ALL Social Media should be labeled as "disinformation!"

 The ongoing discussion about censorship in social media is a false flag.  Whether it is put out there by a coordinated group or person is immaterial.  The fact is that virtually everything in print today can be argued or accused by someone to be a lie, wrong, mistaken, or otherwise not to be believed or trusted.  And THAT is the purpose of the "disinformation."  It is designed to cause the thought or comment to be dismissed without consideration.  It is simply a "soft sell" censorship, aiming to cause all readers or listeners to dismiss the subject comment or thought without any serious (or, actually, ANY) consideration or allow it to affect thought, belief, and/or action by the reader or listener.

This is simply a cancellation of the Constitution's promise and premise of "Free Speech," which is predicated on no preempting of thought, comment or plea prior to the reading or hearing of that by the public.  The whole benefit of "free speech" is to allow differing points of view a public forum, in the belief that the clear light of day exposes falsehoods as discussion follows.  To prevent that is to invite indoctrination and dictatorial control.

Just who or what takes that control is immaterial to the individual.  It is the loss of the ability, much less the right, to judge what and why any action is being taken, denied, approved, or financed that destroys a society, a republic, a democracy, or any government.  And that removes civil existence as a norm.  It also removes any sense of individual freedom as being "protected" or enforced by governance.

It is wrong to accept any claim that allowing, codifying, or denying any statement (verbal, broadcast, printed, et. al.) is simply a desire to prevent lying or creative facts.  That, in any form, is a recipe for loss of the right to confront all assertions publicly and invites, if not guarantees, dictatorial rule by some entity.  That can be a "created" public attitude, government censorship, or anything in-between.  Only free discourse and argument in the public square ensures that any honest set of beliefs can be adopted by a people.  It does not ensure that the decision will be an "absolute right" decision... just that it will be one made by a majority that decides for at least that moment that the result is desirable and intended.

Why are Journalists an endangered species?

When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster.  One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories.  Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.

At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual.  At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper.  Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that.  News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).

You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.

Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad."  It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.

I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How).  I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that.  The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately without the use of adjectives.  Thank about doing that in your own life!  Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word).  We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad."  Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a funny thing happened to me today."  And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above.  So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.

In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.

Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal.  You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response.  You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you.  If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.

Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "talked down to," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"

May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:

1. The Educational System as it exists today in America; and
2. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.

Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box,"  that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, why is this being taught.

After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning.  Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).

Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country.  The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated).  This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.

The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet.  Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.

The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.

We get the government that we deserve.  It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry."  That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.

Our Educational System is failing...but THIS is ridiculous!

We continue to allow our Educational System in America to deteriorate.  Objective evaluations show performance to continue to fall when compared to what students in other countries are achieving.  We literally do nothing about it...except to point fingers at people and factors other than ourselves.

The reality is constantly growing more apparent.  High School Diplomas no longer guarantee that holding one means that you can do basic math, spell most words correctly and recognize when you have to check a dictionary (do any young people even have one anymore, much less know what one is?), have the ability to write a coherent sentence or note with decent handwriting so that it can be read a half hour later?  High School Graduates no longer even seem to have had instilled a sense of discipline or the ability to concentrate on any task (other than "texting" others) for more than 45 seconds at a time;  they interact face to face badly, seemingly unable to communicate without using an electronic device.  They have not been taught the rudiments of "problem solving" or civilly discussing different sides of any given subject.

This results in Colleges and Universities being inundated by applicants that several decades ago would have been deemed insufficiently prepared to benefit from exposure to "higher" education and been denied admittance.  And parents would have recognized how inappropriately prepared such young people were and realized that to fund such would be a waste of money.  Yet...Colleges and Universities are well attended.  Why?

