although given how rarely you and I agree on topics, that should be no surprise.  :)

I like the idea of controlling my children's education. I am sure I'd be able to easily accelerate their learning while tossing whatever I deem unnecessary for their future.

Ech, where to even start?  First, why so much control over your children?  Formative experiences are both positive and negative, monumental and fleeting.  You can't control your children's experiences - and to be honest, you don't want to. 

What you deem unnecessary might be a key moment in their lives: developing likes or dislikes of materials or methodologies, becoming fascinated with some bit of information that otherwise slips through the cracks, or whatever.  Human beings are messes of neurons, not computers - it's not about entering the data and getting the solution.  Fact is, you can't even control the data.

Notice: I say this as a teacher.  I don't want my kids to have me determining their young lives.  For one thing, they'll probably hate me more than most kids hate their parents (although that's an inevitability, too :)  For another thing, I want their lives to be richer than what I, alone, can provide them.

That leads to my next point: school.  Yeah, obviously I don't want to send my kid to a 'bad' school, so I'm not absolutist when it comes to not having any control over their education.  I still want them to have a broad range of experience, but of course you'd have to be a pretty bad parent to want to send your kids to a school that's struggling to educate its students. 

But, I'd still rather them go to school than not, because there are a lot of things they have to go through: social development, most importantly.  Not everyone's lucky enough to live in a neighborhood with lots of kids (I was, my brother wasn't, for example).  And they have to learn how to interact, not just with people their age - they have to learn what it's like to negotiate, to fail, to become popular, to get beaten up after gym class, to have that first crush, to work through a bad semester with an awful teacher, to plan for deadlines, etc.  It always sucks when you're there, but I'm a fan of tough love: you come out of it stronger. 

Maybe not smarter, but that's where a parent can get involved in his/her child's education - as an educator, I plan on supplementing learning at home.  That way I know my children are getting information and skills that I want them to have while still getting all the benefits of negotiating through a school environment. 

This is a ramble, but I'll refocus on some other comments.  Pardon if I repeat myself:

I do not like the idea of my children taught by people with unclear agendas.

Why?  They'll have to interact with people of various agendas all through their lives.  They have to learn how at some point.  Where did you learn?  My guess is - school.

Kids are so much savvier than we give them credit.  They can be taken easily, but they also have high b.s. detectors.  Let them learn how to sniff it out, otherwise they'll stumble twice as much when they're older.  You mention that you'll teach them to be independent, but that's not something taught.  That's something learned.  Through experience.

Plus, if you're being a responsible parent and talking with your children, you'll notice signs when they're picking up ideas you don't like.  That's when you talk to them about it.  And if you really want to make an impression, you don't lecture them - you question them.  Lead them where you want to go by asking them the right questions. 

I do not like the idea of my kids interacting with well not so good kids.

Tough.  Let them get beat up once or twice.  That's how we develop a tough skin.

The teaching profession is dominated by liberals of whom many want to make the world better by passing along their humanist values to our children.

Hey, it's not our fault that the long-hours, low-paying profession doesn't appeal to conservatives.  Those humanist values are the reasons liberals take these jobs, and the reasons conservatives stay away.  ;)

Figured I should toss that in there as a disclaimer. 

I shall now go back to lurking. 

I went to a high school that had a very conservative agenda. Joe McCarthy was in high cotton and those with any other ideas kept silent in fear.

But a very strange thing had just happened. Twenty some P.O.W.s had decided to stay in North Korea rather than stay in the U.S. The reasons were simple, they had grown up with a very rosy picture of the U.S. with no warts or problems addressed in their schooling, and as P.O.W.s they had been subject to their propaganda barrage.

What made the propaganda effective was the very jingoist schooling they had recieved, and as that part of what was taught to them was actualy true, and thereby fairly easy to prove, it caused them to question most of the rest of what they were taught, and left them wide open to the NK side of the story.

Far better to teach them to think, you can do that at home, other school or no. Good to have alternate views. How else can you examine and test your own? And if you have examined your views, and tested them against alternatives, how vulnerable are you to some wild scheme, right, left, or just weird?

