Why we won't be homeschooling after all

Yes, I am sad. Very sad. I think I'd rather eat a box of glass than put my children in public schools, especially in the Charlotte system, but alas it appears we will have to. My sweet eldest child and I appear to be a poor fit for a homeschooling relationship, and we've actually been advised by professional help not to test that by homeschooling her. If I'm not keeping her at home, I'm not going to keep the other two girls here either, I want them to be together at least. The last thing I want is for my eldest to feel that she's been sent away somewhere and her sisters get to stay at home. Besides, if they are all together, that will free me up to be a volunteer or nosy-parker in the school, so I can make sure we really are doing the right thing for our children.

The plan is to research the local public schools and try to "lottery" into a better one than the school in our zone. I'm hopeful, but that's the best I can say right now. This fall will be filled with paperwork, letter writing and visits to classrooms to get a feel for the different options. If we cannot get her into one of the three schools on our list of choices, we will seriously reconsider the lesser of the evils--homeschooling a child who's defiant only towards her mother (it would seem) and a gem at preschool, or sending her to our local public school, complete with its uniform dress code and rigid almost institutional feel and curriculum. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to THAT question, this is ME after all, and I'm not one to shy away from a challenge!

The only reason we're taking this seriously is that we don't want to NOT investigate our options in light of this new feedback and then a few months into homeschooling discover that it's too late to improve the situation for her.

So, if you've read my posts over the years, this will come as a shock to your system, but rest assured this has not been an easy decision, and it's by no means a *final* decision either. I still feel the same way I've always felt about public school, and about homeschooling, what has changed is my confidence in my ability to overcome the challenges and negative aspects of each.

The intangible victories

Friends keep asking me how I--a conservative--can support an Obama Presidency. They "get" why I'm not in love with McCain, but don't understand how that translates into support for Obama who is farther to the left. I can understand their confusion, especially in light of the way Obama's foreign policy/war policy scares the piss out of me (whereas McCain's is the thing I like best about him), but in thinking about how to answer them, I've concluded it's the intangibles that move me. They have to, because deep down, honestly, I think the combination of lethargy and disunity on the Republican side is toxic enough to not only ruin McCain's chances of winning, they are toxic enough to ruin his chances of being remotely successful or, at the very least, to ruin his chances of being successful without significant pandering to the left, in which case, why not elect a guy who's younger, more charismatic and just plain NICER?

So what are those intangibles? Well, at the risk of raising a few eyebrows, here they are--unvarnished, uncensored, for your consideration:

• Obama is a Black man Yes, I know, overstating the obvious, but it matters to me. NO, not because I'd vote for him or against him because of his race, or because anyone else would, but because in winning he would be sending a message loudly and clearly to one and all in this country that it IS possible to be black and male and be elected President of the United States of America. Not only that, it's possible to come from humble beginnings, go to Harvard Law School, become the President of the Harvard Law Review, turn down what I'm sure were countless job offers at tony firms on Wall Street in favor of doing community work on the streets, and then get elected President of the USA! Yes you CAN travel in and out of both worlds, and yes you CAN learn to speak proper English and pull your pants up and have white friends and NOT be an "Uncle Tom" or a "sellout," and at the end of it all, you too CAN end up the leader of the Free World. Not only that, you CAN do this only in America. Just try livng that life story anywhere else on this Earth. G'head, I challenge you to do it. Barack Obama doesn't just preach "hope," he IS Hope, for an entire segment of our society--many of whom aren't even black, they're just minorities who've been told (most often by their own leaders) "No you CAN'T" or "Whitey won't LET you!"

  When they see him take the oath of office, they will know with a certainty that such statements are not only archaic and hateful, they are flat out wrong. No, it won't all be rainbows and kittens instantly, nor will every black child in the ghetto suddenly look to the sky and say "I believe I can fly!" and take their schoolwork seriously, BUT the power of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons and other like-minded victimhood peddlers will be severely diminished. And to me, this is almost enough to justify voting for the man.



• He has a Muslim-sounding name:
  Yeah, I know, everyone says this is a negative, but think of the intangible GOOD it could do! The Muslim world has enjoyed almost uninterrupted ability to paint us as "racist" and "islamophobic" for decades, probably since the Iranian revolution. Of course they have been wrong, but trying to explain that has been difficult. We've had to rely on our ability (or our leadership's ability) to articulate the evidence to the contrary which has often been more complicated than most people are willing to process, and just complicated enough that most propagandists can easily attack. Most Muslim anti-Americans in this world aren't going to sit there and parse the efforts in Kosovo as being in defense of Muslims, nor are they going to see our work to secure Iraq as something we are doing to protect Muslims (not just Muslims, but Muslims of different sects at the same time, not playing favorites). No, they see our boots on the ground in Muslim lands and equate that with anti-Muslim sentiment, period.

  If we elect a President with a single Muslim tie, especially if his name is as homonymous with "Osama" as his is, how can they still get away with saying that? It won't matter that he's not in fact a Muslim, he has relatives who are, and a name that sounds like it is, and since they already think we're as shallow as saucers, they'll have to assume we looked past all that when electing him, and for once they'll be right!



• He is an intellectual:
  We've had two terms of anti-intellectual leadership in the White House, and we conservatives have all-but championed that as evidence of a "real man," as if anyone who thinks deeply or analytically is inherently weak. This point of view offends me to my core because I think it is imperative for the survival of conservatism that we be seen to be the thinkers we ARE. Think about it! Only someone who thinks deeply and analytically would really appreciate market capitalism, it's so NOT obvious to the naked eye how it benefits people at all levels, but once you think about it, for longer than a minute or two, and more broadly than the tip of your own nose, it is obvious. Liberalism is the true anti-intellectual point of view, but it has held a stranglehold on the opposite perception for too long thanks to Bush's folksy malapropisms and blind faith in the inerrent "rightness" of his own beliefs, unassailed by analysis or criticism. Newt Gingrich? Hardly a lightweight. Shelby Steele, Dinesh D'Souza, VD Hanson, the list goes on. These are not people who are getting enough credit, especially overseas where--I'm sad to say--we do tend to be the laughing stock in terms of our collective "intelligence."

  You and I know it's crap, but the Eurosnobs (many of whom have never set foot here) don't, and having as our leader a guy who is the poster-boy for their stereotypes hasn't really helped. Put an Obama in there, and suddenly, we are not only the "tolerant" people we have always claimed (correctly) to be, we are SMART too, we are a meritocracy, a people who are not afraid of a little "elitism" when it's the right kind of elitism (i.e., of the earned as opposed to inherited variety). In fact, it is the quintessentially American thing to do to elect an Obama President! Even the Euros would be put to shame as they are arguably much more classist, elitist and intolerant than we could ever be accused of being. The irony is, they want us to be American in this way, even if they could never be. They would like us better if we were to be able to call them hypocrites instead of the other way around. I know, it's bizarre, but that's how it is I think.

  In this sense, President Barack Obama would be a living breathing symbol of all that is GOOD about America, all that we brag about but can rarely point to without lengthy explanation or detailed analysis. In one name, one face, we have a big fat "Go pound sand" message to those in the rest of the world who not only delight in calling us hypocrites, but who thrive because of their ability to effortlessly convince their people it's true. I mean, they wouldn't want their even less free, less hopeful people to see our shining example and want to emulate it now would they? That might put them out of power! Bummer, what a tragedy THAT would be.
  

In short, the very things people seem to think hinder Obama would be the reasons to elect him in my opinion. These "intangibles" that to some spell defeat, to me spell victory on so many levels--important levels that, in my humble opinion, trump any specific policy position he might espouse, or even achieve while in office. In fact, I would go so far as to say that as long as he "does no harm" if all that he does is just SURVIVE election and a full term in office without being assassinated, he will have done immeasurable good for our country.

I'm sure mine is not the prevailing view, but I had to put it out there just in case it resonates with anyone reading. You can vote for McCain, or Hillary, and send a message that America is business as usual, inherited power, power-by-tenure, white privileged power is alive and well in America, all those myths will seem more true, and things probably won't change in any other way either, OR you can turn the country and the world on its head and send the message that we are who we've always said we are, possibly even better than that, and even if we don't get much done in the next four years, no one can ever say we didn't really try.

Obama's Must Read

Note: I'm not going to bore you with the tedious excuses about my long absence from blogging, for all I know you haven't even noticed! I'll just jump right in...

Barack Obama has a great many wonderful qualities. He's smart, witty, quick on his feet, charismatic, self-effacing when it's appropriate, confident when it's appropriate, he even has some good things to say about healthcare and the economy. But where he and I still part ways is on the war in Iraq. In fact, whenever I get all giddy about the prospect of him winning (for mostly intangible reasons which I will outline in a a later post), the reality of his misguided-to-the-point-of-suicidal point of view on Iraq hits me like a clusterbomb.

Until now, I've never been able to articulate exactly why that is. I say until now because Michael Totten hadn't yet written this. Let's hope Obama reads it too. [Hat-tip Alois]