Back to the Classroom: A Few Corrections Necessary

I taught high school history and government for thirty years. I'd like to think I got a few things right.

But, as things have developed, it appears that I either missed a few other things, or some things have changed. I now wish to reconvene my classes to discuss these new phenomena.

First: The First Amendment's benefits to our society. As a teacher and a part-time journalist, I often discussed the need for the First Amendment to create a release for the "pressure cooker" that some of the more extremist elements in our society build up over time. If the rest of us don't allow that expression to happen at times, as uncomfortable as it might be, it will build up and spill out into violence. Nobody needs that.
Correction: It's become clear now, with the internet spewing all kinds of vitriol and nonsense, that extremists, especially those on the racist right, actually engage in creating new pressure cookers for the uninformed and obsessed of us to indulge in. Then the cleverer ones manage to influence the naive and easily spun into attacking innocent people who look different than they do--namely, white, male and young. This is not good news for the First Amendment. If anything, it encourages lawmakers to consider limiting it. This is dangerous, but no more so than the open manipulation of the easily influenced into committing violent acts. They got through school somehow, usually sitting there with arms crossed and slouching in their school desks, while someone tried to tell them how to be good citizens. But most, if not all of them didn't give a hoot. Many of them also thought Fox News was a good thing, too, because it fed into their growing sense of irresponsibility and victimitis, none of which got them good grades because they knew that that would take work and serious thought. My career began before Fox News arranged to give them easy access to half-truths and safety nets for their whining. I'm sure some of those students have had plenty of time to catch up with their contemporaries.

I do not apologize to them whatsoever. They got what they deserved. I do apologize to those who tried hard and paid attention most of the time. Look, I knew what I knew at the time I knew it. But I went on leave from my school district in 2003, and it prevented me from returning in 2009, so that was just about the time in which the internet and other social media had gained their sea legs. Plenty of reason to discuss it then. I was just prevented from doing so. I was a nationally-known union guy. That presented my school district with, it appeared, incredible danger. They saw a loophole in the contract and forced me through it, daring me to challenge them. I chose not to be knowingly connected with incredibly stupid adults and I walked away. Their loss.

Second: The implication I made, many times over, that the Japanese kamikaze attacks toward the conclusion of World War II were unique and singularly insane in recent history. I mean, who the hell else would intentionally fly their planes into someone else's ships, killing themselves and taking away any possibility that they could continue defending their country? Who else would charge at the enemy and resolve to get killed all at once instead of surrendering and seeing their families again? I said more than once: Is this crazy, or what? And the kids would shake their heads. Besides that, it didn't work. They sank some ships, but the Americans kept coming. Then we dropped two atomic bombs on them. The emperor got the point and told his people to give it up. The Chinese also did it, charging the UN forces in suicide attacks during the Korean War. No atomic bombs were dropped in that one, but once he became president, Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with them, and that business stopped, too.
Correction: There is a new group of demonstrably depraved extremists who are apparently convinced that going on singular attacks and saving their country from oncoming "invasions," as someone calls them, despite losing their lives either that very day or getting executed by a state government later--which they have no doubt they will do going into it--is an apparently growing idea. It puts to rest the quite racially condescending concept that only insane Asians would do such a thing, and that the rest of humanity got over that 75 years ago. I mean, Americans wouldn't do something as absurd as that, as pointless as that, as nihilistic as that, dissolving themselves in mass murder to absolutely no functional result, other than killing as many people as they can in six minutes or less. Would they?

Sorry, my bad. Call them the New Kamikazes. Sounds far more dynamic, like a rock group. And what were their most recent examples to borrow from? Why 9/11, of course. 19 guys wanting to go to heaven decided to kill three thousand Americans all at once, as well as themselves. Sounds perfectly rational--to use one's religion to give up one's life. Besides, that one worked. We have not been the same country since. They ruined much more than just a few buildings.

Third: At some point in some of my classes, I would remind the students that our president was supposed to be a moral leader, as close to that or far away from that ideal as presidents have been. At least it's something of a decent measuring stick to evaluate how good, or not good, presidents have been. What it actually means to be a moral leader, and what comprises the prerequisites for it, is an ongoing matter of discussion, of course, but the concept suggests that at the very least, presidents do think about it and try most of the time to behave in a positive, exemplary light.
Correction: Well, that notion is complete nonsense, now isn't it? We now have someone who drags us into the moral ditches whenever he feels like saying something, anything. He tells us that a hero isn't a hero; he gathers hundreds together to make racially-baiting commentary; he lies endlessly; he thinks most of what he does is a joke; he insults allies; he chases and grabs women and doesn't care what anybody thinks of it; he arranges to have migrant children remain behind wire fences; he complains of an "invasion" of migrants as if it's some kind of military action; he sits there and refuses to admit that by passivity, he allowed a foreign power to interfere into the election and clearly contribute to him winning it by coming in from the back door on a technicality; and he calls people names the same way a 5th-grader would. Beyond that, he has so many conflicts of interest in his business affairs that it's not unfair to say that other people own the presidency now; and he has committed acts of obstruction of justice and the only thing he cares about is whether he gets away with it.

The real mistake I've made is the pretense that nobody wanting to be president could ever get away with doing, being and saying all this. In fact, he couldn't even get close. There's no way either political party would stand for it. We wouldn't stand for someone who might easily influence others to commit violent acts to support his racist agenda. Would we? Crowds wouldn't stand there and yell "Send them back," right? That one got past me somewhere. I must be getting old.

Fourth: That people either follow the law or they must stand accountable, all the way to the highest levels of government. If they don't, there's a mechanism that will be utilized to do so.
Correction: I am so sorry about this. I have no idea what got into me. Of course the president can get away with stuff. He's the president. The laws don't apply to him.
The Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. He hasn't been impeached, right? That means he hasn't committed anything serious enough to be impeached, right? That it would have to be really, really obvious for the president to be convicted and removed from office. Right?
Thought so. What a screw-up I've been. Good thing my district got rid of me. Were I there now, I'd actually might tell the students that when it comes to the president, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. I might even suggest having them tear it out of their textbooks. When some principal would call me in and chew me out for costing the district untold dollars by ruining those textbooks, I might respond that I was actually saving the district money by eliminating several completely obsolete pages. You're welcome.

Fifth: When the government borrows money endlessly, it won't ever matter. The government won't lose its credit. It'll never default. It'll be able to pay back that money eventually. Nobody will need to pay higher taxes, ever, to make up for that. The government, just like everybody else, will be able to borrow and borrow and borrow and simply promise that they'll pay it back. The value of the dollar will remain excellent. The trade deficit will remain marginal. Wages will be sufficient to do, well, something for those to whom wages matter. Inflation won't ever get to an absurd level. That stuff's for Greece or Venezuela or Brazil--you know, those people. Besides, the free market--Amen!--will solve all problems so that we're all taken care of because after all, we've never needed any safety net for anybody.
Correction: There is no correction necessary. These fables are established truth by those with enough money so no matter what happens to the rest of us, they'll still have their yachts and mansions and wonder what the poor people are doing. They are for those who believe deeply in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Enough for this lesson. I hope I've cleared things up now. I'll be back to you when I've been proven wrong again. And again. And again.

The test won't be for a while: Nov. 3, 2020. Study up. Meanwhile, I'm off to see the Wizard....

Be well. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark