What? You are an arse? Well, whatever you say…
This has nothing to do with Bush. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing. Principals have been behaving like this for decades. As Jackmannii said earlier, there are plenty of them who fancy themselves little despots.
(Re: the cartoon, anyway, can’t I blame him if he gave me the herpes?)
Ah, I get it. You post meaningless drivel full of shit and devoid of content.
Please stop it. You waste bandwidth.
Not sure I’d agree. And I wasn’t saying “Bush = Evil,” although I have no love for the man or his administration.
Bush is the POTUS, and therefore stands as an icon of the country, to some extent.
Your average moron on the street may well take this very seriously, and, due to adoration for the man/icon, may well do things that could be considered reprehensible. To stretch the analogy a bit, John Hinckley took a shot at a previous POTUS to impress Jodie Foster.
Is Jodie Foster, therefore, in any way blameable for the injury to Ronald Reagan or the others who were injured by the nutball Hinckley?
I’d say no. Foster did not in any way encourage Hinckley, and it could be argued that the icon she created (that Hinckley became obsessed with) was not conducive to influencing idiots to go out and shoot politicians.
So: are Bush’s actions conducive to knuckle-dragging morons who want to attack and punish anyone who opposes Bush’s policies?
Yes and no. Can’t really hold Bush responsible for the actions of knuckle-dragging morons with whom he has no direct contact and of which he is likely unaware.
On the other hand, Bush’s remarkably cockeyed statement “You’re either with us or against us” does, I think, open him up for some responsibility when a given knuckle-dragging moron chooses to take it upon himself to enforce Bush’s political stance, even without Bush’s knowledge.
…but, like I said, it’s debatable.
I interpreted Cisco’s remark as criticism of anyone who would launch attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other cornerstones of our society and law under the guise of “patriotism.” How’s this indefensible?
I don’t believe you are claiming that Bush said that about the acts described in the OP, nor about poetry criticizing him. So I fail to see the connection or relevance to this issue. If we wanted to, we could hash out a lot of out-of-context cockeyed quotes from any Administration and apply it to any issue, and nearly all of them would be equally as false in their usage.
I also just don’t see what the ambiguity is, or why this takes more than a couple sentences to rebut this. Barring some sort of very bizarre legislation (which does not exist) no President, regardless of which side they are on, can be held responsible for the antics of any local school principal in censoring poetry. It’s another indication of the fact that this Pit and GD have essentially turned into “hate Bush” forums that something as trivial and localized as this simply must be blamed on Bush here. It’s silly and ignorant when it’s done.
I think the cartoon I posted concisely sums up this issue, as well as just about 90% of the Pit and GD over the last year as well. But as a wise person said:
I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect logical argument. You have made an interpretation and now challenge me as to its indefensibility. I disagree with your interpretation, thus the indefensibility of your statement is irrelevant.
The OP’s link doesn’t work for me, and Sublight’s link is to an Op-Ed opinion piece–help me out on the facts?
I think public school principals should act to prevent in-school education from being politicized, by either the right or the left. This is naturally hard to do.
I also think that allowing teenagers to write bad activist poetry serves a couple of important purposes–it should not be censored–in fact, it should be encouraged in all its glory, both for the amusement value and its inherent blackmail potential.
By and large, school activities - including the actual education - probably should be unpoliticized. But when it comes to the individual creative outlet of the students, they shouldn’t be steered in any particular direction. How better for them to learn about differing views than to allow them this outlet? Removing all political content from a student’s writing might emasculate the writing to the point where the student just gives up on it. School shouldn’t be about stifling creativity.
Another purpose to allowing students to write bad activist poetry is that they can learn what constitutes effective poetry. You don’t teach simply by showing students what they must do; you must also let them see what they must not do. Poets, for example, don’t learn by writing perfect poems.
Interesting that in this thread it is being argued that every American citizen is responsible for the actions of the United States government. In both cases, the notion of responsibility is unclear. It seems like you’re saying that unless he has legal responsibility, he has no responsibility. Bush’s words certainly encourage this type of behavior, and he is a very powerful person, so he bears some responsibility. But really people, let’s focus our blame in this case on the millions of morons who think Bush and his war are just swell.
What the Fuck is a “military liason”?
And why the Fuck does a high school have a “military liason”?
ROTC?
Where I live, there are a lot of military bases in the area, but no on-base schools. There are military liaisons for communication between the public schools and the base because of the large numbers of military family members attending the public schools. The purpose, however, is not to provide a politically correct education for these kids, but to deal with the issues involved in mixing in a lot of children who come in mid-school year, leave in mid-school year, don’t have background for this particular state’s version of standardized testing, etc.
I don’t know if that is the case in the above district.
I agree, where the writing assignment contemplated political opinion, as it clearly did in this case. I’m trying to figure out, from the obviously conflicting versions of the facts, whether the student writing was censored in any way–it doesn’t look like even the disciplined teacher is claiming this–his claim is that he was removed from his position, and that the poetry club he led thereafter disbanded.
“Poetry slam” is just a happenin way of sayin “poetry reading,” often with an open-mike element.
The high school at which I work has a military liason; he runs the ROTC programs.
Now, if this doesn’t mean “these people are hypocritical for championing “patriotism” while actively working to destroy the foundations on which our culture and country are built,” what DOES it mean, precisely? And how, exactly, does it say that Bush is directly responsible (or, for that matter, NOT responsible) for the actions of school principals? Una, your assertation that I am wrong/have misinterpreted the statement does absolutely nothing to alleviate my apparent ignorance.
