Send your kids to school — with caffeine

Had we in the conservative world not made an uproar, I have no doubt but that the Obama speech, and the supporting teaching materials, would have encouraged children to come to the cult of Obama.  Thanks to the uproar, the speech shows that the cult of Obama is pretty much comprised of one member — Obama himself.

You can read the speech here.  My eyes rolled back into my head about 12 paragraphs in, after Obama’s umteenth reference to himself.  “I” this and “I” that.  An enterprising Hot Air reader counted 55 self-references to Obama and only four to America.  It a paralyzing speech made up of equal parts vanity and lecture.

When I was living in England, there was a running joke about Yorkshire codgers greeting every complaint about the hardships of modern life with a self-serving story beginning “When I were a lad….”  Thus:  “You call this snow?  When I were a lad, it snowed like this every day, all summer long, and we had to walk through this wearing nothing but our swimsuits and snowshoes.”

Obama has created his own “When I were a lad” speech.  Unless his personal charm comes through in the videos (and some high schoolers with lingering affection for him may see it), most students will be twitching with the desperate desire either to run or to sleep.

We must be eternally vigilant, but I think we’re safe this time.

The voracious British government marches on

The progressives of the Victorian era would be proud, but the old fashioned liberals are rolling in their graves:

Independent schools are to be made to open their doors to more children from poor homes under guidelines announced to stop them being run as “exclusive clubs”.

Schools failing to meet the regulations could have bank accounts frozen, trustees suspended, buildings seized or even be closed down under a range of sanctions.

In the new guidance from the Charity Commission, schools are told they should consider charging lower fees so more families are able to afford places.

Schools with higher charges have been informed they should ensure money is set aside to provide free or subsidised places for poor pupils. They should also consider sharing facilities and expert teachers with local state schools.

The recommendations, which come in a landmark document, are designed to ensure independent schools justify their charitable status by meeting a “public benefit” test and hold on to £100 million-a-year tax-breaks.

Schools may be subjected to “random” spot checks and inspections to ensure they comply.

Education experts say some may have to increase class sizes, ditch A-level courses or cut teachers’ perks to fund more free places.

Under Labour’s 2006 Charities Act, organisations including independent schools, hospitals and religious groups no longer have an automatic right to call themselves charities.

According to the guidance, they must prove “people in poverty” benefit from their services – even if they cannot afford fees.

“At the extreme, charities should not be seen as ‘exclusive clubs’ that only a few can join, since the ‘public’ benefit from that is very limited,” says the document.

Now they pass the cui bono publico test, of course, but at what cost?

Quick picks *UPDATED*

The kids are back in school and I thought the house would fall silent and I would blog again. However, it turns out — and this is very flattering — that there were a lot of people who wanted to talk to me but felt they couldn’t while the kids were around. I’ve spent the last two hours on the phone with people who really, really needed to have my ear. So, blogging this morning will be somewhat abbreviated, and will boil down to my sharing with you somethings I found interesting.

The first thing I found interesting was the fact that both the WaPo and the WSJ expressed real dismay at the fact that the Dem candidates are engaging in truly unseemly contortions in their efforts to deny the Surge’s success. If this is just political expediency, it reflects poorly on their character. If it’s a genuine psychological inability to recognize the situation on the ground, its very scary that people who propose themselves as our Commander in Chief are laboring under that kind of mental handicap. At minimum, I’d like the person with his (or her) finger on the button to exist in the real world, and not suffer from monomaniacal delusions.

Speaking of delusions, Dennis Prager challenges the claim that Barack Obama is a “uniter.” This claim is, of course, ridiculous on its face. Obama is bound and determined to withdraw troops from Iraq instanter, if not sooner, as a colleague of mine used to say, while I’m an equally firm believer in staying in Iraq until the situation is completely stabilized for the US’s benefit. Where’s the middle road on that one? How in the heck is he going to “unite” his and my entirely disparate views? Here’s Dennis’ take on the real meaning behind the “unity” claim:

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: “I want everyone to unite — behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine.”

If people from opposing viewpoints listening to Barack actually think he stands for their position, it’s because Barack is prevaricating and obfuscating. If he were clear and honest about his positions (and he is clear and honest about the War), approximately half the electorate would not view him as a uniter, but would view him as someone who could not possibly represent their interests.

Incidentally, Fred Siegel addresses much the same issue — Barack’s alleged universality — when he points out that those he knows who like Obama are completely unable to articulate what it is they like about him beyond a pretty face and nice voice. Many are also impressed by his Ivy League credentials, something that utterly fails to impress me. As I’ve mentioned before, while I’m sure there have been lots of good lawyers who emerged from Harvard Law in the last 20 years, I haven’t met them. Without exception, the Harvard lawyers I have met, have been almost stunningly inept. Many have been smart and nice, but all of them have ranked in the bottom 5th of lawyers I’ve worked with or appeared against. For me, a Harvard Law degree is like a big red warning sign. And if you are a wonderful, intelligent, incredibly competent Harvard lawyer reading this, my apologies. Clearly, I just haven’t met you, so you haven’t been able to un-skew my view.

On a completely different subject, let’s talk about vaccination. I’m a huge proponent of vaccination, something I think results both from the fact that I’m a history lover and I have older parents. The history part means that I’ve read about all the horrible epidemics that decimated childhood populations. Even in the 20th Century, although the US was able to reduce the 50% child mortality that existed in all prior eras and other places, polio was still a nightmare disease that hung over childhood until the Salk vaccine came along. My parents had measles, scarlet fever and diphtheria. I carry a discrete chicken pox scar on my face. The diseases are real and the consequences can be significant. As the diseases receded, though, people started fearing the vaccines’ side effects, even though those side effects, in all cases, have been minute compared to the disease risks. The latest fear was the fear that the preservative in many childhood vaccines caused autism. Yet another study has dis-proven this fear. I hope that finding encourages parents who were holding off on vaccines to give the subject another thought.

Here’s another wild jump in topic. The New York Times has a moderately interesting article about gephyrophobia — the fear of bridges. I’ve always found bridges concerning, perhaps because I grew up in earthquake country. My vague fear solidified completely when I saw the first Superman movie, back in 1978. (PLOT SPOILER HERE FOR ANYONE WHO HASN’T SEEN THIS MOVIE.) As you may recall, Lex Luthor’s nefarious plot involved creating a massive earthquake to get rid of California entirety, so that the Nevada property he’d purchased cheap would become valuable beach front property. When he successfully gets an earthquake going, the Golden Gate Bridge collapses. (SPOILER OVER.) As a kid in San Francisco, that image stuck with me — and was reinforced during 1989’s Loma Prieta earthquake, when a section of the Bay Bridge collapsed, killing one woman. I never got to the point where I avoided bridges, but I can’t say that I enjoy them.

Another topical leap: Your child and mine can now get college credit — at a taxpayer funded college — learning how to be gay. Yup, it’s truly no child left behind, or no child’s behind left alone, I’m not sure which. The famous university-level Mickey Mouse classes have just risen (or sunk) to a whole new level.

Whenever honor killings occur, whether in Canada or Texas, the usual suspects emerge to explain that honor killings and other acts of abuse against women have nothing to do with Islam, and that it’s just a bizarre coincidence that they keep cropping up in the Islamic community. Robert Spencer, however, got wind of a Yemeni columnist who wants nothing to do with this politically correct horse pucky. He’s quite clear on the fact that Islam demands the physical abuse of women — for their own good, of course.

And for now, th-th-th-that’s all, folks!

UPDATE: Whoops! I missed it. Fred Barnes also tackled the Dems’ peculiar aversion to the truth about the Surge.

UPDATE II: I like Bret Stephens’ take on the silliness of Obama’s constant promise to end American division in future:

Barack Obama, still fresh from his victory in Iowa last week and confident of another in New Hampshire tonight, has as his signature campaign theme the promise to “end the division” in America. Notice the irony: The scale of his Iowa victory, in a state that’s 94% white, is perhaps the clearest indication so far that the division Mr. Obama promises to end has largely been put to rest.

Of course, Barack’s Iowa victory may also cast into the light something I’ve already noted: Barack’s not really black. Sure, he’s got a genetic black inheretence, and he likes obsessing about his blackness, but his youthful influences and his education were mainstream white — something American blacks might notice.

UPDATE IIIChristopher Hitchens also examines the icky obsession with Obama’s race and suggests that, if you have questions about his racial views, you might want to check out the website for the Church with which Obama is publicly affiliated.  (Hat tip:  The Anchoress.)

Why are home schoolers for Huck?

Rational self-interest is a great concept, but it’s amazing how often people deviate from it and behave completely irrationally. A case in point is the “Home schoolers for Huck” trend we’re seeing right now. Huck’s political policies and pronouncements are completely antithetical to home schooling. He wants the federal government to encroach more and more on public school and, during his time in Arkansas, oversaw laws restricting home schooling rights. The NEA loves him, which tells you way more than you want to know about the man’s politics. Home schoolers ought to be running as far away from his candidacy as they can, but they’re not. Instead, the Home School Legal Defense Program is supporting him. One can only assume that they are so thrilled that a Pastor will take the White House that they are blind to their own self-interest. And speaking of self-interest, I’m also willing to bet that many home schoolers would be opposed to a whole bunch of Huck’s other stands, which are detailed here. (Hat tip: W”B”S.)

I think a lot of Evangelical Christians have to sit down and ask themselves a serious question: Am I willing to put in the White House a man who espouses political policies that go against my self-interest as a Christian merely because he himself is a vocal Christian? As for me, I would be much more interested in measuring Huck by his acts than by his words. And his acts have all the impetus and effects of a liberal Democrat. (By the way, if you have any doubt that a devout Evangelical Christian can also be an ultra liberal Democrat, just put yourself in the way back machine to the years 1976-1980, when this Country was headed by a vocal Christian who was not only a liberal Democrat, but also one of the worst presidents ever.)

