting and socializing (not the 'zing', not a 'zim') everywhere in the world.
When I was at my university, the dominant dogma was ultra-conservative, with a few vocal exceptions. Guess the pendulum swings both ways. Being neither right nor left, I don't like to see excesses either way.

This is possibly the stupidest post I have ever seen on this site.

Let me get this straight...fed confiscation of property is good for private industry and business, and conservation is conservative.



Where on earth were you educated? Did you go past the 8th grade?

Exceeded by far by this inept commentary that shows total incapacity to understand.

 

[Unkotare]

So you would log the forests bare, and let the creeks and rivers run brown with soil that would come down?

Thank you, Rocks that are Old...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBHXJyI7SGQ]Keep America Beautiful "Crying Indian" Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

"
The Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts was established as the first government-run center for fisheries research in the United States.1880’s—Corps of Engineers carried out snag removal in lower Chehalis River, throughout decade "

"

1883 Livingston Stone surveys the Columbia River to locate a suitable hatchery site.
In the United States, the influential Livingston Stone maintained that salmon ran up rivers randomly, fostering the misconception that salmon were readily transplantable from river to river. Stone’s rejection of the home-stream concept encouraged reliance on hatcheries, and transplanting of stocks became a cornerstone of salmon management in the United States. If salmon had no real dependence on their home streams, then why not move them around so as not to conflict with other desired uses of the land.
1883 David Starr Jordan, the first president of Stanford University and the leading academic salmon biologist of his day, shared Stone’s view, stating, ‘It is the prevailing impression that salmon have such special instinct which leads them to return to spawn on the same spawning grounds where they were originally hatched. We fail to find any evidence of this in the case of Pacific Coast salmon, and we do not believe it to be true. ​

1884 George Brown Goode tells the World Fisheries Congress that salmon on the Columbia are under complete control of the fish culturists, even though there was no solid evidence of success. The U.S. Fish Commission viewed hatcheries as the primary management activity, saying that it was easy to make fish so abundant through artificial propagation that regulation of the harvest would be unnecessary. "

The ******* salmon situation is the way it is because of government interference and retarded academics thinking they were better suited to *manage* than the people who live there.

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/documents/CHRONCR-NWSALMONDECLINE3-12-09.pdf

The primary reason the salmon runs declined are the dams and the silting of the creeks. It was not the taking of the salmon so much as the destruction of the spawning grounds.

 

[koshergrl]

Not according to the native fish society.

Mostly it's inept bungling by the Corps of Engineers.

 

[DaGoose]

"Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres."

What, conservation isn't conservative?

Confiscation isn't.

Yeah, that Constitution sure can be pesky that way to allow eminent domain.

You know, ignorance is not patriotism.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

.

Really? I'm guessing that 99.9% of the 'progressives' on this forum, for starters, believe in individual property ownership.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

To re-establish the point of the OP:

"In place of education, the Left has substituted politicization. "

Nor should any mistakenly assume that the politicization remains at the level of higher education.


"WIS. 8TH GRADE CROSSWORD PUZZLE DEFINITIONS: CONSERVATISM = ‘RESTRICTING PERSONAL FREEDOMS,’ LIBERALISM = ‘PERSONAL FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE’

A mother at a Wisconsin public school said her daughter’s eighth grade class was assigned a worksheet with some eyebrow-raising definitions for “conservatism” and “liberalism.”

Conservatism, it stated in part, believes in “preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms” while liberalism is for “equality and personal freedom for everyone.”

“This is indoctrination,” Tamra Varebrook, a Republican activist in Racine, Wis., told TheBlaze on Thursday after her 13-year-old daughter showed her the crossword-style vocabulary sheet from Union Grove Elementary School earlier this week. Varebrook first talked about the assignment with the news arm of the conservative Education Action Group."
Wis. 8th Grade Crossword Puzzle Definitions: Conservatism = ?Restricting Personal Freedoms,? Liberalism = ?Personal Freedom for Everyone? | TheBlaze.com

A local (farce of a) history teacher had an Obama picture taped up on her wall with a Hitler mustache superimposed in. She had so many complaints that they made her take it down. And this in a community that makes the John Birch Society look like George McGovern.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

.

Really? I'm guessing that 99.9% of the 'progressives' on this forum, for starters, believe in individual property ownership.

Likely 100 percent.

The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives…

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

WHAT????


Now...you're askin' for it!


Hear this one time....and see if you can stop humming it.....




Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube

Columbia, Georgia has a college?

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
#4 after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.....but they don't have the nightlife!

Or school song!

If you were 'educated' at ultra-liberal Columbia,

doesn't that by application of your own standards make you an idiot?