The single greatest threat to home education

Oh, boy, here we go. Get ready for a long one. Once again the stupid has reared its ugly head in the homeschooling community. A "concerned" parent posted a letter to a homeschooling list from the Home Education Foundation (HEF) that reads, in part:

If the Democrats take the US Senate and the White House, one of the first things they will most likely do is to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Clinton, actually signed it, but did not take it to the Senate because the Democrats did not have the majority at that time needed to pass it. However, if during the upcoming election, the Democratic party takes control of both the US Senate and the White House, it will most likely pass. Some news reporters are saying that Republicans may not win enough seats in the US Senate to even filibuster.

Good lord! The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? We can't give those little crumb snatchers rights!

This is the greatest single threat to home education we have ever faced in this country. The teacher's unions pour millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns and as you know the Unions do not like home schooling. In fact, their platform usually has a plank opposing home education or requiring parents to be certified teachers. I have never used fear to motivate people and I am not doing it now. I am just reporting the facts.

Go to www.hslda.org, type in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and read until you are convinced this is a serious threat. If you are not sure that HSLDA is reporting the truth, go to http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/theconventionont6.html and read the actual document. I did that about 14 years ago. It is very disconcerting. This treaty would strip parents of their rights and give them to the child. Ask the question who will decide what is in the best interest of the child?

Riiiight, not using fear. Suuuuure. So, of course, I have to go have a look. I'm a masochist that way. Let's start with the basics. The HSLDA, or Home School Legal Defense Association, is " a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms." So far, so good. How about some details. According to their FAQ:

4. Is HSLDA a Christian organization?

Yes; however, HSLDA’s mission is to protect the freedom of all homeschoolers. Although our officers and directors are Christians, HSLDA membership is not limited to religiously based homeschoolers. We respect parents' rights to make the appropriate choices for the upbringing of their children. We have no agenda to make all public and home-based classrooms religious or conservative. Our primary objective is to preserve the fundamental right of parents to choose home education, free of over-zealous government officials and intrusive laws. We do put on a national conference annually and invite the board members of state organizations with whom we have worked for many years. Most, if not all, of those organizations have Christian leaders, but many serve all homeschoolers regardless of religious affiliation, as we do.

Hmmm. A couple of entries down the all-inclusive facade begins to crack:

6. What is HSLDA’s relationship to Patrick Henry College (PHC)?

HSLDA’s board of directors founded PHC as a college that emphasizes the apprenticeship model of education and will positively impact our culture.

Patrick Henry College opened its doors on September 1, 2000 to prepare and develop leaders who will fight for the principles of liberty and our home school freedoms through careers of public service and cultural influence. The College's distinctives include a deliberate outreach to home schooled students; practical apprenticeship methodology; financial independence; a general education core based on the classical liberal arts; a dedication to mentoring and discipling Christian students; and a community life that promotes virtue, leadership, and strong, life-long commitments to God, family and society.

The College’s board of trustees is completely separate and distinct from HSLDA’s board of directors and the College operates independently of HSLDA. Michael Farris is chancellor of the College, and is General Counsel of HSLDA directing litigation and federal legislative efforts.

Although Patrick Henry College and HSLDA are separate and distinct organizations, our board’s purpose for founding the College remains the same and HSLDA continues to support Patrick Henry College financially and structurally. Specifically, HSLDA donates use of facility space and a portion of revenue earned from interest income to the College. This support is based upon our belief that it is not enough to rely solely on the defense of homeschooling in the courts and in the legislatures in order to maintain our freedom to homeschool and control the upbringing of our children in the future. We must be proactive in providing virtuous leaders in government and other key spheres of influence in order to preserve our freedoms.
[emphasis mine]

I've touched on the subject of Patrick Henry College previously, when the president was on The Colbert Report. Basically I said, "This school is apparently primarily a place for religious homeschoolers to send their kids to college after preventing their children from actually learning anything factual about the nature of the world around them."

But don't take it from me. Here it is from the horse's ass mouth:

8. Why does HSLDA support efforts to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman?

The following answer is an excerpt from a letter written by HSLDA Chairman of the Board and General Counsel Mike Farris:

. . . We are a Christian organization (see answer to question number 4 above). This colors our way of thinking about many things. Fundamentally, it is reflected in what we believe is truth.

All truth is God's truth. Man's knowledge is limited. We think we know something only to find that future generations have found that we really didn't know what we are talking about.

The truth is that God created the family. It is God's view of the family that is reflected in our western civilization and in our law until very recently. If we tear down this God-based view of the family, then all of the God-based principles in our society are ultimately at risk.

The masturbation over the sky-daddy continues for a while. Here's the crux of the matter:

It is impossible to say that the God of the Bible would sanction rights of homosexual marriage. Thus, there is no such right in a God-based theory of rights. Any man-made theory of rights is no theory at all. ... HSLDA is not willing to move into an era of human privileges. We believe this would jeopardize our liberty to teach our children at home and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Blessings,

Michael Farris

Soooo, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights; they don't mean squat, right? Because they're man-made rights? Or are you cool with them because they allow you the freedoms to spout your totalitarian, theocratic, dominionist bullshit?

So now we've seen a little bit about where this group is coming from.

The letter concludes:

Whoever wins the White House could detemine whether we continue to
enjoy the freedom to home educate our children or not.
The following is taken off the HSLDA website. Please read this and
consider the consequences before you vote in this election.

Thank you,
Brenda Dickinson
Oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?!? Who would want to oppose something like that? Those UN bastards must be trying to sneak all kinds of nastiness in there, hoping the title of the convention would distract us. Let's see what HSLDA has to say about this horrible abomination:

After years of debate within the international community, child's rights activists reached an agreement in 1988 which created a comprehensive charter advancing the agenda of the children's "liberation" movement. What the child's rights advocates have for over two decades been unable to accomplish through the normal legislative process, may now be realized in one sweeping blow.

If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child would undermine families by granting to children a list of radical "rights" which would be primarily enforced against the parents. These new "fundamental" rights would include "the right to privacy," "the right to freedom of thought and association," and the right to "freedom of expression." Such presumptions subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility
exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child.

OMG! How dare they suggest that children are deserving of such disgusting rights as "the right to privacy," "the right to freedom of thought and association," and the right to "freedom of expression." What subversion! The fabric of society will be ripped apart if we treat children as humans!

Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. Some of the more relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are summarized below.

Severe Limitations Placed on the Parents' Right to Train Their Children

Because children are no better than dogs and need to be trained rather than taught.

Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden. Children are vested with a " freedom of expression" right, which is virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section 1 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice."

I'm beginning to see why they object to such "radical" notions. I mean, who wants their little brats darlings to express themselves? Or to "seek, receive and impart information"? Next thing you know, they'll be demanding that we let kids think. Oh, the horrors!

In Article 14, children are guaranteed " freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right
against parental objection to participate in the occult.

Whoops, there it is, disguised as "freedom of thought". Those tricky devils, trying to force us to let our kids think. Is there no end to their subversive tactics? Apparently not:

The Convention Would Entrench the Right of Teenagers to Abort Their Babies

Oh, noes, the liberals are coming for our fetuses!

Under Article 16, the "right to privacy" is ranted to children. This UN sanctioned "privacy" would seemingly establish as the child's right to obtain an abortion without parental notice, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, and the right to pornography in the home.

God forbid we let them use contraceptives and prevent the situation in which abortion becomes an option. (My reserves are sarcasm are running low. I don't think I can keep this up much longer. OK, just one more section.)

Mandatory Outcome Based Education

The American Bar Association's 1990 publication Children's Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared to U.S. Law states that Article 29 will force public and private schools in America to adopt "federally prescribed curriculum content." Each child
must be prepared to be a responsible citizen by having "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin." All children must be taught the principles of the treaty. This is OBE mandated curriculum of the worst sort.

I don't know what OBE is, but, dammit, we can't let them force us to give our children "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship[for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin." They might become friends with teh blacks. Or teh A-rabs. Or worse, they might consort with *shudder* atheists.
[/sarcasm]

My bullshit barrier has overloaded. This is one of the most twisted interpretations of a document since the christian fundamentalists co-opted the bible for their own purposes. I would heartily recommend that you all read the original UN document. It sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me. "This is the greatest single threat to home education we have ever faced in this country" my ass. I'd say the single greatest threat is religious wingnuts like you ruining it for the rest of us. But then, I'm just a fetus-eating, devil worshiping, "spread-the-wealth" democrat communist. What do I know.

HOA's can go to hell

You might remember this post wherein the future of my garden is threatened by my neighborhood's Home Owners Association. You might also remember my carefully worded and researched reply. I hadn't heard anything in response and, being very ADHD and somewhat passive-aggressive, I didn't follow up on it. No news is good news, as they say. Well, I finally got news. Just as Fay was starting to really blow, we discovered our upstairs window was leaking. As we were frantically moving bookshelves and pulling up carpet and trying to stem the flood, the postal carrier pulls into our driveway to deliver a certified letter. From our HOA.

In short, they decided to forward the matter to their attorney. "With no positive response to previous notice, the Board has no other option except to proceed with legal action." So either my response was not "positive" enough or they didn't give a shit about what I had to say. Naturally, I felt it necessary to respond:

Dear Board of Directors:

We were very disappointed to receive the Final Notice of Violation dated August 19, 2008. Especially disturbing was the statement that no positive response had been sent with regard to the prior notice. Apparently the letter attached to emails sent to the board members and the hardcopy mailed to the [management company] office did not count as positive response. Perhaps we do not understand the bureaucratic processes of home owners associations.

We are attaching a copy of the previous letter we sent in response. Furthermore, a hard copy has been sent out the the address listed above via certified mail, return receipt requested. We hope that this will constitute sufficient response to the violations. If any further information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are very interested in working with the board to resolve this matter.

Now here's where my expectations came crashing into reality. What I expected was a dialog between reasonable parties where the issue could be discussed and resolved in a professional manner, even if the boards decision went against me. In my original response, I included reasonable questions requesting clarifications on the rules and advice on how to best follow them in the event the board did not see fit to rule in my favor. What I received was something much different:

I for one live on the street as this vegetable garden and it is a sight. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and looks terrrible. She can build a fence even though she is on a corner lot. I say we stick to the no vegetable gardens and if you are considering changing this, drive by and have a look yourself. It will change your mind. This is my thought

Now, a home owners association is a quasi-legal organization with the authority to file liens on your home and even to initiate foreclosure. The board of directors act as the representatives of this body and, indeed, of all the members of the community. That a member of the board would feel that this was an appropriate response to a reasonable discussion of policy came a quite a shock. In addition to the factual errors (the garden hasn't grown since it was established, unless you count the growing of the plants) the attitude just blew my mind. After the shock came anger. Much anger. Darth Vader-type anger. If I could have force-choked this individual, I probably would have. While I despise bureaucracy, I have an appreciation for the niceties and formalities that generally accompany legal proceedings. I would expect this kind of reply in a blogs comments section or on some internet forum. Coming from one of the leaders of an organization that, quite literally, could force me out of my home was disgusting.

At this point, the representative of the management company that our HOA hired to handle all the paperwork and act as enforcer decided to throw in her $0.02:

They have received 3 notices and they haven’t removed the vegetable garden. What more needs to be discussed?

This person has no role on the board, has no decision-making authority and has absolutely no business interfering in a discussion between the board and a resident. At least that's my opinion. Besides which, she was completely incorrect. We did respond and have been trying to engage the board in a dialog. Which they apparently are steadfastly trying to avoid.

Fortunately, not all the members of the board are such small-minded individuals. Later, another member offered their take. While well-meaning, it was full of fallacies that I will address in-line below.

I did read your letter that you sent, you did respond,

Good of you to notice. You'd think that maybe this could be relayed to the guard dogs that the board hires to do its dirty work.

I believe the notice is referring to the action that needs to happen. It clearly states as you have noted that vegetable gardens are not allowed in the neighborhood unless properly contained.

No shit, why do you think I was writing a response?

I can totally appreciate where you are coming from in your letter, growing your own produce is very beneficial, I myself do it, but it is contained in pots on the back porch and in a tiny fenced area in the back of the home displayed neatly. I have driven and walked by your home on several occasions and recognized your vegetation as an eye sore. Tomato bushes in general grow rather wildly, the manner in which you have planted them is the problem.

So in other words, tomato plants are ugly and shouldn't be planted in a Square Foot Garden, only in "tiny fenced areas" because that's how you like them.

The wood enclosure which surrounds the plants looks bad and the location that you choose is random.

Two things wrong here: the wood enclosures are cedar planks used for the siding of houses. They form a border 8" high around the square beds. Not exactly a hideous bit of landscaping. And their location was FAR from random. The two beds are exactly 36" apart and stand 36" from the nearest landscaping, to allow for the passage of the lawn mower. They were placed on the south side of my house which recieves direct sunlight all day long.

It is obvious that you have a green thumb and I think that is great, speaking for myself I would not like for you to tear them up, just move them and make it look neat. I know you have a patio just off of your slider, why not plant the vegetation to the left of that patio and put some PVC 12" fencing around it with some trellising? We have a long weekend ahead of us, maybe this could be a project for you.

Nice thought, but that location is in perpetual shadow and is so waterlogged that the only thing that will grow there are swamp plants. There's about an hour a day that the sun can penetrate most of the back yard. The south side is the only viable location.

I think your property would look a lot nicer is you chose to take my advice, I am not sure what the other Board members might think about your garden because quite honestly we haven't discussed it.

In retrospect, this part bothers me more than anything else. The association documents outline a process for handling violations that includes the right of the homeowner to respond and seek relief. What's the fucking point of allowing a response if you're not even going to address it?

I do wish you well, I hope my response has helped, feel free to contact me again. My intent is not to hurt any feelings, just to be honest and helpful, constructive criticism, I hope you see it this way.

I don't give a shit about hurt feelings or how you hope I see it. What I see is an HOA BOD with a disregard for its residents and a rigid mindset that says that the only attractive yard is one that looks like theirs; i.e. chemical-drenched St. Augustine grass and landscaping completely unsuited to the Florida climate that can only be maintained by regular chemical applications and the waste of thousands of gallons of water. I see a board with no concept of professionalism and apparently with poor reading comprehension skills, since they didn't address my clearly worded questions.

Well, as per my standard response to all bureaucratic and authoritarian bullshit, fuck 'em. Unfortunately, this attitude can result in even more financial problems that I really don't need right now. I don't have the time or energy to fight this kind of crap. I'm dealing with a combination of stupidity, small mindedness and apathy. The amount of shit I'd have to go through to get these people out, assuming that the rest of the neighborhood isn't populated with the same type of people, is just too much right now. I've got a wife and two kids and a stressful job. Gardening used to be an outlet for my stress, a form of meditation. Guess I'll have to get back on the cushion, 'cause the garden has gone bye-bye.

Post to del.icio.us | Digg this | Post to Furl

Tags: stupidity, hoa, morons, politics, bullshit