Christians are also being short-sighted if they think that Huck’s expanding the federal government will Christianize it. Next time the administration changes into Democratic hands, or next time the Democrats finally take effective control over Congress, these same Democratic political leaders will take the federal government that Huck so thoughtfully expanded for them and use that new power for very Progressive (read: Leftist) ends.

The problem with American education

I blogged only the other day about the hare-brained thinking that characterizes the meetings I attend at my children’s public school. (See this post too.)  I’m constantly amazed at how foolish these teachers and administrators are, and are they are absolutely lacking in general knowledge or analytical skills. However, because they have “education degrees” they have a monopoly on our public school children. No one who hasn’t attended a teaching college can get near these kids. This means that thousands of people like myself — professionals with huge funds of knowledge (and, if I do so say myself, pretty good communication abilities) — are barred from reaching the kids unless we too want to subject ourselves to a time-consuming, expensive and foolish teacher’s education. Walter Williams has more about these teachers:

American education will never be improved until we address one of the problems seen as too delicate to discuss. That problem is the overall quality of people teaching our children. Students who have chosen education as their major have the lowest SAT scores of any other major. Students who have graduated with an education degree earn lower scores than any other major on graduate school admissions tests such as the GRE, MCAT or LSAT. Schools of education, either graduate or undergraduate, represent the academic slums of most any university. As such, they are home to the least able students and professors with the lowest academic respect. Were we serious about efforts to improve public education, one of the first things we would do is eliminate schools of education.

The inability to think critically makes educationists fall easy prey to harebrained schemes, and what’s worse, they don’t have the intelligence to recognize that the harebrained scheme isn’t working. Just one of many examples is the use of fuzzy math teaching techniques found in “Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers.” Among its topics: “Sweatshop Accounting,” “Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood,” “Multicultural Math” and “Home Buying While Brown or Black.” The latter contains discussions on racial profiling, the war in Iraq, corporate control of the media and environmental racism.

If you have a fifth-grader, his textbook might be “Everyday Math.” Among its study questions are: If math were a color, it would be (blank) because (blank). If it were a food, it would be (blank) because (blank). If it were weather, it would be (blank) because (blank). All of this is sheer nonsense, and what’s worse is that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics sponsors and supports much of this nonsense.

Mathematics, more than any other subject, is culturally neutral. The square root of 16 is 4 whether you’re Asian, European or African, or even Plutonian or Martian. While math and science literacy among white 15-year-olds is nothing to write home about, that among black 15-year-olds is nothing less than a disaster.

Few people appreciate the implications of poor math preparation. Mathematics, more than anything else, teaches one how to think logically. As such, it is an important intellectual tool. If one graduates from high school with little or no preparation in algebra, geometry and a bit of trigonometry, he is likely to find whole areas of academic study, as well as the highest paying jobs, hermetically sealed off from him for his entire life.

Having been so harsh, both directly and (through the Williams quotation) indirectly, let me add a few ameliorative statements.  There are absolutely wonderful teachers out there, people who are truly gifted at communicating with young people and at leading them to knowledge.  There are deeply committed people out there.  Indeed, even though I don’t respect professionally many of the teachers at my kids’ schools, there are some who do deserve professional respect and, with few exceptions, all of them deserve respect for their good will and their good intentions.

My complaint is the same as Williams':  we have a system that drives to the bottom, rather than aims for the top.  The monopoly of education degrees, degrees that turn out people practiced in certain methodologies but often woefully uninformed or incapable of thought, means that there is no way to allow others who are informed and able to help lift up the education system.  And that’s a crime that no amount of federal and state monies can fix.

More on the teacher accused of insulting religion in his class

I blogged very briefly on Friday about the lawsuit against Dr. James Corbett, who, along with his school district, is being accused of using his AP history classroom to indoctrinate his students in anti-Christian attitudes. I’ve discovered two things since then. First, the LA Times article from which I quoted was disingenuous in the extreme in citing to the inappropriate things Corbett said, since it managed to whitewash the lengthy anti-religious rants in which he engaged. Second, if you read the comments left at that same LA Times article, you’ll see a common threatd running through those that defend Dr. Corbett. Almost without exception, his supporters say that it’s appropriate to crudely insult religion and to use history lessons as a rant against Christianity. Why? Because in their minds he’s speaking truth, and it’s an educator’s responsibility to bring truth to his students, especially the benighted Christian ones. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that there is a problem, not with discussing faith, but with insulting faith. I’ve taken many comparative religion classes over my career as a student, which included discussions of the absence of religion, and all were thoughtful and respectful in their approach to and comparison of the different ways of worshipping or denying God.

Not so Dr. Corbett. If you’d like better examples of the crudity of Corbett’s discourse, crudity that is an insult to the Christian religion and that has nothing to do with scholarly discourse about the nature of religion, you only need to check out the allegations in the actual complaint against him.

For example, in the full quote alluded to in the LA Times article, he basically calls religious people ill-informed idiots: “How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach…. [W]hen you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

Another instance of his approach to discussing religion is to take one item of data about two different countries — their religious practices — and from that extrapolate to broad reaching conclusions about their crime rate: “People — in the industrialized world the people least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, and Sweden the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.” It doesn’t seem to occur to him that a huge, melting pot frontier nation such as America might have developed differently from a small, entirely homogenous nation such as Sweden. A man who thinks this simplistically hardly seems fit to be a teacher, let alone an AP teacher. (Incidentally, Laer, at Cheat-Seeking Missiles, who wrote a wonderful post about the Corbett lawsuit, took the time to show the factual errors underlying this particular rant.)

Corbett also goes on lengthy rants about birth control, something that seems far removed from AP history, and that involves insulting entire American political parties: “….[C]onservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies. That’s interfering with God’s work. You got to stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses. All over the world, doesn’t matter where you go, the conservatives want control over women’s reproductive capacity. Everywhere in the world.” That’s news to me. I do know that American conservatives disapprove of out of control sexuality, believing that it is demeaning to the dignity of men and women alike, and that many of them are opposed to abortion, believing that it is destructive of the nascent life of a fetus. The only ones I know who do currently seem to advocate Corbett’s “Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” attitude are the Taliban but, peculiarly, their views don’t seem included in his rants.

It’s also a bit hard to see where Corbett’s view of Rush Limbaugh (“I love Rush Limbaugh. A fat, pain in the ass liar. And, boy, is he a liar”) fits into the AP History curriculum. Frankly, I also don’t see room in the curriculum for the vulgarities that roll of this man’s tongue. This is a teacher who demeans students, rather than who uplifts and educates them.

The bottom line is that teaching history and critical thinking are not skills that involve lengthy rants that take aim at specific religions and political views, let alone rants that shower students with vulgar language. Those students who have left comments saying that they felt free to disagree with him miss the point. As a public school teacher, Corbett’s job is to provide information, which can include information about doctrine or its effect on historical movements (such as the anti-Slavery movement in American history, for example, which was strongly affected by its adherents’ Christianity). It is not to shout soap box slogans that merely hark back to what were, I’m sure, his youthful days as a Marxist imbued anti-War activist.

Softening children continues apace

They are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find cowardly, clueless school administrators, aren’t they?

Children at the Oakdale School here in southeastern Connecticut returned this fall to learn that their traditional recess had gone the way of the peanut butter sandwich and the Gumby lunchbox.

No longer could they let off their youthful energy — pent up from hours of long division — by cavorting outside for 22 minutes of unstructured play, or perhaps with a vigorous game of tag or dodgeball. Such games had been virtually banned by the principal, Mark S. Johnson, along with kickball, soccer and other “body-banging” activities, as he put it, where knees — and feelings — might get bruised.

Instead, children are encouraged to jump rope, play with Hula Hoops or gently fling a Frisbee. Balls are practically controlled substances, parceled out under close supervision by playground monitors.

The traditional recess, a rite of grade school, is endangered not only in the Oakdale School here in Montville, a town of 18,500. From Cheyenne, Wyo., to Wyckoff, N.J., recess — long seen as a way for children to develop social competence, recharge after long lessons, and resist obesity — is being rethought and pared down.

In the face of this, a national campaign called Rescuing Recess, sponsored by such organizations as the Cartoon Network, the National Parent Teacher Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Education Association, has taken hold at many schools where parents and children fear that recess will go the way of the one-room schoolhouse.

At Oakdale, Mr. Johnson finally relaxed some prohibitions after a parade of parents complained. Now, twice a week when a parent or grandparent is present, fourth and fifth graders are allowed to play a modified version of kickball as long as the score is not kept. Many parents are still not satisfied, however, saying that such coddling fails to prepare children for adulthood.

“Life is competitive,” said Shari Clewell, the mother of a fifth grader. “Kids compete for attention. They compete for grades. You compete for a job. You compete from the time you’re little all the way to the end.”

Pretending otherwise is pointless, she said. “They’re kids. They are competitive. They can play jump rope and jacks and make it competitive.”

But the principal is determined. “I’m honestly one of the most competitive guys in the world, having coached sports for a long time,” said Mr. Johnson, who has coached youth basketball and softball. “But I honestly don’t believe this is the place for that.”

Acknowledging that the changes caused “quite an uproar,” he defended his policy as a way to build skills and camaraderie rather than competition and conflict, and said that it had nothing to do with insurance costs. He said he had seen too many recesses where children “want all the good kids on one side and they want to win at all costs, and kids are made to feel badly.”

Read the rest here.

It’s unsurprising that, as the administrators get increasingly spineless and political (something it’s hard to imagine happening considering where they started), the teachers get increasingly aggressive in promoting viewpoints inconsistent with public education.

As you know from a post here a few days ago, the above article just touches the tip of the iceberg. At my kids’ school, the official policy is to ensure that the kids never play competitively, and that they never lose. God forbid that they should learn useful skills such as handling disappointment.

