The Beginning of the End: U.S. History Censorship in Public Schools

School censorship of history, and regular neglect of recent history all together, may well be the greatest injustice to would-be American adults. The recent fuss in Jefferson County, Colorado is evidence enough that partisan officials are subverting education starting by excluding teachers unions from the decisions regarding their school district, and ending with omitting important aspects of U.S. History. They claim the analysis of curriculum is to "review curricular choices for conformity to Jeffco academic standards, accuracy and omissions", and present information accurately and objectively. How can you expect conformity AND academic standards through censorship? Your act of censorship immediately lowers your academic standards. How can information, riddled with omissions, be accurate or objective?

The act of censoring, by definition, makes the remaining information quite distinctly subjective.

It's no wonder that young adults have increasingly limited coping skills. How is anyone expected to cope with the horrors of our collective past as they echo in our ever changing future if they are not given the chance to digest the information over time? The intention of protecting our children rarely works, and is often sought after moreso than preparing our children. For the record, there is no "protecting our children". It's a myth; an illusion, as sure as perfection, that will never be achieved. What's worse is that in the pursuit of this illusion, we, perhaps unintentionally, hand over those children to anxious and unnecessarily complex lives.

The great irony is we make vulnerable that which we attempt to protect.

I'm quite sure, however, the current outlawing of historical events in public schools in Colorado in order to "not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law" has little to do with protecting children. This reeks of adults attempting to control youth through censorship; exactly the kind of behavior that incites social strife and civil disorder. Removing important aspects of history, even current events, has a way of finding its way into the hands and minds of people, and removing it from the forefront only begs the question: what are you hiding?

Remember this? And how outraged the public was to be shielded from an issue like a child in need of coddling? Yeah.

It wasn't a stand alone incident.

And you wonder why people go into a panic when something happens in the world!

Because censorship does nothing but make people angry when they finally find out the truth.

And apparently Americans are so self-centered that they'd rather hear about themselves ad nauseum. 

And can only handle rehashed, unsubstantial self-analysis, but can't deal with current events or adult situations. No, not American adults. Maybe it's because of their limited education *ahem*!

Now, don't let yourself be fooled. This isn't protecting six-year-olds, who are pretty well sheltered from the truth of life as it is. No, this censorship would go all the way to the end of public school's reach, affecting A.P. History, whose credit would be honored at higher education institutions. Higher education cannot function under the presumption of being "more than" general education when its sources are restricting knowledge on a foundational level. "Higher education" cannot be the establishment for which our nation's youth finally learns an unbiased version of U.S. History. Does this mean that the general populace is doomed to live in a shroud of deception? As it is, these youth could hardly be considered children any more. 

If high school students can be convicted of manslaughter by being given the responsibility of driving, then they can handle the gravity of their ancestors' legacy. 

Preparing for their personal authority as legal drivers and legal adults similarly requires thorough examination of the law as it applies to them. Denying young adults the information from our past also denies them the understanding of their legal rights: their right to peaceably gather, their right to protest, and, should it come to that, the right to abolish the government. 

Please, please, PLEASE take a moment to sign the petition to help prevent setting a precedent of censorship in our schools.

Citizens United Ruling Persists, While the Power of the Individual Diminishes

Today I write to attempt to dissipate my shroud of anguish. I am distraught by our Senate, and truly saddened by its unwillingness to overturn Citizens United. But it's not just the end result that agitates me so. It was denied swiftly, and with little compromise, which is especially disturbing right before a major election. It was denied uniformly by Republicans, which indicates to me that we are no longer communicating on a feedback loop (more information on feedback loops soon), required to continue upward progress. And the saddest of all? The ruling stands on a technicality.

Our government is not listening to its people any more.

If you took a vote nation-wide, and perhaps we should this November, I believe we'd see the majority of individuals do want the ruling of Citizens United overturned (80% consensus, which is huge). But our representatives think they know better. Of course they do, because they aren't listening to the people that voted them into office. If they were, there would be a more efficient system for individuals to convey their opinions other than calling and writing. By the by, if you know of a more efficient system, by all means, leave a link in the comments so we can spread the word. Our government officials are listening to the companies and excessively wealthy individuals that helped pay for their campaigns (which is mostly marketing), who convinced all those voters to sway in their direction. Obviously, in this model, voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

Voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

The only thing worse than knowing the government is not willing to regulate campaign funds from corporations is that, in doing so, they are actively abridging our individual "freedom of speech".  You'll note that the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abridging the freedom of speech."


abridge (v.) - to reduce or lesson in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail; to deprive, cut off.

Special interest groups, corporations, even non-profits who are willing to funnel money into a campaign are effectively drowning out the authority of individuals' voices. This is the argument we should be making to the Supreme Court - that we must protect the diminished free speech of individuals by nullifying the over-funded agendas of the wealthy.

Ultimately, I believe this all boils down to simple addition. If the first amendment protects what we say, then in the voting process we still operate on the assumption that one person equals one vote. By allowing a corporation, definitively a collection of people, to also have a voice, and one that can out-spend an individual 100 to 1 (or more), then the individuals making up that collection have just extended their voting power. That is to say, unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes. It is a bidding war, not a test of moral fortitude. Arguments have been made accusing those who would overturn Citizens United would effectively amend the Bill of Rights, but it simply continues to redefine it to identify how it works in today's system. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect corporations; it was written to protect individuals.

Unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes.

The first amendment protects what you can say, not HOW you say it. Cursing at the top of your lungs is still allowed, but if you do it at 2am and wake up your neighbors, there will be grounds for arresting you for disturbing the peace. If you want to make films that directly defame political candidates who oppose your political agenda, be my guest. But be prepared for legal backlash when you take outside money to promote or distribute it (they already got backlash when they tried to distribute the film just before a major political election). Even conservative political commentator George F. Will admitted "the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech".

dis sem i nate (v.) - to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse

By this definition, monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to amplify speech; it gives what is being said greater power and influence. Thus, overturning Citizens United would limit the power and influence corporations have over the voting public.

Monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to AMPLIFY SPEECH; it gives WHAT is being said greater POWER and INFLUENCE.

Even reading through wikipedia to gleen more information on the first amendment, "campaign financing" stands out like a sore thumb. But perhaps it is because modern mobsters are alive and kicking within our government. Somewhere in the last few decades, mob bosses, who use money (and thus power over people) to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people into compliance, have found a new home on the other side of the legal system. They aren't hiding from the law any more, they are manipulating the lawmakers, and thus rigging the law, to their advantage. Even Al Franken compared the current ruling of Citizens United with money laundering. What the hell happened to accountability?

This is because we've forgotten what money is. Money is not speech. Speech, non-verbal, verbal, or expressionism, is speech. The old adage "put your money where your mouth is" very casually denotes the difference, in fact. Your mouth does the speaking; your money invests in its completion. This means that putting money anywhere is the next step AFTER speech, not the speech itself. A man walks up to you and says, "I like your hat", and there is no pretense or intention; but a man who walks up to you and says, "I like your hat" with a few bills in his hand now has the power to take it from you. He doesn't even need to offer the money to you, really. Just showing the money suggests the bargaining POWER of money. And that's what it boils down to, ladies and gents. The Supreme Court ruled that it has no authority to regulate POWER over the American public. The political mobster has tucked away his loaded pistol, which years ago would have been not-so-subtly used to get his way, in favor of the understated implication of quid pro quo.

I'm trying not to see this as the beginning of the end, but it's difficult. Oh, corporate America, how do thy own me? I shudder to count the ways.