Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Breaking children [Darleen Click]

The foundational principle of “Progressive” or Leftist dogma can be summed up with the video the DNC proudly produced — “We all belong to the Government”

Unfortunately, for them, there exist people who disagree. We individualistic reprobates — classical liberals, constitutional conservatives, libertarians — may quibble over 20-30% of specific issues, but we hold that there are no such thing as group rights and Government exists at our pleasure, not vice versa.

Get off my lawn.

Which brings us to the Left’s long march to change our relationship to the Government. Universities and colleges, long given to the latest in Leftist navel gazing, pretentious outrage and virtue signaling have turned into elaborate daycare centers where emotional neediness is exploding …

College students are seeking counselling at an unprecedented rate because they are having ’emotional crises’ over everyday life, a psychologist has claimed.

Peter Gray said he was invited to a major university to talk about student resilience and found counselling services had conducted twice as many appointments in recent years because of increasing ‘neediness’.

The Boston College Professor added that faculty members are now afraid to give low grades because of ’emotional fragility’.

They also feel like they have to do more ‘hand-holding’ and avoid challenging their students as a result, he claims.

And while there are occasional warnings about the dangers of helicopter parenting, we are all treated to some very public displays of the power of the government punishing parents who try and bring up independent children.

For the Left to complete their mission, they need a submissive populace. Nothing must be left to chance, so no child should be left behind.

Time to call in the Recess Police Consultants.

Consider this: several Minnesota public schools have hired “recess consultants” to create structured playground activities for students during the brief part of the day when kids are supposedly free to do something creative on their own. According to The Minneapolis Star Tribune:vintage-children-playing

Two Edina elementary schools, worried about the politics of the playground, are taking an unusual step to police it: They have hired a recess consultant.

Some parents have welcomed the arrival of the firm Playworks, which says recess can be more inclusive and beneficial to children if it’s more structured and if phrases like, “Hey, you’re out!” are replaced with “good job” or “nice try.”

But some of the kids at Concord and Normandale Elementary say they are confused, or that the consultants are ruining their play time.

“The philosophy of Playworks does not fit Concord,” said Kathy Sandven, a parent of twin boys who attend the school. “It is a structured philosophy — an intervention philosophy — not allowing kids for free play.”

Playworks has been in operation since 1996. In fairness to the organization, Playworks claims that it doesn’t take control of kids’ recess time; it just provides safe, inclusive activities for students who have trouble making friends and participating in recess on their own. It can also point to studies showing that Playworks programs reduce bullying and accident rates.

But while the Tribune story takes great pains to present Playworks in the best possible light, the recess consultants certainly seem disruptive in practice (and are disliked by a whole lot of kids and parents):

Forest Elementary in Robbinsdale Area Schools spends $14,500 for an on-site coordinator to spend one week a month at the school.

At the school, recess is made up of clear adult-facilitated activities.

On a day last week, a kindergartner said he wanted to play basketball. A recess coach explained that wasn’t a choice at the time; he decided to play another game.

Kids need the space, and the experience, of dealing with their peers all on their own. From inventing games, testing their limits, negotiating and settling differences — this needs to be done without any adult supervision or input.

Back in the age of Extreme Patriarchal Oppression of the late 50’s-60’s, my grade school playground was run by us kids. Oh, yes a teacher or two lurked at the periphery — there to break up serious fights or to accompany a child with a bleeding knee to the nurse’s office (our playground was asphalt), but all the games were kid organized and kid run. Kind of like it was when we played outside at home after school or on the weekends.

Something else, too, that is sadly missing these days.

35 Replies to “Breaking children [Darleen Click]”

  1. The author of the Reason report, Robby Soave*, wrote: …In fairness to the organization, Playworks claims that it doesn’t take control of kids’ recess time….

    ‘Fairness’?!? Why be fair to these fools? That they would even think that forming such a company is a good and noble idea shows that they’re, at best, Dupes of the Left, at worst: Masterminds determined to turn our children into submissive slaves to Authority.

    To be fair to such people involves not eliminating them with Extreme Righteous Prejudice.

    __________________________
    *Brother/Sister of Rico???
    And, if it is a male, what adult Man
    expects to be taken seriously with
    such a name [ask Scooter Libby].

  2. …classical liberals, constitutional conservatives, libertarians….

    I’ve got a problem, Darleen: I not anyone of these.

