Seven Score And Nine Years Ago

“Well gentlemen, Doctor Lamarche assures me that his time machine is almost fully prepared, and we will should be ready to proceed as early as tomorrow morning!”

Carl beamed at the men and women arrayed around the table, his arms spread wide for effect.  Seeing only stony faces above their nametags in response, he continued, endeavoring to rally enthusiasm for the project.

“Figure a few weeks of training to adapt the subject to the twenty-first century, and he should be ready to accept the nomination for president for the Republican Party, and usher in a bold new era for the GOP!”

Once again, instead of the eager adulations he’d anticipated, the men and women around the table glanced at each other and shifted in their seats.  At the far end of the table, the Chairman fixed Carl with a steely gaze.

“There’s been some discussion about the subject,” he stated flatly.

Carl’s mind raced, desperate to head off any further delays or debates.  He’d spent weeks selling a radical scientific breakthrough to a bunch of men who’d made their careers on denying science.

“I can assure you sir, there will be no complications.  We simply snatch the subject away right before his death, and replace him with a duplicate, that way history is never the wiser.  We’ve calculated that-“

“That’s all well and good, Mr. Hinton, but our problem isn’t with the process, it’s with the particular choice of subject.”

Carl was flabbergasted.  The entire point of the project had revolved around the subject.  Decades of research, years of testing and months and months of wrangling to get the biggest political players on board, not to mention the millions spent in developing the technology: it had all been for the single purpose of bringing him to the present in order to save the Republican party.

 “I thought we had agreed that he was the man we need to revitalize the party?”  Carl looked around the room for a show of support, but received only more displays of stoicism in return.

“Mister Hinton, the individuals gathered here are some of the top minds in the country on today’s issues, and they have all been advising me on this potential candidate’s suitability.  There have been some concerns that he does not have the political and ideological profile necessary to appeal to the Republican base.”  The chairman smiled avuncularly, signally a terminal finality to the discussion.

Several long seconds passed by, broken only by Carl’s ragged breathing as he struggled to find his words.

“But it’s Abraham Fucking Lincoln!” he finally spluttered incredulously.  “The first Republican!  THE Republican!  He freed the slaves for Christ’s sake; kept the Union together during the Civil Damn War; was martyred after victory!  There has never been… Hell, will probably never be a more tailor-made candidate to assure victory!  How can you possibly have concerns?”

During this tirade, the uncomfortable shifting had increased until one would have thought Carl’s audience had all simultaneously developed severe rectal itching.  The chairman however, remained passive, and continued on as if Carl’s outburst had never occurred.

“Yes, you see there’s some concern over Mr. Lincoln’s political record; a few irregularities that do not sit well with the current party position.”

Carl gathered his composure.  Perhaps, he thought, he could still salvage this proposition.  Perhaps if he could address their issues, he could convince them the plan was still tenable. 

“What...ah, concerns do you have?”

The Chairman sighed, clearly annoyed at having to spell out what he saw as obvious. 

“Firstly, there is his lack of support for states’ rights.”

“I’m sorry, ‘states’ rights’?”

The Chairman nodded to a balding man at his left, whose ID tag identified him as an advisor on national politics, who immediately opened a file folder and began thumbing through it.  “Appalling record, the worst of any president.”

“How is that?”

“Well you have to admit, Mr. Hinton, there has never been a more sharply-defined conflict between state vs. federal rights than during Lincoln’s administration.  And he clearly came down on the wrong side of that conflict, siding as powerfully as possible with the federal government.”

“You- you’re talking about slavery, aren’t you?”

The balding man frowned.  “I don’t see how the actual issue has any bearing on the discussion, the point is Lincoln chose to support the federal government in its attempt to suppress the rights of individual states to govern themselves.”

“By which you mean slavery!  The only issue the states were up in arms about was slavery!”

“Now hold on there, Mr. Hinton,” interjected the portly man with glasses sitting closest to Carl.  “Every schoolchild knows there was more to the Civil War than slavery.”

“At least they do now,” snickered a woman wearing the ID tag of ‘education,’ eliciting a round of chuckling from the assembly.

The portly economics advisor continued, “Yes, the states’ rights issue went hand in hand with the economic factors at the time, and Mr. Lincoln did abysmally in that regard.”

“Whu-“ began Carl, his brow furrowing.

“Oh yes, his blatantly anti-business policies were devastating for several industries, most notably the agricultural interests in the South.  His administration went well beyond excessive regulation of industrial sectors; he outright broke the back of one of America’s most lucrative import/export trades.  In addition, the transportation industries took a hit due to the terrible decline in transport infrastructure during his presidency.”

“Are you talking about the sabotage of the railroads during the Civil War?”

The Chairman broke in at this.  “Let’s not split hairs, Mr. Hinton.  There are plenty of other factors involved here.  Barry, talk about his immigration record.”

A man in a dark blue suit spoke up.  “The subject openly supported a path to citizenship for foreign workers.  I don’t need to tell you how unpopular that idea is these days.”

“Oh my God, you’re talking about slaves?  They weren’t foreign workers, they were brought here against their will!”

The man in the blue suit blinked irritably.  “Well now you’re just nitpicking.”

“And what about his rotten war record?” shouted a man in the uniform of an Army colonel.

“What do you mean?  He won the Civil War, surely no one can debate that?”

