What Conservatives Want: Unschooled Masses (And the Destruction of America)

I have heard three things this last week that make me despair for my country. First, I heard of the phenomenon of “un-schooling.” Next, I heard famed adulterer Newt Gingrich call for kids to leave high school and enter the work force. Finally, rabid propagandist Glenn Beck called for parents to take their kids out of all schools, and said that universities just taught “garbage.”

Un-schooling is where you take your kids out of school, like home-school parents do. But unlike home-school parents, un-schoolers don’t provide ANY instruction at home. They just let the kids have at it. The kids are free to “follow their interests.” This sounds good, until you realize that most kids are interested in watching TV, going onto My Space and playing video games.

Un-school parents seem to be cool with this. They say “hey, that’s what they are interested in – who am I to take away their freedom to pursue their passion. Who indeed? How about a fucking parent! Jesus, when these kids are in their 20s, still living in their bedrooms and driving you crazy, trying to read that “Intro to Algebra” book so they can qualify for technical college because they can’t make assistant manager at Taco Monkey, and finding that algebra makes no sense to them at all…well, congratulations – you really provided the freedom. No, no no…this is not un-schooling, it’s un-parenting.

My guess is that most un-schooler families are home-school families that realized what a big job it is to educate children. They probably encountered the same behavior and cognitive issues that the school contacted them about, and caused them to become disenchanted with the public education system in the first place, and looked for the options. When the un-school movement gives them the option to not do shit, well – hard for a moron to turn down. Also hard for an over-worked, over-stressed parent who listens to right wing propaganda artists, like Newt Gingrich.

Newt was interviewed last week and said that kids should be free to leave high school and join the work force. He called public high schools an “expensive baby-sitting service.” Great, this former college professor is advocating the abandonment of ALL pretense of a secondary education. By all means, drop out and become the person who asks Newt, “Would you like me to super-size that?” as he drives through the take-out lane of America’s future.

Is Newt really stupid enough to think that kids or middle-class families will benefit by dropping out of school? No. But he does know that corporations will benefit from downward pressure on entry-level wages as more unskilled workers enter the job market. The more people applying for drive-through jobs, the less employers can pay, and the less attention they have to pay to things like working conditions.

Glenn Beck furthers this sentiment in calling for as many Americans as possible to home-school their kids. He decried, on his show last week, the horrors of having kids taught by college-educated professionals, and even worse – UNION MEMBERS. He claimed that every failed state in history began with educators turning the kids against their parents.

Huh, I teach history, and I can’t say I see the same correlation between failed states and education. Nor do I try to turn my students against their parents. (Of course, as an insidious public school teacher, and worse, union member, I’m probably lying, and plotting the destruction of western civilization, Christianity, apple pie and puppies as I type.) This is all made-up bullshit of the first order, and unbelievable bullshit to boot. At least, unbelievable bullshit to 80% of Americans.

However, not quite 20% of Americans believe that the world will end in their lifetime, that it is their god’s plan, and that it will be a good thing. I repeat, a “good” thing. These people are impressionable, and may well buy into Glenn Beck’s bullshit. (Shit, I should be selling these people something! It must be just that easy!)

Do Beck and Newt really believe that it is better for America if our kids are NOT educated? Probably not. But uninformed citizens, you know, stupid people, are easily manipulated. They buy into short sound bites and react to visceral prompts. Without a cognitive filter developed by exposure to a variety of literature, disciplines and relevant experiences, humans will react to what is best for the tribe. They will fall prey to fear – fear of the “other.” Other races, other religions, other sexual preferences. In short, they will vote Republican if they are kept stupid.

But keeping Americans stupid in the 21^st Century is a disastrous plan. It dooms our country to a standard of living akin to Bolivia. We are no more than 10 years away from the explosion of Chinese and Indian dominance of the world economy. Without a highly educated, adaptable and tech-savvy workforce, we are doomed.

Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and un-schoolers want to doom America for short-term political gain, or out of laziness.

Corner Newt, and he will tell you that he said that because our public schools are terrible, and have failed our children and families. Bullshit! Our public schools (wait for it, here it comes again…) are the BEST IN THE WORLD. That’s right, the best. Newt, I fucking dare you to take the children from your many wives (did you actually produce any? That’s right, I went there) and put them in public schools in any other country. There’s no way you would, because we are the best.

