The Hemmer-Beaumont Family Blog

Goodness knows we wouldn't want our children thinking, or have parents involved in the actual teaching of their children. While some of the items on the proposed list are completely unacceptable as literature, I would argue that the intention was not to have some high school student reporting on Madonna's 'Sex', but instead to have a discussion among themselves and their parents. The idea that a few parent's knee jerk reaction can change the curriculum for all is another sign that political correctness has gone too far in our schools.

From the Washington Post article:

Wendy Strang's son came home from Cabin John Middle School with a list of 100 banned or challenged books last month, and eighth-grade English was off to a provocative start.

Teachers at the Potomac school had instructed honors students to look at the list with their parents and choose a book to read. "It is important to know why a book may be challenged," the assignment said.

The challenges had just begun.

At the Strang house, the assignment was welcomed. "You know how standardized the curriculum is these days," says Strang. "This was interesting, creative." They chose "That Was Then, This is Now," S.E. Hinton's 1971 coming-of-age story about friends who take divergent paths.

English teacher Carole Tauber had given the same assignment last year, without objection. But this time, a few parents pronounced themselves shocked by a list that includes such children's standards as Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time," as well as titles such as "American Psycho" and "The New Joy of Gay Sex."

But before kids even began to read their books, parents got this note from English teachers and Principal Paulette Smith: "It has come to our attention that an eighth grade outside reading assignment contains material that some families may find controversial. In response to the concerns that have surfaced, the assignment will be replaced."

Wasn't it obvious that reading a controversial book might involve controversy? Smith had approved the assignment before it went home.

So why the about-face? "We did get some feedback," Smith says.

Some ? "How many parents does it take to get books pulled?" Strang wonders. Or, as Suzanne Weiss, former president of Cabin John's PTSA, asks, "Why does the first person who comes in to complain outweigh those who want their children challenged?"

"A public school just has to be careful in terms of the types of material used for learning," Smith says. "You really do consider the political climate in these kinds of decisions, but there are also First Amendment issues. We didn't want to hurt anyone."

How many complaints did it take? Smith would only say, "Less than five."

I found two objectors; neither would let me use her name.

There were titles on there I did not need my daughter exposed to," one mom says. "They were really undermining my role as a parent."

This mom concedes that some books on the list seem benign, such as classics by Mark Twain and Roald Dahl. But the list also contains titles that raised eyebrows even among the most accepting parents: "Sex," by Madonna, and "Heather Has Two Mommies," the subject of innumerable political battles.

"People can cry censorship," this mom says, "but I am going to assert myself as I see fit to protect my child from premature exposure to inappropriate material."

Tauber grants that "it's difficult to raise children in these times, but we need to teach children to think. The children who went ahead and read these books on their own read 'Lord of the Flies,' 'Catcher in the Rye' and 'Beloved.' They're making good decisions and thinking about what offends people and why."

Some educators are too eager to show how edgy they are. And schools are too quick to let the outliers rule, foisting inappropriate topics on children because a few kids are grappling prematurely with sexuality or substance abuse.

But this was a creative assignment, tuned perfectly to eighth-graders' desire to be let in on adult topics, yet tempered by requiring parents to help kids pick the right point of entry.

"I had to tell the children it was out of my hands," says Tauber, who "agreed to disagree with the rationale" for axing the lesson. "We're talking about getting these kids ready to think."

"The parents flunked the assignment," says parent Chris Rigaux. "I don't blame Montgomery County for trying to avoid another court battle, but this was a chance to use books like [Hinton's] 'The Outsiders' to teach about very different lifestyles than we have here in Bethesda, Maryland."

Rigaux's and Strang's sons went ahead and read banned novels and discussed them at home. But Strang is left with a question: "How can I build a resilient child in this world when this is how schools react to pressure?"

Another example of blatant stupidity in the schools - Even Country Music isn't safe!

After the devil went down to Georgia, it seems, he got censored in Prince William County.

In preparation for a guest appearance at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, the marching band at C.D. Hylton High School had a logical and seemingly innocuous idea: play a Georgia-themed song. They decided on "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," by the Charlie Daniels Band.


But early this month, a local newspaper, the Potomac News, published a letter by a Woodbridge resident who, after having seen the C.D. Hylton Bulldawg Marching Band perform the country-western hit at a football game, wondered how a song about the devil could be played at school events, because of the separation of church and state.

