The George Bush Institute for the Standardization of Intellectual Output
Thanks to those who participated in my poll to decide the name for our homeschool, we now have a new name:
The George Bush Institute for the Standardization of Intellectual Output.
In order to get started for this school year, the administration has decided that we need a mission statement in order to firmly establish our vision for education and keep us focused on the primary goal of child training in this institution.The George Bush Institute for the Standardization of Intellectual Output exists to serve the global economy through ease of sorting graduates according to a single, standardized test and fitting each for socialism. We believe strongly that through rote memorization and basic skills practice, we can achieve a standardized curriculum suitable for none but required of all. The staff of the George Bush Institute are committed to the idea that no child is an individual and that all can be taught to conform to a standard set of beliefs, a standard quality of thought, and a standard level of performance. By relieving the child and parent of all responsibility for education and placing it firmly with the state, we will ensure a future generation well-fitted for a state-run economy.
- A scripted curriculum to ensure consistency of content.
- Highly trained teachers to ensure consistency of delivery.
- Accredited preshool, after school and parenting education programs to ensure consistency of opportunity.
- A material distribution facility to ensure consistency of available tools.
- Wide-scale use of psychotropic drugs to ensure consistency of behavior.
No Child Left Behind, NCLB, homeschooling, home school, education, public school
11 comments:
I didn't particpate in the poll because I didn't have any inspiration at the time, but to save you from the George Bush whatever... how about HomeGrown Hanley Academy? I think that as a nice ring to it.
Not "Center for Unsocialized Religious Terrorist Development?"
This is a funny post, indeed.
Great idea!
I only wish the idea of "socialism" was not so poorly understood and absurdly ridiculed throughout this blog.
What do you, Dana, feel is the opposite of socialism? Is socialism, to you, anything but a big bag of sorts in which you collect all your animosity? Are you aware that there are many thriving socialist political parties in the world today? And do you know that none of these socialists insist on the sort of uniformity that you seem to see as the trademark of socialism? And are you aware that quite the opposite is true?
For an example, look at what is going on in Spain, where socialists are in power. Spain has a very tolerant society and a far more vibrant democracy than what we have in the United States.
I invite you to step back from the anti-socialist propaganda you've been exposed to and get a socialist clue.
Yes, I am quite aware of the thriving socialist movement throughout the world. And in our country in particular. No, it is not "a big bag of sorts in which [I] collect [my] animosity." Your "observations" are neither arguments in favor of socialism nor against anything I have written. More phrases which do nothing to present or defend an argument.
From Answers.com, a decent definition which more or less goes along with my view of socialism:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Socialism is a means of central control of the means of production. Such as exists in Rwanda which you previously cited, making it very easy for the dominanty party in control of government (and thus the means of production) to commit such atrocities against the people.
I obviously come from a very opposing world view which emphasizes individual responsibility and accountability. And views the state's function as protecting my rights, not as another infringement upon them nor as a guarantor of my standard of living or solution to all my problems.
It is about government control, not necessarily standardization. That just happens to be the point of this particular post.
OK, I am glad that you at least took a quick dash over to "Answers.com" to look up socialism. I would note that of the two definitions, only the first is relevant to the examples I alluded to. Moreover, within that first definition there is a highly ambiguous characterization, which is as follows:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
I have highlighted the first of two possible understandings this definition sets out. I don't think you have ever taken it into consideration. In fact, 'collective ownership' is precisely the sort of socialism that is practiced in Spain, to return to that one example. So, your argument, which you base only on the 'centralized control' version of socialism -- a very different animal, indeed -- remains irrelevant for many cases of what is known as socialism.
As a consequence of your not heeding this very significant meaning of socialism, you continually trash socialism as 'centralized control' whereas, in fact, that is only one of two very different meanings socialism may have. The other meaning, which you neglect entirely, is virtually the opposite: decentralized ownership by the collective, by workers or citizens as a whole.
If you could at least ACKNOWLEDGE that this, too, is a legitimate meaning of socialism, perhaps you wouldn't consistently trash 'socialism' without bothering to disambiguate the word.
Mr Terrette,
It is extraordinary that Socialists always pontificate a classless society, one without the employer or the employee, without the rich and the poor etc.
I find it doubly extraordinary that with all these lofty phrases and grand ideals that you CANNOT show one country where such a society exists.
Your comment "decentralized ownership by the collective, by workers or citizens as a whole." is an oxymoron. Ownership by the state or the collective is centralized ownership. The only way to decentralize ownership is to privatize.
Privatization promotes individual liberty, while collective ownership necessitates bondage.
And this is where your worldview determines your perspective.
Take the time to read the first three chapters of Genesis. In the beginning perfection was placed before man. All his needs, wants and desires were fulfilled witin the garden with one caveat; God created man with fee will, the ability to choose, When satan, the originator of hate, tempted man we choose and now reap the consequences of our decision.
The principle behind this is who truly seeks the good of man. God who created perfection, set us before it and gave us the will to choose or satan the hater of God and His creation, who tempted man knowing the consequences for us?
Now put this principle to the countries around the world. Which countries uphold life and which demean life? Where would you live?
Russia? China? Sudan? Cuba? North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? Indonesia? Mexico?
or
United States? Canada? England? Australia? Spain? Germany? Sweden?
Being honest you would select the second set of countries. Why? Because the long history of Christianity in these countries promotes respect for life. And even as Christianity may not have an effect anymore, the respect for life has remained.
Ghandi's success against England was a movement that stirred the conscience of a Christian nation. However, can you say this tactic would work against an atheist (satanic) country. Ask the Tibetan monks!
I think we have a difference of opinion regarding the use of dictionaries. From your comment, I infer you see that as a mark of ignorance. For me it is a mark of attempting to express something more clearly and checking myself. My understanding does not particularly depart from the definition.
To directly respond to your first comment:
The opposite of socialism is not democracy. The first is an economic system and the second a political system. The opposite of socialism is a free market economy where the means of production are controlled by the individual rather than the state (or the collective).
I have no animosity toward it or its adherents. I merely think that it and they are based on false foundations and that they restrict liberty, primarily by taking away the fruits of my labor and redistributing it by whatever means, whether it be altruistic or despotic.
The US is not a democracy and never was. It is a republic.
I will not speak to the example of Spain at the moment because my knowledge of the subject is too limited. It will take me some time, but for the moment, feel free to enlighten me, but I may or may not really respond very much until I feel more comfortable with my own knowledge of what I'm talking about.
I'd be more willing to speak specifically on Germany. Where socialists are in power. And they do not have a free market economy, nor a completely socialist economy, but a "social market economy."
Your opinion as to what I think socialism is or what I have specifically considered is interesting and I question what you base that on. You speak of me "continually trash[ing]" socialism based on half of a defintion. That may or may not be true, but I need some help here. Are you basing this solely on this entry which is a satirical piece? According to my search, I have mentioned "socialism" exactly twice and "socialist" twelve times in 154 posts. This is perhaps the clearest, most direct statement that I have made on this blog regarding socialism:
"but the basic worldview is the same: that the individual is subordinate to the collective." and that was back in April.
What you are referring to is an underlying worldview which I am happy to hear is so obvious, namely that I favor individual rights, view "the collective" as a sort of mythical construct...it is nothing more than a group of individuals.
Since your view is based on a perception of what I mean rather than direct quotes, the rest of what you say is of little relevance whether it is true or not. I speak out most strongly against centralization and most of my entries which have anything to do with the subject have to do with that. If you want to view that as the first half of the definition of socialism, fine. I can live with that. That does not mean that I do not know or understand the rest of the definition of socialism. It means I have narrowed my opposition.
I object to collective control as well, even if it does not come from the state. The Puritans attempted it in their early days here in America and almost starved to death. It wasn't until they instituted private property and lived by the principle "if you don't work, you don't eat" that they finally were able to produce enough to survive. Even in a social construct of people wholly devoted to the same purpose, willing to risk their lives to be able to live out their dreams, and of similar background (and many even closely related), they still failed.
Thanks for your comments, Dana. I feel that you kept the dialogue with me open and that you clarified things quite well. However, there are so many problematic assumptions in the comments left by "anonymous," who called me "Mr. Terrette"(?!), that I am afraid that I don't have time to address them, so let me focus on yours.
First, though, I should say that in no way did I say or suggest that using a dictionary is a mark of ignorance. All I said was that I was glad you looked up "socialism." The comment was not meant sarcastically.
It was good of you to point out that your exact use of the word 'socialism' is less important than your or my 'world view.'
Now, concerning your 'world view,' I think it is insightful of you to have stated this: "What you are referring to is an underlying worldview which I am happy to hear is so obvious, namely that I favor individual rights, view "the collective" as a sort of mythical construct...it is nothing more than a group of individuals."
This is obviously a very large question, but I would like to discuss the worldview, which reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher once said, which is that "there is no such thing as society." I am sure that she and you have the same basic worldview.
On my understanding, it is very obvious that a collective exists, and that collective interests exist. For example, the fact that there is a sky or air all around everyone, distributed in such a way as to be freely available to everyone, makes the air a collective interest. It is not the domain of individual profit-seeking and control. If it were, then some enterprising spirits would horde the oxygen that it contains and deprive others of it, and this would be deemed an acceptable expression of individualism. For the same reason, being of collective interest, the air must be protected by and for the collective. No individual or corporation can be given domain over the air that everyone needs in equal measures to sustain their lives. Even to keep the air clean, so that its essential life-sustaining qualities are not compromised, the collective requires organization and control that goes beyond the narrow profit-making motives of corporations or enterprising activities of individuals. The air, which, if it is property, must be deemed the property of everyone, equally, cannot be protected properly by the profit motive.
That would be one example. I have chosen it because it illustrates the non-ideological existence of collective interests. By 'non-ideological,' I mean that the collective interest is a fact of nature, rather than the imposition of a political view or policy. To deny the collective interest and claim that 'there are only individuals, all else is a mirage' would simply be to blind oneself not only to collective interests that exist in fact, but to exclude from view the precise ways in which individual units (whether persons or corporations) abuse for their own profits, through theft, subterfuge, and degradation, among other thigns, what are clearly matters of collective interest.
