Chilling truths told 50 years ago by Paul Harvey

[trappincoyotes39]

The audio is of Paul Harvey explaining how he would destroy us [America] if he were Satan…

“If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing. Paul Harvey, good


SOUNDS like where we are as a world today doesn't it?

[trappnman]

"In an odd twist, though (and the reason this item is rated as a "mixture"), one of the most widely Internet-circulated versions of "If I Were the Devil," as reproduced in the "Example" block above, is not from Paul Harvey. Although it is clearly inspired by and in the spirit of Paul Harvey's essay of the same name, it bears virtually no textual resemblance to the original — while it is similar in structure and theme, not one of its lines appears in any of various forms of the essay which Paul Harvey presented to his audiences over the years.

Read more at www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/devil.asp#JCpZ1vSjf1R7yGdM.99"

something else, taken by Beck and others, to twist towards their own ends

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman yep already did the snopes thing, most of it is close to what he spoke of . There is no doubt about that some 49 years ago. The words have changed the meaning hasn't that is clear to see hence the term mixture as well.

There is also no doubt that our country has become far more dependant on federal govt than back then as well.

Look at AG prices and what the futures hold some tough times ahead for AG producers and banks if things do not change, too many eggs put into the failed ethonol basket and many will pay for this.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out Tuesday night.

[trappnman]

Harvey, while I liked listening to his show and did quite often, esp "the rest of the story", was an extreme right wing religious conservative.

as such, I put little credence to his political views-

federal gov is smaller under Obama than either of the bush's by the way

[trappincoyotes39]

Not his political views but do the words he stated match what is going on today? I say yes in some ways.

Many things are larger now than when he took office a few good but the debt, people on the public assistance rolls .

Again Tuesday will show us a few things.

These numbers seem to be on the up and up. A comparison using fed numbers.


A common liberal answer to conservative complaints about the size of government and the federal debt is that George W. Bush also grew government and ran deficits. Rather than taking these claims at face value, conservatives should present liberals with counterarguments that delve deeper into the issues at hand.

First, examine the details of the growth of government under George W. Bush. According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2000 there were 4,129,000 federal workers. By 2008, there were 4,206,000 federal workers, a total increase of 77,000 employees. Executive branch employees increased by 53,000 and military personnel increased by 24,000.

Much of this increase in the federal workforce is explained by the fact that the nation went to war on George W. Bush’s watch. Bipartisan votes in congress authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. The increase in military personnel was needed to fight these wars.

The jump in executive branch employees is also a result of the wars against terrorists. The increase is almost totally accounted for by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. According to CNN, the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of DHS, employs approximately 60,000 federal workers. The TSA employs screeners, air marshals, inspectors, explosives detection teams, and, of course, bureaucrats.

For Obama’s part, federal employment also increased from 2008 through 2011, the last year for which statistics were available. In 2011, there were 4,403,000 federal workers, an increase of 197,000 from 2008. The 2011 total was slightly lower than 2010, due to the inclusion of temporary census workers in 2010. Under Obama, executive branch employees increased by 64,000 and uniformed military personnel increased by 133,000.

With respect to spending, President Bush inherited a surplus according to historical data from the White House Office of Management and Budget. There was a federal surplus of $128 billion in 2001. The recession and the new war combined to create a $158 billion deficit in 2002 as revenues fell and spending increased.

During the Bush Administration, total outlays increased every year from $1.8 trillion in 2001 to $2.9 trillion in 2008. The average deficit during the Bush years was $250 billion. As a percentage of GDP, the average deficit was two percent. President Bush’s largest deficit was $458 billion in 2008 when the financial crisis led to the creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and several corporate bailouts.

During President Obama’s first term, federal outlays increased from $3.5 trillion in 2009 to $3.6 trillion in 2011. The estimated total outlays for 2012 are estimated to be $3.8 trillion. In Obama’s first year, the deficit increased by almost a trillion dollars from 2008. Obama has not had a single year in which the deficit was less than a trillion dollars. Obama’s average deficit was $1.3 trillion during his first three years. This translates into an average deficit that is 9.2 percent of GDP.

Under President Obama, spending dramatically increased at the same time that tax revenues dropped sharply due to the Great Recession. By 2012, revenues were almost recovered to pre-2008 levels, but spending had risen even faster. Even three years in to the recovery, deficit levels remain above eight percent of GDP.

Some liberals might prefer to use 2009 numbers rather than 2008, but that would let Obama escape responsibility for the stimulus spending that he initiated. In reality, President Obama’s “emergency” stimulus spending never went away and the increased spending levels have now become permanent.

It is true that Bush left office in 2009, but he served less than a month. President Bush submitted the proposed budget for the 2009 fiscal year to Congress, but it was President Obama who signed it into law. In either case, the average deficit under Obama is more than four times greater than that of President Bush.

Both presidents increased the national debt according to statistical data from the U.S. Treasury. On January 20, 2001 when President Bush took office, the total national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Eight years later on January 20, 2009 the debt had risen to $10.6 trillion.

During President Obama’s first term the debt increased to $16.4 trillion on January 20, 2013. This means that under Obama, the debt had increased by $5.8 trillion in four years as opposed to President Bush’s increase of $4.9 trillion over eight years.

In the final analysis, both presidents grew government and spent and borrowed far too much. President Obama’s spending and borrowing is in a league by itself, however. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to preside over trillion dollar deficits and one has occurred each year of his presidency.

The only other period in American history in which spending levels matched those under Obama was when the country mobilized to fight the Axis during World War II. In the 1940s, government spending decreased at the end of the war. So far President Obama has shown no signs of ever slowing his spending.

[trappnman]

debt increased? perhaps because bush founded neither war?

read this-

www.factandmyth.com/deficit-and-debt/obama-vs-bush-deficit-debt-revenue-spending

[trappincoyotes39]

Many of the numbers I shown came from federal govt entities Tman...........

In fact if one looks up how many soldiers have died since Obama has been president well they are : Afghanistan deaths bush 575 Obama 1153.

Debt by year and president from a leading US economist.

President Barack Obama - The debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's term. He added $6.103 trillion, a 52% increase, in six years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

President George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. This more than doubled the debt, which was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001 -- the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to record levels, $600-$800 billion a year. This included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. For more, see the Bush Administration.

Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt - President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was more than a 1,000% increase over the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover's last budget. Of course, the Great Depression took a huge bite out of revenues. However, most of the debt was added to gear up for World War II, not to pay for the New Deal. In fact, $209 billion alone was added to the debt between 1942-1945.

President Woodrow Wilson - President Wilson was the second largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. Although he only added $21 billion, this was a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt level of his predecessor. Of course, Wilson had to pay for World War I. In fact, the Second Liberty Bond Act was enacted during his Presidency, giving Congress the right to enact the national debt ceiling. Article updated September 24, 2014

Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960:

President Barack Obama: Added $6.103 trillion, a 52% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2014 - $1.022 trillion (Although the fiscal year doesn't end until September 30)
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
President George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 tr illion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.
President Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.
President George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.
President Ronald Reagan : Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. Also see Did Reaganomics Work?
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.
President Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.
President Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
FY 1977 - $78 billion.
FY 1976 - $87 billion.
FY 1975 - $58 billion.
President Richard Nixon : Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
FY 1974 - $17 billion.
FY 1973 - $31 billion.
FY 1972 - $29 billion.
FY 1971 - $27 billion.
FY 1970 - $17 billion.
President Lyndon B. Johnson : Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
FY 1969 - $6 billion.
FY 1968 - $21 billion.
FY 1967 - $6 billion.
FY 1966 - $3 billion.
FY 1965 - $6 billion.
President John F. Kennedy : Added $23 billion, a 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
FY 1964 - $6 billion.
FY 1963 - $7 billion.
FY 1962 - $10 billion.
President Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase to the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
FY 1961 - $3 billion.
FY 1960 - $2 billion.
FY 1959 - $8 billion.
FY 1958 - $6 billion.
FY 1957 - $2 billion surplus.
FY 1956 - $2 billion surplus.
FY 1955 - $3 billion.

[trappincoyotes39]

Looked at many of the graphs many are outdated and only go through 2005, Clinton had a surplus in some regards due to the advent of the internet plain and simple. We had more rich and paying some more in taxes was offset by instant wealth that the internet grew, it then shot down and many of those early companies are no longer around.

Gateway,Compaq and many soft ware firms are mere shells of what they where or put of business.

A global economy has an effect of cost and net and right now American manufacturing of many things is way off due to many regulations and taxes also play into the bottom line. Having technology is great but it will not support a large US work force, our unemployment will be higher than normal for many years until we make some changes.

Wonder how long it will be before we see a positive from Obama care? I have a strong belief it will not do anything for healthcare spending as private companies are under writing Obama care and will continue to increase cost in the future.

[bblwi]

There are millions of persons and firms in the quest for gaining wealth so I don't see the connection to destroying incentive to be ambitious. We have many that have means other than work and it comes in many ways, much in the form of capital gain income going to people who never worked for the wealth but enjoy it.
Also there has been infighting among families, churches, organizations and governments since the beginning of recorded time, so I would like to see how 2014 is that much different then 1814, 1614 or 1014 for that matter. Just because something can happen faster or easier does not mean that the basic human culture has changed that much.
Quoting the Bible to predict the end of the World or the lack of morality totally misses the numerous times in the Bible that God and Jesus resorted to drastic measures to remove the bad elements in humans and their societies.

Bryce

[PamIsMe]

Tax cuts=reduced revenue Reduced revenue + recession= higher debt None of which the current President had any control over.

I liked to listen to Paul Harvey in general. What he said almost 50 years ago was nothing new.

Personally I like the rebuttal I read a while back:


If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the world in the darkness of ignorance; I would use this ignorance to cause divisiveness among men, and my success would give me control of every nation in the world.

First, I would invent religion. Not just one religion, but many religions, and I would delude the followers of each into believing that theirs was the “one true faith.” In so doing, I would promote an attitude among mankind that the followers of religions other than their own must do so only through ignorance or the primitiveness of their culture. And I would promote an attitude among them all that those who refuse to accept any religion are delusional, arrogant, or evil;

I would have families indoctrinate their children into their particular religion prior to an age at which the children could understand or question the concepts of that religion. I would know that children are trusting of their parents and very few will ever consider that their parents could possibly be wrong about a topic of such consequence;

I would have everyone believing that anything they ever experienced that might be beyond their personal understanding must be rooted in supernatural causes;

With the cunning of a fox, I would make them believe that I was the Creator of mankind, the earth and the entire universe. I would have them believe that their achievements could only happen under my guiding hand, and that any tragedy that befell them happened at my will for reasons beyond their capability or need to understand;

I would convince some of them that failure to worship and love me would result in their having an eternal punishment following the end of their already wretched earthly lives;

If religion were not fully sufficient to cause divisiveness between men, I would teach them to weave flags and create borders between lands, and I’d give those born within each border a feeling that they are more deserving of the resources within their own borders than those who aren’t;

I would fool some of them into including religious symbols or oaths into their currency and nationalistic pledges in such a way that any who took offense would be seen as unpatriotic.

My closest disciples would work to pass laws subjugating all men who reside within certain borders to live according to the religion most prevalently followed within those borders;

I would convince humanity that men who lived in earlier times were inherently wiser and more pure of heart;

If some of the people began to study, unlock and understand the realities of nature I would have them branded as blasphemers; If these blasphemers attempted to educate others about the true nature of the universe, I would have my disciples fight tooth and nail to stop them;

If I were the devil I would make men believe that they are superior to women; that work performed by a woman is not worthy of the same pay as that performed by a man; and that laws should be passed to deny women from controlling their part in reproduction;

I would make humans think that they are my favorite form of life and that other animals need not be treated with respect or compassion;

I would make euthanasia a crime so that I could enjoy watching the terminally ill writhe in agony or spend their final days in a drug-induced stupor;

I would persuade people that sexuality comes solely from personal choice, and that those who are not heterosexual are sinners not entitled to the rights of other citizens.

I would infiltrate the wealthiest of corporations and instill in their leaders the idea that they and only they are entitled to live in comfort and I’d tell them that those who labor on their behalf are not worthy of pay or benefits that would enable them to live without having to worry about having to choose between paying the electric bill or the water bill, or between buying groceries or buying school supplies;

I might even pose as a professional essayist and get paid to read my propaganda to millions of radio listeners in a neighborly, persuasive voice.

If I were the devil I would do all of these things and more because I would take delight in the immeasurable suffering caused by ignorance and intolerance.

But I’m not the devil, nor do I believe in the existence of such a hideous being, any more than I believe in the existence of gods, unicorns, leprechauns or dragons.

… and that’s the rest of the story. Good day!



Read more: www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/13/a-rebuttal-to-paul-harveys-if-i-were-the-devil/#ixzz3HzCfmp18

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam your version is spoken from a true atheist point of view Whi ever wrote the new twisted version well easy to see their thoughts.

If your the prince of darkness you wouldn't be for religion and in fact religion has been around long before this person decided to take fault with religion.

