Not that we needed it, but here is one more reason public schools suck

As a general rule, speeches are hard to watch for me. They are long, dull, and the key points often sweep by so fast that the impact is hard to catch on the spot. A lot of things are missed. I much prefer to go back and read the text. 

(Which, by the way, is one reason I continue to point out that Obama is the most destructive President in history financially speaking: His stimulus package will cost our Grandchildren's grandchildren. What a disaster.
 Good to see he learned from the mistakes of his idol, FDR and the morass he plunged us into that is still expanding.)

At times, it is hard to find the text. Wonder why the NEA has not made public a text of his hate-filled, horrific closing speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqn1rvv7Fis&feature=related

His assertion that the teachers unions should not be about the teaching profession but should push a political agenda is revealing. 

"It is not because of creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our position, it is not because we care about children, it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power and we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

But he was not done with his brutal admissions.

Chanin said, “Why are conservative and right wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States and they are the nation’s leading advocates for public education and for the type of liberal social and economic agenda and social agenda that these (conservative) groups find unacceptable. NEA will continue to be attacked as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education for education employees and for human and civil rights.”


Time for a reality check. No, you are singled out because you are not doing your job. As you admit, you are advocates for things it is not your job: an agenda that is humanist, not education related, and frankly, many of your social agenda platforms are immoral and in direct opposition to the very most cherished beliefs and values of your victims. 

A lot of it goes back to Charles Francis Potter who famously said, "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

Is it likely that Chanin is aware of the Potter quote? Irrelevant. The point is, many of us realize the goals of the schools is not to educate accurately, or even even-handedly but rather to take certain social agendas and push them as hard as possible. 

Many of us refuse to accept falsehoods taught as truth and thus are apparently "right wing bastards" as so called by the "loving" extremist leftists. 

I have never considered my self to be right wing, left wing, or any other wing. But I note that the rhetoric is getting more and more stiff. Anyone who does not bow to the agendas put forth by anti-moral forces is called "hateful" by only the kindest of our enemies and called much worse names by most.

Well done, resorting to name-calling when you push agendas that have no basis in authority other than your own think-so. People like you, Chanin, are why people like me push hard for charter schools, home school options, reforms of the schools, and so forth.

It is interesting to note where the interests of your supporters are. Reading the comments in favor of him was quite illuminating. There were many thanks for him keeping merit based stuff away from teachers. After all, why would we want to reward the good when we can just make it more important to hang in there for a paycheck regardless of ability?

Chanin is the type of person who is steering this country towards the looming disaster. Stepping down? Thank you. Good riddance. Isn't it just highly unfortunate that the idea you will be replaced by someone with an interest in improving education is unlikely to replace you? 





6 comments:

Riot Kitty said...

How come people call the stimulus irresponsible but the Iraq war wasn't? 82 percent of this deficit was created by Republicans.

pheromone girl said...

Thought provoking.

Darth Weasel said...

the debt has been growing since Alexander Hamilton left office as Treasurer....though I saw one claim that it was eliminated in 1833-34. First time I had heard that claim.

Regardless, the debt has always grown.

But it has grown under both party Presidents. To be sure, the magnitude seemed to change under Reagan and that has long been a bad mark on his record.

Obama is exacerbating it.

The stimulus is irresponsible because much of it is pure and simple pork. Furthermore, it is irresponsible because history clearly demonstrates that packages such as these are harmful to the long-term economy.

And further because many of the programs are things not granted to Congress by the Constitution. Specifically Article 1, Section 8. Those are things reserved to the states. It is yet another example of the dangers of centralized authority.

The Iraq War had the support of numerous nations. To this day I have never understood the paradox of people saying the President was too stupid to tie his shoes but so smart he hoodwinked dozens of nations.

Of course, wars now are not decided on the battlefield but in the court of public opinion. It is disturbing to me that the people I know on the ground there encounter example after example of people grateful for the overthrow of the murderous regime of Hussein, yet in the media we never hear of this.


We all know that with the probably exception of World War II, I do not believe there has been a single "justified war" in history the US has participated in. That includes the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

But wars happen and happen under all sorts of Presidents. That one would have been much more popular if the mistake of WWI had not been made again where a delay between the agreement of nations that it should take place and the start of it meant opinion changed.

Now there is a chance to avoid the mistake of the end of World War I, to avoid the mistake after the Soviet/Afghanistan war, and so forth. But I don't think either the most recent nor the current administration is smart enough to learn that lesson so we will be paying for not taking care of things properly for generations to come.

crisjesse said...

I'm reminded of another nation...

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, `BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' "

crisjesse said...

Jesus looking after His own as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing... now that's a wing I'll put my name under!

Fullur said...

@Darth
When you say a "justied war" I assume you mean a war that the US (or the colonies in the case of the Revolutionary War) should have participated in.

With that in mind, wasn't the War of 1812 a defensive war? The fact that I have to ask should illustrate that my history on that is a little sketchy, but I surely thought it was.