Neither Left Nor Right...

"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean.

I love the country but I can't stand the scene.

And I'm neither left nor right, I'm just stayin' home tonight

and getting lost in that hopeless little screen..."

----Leonard Cohen, Democracy

Last week, when I blogged about some political issues related to homeschooling in Creeping Fascism, my political thought juices began flowing again. It helps that I have recently read several books of fiction that have political themes or subthemes, as well as a biography of John O'Niell, the FBI Assistant Director in Charge of Counterterrorism, who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. That book is called The Man Who Knew: The Life and Death of John O'Niell by Murray Weiss. It was a good but disturbing read.

Another book that I finished last week is Empire: A Disturbing Look at a Possible Future by Orson Scott Card. I was hooked on Card when a friend lent me Ender's Game in 1991. I started reading at about 1 in the afternoon, and continued reading in between picking my daughter up at pre-school, attending a class in Cell Biology, making dinner and so forth. I finished next morning at about 4 AM. (I was younger then...). I read it over again immediately, over the next week or so. Although I generally re-read good books eventually, it takes a really good book, one that causes me to enter "alternative reality," so to speak, to get me to re-read it immediately.

Empire is a novel released in conjunction with a computer game with the same name. The premise is a civil war based on political divisions ("red" v. "blue" ideologies) in the United States in the not very distant future. It is, as usual for Card, an excellent read. And it is as disturbing as the O'Niell biography. And for similar reasons.

In reality, and the science fiction based on our reality at the moment, there seems to be a growing understanding that ideology is getting in the way of truth. In the case of John O'Niell, the political wonks in the FBI were unwilling to see clear warnings about American vulnerability to terrorist action on our own shores. Their ideologies from the past made it difficult to imagine terrifying possibilities that were just around the corner. In dealing with a maverick like John O'Niell, they used rules and procedures to ultimately force him out of the FBI during the summer before 9/11. This was at the time that people in the field were beginning to gather information that suggested that commercial passenger planes might be used as terrorist weapons. But the person who might have been able to connect the dots and get the politicals to listen to him was being forced out. So the dots were never connected.

This was not about negligence on the part of one political faction or another. It was about the very human tendency to ignore the imagination and also the equally human tendency to bureaucratize and routinize use of information. This tames the imagination and makes us feel more in control of it. Life is a lot less scary if we ignore certain, not-within-our-world-view information, but it is also a very dangerous thing to do.

This was also about a very real unraveling of our national institutions, in which thought has been replaced by an increasingly complex web of procedures and regulations. A "systems" approach to running institutions rather than a personal, problem-solving approach. And what is even more alarming about this, is that we do not seem to have learned from it, yet; we seem to prefer to stay within the boundaries of world-views that are stereotyped and out of date. And this brings me to the "left-right" culture wars still continuing in our country, even 6 years after 9/11.

Last week, I wrote: "...I'd like to see the words "conservative" and "liberal" banned from polite discourse so that citizens could talk to each other on the level of issues rather than shout at each other from ideological positions," (Creeping Fascism).

Sometimes, serendipity is really amazing! I wrote the above on Tuesday. On Thursday, I was reading the Afterword in Empire and came across the following:

"But any rational observer has to see that the left and right in America are screaming the most vile accusations at each other all the time. We are fully polarized--if you accept one idea that sounds like it belongs to either the blue or the red, you are assumed--nay, required--to espouse the entire rest of the package, even though there is no reason why supporting the war against terrorism should imply you're in favor of banning all abortions...; no reason why being in favor of keeping government-imposed limits on the free market should imply you also are in favor of...banning nuclear reactors." (Card, pp. 341-342, emphasis in the original. Ellipses mine--I edited to reflect my own supposedly "contradicting" veiwpoints).

I quote Card at such length because he says it even better than I can! It is absolutely irrational to make assumptions that pigeonhole ideas such as the examples above within ideologies, and yet you can turn on almost any talk-radio show or look at any newspaper editorial and see these irrational assumptions being made.

