Indoctrinate me. I dare you

One of the best things about America is that, when the president decides to give a speech to all the country's schoolchildren, local teachers can choose not to show it. One of the worst things about America is that some make that choice.

Those who did, and the parents who demanded it, blew an important opportunity to teach schoolchildren something they must know if America is to survive their generation: Don't believe everything you see.

I remain bewildered by those who insist they have a right to never hear anything they disagree with.

It's childish and stupid when pushy leftists demand all references to God be stricken from public buildings. It's equally so when scared conservatives demand schools prevent a school kickoff speech from President Obama.

The First Amendment guarantees the affirmative right of free speech. To guarantee that right, it necessarily must exclude the aforementioned negative right to never hear what you don't like. We can have one or the other, not both. The Constitution guarantees speech, not silence.

It's becoming clearer all the time that the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for themselves and their neighbors — and their children — than do Americans today. Obviously, many of us think other people (including family members) are pretty dim. They also seem to think they hold no responsibility to raise their own offspring.

I can't count the number of times my mom has told me not to believe every word I heard at school, from Kindergarten into law school. By the 7th grade, I was quite familiar with the concept that sometimes teachers and textbooks lie. I supplemented what I heard at school with books I read outside of class, news on TV and in the newspapers, documentaries on The History Channel and National Geographic, and countless conversations with trustworthy (and some not so trustworthy) adults.

If atheist parents don't like the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, they ought to tell their children to go silent when the other kids say them. If conservative parents are convinced that Mr. Obama will give a weekly socialist manifesto that their kids must endure, they ought to teach their kids why socialism is bad and why the president is wrong.

That's not a difficult prospect: Even 9-year-olds like an allowance for doing chores. And he won't like it if you try to make him share with the neighbor kid who didn't help.

If children are not taught to resist the lies they are told at school (by the president, their teacher, or the devious classmate who wants to see them in trouble), they won't learn to see through the lies that will be told them by politicians and others for the next 50 years.

If they aren't allowed to see hear something they disagree with said persuasively, they won't develop a means of resistance, they won't ever think about why they think the way they think. They'll not learn to develop an intelligent, persuasive response. If they are taught that they ought to be liberal or conservative or Martian because that's what their parents were, they won't ever have any ideas of their own.

A decent school will teach kids the basics of reading, writing, history, math and science. A good school will teach them to think for themselves, to remain skeptical, to disagree (and boldly) when they have a reason to. A great school will teach them to look for reasons to disagree. In any event, a child's parents are far more important to his education than the school is.

By the time a child is in middle school, he ought to have an internalized, natural idea (incomplete but strong) of how he thinks and why — and he ought not be afraid of expressing it or of hearing something from a different perspective. By the time they're in high school, they'll need to know how to see it coming without any forewarning.

When they hear of someone trying to "indoctrinate" them, they ought to be ready to react with a sarcastic: Go Ahead and Try, Punk. I Know What You're Up To.

They ought to be able to think independently of their teacher, their classmates, the principal, the president, Zack Morris or their parents. If we don't let them, if we don't encourage them, freedom will die in their lifetime.

Even before their intellect has developed to that stage, they need exposure to a variety of thoughts. In most of the things they do, elementary school children are completely overwhelmed; they're used to it. They like it that way. Tell them to sink or swim, and very few of them actually need the lifeguard.

My recommendation for schools for the future: Show the speech. Ask the students what they liked about it. Ask what they didn't like about it. What they agreed with and disagreed with. Some will be for Obama, and some against. Welcome to America.

I remember when my cousin was in Kindergarten during the 2004 presidential campaign. Not yet able to read, her class voted by checking the box on the ballot near the picture of their favorite candidate. Little Kayla took the extra step of scribbling all over John Kerry's face. Kids are smarter than we realize.

It says a lot about the government

I was surprised to hear President Obama's planned speech to the nation's schoolchildren would be a first by a president. I was even more surprised when I saw the poll question on the Denver Post's web site: Would you encourage or discourage your child from watching this speech. When I voted, a narrow plurality would discourage their children from watching. (Some are prohibiting them.)

Mr. Obama's accompanying "what they can do to help the president" lesson plan was, of course, inappropriate. The president of the United States should speak to the country's children every year and instead encourage them to help themselves. (That's what education is for.)

But on it's face, Mr. Obama's trip to school seemed to me a legitimate 'study hard and make something of yourself, kids' pep-talk. That the White House quickly removed the "help the president" line from the lesson plan is evidence that Mr. Obama does not intend this to be controversial. Part of the president's job is, after all, making speeches and inspiring.