Don’t get me wrong, we need to get better – but we are the best! The best public schools anywhere. We are the best because we are part and parcel with the democratic ideals of liberty and equality. WE TAKE EVERYBODY! And, if we support schools, instead of argue against them like Newt and Beck, then we will continue to be one of the world’s great powers in perpetuity. We will continue to prepare ALL of our citizens for success and a prosperous future. And, we will continue to attract people from around the globe to add to our greatness.

Or, we could pull our kids out of public school, close high schools, and have them all major in X-box, TV and My Space. That’s the conservative plan. Any takers?

About 20% say “yes.”

Another Quick Rant About Politics, Religion, and Sex

Godammit! Obama did it again, and he did it for religious conservatives. I can’t believe that he was stupid enough to do it for fiscal, medical or educational reasons. No it was political. Goddam Democratic Congress shares blame too.

In the final bill, our vaunted health care reform, 50 million dollars per year, for five years – 250 fucking million dollars – was put in for abstinence only sex education.

Why is this a problem? Because it DOESN’T WORK, because it will INCREASE HEALTH CARE COSTS, it will RESULT IN TEEN PARENTHOOD, MAKE AMERICANS SICK and KILL AMERICANS. Man, as a teacher, looking down the barrel of education reform, I’m going to be judged by people who do this to public schools?

Abstinence only doesn’t work. Study after study has shown it. You might argue that a recent study showed that it had results on par with comprehensive sex education. But a breakdown of the numbers showed that this only worked with the 14 and younger crowd. Abstinence only CAN be effective in middle school. But abstinence is a HUGE part of comprehensive middle school sex education anyway.

But when you look at 15 years and older, abstinence only is a disaster. Schools and districts where abstinence only is taught average higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher STDs. STDs include AIDS, and this kills people.

By the way, to put this as part of the health care bill?!! More teen pregnancies will cost the health care system more. More STDs will cost the health care system more. Shit, why not throw in 50 million dollars for cigarette companies to truck their product into high schools while you’re at it. We KNOW that abstinence only DOES NOT WORK. So why so this?

To appease religious conservatives, of course. Religious conservatives, including the child molesting hierarchy of the Catholic Church, are twisted into knots on the subject of sex. And in spite of our lurching into the 21^st century, and in spite of the First Amendment's separation of church and state, these faith-based mores inform legislation.

The state of Alabama recently outlawed dildos. Seriously.

A gun? No fucking problem. But a tool for women to masturbate? Hell no! (Are they going to cut men’s hands off next?) Is there one scientific, logical or socially valid reason for outlawing sex toys? No, just the idiotic gainsay of two to three thousand year old liturgy, written for people trying to adopt a herding society to an agrarian one in Palestine at the fall of the Assyrian Empire, through the hey-day of the Roman Empire. The Old and New Testament are not a good basis for lawmaking. At least not in this new millennia.

(By the way, how do you enforce the dildo law? I mean, you can close all the dildo stores, hurting small business, but what about mail order? Can you imagine all the dildo search warrants? It makes the head hurt.)

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book with the subtitle “Religion Poisons Everything.” As an agnostic, I normally wouldn’t come so strong. But religion has poisoned the state and civic budgets of Alabama, as they have to enforce the ridiculous dildo law. And religion has poisoned the health care reform, making people sicker, not healthier, and making us poorer by 250 million dollars.

Health care legislation should not make us sicker, and at the same time cost us more. And, it should not do so because some Americans interpret an ancient text a certain way in the 21st century.

Obama Oozes Weakness, or Corporate Capitulation

Yes, yes…we all know that Obama gave away the store to the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. And this week, he gave part of the country to the oil companies. His offering up of offshore drilling, on top of his support for nuclear energy, shows that once again he gives the middle finger to the liberal wing of his party (his base) while bowing to Republicans.

Yes, yes…he WILL get corporate cash for conservative Democrats running in tight races, and you can argue that that ultimately benefits the Democratic Party. But where’s that money for alternative energy again? No seriously, some was part of the stimulus, green energy jobs and all, but can we at least have an update with this disastrous news?

No, no…the national narrative is how centrist this president is.

But is he centrist, or a loser. Starting the energy negotiations by giving the other side exactly what they want is like starting health care negotiations by taking national single payer off the table. It dooms the process to a pro-corporate bonanza where the environment and the average folk get fucked. Are we not so, so sick of this story. The easiest conclusion to reach is that Obama is a corporate whore who cares way more about the health of the Democratic campaign coffers than the values of the Democratic voters, or the health of the country.