I experienced this when attempting to comment on a blog supporting patriarchy. (The writer's word and definition). I wanted to point out why some of us might be uncomfortable with some of his proposals and also to widen the conversation. But the author made assumptions that if I believed X (what I wrote), then I also must believe Y and Z (irrational assumption). And he attempted to shift the discussion to an argument about the minutia of Y and Z. After several go-arounds, I called it quits because it was bound to become an ideological argument rather than a broader discussion.

And that is the problem. When people cannot have a conversation about some proposal X, without the irrational assumption that if you support X, you must also support unrelated proposals Y and Z, it is difficult to speak and listen to each other about the real merits and problems surrounding X. It becomes an ideological argument in which neither party to the discussion can express doubt, shift their position, or amend the idea. When this happens, no real listening can happen, no respect of opposing viewpoints can be tendered, because it is no longer a discussion of reality. It has become a discussion of ideology.

As Card says (again better than I can):
"...A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have ulterior motives. We are today a nation in which almost everyone in the public eye displays fanaticism with almost every utterance." (Card, p. 342, emphasis in the original).

This is scary. Although there are many important issues that we as a nation need to confront and resolve as we move toward a crisis period, we are distracted by disrespectful and divisive ideological "culture wars." As citizens, we must ask ourselves, who benefits from this fanaticism? I believe that those who benefit are those who want to concentrate power into the hands of a few in government rather than remain public servants of We the People of the United States. Whether they are "right" or "left," "liberal" or "conservative," "red" or "blue," those who continue to foment this divisive rhetoric are anti-democractic. They are like sociopaths who stir passions and create controversy so that their own grab for power and fame is not recognized.

As an ordinary citizen, I have frequently felt powerless in the face of the hatred and anger expressed by the fanatics on either end of the political spectrum. And I have often felt angry that the issues that are of importance to the rest of us are lost in a sea of nasty rhetoric. It has gotten to a point where Congress is unable to compromise on bills that are of vital interest to the nation.

Fortunately, though, we do have the power to change how our political discourse is conducted in this nation. And our individual discouragement at what we see can be allayed through the community of ordinary Americans. Although I have personally been feeling pretty discouraged, I got this message from another citizen that I have not met personally.
Susan of Corn and Oil Blog wrote this comment to Creeping Fascism:

" I hate labels. Just hate 'em unless they're telling me what I'm putting in my mouth or on my body. (And then it's still sorta questionable whether those labels are fully accurate.) A lot of labels are so derogatory in usage. Fundies, et al..." (June 14, 2007, 9:38:00 AM MDT).

And that's the answer. We must refuse to have ourselves labeled as A or B. Or whatever the label is. We must insist that we are not that simple-minded. Our ideas and our views are multi-dimensional and complex. They are individual. And we must also refuse to label people we are talking to or about. We must develop the patience to really listen to what they have to say. To ask ourselves, "What is true about what this person is saying? Where are the points of agreement here?" And build on them, no matter small or fragile.

And as for the fanatics in the "public eye"--well, we are the public. We can take them out of the public eye, the public ear and the public vote. We must refuse to give them our valuable time. We must insist that we will not participate in their staged "debates" and simplistic division of ideas. We must not support their access to the "public eye."

In a way, I think we are doing this already. According to the ratings gurus, the ratings of all the talk-shows and news shows and news analysis are down this summer, in the print media, in radio and television. They are down more than usual in the summer. Instead we are focusing on diversions, like the arrest of certain "celebrities" for drunk driving. So we are removing the fanatics from our eye, albeit in a solipsistic sort of way, by "staying home tonight and getting lost in that hopeless little screen."

But we could choose to do it in a more outward looking, positive way. By refusing to let the fanatics define us. By talking to each other directly. By refusing to let the fanatics label us and draw us into to their tidy but irrational set of divisive definitions. They may control the TV and radio stations and the print media. But we have the internet, the blogosphere and You-Tube. It is possible. The psychologists tell us that the best way to change bad behavior is through extinction. We can ignore the fanatics, bypass them and carry out discourse for ourselves.

We can do this. If we choose it. And make no mistake about it, we are choosing what we do even if we do nothing.

"...I'm as stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay.

I'm junk, but I'm holding out this little wild boquet.

Democracy is coming to the USA."

---Leonard Cohen, Democracy.

Summer Reading: The Joy of Frequent Library Trips

I mentioned a few weeks ago that N. has gotten excited about the Bernalillo Public Library System's summer reading program.

We are finding ourselves going to the library several times a week because they dole out 1 ten-hour reading card at a time to be filled out and turned in. N. has been reading between 20 and 30 hours a week now, and has been reading a variety of genres. Part of the reason is that we are not doing any major projects for the summer. And part of the reason is that each 10-hour card he turns in is entered into a drawing for a new techno-gadget of some kind. I-Pod? SPS? I don't remember--but something like that.

And I have expanded my reading as well.

Part of the reason is that when I am done with the UNM semester, I have time to read more for pleasure. And part of the reason is that I have discovered that the library has a summer reading program for adults as well! And the grand prize in the drawing is two round-trip tickets to anywhere Southwest Airlines flies. I read anyway. Might as well try for the trip.

So we are driving the eight miles to the library at least three times a week.

My philosophy for reading for my kids has always been simple. They should read real books that interest them and plenty of those! I eschew booklists, workbooks, vocabulary worksheets, phonics drills--or anything else that would convince them that reading is a means to some other end. Reading for readings sake! That's my motto.

So reading is not a "subject" in my house.

And yet everybody reads most of the time. We read for pleasure and information.

We read indoors, outdoors, sitting at the breakfast table, and sprawled out on the floor. And we read in the car (not the driver, of course), at the bookstore, at the library and under trees at the park. We read aloud to each other and silently. A dinner conversation often starts with, "By the way, I read today that..."

That big, expensive TV set? It gets used. For Netflix. Maybe once or twice a week.

It would be nice to win the drawing, of course...

But we'll read anyway.

We are a family of readers. A nice family.

The only problem is that I have trouble keeping the booklist up to date on this blog...

On the Death of a Modem

We knew it was getting old and cranky.

Our ActionTec DSL modem from Quest has required frequent restarting, factory resets, and in the past few months, frequent rest periods before it would consent to giving us a green light for wireless internet.





And there was the time after the lightning stike and power surge, where we thought it was a gonner, but after a full 24 hour rest period, it managed to gather its wits about it and give a green light again.





But on Tuesday afternoon, it finally gave up the ghost quietly and completely. I was researching something online and suddenly had no internet.


Wondering if this was the real thing, or just another coma, I unplugged the power cable. Later Tuesday evening, I tried it again.


The red power light came on and then got stuck there. No blinking to green, no other lights to be had. Well, we could be dealing with the need for another overnight rest period.


But on Wednesday morning, I tried plugging in the power cable again.


Red light, no blinking, no other lights at all.


Nothing but a little spark of static electricity at the joining of the power tab to the slot.


Persistant Vegetative State?





I left if alone for a while. Upon checking on my patient on Wednesday evening, there was still no change. Solid red power light. Not even a spark when I disconnected and then reconnected.





We pronounced it dead on Wednesday night, but since it had given us five years of faithful service, and since we were planning to go into town on Friday, we allowed it to lie in state for all of Thursday and into Friday afternoon.





On Friday morning, we went to get a new modem. A sleek young thing wearing modern colors, with room to network by wire 4 devices.

Welcome to our new modem. Not quite the same as the old modem.

I realize now that the old modem was being very crotchety for some time.

It has gone on to a well-deserved rest.

And we are happy to be connected once again.

Creeping Fascism: Are We Servants of the State?

I admit it. Late May and early June is usually a time of the year in which I actually avoid deep thinking, prefering to celebrate the end of the semester by reading thrillers and working in my yard. And still the world of homeschooling turns, even though I am preoccupied with watching the sunset and sunrise from my little piece of paradise.

So today, I finally feel compelled to discuss some issues that have been developed on other blogs and tie together some ideas that have been rumbling around in my head for a while--even as I watched wonderful sunrises and sunsets from my front porch.

