I wish more folks would make this point about higher education today – athletics has come to outweigh academics and research.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Carl Wieman announced Monday that he is leaving the University of Colorado and blasted the school, saying it stresses athletics over academics.

Wieman will leave CU in January for the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, where he will head a $10.6 million science education project.

He will retain a 20 percent appointment at CU to lead the Science Education Project there, funded with $5 million during the next five years.

Wieman, 54, said at a news conference that the Canadian funding offer was the main reason for his departure from CU after 22 years.

But afterward, he said CU regents' and administrators' preoccupation with athletics contributed to his decision.

"If you want to have any sort of large-scale education initiative, where you're really focusing on education, you need people at the highest levels to put thought and attention into it," he said.

"If our Board of Regents spent half the time on discussions of how to improve the education for students that they do on athletics, it would be a very different university," Wieman said.

The recent CU football recruiting controversy was a major distraction that diverted attention from the classroom, Wieman said.

"My personal view is that there's a considerable overemphasis (on athletics) that takes time and attention away from what we could be doing to improve education."

As a high school teacher, I’ve seen the same thing happen on my level. When discussing decisions about scheduling for next year, one administrator admitted that it be difficult get rid of the block schedule because of objections from the football and basketball coaches and their associate booster clubs. Guess what? We are almost certainly keeping block scheduling. When it came to a decision on splitting our 3500 student school into two schools or keeping it as one entity, the possibility that one or both schools would become a 4A school was a serious point of discussion, as well as the relative competitive disadvantage the smaller schools would have in 5A. Never mind that the bulk of the educational research shows that the opposite decision would have been preferable in both cases – if the first consideration was the best outcome for students.

When will we go back to allowing schools to put education first?

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

For having the courage to publish newsworthy material of international importance, the editor of the Daily Illini has been fired.

An editor who chose to publish caricatures of Prophet Muhammad in the University of Illinois' student-run newspaper last month has been fired, the paper's publisher announced Tuesday.

Acton H. Gorton was suspended, with pay, from The Daily Illini days after the Feb. 9 publication of the cartoons, which sparked Muslim protests around the world after they first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

At the time, Daily Illini publishers said the action was taken against Gorton not for publishing the cartoons, but for failing to discuss it with others in the newsroom first.

The Illini Media Co. board of directors, which comprises students and faculty, voted unanimously to fire the editor after a review "found that Gorton violated Daily Illini policies about thoughtful discussion of and preparation for the publication of inflammatory material," according to a statement.

Gorton has said he sought out advice from The Daily Illini's former editor-in-chief and others before deciding to run the cartoons. He has said that accusations he tried to hide his decision were wrong.

On Tuesday, he called his firing a blow against free speech on college campuses.
"If I can be fired, what will other students think who maybe want to challenge the status quo?" said Gorton, who had briefly addressed a board meeting the previous night. "This is a bad precedent."

Gorton said he intends to sue the publishers of The Daily Illini, citing, among other complaints, unlawful dismissal.

Board member Adam Jung said he is confident the company "has acted properly on this issue."

The paper's opinions page editor, Chuck Prochaska, also was suspended for his role in publishing the cartoons. He declined to be reinstated, the board said.

Prochaska said he and Gorton moved quickly to publish the cartoons because they were newsworthy.

"We had a news story on our hands, with violence erupting about imagery, but you can't show it because of a taboo, because of a taboo that's not a western taboo but a Muslim taboo?" he said. "That's a blow to journalism."

Decisions like this show why the major media in this country were such panty-waists when it came to publishing the Muhammad cartoons – that’s how they are trained in college. I hadn't realized that a J-Schoool degree included castration.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’ve often wondered what I would do if gunfire broke out at my school. IÂ’d like to think that IÂ’d place myself between the shooter and my students. IÂ’d like to think I would act in a way that would keep my kids safe. But I donÂ’t know that I would be as cool as this lady.

A gym teacher is being hailed as a hero for risking her life to persuade a 14-year-old student to drop his gun after he allegedly wounded two eighth graders.

The teacher at Pine Middle School heard three shots just before 9 a.m. and rushed out of a room to find the alleged shooter, James Scott Newman, standing outside the school cafeteria.

"She empathized with him, tried to be understanding and de-escalated the situation. She was successful in having him place his gun on the ground which is pretty amazing," Reno police Lt. Ron Donnelly told KKOH Radio.

After he dropped the gun, the teacher "bear hugged" Newman until additional staff arrived on scene, Donnelly said. "It was an heroic job done by the school teacher," he said.

Newman was booked into the Washoe County Jail as an adult on a charge of attempted murder, Donnelly said. He also was charged with use of a deadly weapon and use of a firearm by a minor.

Two students were injured during the shootings. One boy was shot in the upper arm and chest and was treated and released from a hospital. A girl received a superficial wound to the leg from shrapnel and was treated at the scene.

Investigators were withholding the names of the victims - both eighth graders.

Steve Mulvenon, spokesman for the Washoe County School District, said the teacher who intervened had requested that her name not be released.

"She didn't want any publicity," he said.

Wow! I think I can guess who will be teacher of the year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Do students have the right to expect their professors to speak English in a manner that can be understood? One would hope so, and a piece of legislation under consideration in Minnesota would require that they do so.

Instructors who want to teach at Minnesota colleges would have to prove they can speak English clearly before appearing at the head of the classroom, if a bill at the Legislature becomes law.

The bill would require schools in Minnesota State Colleges and Universities to ensure their undergraduate teachers speak plain, unaccented English. It would request the same of the University of Minnesota, which the Legislature has limited authority to regulate.

Rep. Bud Heidgerken, a former teacher and current cafe owner, said he's heard plenty from former students and employees about their struggles to understand professors with thick accents.

"I've had many students say they dropped a course or delayed graduation for a semester because they couldn't get around this one professor they couldn't understand," the Freeport Republican said. "All I'm trying to accomplish is getting the best education we have for postsecondary students."

Three states -- North Dakota, Texas and Pennsylvania -- have laws dealing with the English proficiency of college teachers.

MnSCU officials said few international students teach undergraduates at state colleges and universities. At the University of Minnesota, officials say international students already take a spoken language test before they are allowed to teach.

Peter Hudleston, associate dean for student affairs at the university's Institute of Technology, said comprehension problems sometimes crop up. But he said school officials warn students "they have to expect to be able to understand and converse with people from other parts of the English-speaking world. They have to be able to deal with different accents."

Wait just one minute – shouldn’t those who are coming here to teach be able to make themselves understood by people in this part of the English-speaking world? After all, the needs of the students who are paying to take these courses should take precedence.

Of course, there are the usual obstructors of common sense coming out to play.

Travis Reindl, director of state policy analysis with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, finds the legislation troublesome.

"If we start sending a message here that if you can't speak the king's English flawlessly, we don't want you in our classrooms, that sends a message that the U.S. is not a friendly place for them," he said. "(Besides), there are parts of this country where you would swear that English is a second language based on your own background. If you took somebody from Minnesota and plunked him in Mississippi, then you might have a question."

What a patronizing response. No one is demanding flawless English, or even unaccented English. What is being sought is comprehensible English, which is a significantly lower barrier. I can recall being in an economics class many years ago, taught by a graduate student from India. He could not be understood by nearly half of the 150 students in the lecture hall, and was finally reassigned after a sufficient quantity of complaints – but such complaints should never have been necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 4 kb.

Do students have the right to expect their professors to speak English in a manner that can be understood? One would hope so, and a piece of legislation under consideration in Minnesota would require that they do so.

Instructors who want to teach at Minnesota colleges would have to prove they can speak English clearly before appearing at the head of the classroom, if a bill at the Legislature becomes law.

The bill would require schools in Minnesota State Colleges and Universities to ensure their undergraduate teachers speak plain, unaccented English. It would request the same of the University of Minnesota, which the Legislature has limited authority to regulate.

Rep. Bud Heidgerken, a former teacher and current cafe owner, said he's heard plenty from former students and employees about their struggles to understand professors with thick accents.

"I've had many students say they dropped a course or delayed graduation for a semester because they couldn't get around this one professor they couldn't understand," the Freeport Republican said. "All I'm trying to accomplish is getting the best education we have for postsecondary students."

Three states -- North Dakota, Texas and Pennsylvania -- have laws dealing with the English proficiency of college teachers.

MnSCU officials said few international students teach undergraduates at state colleges and universities. At the University of Minnesota, officials say international students already take a spoken language test before they are allowed to teach.

Peter Hudleston, associate dean for student affairs at the university's Institute of Technology, said comprehension problems sometimes crop up. But he said school officials warn students "they have to expect to be able to understand and converse with people from other parts of the English-speaking world. They have to be able to deal with different accents."

Wait just one minute – shouldn’t those who are coming here to teach be able to make themselves understood by people in this part of the English-speaking world? After all, the needs of the students who are paying to take these courses should take precedence.

Of course, there are the usual obstructors of common sense coming out to play.

Travis Reindl, director of state policy analysis with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, finds the legislation troublesome.

"If we start sending a message here that if you can't speak the king's English flawlessly, we don't want you in our classrooms, that sends a message that the U.S. is not a friendly place for them," he said. "(Besides), there are parts of this country where you would swear that English is a second language based on your own background. If you took somebody from Minnesota and plunked him in Mississippi, then you might have a question."

What a patronizing response. No one is demanding flawless English, or even unaccented English. What is being sought is comprehensible English, which is a significantly lower barrier. I can recall being in an economics class many years ago, taught by a graduate student from India. He could not be understood by nearly half of the 150 students in the lecture hall, and was finally reassigned after a sufficient quantity of complaints – but such complaints should never have been necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

Todd Manzi writes on the Jay Bennish story, and raises the issue of who should determine what is said in the classroom. Is it the teacher, the district, or the taxpayer who foots the bill?

Who determines what a teacher can and cannot say? Many teachers like Bennish think it should be the teacher. The school districts think it should be them. Lawyers and teachers unions think it is the teacher. How about the taxpayer? IsnÂ’t there a reasonable expectation that the tax dollars funneled to government schools are not used for propaganda against the capitalist system that generated them?

* * *

On the Today Show, Bennish said, “My job as a teacher is to challenge students to think critically about issues that are affecting our world and our society.”

Many parents might think BennishÂ’s job is to teach their children geography.

Manzi has a point here, though I think he drops the ball at the end. He clearly does not know that teaching critical thinking skills is part of the social studies standards in most states, and that Bennish is therefore partially correct -- teaching critical thinking IS his job in a geography class. Unfortunately, Bennish isn't doing that, as I discussed earlier. But it is, ultimately, the taxpayers and their elected representatives who should set what is to be taught, as long as the school system is taxpayer funded.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | Comments (75) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

John Stossel notes that he has pissed off the teachers unions by shining a spotlight on what is wrong in American education. He notes that they don't refute his data, merely attack the messenger.

Instead, teachers' unions announced that Wednesday (3/ , they will hold demonstrations against me and ABC in New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and elsewhere. One police permit suggests the crowd outside my office will number 750-1,000 people. It should be interesting.

"We want to make sure that ABC hears the voices of incredibly hard-working teachers," says the union website, quoting New York City's UFT President Randi Weingarten. "The network needs to hear how unfair and biased those of you in the trenches believe their broadcast to have been."

I'm sorry that union teachers are mad at me. But when it comes to the union-dominated monopoly, the facts are inescapable. Many kids are miserable in bad schools. If they are not rich enough to move, or to pay for private school, they are trapped.

It doesn't have to be that way. We know what works: choice. That's what's brought Americans better computers, phones, movies, music, supermarkets -- most everything we have. Schoolchildren deserve the joyous benefits of market competition too.

Unions say, "education of the children is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market." The opposite is true. Education is too important to be left to the calcified union/government monopoly.

Which is, of course, one reason I'm glad that I don't have to be a union member down here in Texas. Now if only he will focus in on the politicians who don't know squat about education -- they make some real stupid policy decisions that need light shed on them.

MORE AT: GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

Andrew Saraf, one of the students involved in the Maryland "Peace Studies" course controversy, has graciously accepted my invitation to write a guest piece for Rhymes With Right on the issue. I think you will see there are some interesting differences between how the story is reported and what he has to say about the course and his suggestions.

The reaction to Sunday's Washington Post article, in particular the critical reaction to the views I expressed therein, seem to consist of two main charges. The first is that we are conservatives, or Republican "chickenhawks" as one blogger put it, bent on the removal of liberalism from the classroom. In other words, we are witch-hunters. This is absolutely erroneous. First of all, Avishek and I are not conservatives. Avi has described himself as being quite liberal, and I consider myself to be a very traditional liberal with a skeptical take on many of the ideas that have come out of liberalism since the 1960s. Avi and I are also not on any "witch hunt" against those with certain political ideologies. My mother is a teacher; I therefore have a pretty clear understanding of the fact that teachers are human beings with political views. A certain degree of bias is to be expected in any classroom lecture. The difference is that Peace Studies is a class whose very mission is biased. Mr. McCarthy has in the last few days said such things as this: "People say, 'You don't give the other side.' And I say, 'You're exactly right'. " In classes sometimes disparagingly called 'traditional' or 'mainstream', bias is fought, and hopefully kept at a minimum. In Peace Studies, there is a resolute refusal to do so. And why? Or, at least, what is the stated reason for this? "This is the other side," Mr. McCarthy claims, to what we get elsewhere. Every other source of information has a conservative bias. In the meanwhile, as the class learned in a recent reading, we are "on a moving train", and "you can't be neutral". So the class, and its current practices, are based on two rather questionable assumptions: The first is that outside the class, the bias is a conservative one. The second is that neutrality is neither possible nor desirable because history is moving in one clear direction. The moment the existence of other points of view is acknowledged, these assumptions simply fall apart. We find that the liberals complain of a conservative bias, a "right-wing media", while the conservatives believe that the media and the public school system are controlled by left-wing radicals. Who is right? Is this issue settled? And as for the "moving train", in truth, we are not yet clear on what direction the train is moving in. What is the course of history? Who has defined it? Who has been responsible for the progress that has been made? Once again, these issues are not settled. But the class is taught as if they are. And that is the problem.

