[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2016-November-03, 12:10, said:

I am continuing to stay out of the politics subthread, but I will remind everyone that when diana_eva talks about socialism and communism, she may have a better idea of what that means in the real world than most of us...

diana_eva, on 2016-November-03, 12:19, said:

I suspect it also means that I don't really "get" democracy

Well, you've had about as much time to get used to it as we in the ACBL to announcing all our NTs (actually, 10 years more, but I expect another 10 years won't matter to the holdouts and the mistakes). So - I agree with you, I guess, maybe?

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-November-03, 12:40, said:

Would you be willing to think through the likelihood of it being true? Forget Snopes. I have heard the story before, but cannot recall anyone, regardless of their politics. believing it to be a true story.

I have never seen the story online, but have heard it from several of my friends in different circumstances, and they all thought it was true. It never occurred to me that none of them had verified it for truth, until I wrote the post that said it might be propaganda - at that point I realized the possibility that all the people that related the story to me were misinformed.

Of course, it's possible that some of the people that told me this knew it was not true but thought it was such a good story that they wanted to pass it on. It's hard to tell. I routinely get things in my Inbox that I fact check and find to be false even though it was convincing.

I may have said this before, forgive me if it's a rerun. Recently many of my friends and I were together and one got an alert about Obama signing an executive order banning the Pledge of Allegiance from any entity that receives federal funding. This sent the entire group into a tizzy until I suggested that it might be a hoax. Of course it was. Everybody else in the group is better educated, probably smarter, and usually better informed than me and most of them are interested in politics (note that I probably follow politics way more than the average bear, so this means they read a lot.) It surprised me that I was the one who had to bring up that it might be a hoax. Quite frankly, it might have been several of these people that separately told me about the professor.

This tells me that I need to do more fact checking, and intend to do that when I find a fact-checking site that not considered either liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning.

[diana_eva]

mycroft, on 2016-November-03, 14:17, said:

Well, you've had about as much time to get used to it as we in the ACBL to announcing all our NTs (actually, 10 years more, but I expect another 10 years won't matter to the holdouts and the mistakes). So - I agree with you, I guess, maybe?

I've lived it first hand through its worse years and through the so-called "Revolution". I was 12 when Ceausescu fell. Old enough to understand and never forget. My most vivid memories are about my mother trying desperately to find food for my toddler siblings. There was no food in the stores, I've spent my childhood waiting in line since dawn for long hours to buy milk, meat, sugar, flour or bread. I really don't see myself as a socialism lover but what do I know...

[PassedOut]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 14:21, said:

Recently many of my friends and I were together and one got an alert about Obama signing an executive order banning the Pledge of Allegiance from any entity that receives federal funding. This sent the entire group into a tizzy until I suggested that it might be a hoax. Of course it was.

The pledge has an interesting history: The Pledge of Allegiance

Quote

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I wasn't around in 1923 when the wording was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America," but I do remember when the "under God" phrase was added, and how we kids stumbled over the newer, more choppy phrasing.

Fact checking is useful, but when a story is so wildly implausible on it's face, like both the Obama story you identified as a hoax and the professor story that you didn't, it seems like overkill. The question I have is why folks fall for that stuff in the first place?

Do you know of comparable stories that are passed on as true by left-wing sources and believed in those circles? Maybe the anti-vaccination movement is an example (yes, I know that Michele Bachmann isn't a left-winger, but still).

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-03, 14:27, said:

I've lived it first hand through its worse years and through the so-called "Revolution". I was 12 when Ceausescu fell. Old enough to understand and never forget. My most vivid memories are about my mother trying desperately to find food for my toddler siblings. There was no food in the stores, I've spent my childhood waiting in line since dawn for long hours to buy milk, meat, sugar, flour or bread. I really don't see myself as a socialism lover but what do I know...

Wow. You have already suffered the curse "May you live in interesting times." I just read the Cliff's notes version on what happened in Romaina post 1989, but I have questions. Feel free to ignore them or answer them privately if you deem that to be better.

About the long food lines:
Were they mainly before or after 1989?

Poverty rose during the Communist regime that ended in 1989. Were your long food lines due to that poverty or due to the lack of infrastructure in growing/transporting the food in a disorganized new government?

You seemed to describe a situation where you had the money to buy food but the food wasn't available. Was that true for most Romanians - implying that jobs were plentiful but the ability to obtain food wasn't?

Do you feel like there would not have been food shortages under a different form of government?

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 15:10, said:

Wow. You have already suffered the curse "May you live in interesting times." I just read the Cliff's notes version on what happened in Romaina post 1989, but I have questions. Feel free to ignore them or answer them privately if you deem that to be better.

About the long food lines:
Were they mainly before or after 1989?

Poverty rose during the Communist regime that ended in 1989. Were your long food lines due to that poverty or due to the lack of infrastructure in growing/transporting the food in a disorganized new government?

You seemed to describe a situation where you had the money to buy food but the food wasn't available. Was that true for most Romanians - implying that jobs were plentiful but the ability to obtain food wasn't?

Do you feel like there would not have been food shortages under a different form of government?

