All units on scene on all wheels

Well, a week ago (the 26th) I finished fire school. It feels pretty good to be done. Got an 85 on my state test, and successfully completed all 3 skills tests on the first try. Works for me.

Been busy here in my fire district some days. The next day, tuesday, I was on the way back from a medical call in the brush truck, and then we got paged out to do mutual aid in Sherwood Shores for a structure fire. On the way, in Whitesboro, just as we went under 82 going north on 377, we passed a wreck. Whitesboro was toned out, but they were all at the fire. I got on the radio to dispatch, and asked if they wanted us to take it. We stopped and worked the wreck before going on to the fire. Had to wait for an ambulance all the way from Sherman Fire Department because all the Whitesboro ambulances were already on the way to Sherman with patients. That's how hectic it gets around here some days. I sure was glad when a lone guy from Whitesboro showed up with extrication tools in their secondary engine.

All things considered, I think everything went far smoother than could have been expected considering how busy the whole area was that day. Especially on a weekday in the middle of the afternoon, when personnel for volunteer departments are so limited.

Saturday, on the other hand, wasn't nearly so smooth. A medical call kicked it off, which was hectic in and of itself with so many personnel on hand. While we were there, we got paged out to a grass fire. One guy in the tanker, and two of us in the brush truck. We were following the tanker to the scene, and at a rail crossing the driver in the tanker decided to let us by. Not realizing how steep the drop into the ditch was, I saw something I never want to see again: Our tanker, barely two years old, with its 1800 gallon tank of water, hung for a second at a delicate balance on two wheels. Were it not for the blaring sirens and the diesel engine, you could have heard a pin drop inside the F-350 cab we sat in as we watched, before the tank water must have sloshed in just the right way, sending the truck crashing back down onto all four wheels. This is the kind of adrenaline I prefer to get arriving at a scene, not just trying to get there.

After fighting that grass fire of a couple acres, we go back to the station and wash both trucks that we brought out there. Almost finished, we get a page for Whitesboro in need of mutual aid. So we get back in and dirty our truck on dusty gravel roads, getting lost a couple times on the way due to bad directions over the radio. Worst of it is, we were going the right way until they "corrected" us.

It's been an interesting week, suffice to say.

Bite my shiny metal ass, MySpace

Well, it finally happened. Myspace, who has been irking me for quite some time just by being crappy on the whole, gave me the last straw, and here it is:



Far be it from me to post my content on a site that would play pimp for the bastards at moveon.org on top of having a crappy community filled with whores of all shapes and sizes, poor navigation, inherently flawed base layouts, and overall dissatisfying user experience. A well-deserved "sod off" to myspace.

For those of you reading on the mirrors that do not have "myspace" in the domain name, in other news Ambassador John Bolton has apparently taken to his new job like a fish to water. Best of luck being a thorn in the side of the UN, John! It's all we can ask that you look out for the United States above all in your duties. After all, you're the US ambassador to the UN, not the UN ambassador to the US.

In other news, I began working on an article a while back but seem to have lost it. It concerns gun control. I may or may not rewrite it. Basically, what it comes down to is that there are a lot of anti-citizen Democrats and a few co-conspirator Republicans working against your right to defend yourself, and Ron Paul wants to protect and restore your Second Amendment rights (H. R. 1703). I am sure this shocks none of you. If there is a sufficient desire to read about it, I will go ahead and research it again and write about it. As far as I am personally concerned, I found out what I wanted to know and none of it was contrary to what I expected to find. So if you like your right to bear arms, don't elect people who want to take away that right. It seems pretty self-explanatory.

For those who want names, here are the names of those who wish to reinstate the 1994 "assault weapons" ban that had absolutely nothing to do with assault weapons. I recommend voting every last one out of office.

Bill: S.620

Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]

Co-Sponsors:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 3/14/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 3/14/2005
Sen DeWine, Mike [R-OH] - 3/14/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 3/14/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 3/14/2005
Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] - 3/14/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 3/14/2005
Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 3/14/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 3/14/2005
Sen Warner, John [R-VA] - 3/14/2005

Along with that, here is another related Senatorial bill aimed at taking away your right to bear arms, this one with the highly misleading title of "A bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." Somebody needs to slap around all these people who come up with misleading bill titles like that. This one is entirely Democrat-sponsored.

Bill: S.645

Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]

Co-Sponsors:

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [D-HI] - 3/16/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 3/16/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 3/16/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [D-NJ] - 3/16/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 3/16/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 3/16/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] - 3/16/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 3/16/2005
Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 3/16/2005
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD] - 3/16/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 3/16/2005

So feel free to vote the folks listed on the above sponsor list out of office, and encourage your congressmen and senators to support Ron Paul's bill. Pardon the disjointed nature of this entry, I have a cold and a slight fever. Otherwise I would probably feel ambitious enough to make a whole worthwhile post. While I normally prefer to be able to post contrasting bills, the only people who seem to be trying to change any gun laws appear to be anti-gun folks. So there it is, for now at any rate.

Bite my shiny metal ass, MySpace

href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Crouse20050903.shtml">taken to his new job like a fish to water. Best of luck being a thorn in the side of the UN, John! It's all we can ask that you look out for the United States above all in your duties. After all, you're the US ambassador to the UN, not the UN ambassador to the US.

In other news, I began working on an article a while back but seem to have lost it. It concerns gun control. I may or may not rewrite it. Basically, what it comes down to is that there are a lot of anti-citizen Democrats and a few co-conspirator Republicans working against your right to defend yourself, and Ron Paul wants to protect and restore your Second Amendment rights (H. R. 1703). I am sure this shocks none of you. If there is a sufficient desire to read about it, I will go ahead and research it again and write about it. As far as I am personally concerned, I found out what I wanted to know and none of it was contrary to what I expected to find. So if you like your right to bear arms, don't elect people who want to take away that right. It seems pretty self-explanatory.

For those who want names, here are the names of those who wish to reinstate the 1994 "assault weapons" ban that had absolutely nothing to do with assault weapons. I recommend voting every last one out of office.

Bill: S.620

Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]

Co-Sponsors:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 3/14/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 3/14/2005
Sen DeWine, Mike [R-OH] - 3/14/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 3/14/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 3/14/2005
Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] - 3/14/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 3/14/2005
Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 3/14/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 3/14/2005
Sen Warner, John [R-VA] - 3/14/2005

Along with that, here is another related Senatorial bill aimed at taking away your right to bear arms, this one with the highly misleading title of "A bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." Somebody needs to slap around all these people who come up with misleading bill titles like that. This one is entirely Democrat-sponsored.

Bill: S.645

Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]

Co-Sponsors:

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [D-HI] - 3/16/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 3/16/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 3/16/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [D-NJ] - 3/16/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 3/16/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 3/16/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] - 3/16/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 3/16/2005
Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 3/16/2005
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD] - 3/16/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 3/16/2005

So feel free to vote the folks listed on the above sponsor list out of office, and encourage your congressmen and senators to support Ron Paul's bill. Pardon the disjointed nature of this entry, I have a cold and a slight fever. Otherwise I would probably feel ambitious enough to make a whole worthwhile post. While I normally prefer to be able to post contrasting bills, the only people who seem to be trying to change any gun laws appear to be anti-gun folks. So there it is, for now at any rate.

