The Real Lance Brown

Jammin' some Lance Brown up your brainhole
March 31, 2006

Nothing to show but 53 shows

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

CHANNEL ISLAND – Nothing to show but 53 shows

Lame duck ‘Arrested Development’ will expire 47 episodes short of the 100 mark. And, apparently, that spells failure.

By Scott Collins, Times Staff Writer

The strange fate of “Arrested Development” reminds us once again of the odd up-is-down commercial imperatives of American network TV.

Variety reported Tuesday that creator Mitch Hurwitz has decided to bail on the sitcom about a grandiosely strange Orange County family, which won an armload of glowing reviews, a best comedy Emmy after its first season and whispered reverence from Fox executives, who referred to the show the same way nuns might speak of a medieval relic associated with the Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, what “Arrested” could never do is get arrested. Not nearly enough viewers ever tuned in to justify all the heroic attempts to save the show, which is now evidently dead beyond all doubt.

“The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return … I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations,” Hurwitz told Daily Variety. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

In the annals of Hollywood, “Arrested” will go down as a tragedy — not because it was a creative flop (its small but intense legion of fans say quite the opposite) but because it committed the unpardonable sin of crapping out after three seasons. To TV executives, that is just about the worst thing a series can do, because it means that the studio has spent big money to keep alive a show that in all likelihood will never produce serious cash in syndication, where it takes about 100 episodes, or almost five seasons, to prosper.

Does that make any sense? Only to accountants at the TV studios. The economic model that American viewers are stuck with tends to encourage painfully incremental storytelling among dramas and formulaic situations in comedies. Why? So the shows can reach the vaunted 100 mark more easily. Producers lean toward that magic number whether creativity dictates it or not. For all the talk of the death of network comedies, precious little thought has been given to changing the financial formula.

This is the not the way it is everywhere. Consider the BBC. One of its most highly regarded sitcoms, John Cleese’s landmark farce, “Fawlty Towers,” produced precisely 12 episodes. Twelve! That’s one-half of an American season. BBC’s “The Office” produced a grand total of 14 episodes. The NBC version, in its second season, has already made roughly twice that many.

“Arrested” lasted 53 episodes. Only in America would that be considered an early death.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

A+E : The End of “Arrested Development”

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

This is another great example of a journalist who wants to write the AD is dead story so bad that he damages his craft in the process.

Check out the first sentence: “It now looks as if ‘Arrested Development’ is officially dead.

If it was officially dead, it wouldn’t “look like” it was officially dead. There would be no need for equivocation. It’s kinda like saying “I usually always do such-and-such.”

And note the gradual lightening of the show’s status as the article goes on. In the title, it’s the end of Arrested Development. No way to misinterpret that, right? But then the first sentence is “it looks like” it’s officially dead. (Michael: “Wait, you mean he is dead, or it just looks like it?” Literal Doctor: “No, it just looks like he’s dead. He’s got blue paint all over him or something.”) And then by the third paragraph, we’re down to “it now seems highly unlikely the show will get another season.”

By the end of the article, the show is renewed, and outlasting The Simpsons. (Just kidding.)

A+E Interactive: The End of “Arrested Development”
by Charlie McCollum

It now looks as if “Arrested Development” is officially dead.

Just days after sources said that a deal to move the Emmy-winning comedy from its old home at Fox (which pulled it off the air earlier this year) to Showtime was all but finished, show creator Mitch Hurwitz pulled out over what were reportedly creative and financial differences. Hurwitz confirmed his departure in interviews late Monday.

Imagine Television and 20th Century Fox, the comedy’s producers, could go ahead with “Arrested” minus Hurwitz. But since Showtime entertainment president Robert Greenblatt has said repeatedly he wouldn’t take the series unless Hurwitz was involved, it now seems highly unlikely the show will get another season.

Since making its debut in fall 2003, the often-brilliant satirical take on the lives of the Bluth family of Orange County has been widely viewed as television’s best comedy. It won the Emmy for best comedy in 2004 and was nominated again last season.

But the series never found an audience, despite heavy promotion by Fox after its Emmy win and again last fall. (This is one case where you can’t blame the network for not backing a good show.) At the end, “Arrested” was attracting barely 5 million viewers a week and often finished last in its time period.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

Variety.com – Hurwitz takes a hike

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Variety.com – Hurwitz takes a hike

‘Arrested’ creator bails as showrunner

By JOSEF ADALIAN

“Arrested Development” creator Mitch Hurwitz says he will not be continuing with the series, throwing a major — likely fatal — monkey wrench into attempts to keep the Emmy-winning laffer alive for a fourth season.

Series producers 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine TelevisionImagine Television had agreed on a deal to move “Arrested,” previously on Fox, to Showtime — assuming Hurwitz was willing to come back. In the end, however, a mix of creative and financial concerns has prompted Hurwitz to move on.

“The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return … I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations,” Hurwitz told Daily Variety on Monday in a telephone interview from GothamGotham. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

Nonetheless, Hurwitz said he put off making a final decision on his involvement so Showtime and 20th could talk about a possible deal.

“Of course, if there was enough money in it, I would have happily abandoned the fans’ need for quality. But as it turns out, there wasn’t,” he said.

Indeed, Hurwitz and 20th have long been at odds over finances, sparring over everything from the show’s budget to Hurwitz’s own compensation. The two sides were unable to come to terms on an overall deal last year, and while creative concerns were clearly at play in Hurwitz’s decision, coincoin may have been a key factor, insiders said.

Hurwitz said he had briefed most of the show’s cast about his decision, as well as some of the writers. He also talked with exec producer-narrator Ron HowardRon Howard, who asked Hurwitz if he would be willing to continue as a consultant on “Arrested” should 20th and Imagine find a network willing to continue the skeinskein without Hurwitz.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as showrunner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he said.

Showtime entertainment toppertopper Bob Greenblatt made it clear in January that Hurwitz’s participation in the show was essential to a deal (Daily Variety, Jan. 20). With Hurwitz out of the equation, Showtime is no longer a viable home for “Arrested,” insiders said.

It doesn’t help that one of Hurwitz’s key deputies, exec producer Jim Valleley, also says he won’t do the show without his boss. “We couldn’t do the show without Mitch Hurwitz, and I wouldn’t want to be the guy who tried,” Valleley said, who called the apparent end of the show “heartbreaking.”

Hurwitz said he had lunch with Showtime entertainment chief Bob Greenblatt even though he was leaning against continuing with the show. “He was actually very persuasive in telling me how much he believed in the show. I walked away thinking, ‘Maybe,’ ” Hurwitz said.

Despite word of tension between Hurwitz and 20th, scribe said the studio and its sister net deserve credit for having produced and aired three seasons of the show.

“I can honestly say I’m appreciative. They put a lot of money into this, and I put a lot of my life into this,” he said.

He also hinted that while “Arrested” may have run its course as a TV show as far as he’s concerned, he would be interested in reviving the franchise as a feature film.

Reps for 20th and Showtime declined comment. One person familiar with the studio’s thinking, however, said fans of the show shouldn’t write an obit for “Arrested” just yet, noting 20th is the studio that revived “Family Guy.”

(Denise Martin contributed to this report.)


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

UPI: “Arrested Development” is a No Go on Showtime

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

This article is sloppy in its reporting…another of many to try and report the death of the showtime deal, though there is reaon to believe it could still live.

ABC 4 – “Arrested Development” is a No Go on Showtime

Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz says he is exiting the show, which quashes a deal to air the Emmy-winning series on Showtime.

A deal was in the works with 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine Television to air the series on the premium cable network, but it was contingent on Hurwitz coming along, Daily Variety reported Tuesday. …

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

E!: Unfortunate Development for “Arrested”

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

I’m archiving this article, but the original at E!’s site has a lot of links to articles covering the various developments mentioned in the article.

Unfortunate Development for “Arrested” – Mar 28, 2006 – E! Online News

by Sarah Hall

A new development may keep Arrested Development off the air for good.

Series creator Mitch Hurwitz announced his decision to quit the Emmy-winning comedy Monday, dealing a blow to fans still holding out hope that the canceled Fox show might be revived on another network, Daily Variety reports.

The move by Hurwitz was not entirely unexpected. E! Online’s TV columnist Kristin Veitch reported last month that the executive producer was “hesitant” about sticking with the series, despite a tentative deal in place to move it to Showtime.

Though series producers 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine Television had hammered out an agreement with the cable network, it was forged on the understanding that Hurwitz would be continuing to script the various misadventures of the Bluth family.

However, the writer told Variety he had reached the end of the line as far as Arrested Development was concerned.

“I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to [the fans'] expectations,” Hurwitz told the trade. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”
“hurwitz”

He said he held off on making a final decision to give 20th Century Fox and Showtime time to reach a potential deal but ultimately had to move on due to a combination of creative and financial concerns.

“Of course, if there was enough money in it, I would have happily abandoned the fans’ need for quality. But as it turns out, there wasn’t,” he said.

Hurwitz said he had briefed most of the show’s cast and writers about his decision. He said executive producer Ron Howard asked him to consider serving as a consultant on the show if 20th Century Fox and Imagine figured out a way to continue it without him.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as showrunner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he told Variety.

In a statement, 20th Century Fox offered a teensy bit of hope. “While there are no plans to resume production at this time, we know all too well from our experience with Family Guy…that anything is possible,” the company said, referring to its resurrection of the irreverent ‘toon after the show’s success in reruns and on DVD.

The tragically underrated series about a dysfunctional Orange County, California, family debuted in 2003 to critical acclaim but never registered with viewers, despite winning the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series in 2004.

Last month, only 3.3 million viewers tuned in for what Fox billed as a season finale, but what was most likely the series finale for Arrested Development.

Despite his defection from the show, Hurwitz left fans with one final straw to grasp, hinting to Variety that he may still be interested in adapting the series to the big screen.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

IGN: Arrested Development Creator Quits

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Arrested Development Creator Quits

March 28, 2006 – In a very depressing bit of news for my fellow Arrested Development fans, series creator Mitch Hurwitz has decided not to return to run the series, despite Showtime’s offer to pick the show up. This move very likely means that the chances of the series continuing are over. For months now there has been a lot of speculation about the negotiations with Showtime for the beloved but ratings challenged series to move to the cable channel from its previous home on Fox. Many reports had also noted that Hurwitz was feeling burnt out and might not want to continue on, and that without him, the possibilities of Arrested continuing were slim.

Hurwitz has now confirmed to Variety his decision to leave the series. There have reportedly been some arguments over money issues between Hurwitz and 20th Century Fox, who produces Arrested, and financial aspects may have played a part in Hurwitz’s decision. However, more than anything, Hurwitz said he simply felt unable to give his all to the series anymore. Commenting on the loyal following the show has, Hurwitz told Variety, “The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations. I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

While the article notes that executive producer/series narrator Ron Howard has asked Hurwitz to remain connected to the show as a consultant should it continue without him, the chances of that happening seem extremely unlikely. Showtime head Bob Greenwalt had previously stated that he would not want the series without Hurwitz. Even more damaging to the show finding another home is executive producer Jim Valleley, who plays a key creative role in the series, saying he wouldn’t continue on the show without Hurwitz remaining too. Sad to say, but it’s likely time to really say goodbye to the Bluth family. While Hurwitz’s decision is an extremely frustrating one for those of us who’d love the show to continue, the idea of it going on without him also seems highly questionable.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |

TV.com: Arrested Development is a no-show

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Arrested Development is a no-show

With show creator Hurwitz bailing, hopes grow dim that Showtime will pick up acerbic sitcom.

For Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz, the show mustn’t go on.

Hurwitz confirmed Monday that he has decided against continuing on with the series because he feels the show has reached its creative end. Showtime president Robert Greenblatt said previously that the cable channel was interested in picking up the series, but only if Hurwitz was involved as the show runner.

Hurwitz told Variety that he would consider continuing on as a consultant, and that he would be interested in making a feature film of the series.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as show runner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he said.

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |
March 27, 2006

TWoP – The Will Arnett Interview

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

If you can live with clicking through 19 pages of interview, you get a pretty good look at Arrested development’s Will Arnett (“GOB”) in his interview:

Television Without Pity » The Will Arnett Interview

Leave a comment Posted in Arrested Development |
March 19, 2006

Bill of Rights Day Op-Ed (2001)

Author: Lance - Categories: Op-eds, Political and Opinion Writing

This is an Op-Ed piece I wrote in 2001 about Bill of Rights Day and threats to the Bill of Rights in the post-911 America. It was published in The Union(Nevada County, CA) on December 15th, 2001.


Today is Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the first ten amendments to our nation’s Constitution. Since the Bill of Rights seeks to defend our freedoms from encroachment by government authority, that document’s birthday seems like the perfect time to examine those freedoms, and see how well they are holding up under the strain of 210 years of growing government (and 3 months of ballooning “wartime” government).

Take the 4th Amendment, for example. It’s the amendment that has been hit hardest, particularly in the past 3 months. The 4th Amendment was designed to ensure our right to be secure from “unreasonable search and seizure.” In the past, the government has tried to comply with the 4th Amendment by ensuring that only criminal suspects were subject to search and seizure. Aside from a few major exceptions, like asset forfeiture laws, and the surveillance of “subversive” activist groups, the government has largely taken steps to ensure that searches and seizures were reasonable. Until now.

The new “USA PATRIOT Act” has legalized the use of “Carnivore,” an FBI Internet wiretapping tool that searches the e-mails (and web surfing, and instant messages, and more) of thousands of non-suspects each time it searches the e-mail of a potential criminal. What’s more, the 4th Amendment requirement of “probable cause” has been ratcheted down to “reasonable suspicion” in many instances. And if that wasn’t enough, warrants that used to require a judge’s approval now only require approval from a state Attorney General or a federal attorney. In other words, instead of convincing an impartial judge that a suspect needs to be searched, police and D.A.s need only convince fellow law enforcement officials and prosecutors.

The 4th amendment has more to say. Aside from insisting that warrants are based on probable cause, it also states that they must specifically describe “the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” For the most part, the government has tried to obey that rule. Until now.

Carnivore, mentioned above, has the capability to scan the communications of every subscriber to an ISP, and search for keywords, names, e-mail addresses, or anything else that’s going through the pipeline. By its design, it doesn’t just search the communications of one suspect, it searches hundreds or thousands of people’s communications. A “real world” parallel would be if police were able to use a search warrant for one person’s apartment to search all of the building’s apartments, looking for anything related to their suspect. What happens if they stumble upon unrelated “suspicious” activity in the process? We’ll have to wait and find out, as the courts try to make constitutional sense out of the most significant and disturbing law-enforcement legislation of our generation.

Another major blow to the 4th Amendment is the notion of “roving wiretaps.” In the past, in order to obey the 4th Amendment, law enforcement was required to get a warrant for each phone line they wanted to tap. In other words, they had to “particularly describe the place to be searched,” as the amendment says. Until now.

The “USA PATRIOT Act,” that wolf in sheep’s clothing, gives the green flag to “roving wiretap” warrants— open-ended warrants which allow police to tap into any phone which can be associated with their suspect. That includes pay phones, friends’ phones, cell phones, pagers, faxes, e-mails- any medium which can be related in some way to the person they are investigating. This amounts to interpreting “particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized” as permission to say, “we will search and/or seize anything that the suspect comes in contact with, if we choose.”

Lately, the federal government is disrespecting so many of the limits imposed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that it can’t be covered in one column or article. I focused on the 4th Amendment because it has been disregarded the most. There will be hundreds of thousands of pages written about the aggressive “wartime” law enforcement measures being employed, and their impact— on our right to due process and public trial by jury, freedom of speech and the press, attorney-client confidentiality, the rights of non-citizens in our country, and many more issues. We as citizens need to get informed and join in the dialogue.

We should celebrate our Constitutional freedoms, on Bill of Rights Day, and every day— but we must also stand up for them, or they will continue to be disregarded, and eventually forgotten altogether.

Leave a comment Posted in Op-eds, Political and Opinion Writing |
March 15, 2006

Atlas Shrugged and me (and a movie makes three)

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

May 28, 2003

There is no book which has had a greater influence on me than Atlas Shrugged.

I first read Atlas when I was 15. My favorite teacher ever, Jim Duquette, was a major fan of Ayn Rand — a rarity among high school educators, I believe. He was a rarity in almost every way possible — a truly extraordinary teacher. Fearless, funny, super-energetic, a little bit crazy, strict but soft, demanding yet understanding. He had such a zest for life, and for learning, and for, as he said, “getting at the meat” of things. He passed away last year, and I regret that it had been years since I had visited him or talked with him. He ranks as one of the top 5 influences on my development, and probably will hold that standing for the rest of my life.

A big reason why I treasure Mr. Duquette so much is because he introduced me to Ayn Rand. When I read Atlas Shrugged, it was like I was reading an epic permission slip for me to be what I had become — confident, individualistic, unrelenting in pursuit of my achievements, and unbending to the pressures and whims of others.

I had long been a bit of a self-imposed outcast among my peers — I was very smart, I was cocky and sarcastic, and I was unique almost to a fault.

An example (and you’re going to think I’m really weird): For most of my youth from 5th grade on, I wore button-down “dress shirts”. (Eventually this evolved to unbuttoned dress shirts with a t-shirt underneath, which is quite often still my major mode of “fashion”.) Anyway, in 6th or 7th grade I decided for some reason to start rolling one sleeve of my shirt up, while leaving the other down. If I had to explain it now, I’d say I was challenging the norms and expectations of my peers — a fancy way of saying I was just doing it to be weird, which is what I thought of it at the time.

I wore my shirt like that, every day, for quite some time — I can’t recall if it was weeks or months, but it was quite a while. When people would ask me why I had one sleeve rolled up and the other down — and they did ask me, regularly — I would usually respond with, “Why do you have both sleeves rolled down (or up)?” The answer was, of course, that they were conforming to the norm, and some would say something to that effect — “Because that’s how you’re supposed to wear them,”, or “Because that’s the normal way to wear them.” Most, however, would just express frustration, or say “You’re weird.”

That was not the first or the only time I was weird on purpose, but I remember it the best of all of them, because it was so overt, and because it was really a significant test. The pressure to conform is practically almighty in K-12 school, and at some level as a child, I recognized that I had no interest in submitting to such a thing. Which isn’t to say I never followed a trend, or felt embarrassment, or conformed to what my friends and peers wanted of me — I did each of those things sometimes — but more often than not I consciously or unconsciously resisted those pressures, and I sought to look, act, and speak up in a way that broke the norms, or challenged the expectations of those around me. I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I was told “You’re weird.” Or, for that matter, the number of times I saw the look in a teacher’s eyes that indicated that I made them nervous — not fearful of physical harm, but nervous because they knew they did not control me. Sort of an “Oh my God, what do I do with this one?” look.

And it was hard, being like that. Challenging people is either my nature or I learned it very young, because I’ve been doing it for as long as I can remember — and most of the earliest stories of me are stories of me disobeying or resisting in some way. And if you’ve been through school, you must know how hard it is to not be accepted, or to stand up against peer pressure. I basically made an effort to not be accepted, and stood up to peer pressure every time I could. And it was hard. I’m not complaining — I’m just sayin’.

But then I met Ayn Rand, through a little huge book called Atlas Shrugged. And Ayn taught me that being unique, standing out, achieving and being smart, and resisting peer pressure were all good things. She taught me that pursuit of my happiness — in the broadest sense of the term — was supposed to be my main objective, and it wasn’t my job to do what others wanted me to do to make them happy. She gave me permission to be me — she showed me me, in the characters of her book, and she showed me the people who had tried to mold and control me as well. She laid out clearly what was wrong with what they were trying to do, and why it was right for me to do what I was trying to do.

But that was only half of the bargain, and the other half of the bargain almost certainly helped me more than the first. Part A of the bargain, which I had intuited all my life, was “you get to do what you want, you get to decide if you’re right or wrong, and being selfish is not just OK — it’s the right thing to do.” That’s the “permission to be me” part. But for Part A to work, you have to do Part B — you have to live morally. You get to decide if you’re right, but you have to actually be right. You get to do what you want, but you have to do the right thing. Being selfish is the right thing to do — as long as you are living a good and productive and moral life.

Part A of the deal went pretty quickly for me. I had already been training to be an utterly unique egomaniac for a long time. I got my permission slip, and just went back to being weird me, with that much more zest. And as you can tell, I never looked back. But Part B has become a lifelong journey.

Up until then, I was basically winging it. I didn’t have a philosophy to speak of — I just did what I felt like doing. I didn’t have much of a moral structure — I knew the basics, like don’t hurt people, etc., and I had honesty as a characteristic deeply ingrained in me, but that was about it. I didn’t have any rules for myself, unless you count “be weird” and “make trouble” as rules. ;-)

Ayn Rand didn’t so much teach me the rules — she showed me why there are rules, and why it’s important to figure them out and follow them. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is called Objectivism — it’s a whole school of philosophy that started with her — and its two main premises are essentially (I paraphrase heavily), “Reality is. Deal with it.”, and “Human achievement rocks!”

The extension of “Reality is. Deal with it.” is that there is a system to how things work, from the physical to the psychological to the philosophical to the sociological and so on. The system is a knowable and definable thing. That’s “Reality is.” Ayn Rand says it most often as “A is A.” “Deal with it” means that your job is to follow the rules of the system in the correct way. Not the rules that are handed down from people, or written in rulebooks and religions — the natural rules. In other words, doing what’s right — what you, as an entity in a system defined by rules, are supposed to be doing.

It’s not as lame as it sounds, because what you’re supposed to be doing is maximizing you — being the most you, the unique you, that you can possibly be. That ties into the other premise of Objectivism — “Human achievement rocks!” Ayn believed that mankind was pretty damn amazing, and that when unleashed — when let free — humans are capable of phenomenal achievements. She thought that when individuals work toward their greatest achievement — doing what it is they love best, and doing it the best they can — that the greatest good could be achieved. She thought that that was the proper moral system.

I couldn’t agree more. Practically since the first year I read it, people have been telling me that I would grow out of my “Ayn Rand phase”, and now as often as not people will try to look down their nose and say “Oh, I used to really like her when I was young/a teenager/in college, but then…” Fill in the blank — “…I grew out of it”, “…I got out in the real world and learned that it’s not always black and white like she says”, “…I grew to realize that sometimes you need to compromise…” , etc.. Well it’s 15 years later, I’ve read the book 4 or 5 times now (once every few years), and my “Ayn Rand phase” is getting along just fine — showing no signs of stopping. So as not to offend all the people who told me I’d grow out of it, I’ll continue to entertain the idea that it’s just a phase — but just between you and me and the world wide web…I think it’s permanent.

I don’t agree with everything Ayn Rand said or believed in, I don’t necessarily hold all the same values that she held, and her and I come from very different backgrounds and as a result see the world in a very different way — but I believe that most of the tenets of her philosophy are true. I think she was right a lot more than she was wrong. And I value Atlas Shrugged as much as or more than I ever have in the past. If someone demanded a one-book-only essential reading list from me, it would say Atlas Shrugged. I’d probably put a smiley face next to it.

(There’s a lot of clarification and explanation I’d like to stuff into here, but it will have to wait for another entry. I could go on at quite great length about this topic, and likely will in due time.)

