So This IS What They Teach Your Kids?
It seems that schools are teaching things very differently than when I was in school. In Colorado, Sean Allen recorded Jay Bennish, his 10th grade World Geography teacher, making comments about President Bush’s State of the Union Address. He wanted his father to hear what he was being taught. Bush=Hitler! Both links I provided have the audio, and i would encourage you to listen. I am troubled by this from the standpoint that the Bush/Hitler comparison is an illiterate man’s arguement. Hitler was hell bent on the destruction of the Jews at any cost, while at the same time, hoping to see Austria and Germany unite. George Bush is hell bent on preseving the Jews and eliminating the threat of destruction of the world by terrorist.
On to New Jersey where Joseph Kyle, the teacher of the senior advanced placement government class, has George Bush on trial for “crimes against civilian populations” and “inhumane treatment of prisoners” at Parsippany High School, with students arguing both sides before a five-teacher “international court of justice.” His excuse for this?
”
President Bush is often tried in absentia all around the world,” Kyle said.“All we hear in the papers is, war crimes this, war crimes that — without even hearing a defense. It would be irresponsible for a teacher to pretend that isn’t happening,” Kyle said.
Mr. Kyle, if you wanted to do a trial, why not Saddams? That would be an excellant topic. In fact, it is a real toipic!
March 2, 2006 - 08:58 AM on March 2nd, 2006
Another one of these so called educaters who belong to the NEA Nazi Educators Association and the usial brainwashers hiding out in our schools:mad:
March 2, 2006 - 09:07 AM on March 2nd, 2006
Hey, but at least with the teachers unions and other nitwits running the schools, you get 7 year olds with crack and this moron spewing his anti-american venom!
Way to go, NEA!!!!
March 2, 2006 - 09:21 AM on March 2nd, 2006
Did Kyle hold a mock trial of Clinton? Let’s see, rape charges, selling missle tecnology to China [ over a extisting criminal investigation]. Kleenex are disposable, morals are not, who is Kyle to Judge?
March 2, 2006 - 09:42 AM on March 2nd, 2006
Exactly Johnt…they could take the trial of Saddam, minus the assasinations, and do the kids some justice. Or they could do Slobodon’s…that would be a good one as well.
March 2, 2006 - 09:48 AM on March 2nd, 2006
How about trying Ted Kennedy? Or that whole wretched family, while you are at it?
March 2, 2006 - 10:53 AM on March 2nd, 2006
You know, I think there are some who either block out or just plain forget that jihad was declared on us. It’s not being a war monger (or criminal) to defend America. In fact, had Bush not gone to war can you just imagine the outrage from the left?
They need to get a grip. Saddams trial of people who WERE murdered in the most horrendous way and of the most innocent of people (or at least people who were in political or religious disagreement) is the one to watch. The world needs to remove from power and dictator who slaughters their people.
Does Bush do that? Of course not. Ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous.
March 2, 2006 - 11:03 AM on March 2nd, 2006
Both of these “teachers” should be sent over to Afghanistan and turned over to their beloved Al Qaeda to be used in the next beheading videos, imo.
March 2, 2006 - 11:37 AM on March 2nd, 2006
This guy in Colorado is a complete tool… I can’t believe the crap that this guy is spewing.. unbelievable.
March 2, 2006 - 11:53 AM on March 2nd, 2006
[...] Right Voices [...]
March 2, 2006 - 12:51 PM on March 2nd, 2006
Would they put FDR on trial?
March 2, 2006 - 12:53 PM on March 2nd, 2006
I would FDR on trial.
March 2, 2006 - 03:16 PM on March 2nd, 2006
Liberal Propaganda 101
This story chaps my ass, particularly because the teacher in question sounds A LOT like my daughter’s Geography teacher.
Congratulations, Sean. You’ve managed to keep your brain intact despite all the programming you’re receiving. Sad thing is, …
March 3, 2006 - 07:58 AM on March 3rd, 2006
Make that.. I would PUT FDR on trial
the worst president of the 20th century.
March 4, 2006 - 12:41 PM on March 4th, 2006
I am one of the students who is in Mr. Kyle’s AP Government class and participating in this mock debate about President Bush. I am one of four defense attorneys who have been working hard in order to present a fair debate that exposes both sides of the argument, using facts and extensive research.
