Spinning Yarns

There has been a lot of foofaraw in the news lately, because U. S. President Obama has expressed his wish to broadcast a televised address to our nation’s schoolchildren. Apparently, some parents have objected most vehemently to having their school districts showing this address to their children, and apparently some school administrators have said they simply won’t show the broadcast in their schools, or will leave the choice about whether to do so to individual teachers.

In my view, no citizen of the United States of America, irrespective of age or relationship, has the right to deprive any other citizen of the chance to hear any public message delivered by the duly-elected Executive Officer of this country. That includes parents and their children: No parent has the right to refuse her children the right to see the President and hear what he wishes to say. Neither adults nor children should be forced to listen to the President’s words; however, no citizen, regardless of age, may justly be deprived of the opportunity to hear what he has to say. The President is the properly chosen head of our Federal government; as such, it is right that he should be able to address the public at any time, for any reason, without interference.

Any school that is funded, in whole or in part, by Federal tax dollars, should take it as a civic responsibility to insure that President Obama’s message is made available to any student who wishes to hear it. Any school that gets tax breaks because of its educational mission, or that benefits from government subsidies for financial aid, should do the same. Time should be set aside from the normal schedule, so that no student will have conflicting obligations, and the full broadcast should be presented, without comment, to any student who wishes to attend. No student should be required to attend the presentation, but none should be prohibited from doing so either. This is not a matter in which local bureaucrats have the moral authority to refuse. Nor, in my view, do parents.

As private citizens, we have a great many rights and freedoms, and our President is not a King. Neither, however, are we an anarchic mob, in which every woman and man may do as they see fit without reason or limitation. He may have been elected from among the people, and be addressed no more formally than as “Mr. President”, but during his tenure in office, the President is not just another citizen. We have entrusted him with enormous power and responsibility, above and beyond our own. As individuals we need not obey his orders, except under very specific conditions, but it is our moral, civic, and sometimes legal responsibility to listen to what he has to say. We need not agree with it, and we need not comply, but we ought always to listen. Even if the things he says offend us, frighten us, or outrage us, we must listen. The time to make choices was in the voting booth. Now, we must abide with the government we have, even if we don’t like it.

Parents are legally responsible for their children, but children are not chattels. If you forbid your children from listening to Mr. Obama’s speech, you are violating another citizen’s rights, plain and simple. Children are not the equals of adults in matters of responsibility, but neither are they mindless possessions. If you disagree with the President, the correct response is not to lock your children in the basement. Instead, listen to the speech together with your children, and afterwards you can tell them why you disagree. His speech will not be private; it may contain special messages for schoolchildren, but it will be heard by all. Feel free to rant and rave, call him names, and castigate his policies from stem to stern—but for the love of god, do not presume to stop your children’s ears against his words.

According to Alan Silverlieb at CNN, “The White House said the address, set for Tuesday, and accompanying suggested lesson plans are simply meant to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.” It would be utterly moronic to refuse a schoolchild the right to hear that message. But even if you suppose his real plan is to say something completely different, you have no right to interfere.

Filed by Michael at 22:21 under Diatribe, Political
1 Comment

Here is a bit of wisdom I feel has been left behind in the legislative and legal debates over the status of copyright in the past two decades.

“There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.”

—Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line

Filed by Michael at 23:45 under Quotation, Social
2 Comments

I have always loved this quotation:

“[P]rogramming is an art form, whose real value can only be appreciated by another versed in the same arcane art; there are lovely gems and brilliant coups hidden from human view and admiration, sometimes forever, by the very nature of the process. You can learn a lot about an individual just by reading through his code.”
— Ed Nather

I suspect it’s true in other complex disciplines as well. It’s just that programming happens to be the one that I know well.

Filed by Michael at 15:45 under Quotation, Technology
No Comments