When our oldest boy was in 6th grade, he attended a school-sponsored "health education" lecture. Teachers were asked to leave the classroom and parents were not invited for fear that the presence of an adult other than the male instructor would inhibit the boys from asking burning critical questions.
Long story made short; soon after that, I found myself talking very frankly with the principal and the president of the school board. I wasn't the only parent, and soon a special meeting was arranged with the contracted "health education" company, some members of the school board responsible for curriculum development, and a group of "concerned parents".
The floor was taken and held primarily by the contractor. Their representative spoke condescendingly to us. It was clear that the assumption by the contractor and the school board was that we were a monolithic, homogeneous group of religious whackos.
After a half hour of this, I was getting tired. Then a woman stood up. "I'm not religious," she said. "I'm in favor of my son experimenting with his body. In our home we talk freely about all kinds of topics, including sex. And I want to be sure that when my son learns about sex he learns it from me first. What you did was wrong because you introduced ideas and concepts that were not covered in your published curriculum. It is my job and my right as a parent to be the first person to teach my child anything. You deceived us and took away the chance we had to take the initiative."
And she was right. There was no possible way that any reasonable person could have anticipated a detailed discussion of deviant sex taking place between an adult male and a group of thirty 11- and 12-year old boys in a classroom in rural America.
And I sat back and thought, "Wow! We've identified the presence of a REAL problem when the opposite ends of a philosophical spectrum agree that there's a problem."
Today I was listening to Norman Goldman, a leftist radio personality and comedian. He was advocating that the Left reciprocate the voter fraud perpetrated by the Right in 2000 and 2004. In his mind, the problem with Leftists is that they're too principled to fight back against the Right's criminal tactics. (Not sure where he comes up with that idea. Pious virtue and political left are not usually closely associated in the mind.)
One of his tangential rants, though, was against the Tea Party - and I think he's mistaken in his understanding of who Tea Party adherents are. He said that Tea Partiers support the invasions of privacy and the destruction of individual liberties perpetrated by the Bush regime and perpetuated by the Obama administration since 2001.
I can tell you that is not true. Mr. Goldman has "Tea Party" confused with "Neo-Con". Those are the hawkish, pro-State, sheeple who bleat the party line.
When I listen to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh I consistently hear them speak in favor of individual freedom and against the intrusion of the State in the life of the Individual. (Along with impugning the intelligence of the liberal illuminati and their disciples.)
I think Norman Goldman and Mark Levin agree on the idea that too much government is a bad thing. And when that sort of agreement - based on principles and ideas - happens between extremes, I think there's substance.
Long story made short; soon after that, I found myself talking very frankly with the principal and the president of the school board. I wasn't the only parent, and soon a special meeting was arranged with the contracted "health education" company, some members of the school board responsible for curriculum development, and a group of "concerned parents".
The floor was taken and held primarily by the contractor. Their representative spoke condescendingly to us. It was clear that the assumption by the contractor and the school board was that we were a monolithic, homogeneous group of religious whackos.
After a half hour of this, I was getting tired. Then a woman stood up. "I'm not religious," she said. "I'm in favor of my son experimenting with his body. In our home we talk freely about all kinds of topics, including sex. And I want to be sure that when my son learns about sex he learns it from me first. What you did was wrong because you introduced ideas and concepts that were not covered in your published curriculum. It is my job and my right as a parent to be the first person to teach my child anything. You deceived us and took away the chance we had to take the initiative."
And she was right. There was no possible way that any reasonable person could have anticipated a detailed discussion of deviant sex taking place between an adult male and a group of thirty 11- and 12-year old boys in a classroom in rural America.
And I sat back and thought, "Wow! We've identified the presence of a REAL problem when the opposite ends of a philosophical spectrum agree that there's a problem."
Today I was listening to Norman Goldman, a leftist radio personality and comedian. He was advocating that the Left reciprocate the voter fraud perpetrated by the Right in 2000 and 2004. In his mind, the problem with Leftists is that they're too principled to fight back against the Right's criminal tactics. (Not sure where he comes up with that idea. Pious virtue and political left are not usually closely associated in the mind.)
One of his tangential rants, though, was against the Tea Party - and I think he's mistaken in his understanding of who Tea Party adherents are. He said that Tea Partiers support the invasions of privacy and the destruction of individual liberties perpetrated by the Bush regime and perpetuated by the Obama administration since 2001.
I can tell you that is not true. Mr. Goldman has "Tea Party" confused with "Neo-Con". Those are the hawkish, pro-State, sheeple who bleat the party line.
When I listen to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh I consistently hear them speak in favor of individual freedom and against the intrusion of the State in the life of the Individual. (Along with impugning the intelligence of the liberal illuminati and their disciples.)
I think Norman Goldman and Mark Levin agree on the idea that too much government is a bad thing. And when that sort of agreement - based on principles and ideas - happens between extremes, I think there's substance.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment