| Jonathan Krohn: I Was Young and Foolish But Now I’m 17 Posted: 02 Jul 2012 09:38 PM PDT 
In 2009, thirteen year old Wunderkind Jonathan Krohn took CPAC by storm, now 3 1/2 years late, he’s no longer a conservative:
"One of the first things that changed was that I stopped being a social conservative," said Krohn. "It just didn't seem right to me anymore. From there, it branched into other issues, everything from health care to economic issues.… Krohn is bucking the received wisdom that people become more conservative as they get older, a shift he attributes partly to philosophy. "I started reflecting on a lot of what I wrote, just thinking about what I had said and what I had done and started reading a lot of other stuff, and not just political stuff," Krohn said. "I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers. And then into present philosophers — Saul Kripke, David Chalmers. It was really reading philosophy that didn't have anything to do with politics that gave me a breather and made me realize that a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn't meaningful.”
Politico’s ability to state that Krohn’s moving in his late teens while reading German philosophy is “bucking trends” is beyond absurd. Moving left as you enter your college year particularly if you read German philosophy. It’s so cliched that the Independent 1980s Christian film Geronimo included this as a major reason for the main character’s drift. The point about being growing more conservative is that you grow more conservative as you live life: get married, have kids, and start paying taxes, not that you become more conservative between puberty and learning to drive. It should also be added that plenty of people go the opposite way. One friend of mine was Hispanic and adopted son of a liberal Boston Jewish family. He grew up to be to the right of me and attending a hard core fundamentalist church in Virginia. Of course, the only reason Krohn’s “ideological evolution” is news now is the gusto with which conservatives embraced him. Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity gave him major airplay and numerous conservatives. For my own part, while I wasn’t his biggest cheerleader, I was cautiously optimistic about him and said conservatives should give the kid a shot. At the same time, I warned about other teen conservative pundits that flamed out: Kyle Williams is perhaps the most obvious example. He began writing for WorldNetDaily.com in 2001 at age 12 and also had a book published. He got in a speech at the National Press Club and a few TV interviews before he mostly disappeared, except for his weekly article for WND every Saturday. I read Williams' column with interest, but it began to take a turn towards the end. My wife remarked, "Someone that young shouldn't be this cynical." Williams went from conservative cheerleading to dishing on conservatives and their causes. Williams was struggling with who he was, what he believed, and what he wanted to do with his life in front of an audience of thousands. Williams ended his column in 2005 at the age of sixteen. Another teenager, Hans Zieger, began a column at age seventeen and ended up writing for WorldNetDaily.com as well. He had a unique focus on issues relating to the liberal assault on the Boy Scouts and wrote a book on the topic, as well as another one called Reagan's Children. He "retired" at twenty-one at the end of 2006, declaring, "I don't know enough to be weekly offering my opinions as though possessed of some eminence." Zieger is now a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, a conservative alternative to the ACLU.
Despite this, I said, “Give the kid a chance.” While I had my reasons for doing it and could take the easy pundit “out” of saying, “If I had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.” The fact is that I got wrong. Why did I get it wrong? Because I sympathized with Krohn and in one way envied him. I’d begun writing letters to the editor when I was ten and eleven and began writing columns when I was fourteen, but it took until I was nearly 23 before any website took my work. Krohn and others like Williams enjoyed a great and very real success with their books and the media attention they’ve received that’s quite remarkable. But for me the story of Jonathan Krohn proves to me that years of frustration and obscurity may be good for the young political wanna be pundit. Perhaps, it’d be well if before a young person earns a platform to express themselves nationally that they actually have grown enough to know who they are. My political life was spent doing a lot of listening and a lot of working for unborn children outside of abortion clinics not going on Hannity, and I can’t help but think that’ s healthier. And for the rest of the adult conservatives who welcomed and encouraged Mr. Krohn’s iconic status, what can explain it? The appeal of the very young conservatives is the idea of hope. We see thousands of kids observing Earth Day and spouting whatever nonsense they picked up at their local schools. It seems refreshing when a young person expresses a conservative viewpoint no matter how undeveloped it is. But it’s not fair to the child who, whether they’ll remain conservative or not, is no condition to make a major decision about their career and future in punditry. I don’t think that young interested people should be discouraged from being involved in politics. They should be involved, but they should do so in a quiet way, right on a blog, right for an ezine. Don’t parade them around in front of three thousand activists and millions on television because they happen to be under 18. It’s not the duty of sincere attention-seeking kids to make these boundaries, but it falls to activists, conservative media, and especially parents.  |
| Conflicting Worldviews Demonstrated in Anderson Cooper’s Coming Out Posted: 02 Jul 2012 08:15 PM PDT  The internet is abuzz about Anderson Cooper's "coming out." Andrew Sullivan wrote about CNN's Anderson Cooper and how he has been reserved about his private life, but has decided to be more public about it. Sullivan (who, it should be noted, moonlighted as a OB/GYN for a couple of years) introduces Anderson Cooper's coming out email with the following diatribe:
But it does matter nonetheless, it seems to me, that this is on the record. We still have pastors calling for the death of gay people, bullying incidents and suicides among gay kids, and one major political party dedicated to ending the basic civil right to marry the person you love. So these "non-events" are still also events of a kind; and they matter. The visibility of gay people is one of the core means for our equality.
And I would submit that this rhetoric is an example of why it is nearly impossible to have a rational discussion over the matter of homosexuality. Some questions/thoughts come to mind… -
Who are the pastors calling for the death of gay people? Fred Phelps? The vast majority of the Christian community is disgusted by his vitriol. While certainly there is room for improvement within the church in terms of ministering to homosexuals I'm not going to deny that most Christians realize that Christ died for the homosexual just as He did for the heterosexual. He wants to have a love relationship with them just as much as he wants a love relationship with me. A quick reading of the past tense description of the church at Corinth should make that plain, (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Are there people like whom Andrew Sullivan describes in the Church? I'm sure, but it is hardly epidemic. -
Bullying incidents and suicides among gay kid while tragic have been blown out of proportion in relation to actual statistics behind bullying and suicide. I've been pretty vocal about how bullying of any kid, including homosexual kids must stop, but I see the current trend for what it is – the victimization of homosexuals in order to tamp down opposing views. It isn't bullying to have a theological belief that homosexuality is a sin. That is called freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Dan Savage is a perfect example of how the "bullied" have become bullies to those with home they disagree. I'll practice tolerance unless you disagree with me. -
The concept that a behavior, which is how many people view homosexuality, becomes one's identity. This makes it harder to have a conversation. I want to address a behavior, but those who are homosexual see it as part of their identity feel like I'm attacking them. It is hard to bridge the gap. I have a hard time understanding this because my identity is not wrapped up in my sexual preference. I talk about my wife sure, but I don't celebrate straight pride, I don't generally discuss the fact I am attracted to women (though that now has a laser focus on my wife) at work and in public, and I don't discuss my sex life in public – ever. Anyway, my point is it's just simply hard to discuss. When I refer to homosexuality as a sin, I'm not attacking the person engaged in it. I'm a sinner too, I just struggle with different things. I find my identity in Christ not in my current or past behavior and/or feelings. -
Regarding the marriage debate, I've written extensively elsewhere about this, but it again is painfully obvious that there is a disconnect as homosexuals, which we deem to be a behavior not a permanent status such as a race, gender or ethnicity. Which brings me to Anderson Cooper. As far as journalism goes I could not care any less whether he is homosexual or not. My primary problem with is email is his claim of being unbiased he writes in an email sent to Andrew Sullivan: I’ve always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn’t matter. I've stuck to those principles for my entire professional career, even when I've been directly asked "the gay question," which happens occasionally. I did not address my sexual orientation in the memoir I wrote several years ago because it was a book focused on war, disasters, loss and survival. I didn’t set out to write about other aspects of my life. Recently, however, I've begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It's become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something – something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true. I've also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand. The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud. I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues. In a perfect world, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I'm not an activist, but I am a human being and I don’t give that up by being a journalist. Since my early days as a reporter, I have worked hard to accurately and fairly portray gay and lesbian people in the media – and to fairly and accurately portray those who for whatever reason disapprove of them. It is not part of my job to push an agenda, but rather to be relentlessly honest in everything I see, say and do. I've never wanted to be any kind of reporter other than a good one, and I do not desire to promote any cause other than the truth.
I'd just like to point out that he is not as unbiased as he says, not even close. In his own words – "I've also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. " And that has been made possible how? Through many of the liberal journalists who claim not to have an agenda. It's ok to have an agenda, just be honest about it. I am completely honest about having an agenda. You can see it in the subtitle of this blog – "Christian conservative news & commentary." I make no bones about who I am and who I represent. I have a point of view and a worldview which is the lens with which I view things. I seek to be honest to, but I am not going to claim I'm unbiased. That would be dishonest.  |
| As the NEA Membership Declines They Demand a Leadership Role in Education Reform Posted: 02 Jul 2012 02:45 PM PDT  The National Education Association is reinventing itself after they have had a significant drop in membership over the last several years, The Huffington Post reports. The NEA expects a loss of 308,000 members and $65 million in dues between 2010-2014. They there is a new call for more responsibility from teachers. If you are a liberal however, never fear, because it will remain a Democrat shill organization. In remarks he gave to this year's annual meeting he said:
…we must do everything we can to re-elect President Barack Obama! President Obama has earned our support. In his first term, -
He secured federal funds to keep more than 400 thousand educators working with students. -
He expanded access to health care to some 30 million Americans through the Affordable Care Act, which thankfully was upheld last week by the Supreme Court. -
He issued an Executive Order to open the door of opportunity to hundreds of thousands of students who are eligible for the Dream Act -
And just last week, he led the way to ensure that student loans remain affordable We know the other side will out-SPEND us in this election – but we can't let them out-WORK us! We WILL re-elect President Obama – ARE YOU READY? Yes – We must engage in the political system.
Don't they think their political advocacy contributes to their declining membership? Looking further at his remarks you continue to see more of the same rhetoric we've always seen out of the NEA. Everyone seems to know how WE ought to do OUR job. Too often it's "Test the students, then test them some more" crowd. They want to Use those test scores to evaluate teachers, label students, and embarrass schools.
Oh yes we unwashed masses are too unintelligent to know how kids should best be taught. The purpose of public education is access and equity! That's why it's public!
I thought the purpose behind public education was to actually educate. Silly me. Not a curriculum narrowed to fit the confines of high stakes standardized tests … but a rich curriculum that includes art, music, history, sports, drama, science …
I actually agree with him here, but later on he diverges to typical liberal educator drivel… But there's more to education than academics. So when we talk about the WHY of public education, we have to address the needs of the WHOLE CHILD. That means including issues like health care, good nutrition, a safe family and school environment – ALL these things affect learning and impact student development. We aren't ONLY their teacher, or their bus driver, or the person who serves their lunch – we are an adult in that child's life.
No that isn't the role of public education. Because it has taken on a nanny mentality schools don't do a proper job educating. Because they elevate teacher over the parent is another reason so many public schools fail. Certainly there are environmental issues at play that impact education, but how arrogant to think that educators are the people to address those ills. This is where churches, families, mentors, and neighborhood organizations come in. Schools get enough time with kids. They don't need anymore because they typically do a poor job with the time they do have. Focus on educating kids, not providing social services and worse yet indoctrinating them. He went on with more *goodies*: To help students succeed in these challenging times, we must also harness the strength of our association to take CHARGE of the teaching profession. We need to support our members to define what good teaching looks like – so others can't reduce good teaching to standardized tests. And we must have a real say in how educators are prepared, trained and evaluated!… …Are we willing to assert our leadership, and take RESPONSIBILITY for our professions?… …I'm so tired of OTHERS defining the solutions… without even asking those who do the work every day of their professional life. …There are plenty of people outside our profession who have their own ideas about what we should be doing, how we should be evaluated, and how to improve public education – like privatization, unregulated charters, and vouchers. Frankly, our current system allowed the market for those ideas to exist. We are part of that system – a system that has not successfully addressed the drop-out crisis and allows kids who are poor to be stuck in schools that do not meet their needs – placed into classrooms year after year with the least qualified, least experienced teachers.
They're for more responsibility only if they get to define the terms. Again I agree that teaching shouldn't be reduced to standardized tests, but the NEA for many years has been an impediment to real reform. They frankly haven't earned a seat at the table, let alone should be considered leaders. Some of their members certainly, but the union itself – no. Their declining membership and what we saw in the Wisconsin recall elections is that the influence of public employee unions such as the NEA is rapidly losing its influence and that I believe is a good thing. As far as school choice options go, those "ideas" should exist because we as a nation do believe in a free market system, and some competition would do public schools good. Our neighbors to the north have demonstrated that in Edmonton, Alberta. But hey according to Dennis Van Roekel we should just give the reigns of reform over to the group that led us down this path. No thank you.  |
If you are interested in making cash from your traffic by popunder advertisments, you can try one of the biggest networks: Clickadu.
RăspundețiȘtergere