This has been an excellent learning experience guided by an amazingly knowledgeable and enthusiastic teacher whose ability to make learning interesting should be treasured and not criticized.
This is a serious topic that has often been brought up. If you would like to believe that the President’s actions in Iraq haven’t been questioned, then you are living in a fantasy world. Rather than listening to propaganda from both the left wing and the right wing, we have chosen to examine arguments from both sides and make our own decision. I, and all of the other students in this exercise, fully support our teacher and his decision to offer this exciting and memorable opportunity.
And yes, Mr. Kyle has put Clinton on trial in the past as well.
March 4, 2006 - 01:08 PM on March 4th, 2006
pshenoy- why not try Slobadon or Saddam? Those are actual cases in which war crimes were committed. Clintons is a case of actual crimes as well…but GWB? That is just wishful thinking. What form of research are you using?
March 4, 2006 - 11:07 PM on March 4th, 2006
Why not SLobadon or Saddam – because it is an AP US Government & Politics class, not an AP Comparitive Government class. It is a fine distinction but this is an intellectual excersise that is aimed out our curriculum designed so that we can pass an AP exam and get college credit. Unlike what O’Reilly said on Thursday night, High School students can think critically and analyze information.
For the record the students came up with the idea of a trial.
The students researched the charges.
The students researched the court to set the trial in.
Mr. Kyle allowed us to put this on in his class, it was in no way supposed to be broadcast around as if we were judging the President, its a differant way to debate. If for one second you think this is a teacher gone off the deep end you are sadly mistaken. The average rate for recieving credit on the AP US history exam is 13%. Mr. Kyle teachs 40 something kids a year in AP US History, in my year all but 2 kids passed, over 90% passing rate. It has been this way for a decade. I don’t think a bunch of people who have no information about him, the class, or the project, can in anyway question the validity of his teaching methods.
And for the record Bennish is a human geography teacher, so anyone who says that he should be teaching these kids some geography sounds really dumb to anyone who know what a human geography class is. He is on the curriculum and the subject matter of human geography, maybe a little more impassioned than he should be, but thats what the class is about.
March 4, 2006 - 11:50 PM on March 4th, 2006
This is terrible. There’s no way that Bush’s actions could stand up this kind of scrutiny. I hope someone has the common sense to kill this project before it goes too far.
March 5, 2006 - 12:04 AM on March 5th, 2006
Peejz are you serious? Open your eyes beyond Fox News and realize there are a plethora of crimes that Bush can be accused of. Everything from certain weapons that may violate the Geneva conventions to the kidnapping of Canadian and German citizens that were held by the CIA for months on end. To say that there are NO crimes commited is laughable. To look at Clinton and Bush and say that Clinton commited crimes that were worse than what Bush has done is down right disturbing. I can’t believe that partisan politics clouds some people’s judgement to the point where they are so far out of touch with reality that they will compare thousands and thousands of families being ruined to a man having sex with a consenting 20 year old girl. Can you honestly say that? And sleep at night?
POLITICS IS NOT FOOTBALL. Stop rooting for one team or another, and look at whats best for America. George Bush’s actions are not whats best for America.
March 5, 2006 - 09:40 AM on March 5th, 2006
Schultz- Where do you go to school? Colorado or New Jersey? Bennish is in CO comparing Bush to Hiltler in a geography class(not human geography, just geography). He didn’t follow the cirriculum by not offering both sides of the issue. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but remember it is a 2 way street.
In New Jersey they have the POTUS on trial for war crimes. Schultz, grow up and realize that anyone can be accused of war crimes. Bringing actual charges against a person is another matter all together. Is this AP History of AP Government? They are 2 very different classes. Now the biggest problem I see facing your trial is the fact that you don’t have all the evidence. What you have is newspaper accounts of what happened. Much of the information that is necessary, to do a trial such as this one any amount of justice, is not even available to the public. Who/what sources are you using for this trial? Obviously newspapers, if you think that we kidnapped those people. Rendition is not kidnapping. It can seem ugly, but not illegal. Big difference. As for Clinton, well do you not grasp the fact that the man was charged with and convicted of crimes? The crime wasn’t the sex, but when you mature a bit more, you will know that.
