The decline didn't start in the Sixties; it started with Progressive Education in the Twenties along with Rousseau's "child-centered education". You think that education went downhill abruptly in the Sixties because children of the Sixties were so much dumber than those of the Fifties but the difference was only one step out of a whole staircase that had a dozen steps before it.

That didn't start in the Sixties; it started in the Twenties when Rousseau and the "child-centered education" were forced upon the schools in the name of "Progressivism". In fact Progressivism is older than that but it hadn't yet been implemented to a great extent in the schools.. You think that education went downhill abruptly in the Sixties because children of the Sixties were so much dumber than those of the Fifties but the difference was only one step out of a whole staircase that had a dozen steps before it.

Usually it is called "proven" science. Evidently our teachers no longer have any idea what a "proof" is.

And Piaget who, last I looked, was still being taught to teachers and developmental psych students.

Obviously you have never stopped to ponder how her statement could possibly be true; instead you dismissed it out of hand. So sad how much you miss this way.

And then there are black people who are natives of France. When they come visit our silly country they get called "African-Americans".

Blah blah blah, don't buy her book, you're not worthy to read it. If jeering at Coulter is the best you can do as an "argument", then it becomes self-evident that you had to resort to the jeering because you have no leg to stand on. Go away.

Arguing with a liberal is very similar to arguing with a Jehovah's Witness in that both have been brainwashed to believe that the person they're talking with (you) is possessed by the devil. That is the benefit of pre-tarring everyone who disagrees with your position: they're pure evil, so never ever listen to them, and never vote for one.

*watches amusedly as the main stream media, for the first time in eighty years, tear out their hair over First Amendment religious freedoms being lost*

Doug, horses do not chomp at the bit. If they did, their teeth would break, and horses are smart enough not to break their own teeth. Instead, they merely champ at the bit. That means playing at it in their mouths, pushing it around with their tongues, and sometimes making as much noise as they can. They've been doing that since there were bits to champ at. Descriptive dictionaries are now mixing up these two words but there is valid reason to keep them separate.