Love how Boortz takes an incident involving one idiotic teacher to pass an indictment on government schools in general. Where's the flipside...stories of schools that welcome soldiers in to talk to the students? And where was Boortz in his coverage of the David Corn incident in Arkansas? Seems to me Boortz is guilty of the same one sidedness GM accused the NYT of last week :)
_______________

Jim, if only this were isolated. I listen to Boortz regularly and there is never a shortage for materials involving the idiocy of many public school officials. It goes from this to something like expelling a young girl because her Tweety Bird key chain could be considered a deadly weapon. Educators have swung decidedly left and often show all loss common sense.

Woody

P.S. A lot of my family has been involved in public education, and I defended the system in the past; but, it's harder now. --W

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 5, 2005 07:25 PM

Not sure that the extreme overzealousness (often couched as `Zero Tolerance') as shown in the `Tweety Bird' could really be perceived as `lefty'. It's just stupid, period.
______________

Well, I agree, but sometimes the two seem to go hand-in-hand. Zero tolerance is a typical liberal overreaction to isolated incidents to which they apply sweeping and ineffective rules. Anytime something happens, the first cry is, "We need a rule (or a law.)" I agree that stupidity can go both ways; but, I tend to agree with (and even start!) stupid conservative ideas.

W

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 5, 2005 07:59 PM

IRT one comment. Do we let one nitwit wallow in nitwittery (that Haigism, is mine, I think) just because others are doing good things? "We the people..", if we are smart, are like the umpires. We keep a close watch on what is going on in all segments of society. If there is something that we think is harmful, we blow the proverbial whistle. Yep, we don't all agree on everything, however, when we put ALL the facts on the table, maybe - just maybe - we can get as close to justice as humans can AND survival of those things we believe are of value.

Like that.

Posted by tad at June 5, 2005 08:08 PM

*It goes from this to something like expelling a young girl because her Tweety Bird key chain could be considered a deadly weapon.*

hold on here, this doesn't happen in private schools? i doubt it.
ABout the boortz story, i would be careful believing any version of a story that boortz puts out, he tends to be very very loose with his 'facts'. sounds more like classic bureaucratic runarounds to me. i find it hard to believe that in Georgia of all places public schools are attacking the military in any manner. too good to be true!

Posted by steve at June 5, 2005 09:41 PM

So, Steve, "..attacking the military in any manner. too good to be true!"

I see. This quote from you possibly says more than anything else I've read.

Posted by tad at June 6, 2005 12:06 AM

tad, it's called sarcasm. then again the way the military cynically sends recruiters to misinform kids about the virtues of joining the army...I'm glad to see parents organizing to keep the military out of schools. The bureaucratic farce that occurred in the Georgia situation of course is likely to not be associated with that.

Posted by steve at June 6, 2005 11:32 AM

Steve, I've talked to a lot of "kids" after they have joined up, none felt like they were misinformed, not saying that some don't however. I also know that many join up to get an education, to learn some skills, to escape from home, to have a job, etc. Many, if not perhaps most, and neither you nor I know, join out of sheer patriotism, the belief that the WOT is a good thing and that they want to be a part of it.

When I was a youth, Abe Lincoln and I went to the recruiting office.... kidding here. When I was a youth, I joined rather than be drafted. Did I want to go to war? No! Would I have gone if ordered, absolutely.

Interesting that we ascribe all kinds of grown up behaviors to 18 year olds but at the same time tell others that they aren't smart enough to interpret blandishment when they hear it.

Let's go a little farther. Name one recruiter in any industry that does not paint a rosy picture of the industry that they are trying to recruit you for. The sole exception perhaps is the Marine Corps: "A Few Good Men," "The Few, The Proud, The Marines."

Your argument steve is a little off base. It is precisely those callow youth who are too dumb to understand what they hear from a recruiter that give you the freedom to complain about your government. Nuff said?

Posted by GMRoper at June 6, 2005 04:01 PM

Steve, You wrote "..the military cynically sends recruiters to inform kids about the virtues.."

Please, tell us, do you disapprove (or hate) all military personnel, or just those of the United States of America? Are there ANY good military personnel? Were there ever?

Posted by tad at June 6, 2005 04:30 PM

Steve,

While we are talking about the military, what are your views on The Boys of Nomandie...on this 6th of June?

