I don't know if Tom posted his entry here at BC, but if he did, I missed it. I probably would have commented on it, though.

I half-way agree with Tom. His point is that he's offended at the specific "left-wing" agenda being taught to students. However, there are plenty of communities where more liberal parents think their kids are getting dosed with "right-wing" agendas.

So it's not that the message is the wrong message, it's that there's a message at all.

My problem is with public schoools themselves: they're nothing more than a 12-year indoctrination into group-belief. You can't even call it group-think, since thinking itself is usually punished in the public schools. Whether it's a liberal or conservative school isn't the problem. It's the fact that any school would be either of those things in the first place and that everyone who attends that school is supposed to think the same way.

Individuality and critical thinking are eradicated top-down curricula that say everyone must learn the same thing at the same time. Couple that with a culture that values sameness over everything else, and you get a bunch of non-thinking lemmings coming out of high school.

So, I have no problem with a lesson on the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. The dangers have been proven to exist, and there is a factual, scientific basis for the lesson. So I don't have a problem with schools trying to teach kids that smoking and second-hand smoke are bad for them as part of the health program.

The problem I have is with the letter-writing assignment. It's the perfect example of how to teach children NOT to think. A good teacher would have given the assignment but left the content of the letters up to the individual children. The kids in that school should have been free to write to the restaurants and assert their belief that they didn't need to go smoke-free. Maybe some of the kids really believe that their favorite restaurant should have a smoking section. I wonder what their grade on the letter would have been if that's what they wrote?

The topic of second hand smoke provides the perfect opportunity to talk about issues like balancing laws that protect people from danger with the rights of individuals.

But that would require the kids to actually think about what they believe, rather than just regurgitate what they've been told to believe.

I just noticed I made an error. I stand by everything I said about public schools, because that's how I see them.

But the letter-writing assignment was part of the grant offered by the American Cancer Society. In that case, I understand the biased perspective because that IS the AMC's perspective. They want to eradicate smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.

So it's the AMC's right to structure their grant any way they want. I'm surprised Tom doesn't support the AMC's right to do what it wants with its money. Isn't that the conservative view?

8-)

If the school doesn't like the conditions of the grant, it can look for another grant.

What I find despicable is how often McDemon takes her personal vendettas to the level of public "ESSAY" entries on BC.

She could have discussed the ACS grant, schools, education, liberal vs conservative complaints, etc. w/out dragging in TOM BUX from some obscure blog elsewhere.

Giving an opinion on cultural affairs and/or offering her side to the debate -- is not her priority. Her priority is heaping public revenge on "Tom Bux" -- trying to humiliate the person by dragging their name out in public and attempting to refute his opinion without his even being aware of it.

As befits her, it's psychotic, a low blow, embarrassing, and a really chickenshit way to debate another.

Chronic chickenshit.

since when is tom bux 'some obscure blogger'?

Joe, re. the link to chronic chickenshit; Thanks -- as if we needed more evidence. (And writing lessons from the Queen of Convoluted Sentences strikes me as ironic.)

Mark, my point is that a first-time visitor might be more interested in an analysis of the issues as opposed to a personal tirade against Bux. But the issues aren't McD's priority.

BTW: This is no different that what "BB" did by airing his vendetta against McDemon in a specific 'Entry'.

It's still a chickenshit tactic, but what else is new?

I believe bhw's point about not starting students from the perspective 'we all agree that' is a better idea. Her criticism of the entry for not acknowledging that any kind of lock-step should be discouraged is valid. I encourage commenters with valid criticisms of what I say to post them. However, sniping from the 'can't do, but can criticize' cabal of know-nothings will largely be ignored.

Ninety percent of this entry is analysis of one of the issues raised by Psycho Shark and Lil' Joe's friend Tom Bux. But for reading Bux's entry, there would not have been a need for a refutation . . . at least not at this time by this blogger. I also emphasize that bloggers like Bux do a disservice to the entire blogosphere by making it look like the province of numbskulls. That is why I will continue to critique entries that spread misinformation.

Part II of the series will be posted at SR and Blogcritics today.

McDemon: Ninety percent of this entry is analysis of one of the issues

WRONG.

1273 words total
_373 words = news quotes
_258 words = Tom Bux's essay
_642 words = McD's original "analysis"

I'd hate to make you look like a 'numbskull', BUT THAT'S CLOSER TO 50%,

McDemon:But for reading Bux's entry, there would not have been a need for a refutation... bloggers like Bux do a disservice to the entire blogosphere by making it look like the province of numbskulls."

First, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. That "anyone" can do a "disservice" to a few million Yahoos pissing on digital walls in cyberspace is absurd. You can't spit and NOT hit some idiotic crap in the 'blogosphere'.

There are tons of idiotic ideas to use as a point of departure. Even assuming that you couldn't find any, there were a million ways you could have proceeded without sounding like some pissed off personal vendetta.

You didn't have to quote Bux, use his name, or refer to his post. It's not hard to say, "Some would argue..." or "there's a fear or backlash among yadayada that says..."

But no. This is a personal vendetta masquerading as objective intellectual analysis.

In the course of 642 original words, McDemon used Bux's NAME 12 times in the essay! = 12 in 642!

Just a few of which are:

"We last discussed Tom Bux at Silver Rights in regard to attacks he made on black elected officials and the NAACP. But, Bux's reactionary beliefs do not stop with racism, sexism and homophobia."

"Bux continues to ease on down the road of misinformation."

"I've said time and again that bloggers need to do more research and less running off at the mouth."

"Bux, like many bloggers, does no research. He mistakes his uninformed opinions for information. Considering Bux's attitude of contempt toward anyone who does not share his paranoia and belief in the Great Liberal Conspiracy..."

The man hasn't the slightest inkling he's being attacked in public, no chance to defend himself or dispute/debate your allegations and INSULTS.

You've done it a million times before, and I'm sure you'll do it again.

BUT IT'S CHICKENSHIT.

MCDIVA, THY NAME IS CHICKENSHIT.

Part II of this series, which considers Tom Bux's attack on the American Cancer Society, is up at Silver Rights and will appear at Blogcritics soon.

I am sure any rational person who read the entry realizes it is about how corporations selling unhealthy foods and beverages have a cozy relationship with public schools. Bux's relationship to the entry is he made the claim -- that schools are hostile to big business -- that is being debunked.

Meanwhile, will someone please lasso Psycho Shark and make him take his lithium? He is in the throes of mania, again.

BE NICE