You cannot help but expose them to what you think, but you can also show them your sources, and let them decide the merits. They will do so in any case. If they agree, so be it. If they do not, maybe it is you who will actually learn something!

BTW to thwart the Communist Subversion they gave us many lectures on subversive methods and the difference between propaganda and persuasion. They did their job too well, so when the Totalitarian right started to use those techniques that even Joe McCarthy had eschewed, all the alarms they had instilled went off, and are ringing still.

Ech, where to even start?  First, why so much control over your children?  Formative experiences are both positive and negative, monumental and fleeting.  You can't control your children's experiences - and to be honest, you don't want to.

It's not really about control over their experiences, but more of a control over exposure to undesirable characters. There are also some rather unsavory teachers who make it their mission to brainwash the young, and I am not sure a child of 6-8, no matter how well taught by me, would be able to withstand the barrage of "Evil Corporations are taking over the world, and only the Holy UN can save us" ;)

This is not to say that I want to brainwash my children. I think a lot of parents do not take the time to properly discuss what is moral and immoral with their children as well as give their reasons for why so that the child would feel respected and treated as a rational human being - an adult.

I would not keep them away from other kids - this is only school we are talking about. There is plenty of other times for them to socialize. Perhaps I could find a community that prefers to homeschool though it would be tough to find one with similar values. So they'll get a chance to get beat up :)

Kids are so much savvier than we give them credit.  They can be taken easily, but they also have high b.s. detectors.  Let them learn how to sniff it out, otherwise they'll stumble twice as much when they're older.  You mention that you'll teach them to be independent, but that's not something taught.  That's something learned.  Through experience.

Plus, if you're being a responsible parent and talking with your children, you'll notice signs when they're picking up ideas you don't like.  That's when you talk to them about it.  And if you really want to make an impression, you don't lecture them - you question them.  Lead them where you want to go by asking them the right questions.

You got a point but school is not the only environment to pick up ideas. I would prefer schools to be value neutral but since they are not, I'd rather not have my have child constantly turned against me and fight that battle.

Hey, it's not our fault that the long-hours, low-paying profession doesn't appeal to conservatives.  Those humanist values are the reasons liberals take these jobs, and the reasons conservatives stay away.

Very true and there is nothing to be done, but I would rather my children not be exposed to those values non-stop. They'll get their exposure anyways.

you are a bit biased to put it mildly. I have no desire to have my little doggie children sitting with me 24/7 :) But I also don't want them exposed to you teaching them to share.

there are no school subjects (below college) that I would not understand. I am not bragging but high school subjects are not exactly extremely in-depth. So I doubt I would have that kind of problem. There are limitations, sure, but come on - interacting with me would give anyone all the social skills they need ;)

Good points anyways for I can imagine most parents who home-school are not exactly geniuses like me. So I can see some of those kids to be somewhat developmentally stunted and socially inept. I've never met anyone who was homeschooled so I do not know. Or at least no one has ever told me they were.

this idea that children are "exposed to those values non-stop" come from?  o'reilly, limbaugh etc?  i am not a teacher but am the son and brother of teachers and also the product of public schooling.  where did you go to school that you were constantly bombarded with political agenda?  i went to public elementary and junior high school in queens new york and high school in a little nothing town in northern new hampshire and never encountered any aganda besides math, science and the other subjects we were taught.  i can almost understand the religous folk since public schools have that whole science thing but what values exactly are you scared of your childeren being opposed to?  help someone whose public schooling was amazingly nonpartisan understand your experience.  my graduating class has everyting from flaming liberals to equally as flaming conservatives and we all had the same teachers so even if there was any bias how did it effect the larger scale outcome?

if and when i have kids, even if i could afford the best private schools or tutors would most definitely be publically educated.

conservative "christian" network that preaches about the evils of public education day in and day out.  Much if it comes from people like James Dobson. There is lots of this rhetoric out there in Christianradioland.

