Politics

Public School FAIL

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

As you may know, the Texas school boards are working to rewrite history — literally.

Some of the changes I agree with. For instance, I see nothing wrong with teaching religion in school, from a scholarly standpoint. I learned about ancient religions (what we now call mythology) and studied ancient religious texts. I studied modern religions and texts. We looked at them from a scholarly standpoint because you cannot fully understand other civilizations and history if you do not look at the religions of that civilization. But yes, this implies looking at all of them, not just emphasizing one or another nor does it mean being “sensitive” to one so as to not risk offending it.

Some I don’t, like removing the study of Sir Isaac Newton. How can you understand modern science if you don’t understand Newton!! Good grief!

And some things I think are just appalling, such as dropping “references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous ‘Atlantic triangular trade’, and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.”  Denial or revision (even in the name of political correctness or “sensitivity”) of history undermines the whole point of studying history in the first place.

But whether or not you agree with what the Texas board is doing, it all points to one thing: the growing failure of the public government school system. A few work to gain political leverage, then work in their agenda in hopes of longer-term indoctrination of their view of the world. This is not education, this is brainwashing. This is not education, this is politics, and our children are the sacrifice. But, true education has been dead for a long time.

Just one more reason that the public government school system is a failed organization. We do better when we can have choices, when you can choose what school your child attends. If you want your child to have a particular view of the world, then send your child to that school… be that school one with a narrow view or a broad view. Public government school is supposed to serve everyone, but because of that it serves no one.

I could go a step further and say it’s a greater failing of our social structure, where we demand others teach and raise our children instead of doing that job ourselves. This isn’t to say you have to homeschool, but at least when Junior comes home from whatever school they are sent to, take a look at their textbooks, look at the notes they take, discuss with them what they were learning in school. Get involved in your child’s education. Discuss alternative viewpoints. Expand upon what the school taught. Help them see the world that you want them to see.

Who’s racist?

/ hsoi

According to “modern politically correct society”, this man’s message is one of valiant struggle.

But change the speaker to “a white guy”, substitute “white” for “Mexicano”, substitute “Aryan Nation” for “La Raza”, substitute “Aryan Front” for “Northern Front of a Latin American Revolutionary Movement”… just make those small changes to his speech, but you can keep “our people” as “our people”. Suddenly, this same message becomes racist, again by modern politically correct standards. Why the double-standard? And how is it this man — who is angry about racism — doesn’t see his own racism? He is angry about racism directed at him, but then lashes out with racism of his own?

He claims superiority and justification due to his racial/ethnic heritage. He’s wanting to separate himself from the rest of the world and beat the rest of the world down (or at least “whites”), because they are not of his racial/ethnic heritage. And he wants only the people of his same ethnic/racial background to join him. Is that not racism?

If we really want to stop racism, we have to stop racism. Racism isn’t “whites oppressing non-whites”, it’s anyone claiming superiority due to their race, it’s anyone putting someone else down because of their race. It’s using race for leverage, for politics, as a rallying point, especially for selfish gain.

If you want people to stop caring about your race, you have to stop caring about your race. If you separate yourself from others by your race, expect others to separate you from others by your race.

I know my ethnic background, but I see myself as a human. The only groups I tend to split people into are good people and assholes. Being good or being an asshole has nothing to do with your ethnic background, your level of education, your economic status, gender, religious practice. It’s only a matter of what sort of person you choose to be and how you treat others around you.

From open children to open carry

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

It’s raining.

For whatever reason, that’s caused more ducks than usual to congregate around our house. More ducks means more distractions for the kids. 😉  Plus, one mother mallard has 6 chicks (hatched probably just a few days ago), so the cute is irresistible.

The kids were outside tending to the ducks. I was in my office working. Wife was in the kitchen. Kids come back in the house to tell us that an Austin Police Officer drove up, rolled down his window, asked them if they were where they were supposed to be, “We’re homeschooled.”, “Alright.” and off he drove. Will it amount to anything? I don’t know, but I doubt it. We did have another talk with the kids about how to handle such situations. But what got me was what I found myself saying.

You see, Wife was saying how one of our homeschooling mentors always avoided such issues by running her errands after normal school hours. I can understand. We’re doing nothing wrong, we’re doing nothing illegal, but we are doing something that most people aren’t familiar with and “breaks the norm” of what’s expected… thus it has potential to cause trouble and bring headaches and hassles into our lives. So mentor’s approach was to just avoid it because she didn’t want to hassle. Wife doesn’t do that, we don’t lock the kids away and only bring them out when children are supposed to be brought out, but certainly Wife prefers to avoid the hassle.

I found myself saying that no, we can’t do that; we can’t avoid the hassle. Not saying we should flaunt it and invite it, but that if the hassle comes, it comes. What we’re doing is fine, legal, normal; it may not be mainstream, but how are people ever going to get used to it, acknowledge it, accept it, and not flinch or find it strange if we always keep it hidden away? If we always work to avoid the hassle, no one will ever see or know. How does that help or improve the situation? If anything, it could serve to make the situation seem worse because it’s being hidden away and not just openly done.