I was one of the kids at school who was always chosen last.  I didn’t like it.  The school could have helped, not by destroying the games kids play, but by having an administrator drop in occasionally to give tips about fair play, not gloating, and losing gracefully.  The sports were great; what was bad was that the school didn’t use the fallout to educate.

One public school education against God

Comment would be obvious, so I’ll just offer you the news:

A San Juan Capistrano high school student and his parents filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday alleging that his history teacher violated his constitutional rights by making “highly inappropriate” and offensive statements in class regarding Christianity.

James Corbett, who teaches Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School, consistently “demonstrates a sense of hostility toward religion,” causing Christian students to “feel ostracized and treated as second-class citizens,” according to the lawsuit filed in federal district court in Santa Ana by Chad Farnan, 16, and his parents, Bill and Teresa.

The lawsuit contends, among other things, that Corbett told students during class that “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth”; said that religion is not “connected with morality”; compared Christians to “Muslim fundamentalists” who want women to “stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses”; and suggested that churchgoers are more likely to commit rape and murder.

Corbett did not return a call for comment. Capistrano Valley High School Principal Tom Ressler described Corbett as a “solid” teacher who has been with the Capistrano Unified School District for more than 15 years. Ressler said Corbett’s class was popular among Advanced Placement students and has a high pass rate.

“It’s really premature to say anything about this,” he said of the allegations. “People can make allegations all they want; we have to see the reality and context of what was said.”

Teresa Farnan said her suspicions were aroused on the first day of school when her son — a sophomore honors student required to take Corbett’s class for college admission — asked her whether America was founded on Christian values, which he said his teacher had denied.

“He had learned in the eighth grade that our country was founded by persecuted Christians,” said the mother, who describes her family as nondenominational Christian, “so I sent him to school with a tape recorder.”

During the next two months, Chad Farnan said, he taped Corbett’s lectures with the recorder in plain sight on his backpack.

“I’m not sure whether he saw me,” the student said. “He’s against Christianity and bashes it all the time. He’s been indoctrinating us and not teaching the class; we don’t need to be hearing his political views during school time when we should be learning.”

Eventually the Farnans contacted Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit organization based in Murrieta dedicated to “protecting religious liberty,” a spokeswoman said.

The group filed the lawsuit on the family’s behalf, attorney Jennifer Monk said, because it believed Corbett’s behavior violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The teacher is a representative of the state and the Constitution requires government neutrality toward religion,” she said. “This teacher’s conduct and words clearly show he is hostile toward religion and is indoctrinating these kids, who are a captive audience.”

The lawsuit — based entirely on Corbett’s comments during one Oct. 19 class that the Farnans describe as typical — asks that the teacher be removed from the classroom. “We will not seek damages if the teacher is removed,” Monk said.

Chad Farnan, who attended Corbett’s class until the lawsuit was filed, said Wednesday that he would remain in school but stay out of the class until the matter is settled.

San Francisco’s JROTC reprieved

The San Francisco Board of Education gave the City’s Junior ROTC program a one year reprieve. That’s good, and a lot can happen in a year (one hopes). I found interesting, in a disgusted way, the comment from one of those trying to destroy JROTC:

Several people spoke out against the extension, reiterating the argument made last year that JROTC is a military recruitment tool.

“I’m really disappointed,” said Martha Hubert, a member of Code Pink who opposed the extension. Students “should have a choice of better things to do.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to her that the citizens of a free nation should have a right to have access to their military, and that their military should have a non-coercive right to have access to them. True to the liberal creed, she wants to shut down any opposition to her point of view.

Let kids be kids — not!

I received this email from a friend, who thought that you all might have some useful input about a recent policy change at her daughter’s elementary school:

Apparently a boy got hit in the head playing football at recess and hurt himself, though I don’t know in what way or how badly.

The school’s response has been to ban all soccer and football at recess and lunch despite the fact that no accident occurred in soccer. Children can still play basketball and tetherball. They are only permitted to play soccer or football under adult supervision, that is at p.e.

We happen to think that this policy is ridiculous. I plan to meet with the principal to try to convince her to bring soccer back. This is an affluent community with some pretty protective and forceful parents. I don’t know if the principal is afraid of a lawsuit- but for heavens sake- minor bumps and scrapes is a part of childhood!

If you feel inclined to put this to your blog, I would be interested to know what you and your readers have to say about it. I could use some good points when I meet with the principal (who is a pretty strong and opinionated lady herself).

So, my friends, if you were meeting with a school principal and wanted to have a rational, intelligent, polite discussion with her that would help convince her that a ban on soccer and football is a bad idea, what would you say?

Context is king

My family likes doing jigsaw puzzles.  If you’ve ever done a puzzle, you know the drill:  you buy a puzzle that has an interesting picture that hints at the right degree of difficulty, you spill the pieces on the table, and using the cover as your guide, you spend many enjoyable hours putting that puzzle together.  About that all-important cover:  It tells you where you will end up when you’re done and, during the process, it helps understand the myriad inscrutable puzzle pieces dotted around your table.  Only the most hardcore puzzle fanatics, those seeking the greatest challenge, do away with the box cover — and even they look at it before starting the puzzle and put it away only after they begin their work.  The cover is context and, for puzzlers, no matter how much or how little they ultimately rely on it, context is king.

What constantly boggles my mind is how educators seem so immune to context’s benefits.  At traditional school, educators have adopted an incremental approach.  To this end, they break difficult materials down into bite-sized abstract pieces, confident that when the kids have mastered a sufficient number of these pieces, they will have a sudden, blinding revelation about the whole.  In sports, coaches teach the kids individual techniques and skills, but they forget to give them an overarching picture of the game, its strategies, goals and rules.  In chorus, they begin to teach the kids the lyrics and hand out the music by measure, without ever just singing the song for the kids.

Actually, all of these methods work, at least for the bright kids, who have committed teachers and education-rich home and school environments.  What irritates me about the whole situation is that it’s such a crazy, difficult way to do things.  It’s the opposite of Occam’s razor, with the educator choosing the most difficult, infelicitous, circuitous route to conveying information.  It gives children neither goals nor guidelines.  Children feel frustrated and lost, just as the amateur puzzle-maker feels frustrated if his box cover vanishes.

My question for you, because it’s one I am completely unable to answer despite years of asking it of myself, is why do people think there is a virtue to teaching kids in puzzle pieces, without ever showing them the larger picture?

Stop the presses! Poll points out the obvious.

You and I know that children — thank goodness! — are remarkably adaptable. Indeed, the younger they are, the more adaptable they are. It’s for this reason that pricey private schools and public schools in wealthy communities offer foreign language classes to the kindergarten set, rather than waiting, as they used to do in the old days, until the kids were in high school before exposing them to another language. You and I also know that the best way to learn a language is to be immersed in it. Those old high school classes didn’t work very well because we got grammar drills three times a week, instead of spending hours and hours surrounded by that language. Take the same high school kid and ship him off for a year abroad in Spain or France or Italy, and he’ll be chattering like a native in months.

You and I know all this. Liberals, however, while they grasped it for their own lily-white children, with ever more enrichment programs, stubbornly refuse to believe that the same might hold true for people of browner complexions. Hence, the insanity of bilingual education, which might have started as a humane way to ensure that a child wasn’t totally abandoned in a strange country, but morphed into a vast industry that prevented Hispanic children from ever coming into contact with the English language — all for the children’s own good, of course.

Given this mindset (“my little white children can learn a new language, but I love your poor little brown children so much I’m going to make sure they never get the chance to try”), I wonder how many of these educationally insane liberals are going to read and understand the latest study about immigrant children and English:

Most children of Hispanic immigrants in the United States learn to speak English well by the time they are adults, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mainly Spanish and do not have a command of English, according to a report released yesterday by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

Only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries said they spoke English very well, the report found. But 88 percent of the members of the second generation in Latino immigrant families described themselves as strong English speakers, a figure that increased to 94 percent for the grandchildren’s generation.

To which I say, in my best English, “Well, duh!”

Interestingly, the New York Times spins this report, not as a blow to the anti-assimilation bilingual education cadre, but as a blow to those who are opposed to illegal immigration. They don’t seem to get that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, with the language debate having nothing to do with the latter issue.

Additionally, the Times-ites don’t understand that, as to legal immigrants, this study supports those who are opposed to government policies that keep all immigrants, legal and illegal, from assimilating into American society through that most basic tool of assimilation: the English language. Indeed, just recently, people who believe in language as an important vehicle for immigrant aid were appalled that Nancy Pelosi allied herself with the Hispanic caucus and the EEOC to force the Salvation Army to stop its quaintly antiquated policy of requiring English language skills for holding a job:

In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not “relevant” to job performance or safety.


“If it is not relevant, it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin,” says Rep. Charles Gonzalez of Texas, one of several Hispanic Democrats in the House who threatened to block Ms. Pelosi’s attempts to curtail the Alternative Minimum Tax unless she killed the Alexander amendment.

The confrontation on the night of Nov. 8 was ugly. Members of the Hispanic Caucus initially voted against the rule allowing debate on a tax bill that included the AMT “patch,” which for a year would protect some 23 million Americans from being kicked into a higher income tax bracket.


After testy negotiations, the Hispanic Caucus finally agreed to let the tax bill proceed after extracting a promise from Ms. Pelosi that the House will not vote on the bill funding the Justice and Commerce Departments unless the English-only protection language is dropped. “There ain’t going to be a bill” with the Alexander language, Mr. Baca has told reporters.

Incidentally, if you want to see what happens when a government engages in policies that prevent its immigrants from assimilating, just check out what’s going on outside of Paris (riots, incidentally, that Sarkozy seems to have quelled thanks to an aggressive response). All of the MSM outlets are waffling on about how not enough government money is flowing into the banlieus, but you and I know that not enough French/Western culture and too few Judeo-Christian host county values (assuming Europe has any left) are flowing in — and one of the ways in which they flow is on language’s back.

Incidentally, regarding values and language, I will remind you that ivory tower types love to point out that the Inuit language has practically a gazillion different words for snow. Language very much reflects value and culture — something George Orwell pointed out with startling clarity in 1984.


I seem to be in an “education-y” mode lately regarding blogging, but that’s because there’s some interesting stuff out there on the subject. At today’s American Thinker, Charles Sykes, who has written about education for about 20 years, challenges the conventional wisdom that our children are suffering from too much homework:

A generation of hyper-parents has larded their children’s days with band practice, piano lessons, soccer practice, volleyball, martial arts, dance recitals, and swim classes. For their part, teens find time to spend something like 6 hours a day using various forms of media; Xbox 360 sales do not seem to be suffering because kids are too busy to play video games and the malls have not been emptied of teens.

And yet the cry goes up that it is Mrs. Grundy’s history homework assignments that are destroying the innocence of childhood and wrecking the American family.

I both agree and disagree with Sykes’ thesis. It is absolutely true that American children are completely overbooked and this certainly makes it difficult, sometimes, to find time for homework. However, I think many of us parents believe that the after-school activities truly are important — they’re not just to keep up with the Jones. For example, I’m a huge fan of after-school sports programs, which I see as the necessary antidote to the sedentary life young people inevitably live in sprawling communities, many of which don’t even have sidewalks, where walking around and running are not an option. Also, given that the schools have abandoned the competitive sports model, a model that teaches kids to be good winners, good losers and good team players, soccer and other after school sports are the only forum in which they can learn those valuable life skills.

I also have a strong sense of not letting talent go to waste. My kids are both musically inclined and, while their school does have a music program, it doesn’t go anywhere near cultivating their undoubted talents in that area. Both have had the opportunity outside of school, though, to develop their musicality, and I just couldn’t, in good conscience, deny them that opportunity.

I think Sykes comes a little closer to nailing the homework problem when he writes this:

Of course, as any parent who has spent hours working on pointless dioramas and time-wasting cardboard volcanoes can testify, some of the complaints are not without some merit.

For me, that pretty much nails the issue.  I don’t have a problem with my kids reinforcing and honing newly acquired skills, but I have a tremendous problem with the time wasting.  Teachers waste time in class with a lot of stuff that has no place in an academic curriculum, whether it’s building a model mission out of a milk cartoon, all the while teaching a politically correct parody of California history; or dragging the kids to endless “green” assemblies, rather than keeping them in the classrooms to learn the basics.  The homework sometimes reflects this same skewed set of values.  It’s possible that, if the teachers were freed from all these political/union constraints, and were allowed simply to teach (a) they might have to rely less on homework to get done what couldn’t be done in class or (b) parents might see more value in the homework as an adjunct to an already solid academic education.

I do have one good word to put in about homework, which often isn’t mentioned even in the pro-homework debate:  Oversight.  It’s through my kids’ homework that I’m able to see how they work and where they have problems.  I’m able to step in and help, if necessary, or to bully them (gently) into tackling a problem on their own.  In other words, I find homework a very useful window into the classroom, into my child’s academic skill set, and into my child’s approach to work.

Common sense to deal with poorly performing students

I blogged the other day about a brave educator’s claim that cultural differences (which he mistakenly described as “race”) affect the education gap between whites and Asians on the one hand, and Hispanics and blacks on the other hand. At a conference that this educator organized to deal with these vexing issues, another speaker stepped up to the plate and announced that he had solutions. I expected to read in the next paragraph some touchy-feely, feel-good approach to the problem but, instead, read common sense ideas familiar to all of us who attended schools more than 20 years ago:

[Douglas] Reeves, the founder of a Colorado consulting firm called the Center for Performance Assessment and an award-winning author on student achievement, stood before the crowd as one of the conferences’ keynote speakers and said he had the answer to closing the gap.

Even the best known, most effective strategies go nowhere in schools because too few teachers and principals implement them consistently, he said.

“It’s only going to help us if 90 percent of teachers are doing it,” Reeves said. He called for “deep implementation” of the strategies.

In the vast auditorium at the Sacramento Convention Center, the strategies that Reeves posted on big TV screens for all to see seemed simple. They included:

– Explicitly teaching students how to take notes, so what they learn in class isn’t wasted.

– Testing what has been taught.

– Assigning teachers based on students’ needs rather than by teachers’ seniority.

– Posting clear objectives for every classroom lesson.

– Posting students’ work on walls, not just in elementary school but through high school, to foster pride and encourage high achievement.

What’s fascinating is that, one of the hallmark items “assigning teachers based on students’ needs rather than by teachers’ seniority,” which falls into the “well, that’s obvious” category, is pretty much un-doable because of the union’s stranglehold on public schools:

Many teachers say they already do these things – except for assigning teachers based on students’ needs, a sticky issue involving labor contracts between teachers and school districts.

It’s not just the unions, though, that are making it difficult to implement these changes. It’s government, too:

Sam Neustadt, an assistant superintendent for Solano County, agreed that deep implementation of good basic strategies makes sense – “if we were allowed to do it.”

The problem, Neustadt said, is that a vast set of education laws, including federal No Child Left Behind rules and the state’s own requirements, keep educators doing so much paperwork and data collection that they have little chance to spend extra time on instruction.

“It’s possible,” he said, “but not under the current circumstances.”

I’ve heard that from the teacher’s too. They don’t complain so much about the paperwork as they do about the fact that they’re so constrained by a rigid, politically driven curriculum, they do not have time to teach the basics and then make sure that they stick.

One teacher quoted in the article couldn’t see these simple rules work because they seem like a band aid to the endemic problem of social promotion:

But for at least one high school teacher at the conference, Debra Craig of Riverside County, Reeves’ straightforward way of solving the achievement gap was far too complicated.

Craig teaches at Vista del Lago High School, where 85 percent of students are black or Latino.

“I have high school kids who can’t do fifth-grade math,” she said. “They can’t do fractions. Can’t multiply by decimals. But we stick them in algebra class.”

“It’s totally crazy,” Craig said. “It’s because of the practice of promoting kids without their having the skills to move on to a higher level.

“And then we have a big conference to find out why there’s an achievement gap. Gee!”

Sadly, the students Craig describes, who have been pushed through a school system without having learned anything are a lost educational generation. That does not mean, however, that these common sense steps should be abandoned. You’ve got to start somewhere, and these fairly straightforward fixes, put into place when kids are very little, may go quite some way to keeping another generation from having public education pass them by.

More silliness from SF government

San Franciscans keep electing people like this, so I guess they get the government they deserve. By this, I mean the Stupes who decided to give everyone ID cards (which sounds like a good way to connect terrorists to their own personal bank accounts) and the School Board which is bound and determined to destroy JROTC, despite the fact that generations of American students have benefited from its camaraderie and discipline:

A controversial resolution that would have granted a one-year reprieve to the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in San Francisco schools was pulled off the school board’s agenda tonight minutes after the meeting started.

Board President Mark Sanchez, a co-author of the measure, said that he believed there wasn’t enough support for the measure as it was written.

“We need more discussion about it,” he said.

That means that unless the board takes further action in the future, the 90-year JROTC program would be eliminated at the end of this school year — fulfilling a decision the board made last November.

The resolution before the board tonight would have extended the program for a year at five high schools, although it would have prevented ninth graders from enrolling in those JROTC programs.

The JROTC programs at the other two high schools would have been eliminated and replaced with a still undeveloped alternative program.

Kim-Shree Maufas, listed as the measure’s co-author, said she disagreed with the conditions in the resolution, specifically the prohibition against ninth grade enrollment next year.

“(Sanchez) and I will work on it some more,” she said.

More than 100 students and community members attended the meeting, the vast majority supporting the JROTC programs.

Sanchez allowed 15 minutes of public comment at the beginning of the meeting even though the measure was officially withdrawn.

Lowell High School senior Connie Chen had hoped to address the board, but didn’t make it to the front of a very long line. Later, she said that the board has left the students in limbo — with no extension and no replacement program — with about seven months until the end of the school year.

“They were elected to do what’s best for the students,” said Chen, who is the most senior JROTC officers at her school. “They’re the ones who should take JROTC leadership courses.”

Read the rest here.

Incidentally, I attended a San Francisco public school that had a devoted cadre of JROTC members. They were a credit to the school: hard working, polite, never in trouble, well disciplined, enthusiastic, etc. Clearly not the type of behavior schools want to encourage, right?

Another paradigm blown to bits

“I’m not a child development expert, but I play one on TV.”

Wait. That’s not what I meant to say, but it just sounded so silly, I had to. What I really meant to say is that I’m not a child development expert, but I hang around with a whole bunch of kids. Just like Santa, I see them when they’re naughty and when their nice, and I know when they’ve been good or bad. I’ve also watched a lot of them grow up over time, with the most startling ones being the awful little 5 year olds who turn into lovely 10 or 12 year olds (I own one of those).

I’ve therefore drawn a lot of conclusions based on my real life, real time observations: (1) no matter the child’s objective deficits, structure and discipline (by which I do not mean abuse and insults) make a huge difference in controlling negative behaviors; (2) some kids, especially boys, are slower than their peers in developing impulse control; (3) most kids need some time during the day in which they can really run around and burn off excess energy, without being constrained by lawsuit or “tender flower” playground rules militating against real activity; (4) kids respond like flowers to water when given genuine praise and are morally destroyed by false praise; and (5) kids are growing so constantly that yesterday’s child may bear little physical, mental or social relationship to tomorrow’s child. I bet all of you have noticed pretty much the same things.

Experts, however, who study children in a vacuum, seem to have a harder time drawing logical conclusions. Even school teachers see children frozen in a moment. A lifelong 3rd grade teacher sees 8 year olds. She doesn’t have a sense of the child’s trajectory from K through, say, 5th or 6th grade. Without the sense of time, and the changes that time brings, one can draw false conclusions about what makes little kids tick and, more importantly, how they change.

This prolonged introduction arises because I wanted to give you a context for how I viewed this news:

Educators and psychologists have long feared that children entering school with behavior problems were doomed to fall behind in

One concluded that kindergartners who are identified as troubled do as well academically as their peers in elementary school. The other found that children with attention deficit disorders suffer primarily from a delay in brain development, not from a deficit or flaw.

Experts say the findings of the two studies, being published today in separate journals, could change the way scientists, teachers and parents understand and manage children who are disruptive or emotionally withdrawn in the early years of school. The studies might even prompt a reassessment of the possible causes of disruptive behavior in some children.

“I think these may become landmark findings, forcing us to ask whether these acting-out kinds of problems are secondary to the inappropriate maturity expectations that some educators place on young children as soon as they enter classrooms,” said Sharon Landesman Ramey, director of the Georgetown University Center on Health and Education, who was not connected with either study.

My response, copied verbatim from my 5th grader is, “Well, duh!” I’m only surprised that it took so long for the experts to figure out that children grow and change.  And if you need proof for that, I can tell you that all children are naughty but, thank goodness, most adults are not.

Racist talk about education

In a debate about lagging Hispanic and Black achievement scores, people are getting an inkling that culture is an issue, but they’re still getting confused by trying to phrase the problem as one of race, not culture — a way of categorizing the issue that’s always going to make it a target for easy arguments about “racism.” Anyway, here’s the beginning of the article that triggered the preceding assessment:

Every time state schools chief Jack O’Connell thought he was doing something to close the achievement gap, a new round of test scores showed that black and Latino students had gained no ground on their white and Asian American peers.

Like many educators, O’Connell assumed the culprit was poverty. Then he noticed an even wider ethnic disparity among students who were not poor.

The realization was a jolt: Being black or Latino – not poor – was what the low-scorers had in common. And it changed everything.

O’Connell now believes that widespread cultural ignorance within the California school system is responsible for the poor academic performance of many black and Latino students in school.

He offered the example of black children who learn at church that it’s good to clap, speak loudly and be a bit raucous. But doing the same thing at school, where 72 percent of teachers are white and may be unfamiliar with such customs, will get them in trouble, he said.

The achievement gap is “absolutely, positively not genetic,” O’Connell said. “All kids can learn. I’m saying it’s racial.”

I think O’Connell is almost right. Where’s he’s wrong, though, he’s wrong in big ways that obscure his message. First, he’s wrong when he says the issue is “racial.” While he gets that messages in the home may well contribute to school problems, these messages are cultural, not racial. Race is a biological classification; culture is how we’re raised. Framing the problem in terms of “race” not “culture,” is a disastrous way to get your message across, because people start hearing with their emotions, not their brains, when they hear the word “race.”

Now, once you start talking culture, you’re really talking. I happening to be a huge believer in the culture of education. I think race has a minimum contribution to academic success, despite the fact that Jews do seem to test out higher on the IQ scores, regardless of their ultimate academic achievement. I’m also dubious about poverty as a factor, since I think culture can override a lot of the poverty issues. My examples for this would be the Jewish emergence from the ghettos 100 years ago, and the ongoing success of Asian immigrants who leap in a single generation from slums to suburbs.

The Jewish and Asian cultures place a premium on education, while other cultures do not. Very wealthy Hispanic friends of ours many years ago started an organization aimed at combating the work-oriented culture of recent Hispanic immigrants. Our friends complained that the Hispanic parents, many of whom came from agrarian communities, fail to recognize education as the fast track to economic success in America. Instead of pushing their children to stay in school, they actively encourage them to drop out of school and get low level jobs as gardeners or field hands — effectively short-circuiting the American dream and creating a poverty, instead of a success, cycle.

O’Connell’s second error is that, at least in the quotations included in the article, he focuses on behavior, not values. Children can easily be taught to behave one way in one venue, and another way in another venue. This means that, just because African-American kids are lively participants in church does not mean that they cannot quickly master sitting quietly in class. What you can’t easily teach them, however, if they’re not already getting the message at home, is to value education, as opposed to looking at it as something forced on you by government or by a hostile white society. Still, I don’t want to denigrate the fact that O’Connell is on to something, which is that the home messages matter, and that home and community values will affect academic performance.

O’Connell’s going to have a tough road to hoe with his message, since nanny state representatives are already lining up their arguments saying that everything is the school’s fault and responsibility:

Also on center stage will be Glenn Singleton, the coach O’Connell hired for the Education Department’s racial sensitivity classes. Singleton runs a San Francisco consulting firm called Pacific Educational Group and is the author of “Courageous Conversations about Race: a Strategy for Achieving Equity in Schools.”

Contrary to widely held views that parents play a strong role in whether their children do well academically, Singleton believes the schools, not parents, are the biggest influence.

“If we were to say that black or brown kids don’t perform as well because of their parents, we’re saying black and brown parents aren’t as effective as white parents,” Singleton told The Chronicle. “That’s pretty much a racist statement.”

At schools with large numbers of black and Latino students, white teachers are not only culturally unfamiliar with their students, they are often the “least seasoned and skilled” at teaching, he said.

Curriculum and achievement tests are also Eurocentric, Singleton said, despite the state’s efforts to purge all bias.

By the way, anyone who wants a quick lesson in home matters should watch Everybody Hates Chris, a show that’s mostly funny, and that is one of the best vehicles for conveying the responsibility parents have to their children when it comes to doing well in school and living a moral life, regardless of surrounding circumstances.

UPDATESelwyn Duke has a great companion piece to this post, an article in which he discusses the fact that we now shy away from any information about different group characteristics.

By the way, I’ve noticed that discussions about differences in racial or cultural groups can be discussed if they come from sensitivity trainers.  Although I grew up with a bazillion Asians (my high school class was about 60%) Asian, it wasn’t until I was forced at one of my law firms to go through a mandatory sensitivity training class that I learned that Asian women are retiring and cannot be criticized in public.  I hadn’t noticed that in my friends, many of whom were wild women who made me look like a quiet, blushing flower.  I gather that we’re allowed to reach race based conclusions if it will force us to change the dominant culture ‘sbehavior, but not if those conclusions try to examine the group’s characteristics to explain vexing cultural problems.

The days of good sportsmanship are over

I was perusing the “site plan” for my kids’ school, a document that spells out what the school’s goals are regarding education and the means by which they put those goals into effect. After deciphering the usual cant and education babble, I learned that our school wants to teach our kids to read, write, do math, learn about their country and save the environment — laudable goals all. The one thing that stood out for me, though, was the little paragraph I quote below.  I’ve edited it somewhat to remove specific identifiers so that the text doesn’t lead right back to our school, but I’ve kept unchanged the money language, which I’ve highlighted:

In keeping with directives from State headquarters, our school’s P.E. program strives to help students to develop a greater appreciation for themselves and for each other. The state’s policy recommends moving away from an emphasis on teaching students to compete, which includes the concept of winner/loser, and moving towards teaching the concept of “every student is a winner”. Students will come to understand that “winning” is dependent upon more than a score in a game.

In other words, our children are not to be taught that, whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.  They are not to be taught how to be a good (as opposed to a sore) loser.  They are not to be taught how to be a gracious (as opposed to an arrogant) winner.  They are not to be taught to strive for success.  All those useful life skills have been removed from the physical ed curriculum.  Instead, “everyone is a winner.”  Well, I’ve got a quote for them:

Helen: Everyone’s special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

(Incidentally, I happen to know that the minds that came up with that last quote, good liberals all, have their children in private schools.)

Also, in the context of the school’s language, what in the heck does it mean that “students will come to understand that ‘winning’ is dependent upon more than a score in a game?”  Sure, we all talk about personal bests, and trying hard, and stuff, but winning still means someone is losing — and kids have to learn how to lose.  (And, as I noted above, they also have to learn how to win.)

Fortunately, the kids understand certain things better than the teachers and the administrators.  When you take them out of the anesthetizing blanket that the public schools seek to wrap around them, and put them on after-school soccer fields, basketball courts, or baseball diamonds, they play with ferocity, and a do-or-die need to win.

They can’t read very well, but they hate carbon emissions

Schools constantly complain about the pressure to meet actual academic standards, but they somehow always find time to beat the children over the heads with social or political issues — and always from the point of view of the Lefter side of the political spectrum:

Third-grade teacher Debbie Robles made her acting debut before a packed auditorium of youngsters at Rancho Elementary School in Novato. She bombed.

Playing the villain in a school assembly Wednesday aimed at educating the students about global warming, Robles – dressed in a witch’s black attire and prancing around the auditorium as “Queen Carbon” – drew the biggest response from more than 500 students who attended two “Curb Your Carbon” assemblies.

“My own daughter Hannah asked me, ‘Do you have to be my mother today?'” Robles said.

Teachers, parents and volunteers helped organize the assemblies and participated in the skits to help raise awareness about global warming and what people can do about it – exchanging traditional light bulbs for compact fluorescent bulbs, for example.

School officials distributed more than 500 CFLs last week.

On Friday, Rancho students will be given bilingual “Cancel-a-Car” coupon books filled with ways they can fight global warming.

Once the coupons are returned to school, teachers will track what conservation efforts are made and the date. Teachers will help monitor the progress. As the carbon reduction increases, images of cars will be crossed out on a giant poster kept at school.

Another Novato school, Lu Sutton, joined the program last month, bringing to eight the number of Marin schools that have introduced the program that began earlier this year at Bacich Elementary and Kent Middle schools in Kentfield.