This was under a dictatorship. It;s not specific to socialism, not even to communism. When a megalomaniac moron gains absolute power they can do things like deciding that Romania must not be dependent on capitalism and pay out all Romanian external debt. Romania's most wanted products for export were food and food-related stuff. Hence we were exporting all food and there was nothing in the stores. There was money, but you couldn't buy anything with it bec the stores were empty.

I don't usually whine or disclose all that much about myself but you sound gullible enough to fall for a teary story like this one. It's all true though, but really it's easy to capture your interest through the right methods. .

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 10:55, said:

I couldn't agree with you more.

And yet, who is politicizing the Climate Change issue?

that would be our attorney general

Seems to me that it's a scientific issue, not a law issue. Plus, don't we have free speech in this country?

The first amendment protections afforded to free speech are not absolute and there are a number of exceptions to them.

Many of these have to do with providing investor guidance.

The incidents involving the Attorney General of New York are very much focused on this issue.

[Kaitlyn S]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-03, 14:54, said:

Fact checking is useful, but when a story is so wildly implausible on it's face, like both the Obama story you identified as a hoax and the professor story that you didn't, it seems like overkill. The question I have is why folks fall for that stuff in the first place?nn isn't a left-winger, but still).

I didn't think the professor was implausible. Did you think that it was implausible because you didn't think a professor could be anything but liberal? (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-03, 15:25, said:

I don't usually whine or disclose all that much about myself but you sound gullible enough to fall for a teary story like this one.

Or I'm gullible enough to expect that somebody that seems like a genuinely good person wouldn't try to pull something evil. If some of the other posters posted what you did, I might not have been so quick to believe, figuring from the aura of the thread that someone might have been trying to pull a fast one on me. Funny me - didn't think you were up to it

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 15:35, said:

I didn't think the professor was implausible. Did you think that it was implausible because you didn't think a professor could be anything but liberal? (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

I think that it is implausible because I have taught at a major University and attended others and I am well aware what types of discretionary powers professors do and do not have...

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-03, 14:54, said:

The pledge has an interesting history: The Pledge of Allegiance


I wasn't around in 1923 when the wording was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America," but I do remember when the "under God" phrase was added, and how we kids stumbled over the newer, more choppy phrasing.

Fact checking is useful, but when a story is so wildly implausible on it's face, like both the Obama story you identified as a hoax and the professor story that you didn't, it seems like overkill. The question I have is why folks fall for that stuff in the first place?

Do you know of comparable stories that are passed on as true by left-wing sources and believed in those circles? Maybe the anti-vaccination movement is an example (yes, I know that Michele Bachmann isn't a left-winger, but still).

Maybe we need a wild claims thread! I have mentioned this before but back as a grad student in 1960s Minnesota I had a friend who ran for governor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. After the election he told me they were thinking of demanding an investigation because it was impossible that he would have received as few votes as he did. Not exactly comparable, but still amusing.Especially for anyone who ever had a political discussion with my friend. I tried not to.

One of my favorites from many years back. Becky and I were invited to a party. It turned out to be a sham party where someone was recruiting for a cult like organization, I forget the name. No, we didn't join, that's not the story. Maybe six months later there was an arrest of a giy connected with this organization, charged with fraud.

Here was his pitch: The idea was to hide your money offshore so the IRS couldn't get at it. He was, he said, very epperienced in how to hide money offshore and he would do this for people for a fee.

So think about it: The guy starts his sales pitch by explaining that he is a crook. Then he asks people to give their money to him so that he can hide it. And people do it!.

I'm all for sending the guy to jail, but these pigeons need a pigeon keeper to watch over them.

Oh. But here is one on the liberal side. Schaefer was governor of Maryland some years back. One year when the state was rtight for funds there were no raises for the faculty at the University of Maryland. A friend and colleague, an ardent Schaefer supporter, expressed shock, although he had great admiration for the governor's plan. He explained the plan. The state would announce that there was no money for raises. The citizens of the state would find this totally unacceptable and would demand that money be found somewhere to give us the raise we deserved. This was an excellent plan but somehow the massive uprising from the man in the street never materialized. Why this plan had not worked was a total mystery to my friend.

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 15:39, said:

Or I'm gullible enough to expect that somebody that seems like a genuinely good person wouldn't try to pull something evil. If some of the other posters posted what you did, I might not have been so quick to believe, figuring from the aura of the thread that someone might have been trying to pull a fast one on me. Funny me - didn't think you were up to it

The point of this beautiful and authentic story was that it's not a good idea to put a megalomaniac in charge of a country I am a genuinely good person. And I am amazed that you are fooled by some cheap propaganda pieces that circulate on the internet. There's nothing evil going on, just trying to get you to check your sources a little.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 14:21, said:

I have never seen the story online, but have heard it from several of my friends in different circumstances, and they all thought it was true.

This is how urban legends are propagated.

[mycroft]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-03, 14:27, said:

I've lived it first hand through its worse years and through the so-called "Revolution". I was 12 when Ceausescu fell. Old enough to understand and never forget. My most vivid memories are about my mother trying desperately to find food for my toddler siblings. There was no food in the stores, I've spent my childhood waiting in line since dawn for long hours to buy milk, meat, sugar, flour or bread. I really don't see myself as a socialism lover but what do I know...

