I don't think you can make a blanket statement about it. Depends on the kids, the parents, and the local school options. In my observations, however, a good chunk of parents who home-school their kids are doing it out of their own obsessive need for control rather than the kids' benefit.
3: I concur. Seems like a candidate for the ol' case-by-case analysis. A question of hands-off(-enough) facilitation vs. YOU WILL MULTIPLY NINE-TIMES-FOUR MOTHERFUCKER.
Also, you can't trade lunches. Which is a downer. Unless you had good lunches. Which I didn't.
Thus spreads the Dylan-as-conservative meme. Was it that female law professor blogger who started it? I'm blanking on her name now -- comes in for a lot of mockery over at Alicublog and Crooked Timber.
Yeah it takes a weird head to consider those lyrics Dylan-esque. They do have a seventies-political-folk feel to them I guess -- kind of the exact opposite of Dylan's sound -- agree with Matt they look like satire. O tempora, o mores!
I don't see the point of it unless one wants to be uber-controlling and, unless one is embedded in an existing network of home-schooling parents and children, the kids miss out on the key skills that school teaches -- i.e. how to get along with and interact with other people especially other people from different social, cultural and class backgrounds. Interacting with other people can be hard but who said that parenthood was about making life easy for children? :)
I feel the same way about most alternatives to ordinary everyday conprehensive schools.
I really wasn't fond of school, so I have sort of vague sympathies for the idea of moving through materials at the kid's own speed, rather than waiting for the rest of the class, learning to socialize in mixed-age groups rather than with hordes of irritating schoolchildren, etc. On the other hand, in each specific case of homeschooling I've been aware of, I've pitied the children involved.
In the cases with which I am personally familiar, it was the mother who was all het up to home school the kids. Again, in some circumstances home schooling may indeed be the best option. Speaking with my parent hat on, though, I find the notion incomprehensible. Forget what they need, I need the break that sending them to school provides.
I really wasn't fond of school, so I have sort of vague sympathies for the idea of moving through materials at the kid's own speed, rather than waiting for the rest of the class
As a data point, I attended an Open Plan elementary school, in which students move through the material at approximately their own speed rather than waiting for the rest of the class. And I actually enjoyed school pretty well, at least elementary school, despite my social maladaptation and despite being subject to some bullying.
When homeschooling takes on this sort of "approved" homeschool curricula, or the histories developed by the likes of Wallbuilders, I am amazed, well, at the heights of the walls education like that is meant to construct. It seems so free from exploration, very un-Émile. However, I have known others, also homeschooled, who spent their days reading Plato and Camus, and I think, wouldn't that be a fine way to learn? But this,
"We want them sharin' our own faith
And in a place we know they're safe
Instead of violence and drugs
They'll get high on prayer and hugs"
makes me think the former homeschool is much more popular than the latter. In other words, I echo the sentiment of 5.
(I am curious who reprints Picturesque America, however...)
...keeping women isolated and unwaged while men go out to play the alpha male....
Right. There seem to be (at least) two camps that are pro-homeschooling: (1) the God-fearing, flag-waving, damned-if-my-little-Billy's-gonna-learn-'bout-no-apes-becoming-people folks; and, (2) the tree-hugging, Volvo-driving, organic-granola-buying, my-little-Madison-just-wrote-his-first-comic-operetta-in-honor-of-his-sixth-birthday crowd.
By the way, Althouse was perfectly correct, she just made a typo on the singer that this guy should be compared to. It's not Bob Dylan, it's Bob Roberts.
Some people will work, Some simply will not, But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complaaaain.
Stanley, the two homeschoolers of my acquaintance don't really fit those two stereotypes -- though by a remarkable coincidence they could be thought by someone who does not know them to belong, respectively, to the two groups.
Bill is a fundamentalist, a Mennonite minister in Northeastern PA. He schools his daughters at home because he does not want them exposed to the ungodly teachings of Kutztown public schools. I would not describe him as God-fearing or as flag-waving -- Mennonites are IIUC opposed to patriotism and are defiitely pacifists -- though I reckon (not having asked Bill) that disbelief in evolution plays a role in his decision to homeschool.
