Since You Ask, HERE Is Why I Do Not Believe Public Schools Can Be Trusted To Teach Students About Complex Issues Like Race…

ellaBecause too many teachers and administrators are incapable of reliably rational thought, that’s why.

Take this ridiculous episode, for example:

Ethan Chase Middle School in Menifee, California urged its students to costume themselves as Disney characters for Spirit Day last week. Austin Lacey, 13, being a broad-minded and creative lad who, like an astounding number of his fellow Americans, apparently admires “Frozen,” the Disney animated cult smash soon to be a Broadway musical. He chose to dress as Elsa, the movie’s troubled Snow Queen.

The school principal made him take off the costume, because, as Romoland School District Superintendent Dr. Julie Vitale said in a statement, it was necessary to “stop a general disruption to the school environment.”

See what I mean? Morons.

The school asks students to dress up as Disney characters, with no further guidance or limitations. This open-ended assignment leaves options open for students of any color or gender to costume themselves as mice, dogs, wolves, lions, wart hogs, dragons, witches, wizards, pirates,  mermaids, crabs, one-eyed monsters, insects, toads, weasels, crocodiles, Hercules, Tarzan, Mr. Potato Head, the Headless Horseman, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Davy Crockett, Uncle Remus, Neverland Indians, any of seven dwarfs, robots, dozens of princesses and princes, or Annette Funicello. A young man, for whatever whimsical motive, chooses to dress as one of the princesses,  the frigid blonde one from “Frozen,” which is hardly out-of-bounds in this gender-jumbled day and age. It is a tasteful costume, as you can see. It is not salacious or in bad taste in any way. Look: here is his model:

FROZEN-ELSA-STICKERS-LARGE

Not bad, right? Never mind. For bizarre reasons that only dwell in the rarefied environment of the principal’s mossy skull, and the similarly tangled morass of the superintendent’s cranium, poor, innocent Austin is singled out, ostracized and embarrassed. Anyone who has been awake longer than Sleeping Beauty would know that this would instantly become a controversy on the web, bringing deserved  sympathy to the student and embarrassment to the school. Why would any educators do something so pointless and gratuitously hostile to a student?

The answer is  “because they are incompetent” —not all public school educators, but a critical mass of them, enough that there is no way one can be sure whether one’s child will be inspired by Mr. Holland or brutalized by Hogwarts’ horrible Dolores Umbridge. Public school education, a realm with no code of ethics and few standards, is stuffed with too many poorly trained, unprofessional boobs with delusions of significance. This was  a small incident, but typical of the level of judgment that is too often applied to our children’s education and socialization. It illustrates, dear readers,  why I recently wrote, in connection with another school fiasco,  that such people have no business trying to guide our children through the complex thickets of race, culture, and politics.

They can’t even get “Spirit Day” right.

______________________

Pointer: Fred

72 thoughts on “Since You Ask, HERE Is Why I Do Not Believe Public Schools Can Be Trusted To Teach Students About Complex Issues Like Race…

  1. I guess those administrators never watched “South Pacific.” I for one have never really understood cross-dressing’s attraction, but these people should have seen this coming. Frankly, I’m surprised in these days of “everybody into the gender blender” and this happening in California, of all places, Austin didn’t win a prize from GLAD.

    (And whatever happened to the man from Glad? Ah, the power of advertising to warp our brains for decades.)

    What’s that horrible cliche? Those who cannot do teach and those who cannot teach administrate? Jack I’d urge you to stay far away from any faculty lounge of any school. I’ve never been anywhere else as depressing.

  2. I used to tell my children: “One of the things that you learn in school is how to deal with lots of morons, bullies, the learning disabled, egotists and their timid minions, but not all of the teachers and administrators are like that.”

  3. Private school administrators aren’t any better but (1) the students actually learn more in class and (2) what is played out in the principal’s office generally stays there.

  4. We simply aren’t throwing enough money their way, which, by the way, is up to $15,000 per year in CT. We need to do away with the DOE and teachers unions, or go with vouchers at the very least.

    • Seriously. This is what happens when it’s next to impossible to fire people and continued employment isn’t tied to performance. I would love to just wipe the slate clean. Pink slips for almost everyone. We handed you billions of dollars, you squandered and embezzled it, and utterly failed our children and this nation. Time to try working for a living.

      • Seriously, Joe. (I am in agreement with you.) I have become concerned that because of the widespread practices of homeschooling and the evidence (in most cases) of successfulness of homeschooled students in their test scores and other performance indicators, the next moves we see will include massive state intervention in homeschooling, in order to fix the dysfunctions that have hindered students’ success in public schools.

        I even imagined the other day, to my horror, something like a political movement for “educational equality” that would result in mandates that homeschooling sites (households!) take in students assigned from public schools. Because (and here, I get sarcastic), it just isn’t good enough government to wreck children’s educational opportunities in publicly funded environments only; those evil, segregationist, theocratic homeschooling people must have their environments intruded upon and wrecked, too. EQUAL EDUCATION! BAN GUNS!

        Well, there I went again, all Eeyore. And I probably gave the education dictators some new ideas. Jack, hide your kid, if you homeschool him!

        • And now this, which I saw only a few minutes ago:
          https://americanvision.org/12995/cruz-bill-will-bring-homeschoolers-under-federal-regulation/?utm_source=facebook
          The comments on the article are all at once amusing and depressing.

          Oh yeah, there are enemies of homeschooling and of homeschoolers on the prowl, hungry to devour whatever they heretofore could not control. By any means necessary.

          Whether any substance of the article is true or false, there are and always will be congressional and Executive Branch powers who could not be more delighted than to screw over the homeschooling sector. One elegantly sneaky way to do that screwing-over is by entangling the machinations of the federal government directly into homeschoolers’ finances.

          My dreams (and my nightmares) are not about impossibilities.

          I’m off to spend a few of my IRAs, before someone robs me of them.

  5. I feel you may be being a little unjust towards the principal.

    In California, the Pacific Justic League has run several major, well-funded multimillion-dollar campaigns against Trans and Intersex people. Any principal who permits any conduct not specifically protected by law which even remotely whiffs of gender-bending can expect an expensive lawsuit, with the aim not of winning, but financially ruining the school.

    There have been over 70 bills in 27 states introduced this session not just explicitly permitting, but in a few cases, mandating discrimination in schools against Trans and Intersex children. Most are expected to die in committee, like the 70-odd lsimilar bills ast year, but at least some will get through in South Dakota,.requiring schools to unmistakably verify (by means not specified) that children have stereotypically correct genitalia before they are permitted to use children’s restrooms in schools.

    The principal may be a transphobic asshole, to use the vernacular, or he might just consider his actions to be cowardly, but prudent in today’s political environment.

    • Or stupid. Why have a “dress up as a Disney character day” if you’re worried about these potential traps?

      And Disney? Aren’t already sufficiently lobotomized by the Disney company’s ubiquity in all things children? Do we really need public schools pitching in to help the spawn of Michael Eisner?

          • Sex is not gender. They have no sex, no genitalia, no chromosomes. Bert and Ernie have short hair and wear pants though and that makes them boys because our society is just that messed up.

            They sound the way males are expected to sound, dress the way males are expected to dress, behave in a way that is presentable to children without challenging any of societies assumptions. Ask any child, they’ll tell you those two are boys. Bert and Ernie are as gendered as the pink aisle at the toy store.

            • Bert and Ernie are made of cloth, don’t grow, weren’t born and have hands stuck up their asses. That makes them puppets. They may represent individuals of a particular gender, but they have none themselves.

              • “Bert and Ernie are made of cloth, don’t grow, weren’t born and have hands stuck up their asses.”

                Sounds like my ex. BOOM. >:D

              • Ah, the Treachery of Images. Ceci n’est pas un homme. Establishing that valkygrrl isn’t using the semantic paradigm you are doesn’t make her meaning wrong. If cartoons represent individuals of a particular gender, we may use the ambiguous nature of possessive words such as “have” (or “mine”, or “…’s”) to refer to the gender associated with a particular character in a much less awkward manner. I realize this is a tangential point, but I feel it is important to communicate proactively. You don’t have to abandon your semantic paradigm, but for matters as ill-defined as gender, assuming anyone who doesn’t use your semantic paradigm must have an incorrect picture of the situation edges into pedantry.

              • You’re quite wrong, given what they were made to look like, what their voice actors sound like, and what scripts they are used to act out, they have just as much gender as as any person does. Don’t tell me you’re buying into the absurd POV that gender is something other than a set of social expectations.

