Maybe it’s because my plaintive cries of “You are ruining my life” failed to appropriately guilt trip my parents when I was a kid and therefore I became a sociopath that stopped caring about the emotions of others.
Or maybe it’s just because blaming Common Core for a child being frustrated with a couple of math problems is so insane that it barely takes scrutiny to dismiss.
Sure, I feel terrible for the girl in the picture. I have an abundance of empathy because I was a high achieving child in my K-12 years (let’s just not discuss that college thing ‘kay?), this was long before Common Core by the way, and I remember having some very vocal and tearful breakdowns at the kitchen table over my homework, whether I was in public school, private, or home school at the time. Math was always an especially difficult subject for me (still is, I never really had a good math teacher) and I got frustrated easily. I could solve every problem but one and that one would give me a breakdown.
I find myself at odds, once again, with another gay Republican. I wrote an article a few months ago on why I don’t make politics personal and what triggered it was an article written by Jimmy LaSalvia, recently of GOProud.
Now I find myself writing a response to something he’s said once again…and steadily getting annoyed at myself that I feel the need to continue doing so.
Let me preface this article with the disclaimer that I know very little about the state of education in North Carolina. I know that public schools in general are usually disgusting paper mills that push students through without much care to whether the students are actually learning anything and I know the North Carolina came in 38th in SAT scores in 2013.
I also know that being for a public institutions because “think of the children” (even when the institution regularly screws up children’s education) is not a conservative principle.
So imagine my shock when I read this article on Diane Ravitch’s blog that basically said that if conservatives are more interested in results and the free market being used to encourage schools to excel, we aren’t really conservatives.
The movement to snuff out public education begins by funneling public dollars to private schools, home schools, and charter schools, none of which are accountable for their spending or actions.
Conservatives don’t destroy their community’s public schools. Conservatives don’t blow up traditional and beloved institutions.
Conservatives don’t place the free market above human values.
Because apparently pouring money in failing schools, essentially bailing them out, is a conservative idea? Nuh-uh Diane.
Look Diane, more money doesn’t make a school function any better. If it’s a crap school is generally not lack of funding that’s the culprit, it’s more the top heavy administration and the teachers (and teacher’s unions) that are at fault.
But let’s talk this through.
You say that taking money from failing schools and giving them to successful schools is not a conservative value. I think that rewarding success was a very conservative value.
You say that we’re putting the free market above human values. This confuses me because in my opinion the work of the free market is directly related to human values. Unless your “human value” is more about saving a failing cultural institution than it is about giving children a good education…which makes me question your human values.
You say that charter schools and private schools are not held accountable, but public schools that have a monopoly on citizen’s taxes (whether their child attends the school or not) are? I shudder to think what your opinion on school vouchers would be if you have a problem with the free market working at this level. After all wouldn’t parents taking their kids from failing schools, along with their child’s portion of state funding, and putting them in a successful charter or private school would just make them a bad person (like an outrageously liberal Slate op-ed said in August of last year), right?
The odd thing though is that when I check North Carolina’s own standards (using a sample of 100 regular public schools and 100 charter schools) the Charter schools are meeting all the state standards in 66% of schools, while only 44% of public schools appear to be meeting those standards. How are they not being held accountable exactly?
The free market is what we need Diane, not an attempt to shore up broken public school districts. Just because it’s the way we’ve done things for a hundred or so years, does not mean it needs to continue that way. The fact is that our public schools are not getting any better, despite drastic increases in funding over the years. It’s time to try something new and let the market compete to give our kids the best education they can possibly get.
If school vouchers and shifted funding can get more kids into private and chartered schools (where they are held accountable by the parents, who aren’t trapped at a school by geography, as well as the state) then I’m all for it.
And so should any conservative.
When I was reading Greg Gutfeld’s book, The Joy of Hate, this year I thought he was being a little melodramatic when he complained that Republicans/Conservatives were starting to get offended as easily as liberals. (I can’t remember where he said that and I’m sure it’s not an exact quote…my copy of the book is at home and I’m not.)
But unfortunately I’m beginning to see his point.
We spend an inordinate amount of time on petty issues when it comes to our news cycle.
It’s a good thing she’s cute as a button, otherwise this would have killed all her redeeming qualities in one shot.
“The word ‘fat’ I think should be illegal,” the Oscar winner told Walters. “If we’re regulating cigarettes and sex and cuss words, because of the effect they have on our younger generation, why aren’t we regulating things like calling people fat?”
My sister loves Jennifer Lawrence (I can’t blame her, she’s adorable), but she’s also a very intelligent 16 year old with relatively conservative ideals. She knows Obamacare is stupid, she supported Romney in 2012, and she’s well aware that regulation (of business or speech) is a really stupid idea.
When I told her what Jennifer Lawrence said though, she claimed that she had just been “making a joke” and pointed out that I say things like that all the time.
I do actually. I told my dad, just the other day, that his puns were so bad that they should be illegal.
That was a joke.
What Jennifer Lawrence said was not.
Watch the video for yourself.
This is how a huge percentage of my sister’s generation (a generation that idolizes this actress) thinks. “If it hurts someone’s feelings, it should be illegal.” You can find posts saying almost that exact thing all over the internet, posted by whiny adolescents (and people in my age bracket as well) who think that what is right or legal should revolve around what THEY think is acceptable in society.
I have news for you Jennifer Lawrence, you aren’t tolerant if you’re only “tolerant” about things you agree with. You have to be tolerant of people you think are assholes too, because you can’t legislate tolerance, human nature does not work that way.
Calling people fat is not the problem.
The problem is that we have raised a generation that is so dependent on what other’s think of them that they completely lose it when they are criticized or embarrassed by someone.
You were doing so very well there for a while, being the teen idol that was encouraging girls to be themselves and refuse to care what other people think of you…and then you had to go and say something like this.
Now you are giving credence to the idea that it matters what assholes think about you. It matters so much that it should be a crime to say anything less than nice about someone.
Thanks a lot for enforcing that idea for your fans. I’m sure you’ve done them a great service.
The fantastic Daniel Greenfield wrote a piece called “Manufacturing Intolerance” on Saturday and it brought up the issue of Dayna Morales, the lesbian waitress with such a compulsive need for attention and sympathy that she lied about a family refusing to tip her because she was gay.
Why do people think this is a good idea?
It’s not the first time, nor will it probably be the last, that someone in the gay community (or anywhere I suppose) manufactures some sort of bullying or discrimination in order to get attention.
It’s less of a “gay thing”, in fact, than it is a “liberal” thing.
They love their manufactured outrage, as Greenfield points out. Anything to prove the twisted world view they have.
The world is homophobic, let me prove that by manufacturing homophobia.
Men are evil, let me prove this by manufacturing rape threats from men.
Please pity me for being so oppressed…by my overactive imagination and victim complex.
None of this does anything to address any actual problems in society, all it does is distract people and when it, inevitably, comes out that you are a lying, fraud-riddled, scum bag you hurt the credibility of every person who has ever actually faced a similar situation to the one you manufactured. Every accusation of actual abuse has to be reconsidered because you have poisoned the well.
I think that’s what really yanks my chain. It’s not that you are willing to lie to prove that your view of society is correct, that’s something I refuse to be shocked by anymore. Liberals in general will do anything to prove that society is utterly, 100%, racist, sexist, and homophobic.
After all, how else could you convince people that we desperately need government intervention to save all these oppressed people from losing their jobs or not getting wedding cakes from anyone they want. It’s that you damage the credibility of the, relatively few but still significant, people who have actually faced this sort of treatment.
You don’t care about truth or justice. You care about your ideology of government intervention. So please don’t tell me I’m the “intolerant” one when you are the one who cares more about using people for your own personal gain, rather than actually caring about the person.
Sociopaths don’t cry over commercials about babies or articles about strangers giving their kidney to a dying man.
They just don’t.
Because they don’t care.
But sometimes the thought crosses my mind, especially when I’m talking to other people about politics. Normally I brush the thought aside as a recognition that other people are far too emotional about politics and they ignore rational responses to political problems or antagonism from people who don’t like them.
In simpler terms, they get their feelings hurt a lot.
A little bird told me that you might not be backing down from running for your Senate seat in 2016. I’m here to ask you to please excuse yourself from the political conversation in our state.
No one likes you.
You are old, you are senile, and you sell out conservatism every chance you get.
Come out of the closet already and admit you are a Democrat, you’ll feel much better, I swear.
Or don’t, I don’t really care what you do, as long as you stop trying to pretend you represent conservative ideals.
I personally don’t think anyone could have beat Obama in 2008, but it must have been some collective delusion or some extreme blonde moment that led Republicans to choosing you as the candidate.
I hate to tell you this, but you’ve been “one of these old guys that should’ve shoved off” for a goddamn long time.
In April of this year your approval ratings in the great state of Arizona were abysmal. 67% of those polled we need someone new in office. Only 21% thought you deserved another term and your job approval rating was at the lowest it’s been in 21 years.
Stick a fork in yourself, because you are done.
Liberals are the ones defending you now and you’d rather concentrate on your poker app than on important issues of foreign policy. We didn’t send you to Washington to play games and crack jokes about after you get caught. This isn’t just your job, it’s the future of the United States. It’s shameful that you would be so irresponsible.
You think that supporting the constitution passionately makes someone a “whacko bird” and you’d rather be at dinner with Obama than representing the interests of your constituents. You’re from Arizona, a red state populated by people that don’t appreciate your attempts to sell freedom down the river in order to win brownie points with the administration.
Oh and your daughter isn’t doing your reputation any favors.
In short, please “shove off”, because I promise that I and many other fellow Arizonans will make your next campaign a huge embarrassment for you. We don’t need or want a power hungry, opportunistic, fake Republican representing our state.
Sincerely NOT yours,
Most of the State of Arizona
There’s nothing that annoys me more than someone placing the blame for their stupidity on an inanimate object. Especially an inanimate object like “the internet”. I’m not exactly sure why I’m surprised that Anthony Weiner found a new way to annoy me.
Saying that you probably wouldn’t have sent pictures of your junk to women if the internet didn’t exist (or worse: wouldn’t have got caught if the internet didn’t exist) is like saying “I wouldn’t have cheated on my wife if she put more effort into looking attractive”
You’re trying to excuse your actions, but it just ends up revealing even more flaws in your own character.
The Token Libertarian Girl delivered a very heartfelt, emotional, and (in my opinion) completely off base assessment of why she is now anti-war and ashamed of her past support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I feel the need to separate my views and denouncement of the current threat of action in Syria from her view. I recognize her right to her own opinion, I just don’t think it’s based in reality.
I’m a robot though. My friends will tell you that I often try to remove emotion from any political opinion I have. Sometimes this pisses them off.
I’m not anti-war. I’m about as “neocon” as it gets, if by neocon you mean someone who is pissed as hell and sees no problem killing off people who are a threat to national security.
I’m anti-dumb-asses getting us involved in wars without thought of consequence or responsibility or any long-term plan.