eagleye13 wrote:
"My point was to cite my first hand experience with the overwhelming domination of American engineering and science by immigrants,..." sUp
I experienced the same.
At least we agree that the American education system has really gone down hill for a very long time.
What we disagree on;
is why?
By Design?
Stupidity?
A combo?
I don't remember disagreeing on the reasons for the low grade of American education. But, I tend to lean toward design. Not a centralized master-mind plan, but more a set of independent priorities that form an aggregate result.
eagleye13 wrote:
Communist Manifesto; plank#10:
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Just so you know, the "Ten Planks" is something created by anti-communists to create the illusion that an inconsequential list of ten descriptions of "advanced societies" listed in the Communist Manifesto actually serves as guiding principals for the Communist Revolution. That list of descriptions (which are not referred to as "planks") starts off with...
"Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable... 1. Abolition of property..." and so on and so forth.
So... not exactly a preface worthy of the kind of proclamation you seem to think it is. The Communist Manifesto is mostly a description of the environment they disagree with. Mostly, they describe class struggle (where I think their views are compatible with American doctrine) but there is also a critical view of capitalism (which seems to be the bigger conflict with our ruling culture).
The Communist Manifesto actually leaves the future very open ended. It lacks the authoritarian bell that the "10 Planks" tries to ring and instead presents a more passive, almost scientific report on current injustice. Then it offers a very generalized suggestion that socialism would be a better option for the working class. If you ask me, I think they made the same mistake folks like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman made in dismissing the human factor making their theories too perfect to ever be real. For some reason it didn't seem to occur to Marx or Engles that the same human natures they point to as being problems with capitalism can also be a problem with socialism. Anyway, on presenting socialism as the more just system, they make ten suggestions as to what a better society would look like in the future. In the last description they offer a sparkly vision of a society where children are taken out of the factories and put into free education systems. Little did they know, a century later America would have achieved that.
eagleye13 wrote:
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools "
eagle, in this context, "public" means exactly that... tax-funded schools. Taxes are by definition "forced" by the government.
eagleye13 wrote:
Even private schools are government regulated.
Who isn't?
eagleye13 wrote:
The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system.
Well, that does seem to be working out for the plutocracy.
eagleye13 wrote:
We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need!
br We also call it the Department of Education, t... (
show quote)
Actually, that's a socialist maxim, but I guess it's all the same to you. ;)
So "sharing"... LOL - I've noticed the rise in celebrating selfishness. It seems to have coincided with the rise of the "Me" generation and the uptick in sales for books by Ayn Rand who provides some marvelous excuses for being selfish and for demonizing altruism. (Horrible writer though).
Anyway, you're right, sharing wasn't a feature of any of our founding documents, but I think what made it so easy for high-minded teachers to introduce the idea of a fair share is our Christian culture. (You might notice that Jesus or the Gospel isn't mentioned in any of our founding documents either.)