                Oppressive social expectations. Imagine the outrage if someone put a little guy-liner on Ernie even though as a non-human it wouldn’t even be cross-dressing. If Ernie actually has no gender then no one would actually think it wrong, right?

                • Of course, my original comment that launched your quibble was tongue in cheek, but my persistence with it is based on the Hunpty-Dumptyism surrounding the word. Once, gender referred to the state of being male or female. Now, since the that concept has been exploded in the pursuit of, well, who the hell knows, it means whatever anyone wants it to mean., and one’s gender can fluctuate like the breeze. It’s a word that no longer explains the world, but makes the world harder to understand. Such words are useless 99% of the time. I don’t know what Caitlyn Jenner’s gender is, but in the interest of politeness and the Golden Rule, I’ll call her her and not worry about it. Her sex is male, her gender is female, and when one’s sex doesn’t match one’s gender, there is confusion. With this stuff around, no wonder people think they can identify as black and be black, even if they are Swedish.

                  When people start using SJW jargon like oppressive social expectations, it triggers mu automatic mind switch-off. I’m on to that game: any social expectations are oppressive when you don’t feel like meeting them..and there goes ethics.

                  Nope.

                  • For the record, I do not think someone can identify as black and be black.

                    Sex is the state of being male or female, Caitlyn Jenner is male, her ideas about gender are what I’d expect of a white male of that age, superficial enough to think womanhood is defined by a corset and a set of breast implants. Beyond that you’ve stumbled into a fight and appear to have at least partially accepted an argument that comes from the trans side of the force. Don’t confuse my arguments as coming from or agreeing with anything they have to say.

                    Gender is the social baggage that comes with being male or female, the hairstyles, the clothes, the ways of speaking and carrying yourself, the socially acceptable jobs, the assumptions on whether you’d make a good engineer, can do math, like ponies or shoes. Oppressive bullshit linked to the overall society, a social construct and thus changes from place to place and time to time, you’ll note that here in the west we don’t tend to see a disc in the lower lip as proper femininity yet there is a place where that is so.

                    I’m a gender abolitionist, I don’t assign makeup or heels or love of football as naturally masculine or feminine, I’d prefer all things gender to be reassigned into the category of irreverent personal preferences, at most I observe that a culture assigns those things to men or women unfairly. I might then observe that a woman who likes football is no less of a woman and that a man who enjoys wearing skirts is no less of a man and then object if such people claim that their predilections toward those things actually make them male or female. Though, like you, I will use the name Caitlyn Jenner has chosen (while swearing under my breath and loathing that person for choosing my first name) along with the pronouns

                    Zoe will claim otherwise. She and I might be great friends if not for this one disagreement, especially as I concede that is someone fits enough of the stereotypes to be perceived as a member of one sex then on a social level there’s not really a difference (getting the big snip is suffienct in and of itself to me.) But then if you show me 10 identical frat boys and tell me one is a trans woman I’d ask how I could tell and why on earth you’d expect me to confer special status on that one or what possible risk to her using the men’s room would be.

                    @Zoe, if you ever want to come over to the side that favors women, even transsexual women, let me know. Open arms and all that.

                    • “@Zoe, if you ever want to come over to the side that favors women, even transsexual women, let me know. Open arms and all that.”

                      Ah. The joys of being blinded by dogma… One isn’t require to think about what they’re saying very much. I suppose the admission that the group you deign to speak for favors women. (feminism… with all the biases of second wave and faint undertones of the pseduo-intellectualism of third wave, sprinkled lightly with traces of retardation.)

                    • I don’t speak for them, I speak in favor of them, as opposed to the side that thinks there’s no difference between Caitlyn Jenner and my mother. Not going to apologize for opposing men’s rights activists.

    • I think you mean the “Pacific Justice Institute” unless the conservative boogeymen you think are plotting against transgender kids are in fact Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Martian Manhunter.

      Besides, it’s likely to be not an issue of gender at all, but cross-dressing for comedy purposes. Which a lot of progressives find offensive too.

      • Come on, we all know Wonder Woman is a lesbian.

        “A lot” of progressives find drag offensive but that doesn’t make it so, necessarily. Drag’s been a part of American burlesque and gay culture as long as we’ve had burlesque and gays. It’s so enduring because the handwringers find it offensive and disturbing, and the fact that the hand wringing is coming from progressives now doesn’t change that.

        That being said, I’m not sure this kid wanted to make such a sophisticated and transgressive artistic statement. He probably just wanted to dress up as his favorite character, which should be allowed too.