I also see animal rights interjected into their version of the prince of darkness. Now that is scary...........

many religions follow a code of conduct which is a good thing, religion keeps many grounded, religion also brings hope and in this world today well hope is a good thing in my book. Just the aspect of the freedoms we have to join a religous group is something everyone should be excited about. In some countires you do not have that choice......

many things are not explained and if some choose to believe The Lord, God has done things so be it. Religion is based on many faiths and scripture inside of a religion to think religion is are down fall in the US well? I highly disagree with such a statement.

Your writer is clearly a left wing anti of religion and wants to protect animals from hunters,trappers and AG practices. Easy to read between the lines and he didn't write this 50 years ago, predicting a future he is trying to manipulate the future by putting the devil or prince of darkness as being rooted inside of religion and how animals are treated in his mind as being an evil. To me that equals whack job.

Religous segregation in our country ok then

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce if you do not think that technology hasn't changed our country and culture ok then...............

Some technology is a good thing, others I feel makes for a lazy bunch of people. What used to be done by hand and walking and sweating is now done with technology and we do not need near the number of people to do such task. That is a job loss of significant numbers.

Cursive is no longer taught in most schools as due to technology the hand written letter is becoming a thing of the past. Tweets,text and emails have taken over and much of the personnel interaction between people is going by the wayside. Kids texting each other when sitting feet apart from one another. The Human conversation is loosing out.

many teenagers have over 1,000 text a month the ability to communicate in person is something that is and will be needed in the future. I feel more schools should mandate 4 years of HS speech classes to keep them engaged in the acts of words.

technology has some great positives but with It comes many negatives as well. As we get more dependent on instant gratification and work, we are loosing a lot of jobs, jobs that aren't going to be easy to replace and our unemployment will remain higher than 5-6 percent for many years I am afraid. Jobs create taxes it is that simple. from top to bottom . We can not watch everything go up in price while wages stay stagnant and jobs remain less than ideal and expect us to dig out of this massive debt we have. Placing the burden on the rich which is a small minority of people will keep things at a higher cost and lower job growth. WE need to add 3-4 million new jobs when everyone is making a living then taxes a easier to swallow. during the internet boom life was good for many and we had a surplus a quick window in time where we created tons of wealth in this country, it wasn't sustained though and many of those people are not wealthy anymore. They are not producing things or creating jobs.

[bblwi]

So your assumptions and thoughts are that the World will become a progressively more evil and bad place to be as time marches on and technology changes how we work and live? I am one that does not want to buy into that philosophy of doom and gloom. What a mindset to plant in our youth that they are part of the spiritually lost new wave of humans and that they will be more evil due to the decisions made by their parents and grandparents. If that is one's thought, why bother at all.
The main difference that technology makes it puts opportunity at reasonable cost and quick information affordable to billions instead of thousands and I don't see that as a bad thing. Sure it will take time for a slower changing biology and mindset to change than modern day technology but then that is nothing new. The printing press invention is over 500 years old and we still have billions of illiterate citizens in the world, so it takes generations to get things changed.

Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce your mind does run wild doesn't it?

I see technology as something that can be a plus in some areas and a BIG minus in others. We need more kids getting exercise and learning about the outdoors not from a tablet but boots on the ground and real,life experiences a field.

People complain about things not being American made with our technology and lack of people wanting to do these types of jobs, coupled with big differences in pay, hours worked, union versus non union and EPA laws being non existent in other countries we have no chance to have much manufacturing taking place here anymore.

WE need to find ways to add jobs with technology that keeps human "hands on" at a minimum to begin with.................

A difficult balance to strike. For example technology has helped raise more corn and soybeans than years past, now we have crops that can grow with less moisture, less fertilizer, less chemical and ground impact and keep,high yields. To think we will see 6.00 corn again? I feel it will be along time before at happens again, as with many other occupations in put cost keep rising and the pay stays the same or less. We want to,tax the rich at higher rates while we loose the middle class more and more each year. more people reliant on fed aid programs and states taking on more of federal mandates.

[bblwi]

No my mind does not run wild. Yours seems to find fault with most that our culture and societies live with today and that can and does create a very negative and narrow view of what our future holds or more importantly should or will be. Most likely the major things that will impact my grandchildren have not even been invented yet nor what they will need to know and learn. Teaching to learn and adapt and accepting change is critical while we are younger. That is how one gets situated. Once we get grounded or stable we can and do take the time to not keep up with the rapid changes of life and then complain about how life is not the same. Some more than others.

Bryce

[PamIsMe]

"Cursive is no longer taught in most schools ..."

