"Well, America: if you thought the people behind the Common Core couldn’t possibly be any more moronic or tone deaf, you were wrong."

The people behind Common core are neither moronic nor tone deaf, they are playing the game as envisioned by Marx and Dewey to the letter.

The problem is that not enough of we adults and parents are screaming from the rooftops "the mind-snatchers are coming, the mind-snatchers are coming"

Hahaha! Reheated

A leftover that fits perfectly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKyhTX9LQ...

Yes. I was playing on words, la la la la laaa!

Rahm Emanuel??? Yeah... :)

Oh $hit. I didn't even catch the than thing. I just skipped right over it. thanks :)

You and me both!

Ugh. That idiot is a thug.

Yes, I hope I have change in my pockets by the time o is out of office.

Not according to the Chicago Manual :)

You nailed it on the head. This is precisely what is happening. A change to a single word changes the meaning in MHO. These documents were CRAFTED, using specific language to negate any ambiguity. Each word has meaning.

Ya who needs those pesky rights, they just get in the way of hope and change.

They intended to have no large standing army or armaments industry. The states could have radically different rules, but everyone would be part of the same militia to be ready in case someone comes and bothers us. This would mean no armaments industry influencing politics, no constant search for evil foreign dragons to slay, an institution that brings us all together, and a powerful symbolism of militia members being responsible for (and having a right to) their own weapons to show people grant powers to the gov't not the other way around.

We should move back to following the BoR word for word, even if some elements of it feel quaint today.

On college campuses across the US. I had professors talk about doing away with the second amendment, in all earnestness. It was shocking to me that it could even be seriously considered. There was foreseen a very real need to put in place the Bill of Rights by the founders of this country, because of their very real experiences with tyranny. They actually put their lives, fortunes, families at stake because they felt to the marrow of their bones that here a fresh start, a new way of governing was morally and ethically imperative. But we know this here, but what of those who come here, only to bleed what they can from us, and twist what was written into our Constitution, in order to destroy it?

Great comments and suggestions, K. I am going to reach out to several teachers I know to see how receptive they may be. Even an English class. Persuasive writing could be the format.

"Where do you find people who admit they'd like to repeal two of the BoR?"

At almost any university, with the exception of Hillsdale....

" The only purpose seems to be propagandizing that the Bill of Rights need to be changed/outdated and what those changes should be."
I mostly agree with everything you say except for this. It's hard to imagine the people writing this exercise have an anti-BoR agenda. You think they're just Americans who don't like the BoR and are letting their opinion come through in their curriculum writing? This just doesn't ring true. Almost everyone thinks the BoR is wonderful but some think there have to be different interpretations in extraordinary cases. (I disagree with those people b/c the Framers of the Constitution wrote it not for the ordinary problems but for the extraordinary ones that would tempt us to give up our freedom.) I actually admire someone who says aloud "we don't follow them anymore, and we should admit it on paper." I don't see too many of those. The left and right claim to love the BoR. It's hard for me to imagine a group of teachers constructing this assignment and having an openly anti-BoR view. Where do you find people who admit they'd like to repeal two of the BoR?

the exercise is not appropriate for 6 graders. They aren't going to understand or probably care about the real life implications of their assignment. The only purpose seems to be propagandizing that the Bill of Rights need to be changed/outdated and what those changes should be. On a broader level, prepare the next generation to do that. I think a debate at the high school level would be appropriate. Of course, this would mean you would be debating not to change them as well. In a debate format, the instructor can at least require some serious thought to be put to the question. Both right and left say we should give up some of rights to be safe. No one screams about the Patriot Act.
A good essay question or debate in my opinion, would be are we living up to the Bill of Rights.

This isn't that different from the lesson in which the high-schoolers did a simulation of life in a totalitarian country, with students playing the role of dictator, secret informant, etc. No one thought that was designed to inure them to tyranny.

Assume this curriculum is different and *is* politically motivated. In another post, someone suggested it (I think that was Common Core) had a *leftwing* bias in downplaying the importance of the 2nd Amendment. The hypothetical narrative in this exercise, however, is "we need to give up some of our liberties to be safe from evil-doers". That is not a leftwing idea. A leftwinger would only say that with irony or sarcasm.

I think you're making happy assumptions....reread it...what's there is there...nothing happy included.

You have an admirable way of seeing the shiny side of a penny, and avoiding the burnished side.

Sixth graders are in no way capable of fleshing out the intellectual possibilities of this 'exercise', and will walk away with the syllabus instructions that say the Bill Of Rights are "outdated". No argument will change that reality.

You are a dreamer...or enabler! ;-)

At first I was shocked, but then I realized it was a hypothetical scenario. They're not saying the real gov't is reevaluating the Bill of Rights, although I would say it is, and that's not a good thing. I wonder if the spirit of this exercise is get the student to consider that. If we're not going to respect the BoR, we SHOULD admit it aloud, maybe by adding two and deleting two.

I understand the interpretation that the author of the exercise is trying to make students consider the BoR as less sacrosanct.

It's also possible they want the students to do the exercise, realize changing the gov't over light or transient causes is a bad idea, and then realize the danger/horror in that we are really doing just that without admitting it aloud.