On that note, onto the news that prompted this entry: it looks like Atlas Shrugged is finally going to be made into a movie. People have been trying to make that happen for over 30 years, and there have been three and a half failed attempts during that time, most recently in 2001. But it sounds like some pretty hardcore folks have hold of it now — people with money, names, and serious dedication to making it happen. The screenwriter has done bunches of big-name book-to-movie adaptations, and has read the book 4 times in the past 6 months. They’re talking about making it big budget, with known stars — the whole shebang. And they’re all into it because they are into Ayn Rand’s vision, and sharing that vision with as big an audience as possible.

I’m trying not to get too worked up about it just yet, but this would be pretty sweet if it pans out. Atlas is an enormously popular book — I’ll never tire of the fact that it ranked the second most influential book in an important survey, after The Bible. The idea of getting tens of millions of people all worked up about it via a big Hollywood movie makes me smile. I don’t want to start musing about the potential impact it could have until I see more confirmation that it’s actually going to happen. But, woo hoo! :-)

Some articles (each as good as the next, all with worthy tidbits):

The Objectivist Center: Film Company to Bring “Atlas Shrugged” to the Screen

Box Office Mojo: ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ Take Five

Box Office Mojo: ‘Atlas Shrugged:’ Who is James Hart?
(about the screenwriter)

And Miss Liberty’s Film and TV World has an Unofficial Atlas Shrugged Movie Homepage which has been following the development of the project for some time.

1 Comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

DNA Exonerates Fla. Man After 24 Years; 24 Years Still Gone

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

January 25, 2006

This story, and all those resembling it, should serve to highlight one crucial fact that we need to remember about our criminal justice system: when we incarcerate people, we are taking their life from them. Years of their life are essentially being snatched away from these folks. In a case like Alan Crotzer’s, that fact becomes especially clear when you think of his age. He was 20 or 21 years old when he went in, and he is 45 now. That is GIANT. His whole 20′s, his whole 30′s, and half of his 40′s. He was just past being a kid then, and he’s middle-aged now.

While Mr. Crotzer was found innocent, and thus the injustice there is absolutely stark, there are plenty of people spending the bulk of their lives in prison who are not the sort of “evil” people we all would expect to be kept locked away. The system – the laws, the police, and the courts – is ideally supposed to be designed to prevent mistakes, to arrest and enforce and prosecute fairly and equitably, to mete out punishments that fit the crimes, to assume people are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately to do its job: to serve justice. But we all know that that’s not how the system always functions. (We do all know that, right? Can I see a show of hands?) In fact, I think I’m being extremely generous to say that the system might work that way 50% of the time. Maybe (and I mean that in the strongest possible way) half of the time our law enforcement and justice system acts, it serves justice fairly and equitably, without mistakes or corruption, with the folks being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the punishment fitting the crime. Maybe. (I just had to get that in again.)

But that really is being generous, because in many cases, systemic inequities make sure that almost all law enforcement is tainted. Just look at how black people are arrested for drug offenses in disproportionate numbers, despite the fact that they do not do drugs in equally disproportionate numbers. (Translation: they get arrested a lot more than everyone else, even though they have not been shown to do drugs that much more than everyone else, if at all.) Look at how asset forfeiture policies have tainted police departments nationwide by using greed as a motivator for law enforcement prioritites. (Translation: Cops use seizure amounts, rather than public safety, when deciding what crimes to focus on.) Look at how asset forefeiture policies have resulted in corruption, and in folks being targeted simply because they have valuable property. (Donald Scott, R.I.P.)

Look, quite simply, at how police officers abuse their power with quite a lot of impunity, in the most basic ways: arbitrary enforcement, violation of due process, filing false reports, acting from anger and vengeance, to name a few. And don’t tell me it doesn’t happen, because I’ve seen all this and more up close and in person, and on more than one occasion, and in more than one jurisdiction. I realize that there are a lot of 100% upright police officers out there, or at least I assume that there are. But I also realize – and it’s important that we all realize — that there are a LOT of not-totally-upright police out there. Why is it important that we all (by which I mean you) realize this fact of our criminal justice system? Because of the topic that brought about this blog entry: 24 years of a man’s life, stolen.

In this instance it was a victim, who falsely identified Alan Crotzer, who would seem to be the main screwup. But how about the detectives who brought him in, and the prosecutor who decided to file against him (and presumably got up and berated a jury about how Mr. Crotzer brutally did this and and savagely did that, and presumably kinda coached that victim and his other prosecution witnesses, so that his case went smoothly, and presumably had the full aid of the police)? And how about that jury, and/or judge? Fools? Or are they even victims of the system’s failure too – unwitting accomplices, not allowed to have a full enough and clear enough view of the situation to make the right call?

That they all failed together is the true answer. The cops, the detectives, the prosecutor, his witnesses, the defense attorney, the jury if there was one, and the judge. And the appeals judge, assuming there was one.

That’s a little weird when you think about it. How could all those folks mess up in the same direction? Coincidence? Or does the system possibly have a tilt to it, so that things tend to slide a certain way? And are we going to sit here and pretend that a 20-year-old black man is likely to get as fair of a shake from the justice system as anyone else?

I’m not. Not when decades of people’s lives are at stake. We have to have a real and realistic view of how this system – which is, after all, acting on our behalf – really works. And part of being realistic is understanding that Mr Crotzer’s plight is not an exception – it’s an example.

DNA Exonerates Fla. Man After 24 Years

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Alan Crotzer stepped into the warm sunlight outside the courthouse Monday and raised his arms to the sky, celebrating his freedom after more than 24 years behind bars for crimes he didn’t commit.A judge freed the 45-year-old Crotzer after DNA testing and other evidence convinced prosecutors he was not involved in the 1981 armed robbery and rapes that led to his 130-year prison sentence.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

The Essential Hurdle for Libertarians

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

Modified from an article originally published at Liberty For All
June 20, 2003

I come from Massachusetts, the heart of the Democratic Party in many ways. Home of the Kennedys — and hardly a day goes by there when some reminder of that fact doesn’t come up. My mother is a Democrat — a Massachusetts Kennedy Democrat. That’s a special breed of Democrat — one who holds onto the romantic vision of JFK and RFK, and the whole Kennedy feeling, and wraps that around their view of the Democratic Party, then tops it off with pride in being from the veritable bastion of Kennedy Democraticism, Massachusetts.

That’s what I was raised under. I supported Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election, when practically no one supported Jimmy Carter. I didn’t really know why — I was just a kid — but I supported him by default. I remember getting laughed at in school when I expressed hope that he would win.

But there was more to it than being raised to identify with the party — in fact, that was the smaller half of it. What’s more important is that I was raised to identify with the party’s values, as perceived by my mother. They were: helping people, especially the poor; representing the ‘working man’ and the ‘little guy’, and women’s rights; fighting the Republicans, who served the rich; and taking care of those who couldn’t take care of themselves. That’s what my mom thought was important, and still does, and that’s why she supported the Democratic Party, and still does.

I absorbed a lot of that. I grew up living within most of those interest groups — we were generally poor, my mom was a working single mother of three, and I lived with three women (two sisters and my mom). And with as little money as we had, my mother “adopted” a really poor family in Mississippi, sending them a little money and care packages each month. She worked anywhere from 1 to 3 jobs at a time throughout my upbringing, and we knew well that every week was a struggle to make ends meet. In many ways, we were deep in the heart of the target market of the Democratic Party.

All that I absorbed then is still with me — all of it except the Democratic Party. I still believe that the poor and the disadvantaged and the helpless and women and minorities and workers and anyone else holding onto the short end of whatever stick they’ve got should be represented, defended, helped, respected, and supported. I know what it’s like to be poor (I know it all too well), and I know what it’s like to work for too little money at a lame job, and to be unemployed, and to live below an acceptable level. And I know the struggle is hard — I know all about it. I’ve spent most of my life in one or another of the many groups that Democrats and “progressives” continually insist we all must help.

All this adds up to make me an unusual Libertarian, because I don’t scorn liberals. I identify with them. I care about almost everything they care about. I could be (and have been) called a “bleeding heart”. Right now, I’m advertising to greens via Google AdWords, because I believe that my vision of the future is very similar to theirs.

Libertarians who are reading this might be pretty worried by now, but I can explain. First, let me distinguish between liberals and statist/socialists, in my usage. To me, liberals are people who care about the things and people I’ve been talking about. I left out the environment (because my mom wasn’t huge on that issue), but that should be added too. They want those things and people protected, supported, etc. Statists are folks who believe that government should be the main means of accomplishing most anything, and socialists are people who envision a commune-like setup (enforced benevolently by government), where everyone gets an essentially equal ration of what everyone (altogether) has.

Statists and socialists are problematic — the former moreso than the latter. But I’m fine with liberals. People on “the left” can be one, two, or all three of those things, but they aren’t all necessarily intertwined.

For most people, it’s about the end, not the means. To most people the means is, well, just a means to an end. They just want the end — as quickly and cheaply as possible, please.

And there’s the rub. There lies the meeting place between me (and other Libertarians) and liberals — not to mention moderates, and many others in this country (because I think most people care about the people and things I’ve been talking about here).

Libertarianism — the view of an America full of free individuals — is the means that will deliver the end that most people envision. My vision includes help for the poor and disadvantaged. My vision is a world where people are not discriminated based on race, or sex, or anything else but their humanity and their character. My vision is one where the environment, and wildlife, are nurtured and protected. It’s a vision where workers get paid a living wage, and where opportunity is ripe for the picking, and jobs are prevalent. On top of that, it’s a vision of a world that’s virtually crime and terrorism-free, and where the “peace for all time” that John F. Kennedy spoke of can begin to take root.

Libertarianism is the cheapest and quickest means to achieve that end, and that fact doesn’t get discussed nearly enough. This is at least in part due to the fact that the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement grew out of the conservative movement, and the majority of libertarians are probably reformed conservatives. So they’ve grown up despising liberals, and you can read many a libertarian screed attacking that group.

I don’t attack liberals, though. I’ll go after Democrats, or statists, or socialists, and those in the Greens who align with those three groups, but I consider liberals to be my political kin in many ways. I want most of the same ultimate results that they want. I just know that we’re never going to get there as long as we continue to rely on government to bring us there.

It astonishes me that my liberal friends fail to see that, since almost all the liberals I know are wildly disgusted with our political system and our government, but that remains as the major difference between me and so many Greens and Democrats I talk to. They and I both see a similar goal, a similar desired result. They want to mandate it, or make it “free”, or achieve the goal through regulation. In other words, they want government to do the job.

To me, it’s so glaringly obvious that government is the wrong means to almost every end we desire — there are 1000 news stories a day with evidence of that fact — that I wouldn’t think of entrusting any societal problem-solving that I consider important to its care. Most of my friends seem to recognize that as well, in large part — but they just can’t believe in or envision a world where this or that problem would be solved without government’s help.

Painting that picture — clearly, vividly, and credibly — is absolutely essential for Libertarians, if we want to achieve victory in America. It is far and away our biggest hurdle, and our most pressing challenge. Our proposed means are correct, I’m convinced of that — and if you ask around, the most positive thing people say about libertarians is “I respect their principled stands”, or something like that. Most of our infrastructure is in place, and we have roots and foundations across the country. Our ideas are good, our public awareness efforts are good, and more and more we are included in the political family of America. But our efforts at expressing a clear, thorough, positive, convincing vision of America — our efforts at painting a picture of the peaceful near-paradise that most of us actually do envision — have not been sufficient to the task.

I plan to do my part to change that, and I hope that others will follow my example, and the example of other people in the movement who see the same problem I do and are working to solve it. I think the transformation is underway, and it should be encouraged and fostered. We don’t need to sacrifice our principles in order to create a persuasive vision. (If we do, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands).

