Friday, April 10, 2009
Who thinks the United Nations is our "ally"?
What is it with Rasmussen and the goofy poll questions? Yesterday it asked about support for "capitalism" and "socialism," as if there were some sort of popularly understood consensus over what these words mean today. Today Rasmussen headlines, bizarrely, that "Only 27% See the U.N. As America's Ally." Only? Why would anybody, even a one-world transnational progressive, regard the U.N. as an "ally"? The point of the institution, even in its most romantic conception, is that it is an ally to no country. One can believe that the world is better off with the United Nations than without it, or even that the United States is better off in a world with a United Nations, but in no event would the United Nations be an ally of the United States. Rasmussen would have been far more accurate to declare that "Fully 27% of Americans do not have the most basic understanding of the purpose and mission of the United Nations."
That said, "57% of political liberals classify the U.N. as America’s ally." Strong evidence, I would say, that liberals are not nearly as worldy-wise as they claim to be. It invites a question, though: Where did people get this idea? I'm always quick to blame the public schools for passing along transnational progressive propaganda, but this bit of misinformation is not even consistent with that. The one-world left argues that it is in the best interests of the United States, and other countries, to submit to the United Nations and other world government institutions. Even if they were right, the submission of the United States would not take the form of an alliance. So what the heck is going on here?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
5 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Fri Apr 10, 09:39:00 AM:
My head snapped back for the same reason when I read that. Generally, alliances are formed against something. Against whom do the 27% believe we are allied with the UN? We are allied with the UN in the same way the shark is allied with the remora.
By 
, at
Fri Apr 10, 09:47:00 AM:
""Only 27% See the U.N. As America's Ally." Only? Why would anybody, even a one-world transnational progressive, regard the U.N. as an "ally"?"
Let me give you one answer, an answer that might suggest bias in the survey.
I have a colleague here in the heartland who was just relocated from NYC where his wife retired from a career at the UN. I believe she has a good pension and, possibly, other benefits. In NYC, the UN is perceived as a good employer, good pay & benefits and little work, so every UN employee or their relative surveyed here, would respond positively. Just another terrible cost of allowing the UN to stay in our country.
By TOF, at
Fri Apr 10, 11:11:00 AM:
Our public education system is to blame, at least in part. Here's an email I sent to my state senator the other day in response to a flood of TV ads by the Nebraska State Education Association.
Lately I have been seeing numerous TV ads from the Nebraska State Education Association (NSEA) urging us to contact our senators to make our thoughts known on the importance of public education.
Here are my thoughts:
1. The NSEA is right in the middle of politicizing public education. I do not trust them at all.
2. There is a movement among the so-called experts, for example, Bill Ayres of UIC, to politicize rather than educate the coming generations.
3. Bill Ayres was invited to speak at UNL's College of Education and Human Sciences. The dean of that college, along with the professors who populate that college, know exactly who Bill Ayres is. It is clear to me that the college faculty consider Ayres' ideas to be important, otherwise they would not have invited him to speak. Their big mistake was in assuming that no one would notice or care if an avowed terrorist spoke on the subject of politicizing public education.
4. Bill Ayres subsequently send an opinion piece to the Omaha World-Herald in which he claimed that it is the duty of scholars to challenge dogma. His article defines dogmatists those who oppose his views. In fact, Ayres, in addition to being an avowed terrorist, is an avowed communist. He firmly believes that capturing the minds of the young at an early age is the key to overthrowing our current culture and replacing it with his brand of utopia. That same approach has been used by the likes of Hitler, Mao, and the Soviets, starting with Stalin. While branding his critics as dogmatists he strewed his op-ed with communist dogma.
5. Many, but not all, of our public education faculty are the products of teachers colleges that have adopted the Ayres model of public education over the past couple of decades. That makes many of our younger faculty suspect. The fact that the NSEA is now politicizing public education to the degree that it is drives me to believe that the system has been corrupted and needs to have a change of direction. Education, not politicization, is the key to success.
I think that is pretentious and misleading for the UNL teachers college to label itself as the College of Education and Human Sciences. For many years now the Ed.D. has been regarded by the rest of the higher education community as superfluous and some have even advocated eliminating the Ed.D. Having seen some of those people first hand, I agree with that assessment. There is nothing scientific about the teachers college here in Nebraska or elsewhere. They tend to create their notions of education based on nothing more than intuition and personal preferences, unsupported by even the flimsiest of data or evidence. An example is, the notion of "multiple intelligences," which was a product of psychologist Howard Gardner. While members of his own discipline more or less dismissed his ideas because they were unsupported by empirical data, the education community embraced them. Many teachers try to practice Gardner's concepts to this day.
We need to take back the education system from these co-called professionals and end the politicization of public education. How are we going to do that?
By , at
Fri Apr 10, 11:43:00 AM:
If you read quotes from politicians and generals during WWII, you will find that the term 'Allies' has morphed into 'United Nations' by mid 1945. The UN was set up by 'The Allies'. The permamnent members of the Security Council were the winners of WWII, so I can see why people would consider the UN to be an 'Ally'. They have just missed what has happened to the institution over the last 60 years.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Apr 10, 01:48:00 PM:
You overestimate the public, feeblemind.
"So what the heck is going on here?"
Simple political ignorance.