Fearing bad public reaction, Hylton's longtime band director, Dennis Brown, pulled the song from the playlist. "I was just being protective of my students. I didn't want any negative publicity for C.D. Hylton High School," he said.

But Brown's strategy backfired. The decision has created a furor, and even Charlie Daniels has weighed in.

"I am a Christian, and I don't write pro-devil songs. Most people seem to get it. It's a fun little song," Daniels said Friday in a telephone interview from Mokena, Ill., where he was scheduled to perform a concert. "I think it's a shame that the [marching band director] would yield to one piece of mail. If people find out that he can be manipulated that easily, he's going to have a hard way to go."

Christine Heeren, whose daughter Sandrine, 17, is the band's color guard captain, said many parents are frustrated that the song won't be performed but are unanimous in their respect for Brown as a thoughtful and popular band director.

"I am quite in a dilemma," she said. "The children were more disappointed because they spent a lot of hours in marching band camp. It takes a lot of patience and drilling."

Residents, alumni and parents have been fulminating in the Potomac News and on its Web site against censorship, the values of the media, the band director and, perhaps not surprisingly, the writer of the letter, Robert McLean. In the paper's online forum, people have written about a range of topics -- abortion, presidential politics, whether Daniels rocks or not-- that show how testy emotions have become.

To paraphrase from the song, fire has flown from their fingertips:

"God have mercy. How did we become a country full of weenies who give into the cranky nonsense of 1 voice?" one person tapped out on a computer. "I guess I need to go back to school. I thought the idea behind our country was that the majority ruled? You know, like the majority of people voted for the President's re-election and now the ruling party is knuckling under to every left wing nut out there? I give up!"

A person identified as Ticked Off Parent chimed in: "What's next? School Book Burnings because someone finds To Kill a Mockingbird offensive? Whoever started this should be banned from the school, NOT THE SONG!"

Another wrote in: "So what if the song does actually 'revolve' around Satan? Satan has its rightful place in history as does Women's suffrage, slavery, and every other subject bad or good!"

Daniels's song, which won a Grammy Award in 1979, is a tongue-in-cheek, tale about a devil heading down to Georgia and challenging a young man named Johnny to a fiddling duel. The stakes are high: If the devil plays a better tune, then he gets to keep Johnny's soul. But Johnny is too talented and beats the devil, winning a golden fiddle, and making Daniels's song a metaphor for the triumph of good over evil.

Brown said the Bulldawg Marching Band has been practicing "Devil" since early summer and one student even purchased an electric violin for the routine. The band played the song during the pregame show of the state football championship in 2003, he said, and no one complained.

As for that nettlesome letter writer, Robert McLean? The defense contractor, whose children are home-schooled, said he went to Hylton's football game just because he enjoys the sport. His letter, he said, was meant to start a philosophical debate, not to wreck any student's marching band experience. Besides, he said, he loves "Devil."

"It was one of the first 45s I had as a kid," he said.

George W. Bush entered the White House preaching "compassionate conservatism," but he may leave known for cynical conservatism. By this, I don't mean that his presidency will fail. The judgment of history, I suspect, will rest heavily on the outcomes of the struggle against terrorism and the war in Iraq, subjects about which I know no more than ordinary readers. For all the administration's miscalculations and setbacks, the ultimate results could still be more good than bad. But compassionate conservatism was never about foreign policy. It purported to be a new approach to governing at home that blended traditional values and modern sensibilities.

As a political pitch, it aimed to create a permanent Republican majority by convincing millions of centrists that conservatives had souls and that Bush himself was a new breed of moderate -- all the while without frightening the conservative Republican "base." As a governing philosophy, it suggested that Bush could pursue the goals of modern liberalism, helping the poor and promoting social justice, without forsaking the values of modern conservatism -- including individual responsibility and disciplined government. There was always an ambiguity about this brilliant phrase. Is compassionate conservatism (a) a genuine governing philosophy or (b) merely a clever sound bite?

Five years later, we know that the answer is (b). There is no obvious agenda that a successor could claim to follow as, for example, Lyndon Johnson claimed the Great Society followed the New Deal. In practice, Bush has taken the most self-serving aspect of modern liberalism (its instinct to buy public support with massive government handouts) and fused it with the most self-serving aspect of modern conservatism (its instinct to buy support with massive tax cuts).