All-volunteer

Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows that I tried joining the military when I was 18, and that I have nothing but respect, support, and gratitude towards our soldiers.  That said, I also do not see the need to dilute the ranks of these fine men and women with spineless bastards, which unfortunately make up the majority of the people who would never, ever consider joining the military voluntarily.  As a result of the respect and support, I find it necessary that we take the basic measures to prevent such dilution by making sure there is no conscription or draft.

However, it looks like Ol' Charlie Rangel is back at it.  You may or may not recall his antics last year with trying to stir up bad morale on the homefront in the war by trying to decieve us into believing there was a need for a draft or compulsory military service, and then his lackeys from various propaganda outlets began declaring that Bush and the Republicans were pushing for this legislation.  As a reminder, I will state  that both of the bills from last session are from last session, and are at this point merely historical in significance.  Every sponsor was a liberal Democrat (I have the data on my laptop, and if need be I will post it later, but my power cord is melting which makes it dangerous to run), and there was roughly 17 or so congressional supporters, as well as one (now retired) Senator who introduced similar legislation in the Senate but gathered no sponsors.

This session, Charlie has come back with a similar, possibly identical, bill.  This bill is numered H. R. 2723.  Be aware that this bill is in no way a reflection of either the needs of the war effort or the desires of the Pentagon or the White House.

The Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15] (introduced 5/26/2005)
The Co-sponsor: Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA-13] - 7/12/2005

The introduction: "A BILL

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Not exactly a bill that anyone in their right mind is going to support, right?  Meanwhile we have two bills that are worth a look in the House, both of which are still in their infancy as bills.  I hope they go somewhere.  The first that I will bring up is that of Rep. Major R. Owens, and is not as good of a bill as the second of the anti-conscription bills, but would be a step in the right direction.  It is known as  H. R. 1495.  Rep. Owens' bill is problematic though in that it fails to completely eliminate the Selective Service, which creates a drain upon the budget by not eliminating the Selective Service in its entirety, but removing all of its apparatus by which it must operate if called upon.

The Sponsor: Rep Owens, Major R. [D-NY-11] (introduced 4/6/2005)

The introduction: "To amend the Military Selective Service Act to terminate the registration requirement and the activities of civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards, and similar local agencies of the Selective Service System, and for other purposes."

This is a step in the right direction, because it defuses the constant fearmongering that the draft or conscription might be forthcoming any time soon.  However, enter the bill of Rep. Ron Paul, who is my personal favorite congressman, having been responsible for the "Get the US out of the UN" bill, and who is known to be a strong fiscal conservative and constitutionalist.  Rep. Paul's bill is numbered as  H. R. 2455.  This bill accomplishes the same ends in actual functionality as Rep. Owens' bill, but instead of adding new complexities upon old laws, it follows Rep. Paul's modus operandi of instead removing the offending legislature entirely.  Which is to say in this case that H. R. 2455 would completely eliminate the Selective Service as a whole rather than leaving fragmented bits of it in place serving no discernable purpose, and also leaves no question as to the result of the bill.

The Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [R-TX-14] (introduced 5/18/2005)
First Co-sponsor: Rep Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] - 6/9/2005
Second Co-sponsor: Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [D-GA-4] - 5/24/2005

The Opening: "A BILL

To repeal the Military Selective Service Act."

The bill then proceeds to state in simple terms that it repeals the Military Selective Service Act and then describes in simple  (albeit legal, meaning word-here, word-there modifications to existing laws) terms the other modifications that are necessary to fill any existing gaps that would need filling in the event of the elimination of the Military Selective Service Act.

I would love to see Rep. Paul's bill succeed.  Naturally this has garnered no media attention that I know of, but I recommend that if you agree you raise attention in your area and ask your congressman why he has not signed on the bill.  Or if you oppose it, I would love to know why.

All bill information and party information taken from publicly accessible servers at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and http://clerk.house.gov.

Infidels and Empires

Jeff Jacoby has a great article up reminding us why any attempt to pin the responsibility for terrorist acts performed by one of us infidels on the infidel communities at large is completely invalid.

«Israel and its supporters complain with reason that Arab terrorism against Jews is too often shrugged off or excused by Arab and Muslim leaders, or that a murderous attack will be condemned in English for international consumption, while the government-run local media extols the killers in Arabic.  But when the terrorists themselves are Jews -- admittedly a rare event -- do Israel's defenders live up to the standard they expect of others?  How many of the statements quoted above, for example, would leading Israelis have been willing to make? 

All of them.»

Perhaps when we see the Muslim world at large condemning terrorism wholly and without being coerced into it people will believe them.  Until such a time, I really don't see that happening.

While I am here, I would love to hear from anyone who can justify the Rebel Alliance's actions in Star Wars.  I really can't find a plausible, movie-based-canon reason to back the Rebellion over the Empire.  Does anyone feel up to the challenge?

The Church Ladder

Well, Thursday at fire school we did the Chruch Ladder. It was interesting to say the least. They call it the "Church Ladder" because when you are doing it, you are praying "Lord, just take me now."

What it is is we take a 24 foot extension ladder, extend it, attatch a couple ropes to the top for side-to-side stabilization. For vertical stabilization...the rest of the class holds it up at a 90 degree angle. You proceed to climb to the top. Then you climb over the top, and come back down the other side. It is an insurance nightmare.

We each went three times. Should make today much easier, climbing up ladders at a 75 degree angle up the side of a building. Much more stable. But the tallest ladder is either 40 or 50 feet for today, I don't remember which. So it is a bit of a trade off. The fact that we will be carrying each other as "victims" down the ladder doesn't help matters either. Should be interesting...and the weather will be HOT.

Fortunately, I am now the platoon's lieutenant. Hopefully I will get the platoon to stop being a bunch of slackers and actually do something for a change. I am tired of them doing the bare minimum of everything.

Payroll

Well, here I am after not having had the privilege of sleeping last night. Got a call from a client in need of urgent computer work, and went down there before school and got the computer necessary to make payroll. Hardcore virus and Trojans, and the Internet account had been shut off due to this by the ISP.

After school, worked on it all night and in the morning went back there and tried to get the ISDN running. They did not have their driver CD anywhere to be found, so I was unable to get it online. The modem ISP seemed to have issues, too, and wouldn't connect. At noon I finally ended up telling him that he would have to mess with it and hope they got him fixed on their end, and that I had to go get some sleep before school. Hope it worked out for payroll, but it is not my fault that they gave no notice at all and didn't notice until last night that the computer was busticated, and that they couldn't find the proper documents or CDs to get the new ISDN up and running.

I hope their payroll worked out. If not I suspect they will call me tomorrow. I hate to leave them hanging but I have to have my priorities too.

Church Bra Story

This story was demanded after my comment posted on an entry in Mel's Xanga today.  So my apologies of anyone who really didn't want to hear it, and for those who do: Enjoy!