In Connecticut, their version of Child Protective Services (DFS) has been enlisted by certain school districts to force parents who wish to homeschool their children to keep the kids in school. Judy Aron over at Consent of the Governed has blogged extensively about what is happening there. I am linking to her first recent post on the issue here, but you should look also at today's post, as well as one about the press conference, which can be viewed here. It is well worth viewing.

There is no question that the school districts that have reported these parents to DFS for "education neglect" have abused their power. What is very interesting is that in the cases discussed during the press conference (linked above), the parents were removing their children as a last resort after reasonable attempts to work with the schools to get their children a public education. In these cases, another issue stands out--the children had health problems that should have resulted in some form of an individual educational plan--either an IEP (under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) or a 504 Plan (under Americans with Disabilities Act). The IDEA in particular mandates that the schools must work as a team with parents/family in order to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to a child with a disability. In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress found that " strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home" can make "the education of children with disabilities...more effective." (IDEA 2004 601.c5B). It is also stated in the law that all members of an IEP team must agree to educational interventions. And yet, in the Connecticut cases, parents were dictated to, bullied and threatened with loss of their children if they did not comply with unilateral plans put forth by the school districts involved.

These abuses most likely have a number of causes, including money--because school districts get federal money for each child with disabilities educated under IDEA, and they can use this money in their general funds--that is they do not have to show that the money goes specifically for special education. Although this is a loophole that taxpayers ought to be concerned about, I believe there is a more insidious idea being promulgated here. This is the idea that the state has a kind of ownership of the child and merely contracts to the parents the duties of raising the child as a servant of the state. This is not an American value. Neither is it a democratic ideal; it is, rather, a fascist concept. The Constitution of the United States clearly demonstrates that a government governs at the pleasure of the citzenry. Government is the servant of the citizen, not the master. Citizens are not the servants of the state, rather they direct their government to do certain, constitutionally defined jobs in order to protect their liberties and live their lives.

The abuse of power represented by the actions of the Connecticut school districts and the DFS--which apparently is allowed to ignore certain basic constitutional rights of the accused--appears to stem from the idea that a petty bureaucrat or school official knows better than we do what is best for ourselves and our children. That these people are often more poorly educated and have less information than the parents they are harrassing would be laughable if they did not have so much power to disrupt lives and waste public resources doing so.

Another example of this "creeping fascism," has been making the rounds of the homeschooling blogosphere recently. I found out about it at this post on Corn and Oil. (By the way, Susan, I hail from your part of the world and went to school with your state congressman, Bill Brady. Don't know why, but I have been unable to comment on your blog because the registration never goes through). In a forthcoming article for California Law Review, professor Kim Yuracko of Northwestern University, essentially argues that the state has the constitutional power to dictate the ideas that parents teach their children in the course of homeschooling them. The article is called Illiberal Education which can be accessed by clicking on the link. Home Education Magazine has posted the abstract, commentary and links to other analysis here.

Although acknowledging that homeschooling is a "diverse" phenomenon, Yuracko incorrectly states that it is controlled by fundamentalist Christians who want to isolate their children from "secular influences and liberal values" (Yuracko, 2007, abstract). How, well, illiberal of Yuracko. The paper is poorly written and has numerous factual errors with regard to the diversity and philosophy of homeschooling. It also uses numerous logical fallacies in the pursuit of the argument. It is the central point, however, that demonstrates another example of fascistic thinking that I want to address.

Yuracko argues that education is essentially a "public function" that states delegate to parents and that parental power over their children's education is therefore limited. This law professor has it exactly backwards. The state may have an "interest" in the education of future citizens, but by sending their children to public schools, parents are delegating their responsibility to educate their children to the state. Not the other way 'round. Our children are not servants of the state. In a Constitutional Republic, such as the United States, the state is our servant.

In reading the entire article, it is clear that Yuracko would like to have the power of the state to limit the freedom of certain classes of parents (namely fundamentalist Christians) to pass their own beliefs and values on to their children. Rather, Yuracko would like force her own values on all of us. This would be a violation of our liberties under the United States Constitution. It also smacks of an incredible amount of elitist chutzpah on the part of a law professor.