But a story on the Young Turks gives an argument for a painful level of weakness. Painful and disheartening. It wasn’t even the main part of the story, but an aside. Here is the gist of it:

Obama has capitulated on the terror suspect trials. This is not new news. But over a year has passed, and he is still negotiating with Republicans on the closing of Guantanimo. We still imprison people, without trial, and totally against not only the founding values of our nation, but of Western Civilization. It is unacceptable, and cowardly to negotiate the human rights of people.

Worse, the people in the Justice Department who have spoken out have been marginalized. In fact, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, is no longer invited to meetings to discuss the detainees and their trials.

Think about this – our nation’s top law enforcement officer is not involved in deciding the fate of our nation’s most controversial prisoners. Obama is letting politics determine the fate of these men, not the rule of law. Republican talking points about terrorists being let loose in Manhatten are being weighed more on the scales of justice than our system of justice.

And this is what I don’t get – what is to be gained by giving in to ridiculous talking points about turning terrorists loose in American neighborhoods? Which corporate interest is served by this? Which lobbyists are going to enrich Democratic campaign coffers if we scuttle the rule of law in this country? It is easy to see who gains from weak health, energy and banking reform. But what does Obama, or the Democratic Party gain from caving in to Republicans over justice for detainees?

Cenk of TYT says that it is because Obama is a consummate politician, and can’t help himself. He is drawn to the middle of any issue as if by magnetic force. This may be true. He also says that it makes Obama look incredibly weak. This I totally agree with.

But IS he totally weak? It is demoralizing to think so. But what conclusions can we draw from the capitulation of the principle of rule of law?

1. Obama doesn’t give a shit about rule of law. He does not care about our system of justice and will be happy to do great damage to it.
2. Obama cares more about politics than policy. He winces at the thought of no justice in America, but wants to be seen as centrist more than principled.
3. Obama has no principles of any kind. There is no position he will stand on, because there is no position he values enough to be encumbered by caring.
4. Obama is stupid. He is just not smart enough to win a political fight with Republicans over any issue. He and his staff just trip all over themselves and the Democratic Leadership, and fuck up everything they touch.
5. Obama is actually pretty conservative, and agrees more with them than he does with “us.”
6. Obama is weak.
7. All, or some of the above.

For number one, there is some evidence. “Look forward, not back” was his mantra as he took office. He practically bent over backwards to assure Republicans that nobody would be held accountable for illegal actions. He could have said “hey, I’m not on a witch hunt, but where laws were broken…what am I gonna’ do?” Combine this with the detainee news and it looks bad.

For number two, there is a lot of evidence. Put what was said above and add the health care debate, the corporate capitulation and the tee shirt he wears everywhere that shouts in big letters I AM A MODERATE! Obama’s obsession with bipartisanship, and his attempt to out-triangulate the Clintons screams politics at every situation. Obama thinks that the only ground that counts is the middle ground – on every issue. Even issues that don’t make corporations richer and more powerful than they already are.

For number three, I hate to think it. But, if you ask me to identify core principles that Obama adheres to…I’m still thinking…no, nothing yet. By the way, being principled doesn’t mean you don’t compromise. But you still demand some things that you believe in. What does he believe in that he has stuck to? Loyal Democrats will argue for health care reform, but I think he did not pass reform, just a bandaid. And, the only thing that Obama was not willing to negotiate away was a bill that had “health care reform” at the top. The content didn’t seem to matter to him, no matter what he said previously.

For number four, I don’t see a lot of evidence. Listen to the man talk. Think back on the campaign – how nimble he was, eloquent but not too ivory tower. I don’t see stupid.

For number five, I could be swayed. He certainly gives Republicans and conservatives way too much of what they want, in my opinion. But he doesn’t talk like a conservative, and they hate his guts, or appear to. If he is conservative, then he is an awesome liar and con artist.

For number six, I don’t see it on the whole. He appears weak when dealing with conservatives, but he has no problem bitch-slapping liberals around. Remember, it was Obama that killed the public option in half an hour or meetings with the Senate. It was Obama who killed the prescription drug reimportation amendment, getting 30 Democratic senators to vote against it. He flew Air Force One to Ohio and got Dennis Kucinich to bow his head. He can certainly kick ass on progressives when he wants to.

Probably, the answer falls on number seven. He is less principled than we had hoped, not as liberal as we want, not as strong as we want (at least against Republicans), and an absolute political animal. And if he has an obsession, it is with the political center.

Here’s what Obama is definetly not: a president who cares about progressive ideas, or the liberal voters who swept him into power. The youth vote, the progressive vote, the votes for Ralph Nadar (which many say cost Al Gore the 2000 election) all went to Obama. We’ll see with immigration reform how the Hispanic vote goes. If Obama kisses up to Republicans on that one, he can kiss Latino voters goodbye too.

