Texas Schools: "Be Good Little Communists..."

...And design a flag for the USSA.

Thus is the analysis from EAGNews.org, a school-choice website.  I can't say I completely disagree, but neither does this peg my outrage meter.

In fact, here is my biggest problem with the requirement for kids to create a communist flag: is there one for free countries?  See, the requirement reads thus:

Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

Now, it is true that socialist and communist nations use symbolism on their flags, and specifically to represent aspects of their economic symbol (that's why so many of them have the hammer and sickle).  What is also true, however, is that all nations do that.  Our own "Stars and Stripes" are "symbolism" of our political beliefs.  It's just that in communist/socialist nations economic beliefs ARE political beliefs (given that both believe in government control of the economy).  Where the United States flag represents the fifty States, the thirteen original colonies, the bravery of those who fought, etc., etc., the USSR Flag (as one example) had the hammer and sickle to symbolize "The Worker."

So, here is my question- is there one that says, "Democratic/Republican nations use symbolism on their flags to represent various aspects of their political systems and/or national character.  Imagine a new Representative Republic nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag.  Use symbolism to represent aspects of democracy/republicanism on your flag.  What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?"

If the answer to that question is "YES" then I'm... well, not okay with it, but willing to let it slide.  Teachers do have a fair amount of discretion in the classroom after all.  Who's to say the teacher won't lead the kids such that they represent their new communist nation with shackles and a dessert? 

If the answer is "No," then I'm not okay with it.  In that case, either particular political/economic systems should not have been mentioned at all, or you are advocating for socialism/communism- which would be the height of inappropriate in a school curriculum regardless of my own personal beliefs.

According to the story, various officials in Texas have attempted to contact the authors of the curriculum.  Hopefully they will clarify or change the requirement.  Until then, make sure your school board knows about the requirement, and knows that you vigorously oppose it until such time as the correct clarification is provided, or the requirement is removed.

Ban Human Nature

This piece, from Ace, sums up why I think most "gun control" advocates are either naive or dishonest. 

As Ace points out, the only realistic way to stop gun violence is to prevent anyone anywhere from having a gun.  That means police and the military, too.  As long as guns exist, there is the possibility bad people will get them and do bad things with them.  So the only plausible "gun control" that could prevent mass gun violence is an absolute ban on guns. 

Now, Ace's point is primarily the dishonesty with which gun control advocates routinely act.  He points out that they claim not to want to "ban guns," and yet, logically, that is the only policy they can pursue.  I have a different point.

The only way to stop tragedies like what happened in Newtown, CT is to ban human nature.  That's it.  The only thing that could have stopped this particular tragedy, or any of the others before, is to lobotomize the entire population.  Sure, it's the "nuke the site from orbit" form of deterring violence, but there's a reason that quote ends with "it's the only way to be sure."

Do gun control advocates believe that murder didn't exist until the 1364?  Do they believe that people have not been wreaking violence against each other since before recorded history?

Here, they will often fall back on the dishonest line of argument that "guns make murder easier."  That is, as far as it goes, a true statement.  It is much easier to shoot someone with a handgun than it is to stab them with a knife.  What it misses is the amount of effort these mass killers go to.

They often purchase semi-specialized equipment.  They usually purchase special magazines and a fair number of them.  They purchase ammunition, sometimes for weeks or months before the actual atrocity.  Many of them map out exactly what they're going to do, and even have a plan for how to deal with the police (it usually involves shooting themselves, but it's still a plan).

Yet, for all this effort, we're supposed to think they would be deterred just because they could "only" use a bow or crossbow?  Or are gun control advocates actually seeking to ban all projectile weapons?  Well, I guess no one could possibly use an axe or a hammer to kill someone.

The fact is that people have been killing each other for as long as there have been people.  You're never going to stop it, either.  Indeed, what makes it so easy to commit these kinds of acts is not the existence of guns, but human nature.

