Who chooses the choices?

It scared me yesterday to see blatant political indoctrination being passed off as "teaching." Unfortunately, I soon discovered that many if not most of the people who are working against this stuff turn people off with their moralistic fervor, thus preventing many ordinary, reasonable people from seeing that there is truly a horrendous, institutionalized, problem.

To give one example, why is it that the people working the hardest to fight political indoctrination in the schools also tend to be outspoken anti-evolution, anti-gay activists?

I mean, are homosexuals responsible for ruining the educational system in this country? I don't think so, and I find it tough to take seriously the claims of anti-homosexual activists that homosexuality is the problem. (Same thing for evolution.) I think there are a lot of people in this country who are not intolerant of homosexuals, who are not against evolution and who aren't fanatically against abortion who'd nonetheless be infuriated by what I saw yesterday. The problem is, unless they start reading blogs, the only way they'll hear about it is from listening to ideologues whose agendas will turn them off.

I think this is exactly what the nonsense-spouting educrats want.

Everything is highly politicized. But to stay with the gay example, it really is getting harder and harder to see homosexuality in laissez faire terms, and as a matter of personal privacy. It has not only been politicized, but through the collusion between left-wing and right-wing activists I so often complain about, politicized homosexuality has insinuated itself into things which once had little or nothing to do with homosexuality.

Why is it that when people think of the Boy Scouts they think about things like "the gay agenda" (as well as the "Family Values" agenda)? This will only cause ordinary people to avoid the Boy Scouts (something which was once for kids), thereby increasing the ascendency of political activists on both sides.

I used to complain about contamination of the word "family." Now the word "marriage" has been politicized; it's no longer assumed to be a consensual contract between two people, but an "institution" which must be seen as a bulwark against homosexuality.

I'm tired of this, but it's getting worse. Homosexuals are losing the right to be left alone. So is everyone.

When my depression gets the better of me, this type of contentiousness often makes me fantasize about leaving the country. What kind of people obsess over sex to the point of creating thought control camps in which to put gay teenagers?

And what kind of people think disagreement with same sex marriage is Nazism?

I mean, how many Americans think the "choice" is between gay marriage or sodomy laws anyway? Or between Marxism and fundamentalism? Evolution and God? You name it.

Is it really the country? Or is it just that only a small minority of nuts get to be heard? The problem is, the endless false dichotomies tend to drive me nuts.

Thanks to the blogosphere, I know I'm not as alone as I used to feel.

Yeah, the blogosphere has its share of political assholes too, but what are they ultimately going to do?

Criticize your political makeup?


UPDATE: This post has inspired me to join the "Raging RINO" community, and I have not only submitted it to this week's RINO Sightings Carnival at SayUncle, but I'm also sending a link to the Commissar right now.

People have called me a RINO, just as they used to call me a DINO. If there's one thing I love, it's seeing another term of derision and political manipulation fail! As I keep asking, may I be allowed to just think what I think?

posted by Eric on 06.23.05 at 01:42 PM


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who chooses the choices?:

» Our First RINO Sightings from Searchlight Crusade
Are now up at Says Uncle

Update: I can't believe I didn't catch that bad link to begin with.

My Favorites:

Wizbang on [Read More]
Tracked on June 27, 2005 3:47 PM


Differences in educational content could be resolved by privitizing the public education system. If you don't like your child being exposed to evolution, go to a school that doesn't teach it. If you want your kid to learn about evolution, take your kid to a school that teaches it. Etc with every other controversial issue.

John   ·  June 23, 2005 3:40 PM

I honestly thought about leaving the country this morning while reading the morning paper on my way in to work. Why is it that marijuana, abortion, gay rights are still such big issues and D.C. folks are congratulating themselves on passing flag defamation bills. Plus, we have Arnold as governor here in California. Who taught him to speak English? The Gabor sisters?

And you would really go beserk if you saw all the anti-Pit Bull publicity lately. The breed needs to hire a PR firm. One report talks about a 20 YEAR STUDY in which Pit Bulls came out on top in terms of killing people -- however, if you do the math about 3 people a year, not exactly a crisis. I wonder how many people die every year tripping on their front porch or accidentally banging their heads against some heavy object.

It makes me weary...aloha...enjoy this link...

Ug Lee   ·  June 23, 2005 3:47 PM

I can't believe that there are people who would take my dog away from me and kill it because of crackpot canine racial theories. (The danger of being struck by lightning is five times greater, BTW, than death by ALL breeds of dogs combined)

Dog A is bad, so we kill Dog B? It's so irrational that the only way to fight it is through the kind of emotional tactics mentioned here:


I think the woman whose son was killed lacks something upstairs:


Thanks for your comment about the movie "CRASH"; I was unable to reply because the comment feature only lasts 15 days.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 24, 2005 4:36 PM

This proves the need for:

1) Private schools, as John said above, so that parents who, e.e., like the theory of evolution can send their kids to schools that teach evolution, while parents who don't like it can send their kids to schools that don't.

2) A 2-dimensional (at least) spectrum or spectra. E.g.: I am totally against "sodomy" laws and I am also for homosexual marriage.

I have also decided that I am against the evolution theory and that I will now call myself a creationist. I used to call myself a theistic evolutionist, but now I see that the atheistic evolutionists, with their attacks on intelligent design, are making that impossible. Given the choice, I'll obviously take any of the ancient and eternal creation myths, including the myths in the Bible, over the evolution theory.

Does that make a "fundamentalist"? I'm a "foundationalist", so why not a "fundamentalist", too? "Fundamentalist" comes from a book written in the early 20th century against the "modernists" entitled The Fundamentals of the Faith. The style of that! The Fundamentals of my Faith, my Holy Dogmas: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology.

Tongue - In - Cheek Blog Commentaries. We "out" the Idiots!Check our Wanker Of The Month Award.http://www.ofuck.net/ Tongue - in - cheek Blog Commentaries

Blog Commentaries   ·  July 4, 2005 6:20 AM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits