What Is President Bush's Definition of "Freedom"?

[Rosie]

Erica Carle brings up some good questions to ponder and discuss:

Quote:

---

I did not understand President Bush’s inauguration speech. He used the word “freedom” twenty-seven times, but what freedom means to him was not clear. Words can mean different things to different people and freedom is an example of that. To some people freedom means no responsibility. To others it means having power and ability to assume responsibility.

~~~

President Bush seems to believe that democracy means freedom. He said it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Does this leave United States citizens in a state of freedom? Or has the President placed a perpetual burden on citizens of his own country? Does freedom mean we must accept every burden we are told to bear and every restriction that this all-encompassing concept of freedom demands?

~~~

In the Bush speech we were also told that there now is a broader definition of liberty. That also troubles me. What it seems to mean is that the government is always at liberty to give away, rather than sell public lands and public goods, as was done following the Homestead Act. It means that the government is at liberty to control citizens’ retirement savings since the passage of the Social Security Act. It means the government was at liberty to give veterans extra compensation for their service only if they used that compensation for education, as was the case with the GI Bill of Rights.

~~

President Bush used the word freedom twenty seven times and the word liberty more than a dozen. I have heard it said that he made a wonderful speech, but to me it seemed to be full of contradictions. I do not really know what freedom and liberty mean to our President, and it worries me.

---

I've just posted a few of her questions. Please do read the entire article at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Erica/Carle16.htm

[Bravus]

It's actually really simple. To President Bush, 'liberty' in other countries means 'free market access for US business'. This is not a jibe at all, it's my honest understanding of what the speech boils down to.

Read the speech that way, and it all makes perfect sense. Scary, but perfect. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know who Erica Carle is but Bush's philosophy is simple. I am not sure I agree with it but he believes the more democracies there are the safer the world will be. He believes that democracies are less likely to go to war because people don't like war and people have control in a democracy.

If you want to talk about free trade that is another topic but a great one. Free trade benifits the consumer. The only thing that is bad is the influence the media has when allowed to enter other countries. American movies, Hollywood and porn, have had a profound impact on the world that has not been positive.

[Nicodema]

One of the main problems I perceive with this bloodlust drive to see "every nation on earth embrace America's definition of democracy" is that most Americans can't tell the difference between democracy and capitalism, or between democracy and corporate fascism, or between democracy and pseudo-patriotism (which is actually ignorant neo-fascism). Seeing that "we" (that is the bulk of our own countrymen) cannot tell those things apart, and thus "we" do not even know our own definition of democracy, I do not see how "we" can desire all other nations to embrace it.

I do not want to see them embrace it. Not if it means "bomb anyone who is different from your way of life to smithereens and call it their fault somehow." The world has mayhem enough.

P.S. anyone else notice drivers today on the road were exceptionally wigged out, selfish and unreasonable? i mean MORE than usual??? what's UP with that? I wish Jesus would have left it as a sign: "and ye shall see people even unwilling to cope with common traffic laws, more willing to run brother off the road with brother instead of be behind but one additional vehicle..."

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I perceive with this bloodlust drive

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't see a bloodlist drive.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

to see "every nation on earth embrace America's definition of democracy"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't think America defined democracy and the provisional constition of Iraq is not the same as America's nor is the provisional governement set up the same way as America's. Honestly this sounds like far-left talking points.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

most Americans can't tell the difference between democracy and capitalism, or between democracy and corporate fascism, or between democracy and pseudo-patriotism (which is actually ignorant neo-fascism).

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is a sweeping accustion. If it is true our educational system is a terrible failure. What kind of evidence is there to support such a claim?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That is a sweeping accustion. If it is true our educational system is a terrible failure. What kind of evidence is there to support such a claim?

---

Try the "No child left behind" Act. It teaches kids how to take tests, but not the content of the tests. This is from every public and private school teacher that I have talked to,...and I have talked to alot of them.

[Dr. Shane]

And yet Ted Kennedy signed on to it. How did that happen? Testing is not perfect but it is the method that has been used for centuries. It would be nice to reinvent the wheel and make it new and improved but somethings will just never change.

Testing is how we measure knowledge and hold teachers accountable. If our education system has problems, it is not because of testing.

[Neil D]

Shane,

I am not lamenting the fact of tests...What I am lamenting is that testing is over used, and learning about subjects and creatively learning is stiffled. If all you are doing is learning to take the next test, what kind of learning is truely happening? It is one thing to learn one subject, ie the tearing down, and reassembling of a rifle, Shane. It is a totally different thing when you want to learn how the gun is made, the grain of the bullets, the science of how a bullet is made, what types of firing mechanism are the best for what bullet...Yeah, what's to prevent that from happening on your own? Well, why can't that be done for a report instead of a test of a single gun? When the school requires the test of ONE gun, [this is of course a made up example], why hold a person back in his studys of all guns? Because the school only requires the test/assembly of ONE gun, not the science of ballestics...

Do you see the difference here, Shane?

[Bravus]

The problem is when all the energy goes into testing and little into improving teaching. 'You don't make a hog heavier by weighing it'. In Alberta here (so I'm not just pointing at the US by any means) we spend 20 million a year on testing and 2 million on improving the curriculum and supporting teachers. So I'm not against testing, just against testing being the focus of reforms - more hog food, less scales. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

The concern I see from both Brother Neil and Bravus is as to what is on the test. I understand it isn't perfect but getting rid of it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

My involvement in the education industry is building the schools. (I am currently building my third public school. It is 60,000 SF) Those in the system are the ones to work toward refining the tests. I suspect it would be a never-ending job but rather one of always refining things a little.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The concern I see from both Brother Neil and Bravus is as to what is on the test. I understand it isn't perfect but getting rid of it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

---

The concern is NOT getting rid of the tests...The concern is that all you are doing is studying for tests...There is no learning for yourself. There is no inducement to learn for the sake of learning...for the pure enjoyment of the subject. Rather, once you are done with studying for one test, you are preping for another. Administratively, this testing shows that your students are learning the test, no matter how many times you take it to make the grade. As an administrator, you can show how "good" your teachers are by the where the grades fall. If 98% of the students are scoring greator than 90% on thier tests, you would think that you have some great students who do well under a teacher...But if the tests are repeated, and you take the best of 3 tests, have you truely learned anything, except to pad the results...and teach kids how to take tests?

That is how the system works. That is why there is an outcry from the teachers that "No Child Left Behind" is a farce...

[Dr. Shane]

I attended school for 19 years and all I did was study for tests. I never took a class that didn't have tests. So according to Brother Neil, I never learned anything because:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

all you are doing is studying for tests

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

NEWSFLASH

That is how you learn!!!

[Rosie]

Quote:

---

The concern is NOT getting rid of the tests...The concern is that all you are doing is studying for tests...There is no learning for yourself. There is no inducement to learn for the sake of learning...for the pure enjoyment of the subject. Rather, once you are done with studying for one test, you are preping for another.

---

Bingo.

It's called "teaching to the tests"

I know homeschoolers that freak out because their kids must take standardized tests-required by their state laws.

Standardized tests can only measure how well children score on subject matter taught in the public schools in comparison to public school children. Standardized tests are also primarily an indication of how much a child has memorized, not an indication of their ability to learn.

A standardized test is not an effective tool for goal setting. Children learn at their own levels in their own time.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

most Americans can't tell the difference between democracy and capitalism, or between democracy and corporate fascism, or between democracy and pseudo-patriotism (which is actually ignorant neo-fascism).

---

That is a sweeping accustion. If it is true our educational system is a terrible failure. What kind of evidence is there to support such a claim?

---

As a truth, it's pretty self-evident.

Shane, with all due respect, you are not exactly well-suited to pedantism. These are observations, not accusations. At least learn the difference. I personally don't have time to poll a sample of 25 random persons in the street tomorrow to prove it, but if you really don't believe me, you can either try that experiment yourself (without stacking the deck by picking those likely to know), take my word for it, or just keep on not believing. I really don't care. As a truth, it's pretty self-evident.