Anyhow, this is my Church Bra Story.  I realize that guy generally should not have these, but it wasn't me wearing it.  I was in church on Easter Sunday a couple years ago, and there was some girl who I suspect was in her late teens who was wearing a one-shouldered top that fit rather closely sitting a few rows ahead of me.  I know that it fit rather closely because I could see her bra distinctly beneath the shirt...a normal bra with only one strap in use, the other inside the shirt.  It looked bad enough from behind, and you could see the derelict strap dangling trapped in the probably-a-size-too-small shirt.

It got worse.  On our way out, I saw her from the front...one boob was a good two inches higher than the other.  I really wanted to say something but decided it was a bad idea what with me being a guy and all.  I didn't want to look but it was so funny looking and distracting that it was hard not to.  Poor girl...I really was hoping someone would tell her, but it sure wasn't gonna be me.

As long as I am alienating everyone who doesn't want to hear it, I have a public service announcement about another right-bra-for-the-outfit issue, which I also posted a while back on the MiniTokyo forums.  I think I sometimes think too much.  I think most of the people around here are smarter than the people I posted this to help, but since it seems related and the one-boob-bra shirt church story seems rather short for an entire entry, I reproduce it herewith.

I have noticed a disturbing trend as hot weather begins to sweep into North Texas. Now, I know that a lot of you girls pay a lot of attention to the clothing you wear, and many of you pay close attention to what you wear with what. However, there has been a disturbing trend that I wish to help you girls avoid.

The trend is that as they have been changing into their summer shirts, girls have been wearing the wrong bras. Now don't get me wrong, I understand the need for clothes which suit the weather. The problem is that lots of girls I have seen around have been wearing bras with very prominent lace or embroidery or something that is raised from the surface. This makes their boobs look very lumpy, sort of like how some bras have a seam that is very visible beneath a shirt, except all over the entire bust (or what portion the bra happens to be covering). The bra may be fine under a jacket, sweater, or a thicker shirt, but it does not work for close-fitting T-shirts of moderate to thin material, especially in lighter colours. It just looks like lumpy boobs, and it looks bizarre.

I certainly don't object to lace or otherwise fancy bras, just wear them responsibly.

Please, avoid the lumpy boob look. Wear a bra that suits the shirt.

Thank you.

Parental Involvement Über Alles!

In my Xanga, I got a well-thought-out comment response from IdiotSavant123.  To avoid responding out of context, since this response will be on multiple mirrors of my bloggings (blogger, gaiaonline, livejournal, xanga, and myspace) I will post the entire comment and then respond to the parts that response is needed, since there were some questions.

«Parenting in America is definitely in a fix.

It's true that the reason American teens are immature and rude is because that is what our culture expects of them and so let's them get away with it as normal teen behavior. Just makes you wanna slap 'em, doesn't it? After observing many of my Mom's old clients, I can honestly say that most of the behavioral problems with children these days are caused by their parents' poor parenting.

You mentioned a lot the fact that it's the parents' jobs to teach their children all those things, but you also agreed that the parents aren't parenting (you suggested it's because they're leaving it to the schools). In that case, there are two possible ways to cure childrens' lack of parenting...the person who was writing to you was part of the camp that suggests the government take over from America's seemingly incompetent parents. Now, the last paragraph from the article I link to furthur down is this: "Our society requires massive consumption. Needy, ignorant people consume more goods and services than educated, emotionally stable people do. The quickest way to create needy people is to obliterate the family. The quickest way to create ignorant people is to divorce them from their parents. The mass school is an excellent exercise in creating a market for your goods, whatever they might be." That's why I'm against that idea. I also believe that there's no way mass schools can actually be giving students any kind of quality education...there's just no way. So I'm against having the government take over children's parenting through schools, even though something must be done. Now, you didn't offer a solution that I could tell, but I came up with the second option on my own, and I imagine it's the one you'd support. The second option is to get rid of the schools, which would force the parents to actually parent their kids (gasp!). It would increase stability and probably increase quality of education, just through the comfort factor, individual attention and choices of modality. Studies have shown that even kids homeschooled by parents who didn't go to college do better than average public schoolers. I'm all for homeschooling.

Personally, I agree with the second choice. I think our education system IS SO BROKEN and needs to DIE A SLOW AND PAINFUL DEATH. The best way to actually do that would be to let the Republicans take over and abolish the Department of Education and underfund the schools, so they just dry up and blow away, but I don't want the Republicans to take over government because the very vocal, extremist group will hijack the moderates and the Republicans are so well organized it'd be impossible for the public to regain control (unless John McCain is elected in 08! W00t!). So...any other ideas on getting rid of public schools?

Once the public schools are gone, homeschooling is the answer to everything. Here's the article I mentioned above. Basically it says that while everyone thinks public schools are the norm, they're a relatively recent invention on the face of the planet, not to mention America. Before then, it was homeschooling, which worked just fine: "Fifth grade basal readers included works from William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Sir Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Bunyan, Daniel Webster, Samuel Johnson, Lewis Carroll, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson." Public schooling has been a nice little experiment (and way to create unskilled people who then had to become factory workers, ushering in the industrial revolution as planned), but besides not needing unskilled factory workers now thanks to Bush's stupid immigration policy and the technology revolution, schools are just plain not working as an educational institution. So let's go back to homeschooling until we can think of something better, neh?

I do want to ask you about this, though: "Independent thought is a direct result of being ready for it. An unprepared person forced to think independently will usually end up with flawed ideas or bad results and may never even realize or come to terms with it." True, but in this case, what makes you think most American parents have any kind of independent thought? I'm sure development would come from reading the "basal fifth grade reading list" as mentioned above, but nowadays most kids are not and probably could not learn independent thought from their parents. Of course, if there is any graveyard of independent thought in America, it is for sure the public schools, lordy. I'd take my chances with the parents and the reading list.

I was having that discussion the other day, actually, with a lady who does conflict resolution with African and Asian governments. A key, if not THE key to my independent thought development was my parents pointing out and explaining faulty dilemmas during everyday exposure. That's why we don't have television anymore...commercials really get me PO'd. And it's always, "YELLING! POW! BANG! FLASH! SENSATION!" Even the blooming radio adverts are like that. Anyway, faulty dilemmas are also why I don't like listening to election campaigns or presidential speeches. If you believe what's coming out of a politician's mouth, you don't have independent thought yet. Being able to recognize faulty dilemmas is important to your independent thought development.

By the way, to all American citizens: the advent of the Gameboy and the like have not helped America's parenting problem. Many parents now use the Gameboy in lieu of parenting. And since video games cause brainwave inflexibility and mental ruts, irritability, and a general zombie-like demeanor...it's so sad to watch! Don't use video games to babysit your children, people!»

Now, here is the breakdown of the parts I responded to.

«Personally, I agree with the second choice. I think our education system IS SO BROKEN and needs to DIE A SLOW AND PAINFUL DEATH. The best way to actually do that would be to let the Republicans take over and abolish the Department of Education and underfund the schools, so they just dry up and blow away, but I don't want the Republicans to take over government because the very vocal, extremist group will hijack the moderates and the Republicans are so well organized it'd be impossible for the public to regain control (unless John McCain is elected in 08! W00t!). So...any other ideas on getting rid of public schools?»