          • I think we can agree that, to some extent, intent matters in art (which, as much as some might find it distasteful, includes cross-dressing for comedy.) We have to be careful in impugning the motives of someone because of how we interpret things, especially since interpretation of art is very prone to confirmation bias. The far left sees drag performances (whether in movies or at a gay bar on Drag Queen Wednesday) as transphobic when that message was never intended by the creator, because they want to see racist, sexist, or LGBTQ-phobic subtext.

            • It’s coming, you know… .The eventual war between Drag Queens and transsexuals. As strange and generally reviled as the Queens are, I’ve never met an unhappy one, and something about men having fun while wearing women’s clothing has riled the transsexuals up.

              • You talk as if transsexuals are all one monolithic group. They’re not. There’s a “Silent Majority”, to borrow a term, of us in the LGBTQ community who just want to be left alone to live and let live, and I’m tired of far-left activists claiming to be offended by things on our behalf.

                Wow, I think I understand the black experience now.

                • I think you’re an idiot. Both for assuming that all members of a group need to be involved in order for there to be a dust-up, and second for thinking that your butthurt experience in any way parallels actual racism.

                  I mean… I’m gay, but I would hide my head in a bag if I ever let myself get lumped in a group with losers like you.

          • “The Amazons were ALL lesbians.”

            The Amazons were for the most part a celibate race (or lesbians depending on the story teller) but spent up to two months in spring or summer with their Black Sea neighbors, the Scythians, to get pregnant each year. Virgins were said to wear belts, which they removed to copulate and get pregnant.

            So sayeth (absent the allusion to lesbians – who knows what the scribes and translators may have excised over the centuries!) the Father of History and Consummate Story-teller, Herodotus, aka the Father of Lies.

    • But having said bazinga, I am compelled to say that your comment supports Zoltan’s statement on the video thread, regarding the white privilege tactic: “It’s been said, it can’t be unsaid; therefore (in the minds of Liberals/Progressives) it is fact and should be repeated ad nauseum.” You din’t try to rebut the substantive arguments presented regarding why the entire “white privilege” concept acts to cut off debate, shift responsibility, and categorize all achievement and success by someone with a particular skin color as illicit, unfair, and cause for remorse and contrition. You have not explained why color is privilege but other personal assets or conditions that confer opportunities are not. Indeed I took a supposedly serious progressive “privilege test” that assigned “privilege points” if you were white, straight, male, healthy, mobile, young, never served prison time, not on welfare and could speak standard English. It should have been a parody. It wasn’t.

      My favorite part of the privilege attack is the part where denying the construct marks someone as a clueless. arrogant fool who thinks everything he has accomplished (only men are truly privileged, of course) is entirely due to personal virtue and superiority. As I have said, it’s a clever ethical jiu jitsu strategy, and most people don’t have the energy, courage or wit to call it out for the manipulative crap it is.

      Luck, chance and chaos are everywhere in life; it is the ocean we all swim in. No one should delude themselves that the waves carry some to land and drown others, but nevertheless, we all have an obligation to swim, find vessels if we can, help those who are drowning if possible, and recognize that yes, “there but for the absence of a rogue wave go I.” To use that fact of existence to argue that those who catch good waves, either by good judgement or luck, are part of nature’s conspiracy against those who do not, and that those who try to brave the storms drunk, or unable to swim, or with anchors that can be removed with effort tied to their legs, are not the ones ultimately responsible for whether they sink or swim is neither fair, reasonable, productive, or healthy.

      It is “progressive,” though: it is just a step, maybe less, away from old progressive Clarence Darrow’s belief that free will was a myth, that criminals were born to be criminals, and that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes. This is the polar opposite of the attitude that the poor are just lazy and stupid, and the rich and powerful are that way entirely because of their own virtue and industry. Both positions are idiotic, but only one of them is currently embraced as the discovered truth.

      • “You have not explained why color is privilege but other personal assets or conditions that confer opportunities are not.”

        I haven’t because I shouldn’t have to. If you are born smarter, then great, you should get a better shot at being a brain surgeon — that job requires extreme intelligence. Do you grow up to be tall? Great. Then you’ll have a better shot at becoming a basketball player, because that job requires height. Are you born beautiful? Great. Now you’ll have a better shot at becoming a super model, because that job involves beauty.

        Now, explain to me how pale skin color should give someone a better shot of landing any job except that of playing Elsa, the mythical Frozen Queen of Norway. You can’t. No one can, unless he/she wants to throw themselves in with the junk scientists who try to prove that a particular race is superior to another.

        All I read yesterday was a combination of anecdotes, denials, and exceptions — people desperate to prove that there is no white privilege. It was shameful and depressing. Try arguing it from the other direction. You’ll find it to be much easier because there is historical evidence to verify it.

        • Beautiful people get hired, find love, have it easier in many ways having nothing to do with talent or virtue. Being tall, being thin, being funny, being graceful. Speaking clearly; not having a lower class accent. Color is one of many arbitrary advantages that does nor rise to a privilege at all, and again, that construct is simply a way to relieve non-white criminals, miscreants, failures and fools of their own accountability by blaming a “rigged” system that isn’t rigged. Blacks and women have plenty of arbitrary advantages of their own, and they should use them to the hilt.

          I find very depressing the left-enabled willingness to follow the Bizarro World construct that holds that successful people are passively conspiring to oppress unsuccessful people, rather than holding that disadvantages can be overcome and that everyone is responsible for playing the hand they are dealt as well as they can play it. Really: making minorities resentful and hopeless, and depending on whites feeling like they are just nature’s favorites and have earned nothing in their lives is a fair and valid strategy to you. Not just depressing, incredible.

          Evolving a successful culture that works better than nomadic, non-industrial, theocratic and autocratic cultures is not privilege. It is called “making smart and successful choices, and developing a productive culture.” Even your read of history is twisted. Where did that happen? I had an old girl friend who went to Mt. Holyoke and came out thinking like that.

          • I give up. Beautiful people find love easier? Sure, that’s EXACTLY the same as wide-spread discrimination because of skin color. I keep forgetting about all those separate but equal laws making ugly people use the special ugly restroom.

            I’m going to go back to work now — but perhaps I’ll walk down the hall first and take stock of all the ugly or short people who all are earning 6 figures. That’s going to take a while. After that, I’ll then count all the black employees on the C-suite level. Oh, never mind, there aren’t any. Most likely they weren’t “pretty,” “graceful,” or “funny” enough to get the job. Yep, that MUST be it.

            • Yes, being snotty and insulting when you have made nothing but empty assertions based on, what, brainwashing?–is a convincing argument. Just cherrypick the inbred biases that you happen to want to blame: lookism, heightism, agism, roken families, weight bias, toxic parenting, bias by class, education, region, bias against religion, political orientation, sexual orientation—none of it matters in the rigged “race,” utb the Trail of Tears and Manifest Destiny? They will trip you up forever. That’s some argument, Beth. You should teach high school.

              • I am not being snotty and insulting, I am addressing the biases that you brought up. Of course those exist. But they are not the same — or even close to being the same — as the bias that exists when it comes to skin color.

                • If you say so. Those other biases, even gender, are based on something substantive. Racial bias is based on nothing but instinct and ignorance—and the “privilege” argument is designed to justify bias…against whites.

              • As for the brainwashing point, indeed brainwashing was attempted — in the other direction. I grew up in a 100% white community and I was taught from a very early age that blacks were inferior and that every problem they have is a result of their own doing — they are dumb, lazy, inarticulate, on drugs, poor family structures, etc. (Basically everything Joed says in the other thread is what I was taught.) I must have heard the N word spoken casually by white people 10,000 (or more) times before I left home. Racism was expected and encouraged — although everyone I know would deny that they were a bigot. I went to a conservative school and was raised by conservative, religious parents. I grew up feeling like I was an alien in a strange land because I didn’t think like the rest of them. It’s why I fled to DC the first chance I got.

                I acknowledge that I look at the world with different glasses than you. But we’re both smart people and we both think we’re right, so where does that leave us?

                • You were taught that whites had privilege, and deserved to. That would explain it. I was raised in a community where the first black family to move into it was treated like celebrities, and their kid was a star student, a star athlete, and a stud who immediately became a leader. Meanwhile, we didn’t talk about race. I just knew that my father grew up in the Depression, with no home that lasted more after a few months, raised by a single mother after his father had abandoned them, and who walked with a hitch because he had parts of a hand grenade in his foot, and that happened because he enlisted to fight for the civilization before Pearl Harbor, and earned a college education after surviving and being a decorated war hero. I knew my mother’s family spoke Greek, came here with nothing, and couldn’t afford to send but one of their 8 kids to college. I saw both of them save everything to make life easier for their kids, and there were no blacks around to sabotage by our very existence, unlike the America portrayed by the vicious video.