I was exposed to some of those values myself. I went to school in Rockland county, New York which is just northwest of the city. Back then I wasn't terribly political (until my 12th grade) but there was definitely a liberal undercurrent in a lot of the classes like Social Studies, American History, English, etc. Obviously I survived unscathed :) but I'd rather my children not be exposed to any kind of insidious agenda.

As a young child I was in USSR and thus was not exposed to US liberalism until I was 14. Communist propaganda was not as bad because it was mostly very obvious, superficial and in your face.

By liberal values I mean teaching children to be open-minded, non-judgemental, and with no sense of right and wrong. Those are the most critical values and everything else, like bashing US, anti-war propaganda, etc stems from it.

though I do not have any problem with those whose reason for homeschooling is religious in nature. I am just a non-religious right winger :)

the fact that some teachers may you were exposed to some of these values yourself.  the post i originally replied to was a tad more over the top than this last one.  it went from full-out-all-the-time-all-liberal to "some".

your whole last paragraph lost me.  maybe it's the public education :)

i'm not trying to be condescending with this but i know it'll sound worse than i really mean it but if you actually believe that last paragraph you're seriously misguided.  i know you're the voice of the right here but come on dude.  being open minded and non judgemental is in any way a bad thing?  liberals teach kids to have no sense of right or wrong?  do you honestly believe this?

for someone who was brought up in the soviet union i would expect a different outlook.  if the communist propaganda was blatant enough, karl rove's propoganda isn't?  everything fron the gop is style over substance and intricately designed to manipulate.  propoganda.

I am watching a movie and drinking beer so pardon my slow and possibly incoherent responses. I forgot the whole "greater good" and "common good" collectivist values that should be added to the above list.

Sure, I believe that being open-minded and non-judgemental is bad because what is evil or wrong has to be strongly opposed. When you start compromising on critical values and knowing what is right and wrong you lose the sense of personal responsibility because any misstep, bad deed, or a crime can be excused.

In addition to that I can't stand people teaching values that emphasize community or society over the individual. So liberals might teach the kids to have a sense of right and wrong, but it's the wrong right if you know what I mean. Yes, I honestly believe that.

I am not a very good voice of the right, which is why we are in desperate need of better and more mainstream conservatives. I am further to the right than most, secular, and with some libertarian leanings - and thus I do not represent conservatism as well as some others might.

Boarding school (I assume that's what you meant) could  provide the structure you are looking for, but it does remove the family element from the experience. 

Something that is missing from this discussion is the deterioration of public schools and the costs associated with that. One of the reasons people cite for pulling their kids out of public schools is that the public schools are bad. As a parent I can relate to this, but shouldn't we as a society view the fact that a large proportion of our public schools aren't working as a tragedy and a impending disaster? Why can't the richest country (ignoring the national debt for a moment) provide a good education for most of it's children?

Individual home schools may have good reasons, and I think many home schooled kids get excellent educations, but many/most parents don't have this option. One result of highly motivated parents pulling their children out of public schools is a further decline in public schools conditions and a decline in support for them.

What is the future cost of not providing a good education to our children. Will be be able to compete with other countries in the future? I remember reading a couple years ago, that a foreign car company put their factory in Canada instead of Missippi because the Canadians were much better educated (and had health insurance). How much crime will result because we are not willing to pay for small classrooms and qualified teachers? I'm sure Ender will say that throwing money at the problem won't fix it, but then tell me why the richest country in the world has such bad schools.

Perhaps I should make a rule not to post after midnight ;-)

In the lost post I had a good note that there is a very wide variation of opinion in opposition groups none of them remotely similar to either right winger defined "Liberal" or any TheoFascist, be that Theo part Islamic (AlQueda, Taliban) Jewish (Kahanist), or Christian (North, Falwell, Robertson et al) or just bizarre (Moonie, UPI, Washington Times).

Most opposition I am aware of is not Anti-War per se but vigorously Anti-Stupid, and, but for advancing the cause of kleptomania, there is virtually nothing been done that has not been as stupid as a canvas Bio-containment lab.

There is quite a range of thought as to what is smarter, or smartest, but a Reagan style "tail between the legs Cut and Run" is not among them, but neither is "staying the course" and digging your way out of a hole through the bottom.