IMHO it's probably not much of a loss as most people have such terrible handwriting as to be illegible, and that includes me. lol
Small manipulative skills are important though and I'm sure they will always teach printing of letters and numbers.
I think our kids are lucky to be growing up in such changing technological times. I can't imagine 50 years from now what they will be reflecting on as changes they've lived through and what they will think their best times of life were.

"Pam your version is spoken from a true atheist point of view "

No kidding, did you see "friendly atheist blog" in the link? Written no doubt as satire since an atheist wouldn't believe in Satan or a Prince of Darkness either. Some of us just believe that humans make their own problems without "outside" influences to put the blame on.

Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam everyone has a keyboard in front of them with spell check so why do we need cursive and spelling hey

What happens when the keyboards go down and one needs to get a message out?

critical thinking needs to be taught more and more because of technology, it used to be second nature for many people, with the advent of much of today's technology we have lost some in the ability of critical thinking, art of conversation and the ability to write. To me not a good thing at all.

[bblwi]

Society or culture is like money. Everything will gravitate to the money or what people want. It may well not be good that we lose some older skills but if people don't want them they won't get used or promoted. Just look at modern service businesses where much is just on Icons, bar codes etc. Our large scale capitalistic firms don't want to train people to be communicators they want to train them to not make any errors. We don't have to know how to make change anymore.
You don't need to know how to read a map or understand geography to drive into unknown areas today if you have street numbers. Navigation tools are just another option on a car these days. One advantage of using a debit card or a credit card is that your account gets balanced monthly and there are no checks laying around not cashed for months etc. and thus a bank statement can be current and accurate without reconciling the statement.
Just talk with most parents with kids that are in their teens to their forties. Many state that their kids won't answer their cell phone but will respond to a text, so many younger people don't even want to talk with their family members let a lone others.

Bryce

[PamIsMe]

TC you are worried about kids not earning cursive?

I'm not worried at all. Here's what kids are doing in my area:


Scientific formulas. The Periodic Table of the Elements. Facts, figures and definitions.

It’s all memorization, but it’s not enough anymore.

Sixth-grade science students at Glacial Drumlin School have, for the past six years, been taught physics lessons from the Concept Mapped Project-based Activity Scaffolding System (CoMPASS) curriculum developed by Professor Sadhana Puntambekar in the University of Wisconsin Educational Psychology Department.

It’s more about participating in science instead of reading and being lectured about what others have done in science.

“It’s a different approach to teaching,” said teacher Liz Hoppenjan. “It’s a more effective way for students to learn. There is more discovery and questioning instead of presenting information to students through books. Teachers are more of facilitators, not just dispensers of knowledge.”

CoMPASS integrates three modes of learning science: digitally linked online text; inquiry-based, design challenge activities; and simulation experiments. It is used in the classrooms of Greg Sonsalla, Hoppenjan and Scott Amera.

“We spend a lot of time developing the scientific method,” Amera said. “The students love the hands-on approach.”

The scientific method has six parts: ask a question, do background research, construct a hypothesis, test the hypothesis by conducting an experiment, analyze the data and form a conclusion, and communicate the results.

Students experience science as inquiry, much like scientists and engineers. They can manipulate the computer system to create visual displays based on the concepts they choose. This supports students’ reading of the text to further aid them in seeing these relationships and gaining a deeper understanding of science.

“We want them to be problem solvers, not a container of knowledge,” Sonsalla said.

CoMPASS emphasizes solving problems through creative thinking over memorizing definitions and procedures.

“We’re trying to prepare kids for jobs that don’t exist yet,” Hoppenjan said.

Sonsalla said the students benefit from the different method.

“There is a lot of discussion among the students,” he said. “They process more because of it.”

When the CoMPASS program was first introduced, it was sometimes frustrating for students and parents. Students had to get used to not being spoon-fed the information anymore, and parents were occasionally at a loss as to how to help their children at home.

Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam with my wife in education for 24 years I am fully aware of common core, each state is making their own standards the standards are the goal is state can decide through curriculum how to achieve those standards. I am more in tune with critical application than creative application. call it what you will compass or what ever it is all on a model of common core.

I agree with some of it, but again not enough time in a day for things like PE,spelling in some schools, speech, and writing so we can see an increase of obese, introverts, that are genius but cannot write or spell worth a darn But hey we can develop a scientific method in a day

Missouri is a state at the governor passed the law in July that states they will not adopt the federal standards but will make up their own and will be in place by 2016-17 school year. ones that will fit the needs here and many other states have done the same. it allows the curriculum to be changed according to needs in different areas.