To be fair, Bush has made some legitimate efforts to define compassionate conservatism. The No Child Left Behind Act is one. It tries, through standardized tests and achievement benchmarks, to make schools, teachers, principals and students more responsible for their own performance. The goals are difficult to achieve for many reasons: the fact that public K-12 education is mostly a state and local responsibility; the reality that learning depends on many factors beyond government control (family, innate ability, popular culture); the difficulty in crafting mass standards that are fair and appropriate for all students. Still, the experiment is worth undertaking. The same might be said for Bush's effort to enlist "faith-based" organizations in public anti-poverty campaigns, though it, too, is fraught with practical and philosophical problems.

But these programs are sideshows. "Compassion" for Bush has consisted mostly of distributing new benefits to large constituencies in the hope of purchasing their gratitude and support. He persuaded the Republican Congress (albeit with vigorous arm-twisting) to enact a Medicare drug benefit, the biggest new social program since the Great Society. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at $851 billion from 2005 to 2015. Bush proposed not a penny of taxes to cover these immense outlays, which will continue rising after 2015. Next, he advocated "individual investment accounts" for Social Security -- a program designed to win the allegiance of younger voters by assuring them of future Social Security benefits. From 2009 to 2015, the cost could reach nearly $1 trillion, says the CBO. Bush proposed no tax increases for that either.

I think Bush's initial tax cuts were justified. Not only did he promise them in the 2000 campaign but their fortuitous timing helped prevent a deep recession. Recall all the economic threats: the popping of the stock and tech bubbles; corporate scandals; and Sept. 11. It was also inevitable that any sizable tax cut would be tilted toward the upper middle class and the wealthy, because they pay most taxes. In 2001 the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers (pretax incomes then exceeding $185,000) paid 65 percent of federal taxes, estimates the CBO; the top 1 percent (pretax incomes above $1,065,000) paid 23 percent. But as the economy revived, the tax cuts could be justified permanently only if gradually matched by spending cuts. Except in rhetoric, Bush has declined. It would seem "uncompassionate" to curtail benefits or programs, regardless of their value. Nor did he want to offend affluent supporters by trimming their tax cuts.

Spend more, tax less. That's a brazen political strategy, not a serious governing philosophy. A flimsy rationalization is that the resulting budget deficits don't immediately harm the economy. This is true. At present levels, the deficits are not as harmful as many critics contend. But note the paradox of using this as an excuse for jettisoning budget discipline. Bush has significantly raised present and future federal spending -- especially the exploding cost when baby boomers retire. Because that spending must ultimately be covered by larger deficits (which could be dangerous) or higher taxes (which could also harm the economy), the prospects for both have increased. A president who boasts of lower taxes is actually laying the groundwork for the opposite.

Now, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, even Republican members of Congress say that borrowing should not pay for all the added costs. The White House agrees but scorns one obvious step, repealing the Medicare drug benefit (projected 2006-08 spending: $151 billion), that would make a big difference. The outlook is for tokenism. Just what conservative values Bush's approach embodies is unclear. He has not tried to purge government of ineffective or unneeded programs. He has not laid a foundation for permanent tax reductions. He has not been straightforward with the public. He has not shown a true regard for the future. He has mostly been expedient or, more pointedly, cynical.

Cynical Conservatism

At the risk of going "too local" on the blog (oh, who am I kidding, I'm the only one here), here are the main problems with our gubenetorial canditates, Tim Kaine (D) and Jerry Kilgore (R).
1. Rather than talking about answers to the specific problems plaguing the area both canditates spend most of their time touting their past accomplishments and how they are going to solve all our problems without raising taxes.
2. Mud slinging. The last ads I saw pushed the following exchange: Kilgore - Tim Kaine voted to raise the gas tax and will do so again. Kaine - Jerry Kilgore is a liar.

How does any of this elevate the level of discourse in American politics? How are we going to come together to support each other in tough times with this kind of divisive message? Come election day, I will hold my nose and vote for the candidate I dislike the least. How sad that it's come to that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401550_2.html

Look, I could spend lots of space here slamming DeLay and the Republicans. Anyone who saw SNL this week heard the litany of investigations plaguing the Republican party. It is obvious that they have some serious problems. However, I would offer that the problem isn't with the Republican Party so much as with the Democrats for not providing a clear alternative agenda.

DeLay Is Indicted on Two New Charges: "t"