Thanks to SOMS students who said no to Paul Ryan

FWIW:  Millburn Middle School does have an 8th grade day trip to a lake.  It costs around $50.  

dave23 said:

A child thoughtfully declining to participate in a political photo is better than a child thoughtlessly agreeing to be in one, even if they aren't fully informed on a given topic. 

What makes you think that those who agreed to be in the photo were thoughtless about it?  or that some of those who declined didn't do so just because it was what their friend did?  The evidence is that there were many kids, both in the photo and abstaining from it, that thought carefully about their decision.  And no doubt some didn't, in both groups.

I stand corrected. 

But still not an overnight trip. And since some of the tow residents probably own a congressman or two imagine the tours they could get.

We have a thread where we are discussing whether 13 year olds are mature enough to have political opinions and another thread where we are discussing whether 13 year olds should be permitted to marry.

God bless MOL.

to offer another good outcome from a D.C. school trip, I had the opportunity when a student at an all girls Catholic high school in Brooklyn. Up to that point my travels consisted of the Catskills and Long Island. The opportunity to go to Washington, Mt  Vernon and Annapolis was thrilling. It was maybe a 4 day trip and God only knows how much it cost. I would have be n classified as needy,  but there was no such box to check. There were fundraisers,etc to come up with the money.

I was gobsmacked and fell in love with Washington , determined that visit again.

Several years later  I returned with two fellow strap hangers to see the cherry blossom s. One friend knew a boy from Brooklyn and he got us two of his roommates to get together .

I married one of his friends  62+years ago!

Nice story, @mtierney.

Sometimes you folks make me feel very old

ice said:



I recall in 7th grade being strongly against Bob Dole.  Why?  I don't recall other than that my social studies teacher really hated him and would talk about him all the time.  Virtually everyone in my class hated Bob Dole.  Go figure.

 

ml1 said:

The Watergate scandal started unraveling when I was in 6th grade, and it was the summer before 8th grade that Nixon resigned.  I was as up on that story as most adults, and I had my own opinions, which didn't match those of my father, who was a staunch Nixon supporter.  

And once in a while someone makes me feel young.

mtierney said:


I married one of his friends  62+years ago!

Assuming mtierney wasn't one of those child brides being discussed on the other thread.  

I want to make sure I follow this. The kids who didn't want to take the picture were "indoctrinated," but if they had all gone along with the photo opportunity without questioning or challenging the plan, that would be evidence that they weren't indoctrinated?

Seriously?

Lambed if you do, lambed if you don't.

jersey_boy said:

I want to make sure I follow this. The kids who didn't want to take the picture were "indoctrinated," but if they had all gone along with the photo opportunity without questioning or challenging the plan, that would be evidence that they weren't indoctrinated?

Seriously?

That's it in a nutshell. Also, they all did or did not take the picture because they're friends were all in or out of it, and those who chose to be either in or out of it were really mature while those who didn't choose to be in or out of it need to grow up, but the important thing is that they thought about it, because those who thought about it are better than those who didn't think about it. The important thing in the end, though, is that kids from superdiverse SOMS get to go to Washington and decide whether or not to be in a photo with the 3rd in line to the Presidency, while the kids from Millburn get to - literally - go jump in a lake.

jersey_boy said:

I want to make sure I follow this. The kids who didn't want to take the picture were "indoctrinated," but if they had all gone along with the photo opportunity without questioning or challenging the plan, that would be evidence that they weren't indoctrinated?

Seriously?

I find when the young are roped in jingoistic displays of patriotism often the comments, especially by the right wing, is that they are fine upstanding patriotic young adults.

Whereas, if its something such as a protest against war, militarism or racism then these same folk will label the protesters as stooges, brainwashed, immature.

I saw comments that said the kids were delicate liberal snowflakes, too delicate to stand in a picture with Ryan. You know who the real snowflakes are? The ones making those comments, those getting so worked up over this that they verbally attack kids publicly. 

terp said:

That's what I thought. 

ridski said:

terp said:

Again.  This isn't about the Speaker.  This is about children being able to assess what the government does and how it is likely to affect their lives.  I mean a 10th grade debate *sigh*.  

Anyhoo, I'll play your game. The conversation you outline below is likely to go something like.  "I see.  You think Ryan puts his party before his country.  Do you think he's alone?  

"He was alone then when he wanted to take a picture with us."

You're the one who believes 13 year olds "do not have the mental ability to logically induce a trend based on an action in a complex system". 

What if his answer was "Sarah Wooding crossed the street, and I've been trying to get her to date me for months so I figured I'd score a few points and hang with her for 20 minutes"? 

I'm finally getting the gist of how to talk about the First Amendment and dissent.  First of all it's really important that our kids be taught about our freedoms.  It's what sets us apart from the evildoers.  But really, no one should be exercising their right to free speech or assembly without careful thought.  It should not be expressed in a way that is disruptive, or rude, or makes anyone feel bad.  If dissent is expressed, it should be done politely and respectfully.  And if you do protest politely and respectfully, it really shouldn't be in opposition to the military, Republicans, Christians, or powerful corporations. If anyone is going to assemble and exercise their free speech, it really should be to express support for our elected leaders, the military and the job creators. 