The good news is that projecting that vision is the only essential problem left for us to solve. The bad news is that it is essential that we solve it.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

The Nader 2004 “threat”, and those poor, pitiful Democrats

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

Salon.com has a decent story about Ralph Nader’s potential 2004 bid for the presidency, and how it’s causing a painful split in the hard left — between those who have utterly given up on the Democrats and who support Nader, and those who are scared enough of Bush madness (and trusting enough of the Dems) to say that the Greens should stay out of the 2004 presidential race so as to avoid a repeat of Nader’s 2000 “spoiler” effect. Many Greens are worried that if Nader runs it will make even more people resent the Green Party for “helping” Bush win, again.

The issue brings up a lot of thoughts in me. I don’t think Nader should run, but it has nothing to do with the “spoiler” potential. I don’t think he should run because I think he’s proven that he’s unelectable, and without some revolutionary new gimmick or campaign plan he’s likely to get even less votes than he did last time. I think that would be the case even without the spoiler worry, which will be much more acute this next time around. The simple truth is that Americans have had plenty of time to get to know Ralph Nader — he probably has almost 100% name recognition — and have decided that no way do they want him to be president. He’s likely to suffer a similar fate as Harry Browne, who ran for a second time in 2000 with virtually the same method and message as in 1996, and got a lot less votes the second time around. You can’t try to sell people something they didn’t buy the first time, without making any major changes to it or your sales technique, and expect to get a better response.

I think it must be hard for presidential candidates to see that from their first-person perspective, but it’s brutally obvious from the outside looking in. Ross Perot proved it, Harry Browne proved it, and Nader will prove it if he runs in 2004. Even if he could increase his vote capture a bit, it’s pretty much inconceivable that he could get it anywhere near the high-30% he would need to win against Bush and a Democrat. Of course, it’s highly likely that the same could be said for any other person who might run in his place, but at least a new face wouldn’t have a proven track record of having no chance of winning, as Nader does. He certainly isn’t going to win over any Republican voters, and I don’t think he’ll sway any Democrats either…so unless he’s got 30-40 million voters outside of those two groups who will rise up en masse, he is a 100% guaranteed loss as a presidential candidate. And I don’t see even a shred of a hint that Nader could find a way to invigorate a mass of that size into voting for him, unless he has some sort of really, really amazing tricks up his sleeve. Even then, I think it’s clear (as I said) that most Americans have evaluated Nader over the past 30+ years and simply don’t want him to be president. I kinda like the Greens, and I even kinda like Nader, and for both of their sakes, I hope he does the right thing and steps away. The Salon article mentions that folks have urged him to run for Senate or Governor — I think that would be smart, and useful. He almost certainly wouldn’t win those either, but he could actually do some good by running for one or the other. I don’t see any good coming from a 2004 Nader presidential candidacy, especially considering the anti-Bush nervousness on the left, and the spoiler resentment factor. Even an utterly unknown nobody Green would do more good than him in that spot.

That said, I think the “spoiler” whiners are just that — whiners. If the Democrats can’t field a candidate who can win in a competitive race, against whoever else wants to run, then they don’t deserve to win. Nader didn’t hand Bush the election — Al Gore and the Supreme Court did. If Al had simply won his own home state, nobody would be talking about Florida 2000, or the “spoiler effect”. During last year’s Minnesota Senate race, Working Assets (the liberal advocacy phone company folks) sent out an action alert urging people to press upon that state’s Green Party Senate candidate to drop out, so as not to “spoil” Walter Mondale’s bid for the seat. I found it pathetic, and I wrote them a scathing letter to that effect. If the Democrats can’t win races because a competing liberal party is “stealing” a couplefew percentage points worth of voters, they should just pack it up and quit.

Greens (and Libertarians, and whatever other parties) have every right — and it could be said, a responsibility — to run as many candidates as they can, and as hard as they can. Any votes those candidates get aren’t “stolen” from the Bipartisans — they are earned, and earned hard at that. They should be applauded, not castigated — and certainly not bullied out of the race. The word “pathetic” just keeps running through my head over and over when I think of folks whining about third party candidates earning votes that the whiners seem to think belong to the “major” party candidates. It’s not just pathetic, it’s backwards and wrong-headed. The proper conclusion to reach, when one sees that a Green is garnering enough votes to make a difference in a given race, is that lots of voters don’t want to vote for the old party sell-out politicians. If Democrats want those Green votes, they should work to earn them — not try to stifle or bully the candidate that is earning them. If the Bipartisan candidates are so great and wonderful, they should have no problem earning all the votes they need. The only reason people are worried about Nader running is because they know that none of the Democratic candidates in the field right now is likely to be able to beat Bush by a comfortable margin, if at all. That’s a problem with those candidates, and with the Democratic Party itself — it’s not Nader’s fault. Focusing on “winning” Nader’s electorate over by simply taking their guy out of the race is ignoring the real problem, and it’s lazy politics. And I feel I must say once more — it’s pathetic. It feels strange to pity a behemoth, half-of-a-political-monopoly major party that’s been around for over 200 years, but that’s what I feel. I pity the poor, dying, lost Democratic Party — the weakling giant that fears an unelectable, 3-percent-getting guy, while ignoring the problems and failures that have made it so weak.

I fear Bush and the Republicans as much as the next guy, but if the Democrats expect to ride in and save the day somehow, they better focus on figuring out how to do it on their own merits — whatever those might be.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

Sashwat Singh’s Rap CD Suspension

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

November 10, 2003

Sashwat Singh is an honor student at Brookfield Central High School in Brookfield, WI. He’s a big music lover — he’s in the school band and choir, and he’s a big fan of local live music as well. And, like most kids these days, he’s good on the computer.

So 15-year-old Sashwat made his own rap CD on his computer, over the course of the past few months. 14 songs. And, not surprisingly, his rap CD contains obscenities and tough talk, toward his peers and authority figures in his life.

And — not surprisingly at all, I’m sad to say — he got suspended from school for it. In the assault on logic commonly called “zero tolerance policies” in schools, Sashwat’s CD — made outside of school — was judged to be on a par with a bomb threat, arson or bringing guns to school.

Not content with merely defiling the Brookfield High student body’s conception of their rights as individuals to free thought and free speech, and sacrificing Sashwat to the altar of Making An Example, the school district is considering going a step further and holding an expulsion hearing. To do so would give him ten more school-free days right off the bat, while he and his parents and lawyer spend time figuring out how to explain this kid’s right to make a rap CD to people who don’t already understand that he has that right. Presumably, if they fail to successfully explain that fact, Sashwat would be expelled from school. I’m not ready to believe they would actually expel him for this, but neither can such madness be ruled out as a possibility, as anyone who has read about the legions of idiotic disciplinary actions that have taken place under the rubric of “zero tolerance” knows all too well. If lemon drops, stick drawings of U.S. soldiers, and plastic silverware can be grounds for suspensions, then why shouldn’t expelling a kid for making a CD be a viable possibility?

I’ll tell you one thing that’s nearly certain — Sashwat Singh is going to have a much bigger problem with authority from here on out than he ever did before. My intuition is that he will not “learn his lesson”, as his school administrators — in the case of his principal, vengeful school administrator — surely wish he would. He’s too smart, and too far along in developing free expression. At least I hope he is. Making a 14-song CD is no small feat, and for a 15-year-old to do it all on his own shows a serious committment. And just from the slice of his life that I was able to find on the Internet, one can see that he has a very passionate interest in music — something that, in a normal world of sanity, would be encouraged and rewarded, especially if it showed in someone with Sashwat’s drive and ambition.

I haven’t heard the CD yet, but that really doesn’t matter. The news stories presumably gave the lowdown on the “bad stuff” — talking the proverbial shit about his mother and peers, and offering vengeful new Principal Mark Cerutti a beat down if he doesn’t get out of town. If there was worse than that I assume we’d have heard about it — and if there was worse than that, then so what?

“I got my twelve-gauge sawed off/I got my headlights turned off/I’m ’bout to bust some shots off/I’m ’bout to dust some cops off!”

-Body Count, “Cop Killer” (1992)

“Hey you ever get the feelin that America is turning into some kinda sit-com, lowest common denominator shopping mall marketing strategy from hell?/You ever get that feeling?/Well I got that feeling right now/And it’s kinda getting under my skin/Yeah, so I’m gonna get some gas-o-line, and/Burn down the malls”

-Mojo Nixon, “Burn Down the Malls” (1986)

“You know I’ve never visited Alaska/Where the oil was spilled/That drunken captain should be killed/An atrocity, he still walks free…”

-311, “!#$ The %&*!” (1993)

I post those lyrics — and you know I could go on posting the same or worse for a very long time — to help Principal Cerutti, Superintendent Gibson, and anyone else who’s confused, understand that “threats” and violence are not considered the same way when they occur in a creative medium such as music. Mojo Nixon was not prosecuted for his “plan” to burn down the malls (nor his plan, 9 years later, to take over a national armory and start a revolution); Ice-T was not jailed for the cop-killing spree he “described” in song (nor for the killing of his mother that he described — vividly — in another song); and 311 was never interrogated about their effort to get the captain of the Exxon Valdez killed.

Music — and rap even moreso than most music — is an effort in creative fiction. Or, to put it in a way that a high school administrator might be able to understand — the journey in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales never really happened. Dante never really went on a stroll through the levels of Hell. Holden Caulfield is not JD Salinger.

All that aside, this CD was created outside of school. Just as the school would have no cause for administrative disciplinary action if a student said “I’m going to beat Principal Cerutti down if he doesn’t get out of town” while at his or her home, they also have nothing to go on here. If Cerutti thought it was a real threat to him, then he had recourse through the police, but not through his own school-borne authority. The only possible cause for action (and it’s really weak) is that Sashwat was apparently distributing, in some cases selling, his CD on school grounds. So he maybe committed the selling or distributing of something that’s not allowed to be sold or distributed at school. But the item is a CD — not a weapon, not drugs. I find it improbable that CDs are considered contraband of some sort. (Though I won’t be surprised if Principal Cerutti makes an adjustment of that nature to the rulebook, so as to ensure that materials which demean him are only exchanged off of school property in the future.)

If my dramatic portrayal of Sashwat Singh’s unfortunate situation has fired you up enough to act out, click here for a series of easy steps you can take to help direct things toward a relatively happy ending. There are newspapers to be written to, Board of Education members to phone, meetings to go to — and a Mr. Cerutti and a Mr. Gibson that need to be told what we think of administrators who punish students for taking initiative and being creative. Take action!

Click here to read about my own suspension in 1988 for writing a poem, when I was 15 like Sashwat.

Oh, and in fairness to him, here’s a less humiliating picture of Sashwat than the apparent school photo that appears in the news article.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

The poem that got me suspended, and the story behind it

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

First, the backstory.

When I was in high school, there was a Geometry teacher, Mrs. Johnson. She was a teacher that few students liked, and the impression was that it went both ways. I was one of those kids that was “too smart for my own good”, as the saying goes. The kind of smart where people eventually tell you to “stop being smart”, if you get my drift.

(My answer to that, which I just noticed was more clever than I realized at the time, was generally, “I don’t know how.”)

Anyway…on certain holidays, Mrs. Johnson would have us kids engage in the strange practice of writing a poem that connected the holiday in question with math. And we could decorate it, in a sort of twisted throwback to grade school, and then if we wanted we could read it in front of the class and hang it up on that corkboard strip above the chalkboard. Well, on Valentine’s Day, I had some fun with that project, and I wrote the sappiest love poem ever, to my dear Mrs. Johnson — a teacher that everyone in the class, herself included, knew I couldn’t stand. Though I didn’t really understand what “irony” was back then, I knew how to use it, and I got to read my poem before the class, and we students all had a nice chuckle at how I smothered her with false kindness.

On St. Patrick’s Day a month later, I wasn’t feeling nearly so generous. (The incident with the improper test scoring that’s described in the poem had happened just the day before, and was the culmination of a series of conflicts between us two.) I wrote my poem during an earlier class that day, out in the hallway after having been kicked out for backtalking. The poem was called “The St. Patrick’s Day Massacre”, a loose reference to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, something I had heard of before (though I didn’t know what it was). Here it is, pretty much exactly as it was written (including the signature at the end). The rest of the story follows it.

["P.J." (in the poem) was my teacher -- Patricia Johnson. It's kinda obvious, but just in case. And there weren't any spaces between lines in the original -- though there probably should have been -- so I left it with no breaks. And yes, the poetry is really lame -- I was 15, and more focused on message than meter. ;-)]

———————————–
The St. Patrick’s Day Massacre

Another poem, this one for St. P’s Day,
All the kids are happy and psyched
Except the ones taught by old P.J.
Cuz she whips us and hurts us and uses her chains
She gets her enjoyment from inflicting pain.
Her only concern is to get her paycheck
Sometimes I really want to wring her neck.
Some kids have said I should
But only as a dare
She’s threatened to kick me out
But I JUST DON’T CARE!
Cuz as far as I’m concerned Mrs. Johnson’s unfair
And I realize I’m not the only one who doesn’t care
She don’t either
Well, that’s the impression she’s made
All she worries about is that the rent is paid.
“You mean you haven’t learned a thing?”
She screams and wails
I can just imagine her tears
Coming out in buckets and pails.
“You mean you got that right
And I marked it wrong?
Oh no, what a bummer
I’m such a ding dong!
That’s o.k., 10 points here and there
Won’t make a dif,” Yeah Mrs. J., that’s fair.
You know what else is fair?
Giving us a quiz that we have to take ’til each one of us passes
And not counting it for anything
What do you think we are, a bunch of asses?
Don’t answer that
We won’t hear you anyway
Haven’t you noticed
We don’t listen to what you say
Say what? Oh yeah.
This is a St. Patty’s day poem.
Some advice, Mrs. Johnson
Quit your “job” and go home.
Oh – Happy St. Patrick’s Day
I’m glad you wore green
Maybe that’ll cover up
The fact that you’re mean

Love,
Lance

———————————-

I actually got up and read that poem in front of the class and Mrs. Johnson. For most of the time I was reading, the class was in shocked silence, and so was Mrs. Johnson I guess. Once I finished, I went to hang my poem up above the chalkboard, as was the custom. Mrs. J. interrupted me and told me I could just put it on her desk.

To make the rest of a long story short: I was pulled out of lunch by a furious Mr. Farley, the Vice Principal, who told me I was suspended as we were still heading to his office (i.e., before I had a chance to explain or defend myself). I got suspended for 5 days, much like young Mr. Singh, who I’m writing about in my next entry. I also was kicked out of Mrs. Johnson’s class for good. My mom, who had spent many long years standing up for me against school administrators, stood up this time too, and supported my effort to involve the state Board of Education (whom I had called on my own as soon as I got home from being suspended).

There are three things that school administrators fear: public embarassment, lawsuits, and their bosses. In this case, playing the “boss card” worked quite well, and with my mother’s support (and the support of a Donna Wied from the Massachusetts Board of Education), my suspension was stricken from the record, and generally my punishment was removed. I wasn’t allowed back into Mrs. Johnson’s class, which was alright by me, except for the fact that she was the only teacher who taught Acclerated (i.e., “college prep”) Geometry. And my mom — perhaps the only person in the world who never wanted to stop or punish me for being “too smart” — would not stand to have her son put at an academic disadvantage for what essentially amounted to completing his assigned work.

In the end, I got moved to a different Geometry class, with various stipulations designed to preserve some of my dignity (at least in my permanent record). Despite moving to a presumably easier class, my grade in Geometry went into decline, and I got the first C in my academic life. I also got weird half-scared looks from the bulk of teachers at my school for a long while, and the “poem incident” was one of the things that was brought up when I was rejected from the National Honor Society later in my high school career.

And, of course, whatever little respect I had previously had for the authority figures at my school went for a long walk and never came back. I knew they had no respect for me, and that they had little power to control me in terms of my non-physical conduct. Those two guidelines ruled my behavior for most of the rest of my time at that school. I learned my lesson, as the saying goes — just not the lesson that anyone (except maybe my mom) was trying to teach me.

Too bad this happened in 1988, before 24-hour news and the Internet got so big, or else I could have gotten some national publicity for a day or two. I also ended up in a rift concerning the Pledge of Allegiance (though not over the phrase “under God”), right around the same time. I guess I was ahead of my time. ;-)

1 Comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |
March 14, 2006

On the Virtues of Schooling (sort of)

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

July 10, 2003

You’re not likely to find someone who’s more opposed to the modern American system of education than me. Technically, I don’t think you could, because I’m completely and utterly opposed to it.

There are two issues that I am more adamant and solid on than any others, I think, and those two would be the drug war (I’m against it) and the modern American education system. I say “modern American education system” instead of “public schooling” or “the American school system”, because there are defintely bright spots out there in the school system. But all of those bright spots — homeschooling, charter schools, vouchers, and Internet education — are things that go against the grain of the system I’m talking about.

I don’t think it’s necessarily confined to public schools either. I’m sure there are many private schools that are doing their own thing, but I’m also sure there are many who are doing much the same thing as most public schools — that being, dragging a bunch of kids into huge buildings with dozens of classrooms and hundreds of students, 20-30 to a classroom, and ringing bells every so often, and herding the kids this way and that, and so on. That is the modern American education system I’m talking about.

I’ve written at length about how the very structure and culture of schools leads to inevitable, deeply damaging problems, and I’ve written at some length about how the educational structure of a single-teacher classroom is essentially guaranteed to only tap into a tiny amount of any kid’s learning potential, if any at all — and how there could be a way we could get that amount a lot closer to 100%. So I won’t go into those issues too deeply — you can read either of those articles to see where I’m coming from. I’m really writing to introduce to you an article I just read — probably the best newspaper article I’ve ever seen about homeschooling (and unschooling). But I’d be remiss if I didn’t wax eloquent with some thoughts on it all, while we’re on the subject.

As I was saying, opposition to our “education” system is a big issue for me. I don’t have a single good thing to say about it — to me, it’s a fundamentally flawed model, if the aim is to produce educated, intelligent young adults who are best prepared for their adult lives. A lot of education scholars, particularly folks in the “opposition” like me, will tell you that that’s not what the modern model was intended to do — that instead, it was designed to produce a dependable flow of docile, obedient workers who could be easily trained to do simple reptitive tasks; and that it came along in concert (and partnership) with the advent of mass production and the factory boom.

Now, if that was the goal, then our system was perfectly designed, at least as long as it was keeping pace with the workforce needs of the economy. Of course, it fell out of pace, right about during my time in school, as the Information Age sent the Industrial Age packing. But that hardly matters — because that shouldn’t be the goal of our educational system. It still is, though the parameters have shifted a bit. Prepping kids for the workforce is still the plan, even though anyone who tells you they know what the workforce is going to look like when these kids are adults is lying outright.

Aside from that fatal flaw, the system is struggling urgently with the pains of bureaucracy — it’s this big national beast, increasingly micromanaged from the top, with so many layers of power struggle on the way down that it’s probably impossible to map. Down at the bottom, teachers and principals, with their metaphorical arms and legs chopped off by the many layers above, try to manage what is essentially a big, crowded educational prison — often with inadequate or shoddy materials, with little control over curriculum, and with each having anywhere from 60 to 150 kids a semester under their surrogate care.

And the mission of schools has gone far beyond readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic, or even science, history, and civics. Because they are essentially acting as part-time parents of these kids, a whole host of non-curricular issues come up — sexuality, spirituality, character, ethics, hate, rage, violence, pregnancy, and so on. And what is it exactly they’re supposed to be doing for the kids? Do you think that any two people would give the same answer to that question? Are we trying to make them better learners, better workers, more likely to get into college, or are we trying to improve their character, or their physical strength and dexterity, or their social skills? Or all of those things? And what sort of workers was it we want them to be again? Tech workers? Medical professionals? Historians? Zoologists? Politicians? Wouldn’t each of those professions involve developing different skills and subjects, even before age 18? It did, for hundreds of years before the 20th century.

If I had stayed in high school for 12th grade, I would have been taking pretty much what all the smart 12th graders took — AP Math, AP Physics, AP English, and some filler stuff, plus Phys Ed. I had already taken almost every English class my school offered — I took two and a half years of English one year — and that was the only the only subject I cared for. Those “AP” classes were “Advanced Placement”, which is basically a dedicated year of teaching to a test — the Advanced Placement test. My AP U.S. History teacher drove herself nearly crazy year after year trying to prepare kids for that test, while trying to also teach them something about history.

So basically there was one class that I would actually have enjoyed at all, and that one was corrupted by being geared specifically toward a standardized test. I would have had one or two study halls a day. Utimately I only had some miniscule amount of credits left to earn, and (if I recall correctly) Phys Ed was my only class requirement that wasn’t filled. That’s what our public education system had to offer me for 12th grade. I had been out of my mind with boredom in school for 11 years, and it seemed like the last one was going to be the worst yet.

Thankfully, two different places with a little more sense took it upon themselves to get in touch with me, and I ended up going to the University of Southern California’s early entry program. My high school protested a bit, but not as much as they might have for someone else. Actually, most of the authority figures in my school were probably breathing record-breaking sighs of relief. I was an excellent student with a volatile attitude, and that can be a lot of trouble for teachers and school administrators. And it was.

But I digress, a lot. I wanted to respond to my own statement that I have not one good thing to say about the modern American educational system. Many people respond to that suggestion with something like “You must admit that some good things come from school — that some kids come out having added some value of some sort.” And yes, I’ll concede that. While my K-12 education probably amounts to less than 2% of my total education, I did learn a few useful things in school.

The way I see it, it’s like a glass of cloudy, muddy water, with a jagged rim. If the government went and gave all the country’s kids 8 cups a day of muddy pondwater in glasses with sharp, jagged rims, some good would come from it. After all, water is one of the best substances on earth, and even muddy and gross it has a lot going for it. My dogs drink muddy water just like it’s normal, and it doesn’t ever seem to hurt them. If any one of us was truly parched and had no other choice, we’d gulp down pond or puddle water like it was the fountain of life — and in all likelihood, it would be. It would do that good thing water does, and the mud and muck probably wouldn’t hurt you much, if at all.

And about that jagged edge on the glass. Well, first of all, not all the glasses would be totally jagged, per se — some would just have a chip or a little crack, or a sharp area or two that would be easy to avoid. And plus, kids would learn to be cautious and controlled — and cuts and scrapes are part of growing up anyway. And you can’t really expect a national kidwater system to be perfect, particularly when you’re using glasses as the delivery method.

Besides, kids need water — they’ll die without it. And the impurities in pondwater seldom cause any serious harm to internal organs. And parents can’t be expected to take time off work to follow their kids around all day and make sure they get water. Plus, making these kids stay at the water depot all day teaches them discipline and how to behave themselves, and standing in long lines teaches them patience.

See, there’s tons of good to a system like that!

In a certain twisted way, it’s all true. Not just some, but a lot of good would come from giving our nation’s kids 8 jagged glasses of muddy pondwater a day. Millions of kids would be internally cleansed and refreshed, and their young bodies would soak up that water like it was the fountain of life, which it is (to a body). It’s probably more water then they drink now, and it’s a good amount of water to drink. But it should be crystal clear that that would be a horrible plan — nothing that anyone in their right mind would choose. There’s so much negative and wrong about it that it’s not even worth considering.

Jagged glasses of muddy water could bring inestimable amounts of good, but no human on earth would choose one over a nice smooth cup of clear spring water.

The metaphor breaks down like this: Learning, or education, is water; the jagged glass is our educational system, after a century of wear and tear; the mud is the bureaucracy and anti-learning dogma that has seeped into almost every pore of the system; the government is the government; and the kids with bleeding lips and gastric problems are kids like the Columbine killers, and the teens who don’t know the three branches of our government, and the victims of “zero tolerance” policies, and the kid in every other sad school story that rides the headlines (or doesn’t).

So I’ll correct my statement. There are good things I could say about the educational system, but it would make no more sense to say them than it would to defend the benefits of mandatory universal pondwater for children.

If you somehow made it all the way through this, then you should enjoy a shocking contrast by reading the article below. It tells stories of learning and child development that you will seldom see coming out of the vast majority of youth learning institutions in this country. Actually, that’s not technically true, since there are now millions of home schools, each a unique learning institution in its own right.

If you are already into homeschooling (or unschooling), read this article and glow with recognition and pride. If you’re considering it, read this article and tip the scales. If you’re a skeptic, read it and have your skepticism challenged. If you intend to form an opinion about homeschooling at any point in the future, you should read this article.

Homeschooling: Teaching Thy Children Well

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

Time to get serious about the Bill of Rights

Author: Lance - Categories: Op-eds, Political and Opinion Writing

Time to get serious about the Bill of Rights

Originally published as an Op-Ed in The Union (Grass Valley, CA)

December 14, 2002

I just got the call from the doctor. It doesn’t look good. I don’t think the patient is going to pull through.

It’s sad, but by the time you read this, the Bill of Rights will probably be dead. Its vital signs are dangerously low at the time of this writing, and there’s little reason to expect it to recover.

Confused? Perhaps you haven’t seen the injuries the Bill has suffered in the “war on terror.” Let’s take a look – you can make your own prognosis. The vital organs of the Bill of Rights are its freedoms, so that’s what we’ll look at. The quotes I include are from the “Overview of Changes to Legal Rights” that was published by the Associated Press in September of this year.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: “Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.” Not only that, but the ban on COINTELPRO activities – the covert infiltration and intentional disruption of “problematic” political organizations, made infamous in the ’60s and ’70s – has been lifted.

RIGHT TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES: “Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.” Recently, Congress granted a wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act exemption to the Homeland Security Agency, effectively cloaking the actions of hundreds of thousands of federal employees. It also granted them expanded powers – and laid the groundwork for a comprehensive “Total Information Awareness” database of all public activities of all Americans. It’s hard to petition the government for a redress of grievances when we can’t find out what the government is doing.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: “Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.” Taking a rare political stand, librarians have banded together in large numbers to oppose the “USA-PATRIOT Act.” The Act requires them to release library records to federal agents (who don’t need to have proof of wrongdoing or involvement with terrorism), and threatens them with hefty penalties if they tell anyone about it. Similar requirements are imposed upon most other places you do business with.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: “Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.” The Sixth Amendment requires that the accused have the “assistance of counsel for his defense.” Does it still count as assistance if the defense attorney is hobbled by a lack of attorney-client privacy? I guess if some Americans can be tried without any lawyer at all, those who have only lost attorney-client privacy should consider themselves lucky.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: “Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.” Law enforcement has been granted near-total discretion over what constitutes a “reasonable” search, and the Fourth Amendment requirement of “probable cause” is on its way to becoming a distant memory. Judges, formerly the last line of defense against unreasonable searches and seizures, have simply been pushed out of the way – relegated to the role of rubber-stamping any warrant request that law enforcement claims could be useful to them.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: “Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.” Not only that, but a no-longer-secret CIA directive allows the government to kill U.S. citizens without any criminal procedure whatsoever, as long as they can claim the American was an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror.”

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS: “Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.” See the above, and add optional military tribunals for anyone that the administration sees fit to designate a “terrorist” – a term that has yet to be clearly defined. Last year, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified to Congress about domestic terrorist organizations, listing not just the usual suspects such as the tree-spikers and saboteurs of labs, but also mentioning “anarchists and extreme socialist groups”, as well as the WTO protesters, the Workers World Party and others.

These are just some of the most grievous injuries the Bill of Rights has suffered since 9/11. There are too many to list them all. Are you still confused about why I’m claiming the Bill of Rights is dead? How many injuries do you think the highest law of the land can take and still be considered living? You might want to think about that one for a while.

While you’re thinking, come visit www.ncrights.org, the new home of the Nevada County Bill of Rights Defense Committee, where you can read background material on all that I’ve talked about here and learn about our plans to make Nevada County a “Civil Liberties Safe Zone.”

If you’re already concerned about the threats to liberty that I’ve discussed here, but unsure of what to do about it, you can start by joining our Procession and Funeral for the Bill of Rights tomorrow, starting at 1 p.m., at the top of the hill on Broad Street in Nevada City. Yes, in the rain, if need be. The time for paying lip service to the Bill of Rights is over. It’s time to get serious.

Leave a comment Posted in Op-eds, Political and Opinion Writing |

10 Reasons Why MoveOn’s “10 Reasons Why the Recall is Wrong” is Wrong

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

September 12, 2003

I get a fair amount of e-mail from MoveOn.org, a group that is probably the hottest thing to hit the political left wing since the 60′s. I have a lot of mixed feelings about MoveOn, as I do for most successful projects from the well-intentioned-but-misguided Left. I’m not here today to muse about that group generally, but they sent out a “talking points” e-mail about opposing the California recall, and I wanted to take a moment to clear up what they are trying to muddle.

So, here are MoveOn’s “10 Reasons Why the Recall is Wrong”, with my responses.

1. A single congressman brought us the recall with $1.7 million of his own money — while simultaneously putting himself forward as the man to replace the governor.

The recall was triggered by over 1.3 million Californian voters who enthusiastically signed petitions asking for it. The real truth is that California firmly embraced this recall effort. It was not just supported by the state Republican Party, but also by the Libertarian Party. From all the reports I heard, many in the state Green Party were supportive of it too, with most of them witholding official endorsements for fear of helping a “right-wing power grab”, as it’s popularly being called now. I heard that Gray Davis’ favorability rating is the lowest of any California Governor since they’ve been checking — it has been at or below 25% for months.

And the single congressman, Darrell Issa, simply put forward the money to pay petitioners once it was clear it was popular and supported. It was almost certainly an opportunistic move (though it didn’t pan out, since he dropped out early), but in effect it was just a guy putting up the money for something a lot of people wanted anyway. Over 1.6 million signatures collected; over 1.3 million verified voters. Darrell Issa’s signature was just one of them.

2. The recall threatens to give California a governor elected by a tiny percentage of the electorate — and gives wealthy individuals an unprecedented opportunity to attempt to buy the governorship.

16.5% of the electorate voted for Gray Davis in 2002. That bears repeating: 16.5% of the electorate voted for Gray Davis in 2002.Talk about tiny percentages.

Nobody paid the people to sign the recall petitions, and nobody is paying people to come out and vote. It looks likely that this will be a very popular election, as special elections go. People are excited and interested in participating in the recall election; people were gagging as they entered the voting booth back in 2002. Draw your own conclusions.

And the recall provision has been in the California Constitution — not just a law here, a constitutional provision — for almost 100 years. It hasn’t made the ballot any of the 31 times it was attempted in the past — but it did this time. (And there were rich people back then too.) Draw your own conclusions.

Speaking of opportunities to buy the governorship — here’s an article about doing that, Gray Davis-style.

3. It threatens to invalidate a fair election just months after it took place.

Right — a fair election in which Gray Davis intentionally spent money to ensure the moderate Republican (Riordan) was defeated in the primaries, so he would face the more extreme conservative one (Simon) in the general election. A fair election where the Libertarian Party was denied the ability to have the candidate who was chosen at their state convention on the ballot. A fair election where eight people were on the ballot, but most only heard about two – and only two were in the big debate(s), as far as I recall. A fair election where 16.5% of eligible voters, and 23.2% of registered voters, elected Gray Davis.

Oh man — that was such a great election! It was the freakin’ pinnacle of democracy. Let’s bathe in the nostalgia of these LA Times exit poll results from 2002:

Voters had overwhelmingly unfavorable impressions of both Davis and Simon, with roughly six in 10 expressing negative views about the two major party candidates. A like number, about 60%, disapproved of Davis’ job performance over the past four years while just about half of voters said the state was heading down the wrong track.

Asked to compare the two on issues, at least a quarter of those interviewed picked neither candidate when asked who would do a better job on energy, homeland security, crime and the economy. Asked which candidate had more honesty and integrity, fully a third of voters said neither.

Maybe California voters are so enthusiastic about this election because it feels more real than the last one.

4. It sets a dangerous precedent — if it succeeds why wouldn’t opponents attempt to recall every future governor?

Because if the governor was popular, and the recall unpopular, it would fail, and be a political boondoggle that the proponents would be resented for. Has everyone forgotten that this has been tried 31 other times, and not even made it to the ballot once? This one looks more like the exception than the rule.

5. It’s expensive: The recall election itself will cost over $60 million.

60 million dollars for a state with a 98.9 billion dollar budget is not particularly expensive. 60 million is .06 billion. 98.9 billion – .06 billion = 98.84 billion. Notice how that doesn’t seem like a very big cut.

6. It prevents our elected leaders from working to solve the state budget crisis and other important issues by forcing them to campaign to defend the results of a fair election.

This one answers itself — if “our elected leaders” (none of whom got my vote, by the way) hadn’t led the state into crisis, the recall wouldn’t be popular. A governor who the people thought was doing a good job wouldn’t need to campaign against this recall.

7. The cost to the economy is too great: a successful recall would cause enormous economic instability and loss of confidence.

Did you ever feel before that your very survival was dependent on who was governor of your state? Me neither. I think it’s fairly indisputable that if fiscal conservative Tom McClintock was elected in this recall, confidence in California’s economy would go up, significantly. I suspect the same is the case with Arnold. On the other hand, check out how much confidence there is in California currently, in the Gray Era.

A successful recall would certainly cause a loss of confidence among Gray Davis supporters. Maybe that’s what they mean.

8. This won’t stop in California: 18 states have recall provisions. Unless the California recall is decisively rejected, sore losers in others states will continue to use this tactic.

Great! I agree with all of that, except change “sore losers” to “voters”. Because it’s voters that signed for it, and voters who will decide it. Recalls represent a great way for voters to keep their elected officials in check, and frankly it’s remarkable to hear supposedly progressive organizations calling them a threat to democracy, and saying recalls are a way for people to buy elections. California voters, and voters in general, should resent the implications behind such assertions.

9. The recall threatens California’s environment. Governor Davis has made important improvements to environmental law. Polluters see the recall as a chance for roll-back.

Finally, at number 9, they try to give some reasons why Gray Davis actually deserves to stay in office. Neither top Republican candidate is talking about rolling back environmental laws — Arnold sure isn’t. I don’t think they think Bustamante is going to roll back environmental laws. Without specifics, this sounds like a red herring.

There are plenty of other Davis-installed anti-business regulations to get rid of, without resorting to environmental ones.

10. Gray Davis has made important gains in education, health care, the environment and public safety. The recall is an attempt to reverse those advances.

The recall is an attempt to reverse the budget crisis and the mismanagement of the state’s business. In 6 months of following it, this is the first I’ve heard about attempts to reverse any advances in California.

A successful recall will require over 50% of the voters voting to remove Gray Davis from office, indicating that voters believe that whatever supposed gains Gray has made are not sufficient in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who wants to get people to reject the recall should focus on explaining, clearly, why 51% of the people should choose to keep Gray Davis as governor. After all the hype, that’s what it comes down to. Should he stay — why or why not? Everything else is fluff, or left v. right bitterness.

Nobody’s quite saying that the folks who made the recall happen are breaking the rules — because they’re not. This recall is a legitimate electoral function in California, and it’s pretty aggravating to hear “progressive” organizations bemoan it as some sort of assault on democracy. Keep in mind that the recall provision was a direct byproduct of the first “progressive” political wave back in the early 1900′s.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the real problem in American politics is neither the Left nor the Right — the real problem is the battle between those two over who gets to drive. It’s their constant struggle for power that confounds their ability to do any lasting good with that power. In the direction that MoveOn.org is currently heading, their future holds decade after decade of struggling to stop or reverse or challenge such and such thing that the right wing is trying to do. And there are certainly plenty on the other side who are digging in for the perpetual battle as well.

The good news is that we can take the power away from both sides, and give it back to its owners. That struggle can be taken out of politics, and put where it should be — in the realm of voluntary association and cooperation. That’s where things are going to have to head, sooner or later. Count me in as a vote for sooner.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

“Boston Public”: The Case Against Schools

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

December 19, 2000

This week, I decided to watch Fox’s new show “Boston Public,” a Monday night show about a public school in, well, Boston. I don’t know if the show’s producer (David E. Kelley of “Ally McBeal” fame) intended to make a strong political statement or not, but it looks to me like an abstract infomercial for homeschooling. The show’s tempo is defined by a succession of situations guaranteed to make a parent think, “I wouldn’t want my kid going there.”

Certainly, a T.V. show isn’t reality, but the scenes depicted were material we are all familiar with, from the news and from our own experiences:

* A sexy student doesn’t wear a bra. The principal orders her to. When a female teacher questions him on his liberal application of the dress code, he responds: “Today, the policy is that Dana Poole wears a bra.” Dana Poole files a complaint with the superintendent.

* A teacher refuses to continue teaching the “basement class”- the classic rough and unteachable class. She is absent, leaving only this message scrawled on the chalkboard: “I’m going to kill myself. Hope you’re happy!” She appears a few times through the show, where her main purpose is to show how shattered and disillusioned a teacher can get. When the principal tells her she needs to be taking her medicine, she responds, “I can’t feel anything when I take it. What’s the point of teaching if you don’t feel?” She is put on leave, and warned that if she doesn’t straighten up she’ll be fired.

* A black U.S. history student tells his teacher the textbook sucks, because it doesn’t mention that the founding fathers owned slaves, and that Thomas Jefferson slept with his slaves. He says something to the effect of “my black ass ain’t reading it.” The elderly Jewish teacher responds that his class is intended to prepare students for a standardized test, and that Jefferson sleeping with his slaves isn’t going to be on the test- so the student had better “learn the lies in this book, or your black ass will end up having to listen to my Jewish ass all next school year.” Over the course of this, the teacher loses his cool, and this last part is screamed in the student’s face at a distance of 3 inches or so.

* A football hero is failing two classes, and can no longer play on the team. Throughout the episode, the two teachers who failed him are pressured to change their grades, by the father (with an attorney), the coach, and the football star himself. Finally, one of the teachers changes the grade because a girl (braless Dana from above, in fact) threatens to expose their secret sex affair.

* A bully harasses a much smaller geek. The principal stops the geek in the hall to ask him who did it. The bully sees them talking, and later cracks the geek’s head open because he thinks he told on him. He does this off school grounds, so, as he says to the principal, “it’s not your problem.” The principal says he’s making it his problem, and repeatedly and roughly shoves the bully against the lockers, finishing with, “If [that boy] gets so much as a hangnail, I will take your head off.” The bully files a complaint with the superintendent.

As they say, T.V. reflects society reflects T.V., and Boston Public may be truer than many fictional T.V. shows. These stories could be grabbed right out of the newspapers, and the problems are well-known. Since they are being aired once more, it’s worth asking again what is causing the problems in our schools.

Who’s to Blame?

Who does the show blame for this? It would seem that the students and the parents are the problem. Not one student was portrayed in a positive light. Besides the cast of characters in the examples above, there was an overly intelligent girl who runs a controversial student website, breeding gossip and mocking teachers with offensive cartoons. There is a clique of no-brained “cool” girls. There is the student who writes “BITCH” with spray paint on the chalkboard of one of the teachers who is failing the football star. Above all, there is the repeated message that “they don’t want to learn.”

The kids are products of parents who only care about their education when there’s a problem, according to the show. The football star’s dad says to the “BITCH” teacher, (paraphrase) “I’m aware of how I’ve failed with my child’s education, but this time, it’s you who is failing him,” as he tries to pressure her to pass his son so he can get his football scholarship. The parents of the unteachable ruffians in the basement class fill the main office in mob fashion, after their new teacher fires a gun in class, in a last-ditch effort to get attention and respect. The principal shoos them away with “He will be dealt with,” while refusing to answer when they ask “How?” (The gun-firing teacher, by the way, gets a verbal final warning from the vice-principal, and a warning from the principal that the next time, their friendship won’t stop him from firing him.)

I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the producer’s choice of villains and heroes- but no matter what David E. Kelley wanted me to think, I came away with this: School is no place for kids to be- particularly not if they want an education.

Over the past twenty years, the homeschooling movement has grown by leaps and bounds, and has reached a level of public acceptance where it’s something every parent can consider embarking upon. And while there are still significant hurdles involved with homeschooling, “Boston Public” should give any parent reason to give it a more than a little thought.

All of the mini-nightmares depicted in the examples above are, I propose, a natural by-product of a school-based education. I think we as a nation sometimes fail to understand how unnatural our average school environment is. In many ways, schools are as unnatural an environment as prisons are. There are certain things that come about in certain settings, and there are some things that we can expect to happen in schools, no matter what we do. After all, whatever you think of prison riots, it’s unlikely that you find them surprising.

Well, we don’t have riots in schools (yet), but there are definitely things which we can expect to happen in just about every school, and “Boston Public” lays them out for all to see.

Sexuality Problems

In middle and high school, sexual urges consume the thoughts of many students. And while sexual development and curiosity is natural, school amplifies, distorts, and confuses the issue for most students. The years of close contact with hundreds of their peers, the awkward situations, the pressure on appearance, and other factors commingle to send most kids on a 6-year emotional roller coaster from the onset of puberty until their graduation party. In this week’s “Boston Public,” this manifests itself with Dana Poole, a sexy, manipulative girl who fools around with her teacher, blackmails him, and doesn’t wear a bra.

The thing you don’t see is that 200 lonely guys at Boston Public ride an emotional roller coaster every day, and it’s driven by Dana Poole and her friends. Force 200 lonely guys to spend 6 years squirming in their seats as they fantasize about their sexy female peers who they won’t ever be with, and you will produce a certain percentage of rapists. It’s an expectable reaction to an unnatural situation.

Of course, that’s just one natural manifestation of the sexual politics of middle and high school, and there’s a lot more damage done than just creating rapists. Just about everybody carries a heavy load of emotional baggage when they leave high school, and many people spend years readjusting and reassessing their self-image once they are liberated from school- whether it’s echoes of “Fatty!” or “Four-Eyes!” ringing in their ears, or years of degradation from being called “Baldy” ever since having one’s pants pulled down in 7th grade gym class. (Note: The “Baldy” thing is not a personal story. ;-))

When you put that many young people in a building together for years on end, and then crank up the hormones, it gets complicated real quick. And when all most students have for answers is their own ‘peer grapevine,’ it’s an invitation to sexual and emotional dysfunction. Teen pregnancy, high divorce rates, date rapes, depression- these should be no surprise. In schools, we have created an environment where these things are sure to flourish.

Educational Anarchy

The basement class of uncontrollable students is a classic entertainment stereotype, since the days of “The Blackboard Jungle” and “Welcome Back Kotter,” and before. In movies and TV the tough teacher usually digs in and triumphs with some special gimmick. But in real life, more teachers lose that battle than win it, and “Boston Public” gives credence to this. BoPub’s basement class sends one teacher home screaming, after previously having driven her to seek pharmaceutical assistance. The teacher sent to replace her, after first refusing the task, then avoiding it, finally shows up wearing a holstered gun- his “special gimmick” is firing blanks at the wall. I’ll have to tune in next week to see if it straightened out the class and got him the respect he was looking for, but I think most people would question his method, regardless of its results.

The thing you don’t see is how those “unteachable” students act when they are doing something they actually want to do, and how quickly they learn when it appeals to their interests- whether it be learning rap lyrics, memorizing sports statistics and figuring odds, researching black history, or rolling the perfect joint. What isn’t said is that there will always be students who simply can’t be appealed to with classroom methods. What isn’t said is if you haven’t gotten a student interested in school by 6th grade, chances are you never will- unless you try something truly different.

What isn’t said is that people learn in very different ways- and schools teach in one way to everyone. Until you’ve reached a certain level, you don’t really have much control over how you learn best. And if you aren’t taught in a way that appeals to your learning style, you aren’t likely to learn well. And if that’s the case, you aren’t likely to enjoy your classes very much. After 8 or 10 years of dissatisfied, frustrated attempts to “get it,” is it surprising that many kids end up as unruly and “unteachable”?

The Sports Scholarship/”Move ‘Em Up, and Ship ‘Em Out” Plan

The stories of poor students being advanced or having grades fudged so they can stay on the team are legion, and last night’s show highlighted the issue. In this case, it was sexy Dana’s blackmail that turned the tide and kept the star on the team, but it doesn’t always need to come to that. Oftentimes, it doesn’t even have to be a sports scholarship hanging in the balance- educational statistics clearly show that tons of students get to grade 12 without having a grade 12 education.

It should be no surprise that this has become epidemic in schools. After all, what else is a teacher to do? Once they’ve tried their hardest to help the kid pass, what else is there? It wouldn’t be fair to the other students to focus the needed amount of time teaching just one kid. And holding him back for another year will surely stunt his social growth and self-image, and he’ll get even worse. When you have 20 or 30 students, there is only so much you can do for any one, and so you just move ‘em up, or take the risk of making a bad problem even worse by holding them back or designating them “special” or “troubled.” By 10th grade or so, the idea of denying a student the “right to a diploma” is mostly reserved for disciplinary problems. The educationally deficient students will, for the most part, graduate as long as they show up. After all, who would want to be responsible for sealing a young person’s fate by denying them a high school diploma?

While many students can learn through a homogenized, group-based teaching method, a certain number can’t. Whether it’s peer fear, fluorescent lights, bad techniques, or any of a thousand other reasons, some kids just find it very hard to learn in a school setting. And unless they reach a certain learning plateau, they aren’t likely to be able to overcome that difficulty. Since, in our culture, not graduating from high school is considered a critical failure, schools and teachers are understandably hesitant to shackle even the “dumbest” student with that noose. The result? A great number of 12th graders graduate with not even close to a 12th grade education level. This trend has a twin sister, which involves giving kids who have learned at least something good enough grades so that they can get into college. The result of that? Lots of kids starting college who can’t read, or spell, or write complete sentences. Unfortunately, this is a trend in schools which is nearly impossible to avoid- as shown by the fact that it is getting worse, not better, despite long-standing efforts to employ “strict standards and accountability.”

Bullies, Power Plays, and Cliques

Intimidation is a major interference with education- as the geek in “Boston Public” knows all too well. It’s also another unavoidable by-product of school-based education. Students in schools have very little power. They have been stripped of most of the rights that adults enjoy, and their activities are strictly governed- by their teachers, by the school’s rules and schedule, and by the peer code, among others.