The program is being financed by a $200,00 donation from the Earth Day Every Day Fund of the Marin Community Foundation. Three nonprofits, the Marin Conservation Corps, Strategic Energy Innovations and Cool the Earth are implementing the program and hope to introduce it to 25 Marin schools by the end of the year.

Even if I accepted the urgency of this whole Climate Change shtick, which you know I don’t, I would still find irksome the time wasting in which the schools routinely engage, pursuing any agenda other than the Three Rs. How about if they put a temporary stop to all the preaching and go back to the good old-fashioned teaching, with an emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic.

Of course, after spending hours perusing the appalling document that our local school board prepared — with the help of teachers — to establish teaching goals for the next few years, I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that schools spend a lot of time not teaching because of the teacher’s and administrator’s own educational deficits, deficits that don’t appear so much in math, but that reveal themselves in reading and writing. At our local schools, the faculty are very well-intentioned and committed to their jobs, and they manage to churn out high test scores by sticking closely to the prepared curriculum but, with some sterling exceptions (and my kids are lucky enough to have those exceptions this year), they are an ill-informed crew.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Ophi for helping me find what was manifestly a late night typo.  Making typos, however, is distinguishable from obscure or semi-illiterate writing, filled with cant, jargon and buzzwords, and impossible sentence construction, all aimed at concealing meaning (or the lack of meaning).

Birth control pills for little girls

I’m still irked about the middle school in Portland, Maine that had the bright idea to bypass parents and give birth control pills to little girls. My irritation goes beyond the fact that the school district is using a very small number of pregnancies and bad situations to usurp parents’ control over and relationship with their children; and it goes beyond the fact that the school district is encouraging sexual activity in younger and younger children because of its decision to enact an overarching policy that actually responds only to the needs of a few. That is, as to this last point, while the policy may be a response to a small number of pregnancies, children now understand that it’s okay to have sex in the school district because there’s a policy in place. Bad, bad, bad. So, those factors are irritants.

But what really, really bugs me about this new decision is the nature of the pill itself. This is not like handing out condoms, which are a barrier method and don’t mess with biology. This is about giving significant hormone doses to children who are still working their way through puberty — and doing it without the parents having any say in the matter. (And I am so willing to bet that the approving parents are the same parents who buy organic so their children don’t have to get hormones in their milk, a problem that is nothing more than an urban legend.)

By the way, if you think you’ve heard this rant from me before, you have, but I’m at it again because of yet another study showing that the pill is not just an innocuous substance that coincidentally stops pregnancy. Instead, it is a powerful actor on a woman’s (or girl’s) body, that can have dangerous side effects outside of preventing conception. Here’s today’s news about the pill:

Women who use oral contraceptives are at increased risk for developing hardened arteries, a condition that can lead to heart attack or stroke, according to a study released Wednesday.

Belgian researchers found that women who had used this hormone-based form of birth control were more likely to have plaques, or a buildup of fatty tissue, on their arteries than women who did not.

Atherosclerosis, the medical term which refers to a build-up of plaque inside the blood vessels, typically occurs with age.

Complications include heart attack or stroke, which occur when unstable pieces of plaque break off and block a blood vessel leading to the heart or brain.

The findings do not mean women should abandon this form of birth control, the authors cautioned.

“The implications are not that women should stop taking the Pill. They should look at reducing other risk factors for cardiovascular disease,” said Ernst Rietzschel, a cardiologist at the University of Ghent in Belgium.

The last bit, about women being informed consumers is all well and good, but your average 12 year old is not an informed consumer, and the Portland, Maine policy removes from the information loop the one set of people who almost certainly care about her more than any other people in the school:  her parents.

By the way one of the other serious risks of being on the pill is cancer. Again, your average 11 year old isn’t going to think that one through.  And about just the problems of being on the pill.  Most women complain about unpleasant weight gain, but a few unlucky ones get genuinely ill, with chronic nausea and vomiting.  That’s not good for a growing child either.

The multi-culti, anti-whitie, anti-Christ-ie classroom

Multiculturalism is one of those concepts that’s supposed to give all of us a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling. We’re all equal, we’re all wonderful. We’re no longer that icky old melting pot that forced minorities with exciting, dynamic cultures to subordinate themselves to a generic white America and become bland and meaningless. Instead, we’re an exciting salad bowl, with each disparate element lending color and punch to a healthy whole. It really does make for a wonderful vision, doesn’t it?

But what turns out to happen when you don’t encourage a dominate culture is that the separate ingredients in the salad bowl get testy and restive. The tomatoes start to disparage the lettuce, and no one will associate with the onions. Because they’re not forced to blend together, each thinks he or she is better than the others. The one thing those ingredients know for a certainty, though, because they’re taught so at our taxpayer funded schools, is that America is a bad place, and that traditional Americans — read: White Christians — are the problem.

The above is not just clever (I hope), opinionated writing. It is, in part, an amalgam of information I’ve been picking up over the years. It’s also a reflection of the type of workshops being taught this week at the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) convention in Baltimore:

School board members ought to be particularly interested, because they approve the doling out of taxpayers’ money for K-12 teachers from every state to attend the NAME convention.

They ought to be welcome to sit in on any of the workshops and determine what multicultural messages their teachers are absorbing for use in the classroom.

The co-sponsors of multiculturalism’s biggest gathering include several beneficiaries of tax money, including the Maryland affiliate of the National Education Association (a longtime NAME ally), George Mason University and even the Maryland State Department of Education.

School board members could start by attending one of the half- or full-day workshops on Halloween. Here are some of the choices from the NAME program:

• “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being: Dismantling White Privilege and Supporting Anti-Racist Education in Our Classrooms and Schools.” Taught by a professor from St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, this session “is designed to help educators identify and deconstruct their own white privilege and in so doing more deeply commit themselves to anti-racist teaching and critical multicultural teaching.”

• “Talking About Religious Oppression and Unpacking Christian Privilege.” This session, taught by a team of professors, “will examine the dynamics of Christian privilege and oppression of minority religious groups and nonbelievers as constructed and maintained on three distinct levels: individual, institutional and societal. A historical and legal lecturette will be presented and participants will engage in interactive learning modules.”

• “Beyond Celebrating Diversity: Teaching Teachers How to be Critical Multicultural Educators.” Taught by NAME regional director Paul Gorski, founder of the activist group EdChange, this session will start from the premise that multiculturalism’s greatest danger “comes from educators who ostensibly support its goals, but whose work – cultural plunges, food fairs, etc. – reflects a compassionate conservative consciousness rather than social justice. This session focuses on preparing teachers, not for celebrating diversity, but for achieving justice in schools and society.”

Workshops at NAME annual conventions (six of which I have attended since 1993) repeatedly advocate the teaching of “social justice.” That term never seems to be defined, but its users simplify all American life as a saga of the oppressed vs. the oppressors. Skin color, national origin, gender, religion and sexual preference are among the qualities that put all individuals into one category or the other.

You can be assured that these ugly concepts don’t stay confined to weekend boondoggles in Baltimore.  My daughter came home from school the other day and gave me a cheerful lecture about what wonderful environmentalists the Indians were, unlike the Americans, who trashed the environment.  I, in turn, felt obliged to give her a little talk about the fact that the Indians were not an industrial people, which accounted for their low level footprint.  We also talked about numbers of Indians versus space and resources.

More than that, I reminded her that Native Americans were and are people like any other people:  some good, some bad, some strong, some weak, some thoughtful, some thoughtless, etc.  I urged her to remember that, when the Native Americans are presented as nothing but good, that this is just how the schools like to teach things, and that an intelligent student remembers that the true picture is always richer and much more rounded — and, frankly, more interesting.  The fact that saints can be boring explains why so many stories, from earliest history to the present, like to start out with the saint as a sinner who finds redemption.

Hat tip: Mike Devx

American schools avoid responsibility at levels both large and small

Yesterday I wrote about an administrative meeting I attended at our local public school, relating how everyone assured me that the teachers understood a policy document that was to guide them. However, when I asked questions, it became apparent that the teachers, in fact, didn’t understand at least a few of the key concepts in the document.

What really troubled me was the document itself, one that various committees had written over the years. To my mind, it was incomprehensible. First off, every single sentence was passive voice. I don’t like passive voice. My blessedly good high school English teacher taught me that people use passive voice to avoid responsibility, and she was right. In this document, all sorts of things “will be done” for the benefit of the students, but it is never clear who will do them. The document cycled madly between apparently random passive voice references to the school, the teachers, and the administrations, with many sentences carefully avoiding assigning any responsibility at all.

Of course, even if one could determine who had responsibility, I doubt it would be easy for the person with responsibility to figure out what he or she is to do. The document was rich with buzzwords, jargon and meaningless (but very high sounding) phrases. Incidentally, I recognize jargon’s usefulness within an industry. It’s a shorthand. As a lawyer, I use it all the time. It would take me forever to explain to you, the non-lawyer reader, what a demurrer is, but a lawyer instantly understands its meaning and purpose. In this meeting, though, I discovered that none of the participants, teachers, parents or administrations, had any idea what some of the document’s terms meant. I’m sure that, had I done a quiz, at least someone in the room would have been able to answer questions about most of the high sounding words and phrases, but it was disturbing that, as to the three phrases I picked at random, no one could answer my questions.

In other words, the document boldly announced a vision for the school’s future, but did not give anyone clear responsibility for implementing that vision, nor did it use intelligible terms explaining what the responsibility party should actually do. Rather than advocating responsibility, the document represented the abandonment of responsibility.

(Let me add here that I’m really poking at the document, not the school itself. Although I had problems last year, this year my children have superior teachers, and are benefiting from everything good this solidly suburban school has to offer. In other words, despite the document’s muddle, the teachers we have this year are doing just fine — and so are my kids. The school is also well run, which means that the administrators are doing their thing too. But back to my points about responsibility…..)

