Parents as primary educators

Words to live by, right?  Wrong, if you live in the Unified School District in Alameda California.  The school district there is set to vote on a curriculum that while addressing “bullying, respect and acceptance” (all of which are fine), it includes “compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.”  These lessons begin when children are as young as five.  FIVE?  What five year-old comprehends or even cares about these terms?

Rather than focusing on such a finite group, why not just teach children the golden rule that we all grew up learning: Do unto others.  Come on, you know it.

While GBLT individuals as they are often termed, are part of a protected class, does that really apply to a 5 year old?  What five year old who might use the term “fag” actually knows what it means?  If the curriculum specifically identifies these individuals, mustn’t it also be certain to identify everyone who could potentially be bullied?  Should children learn to be nice to everyone?  After all, there are legally, five protected classes.  Why not talk about not bullying someone based on religion?

The part that bothers me most is that representations and discussions about GBLT issues are removed from the purview of the parent, and instead, made the domain of a kindergarten teacher.  Additionally, according the article, if the curriculum is adopted, parents will have no legal justification to hold their child out of the lesson. Sorry, these are OUR children.

Making a curriculum decision like this completely disregards a families ideas and values as they pertain to the GBLT aspect of this discussion.  How to discuss this topic and how to explain must be left to the parent.

This isn’t about religion or moral objections, respecting the parents’ rights to address sensitive issues like this with their children on their own terms.  I respect teachers and what they do with and for our children.  However, this is no place for some black and white curriculum developed in a lab or by some academic.

Parents should remain the primary educators of their children on matters such as these.

If I did this, I’d be called a racist.

So I was reading on-line today and came across this article about a couple in Chicago who has committed to “buying black” for a year.  To me this sounds like economic affirmative action.  Rather than buying from or patronizing establishments that offer the best quality and value, these people are spending money just because the owners are black.

Actions and movements like this serve only one purpose: to perpetuate the divide that exists between different races.  If I started a movement to only buy from white establishments, I would immediately be called a racist and if the movement was big enough, the NAACP, Al Sharpton and the Rainbow Coalition would be marching in the streets.   I don’t stop and think who owns the store I am purchasing something from.  I spend my money where it goes the farthest.  Especially today.  I eat in restaurants whose food I enjoy.  We eat in restaurants that are owned by Asians, Mexicans . . .whatever.  I don’t care what race or ethnic background they come from, I care about the quality of the food.

How are the actions of these people not racist?  Does driving out of your way to “buy black” make you a better person?  I don’t think so.  It serves to move vital dollars and tax revenue out your local towns and cities.  It takes dollars away from local merchants, who presumably have been benefiting from and counting on your spending, and puts them in someone else’s hands.  If these “black businesses” exist already, wouldn’t it follow that they are already have a customer base that supports them?

Mr. President: No laughing matter

President Obama should certainly keep his day job.  His attempts at humor during the annual  While House Correspondents’ Association Dinner were inappropriate and tasteless at worst and just out right unfunny at best.

I guess his joke about the Air Force One flyover of Manhattan may have been an attempt to cover his insecurity about the subject.  It was, after all, his administration that orchestrated the stunt.   Was it funny to the countless thousands who looked up in fear of another attack?  I don’t think so.  Was it funny to the victim’s families.  I don’t think so.

Hey, I think it is great for  a President to be funny and self-deprecating.  I don’t think that it is funny for any President to joke about an event that has had and continues to have a huge impact on our society.

His laughter at Wanda Sykes jokes about Rush Limbaugh being the 20th Terrorist in the September 11th attacks, was grossly inappropriate.  Why joke about something like that.  Why then have your administration come out and try and spin your quite obvious laughter?

Perhaps the President should focus more on policy than on humor.  His quip about only needing 72 days out of the second 100 to accomplish his goals is only humorous because he has not yet accomplished anything of significance in the first 100 days.

Apparently political correctness does not apply to the President.

Silencing the Boston Globe

It never fails to amaze me how short sighted unions are when it comes to difficult, job saving choices.  The Globe is in danger of being shut down because of staggering, read 65 million dollar, losses.  Yet, even when faced with EVERYONE losing his or her jobs, unions still balk at giving concessions.  It’s hard for me to understand how no job is better than one that might pay less?

Not sure I’ll ever get that mentality.

Perez Hilton: just another blowhard

Like millions of Americans I did not watch the Miss USA pageant.  I did however pay attention to the outpouring of venom which was spat at Carrie Prejean by the likes of Perez Hilton and Spencer Pratt’s lap dog Heidi Montag.  Hilton was upset because Prejean did not provide an answer that included everyone.  I’m sorry ma’am, but there is no answer in the world, on any topic, that represents everyone.  If she has said she was for gay marriage, the religious conservatives would have been upset.  She answered the question as she should: honestly.

This is not a statement for our against gay marriage on my part.  What I am writing against is that in the minds of Hilton and Montag, you can only have an opinion if it is the same as theirs.  If you don’t agree with the Perez Hilton’s liberal views, you are apparently a “stupid bitch.”  This “guy” is nothing by a self-aggrandizing fool who should stick to “dishing” on who in Hollywood is sleeping with whom and how bad someone looked in those heels.  Hilton wants to be applauded because he is honest enough to be open about his sexuality yet he is so myopic that he cannot respect someone for representing themselves with that same degree of honesty.