And for all of Obama’s clever corporate money grabbing for the party, Democrats can kiss those votes goodbye as well.

What if it were the Dalai Lama?

Here’s a headline for your consideration: Dalai Lama Covers for Child Rapist

Suppose a Buddhist monk had raped and molested children in a temple, and instead of reporting it to the authorities when found out, the Dalai Lama instead buried the evidence and moved said monk to another temple – after scolding him. Then, this same monk rapes more kids. Then, it turns out that monks in temples all over the world have been raping kids for at least the last 50 years, and it was covered up whenever possible. What would the reaction be? What kind of scrutiny would Buddhist temples in America get?

Do I even need to ask the question, what if this scenario was played out in the Muslim faith? Would there even be mosques open in America right now?

What if we skip the question of faith, and keep it to organizations in contact with children? How about the superintendent of a large school district who finds out a teacher has been raping students. Instead of firing the teacher, he quietly moves him to another school, and tells him “don’t do it again.” Then, a few years later, we all find out not only about the original rapes, but also about ones this teacher committed in the new school he moved to.

We all know that teacher would go to jail, as he should. But does anyone think that the superintendent would keep his job? No, the public outcry would be enormous, and the teachers, administrators and community leaders would be in the forefront of the outcry.

So where are the bishops, priests and world leaders asking for the pope to resign?

Nobody in the western world would take the Dalai Lama seriously if he were involved in such a scandal. A Muslim cleric? An Imam? Are you kidding? We would not hear the end of it until heads had rolled! So why should the pope keep his job?

You might say, especially if you are Catholic, that the pope is infallible. The Doctrine of Infallibility says that because the pope is god’s representative on earth, and speaks and acts for god, he cannot make a mistake. Since god makes everything happen, and the pope is his rep, the pope is simply representing god’s will.

Following this doctrine (which was created by popes and Catholic officials), leads to the logical conclusion that god wants Catholic boys and girls raped by church officials. If they are allowed to cover it up, they prolong the problem and increase the number of victims. This current pope himself partook in cover-ups.

You could argue that he partook in cover-ups as Bishop Ratzinger, not as pope, and therefore abetted the rape of children before he was infallible. But consider what this pope has said about child rape within the church. He ruled that the rape, sodomizing, molestation and physical abuse of children should remain an internal matter, and the discipline handled in secret. Worse, in my opinion, was his rating of these crimes. He further ruled that raping children in church was equivalent to throwing away communion wafers.

I’m sorry, but as a non-Catholic, I can’t believe this guy. Raping children is the same as throwing away crackers. Un fucking believable!

I get that the crackers have important ritual and symbolic meaning to Catholics. Communion crackers are the symbolic flesh of Christ, and given out in a mock cannibalism (goddabalism?) ritual. Church belief may place great importance on these crackers that I could not understand. And, as pope, bishop or priest one might place very strict church rules on what to do with said crackers. If a priest breaks these rules, whether I understand or not, he might face sanctions. Maybe even serious ones. Great. Do your thing. To consider throwing away crackers a serious church crime is up to the church.

But to consider the two acts equivalent is insane. I threw away some crackers last week. They were in the back of a kitchen cupboard, and they were stale. Nobody was violated, abused or hurt by this action. You may argue that it was a waste of food in a world where children go to bed hungry, but nobody took it in the ass.

Children have taken it in the ass (and mouth, hand and vagina) by the tens of thousands (over 15,000 in Ireland alone), and this pope helped to cover it up in the past. His own rulings on this matter cast him as definitively fallible, as well as one mean SOB. He cares more about his position as shepherd, than he does his flock. He should quit, or be forced out if the Catholic Church is to have any credibility as a religious organization.

But that won’t happen. This pope will likely ride out this controversy in his palace, surrounded by centuries of acquired riches, and be only lightly scathed by public criticism, let alone legal sanction. Many Catholics will continue to support their church and speak of the good works it does. And, since forgiveness is a big part of Catholic doctrine, they will forgive themselves and move on.

But the victims will lack accountability here on the temporal plane of existence. Popes and bishops will get away with what other professionals would lose a career for, if not go to prison.

If Jesus wants to forgive you, when you go on to meet him, that’s his business. But a man who hides child rape does not deserve to be pope. Period. And do we have any doubt that if it were a non-white, non-Christian religious leader that the national mantra would be “get rid of the summa bitch!”?

We shouldn’t, because it would.