I don't know about the Republican conspiracy theory part, but getting rid of the Department of Education is a great start.  The next step after that is removing the departments at the state and local level.  The biggest difficulty is the sheer amount of property owned by the schools and the schooling systems.  Even in a small town like I live in, the school has a big football complex, three huge buildings, and an office in what used to be a single-residence home.  And that doesn't even address assets like buses, furniture, school libraries, textbooks, computers, and television sets.  Liquidating the infrastructure is the biggest hurdle once the dismantling begins.  School Districts are distinctly separate entities from cities, circumventing public-property laws in some rather devious ways that upon researching them actually struck me as rather unconstitutional.

«Once the public schools are gone, homeschooling is the answer to everything. Here's the article I mentioned above. Basically it says that while everyone thinks public schools are the norm, they're a relatively recent invention on the face of the planet, not to mention America. Before then, it was homeschooling, which worked just fine: "Fifth grade basal readers included works from William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Sir Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Bunyan, Daniel Webster, Samuel Johnson, Lewis Carroll, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson." Public schooling has been a nice little experiment (and way to create unskilled people who then had to become factory workers, ushering in the industrial revolution as planned), but besides not needing unskilled factory workers now thanks to Bush's stupid immigration policy and the technology revolution, schools are just plain not working as an educational institution. So let's go back to homeschooling until we can think of something better, neh?»

Indeed.  I am for private alternatives existing, though I would prefer not to have my children in them.  However, the government really has no business being in the education business.  We have seen time and time again just how dangerous allowing governments to "educate" is.

That said, though, we do need to crack down on immigration.  That and education are my biggest problems with his policy.  To quote Ronald Reagan:

«[I]f you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, federal, state, and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide a child with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that you're liable to be given more money to do it with. Well, we've discovered that money alone isn't the answer.»

I have no idea exactly what he thought was the answer in regards to that quote, but as far as the quote goes, he is dead on.

«I do want to ask you about this, though: "Independent thought is a direct result of being ready for it. An unprepared person forced to think independently will usually end up with flawed ideas or bad results and may never even realize or come to terms with it." True, but in this case, what makes you think most American parents have any kind of independent thought? I'm sure development would come from reading the "basal fifth grade reading list" as mentioned above, but nowadays most kids are not and probably could not learn independent thought from their parents. Of course, if there is any graveyard of independent thought in America, it is for sure the public schools, lordy. I'd take my chances with the parents and the reading list.»

I am not convinced that independent thought can be taught.  It has generally been my opinion that contrary to the status quo, it is not the job of educators to teach what a student should think, but rather how to go about the act of thinking.  Which basically is the 3 R's.  Reading, including works of wisdom and of history, and hopefully in more than one language.  Get 'em while they are young enough to absorb it.  wRiting, preferrably in multiple languages again, and aRithmetic, which is self-explanatory.

I think that in the process of these three basics, a person will hopefully do two things.  First, they will thirst for knowledge.  Yes, that's right.  Thirst for it.  Schools these days teach many children to hate learning, and to hate reading.  This is because they are being presented with mind-numbing assignments rather than ones that challenge them.  Second, they will learn to think, and benefit from the additional interaction that comes with parental involvement.  Riddles like "Who was buried in Grant's Tomb" and "If a plane crashes on the US-Canadian border, where are the survivors buried?" were commonplace at the after-dinner table in my home, and this kind of two-on-five (I am the oldest of five) session was great because it made us all think, and want to think faster than our siblings, whom most people are predisposed to compete with anyhow, even in a friendly context.  This actually falls under the reading and writing elements, since it is based in linguistics and makes the person solving the riddle think about the words that were spoken.  Even simple things like this can expand the basic concepts into things like a grasp of logic.

«I was having that discussion the other day, actually, with a lady who does conflict resolution with African and Asian governments. A key, if not THE key to my independent thought development was my parents pointing out and explaining faulty dilemmas during everyday exposure. That's why we don't have television anymore...commercials really get me PO'd. And it's always, "YELLING! POW! BANG! FLASH! SENSATION!" Even the blooming radio adverts are like that. Anyway, faulty dilemmas are also why I don't like listening to election campaigns or presidential speeches. If you believe what's coming out of a politician's mouth, you don't have independent thought yet. Being able to recognize faulty dilemmas is important to your independent thought development.»

That is true in most politicians' cases.  I have actually seen a few that were not that way, but they were either retiring or were unfortunately not in my district.  I generally don't opt to watch much TV.

«By the way, to all American citizens: the advent of the Gameboy and the like have not helped America's parenting problem. Many parents now use the Gameboy in lieu of parenting. And since video games cause brainwave inflexibility and mental ruts, irritability, and a general zombie-like demeanor...it's so sad to watch! Don't use video games to babysit your children, people!»

I got my first game boy (a game boy advance) at the age of 22.  When I was a kid, there was a rather strict 1 hour limit on video games per day, and using it was optional.  Most of the time I didn't even get around to it, since I had better things to do.

As an ex-game developer, I can confirm that the last thing I would want to do is sit my kid in front of a video game all the time,  It was mind-numbing enough when I was in the industry, even moreso for people who aren't constantly accomplishing something by using the game, such as software development.

That said, there are certain games that are good logic-and-thought games.  Almost nobody makes them anymore, unfortunately.

cutting the threads he is grasping at

It took me a while to get around to responding to this latest response, frankly because it was almost not worth responding to.  This time his response being one filled with attempted ambiguities and thinly-veiled admissions of defeat.  Here we go again:

«Fair enough. I tell you that you can't see my point and you tell me I can't see yours. The subject isn't worth pursing any further, although I would like to clear a few points on the progression of this discussion.I'm a bit amazed at what passes for an insult to you. When I say that your position is hardly credited by your manner of attacking mine I mean you've presented nothing that addresses the issues I bring up. That's what you've accused me of doing so I guess that we're equally insulting and uncredited.
The part I liked best was "More ambiguity. Ho hum." I stated the central tenet two sentences later. You called my point ambiguous (a buzzword, something we both enjoy using apparently) before it was even made. That's what I mean when I say your position is not credited by your method. You basically said "I don't know what you're going to say but it's ambiguous and wrong".If I may be condemned for saying 'core belief' where do you get in comparing my view to your view of Soviet Russia? Sure, children who are by nature immature and require ever-present guidance should not grow up in an environment where if they so much as speak dissent against the conservative totalitarian government they'll be killed or imprisoned. But that is hardly a comparison to children who only mature and self-determine when they witness conflicting views and have to choose their own to defend living in America or Canada.
Lastly, when I said that you aren't addressing the "core belief" I meant that you didn't try to disprove my reason for stating what I did. One example is that I believe that students should be in schools where they learn beside people who have different beliefs. That is why I brought up the Muslim students in my school. To say, "See, that proves my argument, governments shouldn't force schools to allow people of different religions admission" doesn't really say anything. If you're going to proudly announce your logical superiority, convince me of why it is wrong for a Catholic to attend school with a Muslim otherwise I will only see the government forcing such heterogenous school populations as a good thing. I'm not asking you to do it now, but it might help in future discussions.»

I will now again tear this to shreds.

«Fair enough. I tell you that you can't see my point and you tell me I can't see yours. The subject isn't worth pursing any further, although I would like to clear a few points on the progression of this discussion.»

Translation:  He is out of ammunition, and now wants to call it a draw.

Response: Victory is mine!

«I'm a bit amazed at what passes for an insult to you.»

The idea that the government, not parents, ought to make the key decisions regarding raising children including at what age below 18 the children may make certain decisions is indeed insulting, both on a fundamental level and insulting to the intelligence of those reading it.  Parents are for parenting, and governments are not.  Stop trying to confuse the two.

«When I say that your position is hardly credited by your manner of attacking mine I mean you've presented nothing that addresses the issues I bring up. That's what you've accused me of doing so I guess that we're equally insulting and uncredited.»

Presented nothing?  Laughable.  You are merely denying that your ambiguities are both off-topic and incorrect.  Next time you may want to try something besides red herrings and fallacies.

«The part I liked best was "More ambiguity. Ho hum." I stated the central tenet two sentences later. You called my point ambiguous (a buzzword, something we both enjoy using apparently) before it was even made. That's what I mean when I say your position is not credited by your method. You basically said "I don't know what you're going to say but it's ambiguous and wrong".»

I had already read the entire post beforehand, so your characterization is blatantly false.  If you are going to complain about me calling your statements ambiguities then stop making ambiguous statements.

«If I may be condemned for saying 'core belief' where do you get in comparing my view to your view of Soviet Russia?»

Politically determined schools and curriculum are precisely what Soviet Russia strove to create.  You stated you were boldly in favor of government involvement in schooling and in favor of the schools placing the decisions in the hands of the students without input from the parents.  There is no way to read your ramblings concerning such concepts that does not smack of Soviet Russia.

«Sure, children who are by nature immature and require ever-present guidance should not grow up in an environment where if they so much as speak dissent against the conservative totalitarian government they'll be killed or imprisoned. But that is hardly a comparison to children who only mature and self-determine when they witness conflicting views and have to choose their own to defend living in America or Canada.»

That is for the parents, not for the government, to determine.  Red herring again.

«Lastly, when I said that you aren't addressing the "core belief" I meant that you didn't try to disprove my reason for stating what I did.»

I didn't have to.  Your so-called "core belief" was  both off-topic and incorrect.  Unless you can prove that it is on-topic and correct, you already did a great job in stating your reasons for stating it in disproving it yourself.  To sum it up, you basically said that it is the government's duty to have public schools that are constantly conflicting with the will of parents and cutting parents out of their own children's education and future.  This is belief is inherently wrong.  And as far as the "under 18 making decisions" part, I tore that to shreds.

«One example is that I believe that students should be in schools where they learn beside people who have different beliefs.  That is why I brought up the Muslim students in my school.»

Feel free to raise your children that way.  Don't use the government to force it on others.

«To say, "See, that proves my argument, governments shouldn't force schools to allow people of different religions admission" doesn't really say anything. If you're going to proudly announce your logical superiority, convince me of why it is wrong for a Catholic to attend school with a Muslim otherwise I will only see the government forcing such heterogenous school populations as a good thing. I'm not asking you to do it now, but it might help in future discussions.»

There you go making misguided statements again.  You are taking my words out of context.  I stated that if a private school is one of a religious nature (i.e. a catholic school) then the parents' intent is for their children to be educated in a Catholic environment.  Letting Muslims in does not fit that description.

Additionally, I never said anything about the government forcing homogenized school populations.  What I stated is that as private institutions, it is necessary that they be able to choose who can and cannot attend based upon their own rules, be they academic standards or religious ones.  It is not within the government's rights to prevent such rules, nor is it consistent with the wishes of the parents whose children will be attending the school.

Responding to a naive response. Now with childish insults!

Looks like the party never stops over at my livejournal...more naive (and now even childish) responses to my remarks on education. I will tear both of his most recent comments apart limb from limb after posting them each as a whole. Here is the first one to start with:



«My views are hardly as ignorant as you seem to think. I understand the potential political tensions in a government-run school system. The reason I believe that they are the best option for education is not some pastiche idealism or poorly constructed philosophy. The central tenet of my belief differs from yours. It hardly does credit to you when you make a big display about how my arguments could not possibly flow from your core belief and I am therefore ignorant. If you're doing to 'rend asunder' my proposals, at least attack the belief behind them. That is, that children are capable of being adults long before the age of majority. Why do I propose a child should be in an environment where their parent's views are challenged? Because it forces them to make a decision and form an opinion of their own, independant of the two educating forces in their life. An individual does not have to be 18 before they can have something unique and worthwhile to say. Granted, many people remain immature up until 18 and far past it but that is because they aren't expected to be an autonomous individual until they are. In past centuries children became adults at 13 because they needed to. People have not lost the fundamental ability to be autonomous from a very young age, it is just rarely needed or forced.

There are cases that come up, such as Craig Kielburger, that kid who started Free The Children, a child labour activist group. It's now a major organization and he started it when he was 15. His actions were not the result of government-school education or parental action. I don't think you can mount an effective argument that states that he was not capable, willing, or eager to educate himself and form his own doctrine. If he can take his education and development into his own hands so successfully, I don't see how anyone else isn't at least capable of the same.

That is the point from which my earlier arguments grow. The freedom to build up and nurture ideas is aided by the conflict of home and school. It shows children that people they respect can have different opinions (as opposed to "the only people who think differently are -over there-")and the fact that everyone in their lives does not profess the same beliefs allows them the space to create their own. If a child sees one idea at home at has the exact same idea enforced at school and on TV and in the books they have available to them, they are not encouraged to be autonomous. Any idea that deviates from the norm they may have is immediately labelled 'wrong' from all angles. This may be good for the big stuff (murder, etc) but it would permeate the personal levels of creativity and expression.

So if you're going to call anything ignorant, say that children do not become capable of the abilities we grant to the 'adult' status of 18 until they reach that age. I know most people agree with you seeing as the laws state the "18 is adulthood" mentality. Still, I'm far from alone in my stance that an age limit on maturity can only be problematic. If you can convincingly show me why that is wrong I'll admit to being a misguided ignoramous. But as long as that belief stands my concept of schools and the logic behind it works just fine.»



Let the games begin!



«My views are hardly as ignorant as you seem to think. I understand the potential political tensions in a government-run school system.»



Clearly not well enough, because you openly support such a concept.



«The reason I believe that they are the best option for education is not some pastiche idealism or poorly constructed philosophy. The central tenet of my belief differs from yours.»



More ambiguity. Ho hum.



«It hardly does credit to you when you make a big display about how my arguments could not possibly flow from your core belief and I am therefore ignorant. If you're doing to 'rend asunder' my proposals, at least attack the belief behind them.»



I am glad you have finally come down to childish insults like "it hardly does credit to you" and misleading buzzwords like "your core belief" that make all the little hippie children cheer. Where have you presented any logical beliefs behind your views that have anything to do with the topic at hand, and where have I failed to attack the belief that the government and so-called "educators" know better how to raise peoples' children and that parents should thus be stripped of that power and it handed to the schools with little to no say from the parents?