I also see where you are not mature enough to grasp that you made this about politics here: POLITICS IS NOT FOOTBALL. Stop rooting for one team or another, and look at whats best for America. George Bush’s actions are not whats best for America. You made this about politics and you just proved O’Reilly’s point. See how that works? You claim to be objective and mature yet you finish with that statement. You use the term kidnapping, where rendition should be used. Didn’t you learn that in the class? I can now see how the pass rate went up in the class. I have yet to see how this passes for an AP class, but that is for another thread!
March 5, 2006 - 11:25 AM on March 5th, 2006
extraordinary-rendition is a nice moniker for government sponsored kidnapping, but in effect its the same thing. We’re talking about taking a man who had no connection with al-Queda, out of an airport in the US, sending him to foreign countries against his will, locking him up without access to a lawyer, torturing him, and then releasing him. Does this not sound like kidnapping to you?
And – it is illegal. Geneva convention of 1949 (signed and ratified by the US Senate – thus something President Bush is obligated to follow)
Article 31 – No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.
Article 45 – Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention. Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is party to the present Convention.
He is a protected party – a civilian. Article 31 is being violated. Article 45 is being violated when he is sent to a group of people who do not follow the convention.
You would be suprised the amount of information available to the public. There is certainly enough information to make him not gulty, the people being harmed by the lack of information is the prosicution becuase there is no way to link Bush to these actions without knowing what is inside their heads. But realize this is much more about the things that are happening than if George Bush is guilty or not.
I know I learned a lot more about what is going on in the country through this excerise than any other way, obviously it is effective.
Rush Limbaugh confirmed he was a Human Geography teacer on his show friday.
We are an AP US Government & Politics class not an AP Comparitive Government class – there is a differance. Thats why it so closely relates to AP US History.
Who/what sources are you using for this trial?
Newspaper accounts, personal statements these people have said, government reports. I know I read about 200 pages of US & British government and WHO reports and I’m only really focusing on one aspect of the case.
As for Clinton, well do you not grasp the fact that the man was charged with and convicted of crimes? The crime wasn’t the sex, but when you mature a bit more, you will know that.
Yes, he lied to a grand jury. So did Scooter Libby. I wouldn’t put that on the same page as the killing of innocent civilians or the torture of innocent people – which even the US government admits, but they say they are ‘mistakes’. We have classic example of do the ends justify the means or not? Some would say, the ends are worth it (people like you). Some people would say the means are too harsh to justify the ends. I would say the means are harsh enough to negate the ends becuase we’ll end up with more terrorists due to the things we’re doing.
March 5, 2006 - 12:01 PM on March 5th, 2006
We’re talking about taking a man who had no connection with al-Queda, out of an airport in the US, sending him to foreign countries against his will, locking him up without access to a lawyer, torturing him, and then releasing him. Does this not sound like kidnapping to you? No that isn’t what we are talking about. BTW, every inmate in a prison claims they are innocent. You yourself said you get your information from newspaper accounts…that is part of the problem with your case. You don’t have anything but hearsay to try GWB. What sources do you deem credible and which ones are biased? You might want to take some law classes. You have have the ability to read the Geneva Convention laws, but you do not have the ability to apply them. What case law are you basing your charge on? A defence attorney could rip that arguement to shreds based on case law…did you research case law?
You then go on to comparing Clinton/Libby. Libby is on trial..what is your point?
Some would say, the ends are worth it (people like you). - where did I say that? You are assuming this, which is part of the problem with your project. It allows too much assumption.
In this short time of discussing issues with you, I find O’Reilly has a good point. You are trying to justify this exercise as a learning expierience, but the results are rather troubling. You are being taught to pass judgement on someone based on hearsay…the sources you should be using are not available to you, therefore you are settling for the next best thing. When you do get to college, hopefully you will have access to case law. It comes in handy when putting a person on trial. Good luck, you will need it.
March 5, 2006 - 12:22 PM on March 5th, 2006
The problem is its not about passing judgement its about looking at things we are doing. It never mattered what the outcome of the trial was – which is why we weren’t going to let anyone outside of our class hear it. We wanted to know as a way to gauge our own performance, but we knew it wasn’t actually a real verdict so why let other kids hear it? Now that there is media attention, we dropped the verdict all together becuase we realized it would be impossible to keep quiet.