And I found myself thinking about Open Carry.

It may not be mainstream today, but how else are you going to get it to be mainstream unless you make it so? To hide it away isn’t going to help. Look at any sort of “civil rights” be it homeschooling or gay rights or women’s rights or various ethnic groups. You don’t get to sit at the front of the bus by always hiding at the back of it (by force or by choice).

Still trying to figure out how I stand on open carry, but this little experience certainly has influenced me a bit.

I was inspired to write this due to a comment made by Linoge on Uncle’s website. Thanx, Linoge.

Elena Kagan, first impressions

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Elena Kagan. Nominee for the SCOTUS.

I don’t know.

And that’s just the thing. None of us really know. Lots of searching around for information and there just isn’t a whole lot to go on. However, in just the 24 hours since the announcement more has been dug up and I’m sure more will continue to be dug up. Now, by “dug up” I’m not talking about dirt and tabloid sensational crap. I’m talking matters of substance, those things that really matter in terms of her sitting on the highest bench in the land.

The good folks at The Volokh Conspiracy have been writing furiously about her.

My take at this point? Well… Stevens is going to retire, you can’t stop that nor tell the man to not retire when he wants to retire. So that means the current administration is going to nominate someone, and that means I’m not going to get a candidate whom I would consider ideal. Nothing can be done to get “who I want” so the best I can hope for us someone who “sucks least”. Also remember that replacing a liberal with a liberal doesn’t stir things up too much.

From what I can read about Kagan so far, she actually doesn’t seem too bad — certainly there could be worse. I mean, again she’s not ideal in my mind, but one important impression I get about her is an actual willingness to listen to and consider opposing and alternative viewpoints. She’s no “wise Latina” and thank God for that, because that sort of “open-minded” behavior only serves a narrow few. So that Kagan appears to be actually willing to listen and consider, and could actually interpret the law like this job would require. That would be novel, wouldn’t it?

But then, I read stuff like this:

First, let me point out that this should make the teabaggers shudder.  She’s going to back Obama’s ability to control the Executive Branch– the FCC, health care regulators, to name two examples of why Obama may want her on the court.  Healthcare mandate Unconstitutional?  Unlikely with Kagan on the court (if it would ever get that far- which it wouldn’t).  More likely, Obama’s FCC protecting net neutrality: …only “the President has the ability to effect comprehensive, coherent change in administrative policymaking”

So, if she’s going to be such an executive branch backer, how will she then behave when a Republican is holding that office? Because it’s fair to reason that, if she did end up on the bench, sometime in her lifetime a non-Democrat/Liberal will be President. Will she remain consistent in her interpretation of the law?

These are just my initial impressions. So far, Kagan doesn’t come across like an ideal but I know I won’t get that. She doesn’t seem the worst of the bunch. But in the end, the devil will be in the details and we’ll see how things play out.

Updated: Of course, one big question on my mind has been gun rights. Her answers on that are well… not horrible, but kinda fabricated due to the context of the questioning. So via Uncle we have a link to a lot of documents from Kagan that discuss a host of her stances on things. (I’ll have to read it later, don’t have time right now). And David Codrea has more. David echos some of my sentiments on her:

By way of comparison, her position appears practically identical to that of “conservative Justice” Antonin Scalia. Yes, it falls far short of “shall not be infringed,” and I don’t think she’s going to be answering my Gun Rights Questionnaire any time soon, but I’m wondering if there is any Obama nominee—or any nominee a Republican would offer up, for that matter—who would give better answers.

That is, she isn’t what I want, but she may just “suck least” of those in the nominee pool.

Ignorance is the best policy? *sigh*

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

The Commonwealth of Virginia is seeking to establish a gun safety program in their public schools. It would be based around the NRA’s highly successful Eddie Eagle program.

Naturally, some people are freaking out about it:

“It’s not the wisest thing because, for instance, [my daughter]. She doesn’t know what a gun is. But, if she sees gun safety, then now she’s curious about it,” says Nery Washington, who lives in Harrisonburg.

So what you’re saying is, your daughter is ignorant, which is understandable for a child, but what’s not understandable is why you as a parent think ignorance is acceptable and the best way to keep your child safe.

Do we keep our children ignorant of the chemicals and cleaners we keep under the sink? Do we keep our children ignorant of “stranger danger”? Do we keep our children ignorant of electrical outlets? Do we keep our children ignorant about running on wet floors? These are all things that are potentially dangerous to children, and we go out of our way to teach children about them all in the name of keeping the children safe.

When you tell your kids about the chemicals under the sink, does Junior go and decide he now needs a Windex cocktail?

“Nothing about this program should make children curious about firearms, and we don’t encourage children to own a gun. So, as to any of those kind of fears, I would say they’re totally unwarranted,” says Alexa Fritts, a spokeswoman for the NRA.