The second charge made against us is that, because we have not taken the class, we are in no position to speak on it or protest it. This is absolutely absurd. By that rationale, what has become a high visibility issue is in fact reserved to the select few who have had the privilege of being seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School and the infinite wisdom and good judgment required to choose to take the class. This means that parents, bloggers, commentators and all those younger than 17 or 18 have no place in this debate. What I suggest is that we be more rational. Just as a parent with a son or daughter in the class has every right to discuss it, I feel that as a student who has done extensive research into Mr. McCarthy's educational philosophy, and who has spoken at length with a number of Peace Studies students, none of them with an "Anti-Peace Studies" agenda, I too have a right to engage in discussion about this issue. And my allegations, which were much more tentative at first, have only been further confirmed in the last few weeks. We asked a student and self-described supporter of McCarthy's whether he himself ever presented facts or positions that contradicted his own ideology. The answer was "no". Not once have I heard of statistics provided in the class that would support a conservative interpretation of the issues; but again and again I have heard impassioned talk by his students on the differences in the amount of money spent "on war" and "on the poor", and on the inequalities in the distribution of wealth in the world, and so on and so forth. The only opposing speaker that has been brought in (of the many speakers), as far as I have heard, has been a parent of one of the students. His cause? He supported animal testing. On every other issue, not one student of Mr. McCarthy's has been able to produce an example of someone brought in with an alternative view. I have asked them to do so a number of times.

And, of course, there is the inevitable invocation of the class' status as an elective. This is a very appealing argument to make, because Avishek and I can thus be cast as curmudgeons who just want to keep everyone else from having fun. The problem is that it ignores two fundamental facts: First of all, Montgomery County Public Schools has a duty to apply the same basic standards of educational quality to every class that is offered, whether the class is an elective or not. Among these standards is a recognition that the major issues of our time are not settled; political ideologies are not the equivalent of algebra or physics. Mr. McCarthy has said that not everyone believes in algebra, and that not everyone believes in physics, but that they are taught anyway, but to attempt to make a comparison between science and math and political beliefs is simply ridiculous. If a only one political ideology is being taught, the class should not be offered. The second fundamental fact is the nonexistence of an alternative. Peace Studies is a class tailored to liberal tastes. The 2nd period Peace Studies class, which we have visited, has only one or two Republicans in it. So the choice is between a political class that represents left-wing views or no political class at all. This could hardly be called a choice.

I would finally like to clarify my goals with this effort. Despite the Washington Post's unfortunate misstatements, Avi and I are not calling for the "banning" of the Peace Studies class. We recognize that certain aspects of the class are of value. But we believe that alternative lecturers must be brought in, individuals who would teach with Mr. McCarthy on alternating days. That way, both sides will be presented, while the unconventional nature of the experience is preserved. In spite of what some of our critics have said, this does not mean that students will also be "taught war" or "taught violence". It simply means that more than one narrow view of peace will be presented. Most political ideologies, and surely almost all Americans, 'believe in peace'. The question is how peace is to be achieved and approached. There is more than one way, and students should be taught as such.

Frankly, I think Andrew's position is a reasonable one. The class appears to be a propaganda course, with rather nebulous academic standards. I understand that the major requirement for an A is respiration and attendance -- making this an attractive "gut course" for students seeking to inflate a GPA, which really makes it a sort of academic fraud. In a manner not dissimilar to the clown in Colorado, McCarthy is using the classroom as a pulpit from which to preach.

And Andrew's response to the "it's an elective" argument is most important. In the setting of a taxpayer-funded, government-run school, every citizen has a voice. The notion that nobody except the handful of kids in the class has a right to comment is, dare I say it, unAmerican.

