Serving kool-aid at a tea party

"What did you learn in school today, sweet little boy of mine?"

Tom Paxton wrote this song about the failure of the education system to be honest with young students.

"I learned that Washington never told a lie. I learned that soldiers seldom die. I learned that everybody's free; and that's what the teacher said to me."

Vietnam taught us that our government can lie. We saw soldiers die on television, and witnessed blacks beaten by policemen. We learned the truths about the men our history books told us were heroes and the deeper truth about the how American values could be readily devalued when those with money and power could benefit.

Simon and Garfunkel sang about "all the crap we learned in high school."

That was decidedly different than what’s happening today. Back then parents wanted us to have the education many of them didn’t.  I was the first in my family to graduate from high school. My parents wanted that for me and they would have never dreamed of demanding that teachers use the valuable opportunity to educate young minds in order to impose narrow political, religious, or social beliefs.

My parents figured it was their responsibility to teach me to pray, not some teacher’s. The thought never occurred to them that they knew better than a teacher what I needed to know about science, history, or social studies.

My father had only a third grade education but that was enough for him to know what he didn't know. Back then the John Birch Society had just begun to teach its right-wing followers the ideological benefits of taking over the local PTA and school board. The Birchers didn't accomplish that goal but did set in motion what we are dealing with today.

In their wildest dreams, the Birchers could never have imagined their ideological heirs would have entire radio and television networks espousing their views, when the concentration of economic power would become a tool for controlling the levers of education. More important, the early Birchers, who were ironically centered in Cody, would have never thought it possible so many people would be willing to ignore the educational needs of their children in order to promote someone else’s agenda.

That’s what we are seeing today in the Cody school board war over textbooks and elsewhere across the state. It’s a critical battle to determine whether we produce minds that can move our nation and world forward - or backward.

There are too many parents on the sideline while the right-wingers exert influence on how our children will be educated. Former Senator Al Simpson called the fringe "goofy." They are goofy. How goofy are they and what kind of a goofy education do they seek for your children?

A recent Cal Thomas column claimed preschool education was a liberal attempt to get at the minds of young folks a year or two earlier. They want textbooks that teach that evolution is "only a theory" while Biblical myths are science; that depict America as a Christian nation whose treatment of Native Americans and African slaves was simply a part of divinely ordained manifest destiny. Many want your children to question whether the Holocaust ever happened.  They want children to deny climate change, ignoring 97 percent of legitimate scientists in favor of those they choose to believe in order to support their odd views.

Science, critical thinking, and social diversity are threats to a way of life that God didn't intend would endure. They can drink their tea but should not be allowed to force their Kool-Aid on our children. The Bible says, "The secret things belong to The Lord; but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever (Deuteronomy 29:29)”. Perhaps we should put more trust in God's revelations and teach them to our children.

"What did you learn in school today, sweet little child of mine?"

Who'd have thought Tom Paxton's lyrical question would become a political and religious battleground?

We're ALL Vietnam War vets

Next weekend Wyoming’s Vietnam War veterans will receive the “Welcome Home” many believe they deserved but didn’t get upon returning from that war. Governor Matt Mead said the June 4-7 event in Casper, “gives us a time to right that wrong.” Mead’s correct. These vets never received a proper welcome home.

U.S. vets aren’t alone in feeling the ingratitude of their countrymen. “There had been no trumpets for the victorious soldiers, no drums, no music. That might have been tolerated but not the disrespect shown them.” Boa Ninh, a former North Vietnamese fighter, wrote of the reception received by Vietcong troops when they returned home in a book well worth reading, “The Sorrow of War.”

I am immersed in Vietnam War history, writing a biography of Gale McGee, a three-term Wyoming Senator and leading congressional proponent of the war from the time President Eisenhower sent in the first “advisors,” through JFK’s decision that expanded America’s commitment, LBJ’s escalation, and Nixon’s unsuccessful effort to win the war by “bombing Vietnam back into the stone age.”

Reading at least a dozen accounts of the war and its aftermath, books written at the time and others upon years of reflection, historical works by academics and memoirs of U.S. and Vietnamese vets, three conclusions emerge. The first is that Mead is right. Our soldiers didn’t receive the gratitude they deserved for the sacrifices they made.

Second, while the courage of those who served cannot be thereby diminished, all Americans and Vietnamese living during those years and subsequent generations are, in a very real way, Vietnam’s veterans.

Nearly three million Americans served during the war, meaning nearly three million American families also served. The names of more than 58,000 Americans who died in that war are etched on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. A piece of 58,000 American families died with them. The wives, children, and parents of soldiers who returned with physical and emotional injuries or didn’t return at all are veterans of that awful war.

Artist Chris Burden created a little-known work of art titled “The Other Vietnam Memorial,” displaying names of 3 million Vietnamese who died on battlefields. They and their families are likewise veterans of the war whose sacrifices beg recognition.

Half a century has come and gone. A historical perspective enables an acknowledgement that those who took the risks accompanying a refusal to serve are also veterans of Vietnam. Those called “draft-dodgers” had something important to say, as did the protesters hoping to end the war. The failure of politicians to listen had measureable consequences for our country.

Reconciliation demands that military veterans receive the gratitude they earned. It also requires acknowledging the sacrifices of those who demurred. Imagine an asterisk on the Vietnam Memorial Wall leading to the names of the four students killed at Kent State. That would be real reconciliation.

Vietnam’s veterans also include those who, like me, are troubled to this day because we “knew someone who knew someone” who found us a safe slot in a reserve unit. Add those enjoying loopholes that allowed the wealthy and connected to avoid the draft, those Creedence Clearwater Revival called “Fortunate Sons.” We “veterans” made hauntingly risk-free choices unlike those who chose to go to the streets, to Canada, or to the battlefield.

A third conclusion is that the war didn’t end properly. The failure to give its veterans a proper return is evidence as is the lingering disdain for those who protested. So is the way Americans swept the war, its causes, and its consequences under the nation’s rug.

America’s inelegant withdrawal shouldn’t have been our last memory. The war should’ve ended with an honest national dialogue about why we fought, what was gained, and what was lost. Instead we simply hoped it would go away.  

It’s taken fifty years to get around to next weekend’s reunion in Casper. Perhaps in another fifty, America will actually end the Vietnam War with a genuine reconciliation and acknowledge the sacrifices of all of its many veterans.

If liberalism is mental illness...

A recent letter-to-the-editor claimed there is psychological evidence that columnist Jack Pugh and I are mentally ill. The diagnosis is based on Dr. Lyle Rossiter’s book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” This darling of the rightwing says that Barack Obama’s liberalism is a psychological disorder.

Dr. Rossiters’ theory is frightening. The pathology he unearthed necessarily applies not only to Mr. Obama, but to countless political leaders throughout history. The U.S. was apparently founded and nurtured by several madmen and a few mad women.

Washington was assuredly a crazed liberal when as the first president, he agreed to a constitution granting enormous new powers to the federal government. John Adams taxed citizens to socialize government healthcare for U.S. sailors. Jefferson believed in separation of church and state. Ben Franklin trusted science.

How bat-crazy must Rossiter consider Lincoln for paving the way for the 14^th Amendment and its equal protection clause, the basis of marriage equality in federal courts. Don’t even mention FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, or JFK. And Richard Nixon gave us the Environmental Protection Agency and the earned income tax credit.

During one of his many bizarre parole hearings, Charles Manson once cried out, “Yes, I’m crazy, but I was crazy long ago, when being crazy actually meant something.”

If believing in equal opportunity, universal healthcare, environmental protection and reducing economic inequality brand you with as mentally ill, Dr. Rossiter should have a field day analyzing today’s conservatives. 

Michael Savage, a conservative radio host wrote “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder.” Savage claimed Obama intentionally sent the U.S. military to fight Ebola so they’d return and infect Americans. He alleged Obama initiated the Baltimore riots as a pretext for arming gangs.

Joseph Farah, conservative WorldNetDaily editor, accused Obama of sending secret signals to Muslims to “finish off” the Holocaust. Before joining the far-right Family Research Council, retired General Jerry Boykin called Obama the leader of a “Marxist insurgency.” Obama, he said, inserted secret clauses in the Affordable Care Act establishing a personal army akin to Hitler’s Brownshirts.

Doc Rossiter would enjoy studying “Faith 2 Action” founder Janet Porter. She revealed a chain email proving that the Russians planted baby-Obama in the U.S. as part of a long-term plan to take over America.

Rossiter could spend a lifetime analyzing Texans. Many, including 56% of Ted Cruz’s supporters and 76% of Rick Perry’s backers, are convinced Obama is plotting to take over the Lone Star State, impose martial law, confiscate people’s firearms, and force them into cattle cars, locking them up in Wal-Marts converted into FEMA camps.