«That is, that children are capable of being adults long before the age of majority.»



Were you aiming for the word "maturity", or does your sentence simply make no sense? An adult is defined as a "Fully developed and mature." Pretending that it means something else does not make it so.



«Why do I propose a child should be in an environment where their parent's views are challenged? Because it forces them to make a decision and form an opinion of their own, independant of the two educating forces in their life.»



That is for parents to decide, not the government. Regardless of how much you might want to force it upon people. Independent thought is a direct result of being ready for it. An unprepared person forced to think independently will usually end up with flawed ideas or bad results and may never even realize or come to terms with it. The sixties should have made us learn from that mistake.



«An individual does not have to be 18 before they can have something unique and worthwhile to say.»



Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. This is about parents having a say in education, not about when children may and may not speak.



«Granted, many people remain immature up until 18 and far past it but that is because they aren't expected to be an autonomous individual until they are. In past centuries children became adults at 13 because they needed to. People have not lost the fundamental ability to be autonomous from a very young age, it is just rarely needed or forced.»



Off-topic yet again.



No, they were able to be considered adults at 13 because parents actually parented back then, instead of letting their kids dick around for a decade accomplishing nothing at all. Which is a good analogy, because that is precisely what American students do. With a proper schools and with parental involvement in their lives, adulthood at 13 could in theory be reality. It is a rare 13 year old these days who is actually prepared for what you propose, primarily due to both the schools and their parents failing to do their jobs (often due to the two constantly conflicting with each other, I suspect)



«There are cases that come up, such as Craig Kielburger, that kid who started Free The Children, a child labour activist group. It's now a major organization and he started it when he was 15. His actions were not the result of government-school education or parental action. I don't think you can mount an effective argument that states that he was not capable, willing, or eager to educate himself and form his own doctrine. If he can take his education and development into his own hands so successfully, I don't see how anyone else isn't at least capable of the same.»



Which again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Self-education is not the subject of this discussion.



«That is the point from which my earlier arguments grow.»



So in other words your earlier arguments were off topic and not relevant. Finally something we agree on.



«The freedom to build up and nurture ideas is aided by the conflict of home and school.»



The problem is that such ideas are borne of confusion, and are frequently either incorrect or based upon false premises pieced together from the debris that is left over from the conflict. Whether your chaos theory even makes sense is questionable. That still begs the query, why should parents be forced to subject their children to such potentially damaging conflict? What you say makes absolutely no sense. It is like setting off a block of C-4 in a car and telling the kid to go build a car out of what is left and then drive it for 10 or more years.



There is no logic in going out of our way to confuse students with that sort of nonsense. Find a truth and stick with it. What that truth that will be taught to the children happens to be is the job of the parents, not of the government. Otherwise again we have led to Soviet Russia.



«It shows children that people they respect can have different opinions (as opposed to "the only people who think differently are -over there-")and the fact that everyone in their lives does not profess the same beliefs allows them the space to create their own. If a child sees one idea at home at has the exact same idea enforced at school and on TV and in the books they have available to them, they are not encouraged to be autonomous.»



Your definition of "autonomous" is misleading. Teaching the kid to earn a living is encouraging autonomy. Confusing the living crap out of a kid by giving them constantly conflicting views and calling them all "truth" or pretending they are all equally valid is just idiocy. The parents, not the schools and bureaucrats, are where the responsibility for raising children lies, and education is part of raising a child.



«Any idea that deviates from the norm they may have is immediately labelled 'wrong' from all angles.»



It is the job of parents, not the government, to teach right from wrong.



«This may be good for the big stuff (murder, etc) but it would permeate the personal levels of creativity and expression.»



Creativity is not the job of a school. Kids already have plenty of it. Expression is only the job of a basic education inasmuch as it is necessary to function in life, for example by teaching them to read and write, perhaps in multiple languages. Preferably English and something useful like Latin (because it helps in comprehension of lots of word-roots).



«So if you're going to call anything ignorant, say that children do not become capable of the abilities we grant to the 'adult' status of 18 until they reach that age. I know most people agree with you seeing as the laws state the "18 is adulthood" mentality. Still, I'm far from alone in my stance that an age limit on maturity can only be problematic. If you can convincingly show me why that is wrong I'll admit to being a misguided ignoramous.»



Offtopic. Age of maturity is not the issue at hand. If you wish to discuss that, go start your own topic. What I have stated is that for the duration of time in which parents are custodians of their children, it is not acceptable to strip parents of their basic rights as parents, in this discussion particularly in regards to educational matters.



«But as long as that belief stands my concept of schools and the logic behind it works just fine.»



*shrug* suit yourself. If you want to hold misguided views, go right ahead. You can even pretend that you were on-topic, but it doesn't make it so.



Next we have his most naive and misguided response yet.



«I would like to mention one point though. Privately funded schools have the ability to restrict entry based on whatever they like. Often this means relgion, but if a blanket policy were introduced that allowed all schools to be heterogenous wouldn't it make sense for some schools to restrict entry on other grounds? For example, if a community has only a handful of black students, couldn't a school deny them entry so they don't have to teach any racial sensitivity? Couldn't a school deny women access because they want a male-centric curriculum? In every community there would be at least a couple of people who would be the odd men out. In my community there aren't enough Hindus to make their own school. If there are Catholic-only and Muslim-only schools in my area, where do the Hindus go? The government couldn't step in and force a school to make a special allowance for them. If both the parents work, they cannot home-school the child nor afford to have them privately tutored. The parents could afford to send them to a school, but no school will accept them. It seems like they have to move into an area with a larer Hindu population and put their child in school there. Isn't that the same 'go fuck yourselves' attitude towards parents that you accused me of proposing? If there would be government safeguards in place, what could they be without being hypocritical of the private school system they put in place?»



In honor of this misguided writing, I will again destroy it.



«I would like to mention one point though. Privately funded schools have the ability to restrict entry based on whatever they like. Often this means relgion, but if a blanket policy were introduced that allowed all schools to be heterogenous wouldn't it make sense for some schools to restrict entry on other grounds?»



Of course. People are free to make idiots of themselves in any form they care to.



«For example, if a community has only a handful of black students, couldn't a school deny them entry so they don't have to teach any racial sensitivity?»



"racial sensitivity"? Why should we require racial sensitivity? Racial sensitivity is just about as racist as you can get, since it requires that people pay even closer attention to race. Personally, I prefer to ignore race entirely.



If the people running a school wanted to have such a racial policy, I seriously doubt you would manage to find enough racist parents in an area to actually support such a school.



«Couldn't a school deny women access because they want a male-centric curriculum?»



I have long been in favor of this sort of policy. Girls' schools denying entrance to boys as well. One less distraction in the classroom. It works pretty well in a lot of schools in Japan, and studies in the US have actually found that it works pretty well over here too.



«In every community there would be at least a couple of people who would be the odd men out. In my community there aren't enough Hindus to make their own school. If there are Catholic-only and Muslim-only schools in my area, where do the Hindus go? The government couldn't step in and force a school to make a special allowance for them.»