Most importantly, Andrew and Avi are proposing a solution to the problem. While I don't know that the structure proposed above is a workable one, it indicates a desire to mend a course that could have merit, rather than simply sweep it aside. Andrew offers compromise, not a hardened position from which he to advocate reform -- a much tougher position than the extreme position ascribed to him and Avi.

Oh, and Andrew confirms something I suspected after I did a Google search on him the other day -- he is no conservative, and no ideologue. I found information on him at his home congregation's website (I won't disclose it -- do the legwork if you must), and can assure you that he comes from a spiritual/philosophical tradition that is a world away from the religious right. I suspect that most of the members of the congregation would disagree with him -- yet at the same time be quite proud of his actions and integrity in raising the issue. Well done, young man, and thank you for taking the time to enlighten us all.

Other Voices: Michelle Malkin, Thunder Run, Dread Pundit Bluto, Pillage Idiot, Cranky Professor, Elephants in Academia, Hello, MoCo

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1572 words, total size 10 kb.

I tread softly when it comes to politics in my classroom – the venom is saved for this blog.

My students know – generally – what my politics are, because as a social studies teacher I sometimes discuss current events along with history. But when I give opinions, I always label them as such, and I try to offer a rough balance in the discussion (including being the “devil’s advocate” for the side I disagree with if there isn’t a kid who can do it).

I cannot ever imagine doing this.

An Overland High School teacher who criticized President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his geography class was placed on administrative leave Wednesday afternoon after a student who recorded the session went public with the tape.

In the 20-minute recording, made on an MP3 player, teacher Jay Bennish described capitalism as a system "at odds with human rights." He also said there were "eerie similarities" between what Bush said during his Jan. 28 State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth," Bennish also said on the tape.

Bennish, who has been part of Overland's social studies faculty since 2000, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Cherry Creek School District officials are investigating the incident, but no disciplinary action has been taken, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Bennish was placed on leave "to take some of the pressure off of him" during the investigation, which could wrap up in a week, Amole said.

I’ve got to tell you – at my school this guy would need a couple weeks off to get relief from the crap the rest of his colleagues would give him. We’re about 75% conservative, and even our socially liberal gay colleague is a Navy vet with somewhat hawkish views on foreign and military affairs. Personally, I’d be inclined to fire him for his abuse of his position, and I believe my colleagues would agree. Our objection would be his obvious ignorance and his polemical presentation, not the position he took.

Michelle Malkin has a transcript of the rant (audio here) that certainly would support terminating Bennish for cause.

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.

Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?

Now my basis for supporting a termination is NOT his politics. Rather, the problem comes down to the one-sided preaching of a particular ideology at students -- and one which contains repeated and obvious misrepresentations of historical facts. He was not educating his students, he was misinforming and indoctrinating them. What I do not object to is his detour into current events and government -- assuming the social studies standards in Colorado are similar to those in texas, there is a component of the standards that requires all social studies teachers to include relevant current issues and events in the course. The State of the Union address was therefore an appropriate topic -- his methods were the problem.

On the other hand, there are a couple of interesting little wrinkles here that struck me. The one is the use of the MP3 recorder. That would be forbidden at my school, under the policy forbidding the use of cell phones, CD players, radios and MP3s during the day. I wonder if the kid faces any sanctions for having brought and used the device to record the class.

The second involves Dad going to the media with the recording. I almost always oppose parents doing this, absent an immediate and serious threat to the physical well-being of the students. I suspect that this situation could have been resolved quickly without going to Mike Rosen, by a phone call to the principal or the superintendent. Heck, a call to a couple of school board members would have even been appropriate. Stay in the chain of command, folks, and try to resolve the situation there. Calling the press, especially as the first step, is like calling a lawyer – the result may be what you want, but it sets a bad precedent.

MORE AT Slapstick Politics, The Malcontent, North American Patriot, Sister Toldjah, Blogmeister USA, Independent Conservative, Hoodathunk, Conservative Thinking, Moonage Political Webdream, Right Wing Howler, Wizbang, Defiance, Colorado Democrat, Bluto, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Rhodey, Hashmonean, Portia Rediscovered, Junkyard Blog, Machine Overlords, Stop The ACLU, Dad's Corner, Radioactive Liberty, Donkey Stomp, Iowa Voice, Moderate Conservative, Education Wonks, Median Sib, Jawa Report, Blogs for Bush

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Blue Star, customer servant, Bacon Bits, Don Surber, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Mental Rhinorrhea, Right Wing Nation, Freedom Watch, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 03:24 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 2529 words, total size 19 kb.