Today I'm more interested in the reaction that Mr. Obama's planned speech has had. It reminded me of a Rasmussen Reports poll released this week: 42 percent of American voters think "a group of people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress."

We have the best government in the history of the world. Yet so many people don't trust the president of the United States to speak to their kids. So many people didn't trust the last president with anything. So many people didn't trust the president before him with their teenage daughters. So many people don't trust Congress as much as they trust "a group of people randomly selected from the phone book."

So many people don't trust the government, even to have good intentions. That says a lot about our government.

It's somebody else's fault

Here's one that ought to be laughed out of court.

Teenager Alexa Longueira was zoned into her cell phone, texting, as she walked down the street. It surprised the heck out of here when she fell into a manhole and suffered minor cuts and bruises.

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise the heck out of anyone that her parents intend to sue New York City and cash in on their daughter's lack of self-preservation.

This story shows relation to a pilot program in the United Kingdom, in which tax money is being used to wrap padding around lampposts for the protection of walking texters.

I'm not a taxpayer in Britain or in New York. Neither issue affects me in any way. I'm not annoyed at the sight of the idiot-pads on the poles, nor am I distressed at having involuntarily paid for them. If a jury awards Ms. Longueira a billion dollars, not a cent of it will come from me. But if I were, I'd be asking the following questions, and asking them as loudly and as often as I could:

Why can't people walk without injuring themselves? Why must I pay for someone else failing to watch what they're doing? Why in the hell is their lack of responsibility my problem?

Gov. Sanford's long weekend

The humorous notion of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford trekking through the woods naked has been replaced by the sad reality of a man cheating on his family. To his discredit, Mr. Sanford has had an extramarital affair for about a year, he said today. To his credit, he stood in front of the world and came clean to his constituents (his wife already knew about the affair), admitted guilt, begged for forgiveness in time — and then took questions.

That is all between Mr. Sanford and his family, and then between he and South Carolinians. Today I only wish to reaffirm what I've said previously about the governor leaving the office and turning off his phone for a time: Mr. Sanford flew clear out of the hemisphere, and nobody even got their eye put out.

There is a clear difference between the political class of Americans and the normal class of Americans, and it was demonstrated in coverage of the governor's absence. Sanford's political opponents (in both parties), his state's separately elected lieutenant governor, media members, cable news contributors (including Mike Huckabee, who is largely sympathetic to many of Sanford's causes) and other members of the political/ruling class denounced the governor in near unanimous fashion for leaving the state and calling his office only infrequently.

"There has to be a line of command," insisted Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, discussing his appall at Sanford's temporary hiatus.

What Mr. Bauer ought to know is that the line of command is quite clear: In the governor's absence, the lieutenant governor has authority to act during emergencies. Had the earth quaked and a giant fissure opened in the middle of Charleston, Mr. Bauer would have had legal authority to call up the National Guard and state police to assist, and to request federal aid from Washington.

Furthermore, if we examine the fears put forth by Mr. Sanford's critics, the end result is pretty clear. Suppose, in Mr. Sanford's absence, the earth quaked mightily and opened a giant fissure in Charleston. Even if the succession provision were absent from the state's constitution, Mr. Bauer would still call the National Guard, and the National Guard would still listen (unless both he and the guard's commander are indefensibly stupid).

The indignation from Sanford's opponents was rife, but South Carolinians seemed less so. For all the coverage of Sanford's time away, I have found only one comment from a constituent. It was in the Wall Street Journal, from a retired woman named Sarah Porter. She was strikingly unconcerned that Mr. Sanford was not there to hold her hand.

"Maybe he just wanted to be alone," she said. (She was guessing wrong, but her tone is of an entirely different chord from that by those in government.)

Bauer, the lieutenant governor, says : "Not to be able to get in touch with a person who is responsible for 4.5 million people is a concern."

Porter, the normal human being, knows that there are 4.5 million people in South Carolina and almost all of them know how to be responsible for themselves.

Gov. Sanford's long, perhaps naked, hike

Tuesday morning, a Google search of "Appalachian Trail" revealed some 1.2 million hits. The top result was a news story about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford skipping out of his state for a few days to visit the trail over the weekend.

The second hit (I'm assuming this is a coincidence) was a feature story about Naked Hiking Day.

Whether or not Mr. Sanford wore clothes on his outing afield is his own business. Today I discuss the reactions from other South Carolina state officials, past and present.

Evidently, Sanford sneaked out for multiple days without telling the lieutenant governor (a separately elected position in that state, and in this case a political rival), legislators, his security detail, or even his wife, precisely where he was going. He turned off his cell phones and only infrequently called back to check in.

Staff members were aware of Sanford's intentions and of his vague destination. But they were unable to pinpoint exact geocoordinates of his location, nor were they able to speak to him on the hour every hour.