Why should they? Private entities can pretty much have whatever entrance requirements they like as far as I am concerned. If I were to send my kids to a Hindu school I sure don't want a bunch of Muslims and Voodooists attending the school.



«If both the parents work, they cannot home-school the child nor afford to have them privately tutored.»



Both parents working is in many cases rather irresponsible as far as child-rearing goes. Financial studies have actually shown that it frequently costs money for both parents to work rather than increasing the amount of money they have coming in due to the extra expenses and lifestyle trade-offs associated with both parents being busy with work rather than home taking care of and raising the kids properly.



«The parents could afford to send them to a school, but no school will accept them. It seems like they have to move into an area with a larer Hindu population and put their child in school there. Isn't that the same 'go fuck yourselves' attitude towards parents that you accused me of proposing?»



Not at all. Letting Muslim kids into a Catholic school is a "go fuck yourselves" attitude, directed at the rest of the parents. You can't please everyone.



«If there would be government safeguards in place, what could they be without being hypocritical of the private school system they put in place?»



Fuck government safeguards. The government has no business telling schools who they have to let in or what they have to teach outside of a totalitarian government. If a school wants to set the bar high for entrance, go for it. If they want to have an all-Voodoo school, let 'em. If they want to have a girls' school, more power to 'em. This is all about giving the parents options that suit their wishes.



Whether it pleases those who do not have children in the school is irrelevant, since their children are not enrolled in that school to begin with. Your example the other day about the Muslim in the Catholic school is a prime example of a stupid decision forced by "government safeguards". It is much like somebody who moved in next to an airport and then complains about the noise. If they wanted quiet they should have gone elsewhere.

Another naive response is torn asunder

Whee!  Yet another misguided and naive post in response to my posts in regards to the government usurpation of child-rearing through public schools.  Here is the passage I will be putting through the versatile paper-shredder we all know and love as "logic".

«Schools aren't just entities. Students are dealing primarily with their teachers who aren't always hung up on doctrine and policy.
I have the proof of personal experience to say that teachers know how to deal with students better than their parents. Parents are too hung up on being parents. Often they have the mindset that their children are the same foolish children they were in the pre-school days and they have the authority to enforce that view. Teachers see the children in a social environment where they are free of the unquestionable parental authority. I know I didn't act the same at school as I did at home, and I would say that I was more myself at school. My parents are very liberal but I still felt that restriction that I could only escape at school. The teachers knew this and dealt with everyone accordingly.
I have a couple of friends who are in university for artistic programs. I know that if their parents had any say in it, they would not have been allowed to take art courses in highschool. They would have been forced to take courses that corresponded with the jobs of their parents, accounting and business administration. To them, school was a refuge where teachers encouraged them to take the courses they want, regardless of their parent's wishes.
An issue that came up in my school was that of Muslim prayer. It was a Catholic school but it was publically funded so they couldn't refuse students with different religious backgrounds. The school chaplain forbid Muslim students from praying in the school saying that it disrupted the school environment. Parents either didn't care about the issue or supported the chaplain's decision. The students made it an issue and it was ruled that the Muslim students could pray on school premises. The school listened to students rather than parents in this case. If the parents had their way it would have created a "My parents say that I can't be around you" situation that could only have bred religious tension and racism.
Also, teachers are citizens of a free society. They're as American or Canadian as their neighbours. I don't know a single teacher who hasn't gone against some outdated or misguided school policy to benefit a student.
To accuse teachers of indoctrinating seems absurd to me. Teachers are people who have their own ideals that influence their teaching, sure. But are you suggesting parents are completely doctrine free or that a parent's ideals are the right ideals for their child? Or perhaps that children should never be in an environment where their parent's ideas are challenged? All those options seem far more authoritarian and misguided than a loosely monitored government-run school.»

I will now summarily destroy his argument.

«Schools aren't just entities.»

A bad start.  A school is precisely an entity.  To be more detailed, a school is an educational entity.  To deny that it is an entity is preposterous.

«Students are dealing primarily with their teachers who aren't always hung up on doctrine and policy.»

In some localities this might be true, but in general it is exactly the opposite of what you stated.  And in the cases of teachers who are not "hung up on doctrine and policy," generally the doctrine and policy has already been mandated in the curriculum they are required by political entities of some flavor to teach.

«I have the proof of personal experience to say that teachers know how to deal with students better than their parents.»

I have yet to see any evidence of this whatsoever, regardless of what you claim as "personal experience".  You will have to do better than that to try to prove your case that parents should not be the end-authority with whom the educational decisions of their children should rest.

«Parents are too hung up on being parents. Often they have the mindset that their children are the same foolish children they were in the pre-school days and they have the authority to enforce that view.»

That is extremely childish reasoning.  If parents were done raising children at 5, adult status would not be gained at 18.  What you describe is called parenting, despite your mischaracterization of parents as "being hung up on" parenting.  Seeing to it that children are properly raised and educated is a basic duty of parenting.

«Teachers see the children in a social environment where they are free of the unquestionable parental authority. I know I didn't act the same at school as I did at home, and I would say that I was more myself at school. My parents are very liberal but I still felt that restriction that I could only escape at school. The teachers knew this and dealt with everyone accordingly.»

Red herring.  I did not say anything about lack of schooling, I was stating that parents need to have more of a say in how schools are run.  Your statement has nothing to do with my posts.

Besides the above, there is also the fact that a basic element of parenting is deciding whom you would entrust your children to in your absence.  Due to the way the money flows, the current system strips most parents of that ability by making alternatives to public education unaffordable by the means mentioned in the previous posts on the subject that I have made.

«I have a couple of friends who are in university for artistic programs. I know that if their parents had any say in it, they would not have been allowed to take art courses in highschool. They would have been forced to take courses that corresponded with the jobs of their parents, accounting and business administration. To them, school was a refuge where teachers encouraged them to take the courses they want, regardless of their parent's wishes.»

You have yet to make heads or tails of why the government should be able to take power out of the hands of parents and put it into the hands of the schools in this regard.  There is no logical reason why parents should not have a very strong say in the curriculum their students receive, regardless of the types of courses being taught.

«An issue that came up in my school was that of Muslim prayer. It was a Catholic school but it was publically funded so they couldn't refuse students with different religious backgrounds.»All the more reason to get the government out of the business of funding education programs.  A Muslim has no business in any other religion's school.

«The school chaplain forbid Muslim students from praying in the school saying that it disrupted the school environment. Parents either didn't care about the issue or supported the chaplain's decision. The students made it an issue and it was ruled that the Muslim students could pray on school premises. The school listened to students rather than parents in this case. If the parents had their way it would have created a "My parents say that I can't be around you" situation that could only have bred religious tension and racism.»

Irrelevant.  In a Catholic school, the environment should be Catholic.  That is the point of having a Catholic school.  Hell, even I know this, and I am a protestant who attended public school.  This kind of homogenization is exactly why the government has little to no business butting into schools.

«Also, teachers are citizens of a free society. They're as American or Canadian as their neighbours. I don't know a single teacher who hasn't gone against some outdated or misguided school policy to benefit a student.»

Outdated or misguided according to whom?  Your ambiguities are appalling.