Was the crushing of Nazi Germany just another example of American Imperialism?

Note: No name calling, just asking some questions.

Posted by tad at June 6, 2005 06:37 PM

Tad, show me where I was name calling, first, and then I'll happily answer the question.
_____________________

Good grief, guys. Don't overreact. We're not personal here. But, steve, please don't mention spitting on soldiers. (Let's see, how do you make one of those winking smiley face things?) Okay, back to the issues.

Woody

Posted by steve at June 6, 2005 08:21 PM

Steve, I did not write that YOU were name calling. It was my attempt, and maybe not a very good one, to assure that I was not involved in a personal attack. I am going after, what some today call, "values clarification." No accusations from me.

Note: An "r" needs to be inserted into the word "Normandie" aka Normandy.

Posted by tad at June 6, 2005 08:42 PM

Thanks, no nothing taken personally, just wanted to be sure you weren't saying that I had called anyone names.
Now, WW 2 plainly was associated with Imperial strategies, not least of which was taking over from England as the capitalist hegemon, I don't think there's anything controversial in stating that. Our condition for entry into the war when CHurchill met with us to beg our involvement as London was being bombed apart was, parphrasing here, "let free trade reign in your colonies or forget it". Our involvement in the Pacific theater took forever and really only finally took place when Japan alas was deemed a threat to American ambitions in Asia. Again, that's a relatively uncontroversial aspect of the war as well.
War was also a helluvaaway to deal with the Depression, since the southern Democrats were not at all intending on letting the New Deal reach the south, which would have completely upset sharecropping based Apartheid...

On should America have been in a WW 2? It shouldn't have been necessary, Hitler could have been turned back in Spain with the right amount of help from the US and his momentum for empire building would have been considerably defeated. More support for more progressive elements of the KMT and the CCP in the 30's would have held back a huge amount of territory for the Japanese to exploit...

The Boys of Normandy and the Abe Lincoln Brigade were both very heroic. If the latter had the support of the US, probably the former never would have been necessary.

Posted by steve at June 6, 2005 11:01 PM

It rather sounds, and I am not sure here, that you believe that the military were mostly dupes of FDR and/or the free trade capitalist factory owners. Is that about right?

Would the US supporting the Republicans in Spain, who were (sorta) also being supported by the Soviets, have assured the distruction of Franco's Phalangists? In other words, had Spain gone the other way, would Hitler have been any less successful in his efforts, i.e. marching into the Rhineland, incoorperating Austria into the new Reich, the seizure of the Sudetenland, and ultimately jumping off on 1 Sep 39 (with the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, WITH secret protocols, in his pocket)?

As for the Japanese, were they not on the road to war pretty much regardless what the Brits, Dutch, or USA did? Wasn't the KMT, more or less, very much like throwing money out the window, i.e. Chaing Kai Shek didn't really control his warlords who only stayed "loyal" when they were paid off. Was the Chinese KMT "army" really up to stopping the Japanese? We shouldn't forget the CCP, under Mao, and the conflicting orders/support being supplied by the Soviets, who nearly lost against the Germans when Operation Barbarossa begin. It was such a close run thing that Churchill and all came to Stalin's aid...holding their noses and quietly cursing. It was so close that Stalin stripped the Far East of all forces and did not go to war against Japan until nearly the end of the war, right?

I am left wondering where you studied military history and how you and your scholarly efforts arrived and the conclusions you did. Can we be informed?

Posted by tad at June 7, 2005 05:56 AM

*Would the US supporting the Republicans in Spain, who were (sorta) also being supported by the Soviets,*

Yes, they were supported by the Soviets and should have been supported by the US as well. Would Hitler have been down if defeated in Spain? I believe so, not out but surely down. His ideology depended on successful outcomes in foreign adventures. It also would have provided inspiration badly needed to resistance forces in other countries invaded by Hitler. The US and Britain didn't have to be so cosy with Mussolini also...

*Wasn't the KMT, more or less, very much like throwing money out the window, i.e. Chaing Kai Shek didn't really control his warlords who only stayed "loyal" when they were paid off. Was the Chinese KMT "army" really up to stopping the Japanese*

You misread what I wrote, I said we could have supported progressive elements in the KMT that were not accomodationists.