    I’m a conservative, plain and simple.

    I want to preserve the Wisdom of our Ancestors and of God, pass it along to our Posterity, and be left the Hell alone.

  3. Should be ‘any one’, I believe.

  4. Darleen says:

    Bob

    I’m not trying to leave anyone out — no matter what labels we use, if our foundational tenets include:

    1) Rights are inherent to the individual
    2) Government is only legitimate in the protection of those rights

    Then we are on the same page.

    Of course, I’m assuming everyone is clear on what the word “rights” means and it’s not how the “I’m entitled to your stuff” covetous Left attempts to rewrite the term.

  5. I should have put a :) at the end of those comments, Darleen.

    Apologies.

  6. McGehee says:

    if phrases like, “Hey, you’re out!” are replaced with “good job” or “nice try.”

    As if these kinder, gentler phrases won’t be promptly Muntzified by the non-pajama boy types (with or without the appended “dork!”).

  7. LBascom says:

    One time someone said to me, “nice try”, but I’m pretty sure he was insincere. Sarcastic even. The bastard.

    Anyway, I’m thinking the words aren’t enough. It’s the intent we gotta control!

    Which, I’ve gotta say, Americas education system is on the job!

  8. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    Target Warnings apply:

    1) You’re chucked.

    2) You can play but only right field and someone else will bat for you.

    3) Okay, you can play but don’t shoot the ball. If it comes to you get it to me.

    4) Okay you can play if you bring your basketball.

    5) and there’s chips on the ball.

  9. McGehee says:

    I obviously have more faith in Nelson Muntz than some of you.

  10. McGehee says:

    <pours third Scotch after noticing the TV is still on>

  11. bour3 says:

    Those kids sure look cute at the fountain.

    What are they doing? Posing? Pretend swimming? Just lining up? Being goofy? An improvised game?

    In an office an old photo of Denver showed one of the hotels near the train station. People, vehicles, lots of things going on, lots of overhead wires, and a bicycle just sitting foreground there on the sidewalk carelessly set down. The modern viewer is startled with such insouciant asset management. Then realizes the photographer probably put it there just so.

  12. McGehee says:

    How to know you drank too much the night before: you’ve been retweeted by Ron Fournier.

  13. Condolences, McGehee.

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Well, whaddya expect from the state that elected Stuart Smalley U.S. Senator?

  15. sdferr says:

    What is the Enlightenment? Or are we supposed to ask in the past tense, What was the Enlightenment?

    Is this here a product of it? Or is this here the antithesis of it?

    Well, perhaps better, first things first: What is the Enlightenment?

  16. LBascom says:

    I think it’s when you use solar power to combat climate change, but I’m not sure…

  17. sdferr says:

    I believe it’s for damn sure that the Enlightenment had something in particular to do with power, albeit not necessarily electrical, but political power.

  18. sdferr says:

    In that sense, by the way, it may be useful to notice the invention in Europe of effective, concealable handguns and the concurrent (although not necessarily correlated) rebirth of interest in democratic politics after many centuries of satisfaction with monarchies.

  19. sdferr says:

    Thinking on the matter for a minute Lee, I find I’m remiss to too quickly dismiss electrical power, since on consideration, electrical power actually turns out to be every bit as relevant to the core intentions of the Enlightenment as any mere political power: indeed, more so on the most natural grounds.

  20. I would certainly list the ‘rebirth of interest in democratic politics after many centuries of satisfaction with monarchies’ as one of the handful of examples of the results of The Enlightenment that help explain what it was.

    As for electrical power: I would argue for the more general example of the Pursuit Of The Understanding Of Electricity, which led to many understandings, beyond simple electrical power, that improved Human Life.

  21. sdferr says:

    Right.

    Locke, it is said, put it or formulated it as an effort toward “comfortable self-preservation”. More generally, however, the aims of the philosophers were made to be in harmony with the aims of the city (i.e., politics): power. Knowledge is put in service to politics, whereas formerly had been held aside, as a kind of danger to the city (and of course, vice versa). This was a new thing, a new accommodation, or seeming compromise. Hence, the modern, via Machiavelli’s “new modes and orders”. Thing was, the people, the general run of men, the demos, were to be educated, to be made possessors of knowledge — as if they were caring about that, and they do, insofar as the comfortable bit goes.