Some, including Bob McAlister, who served as chief of staff for a previous governor of that state, have argued that Sanford's actions were egregiously irresponsible and unprofessional. "From a professional standpoint, this can't happen," McAlister said. "It's very disconcerting."

State Sen. Jake Knotts shares Sanford's party but also has long been a rival to the governor (from what I've read, Sanford is far more popular with his constituents than he is with his coworkers in the state capitol). Knotts also has insisted on near-continuous connectivity with the governor.

"As the head of our state, in the unfortunate event of a state of emergency or homeland security situation, Governor Sanford should be available at all times," Knotts said. "I want to know immediately who is running the executive branch in the governor’s absence."

To an extent, this smacks of the universal criticism that politicians can lately expect from their political rivals; such actions have, unfortunately, become standard operating procedure in many political circles.

But I think it belies a reality far more disconcerting that the one worrying Messrs. Knotts and McAlister. That is the point I wish to address here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my continued fondness for Mr. Sanford.

In his absence from South Carolina, there have been no hurricanes, riots or floods. (And if there had, the state's Constitution grants the lieutenant governor authority to act in the governor's absence during emergencies. The National Guard can be duly called out, and requests for federal aid can be expeditiously made, even if the governor is in Timbuktu and has sworn a vow of silence.) Neither the hordes, nor the Yankees, have invaded. The state's police forces, its cities' fire departments, it's highways and bridges, they have all remained. Wal-Marts did not close down. Attorneys continue to litigate, doctors to heal, factories to produce, loggers to chop.

Despite Mr. Knox's demand to "know immediately who is running the executive branch," I have seen no reporting of private citizens sharing the same concerns. The lives of South Carolinians are entirely unaffected.

A governor is not the president of the United States — he has neither the responsibility nor the authority to handle foreign relations matters that do not rest. A governor (or senator, or other potentate of almost all description) can walk away for a few days and most people won't even notice if they don't see it on TV.

For all the attention paid to Mr. Sanford's (four days and counting) vacation, the world has not stopped. We don't need a guardian to remain in the governor's mansion, or even a phone call away, on call for every second of every day. Knox and McAlister seem to think that because the governor is on vacation, the rest of us will forget to wash our hands after we go to the bathroom, or to buckle up when we get in the car. They're wrong. We can survive just fine on our own.

Many news reports of Mr. Sanford's outing have used descriptors like "bizarre" to tell this story of a man who has a stressful job and wants a few days away. I have a theory on that: Mr. Sanford is a committed conservative who resisted the idiotic "economic stimulus" plan passed by the federal government earlier this year. He will command a tremendous and growing amount of respect in coming years as more people realize that the stimulus was a sham and a trillion dollars was wasted. My sense is, those who call his trip "bizarre" are trying desperately to paint him as an oddball.

Maybe he is. Maybe on Sunday he wandered the Appalachian Trail in full naked glory, with all the other oddballs. That doesn't matter that much, in the long run.

What matters is, for a few days an elected official did not insist on "fixing" something, did not seek a new rule to enact or a new tax to levy. He spent a few days not regulating, not managing, not enforcing. Or to put it another way, he spent a few days not trying "to improve peoples' lives."

And people's lives continued just fine.

Thieves and Fools, Part IV

This post is the fourth installment of an ongoing series, entitled : If you think your health care is my responsibility, you are a thief. If you think our health care system would be better if the government would intervene, you're a fool.

The other day I saw a headline proclaiming "Democrats will seek universal mental health, dental care."

At the time I thought: What about people with false teeth?

It sounds goofy, but it raises a significant question. If a "universal health care" plan is adopted providing "free" medical care to all Americans, how do we define "medical care"? What should be included?

Not everyone needs dental care. Some are blessed with fine enough dental health that they need not see a dentist regularly. Others were not blessed with such dental health, and their teeth have fallen out and been replaced by synthetics. "Universal dental care" would charge those in both camps (via taxes) for services that they did not want, need, or pay for when it was their choice.

Many of us get along fine without the services of a psychiatrist. Most don't visit chiropractors regularly. Acupuncture, massage therapy, orthopedics, orthodontics, and a host of other specialties today fall under the realm of ... specialties. Should they be included in the "public option" health care system leftists wish to adopt?

What about alternative medicines? Medical marijuana? Dietary supplements? Nutrition specialists? Personal trainers? Memberships to a fitness center? Hot tubs? Should these be classified as "health-necessary"? Isn't owning a hot tub a right?

Of course the answer is no.

Today two hundred million Americans live individual lives, they make decisions for themselves based on personal preferences and circumstances, they review options and choose their own futures, based on what is available, what they can afford, and what they prefer.

