culture wars and politics

I’m getting the impression that much of the culture war that is going on in our country today is intentional in the sense that some people just want a conflict.  (Culture clash at the Capitol, May 22)  The conflict itself is a tool to wear down the opposition as it cedes ground little by little in an attempt to cool things down.

This latest brouhaha in Springfield is a case in point.

Despite the rhetoric, how certain politicians are expressing their disfavor for a new sex education bill soon to be voted on, the real issue is whether the material is appropriate for children. 

Certain factions of our society want to expose children at the youngest ages to all manner of things sexual, because . . .    Yes, because why?

Why is it so important to teach children about anal sex and gender identity?

When gay and transgender issues were first a matter of public discussion, the issue was framed around tolerance and rights, accepting those who might be different from you.  But now it’s about acceptance, wanting everybody to embrace those lifestyles as normal.  The best way to do that, of course, is to teach it to the children from the earliest ages.

No, this is not about education, but indoctrination. 

What concerns me too about the whole issue is that I think the only reason the Sun-Times is reporting on this is because the clash in Springfield over this is asserted as being an attempt to “dehumanize the LGBTQ community.”  If it’s not an issue of discrimination, bias, hatred, or phobia, then it’s not really news. 

A major bill changing the way our children will be taught the birds and the bees, but it wasn’t found newsworthy until charges of anti-LGBTQ bias surfaced. 

 

culture clashes and public education

I’m getting the impression that much of the culture war that is going on in our country today is intentional in the sense that some people just want a conflict.  (Culture clash at the Capitol, May 22)  The conflict itself is a tool to wear down the opposition as it cedes ground little by little in an attempt to cool things down.

This latest brouhaha in Springfield is a case in point.

Despite the rhetoric, how certain politicians are expressing their disfavor for a new sex education bill soon to be voted on, the real issue is whether the material is appropriate for children. 

Certain factions of our society want to expose children at the youngest ages to all manner of things sexual, because . . .    Yes, because why?

Why is it so important to teach children about anal sex and gender identity?

When gay and transgender issues were first a matter of public discussion, the issue was framed around tolerance and rights, accepting those who might be different from you.  But now it’s about acceptance, wanting everybody to embrace those lifestyles as normal.  The best way to do that, of course, is to teach it to the children from the earliest ages.

No, this is not about education, but indoctrination. 

What concerns me too about the whole issue is that I think the only reason the Sun-Times is reporting on this is because the clash in Springfield over this is asserted as being an attempt to “dehumanize the LGBTQ community.”  If it’s not an issue of discrimination, bias, hatred, or phobia, then it’s not really news. 

A major bill changing the way our children will be taught the birds and the bees, but it wasn’t found newsworthy until charges of anti-LGBTQ bias surfaced. 

 

big new changes in sex education in our public schools

The Sun-Times reported on a new sex ed bill now working its way through Springfield.  (Republican sparks Dem fury after describing sex ed bill as ‘pushing perversion’, May 21)

The reporting of the bill framed it like typical partisan bickering without serious consideration on exactly what this bill entails.  It seems there wouldn’t have been anything to report on here if the Republicans hadn’t made their outlandish claims.

This and other examples of media news coverage prompt me to ask the question: what exactly is news, and what kind of news should our newspapers be reporting?

Newspapers are limited in that they can’t post video clips of a Republican lawmaker ranting in the legislative chambers, but from what I’ve seen, this is a bill that will change the education of our children forever. 

Parents need to know about this bill.  It seems that many parents would never have known about it, if a Republican lawmaker didn’t call it ‘pushing perversion.’ 

I’m sure glad he did.  It never would have made the news otherwise.

Note to Sun-Times:  Tell us about major or otherwise significant bills in the pipeline, whether in Springfield or Washington, and you may find a lot more readers finding you essential reading. 

a new definition of terrorism

I think it is a misuse of language to call the events of January 6 terrorism.  (Our nation must write a complete, official account of the terrorism of Jan. 6, May 21)

Terrorism must ever be associated only with things like bombings in restaurants or subways, methodical political mass killings like in Mumbai, the slaughtering of Christians in some African countries.  When we have mass shootings here, government officials often scramble to find a motive.  In true acts of terrorism, motive has never been hard to ascertain.

Note the word ‘terror’ in the word.  By the definition used here, every battle in a war would be considered terrorism, and thus immoral and unacceptable.

For decades, the news was filled with stories of apparent acts of random violence against civilians that was only meant to cause chaos, fear, and submission to a new boss in town.  The only person killed here was by a law enforcement officer of a person who posed no threat to anybody.

Whatever you want written about the events of January 6, you need to include one fact: tens of millions of people in our country question the validity of the November election, and this has nothing to do with the former President. 

This was the most scrutinized election in history, and too many things just don’t add up. 

I don’t think it is good national policy to just brush this all off by calling it a lie and a conspiracy.  Many of the answers are easily obtainable.  Answer the damn questions, so we can put this to rest.

A list of questions available upon request.

The role of government in education and health care

A Tribune reader (Free market not a fix, May 13) regards the government as the answer to health care and education rather than the free market. 

He misstates the case for the free market in health care and doesn’t even attempt it in education.  He merely says some expert says so and leaves it at that.

No, consumers are not motivated to compare prices for medical care, and, yes, that is due to insurance.  Actually, insurance negotiates a far better price than individuals can do on their own.  But where the free market comes in is in the consumer’s ability to choose between which plans they want to buy. 

The government interfered here in the past by requiring insurance plans to cover things that a consumer might not want to purchase coverage for, thus driving up the price of the plans.

Let the consumer decide what they want coverage for and how much coverage they want. 

The reader thinks the government will save money, because they are not profit-motivated.  On the contrary, it is the profit motive that saves money.   The government has no incentive to save money, because, frankly, they don’t care what they spend on anything. 

As for education, parents would love to send their kids to other schools than the government-run ones, but the government won’t let them.  The government gouges them with property taxes to pay for government schools but won’t let them use that same money to pay for an alternative.  Some people call this school vouchers.  I just say give a tax break to people who choose to send their kids elsewhere.  It’s only fair.

So, no, a free market will work for education and health care, but the government just wants the control.   

Tax breaks are not subsidies

Several parents shared their story of a problem with a private religious school over the issue of bullying.  (Extend Illinois anti-bullying law to kids at private, religious schools, May 11)

I share their pain, but I have a small problem with their solution.

Private schools, all private schools, have an inherent disadvantage in our state, maybe all of them.  Two-thirds or so of our property taxes goes for public education.  Our property taxes are already high, and a lot of people have a hard time paying for them.  And people out of work still have to pay them. 

We wanted to send our kids to a private, religious school, but we couldn’t afford it. 

For decades, I have appealed and written and advocated that any person sending their kids to a private school should be allowed to deduct their costs from their property, or any, taxes the amount that they would owe for public education. 

And, no, that is not a subsidy.  Nobody should not have to pay twice for their children’s education, and no government should assume that every parent should use their schools.  We used to have really good public schools in our country, but those days are long gone. 

The government wants too much of our money and too much control over things in our lives. 

As for the parents in that private, religious school, you found another school.  Do we really need more laws to protect us against stupidity?  I don’t know.  I don’t trust our lawmakers.  They can never make simple laws.  They keep trying to extend their reach to control more and more things.