If I am wrong, kindly tell me what it DOES mean. And how it means it. I am most curious, since I have apparently badly misinterpreted what I thought was a fairly simple, straightforward statement.
I am saying that it COULD be argued that Bush has encouraged said knuckle-dragging morons to take action that is inadvisable while blindly and idiotically supporting Der Shrub. I think I could argue convincingly that a school principal who fires a teacher because he doesn’t like what his students are saying about our president could well BE one of those knuckle-dragging morons. Therefore, I can’t help but feel I’m on target, as far as the OP goes.
By the same token, I am quite certain that Bush is not in charge of any tinfoil-hat conspiracy to make himself overlord of the elementary schools, nor is he in command of any shadowy council of school administrators. I’m quite sure that the asshead principal in question acted entirely on his own authority, based on his own beliefs. I’m just questioning how far Bush is responsible for shaping those beliefs… as opposed to healthier ones, like “censorship is questionable,” for example.
…and I’m sorry, but Una, I can’t say I thought your cartoon was very clever. In much the same way as I would feel about a cartoon claiming that Bush was not to blame for anything, anything at all, no, no, nothing is Bush’s fault.
And I’d find that cartoon kind of dumb for the same reason I found the Bloom County pastiche kind of dumb. Both cartoons would express the kind of dogmatic, bulletproof, closed-minded idiot politics that I have spoken against in this very thread… the same kind of knuckle-dragging idiocy that seems to have gotten a teacher fired, because he failed to censor his students’ work efficiently.
Don’cha think?
Bush is not to blame for this.
Republican fuckheads stupid enough to believe bullshit like “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” or “Criticizing the President is unAmerican,” are to blame for this.
Probably both that and JROTC. I didn’t know a lot of people going to Highland (I went to a different high school in APS) but one guy I did know indeed was part of a military family. They lived in Albuquerque for a while, dad got transferred (or took a new commission or something) to Florida (I think before the guy entered high school), and then they moved back to Albuquerque later. Sandia is the bigger moneymaker of Sandia and Kirtland, but Kirtland isn’t that small a base (though it probably wouldn’t be nearly as important without Sandia.) I know Kirtland has an elementary school on base, but I don’t believe any middle or high schools. The elementary school is also, if I remember correctly, part of APS.
And I know that every APS high school in Albuquerque has a JROTC program of some sort. There are different branches at different high schools (mine was Air Force.)
What?
I’m sorry, but I feel that you’re changing the argument again. I never said it didn’t mean that, my argument has been that the post in question claims a “regime and its followers” are behind or precipitating the actions of a local school principal for censoring student poets. My dispute has been that there is any “regime” or followers of a “regime” responsible for the actions of a local principal.
With no sarcastic intent, let’s go back to the start and see cause and effect.
OP:
Cisco’s quote:
My response:
I wanted to know exactly which “regime” was responsible for this, since there isn’t actually one. The OP refers directly to the “Bush regime”, and I dispute that there is a “Bush regime” that could influence a local school principal, directly or by its mere existence, into censoring poetry.
Since Cisco’s post referring to a “regime” is just a few inches down the page from the OP referring to the “Bush regime”, well, seems to me they’re talking about the same thing. I don’t think Cisco is an idiot, or a firebrand - I think he made an off-the-cuff post that I responded to. That’s all there is, and was.
Gee, tough crowd…I guess. Clever or not it’s nonetheless an accurate depiction of the sort of “Bush and Conservatives are evil, always” crap that has been polluting this Board for well more than a year. Whether it’s the hourly Pit thread or the thrice-daily off-topic political potshot in GQ, it all sucks and lessens this place.
Just let’s never mind, because we obviously have no meeting of the minds on this subject, and I’m going to have limited net access for a day or two outside of responding to SDStaff questions. I’ve said what I wanted to say; barring a discovery of influence of this “Bush regime” on censoring some student poets I really have nothing more constructive that I can add here. I’m not flaming anyone over this, nor have I raised my voice or used profanity. As I said, Cisco made an off the cuff statement, I made one back.
You deny the existence of the Bush administration? Or do you not understand the meaning of the word “regime”? You deny that Bush’s rhetoric could influence anyone? Why does he bother making statements to the press then?
Poetry slam is a bit different from an ordinary poetry reading. A slam is a competition- audience are randomly selected as judges, and give a 1-10 number score to each poem. The highest scoring poet is the ‘winner.’ Because the judges aren’t usually trained poets in any way, slam poems often are funny, dirty, or political, since those things are more likely to get high scores.
They’re also intended to be memorized and performed, which means they don’t always read well on paper. This girl’s poem isn’t great, sure, but high school students all tend to write Terrible Poetry.
It’s a heck of a lot of fun. If you can find it, there’s a videotape of the National Poetry Slam, called “Slamnation,” that’s a great view of it.
Now, knowing that slam poems tend to get a bit over-the-top, if I were running a slam club at my school, I don’t think I’d broadcast it to the whole student body.
Bush helps foster this attitude, when he says things like “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/ret.bush.coalition/index.html)
You could argue that the powers that be at this school were influenced by conservative values/tenets in general and took that influence to an unhealthy extreme.
Those who fired the teacher in this situation are directly responsible and are therefore more worthy of our scorn in this situation than the president. One way to interpret the school’s actions is to say that they wish that if the students espouse any political ideals at all, they should conform to those that the school heads already follow.