Of course a real defense lawyer could rip us to shreds. We’re not lawyers, we’re not going to BE lawyers, we are looking at evidence. I think yoiu should read the newest daily record article now that a reporter was actually in there during the debate and hear how he described it.
Realize the back story of how we came up with this idea isn’t told anywhere. IPPLE, a law class at our school that did a lot of mock trials, was canceled last year. A lot of students who wanted to be in IPPLE were disappointed and Mr Kyle asked us at the end of our Junior year what we wanted to do to make up for the loss of IPPLE. Some kids said a mock trial, he said he’d work it into the curriculum. This year we had our election from September through Novemeber and then post election analysis from our school and the whole state. Then we did some other work that is required for the AP exam. We had talked in September about when to fit in the mock trial this year, and it really can only fit in the foreign policy unit becuase after the AP exam we are doing a fiscal policy excersie that will take a lot of time up. So the students came up with this topic, and Mr Kyle told us to run with it. Student lawyers came up with the charges, the court, the witnesses. The witnesses then researched for a few weeks and wrote papers on it, and the mock lawyers formed arguments based on these papers. Now we’re going through the evidence. All of this will be graded by the 5 teachers at the end. Somehow this got turned into, Mr Kyle thinks George Bush is a war criminal and is indoctrinating his students. Realize the original story was not asked for my our school and as far as we know none of the students gave it to the paper, so the information was given to the paper by someone who is not actually in the class. Thus the confusion about what is going on. It was never our intention to say that we think he is or isn’t a war criminal, there is no way we have the knowledge to do that. But we certaintly can look at what is known in the public sphere about action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don’t think anyone can object to that.
March 5, 2006 - 01:01 PM on March 5th, 2006
Actually the problem is right here:It never mattered what the outcome of the trial was – which is why we weren’t going to let anyone outside of our class hear it. We wanted to know as a way to gauge our own performance, but we knew it wasn’t actually a real verdict so why let other kids hear it? Now that there is media attention, we dropped the verdict all together becuase we realized it would be impossible to keep quiet. If it was the great learning expierience you claim it to be, why the secrecy? Why not share it with the other kids?
Of course a real defense lawyer could rip us to shreds. We’re not lawyers, we’re not going to BE lawyers, we are looking at evidence. A- Not one of the kids in the class has the intention of going to law school? Odd.
b- you didn’t look at evidence, you looked at propaganda to support the outcome that you were looking for. You have no evidence, you have hearsay. If an attorney can rip you to shreds you have failed.
How the information got to the MSM is irrelevant. The fact is, you have come here to try to explain the class. The school system has a class that they dropped from the cirriculm yet you have a teacher that decides on his own to implement it into his class. You feel the need to keep secrets from other students. If it is such a good thing why hide it.
Passing judgement on others is the key. Whether this is GWB or Joe Blow on the streets, everyone deserves their day in court. We have a system of law set up so that we are not convicting a man on hearsay. Hearsay will not get you through the courts door.
I know I learned a lot more about what is going on in the country through this excerise than any other way, obviously it is effective. This statement is what troubles me the most. Based on your words, I don’t see where you have learned anything about rendition, the Geneva Convention, or The War Powers Act. Is that your fault? No. This is not a subject that is to be rushed through. What I hear you saying is that war is bad and GWB is creating terrorists. You failed to meantion a remedy for this.
March 5, 2006 - 01:28 PM on March 5th, 2006
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution–
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
Thats the end of the war powers act, it is irrevelant in the debate. The Geneva Conventions clearly apply, our class read them and decided which ones to use. Note we only use the 1949 ones that were ratified by the Senate becuase subsequent Protocols were not ratified by the Senate and/or signed by the US and thus the President wouldn’t be responsible for following them. I’m not sure how you can say we didn’t learn something about the Geneva Convention when we did. Rendition is a piece of evidence in the debate not a subject of our curriculum, in the same way depleted uranium is evidence in the it and not part of the curriculum. At the end of the day though you are missing the point of education. High school education isn’t about learning things, it is about learning HOW to learn things. Obviously my job will have nothing to do with this subject matter, but the things such as researching, forming an argument on the spot, public speaking, those are things that can’t be done in other ways. This is an intellectual excersise, no one would be getting worked up if we wrote essays on this, I don’t see how changing the format of the debate matters so much. I’ve learned so much through this that it can’t possibly be considered an educational failure. I ended up on the Rush Limbaugh show and spoke for a half hour to millions of people, if thats not the greatest educational oppurtunity I’ve ever had in high school, I don’t know what is. The fact of the matter is all of the class is getting a chance to speak under serious pressure, with reporters watching now, something that will give them confidence in things they do in the future. We never inteded for this to happen, but to say that this shouldn’t go on in our schools is to say that we shouldn’t be doing everything we possibly can to educate our students.