                  Somehow, all of that didn’t say “white privilege” to me. Nor should it have.

                  • Yes, but my entire community felt this way — and that community is not alone. I think your experience is the exception, not mine.

                    As for your backstory, that’s just your average white immigrant story. Most of us — including me — have the same one. But my family and yours did get advantages for being white — that advantage was jobs once they got here. GI Bills following the military. Your mother’s family could only send one kid to college? That’s an achievement for the time! It’s also an achievement that your dad went to college too. Things you are listing as struggles are things that blacks at the time would have killed for. Each generation builds upon the success of the last one. You (and I) are where we are because of the success of our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. But if your parents, grandparents, etc. didn’t have those successes, then you would be at a disadvantage compared to your peers.

                    • You do realize that you just looked at the facts through a pre-determined objective of on proving “privilege,” a bias in itself. My father was going to work his way through college whether there was a GI bill or not. Same with law school. Most women didn’t get the benefit of the GI bill, no matter what their color.

                      And the struggles blacks in the US had, blacks in Africa and Haiti would have traded for in a heartbeat. I was taught never to look at a rich kid and say, think, or believe, “He has it all, I can never compete with him, and it is all so hopeless and unfair.” I went to school with a lot of those kids, with famous names you would recognize, and I never felt they had any edge on me. I became a successful stage director after showing up a director named duPont.

                      I would suggest that it would be beneficial for society to exhort African Americans to take the same approach.

        • I’ll argue from the other direction. In your opinion, how best can we solve this problem as you see it, and change the status quo to be more like your ideal world?

            • For social problems, that makes sense. Very well, let’s say we get everyone to understand the problem, so everyone is on the same page. What are the things they will need do differently in order to resolve the problem?

              • There is no same page. The privilege problem page is ” Group A has a permanent unfair advantage, so Group B is permanently doomed to failure unless Group A handicaps itself henceforth, and if it doesn’t, it is greedy and oppressive.”

                • Well, we’re never going to get anywhere if we don’t probe what people we disagree with have to say for themselves. I don’t feel the need to repeat what I consider the truth over and over again expecting that eventually people will agree with me. Most people do that whether or not they’re right, and it’s not very effective.

                  The way to convince someone is to do so in a way that wouldn’t work if they really were right. Therefore, I listening to people’s points of view, exploring what they believe, and conceding as much as possible without letting them get away with making assumptions. I acknowledge assertions of what could be while questioning assertions of fact. That’s the only way to arrive at a worthwhile solution, one that addresses everyone’s concerns. It also leads people to listen more agreeably to my perception. This is Paradigm Synch, and people who are actually right need to learn this just as much as people who are wrong do.

  6. “Anyone who has been awake longer than Sleeping Beauty would know that this would instantly become a controversy on the web, bringing deserved sympathy to the student and embarrassment to the school.”

    I think stuff like this keeps happening because it very seldom becomes known to the outside world. If you find yourself wondering, “Why’d they think they could get away with something like that?” the answer is usually that they often get away with something like that.

  7. Austin Lacey doesn’t exactly look “hot” in the costume, but if he wanted to dress that way for the event, I’d say why not! A white guy or girl dressing up like Uncle Remus could be problematic though.

  8. When I was in high school, my friends from the neighboring school almost universally referred to their principal (in private at least) as “Big [insert expletive here] Deal” due to her pompous, arrogant attitude. That should tell you how much respect administrators engender among their students.

    It’s not just incompetent administrators though – sometimes it’s incompetent teachers. One of my most vivid recollections of 5th grade was getting detention for having the temerity to suggest to a teacher that Leif Ericksson discovered the Americas before Christopher Columbus. (I had started reading at an earlier age than my peers and was already reading higher-grade-level books on geography, history, and the physical sciences)

    I read plenty of articles wringing hands over how my generation doesn’t respect our elders, but it’s because we’ve spent 12 years of our lives in the charge of utter boobs. When many of your elders are incompetent, and those who are competent are also at their mercy, one quickly gains the attitude that respect is earned by deeds, not by rank or age.

Leave a Reply to pennagain Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.