I do take odds with such a flat dismissal. Yes in fact a child could become more curious about firearms as a result of this program. If so, why is that horrible? Any topic we introduce to our children could be met with massive indifference or whole-hearted curiosity. Is that reason to not discuss the dangers of drugs and alcohol? Is that reason to not discuss sex? Yes, discussion of these things could lead to increased curiosity and experimentation. My take as a parent? Don’t ignore the subject with your children. Raise them in an environment where they can learn, explore, and freely ask questions of their parent. Don’t make them scared to come to you, else they will sneak things when you don’t want them to. That’s when the danger can truly start. We are to teach and guide our children, so foster an environment where that can be done.

So yes, if your daughter becomes more curious about firearms, teach her honestly and guide her well. Ignorance doesn’t cure curiosity.

The Big Alienation

/ hsoi

Peggy Noonan writes for the Wall Street Journal about The Big Alienation:

It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

Emphasis added.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Folks want to think it’s because Obama got elected. He may have been the straw that broke the backs (and not because of the color of his skin, but because of his politics and attitude), but Noonan has it right… it’s been a while in coming.

She brings some interesting perspective about the Arizona SB 1070 situation:

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won’t, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I’m not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

You know the expression… walk a mile in a man’s shoes, or in this case I guess Arizona’s.

Which leads to some further perspective:

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, “How odd that’s where their minds so quickly go, how strange they’re so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?” But let’s not do Freud, he’s too interesting. Maybe they’re just smug and sanctimonious.

I’m not sure I agree with Noonan that fixing the border should be priority #1 and would suddenly solve everything. In fact, she herself points out the reason this issue is being treated like it is is because it risks the largest growing segment of voters: Mexicans and other Hispanics. On the one hand, you can’t blame the politicians for wanting to keep their jobs. On the other, my kingdom for a politician that cares about something greater than himself!

This isn’t a discussion about SB 1070, merely pointing out that the growing unrest in this country has been a while in coming, and ignoring or marginalizing it isn’t going to make it go away; in fact, it only serves to feed it.

Do you or don’t you?

/ hsoi

I’m watching the news.

Lead story, the May 1 protests about Arizona’s SB 1070.

The story that immediately follows? About the creation of a national Latino heritage museum.

So, the first story is about a group of people not wanting to be singled out due to their racial profile. Then the second story is about the same group of people wanting to single themselves out due to their racial profile.

Last time I checked, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t just want it when it benefits you and not want it when it doesn’t benefit you. So, which way do you want it?

You’re doing it wrong

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

I’ve got three kids. One of the worst things I can imagine for myself would be losing one, especially if that loss could have been prevented.

But forcing everyone to donate their organs because your child needed organ transplants and almost died? Wrong.

So the way to play is, I want my way. If I can’t have my way, I’ll get a law passed so I get my way. To hell if it tramples on the rights and freedoms of everyone else. And it just so happens I’m a legislator, so I’ll abuse the authority given to me by the people.

Wrong.

I think organ donation is A Good Thing™. I myself am a blood donor (and trying to get back to being more regular about it). That’s not what I have a problem with. Look folks… if people don’t like “opt out” policies for something as menial as websites signing us up for their mailing lists, do you really think we’re going to like “opt out” policies for something like our organs?

So… just how much is enough?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

This is what happens when you go off the teleprompter… you put your foot in your mouth.

The article says it best, so I’ll just leave it at that.

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

Compare that to his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

Chicago lawmakers want to put more guns on the street… sorta.

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Chicago Democrats want the Illinois National Guard to be deployed to help with the violent crime on their city streets.

Chicago Democrats John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford said they want Quinn, Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to allow guardsmen to patrol streets and help quell violence. Weis said he did not support the idea because the military and police operate under different rules.

“Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is,” Fritchey said. “Is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate? Without question. We are not talking about rolling tanks down the street or having armed guards on each corner.”

What he envisions, Fritchey said, is a “heightened presence on the streets,” particularly on the roughly 9 percent of city blocks where most of the city’s violent crimes occur.

So what they’re wanting is well… more guns on the streets. If you put more police, or national guardsmen in the street, that’s what you’re wanting: to put more people with guns on the streets!! Only these people are assumed to be good, law-abiding people.

“I’m open to anything that reduces violence. But I have concerns when you mix law enforcement and the military,” Weis said.

Really? So how about improving your gun laws for law-abiding citizens?

Yet the lawmakers said they are coming together because gun violence should be a priority to all Chicagoans.

“No help is too much help” Ford said. “This is not just about the murders. It’s about the crime. It’s about people being stabbed, robbed and in the hospital on life support.”

This isn’t about gun violence. This is about degenerates committing anti-social acts, acts of violence, all because they are able to wield power over the citizenry because the almighty powers that be feel the citizens cannot be trusted to defend themselves but we your almighty caretaker promise to keep you safe — a promise impossible to fulfill. It’s not about guns. If guns were the problem, then why are you proposing putting more guns on the street?!?! Guns are not the problem, it’s the people using the guns that are the problem… or in this case, are part of a proposed solution.

So let’s stop talking about it in a way that falsely demonizes inanimate objects. Let’s look at the real problem, and let’s look at real solutions. Allow your citizens to not be victims. It won’t make the evil go away, but it’s a proven good step in the right direction.