Jim is a schlemiel, a college dropout tennis instructor who lets life kick him around. He is liberal and Unitarian but less a member of your second group than Bill is of your first. He homeschools his son because he hated school (bullying issues) and doesn't want his kid to go through that.
And no, I wouldn't really like to be Bill's daughters or Jim's son. Marginally more the latter I guess.
Er, what I meant by this: I would not attribute to Bill the stereotypical image of the pinched, spritually miserly conservative Christian. And that's a stereotype I'm quite willing to use in other cases.
All of the homeschoolers that I knew as a kid began taking classes part-time once they reached middle school and/or high school, because their families realized that they couldn't provide the higher math, music & science education. (They were all creationists, but at least realized that physics and chemistry were good to learn.) The kids in one family were very well adjusted; the girl in the second family worked hard, got into an Ivy league university, and was forbidden by her dad to go there because she might turn liberal.
I worry about the quality of education in homeschooling & the socialization. Sure, you can have a lot of activities, but the regular school kids have lots of activities plus countless hours of just being around and observing how other kids interact.
Some people are just bad teachers, too. I know there's a lot of awful elementary school teachers out there and everyone thinks they could do it, but you know, I'm not sure *I* could do it, and I can teach at a university. And I did well in high school; better than the people my age who I know are planning to homeschool their kids. Plus, I wonder if it would be possible to keep a good division between school time and parent time.
I just watched Don't Look Back followed by Bob Roberts this weekend, which is really the way to do it. Jack Black, it should be noted, steals the movie.
I had a friend who went to a very progressive 'granola' type private school which was supposed to be about developing the whole person, nurturing the inner child, cherishing self-expression, and so on. The school and the parents used to boast that their kids displayed awareness and maturity beyond their years.
Which was, as far as I can tell, deluded bullshit. I think you'd be hard pushed to find an as obnoxious, self-centred, immature, whiny, over-indulged bunch of precious little sods anywhere.
I suspect that the 'granola' style of home schooling has a similar effect.
(Then again deep down I tend to think that anyone who didn't go to an at least semi-badass comprehensive type school with a significant percentage of scary bullies and kids from really poor areas is intrinsically untrustworthy.)
I am in Total Motherfucking Agreement with 32. I've never met a fancy prep-schooler that didn't come off as obnoxious, self-important, whiny, over-indulged, etc. I want to punch almost all of them in their faces.
Some of you probably fall into this category, but I don't know any of you well enough to dislike you.
"Castro's Cuba is paradise Well I know that's just a pack of lies!"
"But if you think I'll let Barry Goldwater/ Move in next door and marry my daughter/ You must think I'm crazy!/ I wouldn't do it for all the farms in Cuba." - I Shall be Free no. 10
A gentleman of my acquaintance homeschools his kids. (Well, actually, his wife homeschools his kids.) As part of a debate we were having over the legitimacy of the teaching of evolution, he brought in a passage from the Homeschool Curriculum Approved biology textbook his son was using. The photocopied pages put forth the argument that evolution was impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I explained to him why, in so many words, that was a bunch of bull, and I think I was able to convince him that the science and reasoning in the book weren't really up to snuff. He seemed to accept my argument, and acknowledged, "Well, it's not exactly a very scholarly work."
I wanted to shake him, and ask, "Then why are you teaching your children from it?!" In the interest of comity, I refrained.
It's a weird balance to find between raising kids to think they're gods and raising them to think they're nobodies. I was raised to think that the brighter and more creative I was, the fewer friends I'd have. My boyfriend's kids, who go to a hippy-dippy private school, are convinced that everyone who sees them loves them, even when they wear homemade costumes to restaurants.
I envy their easy confidence, but I fear for them in college.
The balance needn't be that hard to strike. The parents can be there for all the 'everyone loves you' stuff and a normal school can provide the reality.