It should be clear to anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at my blog that I am not a fundamentalist Christian. In fact, I strongly disagree with many of their ideas and beliefs. I am not a political conservative, either. Rather, I'd like to see the words "conservative" and "liberal" banned from polite discourse so that citizens could talk to each other on the level of issues rather than shout at each other from ideological positions. I do, however, remember the words of Martin Niemoller:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
(New England Holocaust Memorial Version)

Either the rights of citizens belong to all of us, or they will belong to no one.
Disagreement is protected and even encouraged in our American values. Supression is not.

Maybe someone like Yuracko is afraid of homeschooling and homeschoolers precisely because most of us have made a choice to teach our children their rights as citizens of the United States.

And, no, I don't do the Pledge of Allegiance with my son in our homeschool. Rather, every day we stand before the flag of the United States and recite the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (From Findlaw).

My son is not a servant of the state. He does not owe allegiance to a specific government, office, or person. He owes allegiance to an idea. The idea that "governments are instituted among (human beings) at the consent of the governed." The idea that the government exists to serve the citizens. If he chooses to run for office or serve in the military as an officer--and himself becomes a servant of the citizens, then he will take an oath of fealty. Not to a government, flag, office or person. Rather, he will take an oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States." To protect and defend an idea. The idea of liberty.

Fifth Anniversary: Finding the Bashert, Finding Good Fortune

Five years! Sometimes it seems like we have been married all of our lives, and sometimes I feel like we are newlyweds.

We still hold hands like lovers.
We work together like partners.

Our Brit Tena'im (engagement agreement) states:
"Whoever finds the Bashert (the person intended for you) finds good fortune..."
And so it has been.

Some of us find the Bashert early and some, late.



Sometimes, love found late is sweetest.

Five years ago, June 8th, 2002,, Bruce and I signed our Ketubah, our marriage contract.

A Ketubah is a legal document that states specifically what the Chatan (bridegroom) and Kallah (bride) are agreeing to do. We agreed, among other things, to establish a household "in Israel" (meaning among the people Israel--not the the nation-state), and to support and love one another according to the tradition and laws of Moses and Israel.

A Ketubah is also a work of art, scribed by hand, and adorned with art and illumination. Hiddur Mitzvah means to "beautify the commandments." It is a commandment to marry with a Ketubah, and to adorn it according to the personalities of the couple makes it beautiful. Ours is a limited edition called Erev shel Shoshanim, Evening of Roses, that depicts the night sky (Bruce is an amateur astronomer) and roses growing in old Jerusalem (my first career was as a type of botanist).

Five years ago, Bruce and I joined our lives together under the Chuppah, the marriage canopy, surrounded by family and friends.

The Chuppah (the "ch" is a gutteral, like the "ch" in the German "Bach") symbolizes the household that is being created by the marriage of two Jews. It is open on all four sides, to show that the Jewish household is open to hospitality toward all.

Our wedding occured very near to Shavuot, so the greenery in the synagogue was our decoration for it. Since our theme was "Evening of Roses," we had rose petals strewn on the aisle in the synagogue. Not only was it beautiful, but it smelled like roses as we were brought to the Chuppah. I don't remember a whole lot of what was said under the Chuppah, but since there is tradition, I know what occured there. A blessing was said over wine, the symbol of joy. Seven wedding blessings were chanted. Rings were exchanged and we said, each to the other, in Hebrew, "Behold, you are made holy unto me according to the laws of Moses and Israel." Marriage is called "kiddushin" in Hebrew, meaning holiness. Joining together in marriage is a holy act in Judaism; it is the fulfillment of a commandment and the highest calling to which human beings can aspire. It is an act of tikkun olam, repair of the world. I think it is so because the joining of two separate people, who undertake to live together despite their differences is an opportunity for the creation of Shalom, wholeness, blessing and peace.


Our first dance. After we had some time alone together, we joined the celebration of our wedding in progress.

We chose to dance to the Louis Armstrong tune, "Wonderful World." What a wonderful world is made from the blessing of finding the Bashert!

A story: In January of 2001, I went to a family retreat. The theme was "blessings." At one point, in small groups, the adults were asked to ask for and receive a blessing from another. I thought it was pretty schmaltzy, and I was shy about asking. But something overcame my reserve, and I asked for my heart's desire. "Please ask for me the blessing that I might find my life's partner, my Bashert."
Fast forward to May, 2001. Bruce and I, on our seventh date, were driving up to Ojo Caliente to spend the day soaking in the healing waters there.
I asked Bruce, "What is your Hebrew name?" He said, "Baruch ben Leib Hersch haLevi v'Rina. ('A Blessing' the son of Leib Hersch the Levite and Joy). " I definitely heard the sound of the two-by-four swishing through the air! Here was my Bashert, my Blessing that I had asked for!
Sometimes blessings are very powerful. Be warned!


One of "the obligations without measure, the reward of which is without measure," is to "rejoice with bride and groom."

A custom is to show the depth, the "measurelessness" of that rejoicing, is to lift the brude and groom up on chairs as part of the dancing.

Here Bruce and I "dance" together on the chairs, joined in the "handkerchief dance", lifted by friends and family, while others dance the Hora.

The New Shtetl Band and the dancers were singing: "There shall be heard in the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride." (...kol sasson v'kol simcha, kol chatan v'kol kallah!")

The wonderful thing about our wedding was that we enjoyed it so much! We handed over the details to the rabbi, cantor, caterer and the synagogue event planner. And we let go and had a wonderful time. We were the last ones to leave our wedding.

Our marriage has been sweet and tender and good for both of us. We have grown into more love and understanding.
Of course, there are differences between us, from time to time. Both of us can be stubborn and headstrong and intense. Real life brings challenges to all of us! But there is a fundamental basis of love and respect that is different than our previous relationships.

As we sit on our rockers on the porch holding hands, we sometimes turn to one another and say: "Love is truly wasted on the young!"

Five years! Sometimes it seems like we have been together all of our lives. Sometimes we feel like newlyweds.

We have each found the bashert. We have each found good fortune.

Close, But No Cigar!

Yesterday, I got three more steps done on the 300 Million Year Stonework Project.

Here they are--close to the top. But...not...quite...there.

It was a beautiful afternoon, albeit warm, so after working three hours in the sunshine--I left the shade behind at the bottom of the steps--I called it quits.

It is taking a bit longer toward the top because the hill is steeper there and it takes longer to clear the dirt that I have to dig out to make a step.

N. planted his pumpkin patch as I was working.

Then he rested on the porch. Then he read in his "hidden spot for reading in the tree." Smart kid--he plans projects that can be completed within his attention span.

Here is the curved path of stairs from the top. Another reason for slower time at the top is that I have hit the "B" horizon. Clay and pebbles, fixed with plant roots. I am running into tree roots, so the curve is a little greater than I had planned.
I just can't bear to pull out very small Ponderosa pines recruited since last year. I plant o transplant them in the fall instead.

I figure maybe one more step and a secure landing at the top.

But not today. I got this message from the National Weather Service:

"HIGH WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 9 PM MDT THIS EVENING.

Southwest wind will reach sustained speeds of 35 to 45 Mph with Gusts around 60 Mph by

early afternoon and Continue through early this Evening...Blowing dust may reduce Visibility Suddenly...

Strong Winds will be Hazardous to Trailers and other High Profile Vehicles...

Take Action to Secure lawn furniture, trash cans...stong winds can Topple Trees...Blow Weakened Roofs off Houses...Down Powerlines...

The NWS has quaint capitalization rules, no?

Anyway, I don't think I want to be out in this. It is gusting already. Today is a good day to get inside work done.

Carnival of Homeschooling: Buzzing Your Way

The latest Carnival of Homeschooling is up at Homeschool Buzz.

There are 30 articles to choose from on a variety of topics.
I don't have an article--I missed the deadline.
But there are some good reads. Spend a summer afternoon browsing and enjoy!