For the record, Gilgul is okay with 13 year old girls getting married if it's allowed by their religion.

LOST said:

We have a thread where we are discussing whether 13 year olds are mature enough to have political opinions and another thread where we are discussing whether 13 year olds should be permitted to marry.

God bless MOL.

Not exactly. I do not think the government should outlaw it. Which is very different. 

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

Anyhoo, I would then inform my child that while I don't think he needs to have the picture taken and he has every right to refuse he should consider a few things.  That person's time is extremely valuable.  I would suggest that he ask the speaker why he may hold some of the views my child disagrees with.  Perhaps this person is thinking about the problem differently than my child.  Perhaps this person would be surprised to find out that my child thinks he is hostile with them.  

This example doesn't match the facts of what happened.  Speaker Ryan wasn't taking time out of his day to engage the students in discussion.  He was using them as a backdrop for a photo, which he then used for his own purposes.  Whether his "time is extremely valuable" is of no import, since he was using it for himself, with the students as incidental beneficiaries (see the Speaker in person, be in a picture with him if you want).

I will add that this discussion is about eighth grade students who (a) know who the Speaker of the House is, (b) know what the job of Speaker of the House is, (c) know the political positions of the Speaker of the House, on issues they are aware of, and (d) recall what they have learned from others or on their own about those issues.  It would be interesting to find out how the average voting-age adult would measure up to this.

What ARE the facts, then?  Are you suggesting Mr. Ryan just happened to be looking out the window when he saw a group of kids for a photo op?

The kids knew about 30 minutes ahead of the photo op that they were going to have the picture taken. If you watch the news interviews, one of the kids indicates that he hoped to ask Ryan a question before/after the photo -- but Ryan did not take any questions. 

I do not know how the photo op was set up, but I would not be surprised if someone told Ryan it would look good to get a photo with a diverse group of kids who were currently visiting the Capitol, and then made it happen.  Little did Ryan know that some of these kids would actually know who he was.

When my two were SOMS students, we had the same household we have now: tv's on MSNBC or CNN and occasionally Fox. I often streamed Sirius from my computer while making dinner and they listened to many NPR stations and various talk shows. Our children heard the news, we discussed the news and we always discussed politics. Often, our oldest would have a different viewpoint from ours and that was okay. He understood the issues, formed his own opinion and like it or not, we had to respect his opinion. So, in saying that, these are astute kids. They are savvy, they are opinionated and yes, although many may take their cues from their household, many do not and are able to hold true to what they believe it - like it or not. 

I would never prompt my kids to not take a photo with the Speaker of the House BUT...if they chose to not take the photo of their own volition and did so in a respectful manner, I would respect their decision and their right not to do so.

While I appreciate all the straw man arguments I want to be clear on the actual argument.  What is being celebrated here is a group of children refused to have their picture taken with a politician that they and the vast majority of their community feel does not act in their best interest. Furthermore, this person is perceived to be outside their group or herd, and thus this person is most likely evil in some way. 

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

I did not claim that Trump voters are super smart, educated, or well thought out.  I did not make the claim that the students that had their picture taken were super smart or well informed.  I never made the claim that these kids cannot form opinions or follow the news in some way.  

I simply questioned the wisdom of celebrating a gesture made by people who are not yet equipped to evaluate the people and the policies they seem to have issues with.  To do so, runs the risk of celebrating indoctrination.  I pointed out that if my kid joined in on something like this I would question him about why he felt compelled to do so.  

Rather than celebrate indoctrination, I do think that we are better served challenging our children.   This will foster an inclination and develop mental muscles to make a well informed determination.  

If you'd like to argue, argue against that. 

terp said:


Rather than celebrate indoctrination, I do think that we are better served challenging our children.   This will foster an inclination and develop mental muscles to make a well informed determination.  

If you'd like to argue, argue against that. 

Who would argue with that? No one wants to "celebrate indoctrination". The issue is whether the actions of the children resulted from "indoctrination" or education. And of course we should challenge our children.  

So do you believe that the parents of the children who posed with Ryan should question why they chose to do so, just as those whose children opted out of the photo should question their children>

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

My child at SOMS is aware that his friend (from elementary school and SOMS), who he invited to his birthday party this Spring, left the country for Canada the day before his party, due to immigration status. He is aware that this sudden uprooting of his friend in the middle of the school year, after considering Maplewood home for several years, is related to Trump and Republican policies on immigration. 

For my child, the 'increase or decrease in standard of living' is not all about himself. He is now keenly aware of how the Republican emphasis on immigrant deportations are negatively impacting other kids.

ridski said:

jersey_boy said:

I want to make sure I follow this. The kids who didn't want to take the picture were "indoctrinated," but if they had all gone along with the photo opportunity without questioning or challenging the plan, that would be evidence that they weren't indoctrinated?

Seriously?

