Arrests/ Suspensions from Public Schools NOT Polically Motivated
Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 2 months ago to Politics
Some people post stories about kids being dinged at school for trivial offenses and speculate that they may be due to pressure from the Obama administration.
They are not political.
We have a national problem a) with the very concept of freedom and b) with accepting that kids' lives involve some inherent risk.
Whenever I see these stories I'm amazed that people put up with this stuff. I'm amazed it doesn't make the middle-class re-evaluate the entire concept of gov't providing things. These are the same people who would stop using a restaurant or car repair shop if they got lousy service. But a bureaucracy gives their kid a hard time, and it's an issue for politicians to handle.
I also think we've gone insane about protecting kids from all perils. Part of the motivation for this, I think, is that there are some women who now have the education, training, and freedom to get high-paying jobs, but they don't want to. Instead of saying this aloud, they turn caring for kids and teenagers into this incredibly complicated thing that requires their full attention. It should go without saying that, as a Rand supporter, I support women and men doing whatever they want with their lives without having to explain themselves to anyone.
This strict treatment of kids in school is a real problem, but it has nothing to do with President Bush or President Obama. It's fine not to like one of them, but don't blame every problem on earth on a president.
They are not political.
We have a national problem a) with the very concept of freedom and b) with accepting that kids' lives involve some inherent risk.
Whenever I see these stories I'm amazed that people put up with this stuff. I'm amazed it doesn't make the middle-class re-evaluate the entire concept of gov't providing things. These are the same people who would stop using a restaurant or car repair shop if they got lousy service. But a bureaucracy gives their kid a hard time, and it's an issue for politicians to handle.
I also think we've gone insane about protecting kids from all perils. Part of the motivation for this, I think, is that there are some women who now have the education, training, and freedom to get high-paying jobs, but they don't want to. Instead of saying this aloud, they turn caring for kids and teenagers into this incredibly complicated thing that requires their full attention. It should go without saying that, as a Rand supporter, I support women and men doing whatever they want with their lives without having to explain themselves to anyone.
This strict treatment of kids in school is a real problem, but it has nothing to do with President Bush or President Obama. It's fine not to like one of them, but don't blame every problem on earth on a president.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
My claim is some people make childcare harder than it has to be as an excuse not to do paid work. This is NOT shirking responsibilities at all b/c people have no responsibility to do paid work. My claim is people read and accepted the Galt speech, they wouldn't feel the need for complicated reasons why they're doing what they want. I'm a fierce believer in people doing what they want.
both of you speak of women like they're not in the room. If we can agree that "women" fall into one of two categories as an "individual," namely responsible or irresponsible, I'll agree there. cg's notion of women trying to shirk responsibilities of bringing an income into the household by trumping up complications of raising children seems cynical. I get that child-rearing has its own huge industry with "experts" and "gatekeepers," but this is mostly born of successful middle class that pays big money for these experts to keep on experting and telling you what geegaws you need to raise a kid. Both men and women participate in that marketplace. My grandmother would have balked at Dr. Spock, much less "What to expect when you're expecting." On one front you have a continually higher educated populace having babies and they apply their minds to wanting to do the "right thing," and so they participate eagerly in that marketplace to calm their fears about being new parents and getting an "A" on child rearing. Those women who have gotten an education for a profession and choose to stay at home with their children are often hugely conflicted, not lazy. They have stopped a career path and have difficulty keeping their brains engaged in child rearing. Usually, these women can only stay home if the household can "afford" it-so I don't know where you're getting the lazy notion. They miss the workplace and dealing with adults. Not all, but many. But they also don't want some daycare or elementary school raising their kids. Those households where the mother will go stir crazy staying at home, and can afford to hire in-home care meet with mixed results. Finally, those mothers who cannot afford to stay home, but have had children deal with daycare-which is expensive and not very satisfying. It is a compromise. I have known many families where it made more sense to have the dad at home. I have never seen the marriage work out well in the end. that's my anecdotal two cents. I'm sure there are exceptions.
Now for the irresponsible: There are two reasons why women in 1st world countries have children when they cannot afford it. 1. it was a mistake due to either mistake or stupidity. 2. because having children brings money into the household. Here is a disgustingly funny video on point(rated R):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqTO4C6Kl...
On schools gone wild suspending: The common sense has flown the coop, in part, because we are a litigious society. School districts have paid HUGE settlements over the last 20 years, regardless of whether a case is reasonable or not. If there is no risk to bringing a suit, why not? Instead of acting from common sense in making rules, schools are reacting to their districts' lawyers. Also, this generation of teachers and administrators are overwhelmingly Progressive and so, therefore, do not apply reason. They were taught that when they were in school and they're teaching it to the next generation of teachers.
finally, hir, you seem to think that the Objectivist definition of happiness is hedonism.
Rand:
"Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard." Galt's Speech
You made the baby, you stay home and see it's raised up to be a decent human being.
I find it amusing and bemusing that you would get it backwards; that this idiocy is the result of women choosing to be responsible and stay at home raising their children (we used to call this "traditional role") rather than a result of the modern philosophy of pursuing happiness without regard to responsibility.
While some women can pursue careers, a lot of these women who drop get (sometimes simply because they can, most times because they got caught by surprise when the act designed to make a baby actually results in a baby) are "pursuing careers" in the food service industry at the drive-up window.
Partly due to men abandoning their responsibilities in order to pursue their happiness. Partly due to the women being in a position where they have to raise a kid and have nothing left to pursue a white-collar career as envisioned by the feminazis of the 70s.
So you have people already demonstrably irresponsible failing to raise their children, and putting it up to big gov't to do it for them. And the one rule of big gov't is... CYA.
So you blindly apply and follow rules even in situations where common sense says they shouldn't apply. And these mom's are okay with any rule that relieves them of their responsibility and the headache of actually rearing decent human beings.
Add to that that often these moms get careers as civil servants... well... there you go.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/ca...
I think it's all the things you said, although I don't think anyone demonizes our rights. It's more apathy and all the other things you mention in your post. I'd almost like it better if they demonized rights on purpose (almost) b/c at least it would be intentional. I see it more as failure to appreciate how rare and special freedom is.