In the attempt to imagine a society which is in fact only a loose assemblage of individuals acting freely, one fails to see that, in fact, once one weakens government (a collective interest and property if there ever was one) to the point where it can no longer protect and administer public interests, then the result is not increased individual freedom for all, but increased vulnerability to the unchecked exercise of corporate power in particular.
In other words, there are collective interests that exist in fact whether or not someone conceives of 'socialism' or, for instance, proposes a tax system in which the super-rich pay a higher rate on their earnings than those at the bottom of the pay scale.
Without delving into the specific political climate of Germany and Spain, I think we both understand that they are social democracies; or, as you implied, neither completely socialist nor completely neo-liberal. This is significant, as I see it, only because it shows that in these countries as in others emphasis on social welfare, that is, on the well-being of society itself, does not restrict individual freedom and in fact enhances it.
So, the problem with 'narrowing your opposition,' as you said, is that you end up castigating a straw man under the very large banner of 'socialism.' Consequently, actual social democracies such as those of Germany and Spain seem slighted by your remarks. I would like to ask, why don't you simply say, 'autocratic centralization' or some other formulation that seems more faithful to the thing that you oppose?
The issue of health care is a good one in which to measure the failure of neo-liberalism a la americaine to address problems that reflect collective interests. Leaving health care largely in the hand of private enterprises has given the US the most expensive, and in a number of ways, least effecient health care system, with much more money being spent on advertising than on medical research and well over 40 million citizens with no coverage at all. Try to get those 40 million to celebrate their freedom in such a system as this. Tell them that their health is of no concern to the collective, because the collective is just a fiction. Ask them to find an individual solution for their lukemia or their shingles.
Recognizing the common interest of things such as clean air and access to health care does not entail embracing "collective control" where this means harming individual freedom. On the contrary, it is the basis for protecting individual freedom.
Well, I have to break off my comments here because the day is beckoning, but again thanks for listening to me.
Hey, terrette. I just didn't want you to think I was dropping out of the discussion. I've been ill (slept for 14 hours...and am thinking of going back for a nap while hubby's still home).
I have some things I have to get done tonight, but I will come back and address your comment when I can (most likely tomorrow if I'm feeling better).
Sorry it took so long. If you haven't noticed, I actually pushed this conversation up to an actual post, although it is rather lengthy and I don't know that anyone will get through the whole thing.
The basic highlights:
1) I don't quite understand what you are getting at with the air thing. The existence of air and its manner of distribution proves nothing but that air exists and that it cannot be controlled. Putting any other values on it than that is tricky. I see it as the provision of a loving God. Most of the rest of what you say is purely hypothetical and cannot be tested or proven in any way. Show me an area where this has actually occurred, ie., where (in a free market system), profit seeking individuals have horded a necessary resource AND restricted access to anyone else AND where this was viewed positively as some sort of expression of individualism.
Other than a few water rights disputes in CO, I can't really think of any. There are definitely instances of hording as you describe...Stalin was famous for it, China practiced it (especially under Mao Zedong) and Ethiopia controls the food supplies, starving a good deal of the population. None of this has anything to do with free markets, and it certainly isn't viewed as acceptable expressions of individualism.
Health care? First off, not being insured is NOT the same as not having access. If I remember correctly, Rush Limbaugh is not insured, but he certainly has access to quality health care. And I know several people who, for religious reasons, have rejected insurance. Certainly there are some who are uninsured who would like to be insured. For those truly in need, we do have state assistance, private donation centers, and hospitals set up which do not charge.
All that said, a comparison of the systems leaves me preferring my imperfect system with some of its gaps than the socialized ones I have seen with their very large gaps. Several links are provided in the article linked above, but essentially we have a higher survival rate of cancers, a shorter wait time for first contact care, a significantly shorter wait time for "elective" surgeries such as coronary bypass and a good deal more going on in research and development than other countries.
I have sought medical care in three countries...the US multiple times, Germany multiple times and England once. England was by far the worse. I sat bleeding profusely in an ER waiting room, listening to an adolescent girl scream for hours. I was finally seen and told I was miscarrying, but the ultrasound technician wouldn't be in until Monday and there wasn't really anything they could do (it was Friday). I had a doctor's appointment to see my obstetrician Monday morning in Germany so it would be best to go back. Luckily, the bleeding slowed on its own and in Germany I found out I was not miscarrying.
I loved my obstetrician in Germany and had no difficulty with care in the doctor's offices. However, in '92, I had to go to the ER. The doctor didn't understand feet and pounds and I didn't know the metric. Rather than have me measured (I was fully ambulatory), he just guessed. The procedure takes about 15 minutes (I've had it done three times in the US). I was out for 10 hours and recovered in a supply closet where nurses pushed me this way and that to get what they needed, all the while ignoring my requests for information and water. I was still strapped down when the doctor finally peeked in, saw I was awake and released me. I had to be carried to the car and slept the rest of the day.
Here, that would have probably been malpractice of some sort.
Post a Comment