Are you more conservative than a 2nd-grader?

It’s not in the interest of the government’s education system to teach kids to question laws and challenge authority – you know, the way the Founding Fathers did. What’s in the government’s interest is blind obedience and unquestioning submission. You know, like the way everyone dutifully parades through those airport checkpoints without raising a stink. Baa-aaaa!

So even if you don’t home-school your children, it’s important for conservatives to teach their children what it means to really be an American citizen in this regard because, as the Founders recognized, freedom and liberty aren’t a natural state of existence for human beings. Humans have an inherent desire for someone else to take care of them. You know, like Social Security.

Which brings me to the home-school lesson my 2nd-grader, Kristen, was hit with this week titled, “Rules and Laws.” It turned out to be a rather interesting and eye-opening experience which I highly recommend to all conservatives with children of any age - ESPECIALLY if they’re attending a public school: “Pretend you are a leader who is in charge of deciding the laws for your country. Create five new laws that the people of your country will have to obey.”

As you can imagine, Kristen was in seventh heaven at the notion of running her own country and coming up with rules everyone else had to obey. After all, there’s a little dictator in every kid yearning to get out, right? Anyway, here are the five laws the new queen came up with for Kristenistan, along with my side commentary:

1.) “Black people and white people should have the right to sit wherever they want.”

As you might have guessed, the lesson the day before was about the civil rights movement, so this really wasn’t too much of a surprise and is, of course, an admirable sentiment to be expressed by a 7-year-old. But here comes the conservative teachable moment; an opportunity to convey the quintessential American notion of property rights, as well as the law of unintended consequences as it pertains to creating new laws.

“OK, Kristen. Let’s say you use your allowance to buy a front-row ticket to see Dora the Explorer in concert. Does someone else, black or white, have the right to sit in your seat that you paid for? And do they have the right to sit in your seat at our dinner table?”

“Um…no.”

Correct. Lesson learned. Onward…

2.) “All campsites should have campfires.”

This comes from the fact that we are leaving today for our two-week summer camping trip at Lake Tahoe, scene of a rather large forest fire earlier in the season. As such, the governor has decreed that campfires be banned for the duration of the summer. How, Kristen wondered, are we supposed to toast marshmallows and s’mores, let alone read ghost stories by the campfire if we’re not allowed to have a campfire? Good question.

This presented an opportunity to teach about the dangers of government passing laws which punish a majority of responsible people for the actions of an irresponsible few, as well as the tendency of government to make rules, not because they are particularly effective, but because they make people think the government is doing something constructive. You know, like creating the TSA.

The fact is, I explained, more forest fires are started by lightning strikes than campfires built by responsible campers in a campground. By banning campfires in campgrounds, the government really didn’t do anything to make forest fires less likely. Lightning will still strike, and irresponsible people not camping in a campground just ignore the law anyway. Only the innocent, law-abiding people are being harmed by this new rule. You know, like gun control laws.

3.) “Everybody should throw their trash out.”

A fine sentiment. Who could argue with that, right? Yet still another teachable moment. “What,” I asked, “will you do to people who are caught littering?”

“I’ll put them in jail and torture them!” (Ah, it’s good ta be da Queen!) “How long will you keep them in jail?” “Three years.”

“For littering? Isn’t that a bit harsh? Who will take care of their children and feed them while they’re in jail for three years? So, do you think maybe jail isn’t the best punishment for doing something that doesn’t really hurt other people?” You know, like putting dying cancer patients behind bars for smoking pot.

4.) “Everybody should have the right to go to at least one ball.”

This comes from a combination of Cinderella and the fact that Kristen went to an inaugural ball for Nevada’s new governor earlier this year (the same one who banned campfires!). ‘Tis only natural to decree that everyone in Kristenistan have the opportunity to experience such an exciting event. I have no problem with this one, providing that the opportunity to go to a ball doesn’t become an entitlement, a lesson better driven home after #5…

5.) “Every child should have a computer.”

Yikes! How Al Gore-ish. You see, folks, this is how liberalism gets its start. Kristen has a computer because her Dad worked hard to earn enough money to buy her one. But her friend up the street doesn’t have a computer because her Dad can’t afford it. And in the mind of a 7-year-old, that’s not fair. So how does a 7-year-old fix this “injustice”? By passing a law mandating that every kid gets a computer.

“OK, Kristen, fine. Now…who’s going to pay for the computers?” “Uh, all of the people in Kristenistan will pitch in.” You know, like taxes. “But what if I don’t want to give my money to buy someone else’s kid a computer? What if I want to spend my money on something for MY kids? Will I have to chip in, or can I choose not to?”

I think you can guess where this one went from there. The point here is that liberal tendencies are natural and begin at an early age. And the public schools won’t do anything to discourage them. In fact, just the opposite.

So if you want your kids to learn that laws can have unintended consequences, that property rights are crucial rights (tell THAT to the Supreme Court!), that the innocent shouldn’t be punished with the guilty, that punishment should fit the crime, that the government just doing “something” isn’t really doing anything if all it does is make people feel better, that life isn’t always fair, and that “good” ideas cost money which many people might not think is worth chipping in for…you better teach them these lessons yourself. If only members of Congress were smarter than 2nd-graders.

Source





Educating The Nonexistent

The Washington, DC school system received about $4 million in Federal money over a decade to pay for the education of the children of migrant workers. Which is all well and good except for one thing: they didn't have any children of migrant workers enrolled in their schools. The grant money was intended for the children of seasonal workers in agriculture or fishing, two industries that Washington, DC is not exactly noted for. Worst of all, it appears to have been done deliberately based on false claims filed by officials.

The school system received $3.85 million between 1994 and 2004 for children whose families had seasonal employment in agriculture and fishing. The U.S. Department of Education awarded the grants on an annual basis based on information submitted by D.C. education officials.

Federal education officials did not give information yesterday on how many children were claimed by D.C. officials to have been served under the grants. The receipt of money for migrant students was first reported by the Washington Examiner.

Melissa Merz, spokeswoman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, said city attorneys have looked into the issue "and believe that the D.C. public schools drew down these funds in error." The office is working on a resolution with federal attorneys from the Justice Department, Merz said. Local jurisdictions can face fines for the misuse of funds under the federal False Claims Act.

This went on for a decade. It seems unlikely that it was a one-off oopsie on the part of officials. Whatever arrangement Washington officials make for repayment of the money should also include some punishment for whoever kept filing the false claims. Given that it is part of the educational bureaucracy involved, that seems unlikely. Unless the Examiner keeps the heat on.

Source