«To accuse teachers of indoctrinating seems absurd to me. Teachers are people who have their own ideals that influence their teaching, sure. But are you suggesting parents are completely doctrine free or that a parent's ideals are the right ideals for their child? Or perhaps that children should never be in an environment where their parent's ideas are challenged? All those options seem far more authoritarian and misguided than a loosely monitored government-run school.»

There you go slinging ad-hominems all willy-nilly.  Authoritarian?  Please.  Parents are the authorities placed above their own children, true.  But that does not make it "authoritarianism".  You still have yet to make any logical argument why parents ought to be stripped of the authority they have over their own children in favor of politically-charged government programs like unaccountable public schooling.  Teachers indoctrinate all the time, be it because of the mandated curriculum or their own views being reflected in the way they teach a subject.  I will take authority in the hands of the parents any day over handing it over misguidedly to any government entity.

If that is the best you can do, you have made a great case for my own argument that the government should not be in the business of making decisions regarding the raising and educating of people's children.

Schools: Delegates, not surrogates

While I did not receive a lot of responses to my last post, mostly because I don't update frequently anymore, I did receive a very misguided post on my livejournal mirror in which a very disturbing post was made:

«I think that parents shouldn't have much of a say in their children's education. They can move schools or even move to different states or countries if they're really bothered by the school curriculum. They already control a major part of education through their control on home life.
Schools are supposed to serve and represent the students, not the parents. The teachers and administration are the most intimately acquainted with children outside of their home setting so they are best suited to create the curriculum. It doesn't mean that they're fantastic at it, but they're better than parents.»

This can only be stated upon the most misguided and totalitarian principles imaginable.  Allow me to tear this apart piece by piece.

«I think that parents shouldn't have much of a say in their children's education.»

This is a bad foot to get off on to begin with.  In a free society, choice is key.  Particularly when it comes to parents raising their children.  Only in the most vile societies are parents cut out of their own children's upbringing in such a manner.  The Soviet Union and Red China come to mind, as do the Hitler Youth.  I know what the standard response would be from anyone who holds the above fallacious view...they would compare it misguidedly to the Boy Scouts.  However, there is a key difference.  There is no political pressure in the US involved with having your son join or participate in the Boy Scouts.  In most cases there is no other alternative but to place a child in public schooling.

Which brings me to the next misguided sentence, which I will summarily rend asunder.

«They can move schools or even move to different states or countries if they're really bothered by the school curriculum.»

This is exactly the kind of "go f*** yourselves" attitude parents are receiving that is such a problem.  In a free society, all things are accountable to the people, particularly the people affected by the subject at hand. I have yet to see this happening...if parents are forced to move to get away from such schools, there is something inherently wrong with the system in place for schools in that area.

«They already control a major part of education through their control on home life.»

That has nothing to do with it.  Parents should always be in control of how their children are raised.  It is a vital part of parenting to be able to choose what is and is not acceptable in regards to your children.

«Schools are supposed to serve and represent the students, not the parents.»

Also a fallacy.  Schools are supposed to teach students, but they fail to do so anymore.  All they seem to do is indoctrinate, which is a realm that is not the job of the government of any free people.  This also neglects that the government must be accountable to the people, not simply above them.

«The teachers and administration are the most intimately acquainted with children outside of their home setting so they are best suited to create the curriculum. It doesn't mean that they're fantastic at it, but they're better than parents.»

Have you proof?  I have not seen any reliable evidence of anything of the sort.  Meanwhile, I have seen with my own two eyes exactly the opposite, which is to say that schools do a very poor job of educating and instead tend to focus on indoctrination and teaching to suit a standardized test with no regard to whether the knowledge will ever benefit the students at all.

To put it succinctly, raising children is the parents' job, not that of the government.  Schools are delegates of parents, not surrogates to them.  If the schools are not reflecting the will of the parents, then the schools are inherently flawed in their existence.

government vs. the people

I have been wanting to write something about the Supreme Court's poor decision in the Gonzales v. Raich decision but due to fire school, I haven't yet have the time.  I hope to get to it.  But in the mean time, here is Paul Jacob's take on it.  It brings up the most important  of the things I wanted to get across: The commerce clause is not carte blanche for the Federal Government to be all-powerful in all material respects.  Quite a while back I wrote another xanga entry concerning this, but I would eventually like to pick apart this particular Supreme Court opinion since it is far more current than the wheat case of the thirties that I addressed in that one.

Additionally, Jeff Jacoby wrote an interesting take entitled «Separating school and state», which discusses the most obvious solution to all the "what schools should and should not teach" debates across the country.  As I read it, I first had to think and consider this:  Why are school administrators, school boards, and bureaucrats being allowed to override parents?

The answer is twofold, really.  One is political and the second is economical.

The political answer is that even many school boards (and especially departments of education) are unintereted in what parents think or believe, and are so far removed from them that they have no serious repercussions from failing to obey the will of those they are supposed to serve and reperesent.  This is unacceptable.

This leads me to the economical half.  Without competition, there is no inspiration for the schools to try to actually improve or to actually satisfy the parents' concerns and complaints.  In fact, there is no need to do so at all.  Especially as long as private schooling costs on top of school taxes, which is an underhanded system any way you slice it.  Without basic competition and actually having to get students to get their pay, the public schools will continue to ignore public and parental concerns.

The solution?

I don't know for sure.  Some semblance of ownership, be it actual ownership or just control, of the parents over the school is a must.  This can be direct control, or the control that actual choice allows (by levelling the cost playing field between public and private schools, in whatever way that would be executed). 

Personally, I like the idea of some sort of competition.  It makes marketplaces thrive and competitors compete to be more desirable than the other.  This means constant competition rather than temporary, and it means that if one slacks off they actually have to answer to the marketplace for it.

Common sense?  I like to think so.  But you would be amazed the lack of common sense that is shown by socialized programs in most cases.  There are three basic economic ideas that must be observed in order to maintain both quality, quantity, and price:

Without competition, costs go up.
Without competition, quality goes down.
When competition is precluded by governments, the above two reasons cannot be cured by the creation of competition.

And no, private schools are not "competition".  The parents and others still have to pay tuition for the private schools and school taxes for the public schools they do not use, which is a corrupt system of funding.  Takes away the inspiration of public schools to compete for the parents to put their students in the public school that doesn't care what parents think anyway, wouldn't you say?

Another mirror

Hello, friends, conservatives, Republicans, soldiers, sailors, Marines, coasguardsmen, old-fashioned girls, mothering mothers, men who are men, gun nuts, firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency services personnel, fellow Linux geeks, and any other folks who care to drop in. I am Peter, a volunteer firefighter, almost-EMT (just finished the class, and have to take the state test now), fire-school student, husband, brother, entrepreneur, Christian, ex-video game developer, former movie theater projectionist, Eagle Scout, and various other things that don't spring to mind.

I will be mirroring my other blogging spots here (xanga, myspace, livejournal, gaia online journal) as well. I figure I may as well, besides it makes it feasable to maintain an account for commenting on all of them. I post most these days on Xanga, but that is because that is where most of the discussion goes on. I will try to keep up around here too, though.

Thanks for stopping by!