*It was so close that Stalin stripped the Far East of all forces and did not go to war against Japan until nearly the end of the war, right?*

Most commentators today acknowledge that if it weren't for Soviet U's role in the war Germany might well have won. Were there mistakes made? Disastrous military strategies? surely, but that was hardly unique to the SU at the time.

Posted by steve at June 7, 2005 10:48 AM

Did we really get away from the point? I would be happy to discuss military history, but I've too many other things to do just now. One question I posed, if I recall, have there ever been ANY military personnel that are worthy? In other words, are you in opposition to all things military or not. Are there any just wars? Or are all wars unjust? Maybe we can discuss who and how WW II was fought another time.

Posted by tad at June 10, 2005 04:13 PM

BTW, this story seems to have died pretty fast, kinda like that other big nothing story during the Eunice Stone/Keystone Cops caper a while back?
Is Boortz still harping on about it?

Posted by steve at June 10, 2005 06:16 PM

Steve, This story hasn't gone away. Lots of people, from teachers, to parents to others, are loath to encourage any young people to join the Armed Services. So, in discouraging them, I would guess that they either believe someone else ought do the heavy lifting, or, failing that - that NO ONE should serve in the Armed Forces. Either way, I more than just disapprove of this postion. Mostly, the "elites" of America do not serve and do not think they should. I wonder why?

Posted by tad at June 11, 2005 10:16 AM

*This story hasn't gone away. Lots of people, from teachers, to parents to others, are loath to encourage any young people to join the Armed Services*

Hang on here, that's a pretty sneaky little avoidance of the question, I was plainly referring to the Boortz hyped version of what happened in the Georgia school. I'm guessing it's more or less along the lines of the hype surrounding the keystone cops--eunice stone hysteria case that ended up fizzling pretty fast once the facts came out.

The elites you refer to are hardly 'elites' in most cases. Teachers rarely make much more than between 40-70k, most parents of kids fall in that range...Politicians, on the other hand, are elites. Elites waging war and asking others to die for their wars.

Posted by steve at June 12, 2005 12:35 AM

Marching off in all directions, well, I suppose it must be so as so very many things effect our society.

Speaking of teachers and all...I would contend that though they are not "elite" in the sense they are (not)making big bucks, very many of them buy into the drivel of diversity and holding hands and singing "We are the children..". Grading is mostly not based on merit and performance. The vast majority are Democrats, do not like the military, or at least, think violence is rarely, if ever, justified.

OK, for those good teachers reading this, yep, there are some really good ones out there, but the evidence over many years sees us sinking and sinking in terms of the kids that finish high school. Between loopy teachers, administrators that do not back up good teachers, awful school boards, and really awful parents, we've got a national crisis on our hands.

Again, I am speaking very generally. There are, as I said, some truly terrific teachers and others. My point, however, is that right across our country, we are doing very poorly in teaching kids to read, write....and think.

I have some very close evidence to back up my thoughts. I deal with students myself. Fortunately, it isn't K-12.

As for who dies in wars, it seems to me that when one's country is at war, all those able should volunteer. I see the sons of the upper middle-class and higher mostly not showing up.

Posted by tad at June 12, 2005 09:00 AM

*The vast majority are Democrats, do not like the military, *

Proportionately there are more who served that are politicians at the moment. Not that it really matters, that only means the military can have the Democrats do their dirty work when Repubs aren't in power.

*As for who dies in wars, it seems to me that when one's country is at war, all those able should volunteer. I see the sons of the upper middle-class and higher mostly not showing up*

I too wish there were a draft, I'm convinced the antiwar movement that would arise would make the 60's look like a sunday afternoon church picnic in comparison.

BTW, any news on Boortz's hyped allegations of military under attack by Georgia (!!?) public schools? Or is this another Eunice Stone like caper?

Posted by steve at June 12, 2005 12:38 PM

So, Steve, are you opposed to all wars? Are you opposed to all forms of violence, in every instance?

Would you say, on balance, America's military has conducted itself better or worse than other military formations from other countries? Please do not include, Monaco, Leichtenstein, Burnei (unless you are speaking of the Gurkhas), or San Marino, etc.

I am too tired, just now, to plunge on. Please just answer the question - straight - and I will know where we stand.

Thank you.

Posted by tad at June 12, 2005 03:47 PM