Facts? What facts? What you've passed to me from Wikipedia is a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking thirty years after the event that has nothing to do with what actually happened and everything to do with rewriting history so that it makes you feel better.
Well, honestly. Do you think bickering like this is going to make me feel better? And the only living racists in 1968 were the 9 million Wallace voters? Byrd's politics and attitudes have clearly changed. I did not get the impression Strom Thurmond's attitudes on race did, for example.
And heck, I didn't take you're word for it (I note that throughout history, numerous people were there and were still mistaken). I followed the links, and for heaven's sake your Answers.com link quotes the same wiki entry you're accusing of being revisionist. Would you like a napkin or a bib or something? Since you're obviously committed to having your cake and eating it, I don't want your poor keyboard to suffer all those crumbs. ;-)
What then do you mean? Are we thus to accept that states' rights were some fundamentally new idea, utterly distinct from segregation? States' rights simply elides the segregation issue. It's the same freaking issue in sheep's clothing: states having rights, uh, particularly rights to segregate. This is hardly proof that Thurmond and others "recognized it was dead." I appreciate your long life, but I'm not going to be written off simply because "I wasn't there, man." Else no one can argue anything because multiple versions of historical records exist and we must thus appeal to people who were present?
Were you also omni while you were present? That seems fatuous. I don't mean to be ad hominem, seriously, that just seems fatuous. (Jane Fonda is on Letterman as I write this. What a coincidence and timely example. I listen to her anguish about her actions during Vietnam. Think about that. All sorts of people were "there" and "then." She did do work on behalf of troops, you know. But the compassion and work she did for soldiers was totally shot to hell-- both by her willful and wrong(!) participation in N. Vietnam propaganda, and also by the continued efforts of people to mine political capital from images of her, despite any effort to atone/apologize or her public statements that she will regret it to her grave. People on both sides were there, but the truths are still coming to light. I don't completely defend her, but I can't write off her mea culpa so easily. It's hard to bar my heart to forgiveness.)
That's a complete distortion of what NCLB actually calls for, and having had to sit through 2+ years of education classes as I work on my teaching certification (in night school) I think I know what it does and doesn't cover.
Well and good except I talk to teachers on the ground doing teaching, of all political persuasions, recently and regularly. They're hamstrung as the schools find themselves forced to comply with these "accountability standards." They simply don't have time to teach! I've heard incredibly hard working accomplished and dedicated teachers who simply don't have enough hours in the day, in the week and in the school year to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. They can't grade, they can't accomplish the necessary curricula while maintaining order in the classrooms and supporting the absolutely essential work of inspiring continued learning. It's like that old "good-fast-cheap, pick two" conundrum. Under NCLB, they're facing "teach to the tests-maintain discipline-lifelong learning. pick one and a half." Then the state declares them failures. Bam.
I can appreciate your hard work on certification, but you are simply mistaken about how this goes for a darn wide swath of teachers in the classroom. These are not exceptions or straw men, they're teachers here and now.
I have no response to what I consider a red herring and union bashing except to ask you not to (AFSCME Council 14! Workers unite, baby!)
I don't mind continuing this in public at all. It's very stimulating. But as this gets longer and more involved, if you prefer to take this offline, feel free to email me burnunit at waste dot org.
Re: Race, history, and NCLB
Well, honestly. Do you think bickering like this is going to make me feel better? And the only living racists in 1968 were the 9 million Wallace voters? Byrd's politics and attitudes have clearly changed. I did not get the impression Strom Thurmond's attitudes on race did, for example.
And heck, I didn't take you're word for it (I note that throughout history, numerous people were there and were still mistaken). I followed the links, and for heaven's sake your Answers.com link quotes the same wiki entry you're accusing of being revisionist. Would you like a napkin or a bib or something? Since you're obviously committed to having your cake and eating it, I don't want your poor keyboard to suffer all those crumbs. ;-)
What then do you mean? Are we thus to accept that states' rights were some fundamentally new idea, utterly distinct from segregation? States' rights simply elides the segregation issue. It's the same freaking issue in sheep's clothing: states having rights, uh, particularly rights to segregate. This is hardly proof that Thurmond and others "recognized it was dead." I appreciate your long life, but I'm not going to be written off simply because "I wasn't there, man." Else no one can argue anything because multiple versions of historical records exist and we must thus appeal to people who were present?
Were you also omni while you were present? That seems fatuous. I don't mean to be ad hominem, seriously, that just seems fatuous. (Jane Fonda is on Letterman as I write this. What a coincidence and timely example. I listen to her anguish about her actions during Vietnam. Think about that. All sorts of people were "there" and "then." She did do work on behalf of troops, you know. But the compassion and work she did for soldiers was totally shot to hell-- both by her willful and wrong(!) participation in N. Vietnam propaganda, and also by the continued efforts of people to mine political capital from images of her, despite any effort to atone/apologize or her public statements that she will regret it to her grave. People on both sides were there, but the truths are still coming to light. I don't completely defend her, but I can't write off her mea culpa so easily. It's hard to bar my heart to forgiveness.)
Well and good except I talk to teachers on the ground doing teaching, of all political persuasions, recently and regularly. They're hamstrung as the schools find themselves forced to comply with these "accountability standards." They simply don't have time to teach! I've heard incredibly hard working accomplished and dedicated teachers who simply don't have enough hours in the day, in the week and in the school year to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. They can't grade, they can't accomplish the necessary curricula while maintaining order in the classrooms and supporting the absolutely essential work of inspiring continued learning. It's like that old "good-fast-cheap, pick two" conundrum. Under NCLB, they're facing "teach to the tests-maintain discipline-lifelong learning. pick one and a half." Then the state declares them failures. Bam.
I can appreciate your hard work on certification, but you are simply mistaken about how this goes for a darn wide swath of teachers in the classroom. These are not exceptions or straw men, they're teachers here and now.
I have no response to what I consider a red herring and union bashing except to ask you not to (AFSCME Council 14! Workers unite, baby!)
I don't mind continuing this in public at all. It's very stimulating. But as this gets longer and more involved, if you prefer to take this offline, feel free to email me burnunit at waste dot org.