Those are just the folks on the fringe. It’s not much better in the GOP mainstream. A third of GOP voters think Texas is on the brink of an Obama takeover. More than 50 percent of Republicans think Sarah Palin is better qualified than Barack Obama to be president and 24 percent believe Obama wants the terrorists to win; 67 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist. Forty-five percent of Republicans believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States, 38 percent say he is “doing many of the things that Hitler did,” and 54 percent think that “deep down” Obama devotes himself to Islam.

Ask Senator and possible Republican presidential nominee Marco Rubio how old is the earth. “I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians. Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that.” Don’t bother asking him whether the earth is flat or revolves around the sun.

Maybe we’re all crazy, liberals and conservatives alike. If so, I’d choose a hospital ward with Jack Pugh and others who believe in equal opportunity, racial and social justice rather than share a room with those Manson would recognize as “being crazy long ago, when being crazy actually meant something.”

NOTE TO READERS: All facts derived from surfing the Internet, but then, the righties shouldn’t object to that.

Wyoming. A one-horse town?

In a democracy, everyone’s rights are better protected when multiple competing voices are raised in the making of public policy. But, with the closing of the Wyoming’s American Civil Liberties Union office, the state is another step closer to speaking with a single voice.

Wyoming started down that road as the strength of organized labor slowly diminished. When unions were stronger, they had enough influence to be that voice for the marginalized.

Then came single-member legislative districts. Legislators represented their counties at one time. County lines no longer matter. Instead, the majority party draws lines on a map assuring there is a Republican majority in nearly every district. It’s called gerrymandering and it has institutionalized Republican control.

Additionally Wyoming speaks with only one voice because most moderate Republicans are mute and the Democratic Party is nearly irrelevant. The last time a Democrat was elected to congress in Wyoming was 1976. Then 80% of eligible voters were registered. There was a mere 10,000-vote difference between the two parties, making Republicans more moderate and giving Democrats a chance to win. Today fewer than 55% bother to register and the gap between the two parties has grown to more than 110,000.

As labor, moderate Republicans, and Democrats have lost their ability to speak, people concerned about the rights of working people, minorities and women and issues like criminal justice reform turned to the ACLU. Wyoming’s ACLU provided effective advocacy for those whose rights were abused by government and business, which is why some were delighted to hear the news.

“I’m glad they’re gone,” said Frank Jorge, a libertarian podcaster from Basin. “I think it’s a plus for the state of Wyoming to not have them here.” Jorge, like many conservatives, disagreed with the ACLU’s work on behalf of those Jesus called “the least of these.”

The ACLU drew ire from the right by protecting the rights of undocumented workers, prisoners, and the LGBTQ community. Those conservatives support the Constitution unless someone attempts to apply its protections to the marginalized. The ACLU interfered with that approach.

Wyoming’s ACLU advisory board chair Ron Akin said, “There are very few places to turn to in Wyoming for help if you feel like your rights are violated. Without the ACLU in Wyoming, it’s basically open season on civil liberties and civil rights.”

The blame for the loss of the Wyoming ACLU does not fall on the far right. Blame falls on the shoulders of the national ACLU office. The office was closed, they said, because the national organization has an annual deficit of $15 million. Closing the Wyoming office contributes little to solving that problem while creating enormous problems for those the ACLU represents. Shuttering the Wyoming office reduces the ACLU’s budget gap by a whopping $360,000, less than 2.5%.  The ACLU has an annual budget of more than $100 million and can’t somehow find a way to fund the Wyoming office. For a pittance in savings, they’ve left Wyoming the only state in the Union without a chapter. Shame on them.

But the decision has been made. The ACLU’s doors are closed. Now what? Linda Burt, a Cheyenne lawyer who served ably as Wyoming’s ACLU director for many years, asked, ‘Who is going to do this work?” She answered her own question. “My answer in some cases is nobody, because we are one of the only organizations that do this.”

Steve Klein of the conservative Liberty Group acknowledged the depth of the loss of an organization with whom he is often at odds. Klein wrote, “A big loss to Wyoming. Whether ally or opponent, Wyoming ACLU staffers approach each issue with integrity and zeal. I believe even the best restructuring will take years to catch up to the current chapter.”

Despite other gleeful conservatives, a healthy democracy demands the rights of all people be protected. That simply won’t happen in a state whose leaders speak with a single-voiced ideology.

Burt’s question hangs in the wind. “Who is going to do this work?”