I've only known one person who homeschooled his kids, and I never knew the children. But X, who had met them, claimed they were both pathetic and abominable. The parents refused to give orders to their children. When they were brought to X's house, the older child refused to cross the threshold. So X, parents and children were stuck on the doorstep waiting for the child to decide whether he wanted to come in or go home, until X said "never mind, the invitation is withdrawn" and closed the door. The parents were very angry at X but X didn't care much.
Ugh. When I was a teen babysitter, I worked for a family that did this to their two-year-old. "Honey? Pumpkin? Do you think maybe sometime in the near future you could think about whether it's time to start heading towards bed? Can you think about this?" Meanwhile the girl is having an overtired tantrum on the floor. I used to just grab her and put her in bed. The parents were appalled.
One thing that still confuses me: Didn't we already have a Bob Dylan from his generation? And wasn't he named Bob Dylan? Just because a generation gets older doesn't mean it's "new" in any way. It just means they got wrinklier, crustier, and more boring.
For me personally, pop music's best era was 1964-1970. And music was more than music then: it addressed social issues and led a powerful cultural transformation for Americans — including me. In 1970, I was an atheist hippie. Today, however, I'm a Christian who, like many, yearns to see our nation recover its lost values.
These 4 sentences are what's wrong with the boomers as a generation. Good lord, I am so distraught that these are the people who are going to be making the decisions for the next 35 years.
It's hard to take seriously the faith of a generation that spent their teens as born-agains, their twenties as Buddhists, their thirties as yuppie capitalists, and then reconverted to "Christianity" in their forties when it became easy and popular again.
The only thing that matches the justified contempt people now in their thirties and forties have for boomerthink is the contempt other boomers, we who have never bought any of that, have had for these clowns all of our lives.
Hard to disagree with #50. And I so want to hate the boomers. Unfortunately, a lot of things went right on their watch, however narcissistic their devotion to those right things.
Don't be hating. There's just as many blinkered narcissists infesting gen x and y, (are we up to z yet?) at least, as a cursory examination of the blogiverse will plainly show. Okay, there was a certain intolerably vapid smugness in the air, but you can get that with a lot of pot.
Actually, I'm starting to think that that smugness was an echo of the rah-rah corporate optimism of the fifties--same tone, different content, and the emergence of the yuppies was just a return to form.
I was just in a bookstore and saw Ad/am B/ellow's book, In P/raise of Ne/potism, and it was not remaindered. So don't come crying to me about my g-g-g-generation.
What are the things that went right on their watch? Many of the things they often claim credit for are the result of the actions of the political generation prior to theirs.
Certainly in the UK one could make a pretty good case that the boomer generation i) benefited from all the post-war welfare-state and education measures introduced by their parents' generation and then ii) having climbed the ladder pulled it up behind them pretty damn quickly.
It may be silly to tar entire generations with one brush -- as the greatest or as the most selfish and narcissistic, or whatever -- but complaints about the 'boomer' generation are not groundless.
Yes, rather different in the UK. In the US there was no post-war welfare state for the Boomers to dismantle. Personally, I refuse to take responsibility for Reagan.
Sure, many tens- or even hundreds- of thousands of the boomer-generation here opposed the partial dismantling of the welfare state and the reinstatement of barriers to social mobility but, nevertheless, many of the worst of these measures took place 'on their watch'.
Members of the same generation are now presiding over a wholesale dismantling of many of Britain's civil liberties in the name of freedom from terror and 'antisocial behaviour'.
Of course 'generations' don't form distinctly bounded groups and many of these measures are whole-heartedly supported by members of the preceding and succeeding generations but it's the boomer group who are currently in the driving seat.
Part of what happened is that countercultural types, who might have been leftish if they had not been apolitical, abandoned the apparatus of power to go get high in India. Hurray! rock and roll is revolution. No need for boring politics! The boomers were the first generation to be entranced by their own image in the media; their narcissism was quite literal. The new age was real because you saw it on tv. Then we woke up with a bad hangover.
64: maybe, but I think film, because of its complex production process, was always perceived as having an authorial point of view, while television news imagery was experienced as less mediated. But even if not, one had to make a certain effort to see a film, while by the late fifties, almost every home had a television--a huge change in the way those images were delivered, in quantity as well as quality.
