Found an old email where a girlfriend and i were discussing a father who was arrested for trespassing at his child's school. Weird, huh? The little boy's kindergarten class was learning about 'atlernative families' and the father didn't want his child learning about them. The school refused to inform the father when the class would occur and wouldn't let him pull his child out of the class. The father stopped by to talk to the principal and refused to leave his office until the principal agreed to let the child out of the class. So the school arrested him. i've kind of hobbled this piece together from our exchange ... hope it makes sense ...
What happened to parental involvement? Personally, I wouldn't shield my child like that (then again, i don't know what the curriculum looked like). But isn't it the parent's right to decide what the child should learning and when? When did public schools become so standardized and unflexible when it comes to the needs of the kids and their families?
everything is so sanitized, sterilized, and pre-packaged at this point, that the general expectation is for a one-size-fits-all solution and god help you if you want to deviate from that model. this isn't the america we were born in. and it certainly isn't the america our founding fathers envisioned. but it's what we get when we take on initiatives like 'no child left behind' and all of the social welfare. to make things manageable on a large scale (and pretend to be fiscally responsible in the process) everything has to be stripped down and standardized. gives us the illusion of helping a great number of people, but i somehow feel that more people are falling through the cracks this way.
And it's not that i think we shouldn't help our neighbors. But is the government redistributing the wealth (our tax dollars) in the best way? Or do we just need more band aids every time they try to help? Is there a better solution?
some of the post WWII ideas (like medicare) weren't even considered good ideas back then. there are a lot of great theories - and admirable intentions. but implementing these ideas on the grand scale costs a lot more than it would seem ... and then you have to start controlling costs somehow which standardizes things into programs that just don't meet the needs of anyone. while local programs might not make the splash of national programs, it is easier to see and feel the difference your money makes.
it's very unpopular right now to let people keep what they make. it's total socialism - the rich must support the poor. the redistribution of wealth is a socialist ideaology. unfortunately the Ds and Rs both incorporate a lot of socialism into their platforms these days.
with the slow erosion of our rights ... will we blink before it's way too late? Will we even notice? 9-11 seems to have proved that we'd rather have security than freedom. Is that right or wrong? I don't know.
"Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." --Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security." --- Ben Franklin
i wonder what the outcome of the father's case was?
-s