Our (Your) government has made loans easily available.  To the immature person, this seems like "free" money, since repayment is not until after graduation which fells like eons away to the new applicant.  These loans don't require a well defined "purpose" or "motivation" for so-called advance studies.  A young adult can "park" themselves in a University or College for 4 years or more...and the institution they attend welcomes the government money that enables them to fund all sorts of courses in what is a largely non-competitive environment for the faculty.  The presence of young people so ill prepared for what used to be the rigors of acquiring a University education required (and apparently continues to require) a down-grading of subject matter and grading standards.  Such a waste of time and money is deplorable.  But it is worse than that.  No longer is debate, challenge, or problem solving allowed, much less valued, in many Colleges and Universities.  News Flash: the real world doesn't have "safe spaces."

Why, you ask, this diatribe now?

When President Trump announced that he was going to discontinue DACA as a Presidential Executive Order, young people around the country walked out of classes, out of work and congregated to declare such action as being "cruel" and "hurtful" and even un-Constitutional.  AND they were joined by many of our elected Public Officials.   Apparently, our diminished educational system's deficiencies has already percolated to those holding public office!

How can I suggest such a thing?

The DACA program is only by means of a Presidential Executive Order.  It is NOT a law.  It is subject to the personal whims of whatever individual holds the office of President of the United States.  This makes it a political football with no real benefit to those it alleges to help...a very uncertain thing that leaves some level of fear in the minds and hearts of those who are subject to it.

By demanding that Congress act to codify DACA so that it becomes the law of the land, President Trump is working to make the benefits certain and sure, which would depoliticize the program, removing it from use to fear-monger those who are subject to the current vagaries of politics.

The President has given Congress 6 months to get a law drawn up and to present it to him for his signature...a signature that he has stated he would provide.  And he has further indicated that if there is some proven need for additional time to get this done, he is prepared to re-visit the matter.

Anyone with a REAL education, prepared to read, ask questions, research would have almost instantly realized that for those affected, this was a cause to demonstrate THANKS...not fear.  The fact that not one group realized the truth just emphasized how our refusal to redesign and rededicate our Educational System to serious education has resulted in what can only be described as a nation of indoctrinated idiots, with apparently no ability to think and evaluate correctly.

It is impossible to not think that this is the ultimate proof that our educational system is no longer remotely involved with educating.  It has failed miserably.

Declining Education in America should not be a surprise

No one disagrees that America's educational system is losing ground to the rest of the world at an increasing rate.  But there seems to be little agreement on why...or what to do to reverse this.

Like everyone else, I have some ideas that might bear consideration and discussion.

Let's start with some presumptions:
-the purpose of education is a function of a societies view, which is not a constant;
-the importance of education is determined by both the home and society;
-how effective education reaches defined goals is NOT defined by students.

Today, our society had become so sensitive and delicate that our history is being "sanitized" and revised so as to not "offend" anyone's sensibilities.  Discussion of the cause as well as the proofs of climate change is seen as no longer legitimate, despite many instances that cast doubt on both data and reasoning.  Can a country where facts can be distorted, history be re-written and challenge disallowed ever successfully "educate?"  Do we WANT to educate?  Define that term...

Our K-12 educational system was based on the Prussian model which had two goals: 1. indoctrinating youth to act in concert as commanded, and 2., providing reading, writing and mathematical skills sufficient to make the graduate employable and to be a worthwhile citizen of the country.  For many years, it accomplished this, but with reduced indoctrination results due to American family values and demands that insisted on independent problems solving skills, and questioning of authority due to the lessons carried over from the War for Independence and needs for survival.

As the Industrial Age developed, increased skills were needed, yet problem solving became an even more important skill.  With time,  and increased security, family interest in History lessened but continuing knowledge of History continued in schools as a "habit."  Also increased security allowed the luxury of also lessening the need to be productive in order to survive, as government began to promote a need to "support" those who could not support themselves.

Today, advancement through the grades does NOT require successfully acquiring proficiency in reading or math, and many schools are now eliminating the need to know how to write (I have no idea how these individuals will be able to record anything or communicate over any distance should our power distribution system be disabled for an extended period).  Now "social" promotion is the norm and a High School Diploma is virtually useless as a qualification for a reasonably well-paying job.

K-12 Schools no longer are places where discipline is instilled, education to facts, or the art of problem solving is the norm.  The inmates are running the institution.  Immature children are not being trained, they are being coddled.  Learning is no longer being demanded.  Those interfering with the learning process are no longer being removed from classrooms or the schools, resulting in students who wish to learn being deprived of the right to accomplish that goal.

Money is not the answer; legislation is needed to provide the authority to control our youth in schools so that they can be taught the basics needed to survive in a real world.  The "individual rights" concepts focuses on single trees as all around our forests are dying by our own hand.

Universities and Colleges are no better.  They used to be places where an aspiring individual went to develop their ability to compete, argue, convince even as they learned more about the world around them, both present and past.  They acquired advanced ability to communicate, question, and solve problems...often in intense disagreement with both classmates and Professors.  Such disagreements were valued as "teaching" exercises...to be able to argue and defend a position or point even as you learned some often very valuable things from your opposition...and you respected your opponent and the opposition, knowing that it broadened your understanding of your own point of view even as it was amended in light of newly learned strengths and weaknesses.  There used to be competition to be admitted to such place.  And, of course, you needed to pay for it.  Some graduated from High School and worked for years to put away enough money so they could take college courses and ultimately gain greater security for their family...it was a privilege to be able to achieve this, demanding dedication purpose, and hard work.

Today, attendance at a University and/or college is touted as a "right" instead of a "privilege."  But today's University is not the one that I enjoyed more than a half century ago.  Why?  While there are probably many answers, one can be sure that with the failure of High Schools to graduate youth with the skills needed to hold ordinary jobs, the Universities and Colleges now serve to do that.  However careful examination proves that such is not the case; math, writing and problem solving are no longer of any obvious interest today.  Today Universities are also, like K-12, run by the inmates; "safe spaces", "nonaggression" and "being offended" are the focus of today.  Administrators are dedicated to making their students "comfortable" and Professors are (apparently willingly) advised to not offend their students or require them to do anything with which those students disagree.  How disgustingly plebeian are the majority of today's College and University graduates.  One strongly suspects that the reason that the government makes student loans so easy to acquire is that these institutions of "learning" are great for parking a lot of our youth so they don't appear on unemployment rolls for at least 4 years...  The government apparently cares little for the low probability that a majority of recipients of these loans will get an "education" that qualifies them for a job that will enable them to live and pay off those loans...

Do we want Universities that train, rather than coddle and indoctrinate?  If so, restore competition in admittance, in grading, in performance, including a guarantee of open and challenging dialog between both students and faculty, and require students to come with a life plan, knowing why they are in a college setting (other than to please their parents).  The least desirable element should be comfort.  Learning, advancement, challenge are uncomfortable.  They require ongoing effort of a lifetime, and University should be where one learns the habits that make success possible...not an artificial comfort zone that increases the likelihood of failure in a real world.

Maybe...just maybe...if we consider honoring what used to work, once again our educational "systems" can revert to successfully preparing our putative students to not only survive but achieve success in the real world.

"Words"...or "actions"

Children aren't taught this anymore, but I grew up to the mantra, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  And it was a factual comment.  As I grew up, I learned to listen to words for understanding, learning and as an indicator of the the nature of the person speaking the words.  For anyone who wants to learn, words and the manner of speaking reveals a lot.  Words contain promise as well as threat.  Words provide nuance that is available for the listener who wants to hear it.

Actions, however, provide no choice.  They simply "are" and the results cannot be changed.  Actions can hurt as well as provide pleasure.  Of the two, actions are the most immediately dangerous.  Words, if used to deceive or misdirect, are just as dangerous...sometimes more so...as actions because they, unlike actions, can seem to promise even as they deceive.

A person who lies lacks both honor and character and is to be avoided.  Above all, such a person should never be allowed to have power or authority over you.  But such a person, provided that they are aware of their lying, is not the most dangerous.

The most dangerous of people is that individual who not only lies successfully to others, but who also lies so successfully to themselves that they no longer are aware of their own dishonesty.  Why is such a person so dangerous?  Because they actually exude a sense of belief in their lies that can be very effective in convincing or conning the listener...they come across as believing what they say and there is little defense against such a presentation other than research and verification.

Today children and young adults, particularly those who attend College or University, seem to be indoctrinated with the concept that they should never be challenged by words or ideas which they have been taught or either wrong or hurtful.  They have absolutely no emotional callouses; they are ill prepared to evaluate or research ideas, much less challenge them.

But even more concerning is that these young people seem now to consider the "nicety" of words and ideas to be more important that honesty and actions; they are less insulted by those who lie to them and fail to fulfill promises (provided that the lies are phrased nicely and in a complimentary way) than those who speak bluntly and are not "politically correct" (which is clearly an oxymoron).  For those who know the "Music Man" play and movie, they would honor the smooth talking liar for his ability to talk and accept the lack of honesty...and then consider themselves superior for so doing.

How can we, as a nation, accept such perverting of our values?  How can we allow our children to grow to an age when they must become self-reliant while we allow a government that we elect to spend our children and grandchildren into financial ruin?  By what reasoning do we allow our children to be indoctrinated to value "group think" and "avoidance of (or even absence of) consequences" while we fail to teach them that any person or government that is strong or big enough to give them anything is also big and strong enough to take everything away?

One of my own grandchildren has become a victim of this American failure.  I am embarrassed that I was not aware and did nothing to attempt to provide some counter instruction.  I am embarrassed for all of us who assumed a dedication by our educational and political systems on the part of those who educated and who have and continue to rule us.  Our cost of our negligence will be visited upon our descendants and, if justice is served, we will be reviled by those who come after as narcissistic cowards who failed our offspring.  I would apologize, but those would just be words...I have already allowed others to throw the sticks and stones.

Public Schools: their Prussian and Progressive origins remain active today...

I have posted ad nauseum on the background of our educational system as an off-shoot of the Prussion model designed to indoctrinate in the guise of education, so I will not repeat that here.  But there is a story in the news that not only supports the continuation of that emphasis in the public schools of today, but also provides still more evidence on how completely the Progressive Ideologues have taken over control of our schools

Consider the case of Liberty Middeschool in Fairfax County, Virginia, where early in January a Conservative who found himself in the back of the eighth-grade class being taught by one Mr. Michael Denman might have been excused for hearing etherial music and thinking he had been transported to the Twilight Zone, either into some point in the far future or into a 1930's classroom in Germany.  Because, Mr Denman was in the process of assigning, as a learning (dare I suggest, "training") project the following:  You will devide yourselves into 4 groups; each will choose one of the Republican's currently running for the nomination to run against President Obama in the fall and research the flaws and weaknesses of your chosen candidate; you will then determine how to best attack those weaknesses; and finally, you will research who in the Obama campaign would be the right person to send your findings to as well as how to accomplish that.

Public School children 1)being trained and indoctrinated to investigate non-Democrat seekers of public office, 2)trained how to look for and exploit perceived weaknesses for the purpose of attacking the candidacy, including contacting operatives in the actual Democrat campaign with that information and, most importantly, 4) no consideration of investigating corresponding matters and the manner of exploiting them on the part of the current office holder.

It was only when some parents expressed concern and the matter was made public that the Superintendent and the Principal claim that they had conversation with Mr. Denman and indicated he should have made Mr. Obama available as a person of interest as well.  Now, curiously, there is a policy that no teacher should further any political point of view in class but this policy was not deemed to have been violated to a degree that resulted in anything more than an alleged direction for future assignments.  Absent nothing more than this (which, it should be noted, is merely claimed by the Superintendent but not confirmed by either the Principal or Mr. Denman [both of whom refused to comment]), apparently there are no consequences for violation of the stated policy...which suggests that if there is no public outcry, the policy is not enforced.

Why am I not surprised.