When I have a backache, I don't rush out and see a chiropractor and expect someone else to pay for it. I drink a glass of whiskey. (I don't expect someone else to pay for that, either.) Other people will choose to drink a glass of whiskey, or to take a Tylenol, or to go to a chiropractor. Some go sit in their hot tub -- it all depends on the individual's circumstances and preferences. These folks also don't (and shouldn't) expect someone else to pay for it. Because when someone else starts paying, someone else starts making the choices.

The central ideal here is that health care is a quite personal, individual responsibility. America is a big place with lots of cultures, lots of points of view, lots of people thinking their own choices a are the best. The key is: They are all right. Tylenol, the hot tub, the chiropractor, and whiskey, they all work!

Each person is quite capable of making the best choice for himself, and in many cases a person in Arizona will select differently from a person in Maine. In many cases a 24-year-old single man will make a different choice different from that made by a 49-year-old mother of four. Despite all assurances to the contrary, any government sponsored "universal health care" program will kill that individuality.

Thieves and Fools, Part I

This column is the first installment of an ongoing series, which I'm calling: If you think your health care is my responsibility, you are a thief. If you think our health care system would be better if the government would intervene, you're a fool. This piece addresses the title's second article.

Today we've learned of a plan to levy taxes on soda pop because it's bad for you. Also, other sugary drinks will be subject. And Red Bull, Gatorade, iced tea, and anything else deemed "unhealthy" could see an excise tax, if the meddling fools in government have their way.

If unhealthy things are taxed, the notion goes, John Q. American will be less likely to indulge. Thus, a lesser burden will weigh on the nation's health care system in coming years (because fewer Jan Q. Americans will suffer with high blood pressure, diabetes and general fatness). In short, everybody wins!

Except that we all lose.

If government conjures a health care entitlement and administers Benadryl to everyone with an sniffle, it will create a corollary responsibility to monitor and, whenever possible, reduce costs of that Benadryl-distribution program. So any unhealthy, or potentially unhealthy, food and drink will be subject to far-reaching regulation.

Imagine: Sin taxes on chocolate, peanut-butter cookies, ice cream, pretzels, tomato juice, eggs, beef kept on the grill too long and butter. Excises on skydiving, unprotected sex, coffee and mayonnaise. Surcharges on cheese and 147 varieties of alcoholic beverage. Hefty fees on Spam, bologna, bacon, avocados, whole milk and cheesecake.

We can discuss whether or not participating in said items is healthy. In many cases, it is not. But no other man on earth has a legitimate moral authority to make such decisions for me.

Perhaps worse still: With the corrupt and nitwitted nature of policy-making bureaucrats, "unhealthy" and "dangerous" won't be the standard used for setting such behavior-controlling taxes. Bribery, friends in high places, irrational P.R. campaigns and mindless agency mission statements will matter far more.

Take, for instance, another story we saw today. Cheerios, a healthy foodstuff, is under threat by the Food and Drug Administration for being too healthy. Because eating that breakfast cereal will lower cholesterol (and because many people with high cholesterol want to lower it on their own, without legislated mandate), the makers advertise that it will lower cholesterol. Hence, according to the FDA, that food is therefore really a drug — and not regulated nearly enough.

This is not 'our tax dollars at work.' This is our tax dollars being burned as the fuel to power engines that are destroying us.

Buckle up or go to prison

Colorado is poised to enact a law allowing police officers to stop drivers for failing to wear a seat belt.

As it stands in that state, drivers can only be cited if they are stopped for another, primary infraction and are also found to be not wearing their seat belt. This law will give cops the authority to stop a driver for no other violation than the seat belt negligence.

The bill's proponents in Colorado say passage will save about 26 lives per year in that state, and prevent more than 300 serious injuries. They're probably right. You'd have to be out of your cotton-pickin' mind to go anywhere in a car without wearing a seat belt.

But isn't that enough?

Q: Who will the state of Colorado protect with this law?
A: The drivers and passengers who would not otherwise buckle up, and not a soul more.

Non-seat-belt users have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the next guy. But when every danger that they are being protect from is brought on by their own behavior, it's time for the legislature to move on to other things.

When this law passes, Colorado Highway Patrol officers will be distracted from monitoring criminally dangerous drivers (who often push the upper 80s on steep, curvy mountain roads) and hunting drug traffickers to instead conduct parenting patrols on every other driver in the state.

Today, seat belts are the "widely accepted" and "obvious" measure that every person "should do, for their own good." What will it be tomorrow? Alcohol use? Skipping the morning jog? Eating cheese?

The government is not my mommy. You shouldn't let it be yours, either.