I thought I might have been a little subtle in my last one - and your answer leads me to believe that I was. I apologize.

What I meant was, when you said "I suspect it also means that I don't really "get" democracy", I was joking that you've had the same amount of time as we have to getting "announcing 15-17 NT" - so it's very likely that you do, in fact, get it (and if not, you're doing it deliberately. I don't expect that).

My first comment was along the lines of "I bet she has horror stories, but also knows the difference between socialism, communism, theory, practise, and what the people crying 'socialist!' in the U.S. actually think. You should listen to her." I work with a couple of Romanians a little younger than you; my first job was with a couple from Warsaw in 1986; one of my bridge partners escaped Czechoslovakia in 1968 IIRC. What I know from that is "I know, but I will never *know*. And I should be grateful for that."

For any miscommunication, I am sorry.

[diana_eva]

mycroft, on 2016-November-03, 16:21, said:

I thought I might have been a little subtle in my last one - and your answer leads me to believe that I was. I apologize.

What I meant was, when you said "I suspect it also means that I don't really "get" democracy", I was joking that you've had the same amount of time as we have to getting "announcing 15-17 NT" - so it's very likely that you do, in fact, get it (and if not, you're doing it deliberately. I don't expect that).

My first comment was along the lines of "I bet she has horror stories, but also knows the difference between socialism, communism, theory, practise, and what the people crying 'socialist!' in the U.S. actually think. You should listen to her." I work with a couple of Romanians a little younger than you; my first job was with a couple from Warsaw in 1986; one of my bridge partners escaped Czechoslovakia in 1968 IIRC. What I know from that is "I know, but I will never *know*. And I should be grateful for that."

For any miscommunication, I am sorry.

I understood what you meant. Was just baiting Kaitlyn into paying a little more attention to the differences between socialism, communism and mad dictators.

[cherdano]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 10:56, said:

Most sciences would be okay too, I expect.

So you would have no objections to a Common core limited to English language and mathematics?

[Kaitlyn S]

cherdano, on 2016-November-03, 16:37, said:

So you would have no objections to a Common core limited to English language and mathematics?

As I believe I said earlier, I'm in favor of any education technique that improves learning and student thinking that can't be politicized. It would seem difficult to politicize math. A Common Core edict that requires that all high school children read a story of a downtrodden Muslim family running from ruthless Christian attackers in the 11th century because the President wants to please CAIR is not acceptable IMO. However, it would be equally unacceptable for a DOE under a racist President to require the reading of Brigitte Gabriel's "Why They Hate" by all students. (For those that don't know, this book would give exactly the opposite impression of the first book I mentioned.)

[cherdano]

Kaitlyn, it is great to know that you support Common Core! (Common Core is only about mathematics and English language.)

[Elianna]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 17:24, said:

As I believe I said earlier, I'm in favor of any education technique that improves learning and student thinking that can't be politicized. It would seem difficult to politicize math. A Common Core edict that requires that all high school children read a story of a downtrodden Muslim family running from ruthless Christian attackers in the 11th century because the President wants to please CAIR is not acceptable IMO. However, it would be equally unacceptable for a DOE under a racist President to require the reading of Brigitte Gabriel's "Why They Hate" by all students. (For those that don't know, this book would give exactly the opposite impression of the first book I mentioned.)

I don't know as much about the English Language Arts (ELA) standards, but you can find them for yourself here: http://www.corestand...g/ELA-Literacy/

I took a cursory look and what I found jibed with my memory: There were no required texts, it mainly lists what students are expected to be able to do, and is up to teachers (more likely school districts) to choose texts that support students in developing the expected skills.

cherdano, on 2016-November-03, 17:27, said:

Kaitlyn, it is great to know that you support Common Core! (Common Core is only about mathematics and English language.)

Yes, and no. It's about Math and English Language Arts, but all non-Math courses are expected to support ELA. The new standards for ELA are heavy on being able to read Science/History texts for understanding. As a 1/4 science teacher, I've sat in Literacy training when I haven't felt like attending the Math training. If you look at the link I put above, you can see that ELA is expected to be supported by Science/History.

Also, NGSS is coming out for Science. It is not technically part of common core, but it's a similar concept and we in the Science Dept at my school (I teach both Math and Science) are definitely expected to adapt to it, and schools in general have to make sure they are covering it.

[barmar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-03, 14:21, said:

I have never seen the story online, but have heard it from several of my friends in different circumstances, and they all thought it was true. It never occurred to me that none of them had verified it for truth, until I wrote the post that said it might be propaganda - at that point I realized the possibility that all the people that related the story to me were misinformed.

That's the nature of Internet hoaxes. People pass them on to their friends, and everyone considers the person they learned it from to be credible, so no one bothers to verify it. Sometimes even real news organizations pick it up, and they consider the fact that they learned it from multiple sources to be sufficient verification, but it actually turns out that all those sources were part of the same viral propagation network of the hoax.

This can be very incidious. What's worse is the phenomenon of implanted memories -- some of these sources will claim that it actually happened to them, but it didn't really.