    There may be contradictions there, however, even concealed from everyone.

  22. However, I believe that the ‘rebirth of interest in democratic politics after many centuries of satisfaction with monarchies’ which morphed into a belief that Democracy, and also Representative systems like ours, were THE only worthwhile and legitimate [aka: ‘good’], forms of government has been a downside to The Enlightenment.

    Many peoples of the World [even in The West] would have benefited greatly from retaining their Monarchies.

    -Russia comes to mind. When the Soviet Union fell, a constitutional and federalist monarchy under a Tsar should have been instituted [the Zemstvo System had proven quite effective there and shared many traits with local government as constituted here in our Colonial Era].

    A basically non-political [who would only intervene in politics in times of crisis, so we’re talking something stronger than the British system] would have kept united the Russian Peoples as they stumbled their way through the creation of a constitution-based system of representation. Blame would have been laid, rightly, at the feet of the politicians, who were bound to be a rather corrupt and inept lot after nearly a century of Totalitarian Terror. The Tsar would have stood above it all, as only a Monarch can [this is key], and appealed to that Patriotic Russian-ness that is almost as strong as our version is.

    [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemstvo ]

    -And don’t get me started on why the Hapsburg Monarchy should have never been overthrown [Europe has been going downhill ever since].

    [See: the works of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn]

  23. sdferr says:

    By the by Bob, the new BBCAmerica production “The Last Kingdom” premiered last Sat. seems not bad on drama grounds as far as s0-called historical drama goes. And Matthew McFadden and Rutger Hauer are both offed in the first episode, so there’s probably something held in reserve there.

  24. bgbear says:

    I was a quiet, shy kid and poor at sports and I made friends on the playground. I think the key is not trying to be one of “the cool kids”.

  25. I’ve read the first four of Bernard Cornwell Saxon Series and they’re quite good.

    Thanks for the tip, SD. I will welcome such a series now that Strike Back has ended and there won’t be any new episodes of The Last Ship until next spring.

  26. LBascom says:

    Seriously? I think the enlightenment was mostly about the invention of the printing press, and the resultant dramatic rise in literacy. Plus the reformation of Martin Luther, ‘cuz there was no longer a need for an intermediate between the average man and Jesus when he can read the bible himself.

    Increasing literacy and the ease wherewith knowledge could be widely read and so multiplied got a powerful springboard when the written word was mechanized.

    Just my two cents…

  27. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’m starting to wonder if the Enlightenment wasn’t mostly the basis for the Higher Superstition (TM) as we’ve come to know and loathe it.

  28. sdferr says:

    Could be I’m wrong about this, but I tend to think of Benjamin Franklin as a non-controversial example of an Enlightenment thinker. There are others equally fit to stand as such, for instance Montesquieu, or Voltaire, say. But as an American, I kinda want to stick to Franklin.

  29. Ernst Schreiber says:

    You make a fair point as to whose Enlightenment? e.g., Smith’s Moral Sentiments comes to mind.

    For my money though, Voltaire’s one of those trailblazers for the Higher Superstition.

    Blame Canada France

  30. sdferr says:

    It may not be necessary to divide the clan up into culpable and supposed innocent parts though Ernst, if getting to the bottom of the thing means that on its whole it contains some incomplete or self-contradictory assumptions — these latter, only hypothesized here. It’s a question, that is, whether the founding assumptions comport with the whole of things, or whether those assumptions import something simply impossible.

  31. -I think it safe to generalize, however, and say: English Enlightenment = Good / French Enlightenment = Bad.

    When you get into the specifics, methinks you find very little that was ultimately a positive for Mankind in the latter.

    -As for Ben: There is much to admire about him, but I just can’t warm-up to him like I can to — believe it or not — John Adams.

  32. sdferr says:

    On those national grounds, no, I don’t think that a wise policy, if the question is what is the Enlightenment. If on the other hand, one wishes to seek differences between English and French character, systems, needs, etc., while drawing in outcomes now judged one way or another, then maybe some good bad dichotomy would prove worthy. But not, so far as I can see, for the former — especially when the point of the Enlightenment was aimed at doing good.

  33. Ernst Schreiber says:

    What is Enlightenment? Enlightenment is not Progress, that much I can tell you.

  34. […] Darleen Click on Protein Wisdom: Breaking Children […]

Comments are closed.