That's it in a nutshell. Also, they all did or did not take the picture because they're friends were all in or out of it, and those who chose to be either in or out of it were really mature while those who didn't choose to be in or out of it need to grow up, but the important thing is that they thought about it, because those who thought about it are better than those who didn't think about it. The important thing in the end, though, is that kids from superdiverse SOMS get to go to Washington and decide whether or not to be in a photo with the 3rd in line to the Presidency, while the kids from Millburn get to - literally - go jump in a lake.

Very. Very funny.  

A couple of other thoughts. Why is there a fable called "The Emperor's New Clothes" where a small child is the only one to see and speak the truth

Who is more indoctrinated, a 13 year old with 8 years of "education" or a 30 year old with 25 years of "education"?

These kids may or may not be equipped to argue the fine points of policy. Neither are a lot of adults. However, it's not rocket science to see that our president is incompetent, unstable, and unfit to lead, and to recognize that party leadership is protecting him and enabling some very scary behavior. Read a couple dozen tweets or watch five minutes of any Trump speech and it's blindingly obvious. The way he hurls insults, brags about himself, and constantly blames others? I'll bet middle-school kids are even more aware of how bizarrely inappropriate that behavior is than we adults are. I remember being called out on some minor (ahem) ethical lapses by my nephews when they were that age. 

This whole situation is far beyond policy differences. In fact, policy is irrelevant. What are his policy preferences? Do we know? Does he know? How would you discuss with your kid, for example, Trump's position on health care?

Terp, I accept your concession. We will not celebrate the indoctrination that you saw in this event.

Yes, let's teach the children to think for themselves! How, oh how will we ever know if we've succeeded? If only we could take them to our nation's capitol and let them interact with the government that they've learned about, and see how much of our history of political activism they understand. 

What would they do?

Four pages!

I don't think, in this situation, it is as grand a gesture to have your photo taken when offered.  Of course, you could ask what your kid thinks of this person, if they have an opinion.

LOST said:

terp said:


Rather than celebrate indoctrination, I do think that we are better served challenging our children.   This will foster an inclination and develop mental muscles to make a well informed determination.  

If you'd like to argue, argue against that. 

Who would argue with that? No one wants to "celebrate indoctrination". The issue is whether the actions of the children resulted from "indoctrination" or education. And of course we should challenge our children.  

So do you believe that the parents of the children who posed with Ryan should question why they chose to do so, just as those whose children opted out of the photo should question their children>

I think small children quite often see simple truths that many adults have been trained not to see.  That doesn't mean they understand the complexities of an economy and the inevitable problems introduced by attempts at central control of a complex system.  

Your question regarding indoctrination is a good one.  I think that an adult mind is more capable of understanding the world.  However, the vast majority of them never really try.  Let's face it, it's a really difficult thing to do.  So, I'd say that the only people capable of understanding the world outside of what they are repeatedly being told and the predominant assumptions are adults.  However, by and large, adults tend to be more indoctrinated than children.  Just my opinion.

LOST said:

A couple of other thoughts. Why is there a fable called "The Emperor's New Clothes" where a small child is the only one to see and speak the truth



Who is more indoctrinated, a 13 year old with 8 years of "education" or a 30 year old with 25 years of "education"?

ctrzaska said:

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

Anyhoo, I would then inform my child that while I don't think he needs to have the picture taken and he has every right to refuse he should consider a few things.  That person's time is extremely valuable.  I would suggest that he ask the speaker why he may hold some of the views my child disagrees with.  Perhaps this person is thinking about the problem differently than my child.  Perhaps this person would be surprised to find out that my child thinks he is hostile with them.  

This example doesn't match the facts of what happened.  Speaker Ryan wasn't taking time out of his day to engage the students in discussion.  He was using them as a backdrop for a photo, which he then used for his own purposes.  Whether his "time is extremely valuable" is of no import, since he was using it for himself, with the students as incidental beneficiaries (see the Speaker in person, be in a picture with him if you want).

I will add that this discussion is about eighth grade students who (a) know who the Speaker of the House is, (b) know what the job of Speaker of the House is, (c) know the political positions of the Speaker of the House, on issues they are aware of, and (d) recall what they have learned from others or on their own about those issues.  It would be interesting to find out how the average voting-age adult would measure up to this.

What ARE the facts, then?  Are you suggesting Mr. Ryan just happened to be looking out the window when he saw a group of kids for a photo op?

I'll admit, what I know of the facts is second-hand, from reports.  From that, came the conclusion that the example provided by the poster had no relation to what the fact were, in any way.  The post from sprout summarized it well.

sprout said:

The kids knew about 30 minutes ahead of the photo op that they were going to have the picture taken. If you watch the news interviews, one of the kids indicates that he hoped to ask Ryan a question before/after the photo -- but Ryan did not take any questions. 

I do not know how the photo op was set up, but I would not be surprised if someone told Ryan it would look good to get a photo with a diverse group of kids who were currently visiting the Capitol, and then made it happen.  Little did Ryan know that some of these kids would actually know who he was.

terp said:

 Furthermore, this person is perceived to be outside their group or herd, and thus this person is most likely evil in some way. 

You fall back on this lazy straw man too often.