As often happens when I make a diagnosis (to my own satisfaction) about a problem that’s been vexing me, I suddenly see manifestations of the same syndrome all over the place. This morning, I woke to a wonderful article at American Thinker entitled “I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies.” The author is Charles J. Sykes, one of my favorite writers, and someone to whom I give credit for laying the intellectual groundwork that led me to my current neocon world view. In it, Sykes takes issue with the zero tolerance policies that see small children kicked out of public schools for doodling pictures of weapons (or, in the case of the really young, for doodling pictures that a suspicious, one-track adult mind could interpret as weapons). After describing myriad examples of the ridiculous practical effect zero tolerance policies have, Sykes has this to say:

None of this, of course, is really about keeping children safe or even teaching them how to behave: it is about administrators protecting their backsides.

Instead of encouraging children to exercise sound judgment, “zero tolerance” shows adults at their most arbitrary and stupid, especially when it punishes students for doing the right thing.

This is ironic, since these are the folks who are supposed to teach our children “critical thinking skills.” (PS: I also drew pictures of dinosaurs eating people. Shudder.)

In other words, as with so many things that go on in schools today (such as writing unintelligible policy documents), zero tolerance represents the school’s complete unwillingness to think or take responsibility for things. A zero tolerance policy relieves each school teacher or administrator from thinking about the magnitude of the child’s “sin,” or even from thinking about the child at all. It is a way for the school and its employees to avoid responsibility entirely.

I hope the parental worms start turning soon, because we’re creating schools that have bright pictures on the wall, and computers in the classroom, but that are just as bad as, if not worse than, any juvenile hall, complete with lockstep mentality and “zero tolerance.”

UPDATEMichelle Malkin has more on what schools are doing in lieu of stepping up and taking responsibility.

Should we be worried?

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — The Princess Bride

I attended a meeting at the school today for one of the management committees that sees parents and teachers working together to come up with specific details to implement long term strategic plans.  All of the long term goals and the details are memorialized in a document that was remarkable for its generous use of passive voice and all education jargon.  There is, of course, no reason why I should understand education jargon, because I’m not an educator.  Nevertheless, to the extent I was supposed to vote on the document, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to try to understand what it was talking about.

So, I zeroed in on one phrase and asked “What does this mean?”  There was a moment of complete silence.  Then, one of the teachers said, “I’ve always understood it to mean…” and embarked on a laborious explanation that didn’t mean anything.  Another teacher jumped to her aid with more words, less meaning.  I thanked them.

Another phrase, another question:  “What does this mean?”  More silence.  One of the teachers said, “Well, that’s something we learned when we got our degrees.”  Oh.  “Thank you,” I said, completely unelucidated.

Another phrase and, again, I sought a lay person’s definition.  “Oh, we understand that.”  “Good,” I thought, but I asked myself, “Do you really?”

I asked myself that last question again when everyone in the room assured me (no doubt to stop my questions) that, while parents and teachers collaborated on the plan, it’s purpose was to serve the teachers, and they, in fact, understood it just fine.  But as my questions revealed, the four teachers in the room did not understand at least three terms of art in the document.

The whole thing left me feeling that there is a lot of good will at these meetings, both on the part of educators and parents, but not very much clarity.  I’m with Dennis Prager, in that I prefer clarity to agreement — and I’ve often found that, when people achieve clarity, they do find that they agree, at least about some things.  To me, this meeting was rather pointless, because I didn’t understand what was going on, and I left wondering if anyone else in the room did either.

The indoctrination is only sort of working

The global warming indoctrination is working — up to a point.  In common with the school children in this John Stossel video, my children are worried about a climate change Armageddon and are hostile to Western culture because “it’s all our fault.”  It’s a common topic of conversation.  Hot days, cold days, nature shows — whatever.  Global warming comes up.

But the one thing that the schools have completely failed to do is to teach the children the single trick that will help them, powerless little things that they are, take some responsibility for reducing emissions:  they haven’t trained them to turn off the lights. In my house, you can track the children’s movements by the bright lights blazing in every room they’ve entered, even if they only passed through on their way to something else.

If the schools are going to be doing this kind of indoctrination, I wish they’d at least teach the kids some practical skills, instead of having them come home to my fog-ridden neighborhood insisting that I start cooking with a solar oven in the back yard.

Wasting my time, again

You might have noticed that I haven’t been complaining much about my kids’ school this year. We’re still at the same (high quality) public school, but both kids got very good teachers this year, which makes an enormous difference. The curriculum is still stupid, but that’s not the teachers’ fault. Within the confines of that curriculum, they’re doing an excellent job making sure the kids are mastering skills. Hurrah!

A little of the bloom went of the rose yesterday, though, when I learned that, at today’s parent teacher conference, my children are expected to attend. In other words, rather than being a real parent teacher conference, where there can be an honest give and take about the child, it’s going to be a dog and pony show where the teacher makes sure nothing negative can be said as she runs the child through predetermined paces in my presence.

My jaded attitude about this isn’t just guess work. At my children’s old school they had already instituted the parent/teacher/child conference, and I can tell you that it was a complete waste of time. The only reason I put up with it was that I had regular communications with the teachers the rest of the time, and wouldn’t actually have learned anything new from a standard parent/teacher conference that I didn’t already know. Here, of course, because of the impersonal nature of public school, this is my only chance to get a handle on the issues.

Most of the parents I know are displeased about this situation because they’ve also figured out that this gives the teachers a free ride to avoid difficult issues. In addition, most of them have already made plans, as I have, to set up another conference — this one on the teachers’ time, of course — to have the necessary conversation without the child present. Perhaps, after having to have at least 20 extra conferences, during their own time, the teachers will stop this abysmally stupid time waster.

UPDATE:  Well, the conferences have come and gone.  Both teachers demonstrated that they know my children well, and that they are good teachers.  The conferences took at least 10 minutes longer than they should have, though, as we struggled tactfully to articulate matters that could have been stated in a sentence or two had the children not attended.  So, the same material got covered, but inefficiently.  I’m grateful that I won’t have to go back, and I’m grateful that I happen to be a very good at expressing obliquely what many could express only directly.  I would be even more grateful if we hadn’t done it this way.

Yeah, but what about us taxpayers?

Here’s how a local San Francisco online paper reported Arnold’s (correct) decision to veto the California DREAM act:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed bill SB 1, the California Dream Act, which would have enabled qualifying undocumented students to apply for two types of non competitive state financial aid.

Schwarzenegger said he vetoed the bill because he thought extending aid to those students would put a strain on the General Fund. In a veto message on the governor’s Web site, Schwarzenegger said that at a time when students with legal status are already paying increased tuition fees, a bill like this would not be a prudent expenditure.

SB 1 would enable students to apply for the Cal Grant Entitlement and have community college fees waived. According to the office of Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, costs of the bill averaged out to an additional .018 percent of General Fund money.

The bill won support across California, from both the state and university systems as well as the Community College League. Other supporters included the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

A variety of newspapers lauded the bill as being a balanced and pragmatic solution to expanding the state’s college graduates without taking money away from students with legal status.  (Emphasis mine.)

Did you notice the language I highlighted?  While the DREAM Act may not take money away from students with legal status, it seems to me it’s still taking money away from taxpayers.  I pay massive amounts in taxes.  That money is taken away from me and I can no longer spend it on me and mine.  As just one example, the money I pour into taxes is money I can’t spend it my kids’ college education.  Why in the world would I want to see the government spend it on illegal aliens?  And the mere fact that it’s “spent” by waiving community college fees or giving access to grants doesn’t mean that it’s not tax payer money at stake.

You can only poke the pig so often before it starts to squeal, and squeal loudly.  I’m entering squealing mode, and I’d certainly like to see more Americans squeal with me, so that politicians of all ideological stripes would stop seeing as as an endless flow of cash for whatever constituency they’re trying to buy at any given moment.

One disgruntled Obama supporter

Obama is and, to date, always has been a small timer.  Although he’s aiming for the highest office in the land, which is pretty much the highest office in the world, his practical experience is minimal, and it keeps on showing.  His latest move, to support the DREAM act which will encourage in-state tuition fees for illegal immigrants is getting shrieks of outrage — from his own base.  Thus, Jill Chapin, a self-described Obama supporter, has this to say:

This bill resonates with your base in a way that will ensure your losing the nomination. It smacks of unfairness, of people at the end of the line getting to move up to the front. It appeases the non-citizens while enraging registered voters. It makes us question your priorities. In a perfect world, all children would have access to a first-class education. But the United States simply cannot educate the world.

So your first allegiance should be to poor, disadvantaged American citizens who would salivate at the chance of attending an out of state school at in-state tuition rates. If there are resources left over to then help legal immigrants, then it is reasonable and right to help as many of them as we can.

Life is not fair, Senator Obama. Our schools are failing our own kids; until their needs are addressed, you are not in a position to use your influence to fund the world’s education. And you should not be rearranging truths to suit your agenda. Changing the language of our immigration laws simply to allow those of illegal status to be reclassified as legal, with all the benefits that change implies, is an insult not only to Americans but to legal immigrants. They have all played by the rules and are now shoved aside as others move in front of them. Your message seems to be that our laws are pliable, subject to what is politically expedient at the time.

Your biggest supporters such as I fear that we were so desperate to find a new kind of candidate that our gullibility in believing in you has been exposed.


If you hope to win the nomination for President of the United States, then you shouldn’t be campaigning for President of North America.

Ms. Chapin’s analyses, both of the DREAM Act and of Obama, are completely correct.

Coulter on Ahamadinejad

This is why, even when conservatives feel Ann’s crossed a line, as she has in the past, they still read her articles — she’s nailed the whole Columbia, “free speech,” Ahmadinejad thing.