See the Newsweek link in the post above, about boomer dating, for evidence of how this framing is on autopilot, trivializing and infantilizing everything people of a certain age do as part of a trend. Yes, vast numbers have defined themselves by the use of this media-generated way of thinking, but blaming the subjects themselves for this has elements of blaming the victims.
Yeah, I can't even make solid generalizations about the 8 boomers who are my parents and their siblings, much less the however-many-million there are at large.
Oh, please. If I can't make broad generalizations and half-assed slurs to put down an entire group of people, then I have no idea what teh intarweb is good for. And my generation has been typecast as lazy and ambitionless for the past decade and a half.
Will no one join me in hating on fucking A/dam B/ellow? I'd do some more substantive hating myself, but then I'd have to re-read that piece of crap that nepotism enabled him to publish.
Many people who homeschool their children are neither fundies nor hippies. A lot of us do it because we want to be sure our children are taught critical thinking skills. If you haven't met anyone like us before, here's a popular hangout for the secular homeschool crowd: http://www.thedenimjumper.com/community/index.php
But while people with traditional values passionately talk about issues, they rarely seem to sing about them.
Yeah, who listens to country music anyway?
Posted by MMGood | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:19 AM
I've had very conflicting opinions on home schooling.
Anti-social? Or Montessori times eleven? Or is Montessori overrated?
Not to pull a Farber with the questions, but I wonder how opine the Unfoggeders. I've seen home-schoolers turn out great and terribly...
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:23 AM
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about it. Depends on the kids, the parents, and the local school options. In my observations, however, a good chunk of parents who home-school their kids are doing it out of their own obsessive need for control rather than the kids' benefit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:33 AM
Yeah, who listens to country music anyway?
Funny you should ask.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:34 AM
3: I concur. Seems like a candidate for the ol' case-by-case analysis. A question of hands-off(-enough) facilitation vs. YOU WILL MULTIPLY NINE-TIMES-FOUR MOTHERFUCKER.
Also, you can't trade lunches. Which is a downer. Unless you had good lunches. Which I didn't.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:38 AM
I was going to say that while country music may have lost the red-headed troubador, it still had the Okie from Muskogee. Then I saw this.
There's always Montgomery-Gentry, but Bush's 34% approval rating is starting to make more sense.
Posted by MMGood | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:41 AM
Are those lyrics satire?
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:27 AM
Thus spreads the Dylan-as-conservative meme. Was it that female law professor blogger who started it? I'm blanking on her name now -- comes in for a lot of mockery over at Alicublog and Crooked Timber.
Yeah it takes a weird head to consider those lyrics Dylan-esque. They do have a seventies-political-folk feel to them I guess -- kind of the exact opposite of Dylan's sound -- agree with Matt they look like satire. O tempora, o mores!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:45 AM
Aha! Maybe she meant to say, "Perloff is the object of lampooning by Bob Dylan for this generation".
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:47 AM
Also, I'm generally against home-schooling.
I don't see the point of it unless one wants to be uber-controlling and, unless one is embedded in an existing network of home-schooling parents and children, the kids miss out on the key skills that school teaches -- i.e. how to get along with and interact with other people especially other people from different social, cultural and class backgrounds. Interacting with other people can be hard but who said that parenthood was about making life easy for children? :)
I feel the same way about most alternatives to ordinary everyday conprehensive schools.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 6:03 AM
Re 8: Althouse is the name of the blogger who I think came up with the notion that Dylan was conservative.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 6:16 AM
(That is to say: Althouse is the obscure object of ridicule.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 6:54 AM
Home schooling is a great way of keeping women isolated and unwaged while men go out to play the alpha male and control the household income.
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:13 AM
I really wasn't fond of school, so I have sort of vague sympathies for the idea of moving through materials at the kid's own speed, rather than waiting for the rest of the class, learning to socialize in mixed-age groups rather than with hordes of irritating schoolchildren, etc. On the other hand, in each specific case of homeschooling I've been aware of, I've pitied the children involved.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:26 AM
In the cases with which I am personally familiar, it was the mother who was all het up to home school the kids. Again, in some circumstances home schooling may indeed be the best option. Speaking with my parent hat on, though, I find the notion incomprehensible. Forget what they need, I need the break that sending them to school provides.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:29 AM
I really wasn't fond of school, so I have sort of vague sympathies for the idea of moving through materials at the kid's own speed, rather than waiting for the rest of the class
As a data point, I attended an Open Plan elementary school, in which students move through the material at approximately their own speed rather than waiting for the rest of the class. And I actually enjoyed school pretty well, at least elementary school, despite my social maladaptation and despite being subject to some bullying.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:33 AM
When homeschooling takes on this sort of "approved" homeschool curricula, or the histories developed by the likes of Wallbuilders, I am amazed, well, at the heights of the walls education like that is meant to construct. It seems so free from exploration, very un-Émile. However, I have known others, also homeschooled, who spent their days reading Plato and Camus, and I think, wouldn't that be a fine way to learn? But this,
"We want them sharin' our own faith
And in a place we know they're safe
Instead of violence and drugs
They'll get high on prayer and hugs"
makes me think the former homeschool is much more popular than the latter. In other words, I echo the sentiment of 5.
(I am curious who reprints Picturesque America, however...)
Posted by greg | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:35 AM
...keeping women isolated and unwaged while men go out to play the alpha male....
Right. There seem to be (at least) two camps that are pro-homeschooling: (1) the God-fearing, flag-waving, damned-if-my-little-Billy's-gonna-learn-'bout-no-apes-becoming-people folks; and, (2) the tree-hugging, Volvo-driving, organic-granola-buying, my-little-Madison-just-wrote-his-first-comic-operetta-in-honor-of-his-sixth-birthday crowd.
You know, not to stereotype or whatever...
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:36 AM
By the way, Althouse was perfectly correct, she just made a typo on the singer that this guy should be compared to. It's not Bob Dylan, it's Bob Roberts.
Some people will work,
Some simply will not,
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complaaaain.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:37 AM
Stanley, the two homeschoolers of my acquaintance don't really fit those two stereotypes -- though by a remarkable coincidence they could be thought by someone who does not know them to belong, respectively, to the two groups.
Bill is a fundamentalist, a Mennonite minister in Northeastern PA. He schools his daughters at home because he does not want them exposed to the ungodly teachings of Kutztown public schools. I would not describe him as God-fearing or as flag-waving -- Mennonites are IIUC opposed to patriotism and are defiitely pacifists -- though I reckon (not having asked Bill) that disbelief in evolution plays a role in his decision to homeschool.
Jim is a schlemiel, a college dropout tennis instructor who lets life kick him around. He is liberal and Unitarian but less a member of your second group than Bill is of your first. He homeschools his son because he hated school (bullying issues) and doesn't want his kid to go through that.
And no, I wouldn't really like to be Bill's daughters or Jim's son. Marginally more the latter I guess.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:49 AM
I would not describe him as God-fearing
Er, what I meant by this: I would not attribute to Bill the stereotypical image of the pinched, spritually miserly conservative Christian. And that's a stereotype I'm quite willing to use in other cases.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:53 AM
Jeremy: so, then, would you describe both Bill and Jim as tinged with a bit of libertarianism and/or individualism?
Maybe it's less of a strict left/right divide than I perceive...
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:53 AM
Stanley: yes, that sounds about right.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:54 AM
He homeschools his son because he hated school
I suspect that this is exceedingly common and a terrible reason to homeschool.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:55 AM
He totally took those lyrics from my copy of The Freewheelin' Bob Roberts.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:58 AM
24, meet 19.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:00 AM
That's what I get for skimming.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:03 AM
27, were you homeschooled? Some people say homeschoolers skim.
(I heard they eat babies, too.)
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:05 AM
We need to make more fun of these lyrics. Dylan:
Perloff:
Yeah, more or less the same thing.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:08 AM
All of the homeschoolers that I knew as a kid began taking classes part-time once they reached middle school and/or high school, because their families realized that they couldn't provide the higher math, music & science education. (They were all creationists, but at least realized that physics and chemistry were good to learn.) The kids in one family were very well adjusted; the girl in the second family worked hard, got into an Ivy league university, and was forbidden by her dad to go there because she might turn liberal.
I worry about the quality of education in homeschooling & the socialization. Sure, you can have a lot of activities, but the regular school kids have lots of activities plus countless hours of just being around and observing how other kids interact.
Some people are just bad teachers, too. I know there's a lot of awful elementary school teachers out there and everyone thinks they could do it, but you know, I'm not sure *I* could do it, and I can teach at a university. And I did well in high school; better than the people my age who I know are planning to homeschool their kids. Plus, I wonder if it would be possible to keep a good division between school time and parent time.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:09 AM
I just watched Don't Look Back followed by Bob Roberts this weekend, which is really the way to do it. Jack Black, it should be noted, steals the movie.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:11 AM
I had a friend who went to a very progressive 'granola' type private school which was supposed to be about developing the whole person, nurturing the inner child, cherishing self-expression, and so on. The school and the parents used to boast that their kids displayed awareness and maturity beyond their years.
Which was, as far as I can tell, deluded bullshit. I think you'd be hard pushed to find an as obnoxious, self-centred, immature, whiny, over-indulged bunch of precious little sods anywhere.
I suspect that the 'granola' style of home schooling has a similar effect.
(Then again deep down I tend to think that anyone who didn't go to an at least semi-badass comprehensive type school with a significant percentage of scary bullies and kids from really poor areas is intrinsically untrustworthy.)
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:14 AM
I am in Total Motherfucking Agreement with 32. I've never met a fancy prep-schooler that didn't come off as obnoxious, self-important, whiny, over-indulged, etc. I want to punch almost all of them in their faces.
Some of you probably fall into this category, but I don't know any of you well enough to dislike you.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:24 AM
"Castro's Cuba is paradise Well I know that's just a pack of lies!"
"But if you think I'll let Barry Goldwater/ Move in next door and marry my daughter/ You must think I'm crazy!/ I wouldn't do it for all the farms in Cuba." - I Shall be Free no. 10
Yeah. same thing.
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:25 AM
All the liberals say George Bush does wrong/
But they all just sit and smoke their bongs/
George Bush will fight to keep us free/
And save us from the Arab enemy.
I just made those lyrics up in literally 10 seconds. I think they're comparable to this guy's stuff.
Does this mean I get to be a famous musician?
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:30 AM
Perloff:Dylan::Dennis Madalone:the Beatles, Who and Rolling Stones combined
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:31 AM
Dylan:
Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked.
Perloff:
The General Assembly's
Filled with terrorists and Reds
I don't want my taxes
To fund those talking heads
Our boys should only fight
Defendin' Old Glory
And not for the UN Flag
In foreign territory
Say no to the New World Order
They're trying to destroy our borders
So don't let them take away
The Land called the USA
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:32 AM
I will not eat green eggs and ham!
That's unAmerican, Uncle Sam!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:34 AM
A gentleman of my acquaintance homeschools his kids. (Well, actually, his wife homeschools his kids.) As part of a debate we were having over the legitimacy of the teaching of evolution, he brought in a passage from the Homeschool Curriculum Approved biology textbook his son was using. The photocopied pages put forth the argument that evolution was impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I explained to him why, in so many words, that was a bunch of bull, and I think I was able to convince him that the science and reasoning in the book weren't really up to snuff. He seemed to accept my argument, and acknowledged, "Well, it's not exactly a very scholarly work."
I wanted to shake him, and ask, "Then why are you teaching your children from it?!" In the interest of comity, I refrained.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:42 AM
It's a weird balance to find between raising kids to think they're gods and raising them to think they're nobodies. I was raised to think that the brighter and more creative I was, the fewer friends I'd have. My boyfriend's kids, who go to a hippy-dippy private school, are convinced that everyone who sees them loves them, even when they wear homemade costumes to restaurants.
I envy their easy confidence, but I fear for them in college.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:43 AM
38 is an early entrant in the running for best comment of the day.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:44 AM
re: 40
The balance needn't be that hard to strike. The parents can be there for all the 'everyone loves you' stuff and a normal school can provide the reality.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:48 AM
The parents can be there for all the 'everyone loves you' stuff and a normal school can provide the reality.
I prefer the opposite: send the kids to a fluffy, touchy-feely "you're so special" school, and then beat them when they're at home.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:58 AM
I've only known one person who homeschooled his kids, and I never knew the children. But X, who had met them, claimed they were both pathetic and abominable. The parents refused to give orders to their children. When they were brought to X's house, the older child refused to cross the threshold. So X, parents and children were stuck on the doorstep waiting for the child to decide whether he wanted to come in or go home, until X said "never mind, the invitation is withdrawn" and closed the door. The parents were very angry at X but X didn't care much.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:03 AM
When your mother tells you the G-men are comin'
And your father to your sister, he explains
That they heard you advocating the oppression of women
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane
When all the elitist liberals want back what they have lent you
And the smell of their programs does not remain
And all your employees start to resent you
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:06 AM
Ugh. When I was a teen babysitter, I worked for a family that did this to their two-year-old. "Honey? Pumpkin? Do you think maybe sometime in the near future you could think about whether it's time to start heading towards bed? Can you think about this?" Meanwhile the girl is having an overtired tantrum on the floor. I used to just grab her and put her in bed. The parents were appalled.
But then, I was raised by Belt Threat.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:13 AM
Can you think about this?
This is such a recipe for disaster. Never present stuff like that as a question; always as a statement.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:18 AM
One thing that still confuses me: Didn't we already have a Bob Dylan from his generation? And wasn't he named Bob Dylan? Just because a generation gets older doesn't mean it's "new" in any way. It just means they got wrinklier, crustier, and more boring.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:24 AM
For me personally, pop music's best era was 1964-1970. And music was more than music then: it addressed social issues and led a powerful cultural transformation for Americans — including me. In 1970, I was an atheist hippie. Today, however, I'm a Christian who, like many, yearns to see our nation recover its lost values.
These 4 sentences are what's wrong with the boomers as a generation. Good lord, I am so distraught that these are the people who are going to be making the decisions for the next 35 years.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:55 AM
It's hard to take seriously the faith of a generation that spent their teens as born-agains, their twenties as Buddhists, their thirties as yuppie capitalists, and then reconverted to "Christianity" in their forties when it became easy and popular again.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:15 AM
I haven't read all the comments: has this been linked to yet?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:19 AM
I am so distraught that these are the people who are going to be making the decisions for the next 35 years.
Next 35 years? Don't be such a pessimist. Lots of us will be dead way before that.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:44 AM
Especially if we kill you and eat you.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:08 AM
see? we're that last fragile barrier of civility against the coming barbarian tide!
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:23 AM
The only thing that matches the justified contempt people now in their thirties and forties have for boomerthink is the contempt other boomers, we who have never bought any of that, have had for these clowns all of our lives.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:28 AM
Especially if we kill you and eat you.
And your babies (if we were homeschooled).
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:28 AM
Hard to disagree with #50. And I so want to hate the boomers. Unfortunately, a lot of things went right on their watch, however narcissistic their devotion to those right things.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:43 PM
Don't be hating. There's just as many blinkered narcissists infesting gen x and y, (are we up to z yet?) at least, as a cursory examination of the blogiverse will plainly show. Okay, there was a certain intolerably vapid smugness in the air, but you can get that with a lot of pot.
Actually, I'm starting to think that that smugness was an echo of the rah-rah corporate optimism of the fifties--same tone, different content, and the emergence of the yuppies was just a return to form.
I was just in a bookstore and saw Ad/am B/ellow's book, In P/raise of Ne/potism, and it was not remaindered. So don't come crying to me about my g-g-g-generation.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:10 PM
re: 57
What are the things that went right on their watch? Many of the things they often claim credit for are the result of the actions of the political generation prior to theirs.
Certainly in the UK one could make a pretty good case that the boomer generation i) benefited from all the post-war welfare-state and education measures introduced by their parents' generation and then ii) having climbed the ladder pulled it up behind them pretty damn quickly.
It may be silly to tar entire generations with one brush -- as the greatest or as the most selfish and narcissistic, or whatever -- but complaints about the 'boomer' generation are not groundless.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:08 PM
Yes, rather different in the UK. In the US there was no post-war welfare state for the Boomers to dismantle. Personally, I refuse to take responsibility for Reagan.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:24 PM
Sure, many tens- or even hundreds- of thousands of the boomer-generation here opposed the partial dismantling of the welfare state and the reinstatement of barriers to social mobility but, nevertheless, many of the worst of these measures took place 'on their watch'.
Members of the same generation are now presiding over a wholesale dismantling of many of Britain's civil liberties in the name of freedom from terror and 'antisocial behaviour'.
Of course 'generations' don't form distinctly bounded groups and many of these measures are whole-heartedly supported by members of the preceding and succeeding generations but it's the boomer group who are currently in the driving seat.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:31 PM
Part of what happened is that countercultural types, who might have been leftish if they had not been apolitical, abandoned the apparatus of power to go get high in India. Hurray! rock and roll is revolution. No need for boring politics! The boomers were the first generation to be entranced by their own image in the media; their narcissism was quite literal. The new age was real because you saw it on tv. Then we woke up with a bad hangover.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:34 PM
huh. I'm not sure I'd have posted that, if I hadn't hit the button accidentally.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:35 PM
There is at least an argument that the generation born around the end of WWI was the first generation entranced by its own image in the media.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:58 PM
The site seems kinda broken--is anybody working on that?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:00 PM
64: maybe, but I think film, because of its complex production process, was always perceived as having an authorial point of view, while television news imagery was experienced as less mediated. But even if not, one had to make a certain effort to see a film, while by the late fifties, almost every home had a television--a huge change in the way those images were delivered, in quantity as well as quality.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:51 PM
See the Newsweek link in the post above, about boomer dating, for evidence of how this framing is on autopilot, trivializing and infantilizing everything people of a certain age do as part of a trend. Yes, vast numbers have defined themselves by the use of this media-generated way of thinking, but blaming the subjects themselves for this has elements of blaming the victims.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 7:36 AM
Yeah, I can't even make solid generalizations about the 8 boomers who are my parents and their siblings, much less the however-many-million there are at large.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 7:50 AM
The article did say that 20% of single people over 60 have sex at least once a week, so there's that. Go grandma!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 7:56 AM
Oh, please. If I can't make broad generalizations and half-assed slurs to put down an entire group of people, then I have no idea what teh intarweb is good for. And my generation has been typecast as lazy and ambitionless for the past decade and a half.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:08 AM
I actually happen to be lazy and ambitionless, so perhaps that's a bad example.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:17 AM
Hey, me too!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:34 AM
I'm just lazy.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:36 AM
I'm la--ah, never mind. It's not worth it.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:37 AM
I am grim and determined in my lack of ambition.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:39 AM
I'm Amish, bland and laserless.
Posted by SB | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 8:52 AM
Will no one join me in hating on fucking A/dam B/ellow? I'd do some more substantive hating myself, but then I'd have to re-read that piece of crap that nepotism enabled him to publish.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 9:14 AM
Many people who homeschool their children are neither fundies nor hippies. A lot of us do it because we want to be sure our children are taught critical thinking skills. If you haven't met anyone like us before, here's a popular hangout for the secular homeschool crowd: http://www.thedenimjumper.com/community/index.php
Posted by Lioness | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 6:19 PM
the denim jumper? I don't think so. The denim apron? I really don't think so. Guess I'm just not sassy enuff.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 03- 2-06 7:26 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit A for "why I want to make sure my children learn how to think logically" is right above this comment.
Posted by Lioness | Link to this comment | 03- 2-06 5:26 PM