We were going to war long before Pearl Harbor. Pear Harbor just provided a tipping point to jump in (which is why there are so many conspiracy theories about Roosevelt knowingly letting it happen). The American Volunteer Group was an example of covert US involvement.
Again, go to the standard and show me the section where it says that guessing counts. I'd love to see it.
As far as you allusion to guessing, estimation is a valuable skill that does need to be taught, unfortunately most teachers I've run across don't really understand the process well and so misteach it when teaching addition.
FYI, I have done the research. I've shown you my direct sources. Now show me yours.

CC is implemented in most states so what's your point? OK - so here's the standard: http://www.corestandards.org/the-standar.... Can you show me where it defines specific teaching methods? I'd love to know. Everyone keeps talking about how CC forces teachers to teach certain methods - show me. I'd sure like to see where it's at.
What I'm seeing is schools adopting CC along with someone's curriculum and some delivery methodology and lumping it all together so they can place the responsibility for the decision of the gubmt and not on themselves.

Children are the future. Whomsoever controls what they learn controls the future. The Nazis in 1933 burned books to destroy subversive ideas. The Marxists are rewriting history to suit their agenda which is to provide the Leader with followers who cannot think on their own and will blindly follow the Leader's dictates.

And I live in CT. CC is implemented here. I do know.

Obviously that wasn't the only reason for direct involvement. It was just a bit of info to explain why we would be at war and eventually bomb Japan. There were clearly other mitigating circumstances which brought the US into the war. And this is only a very small piece of common core. How is it possible to learn multiplication and division without first knowing addition FACTS, not just guesses? The whole thing is corrupt from top to bottom. Do some research yourself.

Precisely.

The absolute hypocrisy when discussing the CC standards is absolutely incredible. I think it's quite funny to talk about open discussion and correct vs wrong answers and distortion when you have obviously no direct knowledge of the subject. If you'd actually read the standards, you'd know how foolish your comments are. They are addressing issues not even part of the standards.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to research your WWII history a little more. The US involvement was much more than getting pulled into it because of direct aggression.
People love to talk about education, but few really want it.

I disagree that government run public education is a good idea. Anyone who's read ANY REAL history will see how having the gov pick and choose what to teach children is NOT good....which, by the way, will be just the kind of revised history that gets taught so kids will never learn the horrors of big government and what it always leads to. THAT'S my point.

A third option would be to eliminate the Department of Education

So you don't draw any distinctions between any forms of discrimination? All forms of discrimination are deplorable to you? That's an interesting moral high ground. Are you then equating educated people to non-educated, lazy to hard working, beautiful to ugly? Do you sleep indiscriminately with anyone? Let's take your moral high road all the way!

The only reasonable solution is a two fold approach.

First hold to your values and vote accordingly.

Second supplement what your children learn and Teach them yourself. Parental responsibility is a huge factor and unless you accept that responsibility and live up to it the next generation will be lost.

What good is hearing the Gettysburg Address if you don't know WHY it was written? What good is it to hear the definition of the Gestapo if you do not learn how they came to be?
What is it about the public school system that you love so much? The brainwashing with emotional tactics? The lack of presenting brutal truth? What?? How do you feel about removing the N word from Huckleberry Finn? You okay with that too?

I think you're an obiaist.
If a school is reading "Sally has two Mom's" then THE SCHOOL is overriding parental choice. (It yes, this does happen!)
If it's highly educated people who are putting together curriculum then how in God's green acres are they "accidentally" getting history wrong? There is NO excuse. And reorganizing the order of history jumbles up events when chronological timing is important to the flow of understanding the domino affect of what happened next and why. Historical timelines should not be a puzzle.
I'd have to believe in Heaven for me to explain what the road to it is paved with.... However, the road to the gulch is paved with rigid principles.

Whether YOU (or I) agree with biblical translation is, again, NOT the issue.. it IS parental choice however and you have no right to interfere with that choice.

Thank you for comparing heteros with Neo Nazis...you just made my point. And pssst...there is NO such thing as 'reverse racism'... racism is racism is racism. (Just like phobia is phobia is phobia is phobia.)

Here we go again with the words, 'misguided', 'accidental' (aka unintended consequences...when the end result has ALWAYS been GLARINGLY OBVIOUS!) Oh, and my favorite of all "good intentions". Maph, why do you buy into so much spoon-fed crap? "Good intentions" are nothing more than emotional rubbish. If you purposely don't follow ideas to there logical conclusion HOW can that be considered "good intentions"??? Just because the word "good" is in it does NOT make it GOOD.

Also, how do you "accidentally" revise history?

Can you even hear yourself??

Hi Hiraghm -
Maph was discussing "the original Hebrew and Latin manuscripts" - that's the misconception I was trying to clear up. There are Latin Bibles for sure, and they are pretty darn old, but they aren't old enough to be considered primary source material for translations. The Latin versions themselves were derived from the original Hebrew/Greek.
If you go to the Wiki on KJV, the "Translation" section says they went back to the Greek and Hebrew, though it appears you should get "partial credit" for bringing up Latin - they did use the Latin Vulgate as a secondary help in developing this translation.

* It's Hebrew and Greek, not Hebrew and Latin.
* There is no evidence to suggest the translations aren't accurate. Make some citations to back that up, please. What is the evidence and what passages are under consideration?
* No, the interpretation of many verses has not changed significantly over the centuries. I address your Sodom point below, but if there are many, by all means rattle off a few more verses that had a common interpretation of meaning centuries ago, and new ones today, and back this up with citations from experts in the field.

The subect of Sodom and homosexuality comes up in Genesis 19, wherein God sends two angels disguised as men into the city, prior to its destruction.
The man Lot takes these two men into his house, upon hearing they planned to spend the night sleeping in the public square. He insists this is a bad idea.
Genesis 19:4 - Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot goes so far as to offer up his daughters to the mob, and they refuse the daughters.
Further, in the New Testament, Sodom is used as an example.
Jude 1:7 - Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

You bring up Ezekiel 16:49-50 in the context of changing interpretations of verses. But this passage was NEVER ABOUT homosexuality. This isn't a matter of changing interpretations where over the years better translation techniques or some such thing changed the sin of Sodom from homosexuality to arrogance and lack of concern for ones neighbors. Look - this is easy to understand. You can be evil in multiple ways, simultaneously. Ezekiel here is using the example of Sodom, (and also Samaria), to shame his countryman into better behavior. He is basically saying Sodom was also arrogant and unconcerned about people, just like his own peope are currently acting. He later writes in this passage: "Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you." He's associating them to Sodom in an area of common sin. That doesn't mean Sodom wasn't also big into practicing homosexuality, which the other passages clearly show.

But educating oneself about the very real pitfalls of this misguided turn in education is paramount. It needs to be discussed, openly, because this blanket method is not good. Nor is teaching that whatever answer you come up with is correct. It isn't. There are correct answers, and there are wrong answers, when dealing with facts. 2+2=4. The reason the US got pulled into WWII was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. It was direct aggression. To take history out of context diminishes the history. It's like taking a sentence out of an entire speech, and expecting the tone to be understood. The meaning gets distorted. You can't understand the reactions if you don't know what preceded them.
And I learned about the Civil War, not from just hearing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but learning about the events and reasons that started it in the first place.

This story is fear-mongering at it’s finest if it doesn’t address the age-set the specific guidelines were put into place for.

Third to fifth graders usually learn about the Gettysburg Address; nine graders learner about specific battles. What actually is this article saying? Not enough facts.