See, everyone wants to feel safe.  Weapons, by definition, are not safe (there is no such thing as an unloaded gun).  Therefore, people tend to want to avoid weapons.  In most cases, if you got people to sit down and think through it, they probably wouldn't be afraid of the weapons.  They wouldn't even be afraid of some unknown assailant having a weapon.  Their problem would be, I believe, that weapons make them realize how dangerous the world is in general, and they don't want those reminders.  No one wants to be forced to realize, every single minute of every single day, how fragile life is.

So most people avoid weapons.  My mother grew up on a farm in Western Texas.  Her daddy required that she and her sister be familiar with how to shoot.  Nevertheless, she's not particularly comfortable around guns.  She doesn't particularly like them.  In a life where guns were just a fact of life, and were used to save lives both human and animal on more than one occasion, she still would rather avoid them.

The problem with "most people" avoiding weapons, and wanting others to avoid weapons, is that it means the bad guys are more likely than the average person to have a weapon.

Imagine if this young man had walked into that school with an axe, or a sword.  With the possible exception of the specific body count, do we really think the outcome would have been much different?  No one there could defend themselves.  To the extent they could, it would have been because they could have met him on some kind of equal footing; say, by grabbing a baseball bat from the P.E. closet.

You're never going to stop this kind of violence.  It has been with us since the first caveman realized it was easier to kill Grog and take his stuff than to barter with Grog for Grog's stuff.  It will continue until the race of Man is gone.

It's simply human nature.

The Growing Police State: No You Can't Support Your Team Edition

Have I mentioned that we treat our school children as if they're not even human?  Now it's Oklahoma City's turn.

Actually, that's a little mean.  I don't actually have a problem with school dress codes, or even school uniforms.  There are some restrictions on "freedom of speech" which must be imposed while a child is at school, or the primary function of schools couldn't be performed.  So I'm normally willing to let those go.  In this case, though, I think someone didn't think things through.

For those who won't click through the link, an Oklahoma City kindergarten required that student turn his shirt inside out because it violated a rule against clothing which supports any sports team that is not an Oklahoma college team.  In this case, the Michigan Wolverines.

The reasoning behind the rule isn't even all that bad- though it goes back to the problem of restricting something associated with bad behavior, instead of fixing the bad behavior.  In this case, the reasoning is that gangs in OKC were identifying by using sports teams (mostly professional, like the Oakland Raiders), and the schools wanted to tamp down on that.  As far as it goes, that's really not that bad- Oklahoma college teams were exempted because "home pride," and otherwise it's a blanket ban.

My problem is two fold.  First, and probably most important, is that it's exactly the kind of "no tollerance" policy which means that a kid getting beat up who defends himself will get kicked out of school.  It leaves no room for "well that's just dumb" discretion.  The second problem is that, as I mentioned, it doesn't address the problem, it just hides it.

The problem was never the shirts, or baseball caps, or whatever.  The problem was gangs.  Now, I'm not suggesting that you could simply say "Poof! No more gangs!"  What I am suggesting, however, is that we start treating gang violence as what it is- violence in the name of organized crime.  I don't care that these are "children."  They're violent criminals who, for the rest of society, must be sequestered.  It is not right to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and it is even less right to allow the thugs to continue to prey on the other kids in school.

The Growing Police State: Logical Ends Edition

It's been mentioned here before that we, as a society, have decided that school children are not US Citizens; that, indeed, they are not even human beings.  We deprive them of rights that we extend to terrorists, let alone suspected criminals and ordinary citizens.  This idea, even if never expressly stated, or even if rejected when voiced, is prevalent in our society, and how we deal with children.  And it has consequences.

Federal Authorities are charging two judges on the Lauderdale County, Mississippi, Youth Court, as well as unnamed (in the linked report) "state, county, and local officials in Meridian."  Their crime?  Depriving children of their constitutional rights.

The specific charge is that the Youth Court was operating a "school-to-prison pipeline," throwing them in jail for school-related disciplinary issues.  Mentioned only at the end of the CNN report is the fact that incarceration is part of the student's parole.  Apparently, students in violation of the law are given parole, one of the conditions of that parole is that they will serve any suspension from school in jail. 

Now, we can debate the merits of that parole policy.  We can say, "hey, that really doesn't sound that unreasonable," or, "they what?!"  And that's probably a good discussion, especially for those in Lauderdale County, to have.  But I have a different point.

As demonstrated here previously, the basic assumption regarding children in school is that they have no constitutional rights.  Unannounced, random (that: no probable cause) searches of children's lockers and cars, for those who happen to drive to school, are routinely accepted.  Apparently simply wanting to be in the band ranks as probable cause for having the sanctity of your person violated in the form of random drug testing.  In-school discipline does not presume innocence until guilt is proved, and refusal to self-incriminate can get the same, or sometimes worse, punishment than the presumed offense.  It shapes every day of life for children in public schools.

To make matters worse, schools are now punishing children with in-school penalties for behavior conducted on their own time and off of school property.  Children are being suspended and they are being removed from extra curricular activities for a variety of offenses.  And this unrelated punishment is being supported by parents (often well-meaning) and the legal system.

So it is hardly surprising that a legal system which allows such treatment and low regard would then use the same underlying philosophical foundations to justify removing children's constitutional rights outside of school.  By the logic above, there is no magic line between a child's school life and their out-of-school life, which allows behavior in one (out-of-school) to accrue penalties in the other (in-school).  Well, if that is true, then it stands to reason that it is a two-way street.  If behavior out of school can get a child an in-school punishment, then it is only reasonable that behavior in school can get a child an out-of-school punishment. 

It does no good simply to be outraged about it.  The logical foundation is solid, if not unassailable.  You cannot simply assert that children are not human while they're inside the school walls, but they are outside them.  Which means the answer is not one of punishment, but one of philosophy. 

We must fundamentally change our understanding of children in school.  They are human.  They should be extended the same rights as any other human in the United States.  The 14th Amendment applies to them as much as it does to anyone else, which means they do have free speech rights.  They do have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  They do have the presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination.

If we are not willing to extend them those basic human rights, then we cannot complain when other deprive them still further.

Why do Teachers Unions in California Support Pedophiles?

From the San Bernardino Sun comes this positively flabbergasting story.  The California Senate passed a Democrat sponsored bill which would have made it easier to fire teachers "accused of particularly egregious crimes - such as sex, violence or drug offenses involving children..."


Now, one would think this would a no-brainer.  It passed with strong bipartisan support in the California Senate, and it's a fairly obvious rules fix.  It is currently very hard to fire teachers who would prey on the children under their authority, and this bill would have fixed that.  Enter the Teachers Unions.


Rather than support the rights and safety of the children in their care, the teachers opposed this measure vociferously.  They claimed "there already are sufficient rules to protect children, that the bill lacks due process, and that the bill was meant to give cover to the LAUSD officials who are to blame for [the recent scandal which led to the bill]*."  Apparently someone even called this measure which would protect children from predators "UnAmerican."


What is it about unions?  What is it about Teachers Unions specifically.  Discuss making it easier to fire teachers and you're evil.  Talk about merit-based pay and you're evil.  Attempt to strengthen academic standards and you're evil.


We are supposed to, for some reason, completely revere teachers and worship the ground they walk on.  We're supposed to faint at the idea they might have to work a full 8 hours a day, five days a week for the whole year, instead of 6 hours a day for nine months.  And then they pull crap like this.


This is disgusting.  It is disgraceful.  The people of California should call up your state Representatives and demand that his bill be brought back to committee, passed out of committee, and passed by the full House.  


If we're going to treat our children as though they're not even human while they're in school, the least we owe them is safety from their wardens.

*-Read the article to find out about the specific scandal