Sunday Morning Runnin' Down: A Collection of Assorted Atriotic Ruminations

Often I'm spurred to post thoughts here which I have first articulated--usually in a somewhat more cursory manner--on Eschaton. My conceit is that they might eventually reach as broad an audience here as is possible there.

In a conversation about the possibility of an "intolerance" blowback from the secularists against the raving, raging intolerance of the Right:

Irreligious intolerance? When has that EVER been a problem??Gummo 12.03.06 - 11:31 am

I wrote: the most recent, proximal example i can recall'd be the mexican revolution, when zapata, villa, and a lot of the (other revolutionary) leaders thoroughly decimated the population of priests in areas where the fighting was most intense--and where the church had--and abused--the most power...(also desecrating the churches, and dispropriating the clerical hierarchy)

that said, and my respect for ba'al (the author of the post urging caution against 'irreligious intolerance) being without equal, when has turning the other cheek to the fascist NOT resulted in further, and unremitting injury to the cheek thus exposed??

i do not advocate that we follow the mexican experiment and shoot the priests in their apses and naves...but the only other expedient likely to work is to ignore them...and i don't think that is possible....

the intrusive religionists will not be thwarted until there is a affirmative right to be left the fuck alone applies to the polis as well as the individual...


In a conversation about the morality, decency, and power of the blogs, one writer opined:

No wonder they (tame, bought-of and paid-up members of the conventional punditocracy) are pissed (at the blogosphere). It's rather like, i think, the reason why the Catholic Church never agrees to give up the rule of clerical celibacy: all those in power had to 'pay dues' by suffering under that rule, so by God, no newcomer is going to get to dodge!

I replied, somewhat off-topic: for the exact same reasons, school never changes...

we KNOW how to make schooling an effective tool for education...

the main reason why we don't do it is cuz the people who actually pay for it--parents, in part, but not wholly--remember their schooling and figger (almost universally mistakenly) that THEY turned out okay, so their kids will too, under essentially the same repressive regimen.

what they don't realize is two-fold:1) an amazing number of 'em did NOT 'turn out okay' from the point of view of having a competent education...and 2) if they did turn out okay, it was likely despite, rather than because of, the schooling they underwent...

Another commenter wondered what it was we 'already' knew and asked whom she could read to learn about it. I suggested Vygotsky and people who'd been influenced by him; Jerome Bruner, especially his work after 1982 or thereabouts; Alfie Kohn; Jonathan Kozol; David Berliner; Ken (and Yetta) Goodman; Ariel Dorfman. I didn't mention, but should have: Paolo Freire, Shirley Bryce Heath, Cleo Cherryholmes, William Stanley, and a thousand others. The point needs repeating: We know what 'works' to make schooling a productive part of the emancipatory project of education. We don't do it because parents/adults/bosses do NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH UNDERLINGS (CHILDREN) WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME TOOLS THEY THEMSELVES POSSESS.

Finally, I mentioned that I thought "the dems should hold up the (Robert G)ates (Secretary of Defense) nomination on the theory that ALL the bushevik appointments so far have been either crooks or incompetents, and there's NO reason to think gates'll be any different...

and plenty of reason to suppose he won't be any different...

watching the dems this week on the gates nomination will give an indication of how they'll use their power for the next two years. (i.e., will they conciliate with the fascists, try to appease them; or confront them, and try to drive them back...im guessin the former)

These dogs won't walk themselves, they just reminded me...