March 6, 2006 - 08:00 AM on March 6th, 2006
Kschultz.. the Geneva conventions apply??? How? What “uniform” are these cowards wearing? What Flag or Banner do they fight under???
I shudder to think that our schools are turning out mind-numbed robots like you.
March 6, 2006 - 03:46 PM on March 6th, 2006
I think you may be missing what it is that we are doing. Obviously, in this debate there are two different sides, one defending Bush’s action and one that is prosecuting it. The defense is using the argument that you mentioned to prove our point. We are neither agreeing with Bush’s actions nor disagreeing. We are merely trying to examine the facts and arguments presented. Common sense dictates that in order to make sure that an topic is being pursued properly, both a positive and a negative side must be recognized.
We are hardly mind-numbed robots. Rather, we are trying to analyze a controversial issue by examining both sides instead of listening to critics who would try to force us to adopt their view. This has been an exercise in critical thinking, debate and analysis. To NOT do so would be to limit discussion and force opinion, thus making us mind-numbed robots.
March 6, 2006 - 05:24 PM on March 6th, 2006
pshenoy- 1. critical thinking is a new way of referring to common sense. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. I don’t think we are missing anything. According to Kschultz,
a. You are gathering your information from the newspaper, which is nothing more than hearsay. You have no access to actual government documents.
b. You are not being taught how to study case law, nor are you taught how to apply case law. You obviously are not being taught anything that has to do with the COTUS, let alone the Geneva Convention. If you were being taught that, you would not have reacted to what Mike said. Also, I question how you kids could be considered for an AP class with a reaction like this:
Thats the end of the war powers act, it is irrevelant in the debate. The Geneva Conventions clearly apply, our class read them and decided which ones to use. Note we only use the 1949 ones that were ratified by the Senate becuase subsequent Protocols were not ratified by the Senate and/or signed by the US and thus the President wouldn’t be responsible for following them. I’m not sure how you can say we didn’t learn something about the Geneva Convention when we did.
So let me get this straight, you are saying you are in an AP class, and that is the answer I got? You kids are going to pick and choose which statutes etc? Laughable.
March 6, 2006 - 05:29 PM on March 6th, 2006
KSchultz Said- At the end of the day though you are missing the point of education. High school education isn’t about learning things, it is about learning HOW to learn things. What an insult to everyone like me that was challenged in an AP class! Imagine how silly we must look, thinking you are in school to learn.
March 6, 2006 - 05:52 PM on March 6th, 2006
As a college graduate with more than 25 years since of diverse and deep practical real-life experience, I find it amusing to see high-schoolers lecturing to adults.
Kids…it is good that you are learning, good that you are thinking. But you probably don’t even realize or understand what you don’t know, and that is likely much more than you do know at this time. So engage in argumentive jousts with each other in school, but don’t think you are yet equipped or prepared to take on your elders.
Sincerely,
WiseOldSuperGenius
aka Robert
March 7, 2006 - 08:20 AM on March 7th, 2006
[...] So This IS What They Teach Your Kids? Discussion Peejz: katie- that is a good…FIRST KANSAS: this man is terrible. i…MW: Gee, is it as funny…katie: I would like to know…Robert: The crowd should have sent…Robert: Now is this is a…Robert: Thanks Mike, and I guessed…Adrian: When CNN ran the article…Robert: As a college graduate with…Fred Dawes: he:roll: best get behind:wink: “stop…Fred Dawes:
is she working for congress…Peejz: KSchultz Said- At the end…Peejz: pshenoy- 1. critical thinking is…pshenoy: I think you may be…mike kilo: by god, Robert, I think… Featured Links Drudge Report [...]
March 7, 2006 - 08:51 AM on March 7th, 2006
Agreed, pshenoy..do you really believe what you hear coming out of CBS? the New York Time? CNN??????
if so, I’m truly frightened.