As for supporting AlQueda's goals, Tamim Ansary laid out Osama's plans in direct tones in late Sept. 2001, his fondest wish was to have America over react and ignite a war between the West and all Muslims. Clinton refused to play his game, sending only secret teams and Tomahawks, treating him as a dangerous criminal, rather than the leader of a vast army.

The PNAC's plans however meshed neatly with Osama's. Each wanted a great war to bring their chosen victims under their dominion with fear of the "Other". So in Bush2 Osama found his perfect mate beyond his wildest dreams, and together they have brought great ruin to the World.

As a parent I can relate to this, but shouldn't we as a society view the fact that a large proportion of our public schools aren't working as a tragedy and a impending disaster?

That would require a society that believes in public education. 

One of the tragedies of our history is the way that so many private schools sprung up not out of necessity or general education philosophy, but as a defensive reaction to desegregation.  That was the first step towards dismantling the public school system, right there.  Now, with the rising costs of private education, combined with the general failure of vouchers to make headway in much of the country, homeschooling is the next logical step to save children from the twin ravages of minorities and liberals.

Naturally, not every parent feels this way about public v. private - and in some areas, the public school system is so bad that you'd have to be nuts to send your children there if you have any other option. 

But that's precisely the problem.  No one wants to invest - not money, but time and manpower - into the public school system.  Throwing money at it really isn't a practical solution - although it'd help in some areas, for sure. 

Long, complicated topic, and I know quite a few people working in the public system, so I could write a whole book on this - but I'll leave you with this scattered response to start with.  :)

That fit that to a T. She was very bright, finished college when she was twenty and was completely unable to deal with the world. Did odd jobs but never really managed to build a career. Haven't spoken to her in a while, so I'm hopeful that's changed. But the homeschooling definitely left a lot out.

that my children to survive it... It's more about it being an unnecessary struggle. Why make them survive it if there is no need. I guess my point is that their time is better spent elsewhere.

My political science teacher was unabashedly conservative, and threw a party when the Republicans took back Congress.

I guess you are even younger than me :)

As a parent, the best thing you can do is help your child process all the information that he/she is getting, but not controlling that flow of information.  You'll find it's much more effective to getting a child you can be proud of, regardless of political affiliation.

I disagree. A parent should definitely control a lot of the information a child is getting especially early on. As a child grows up the amount of information censorship can lessen corresponding to his/her maturity and ability to reason.

While I can see a few problems with public schools (nothing Ender mentioned, but in Colorado we have standardized testing--blech), I think there are bigger and more problems associated with home schooling.  Others have done a nice job arguing the value of public education, but I would like to add a third and a fourth option to the discussion, which I guess can fall under the 'whatever' part of the diary title: private schools and alternative schools.  Of course, these can be mixed (a private alternative school), but there are some impressive alternative public schools in my area.  (My wife has done extensive research in preparation for our nine-month old--it's never to early to see what's out there).

Most people think that alternative schools are just for high school students who have learning or social problems.  This is not always the case.  I have two elementary schools in a couple miles radius from where I live that specialize in different teaching methodologies.  One is a bilingual school in which they alternate Spanish and English instruction every week (Ender's nightmare).  This school has both children of immigrants (legal and illegal) and children of various other races who sign up on a witing list that now extends to 3+ years.  In other words, I should sign my kid up now in order for him to go to kindergarten there.

Another school is called the 'lab school' .  This is a public school modelled off the Waldorf and Montessori schools, which are private.  All of these schools do not follow the stae-test/standard education methodology of teaching, but focus on individual needs and creativity.  The students still get important socialization among peers, but aren't spoon-fed rigid facts that disregard the ability to think and process information.  (I should add that a complaint against the Waldorf schools is that it verges on a religious school without directly stating that as a purpose or goal--kind of like the 'Veggie-Tales" for any parents with toddlers out there.)

It is a whole bunch of partisan bs masquerading as facts. In other words a whole lot of "known facts". Yes, Clinton experts along with Clinton were hot on Bin Laden's tail and just needed a little bit more time to apprehend him and save us from 9/11. Also this partisan bs is supposed to be the evidence of Totalitarian techniques? You gotta be kidding me.

Bashing liberals is evidence? Hahaha...

Clinton's AG had nothing to do with Waco execution, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzales? Everyone's civil rights were respected!!!

Big Lie - undefined, separate reality - unknown, strawdog ideology - whatever the hell you believe in I guess.

Wellstone was assassinated by GOP? I bet.

Politics of personal assassination in which democrats excel (witness Sen. Allen) though all fair game some how is Totalitarian when turned against a bunch of libs in congress and the media. Lol.

Maybe you should really revisit the definition of totalitarian outside of the lunatic conspiracy websites and dkos. You are living in an alternate reality that I cannot even fathom.

I am sorry but I can't respond seriously to any more of this crap. If US is too totalitarian for you, you should move to freedom loving Cuba or North Korea.

on an educational thread.  I am rocking my kid to sleep as I type, so I have to use the on-screen keyboard with a mouse, which makes for slow typing and slightly imprecise grammar and spelling.  Sorry for my clumsiness (witing, benifit, etc).  Rocking my kid gives me an excuse to look at blogs, so my wife doesn't criticize me as much for wasting time.:)  Of course the negative side of the coin is the on-screen keyboard.  I've become better with it in the last few months, but it is tedious as hell to use.

I am sorry that you have to type on the rather annoying on-screen keyboard. We should really be able to edit our comments as well... Not sure why such a feature is not available.

I can't wait till I have a kid to rock to sleep :)

They work without benefits--so why dont they deserve their children to be educated.

Why do you villify illegal aliens but then exploit them and benefit from their labors.

Either Republicans should raid businesses known to hire illegal aliens and deport their employees and fine the employers or accept the fact businesses need them and steps must be done to make them legal.

This is just fair.  We benefit from them therefore we need to give them rights as legal immigrants.

sorry but when I see taxpayer money going for any services to illegals it almost makes my blood boil :) I get visions of a wall on our southern border.

Your cost/benefit analysis makes some sense if you talk about people here legally. I can't even theoretically entertain paying for people who are in this country illegally... It flies in the face of all that is decent and really hits everyone who suffered to get to US legally.

Much of what they write themselves is deliberately buried in mire but a quick Google kicked up these...

http://www.the-highw...

http://www.reformed....

They use many names Theonomy, Reconstructionist, and Christian Nationalist, are common. Those who oppose them call it Dominionist but they seem to have quit using the word

Key elemants Mosaic law (death for many "sins" from homosexuality to apostacy , or even obstinancy)

typical Totalitarian rules (no rules except what wins, ends justify means)

from another now famous Post

I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, and I am the son of a minister. Baptists have been strong supporters of the separation of church and state -- until recently. I watched as the denomination's foundational beliefs were trampled in the '80s and '90s by a minority who forced it from conservative evangelism to rigid fundamentalism. That transformation was accomplished through cynical manipulation of the Southern Baptist Convention's democratic procedures, a no-holds-barred, unethical ruthlessness that used every loophole and ugly smearing of anyone who stood in the way. A self-declared righteous few left Christian behavior far behind, and through fearmongering about "liberals" turned popular Southern Baptist sentiment ever further toward absolutism (see "Wonder-Working Power," April 3, 2003).

Recognise some techniques? The whole thing is quite chilling. These folks are not "out in the wilderness" but at the heart of the Republican party.

It's more about it being an unnecessary struggle. Why make them survive it if there is no need. I guess my point is that their time is better spent elsewhere.

That's why I keep stressing the extent to which this is a crapshoot: you can't know what is and isn't necessary in your child's development because you only have very limited control on the way information gets processed.  It may be the best thing for your kids to become conservative is to send them to a flaming liberal school, where they'll develop a true disgust for liberalism.  Or, it may be that they'll develop oversensitivity to outside influence, and the only way to keep them conservative will be to hide them from any liberal influence.  You can't know these things.  That's why I keep stressing that the best thing you can do as a parent is to expose them to a wide range of phenomena and help them learn to negotiate their way through them. 