Boys will not be boys

Last month, when a Colorado school issued an edict banning tag because someone might get emotionally hurt, I did a long post about how I thought the long-term consequences of that decision were infinitely worse than the short term issue of kids having a playground conflict. In the last couple of paragraphs of that same post, I wrote about a decision in my daughter’s classroom to ban a favorite type of boy play: imaginary weapons. I would have been okay had the rules denied any wild play in the classroom, reserving it instead for the school yard. What bugged me was how targeted it was to boys’ activities.

I’m not the only one who has noticed this trend. At American Thinker, Selwyn Duke has written a wonderful piece about these same education trends, with special emphasis on the attacks against the nature of boys. I urge you to read it and then, if you still have boys in public school, think about ways politely to change the dynamic.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that elementary school education in the latter half of the 20th Century became pretty much the preserve of women, so one has to accept that there inevitably was going to be feminization in the classroom. This early feminine touch, though was aimed at soothing rough edges, teaching manners, and generally civilizing wild behavior. Nowadays, there’s a misanthropic, feminist edge to what’s going on, that is very much aimed, not at teaching manners, but at “de-boying” boys (witness the fact that, in my daughter’s class, a specific type of boy play got banned).

UPDATEAt Jeremayakova, there’s a video, a bit graphic, that illustrates Michael Savage’s theory that, for both men and women, homosexual culture has become the dominant norm — moving from fringe behavior most of us don’t espouse to cultural beliefs central to young men and women.  It’s interesting, and certainly worth thinking about, even if you don’t agree with any part of or even the entire premise.  (Hat tip:  RD — you know who you are, and thank you.)

Democracy, Marin style

Remember how I posted briefly yesterday about a candidate for the Reed Union School District who is running on an anti-Union platform? Today, he withdrew his candidacy because he’s been subject too an uncomfortable level of harassment, both in terms of anonymous phone calls and an investigation into his private life. (Keep in mind that this is a family man, with elementary school aged kids.)

The sole challenger in the Reed Union School District board race said Monday he is jettisoning his candidacy because of harassing, anonymous phone calls and an investigation into his residency.

But Marin’s registrar of voters said it’s too late to take Bob Gilles’ name off the Nov. 6 ballot. Gilles has raised a stir in the district by championing an anti-union, anti-tax platform and calling for the firing of a Bel Aire School teacher.

Gilles, 45, a maker of corporate training films, is attempting to unseat one of two incumbents whose terms are ending: Daniel Jackson, the chief financial officer of a renewable energy company; and Lisa Barry Mathews, a licensed marriage and family therapist. Jackson and Mathews were elected to the board two years ago without opposition.

Gilles said that at 2 a.m. Monday he received his third harassing phone call since Friday.

“That was a woman saying, ‘If you don’t like what’s happening to you, you can always drop out of the race and it will all go away.’ And I just went, you know what, that’s probably not a bad idea,” Gilles said. “This is way too much heat for me.”

Gilles had made his opposition to teachers’ unions – and renewal of a parcel tax benefiting the school district – the main planks in his campaign platform.


When Gilles announced his candidacy, school board member Merrill Boyce asked Tiburon police Detective Cindy Hunter to investigate whether Gilles lives in the district and is legally qualified to run. Hunter said Monday that she expects to conclude her investigation by Thursday.

“I’m waiting for a few more pieces of evidence to come in before forwarding it off to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office,” Hunter said. “They make the final decision whether there is enough evidence to serve criminal charges.” She declined to provide additional detail.

Gilles, who lists his address as 318 Neds Way in Tiburon, called the investigation a campaign “dirty trick.”

“You can launch an investigation without any evidence at all,” Gilles said. “I went to great pains to make sure I was completely, 100 percent legal before I entered the campaign. I’ve been living there since 2003.”

Gilles said he listed his address as Jones Road in Windsor on the emergency contact form for his girlfriend’s daughter last year because that’s the address of his office.

Marin County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold said Gilles changed the home address on his voter registration from Novato to Tiburon in August. He subsequently filed for election.

Gilles said he had neglected to change the address on his voter registration when he moved in 2003.

As I also said in yesterday’s post, Gilles sounds too peculiar and confrontational to be an ideal standard bearer for a more conservative position.  I was simply hoping that his candidacy would shake up the debate a little, and expose Marin voters to ideas that don’t seem to have occurred to them before.  Given these facts, I find it very disturbing that this kind of pressure would be brought to bear on a candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning in any event.

Lee Bollinger’s Jerry Springer moment

A lot of people are wondering why Lee Bollinger, having invited Ahmadinejad to Columbia, then turned around and attacked him. Certainly, in the initial exchange between the two, it was Ahmadinejad who came off sounding more intelligent and reasonable when he politely expressed bewilderment that he would be invited into a forum, only to have his host attack him out of the gate. And Bollinger sounded almost delusional when he later expounded on his deep and abiding commitment to free speech and open forums for communication. This is the man, after all, who is head of an educational institution that bars the ROTC entirely and that allowed his students to chase the Minutemen of the campus stage. Clearly, whatever happened with Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with free speech.

Some might think he was taking to heart the Left wing trope about “speaking truth to power.” But that wasn’t what was happening either. Ahmadinejad, threatening though he might be to his own people, is no threat to Bollinger. That is, Bollinger was not taking a brave and principled stand by attacking a tyrant where he lives.

What I think was really happening was that Bollinger was having a Jerry Springer moment. If you think about it, the whole set-up had every hallmark of the old Jerry Springer show: the outspoken host, the distasteful guest, the cheering and jeering crowd. I’m only surprised that, halfway through, some woman didn’t storm on the stage, call Ahmadinejad a “disgusting slut” and throw a chair at him, to audience applause.

Bollinger has no interest in free speech. He has no interest in world politics. He has no interest in justice, morality, humanity and decency. Instead, he’s looking down the line to a new sinecure when this boondoggle ends, and it’s one that involves a TV studio, a microphone, and some chairs that aren’t bolted to the ground.

UPDATE:  Here’s Ralph Peter’s funny, to-the-point take on Columbia’s open arms welcome to Ahmadinejad, as compared to its mindless ROTC ban.  (H/t IWF)

What’s left to say about Ahmadinejad?

You might have noticed that, aside from a few asides, I haven’t had anything to say about Ahmadinejad’s little kaffee klatch at Columbia. Frankly, anything I’ve even thought has been said better and louder at some of my favorite blogs. For lengthy analysis, you should check in with American Thinker or Power Line; for hourly updates go to Michelle Malkin and Little Green Football. I bet you can add to the list of conservative (or reasonable) websites that are not wildly excited that this megalomaniac has come to town. (For the opposing point of view, of course, there’s always the Kos or HuffPo.) As it is, something will emerge from the depths of my brain in a week or two, after I’ve had a chance to get a little perspective on this whole thing but, for now, you’re going to have to read about Ahmadinejad’s “I’ll take Manhattan” moment somewhere else.

Immigration and other European ideas for America

As I noted in my post title, this is interesting, if true:  it is a post that claims that a European policy institute, working closely with the UN, is determining large facets of American immigration policy, with special emphasis on settling Muslims in the Midwest.

If this is indeed true, it it reminds me of the International Baccalaureate Program that is being touted at more and more American schools that emphasizes academics.  I freely admit to knowing little about the program, but I have heard that it teaches Euro-centric values that may please some parents, but may be distasteful to many others, who believe that it has strong Marxist leanings and that it preaches a UN centric internationalism that is inherently anti-American.

As it is, I suspect that only on the upper liberal echelons do American values march in complete harmony with European values. As David Gerlernter wrote after witnessing the Democratic attack on General Petraeus, one facet of the by-now-commonplace desire to see America lose is motivated by Europe-envy (emphasis mine):

Americans are so accustomed (or inured) to this attitude that they rarely step back and ask, What the hell is going on here?

The issue isn’t tactics–doesn’t concern the draw-down that the administration has forecast and General Petraeus has now discussed, or how this draw-down should work, or how specific such talk ought to be. The issue is deeper. It’s time for Americans to ask some big questions. Do leading Democrats want America to win this war? Have they ever?

Of course not–and not because they are traitors. To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn’t, and everyone knew it wasn’t? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.

The Democrats’ embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let’s be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. Each one has been defended by serious people; all are philosophically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements.

Globalism and Euro-envy are explicit, sometimes, in Democratic pronouncements–about the sanctity of the United Nations, the importance of global conferences and “multilateralism” (except in cases like North Korea, where the president already is moving multilaterally), the superiority of the Canadian or German health care system, and so forth. The Democrats are not unpatriotic, but their patriotism is directed at a large abstract entity called The International Community or even (aping Bronze Age paganism) the Earth, not at America. Benjamin Disraeli anticipated this worldview long ago when he called Liberals the “Philosophical” and Conservatives the “National” party. Liberals are loyal to philosophical abstractions–and seek harmony with the French and Germans. Conservatives are loyal to their own nation, and seek harmony with its Founders and heroes and guiding principles.

I have to admit to being a former Euro-centric thinker.  I grew up in a very European household, and the forces to which I was exposed both within and outside of my home all had me thinking modern Europeans were smarter, more sophisticated and quite simply better in every way than the primitive, simplistic yokels in America.  I therefore believed that we should emulate them whenever possible.

Funnily enough, though, after each of my many trips to Europe, although I was always staggered by the beauty surrounding me, naturally, architecturally and artistically, I was so grateful to be back in America, and became ever more appreciative of American values and American people.  Now, I look at Europe and, while I can still appreciate its good sides, I am increasingly appalled by its knee jerk anti-Americanism, its rising anti-Semitism, its stagnant economic policies, its rising dhimmitude.  I therefore hate the idea of seeing my kids raised as I was to think blindly that Europe is better than America.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.