To compensate for this compromising situation, students in schools try to exert power in whatever limited ways they can. Smart kids do so by running school newspapers and clubs, putting their hands up first, and ruining bell curves. Delinquent kids do so by cheating, breaking rules, and skipping school. And bullies…well, bullies bully.

The classic bully is not very smart by conventional measures, and has never been appreciated for anything, except perhaps his size. His power play is physical force and threats, and it involves draining those weaker than him- of lunch money, of happiness, of enjoyment. The more people fear and dislike him, the better he is doing his job, and the more power he feels. The bully in Boston Public clearly relishes being “tough,” as is shown by a nearly endless staredown between him and the vice principal. He also quite clearly has nothing else to offer the school– bullying is what he does. In the show, the way that this is “solved” is that the principal acts as an even bigger bully– the geek’s stand-in big brother– who says “touch my brother again and I’ll kill you.” And in a touching moment near the end of the episode, the principal gives the geek tips on how to twist someone’s arm back, saying “He needs to learn how to defend himself.”

Of course, the bully, and other student power plays, are a symptom of the school environment, where students feel like they are being treated like herded animals, and they act as such. Demoralized by the confining structure, branded by their peers and graded by their teachers, students in schools have very little wiggle room in which to define themselves. The result is kids “acting out” and doing the bizarre things kids do to stand out, and repressing any unique interests or feelings that could brand them as “weird” or “queer”.

Another natural outcropping of schools are cliques, or factions of students who band together for security. The preps, the nerds, the stoners, band people, drama people, jocks- all these are artificial constructs, which are mostly shed once high school ends. Of course, they are often replaced or revived by adults, with discrimination based on other factors, such as race, religion, and lifestyle- and there are even some “jock” adults who still resent “nerds,” and “nerds” who resent “stoners,” out here in the real world.

Most people, however, outgrow the habit of resenting people based on stereotypes sometime after leaving school- or at least they try to. Unfortunately, discrimination and stereotypes are no stranger to adults, and many social groups still band together because they feel threatened and powerless. While this is unfortunate, it shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s a natural outcome of 12 years in the school system, where cliques rule the school, and if you’re not part of one, you don’t count. Why wouldn’t people try to apply the guidelines they learned in school, after they graduate?

Teaching to the Test & Ideological Conflict

Standardized education requires standardization, and the chances of that standard being the right fit for all students are slim to none. Race, religion, and other factors of culture and upbringing make for an astoundingly diverse set of perspectives, and homogenized education is certain to clash with each of them at some point, in the effort to appeal to all of them. What’s more, “teaching to the test” has the inevitable effect of ignoring a great deal of subject matter. U.S. history can be approached from a variety of viewpoints and angles- but the school system as we know it requires that it be taught in the same way to everybody.

One glaring example of ideological conflict is the difference between whites and minorities in the view of U.S. history. In schools, as the student in Boston Public pointed out, most students are taught “white” U.S. History. But there are many ways to teach U.S. History, as can be witnessed by the fact that other countries tell a different story than we do. There is also Her-story, as feminists will rightly point out. Many believe that more focus should be on “regular people,” and less on leaders and wars. Others believe our history lessons should take more of a world view, and less of an America-centric one. The way in which you learn your history helps determine how you will live your future, and many people feel that schools take a very narrow view in their teaching of history. And they are right- schools have to pick one lesson to teach, no matter who they are teaching it to.

Another ideological difference has already motivated over a million parents to remove their children from the school system. Religious faith and school teachings can come into conflict quite quickly, whether it’s in the teaching of world history, or the origin of the universe, or the books selected for reading in English class. The result is that some students are forced to try to reconcile very opposing views on important issues, like moral principles, and the meaning of existence. It should be no surprise that religious belief is the main factor that drove the early homeschool movement.

Now the homeschool movement is growing, for reasons other than religious belief, and it should be obvious why. Boston Public clearly isn’t a place you would want your kid to be. But don’t blame the school- it can’t help itself.

This idea, of the hopelessness of the school system, is perhaps best shown in a short exchange at the end of last night’s episode. A teacher, and friend of the principal, is talking to him about his shoving fit with the bully:

“As a friend, Steven….you crossed the line.”

“I know. Sometimes-”

“I know.”

So they agree. Sometimes- well, you know.

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |

A Little Bit Worried About America

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

September 22, 2001

It’s now been over a week since the "9-11 Attacks," and I have to say, I’m a little bit worried about our country. 70+ percent think it would be o.k. if we caused civilian casualties in our hunt for the perpetrators—somehow ignoring the fact that causing civilian casualties is what we are hunting down the perpetrators for in the first place. 70+ percent think it would be o.k. if we had to forego some of our freedoms in response to the terrorism— somehow ignoring the fact that our freedoms are what make this a country worth defending from terrorists.

At my StopCarnivore.org website, there has been a sudden shift in e-mailed opinions—the majority of those e-mailing me think that use of Carnivore and increased surveillance are a fair price to pay in light of the "new" dangers we are now facing. One woman (a Eugenia Provence) went so far as to hope that my website suffers an attack of its own—hoping that StopCarnivore.org gets "hacked, junked, and thrown out the window." Apparently terrorism is o.k. as long as it is against perceived "enemies" of the United States.  Eugenia seems to think that because I still believe that we should follow the Constitution, I am one of those enemies, and thus it is o.k. to wish harm upon me and my endeavors.

"Now is not the appropriate time to be criticizing our Government," is a popular thing to say this week. "We must do whatever we need to in order to rid our country of the menace of terrorism," is another. "We may need to temporarily suspend some of our liberties in order to preserve freedom," is how another one goes. And of course there is, "When the Constitution was written/when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they couldn’t have imagined the world as it is today."

Let’s take a look at each of those ideas, and see how much merit they have:

"Now is not the appropriate time to be criticizing our Government"

Right now, the stakes involved in any action our Government takes are higher than at most times in our nation’s history. We are deep in the midst of defining what America and the World will be like in the 21st Century and beyond.

The actions that world leaders take now could result in restoring freedom on earth for all, or they could result in the world being annihilated by nuclear weapons. It’s possible that the freedoms which make America so great will be preserved indefinitely, and it is also possible that those freedoms will be eliminated forever in a short period of time.

Now is the time when careful critique and analysis of what our Government does is more important than ever before in our lives. It doesn’t do us much good to keep the country alive if we allow the principles which make the country worth saving to be eroded for the sake of "national unity." I support my country in its efforts to rebuild; I support my government in its efforts to fight terrorism; but I cannot sit idly by while opportunistic politicians use this crisis as cover for their less-than-noble pursuits. Now more than ever we must watch what our leaders are doing on "our behalf" like a hawk. It won’t do us any good to defeat terrorism, only to look around us and find that the America we loved is a thing of the past.

Perhaps if the voices decrying the Vietnam War as an immoral waste of time had been louder, a few thousand American men would still be alive. Perhaps if those who said the military shouldn’t be deployed at campus protests had been louder, there wouldn’t have been any Kent State Massacre.

"We must do whatever we need to in order to rid our country of the menace of terrorism"

This is one of the more disturbing mantras floating around in the past week. Many Americans seem willing to go to any extreme, in hopes of eliminating terrorism. Perhaps the most frightening of those extremes is the fact that most Americans think it’s permissible for the U.S. to kill innocent civilians in pursuit of our new faceless enemy.

Let’s review that once, really slowly. What are we so upset about? The fact that innocent civilians were killed in an attack. And we should be upset— the murder of innocent civilians is a hateful, abhorrent act. And yet somehow (I honestly can’t understand how) people seem to be finding a way to rationalize the creating of more innocent casualties in this war between us and the terrorists. Somehow it is escaping those folks that as soon as we kill innocent people, we become terrorists ourselves. It escapes them that our killing of innocent people in the past 60 years is one of the things that has made us a terrorist target in the first place. It somehow escapes them that for each innocent mother we kill, we may be creating an orphan who will someday be another terrorist, looking to avenge the death of his innocent, dead mother.

"We may need to temporarily suspend some of our liberties in order to preserve freedom"

Killing innocent people isn’t the only extreme Americans seem willing to go to. If you believe the polls, most Americans are also willing to give up some of our remaining civil liberties in order to fight this war. Perhaps this is because most Americans are under the impression that we will only have to give up these liberties for a limited amount of time. If only it were so.

During World War II, a law was introduced to force the withholding of income tax from people’s paychecks— producing an important revenue boost during the war. And though it has been almost 60 years since we have been in a war of that magnitude, income tax withholding is still with us—an apparently permanent leftover from WWII. During the Civil War, states’ rights were largely suspended in order to "preserve the union." Unfortunately, states never got back most of those rights, and in many ways America’s major wars have resulted in the humongous Federal Government that we have today.

Whatever we give up to fight this war against terrorism we may never get back. If you are ready to give up your right to privacy, your freedom of movement; if you are ready to have roadblocks at all of our borders; if you are ready to have national fingerprinting and I.D. cards—you had better be ready to live with those things (or without those freedoms) for the rest of your life. And you should be aware that you are sticking future generations with these "temporary measures" as well. We are not talking about temporary war measures to help fight terrorism—we are talking about permanent changes to the way America works. If, someday in the future, you are sitting in jail because you forgot to bring your national I.D. card with you while walking your dog, you can look back to these weeks as the time when you sent yourself to jail.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program," said Milton Friedman. He’s a smart guy. Probably smarter than you and I. Don’t form your opinions around the idea that the changes being proposed for America will be temporary. Odds are, even if it says "temporary" right in the legislation, it’s a change we’ll be stuck with for a generation or two, at minimum.

"When the Constitution was written/when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they couldn’t have imagined the world as it is today."

There isn’t much that irks me more than when the "average Joe" second-guesses the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. For that matter, I don’t like it much when even exceptional Joes second-guess them. These men thought long and hard while designing our government, and they weren’t trying to design something that would work only in their time. They aimed to design a government which could change and grow with the times, while always preserving what they had determined to be essential liberties.

The invention of airplanes and computers does not change what our Founding Fathers concluded was good government, after considering all the governments that had come and gone before them. The fact that the majority of communication takes place via telephones and e-mail instead of in person and via letters does not change a person’s right to be secure in their "papers and effects."

And as for the idea that our Founding Fathers could not anticipate what the future would hold—keep in mind that these are the men who managed to break away from one of the greatest empires on earth, and create a nation so impressive and prosperous that it became the greatest empire itself, faster than any nation in the history of the world. These men had foresight to spare, and they set up our government to last forever— and to preserve our rights forever. 

The Bill of Rights was intended to list the essential rights that all people should have…it wasn’t a temporary measure—it was a list of liberties which should never be infringed upon. The idea that the existence of the Internet, or fiber optics, or automobiles, or whatever else somehow makes the Bill of Rights obsolete is short-sighted almost to the point of being painful.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," said Benjamin Franklin. What did Ben Franklin know? Enough to discover that lightning was made of electricity; enough to invent the battery, and bifocal lenses, and a new type of stove, and the odometer, among other things. And he knew a lot more about running a free country than you or I do.

Do you think you know enough to second-guess the wisdom of one of our country’s wisest men? Do so at your own peril. Personally, I’ll take Ben’s word for it. I’m much more inclined to trust the judgment of him and his colleagues than I am to trust the fools and thieves in Congress today, or the opinions of a random sample of 1000 people called up by MSNBC.

I’m worried for our country. I worry for poor Eugenia Provence, who wishes harm upon me; I worry for the war hawks who are wishing a burning Hell upon Afghanistan; I worry for the Muslim-Americans who will find life more difficult for a long time to come; mostly, I worry for the future generations who will be forced to live under the laws that may get pushed through in the coming weeks.

Be smart, America. Calm and smart. Our country is fine (for the most part)—please don’t screw it up. We have to live here, you know?

Leave a comment Posted in Political and Opinion Writing |