"Bashing liberals is evidence? Hahaha..."

It's not liberal-bashing that strawdogging is about.  It's the oh-so-convenient turning of conservatives into liberals the moment they voice dissatisfaction with the WH.  I mean, at this point, how many former CIA and Pentagon officials have been magcially transformed into liberals for the sake of partisanship?  These guys are a bigger headache for the WH than Leiberman ever was for the Dems; therefore, through the magic of the right-wing media (and it is right-wing, another totalitarian tactic there, calling it "liberal" so any accusation of it being right-wing are panned as "tit-for-tat", and the issue is neutralized), turn a former four-star general (first in his class at Westpoint, voted GOP his entire life, etc.) into a limp-wristed pantywaist liberal. 

Never mind that liberal politicians have always fought wars with more honor and valour than any conservative ones (look it up, the proof is in the medals); the magic right-wing media can do anything!  And conservatives eat it right up -- they have to, there's no other choice.  And now they've got their base out there thinking that Democrats want to cut-and-run in Iraq, even though no proposals to do so have been recommended by them (it's true, look it up).  The best part is the upcoming GOP roll-out of their withdrawal plan, which is somehow not "cut-and-run" despite the lack of difference with the Democratic plan.  Own the media like the GOP does, and these are simple matters.  (Key: don't allow actual liberals on your talk shows, only puppets)

Ultimately, though, I don't think anyone ever called modern conservatives totalitarian, we simply accuse them of using totalitarian techniques, which, as we have seen, have only limited appeal to Americans (the 1st Amendment makes short work of it after a few brief years).  Having totalitarian dreams does not a totalitarian make.

i agree with you.  my issue with you saying this is you (the right, i always feel i'm picking on ender but i honestly like ender based on the little i know so far) definitely expect liberals to accept the labels you give us and define ourselves based on your opinions of us.

this is where i'm hopeful this site can be a social asset.  we all get so wrapped up in our own "side" we forget that the other side is as diverse as ours and made up of people just like us.  no i don't agree with the right on 99% of the issues but i disagree with the democrats on many issues as well.  to hear o'reilly, coulter et al spouting off about "liberals this" or "liberals that" i'm sickened by the maliciousness shown to other americans.  with fellow americans like coulter blatantly calling for the death of anyone who dares disagree, do we really need osama as an enemy?  if keith olbermann or al franken were to call conservatives traitors and call for their execution how exactly would the right react?

defining ourselves based on their opinion of us is exactly what the right expects from the left.

Don't forget that Ann Coulter hasn't actually killed anyone :)

Yet.

Indeed little else could.

Americans natural inclinations and the First Amendment have been the bulwark against it mostly, though there have been local setbacks.

It is the patriot who calls the tyranny prone out that has saved the country on several occasions, and at least put big bumps in their road on a great many others.

While most modern conservatives are a worst kleptarian or authoritarian, there is a truly creepy group within their ranks whose aim is nothing less than to overthrow the United States, and establish a regime that would indeed be opposed by the majority of conservatives much less the rest of the country.

They have a simple solution to that, murder the opposition. Obviously such a program started prematurely would only create martyrs and galvanize opposition. So other than Steve Kangas, I am not aware that they have done so, but it is a major part of their agenda for the right time.

For now the effort is to create an alternate reality that at least their fellow travelers and other useful idiots will believe is actual reality (Strauss referred to these folk as gentlemen, and was definitely not a compliment).

They have been scarily successful in subverting a wide range of Conservative institutions From Southern Baptists to the Republican Party, not in converting all the members but in using them to forward the agenda (though their eating their own, as you have noted, is necessary against actual challenges from within.)

So just because the whole unfolding of their agenda, (particularly as their power, though great, is not yet absolute,) has not been achieved, they are indeed more dangerous than a pedophile who has gotten to be a swim coach as part of his plans and dreams but has not yet actually raped or murdered anyone.

Yes! Totalitarian Dreams does a Totalitarian make, particularly when they have already achieved the first phases of their plan.