The Colonel shook his head disgustedly.  “Sure he ‘won,’ but at what cost? Some 700,000 or so American dead, and zero foreign casualties.  No other president has ever seen that level of losses, and no other president has ever allowed a war to spill over onto American soil.  And what profit did the American people see from that war?  Nothing.  No new territories conquered, no new sources of resources secured, no grateful new allies, nothing but graveyards full of dead soldiers.”

“But it was a civil war, of course there were a lot of American casualties; both sides were Americans!”

“Americans defending themselves against government oppression!” chimed in the NRA representative.  "Let’s not forget that during Lincoln’s presidency, thousands of guns were confiscated from U.S. citizens, an unparalleled gun grab that will surely put patriotic Americans of today on the defensive.”

Carl could hardly believe his ears.  “How- that is totally different, they were disarming rebels after an armed revolt!”

“Put all the Liberal spin on it you want, Mr. Hinton, that’s still not something that will be forgotten by the 2^nd amendment-loving people of today.”

Any rebuttal Carl might have made was curtailed by a pretty blonde in a low-cut top.  The nametag below her well-displayed décolletage identified her as an advisor on public image.  “All of these are excellent points, but it is doubtful the American people would ever even hear about them; his image rating is so poor, he probably wouldn’t make it to the first debate before the American people wrote him off.”

The Chairman gestured for her to continue as she rounded on Carl.

“We’ve done extensive focus testing, and there isn’t a makeover artist in the world that could fix him up.  There are just too many iconic pictures of him, he would never be able to shake that image.”  She began listing flaws on her exquisitely manicured nails, “His skin is terrible, the chinstrap beard is a nonstarter, his taste in hats is laughable, he’s got that glassy-eyed stare and he’s way too tall.”  As an after thought she explained “the focus groups identify height with basketball, and we don’t need another ‘basketball president’ do we?”  A murmur of assent ran around the table.

“Surely all those things are just superfic-“

“And that’s just the visual cues.  There’s all sorts of other factors.  According to reports, his voice is entirely unsuited to a television presidency, his wife is a train wreck, and with two movies about him released recently, he may come off as a little too 'Hollywood elite' for the base.  And then there’s the other issue… I’m afraid there are too many rumors on that point to ignore.”

The Chairman brought the matter to a close.  “I’m afraid, Mr. Hinton, that we simply cannot gamble the future of this party on such a questionable candidate.”

Carl’s shoulders slumped, defeated.  “So I guess I will just go tell Doctor Lamarche to scrap his machine.”

“Now hold on there, Mr. Hinton” continued the Chairman, the avuncular smile returning, “we still believe in the program, we simply want you to acquire a different subject.”  The advisors all nodded, smiling at Carl.

“Wh- who were you considering?” he asked tremulously.

“Our first choice was Reagan,” chirped the economics advisor.

“But polls showed that there are still too many voters alive who actually remember his presidency,” added the public image consultant.

The Chairman smiled “we’ve found a more suitable candidate, one whose political views are more in line with the party’s current views, and who is a better fit for today’s political climate.”

Carl looked around “So…you want us to bring back…”

“Richard Nixon.”

The advisors all beamed at Carl, who stood rigid with disbelief.  “N- Nixon?  How in the…why?”

“Well you have to remember, the world is a different place now.  People are more open to what Nixon has to say these days.”  The advisors all nodded enthusiastically.  “The American voters want a strong leader, a leader who knows how to play the politics game, someone who won’t get us in a war in the Middle East, someone who can deal with China.  These are important concepts Mr. Hinton, and Nixon has a proven track record in those areas.”

“But he was a crook!  He spied on Americans, and tried to cover it up by erasing the tapes!”

The Chairman waved his hand dismissively.  “Oh, the American people are pretty much over caring about that kind of stuff these days, he’ll fit right in.”

He Meant What He Said

“Please sit down and relax.  I’m going to hook up these electrodes, so I need you to remain still.”

“This isn’t going to shock me or anything, is it?”

 “No.  Please keep still.”

“I’ve never taken a lie detector test before.”

“It’s actually called a polygraph.  It measures stress by detecting changes in skin temperature and other factors.  By studying these factors we can detect mental stress, which might indicate a subject is lying.”

“Oh.  So what if I’m stressed about other things?  How will it know the difference?”

“That’s why we start by establishing a baseline.”

“A bass line?  Like a background track?”

“No.  Not like the musical term.  I mean a sort of basic level of stress so that we can compare it to any changes that might occur when we ask questions you might try to evade.”

“How do you establish the baseline?”

“We start by asking a few questions; basic, everyday stuff.  This gives us some readings that we can-“

“What sort of questions?”

“How about we just begin, shall we?”

“Oh, okay.”

“Very well.  What day is it today?”

“Friday.”

 “What color is your hair?”

“Red.”

“Have you ever been arrested?”

“Yes.  Three times.”

 “What is your current age?”

“48.”

“Are you married?”

“Yes.”

“Have you ever killed anyone?”

“No.”

“Were you born in America?”

“No.”

“What is your occupation?”

“Musician.  Singer, I guess.  Although I was retired for a while and-”

“Is your middle name Paul?”

“Yes.”

“Okay, we have enough readings for a baseline.”

“What does that mean?”

“That means we can begin asking you the actual questions.”

“Oh, er- okay then.”

“Let us begin, Mr. Astley.  First question:  Are you ever going to give me up?”

“No.”

“Are you ever going to let me down?”

“No.”

“Excellent.  Let’s continue…”

Knock, Knock.

Excuse me sir or madam; I’d like to talk to you about the Holy Bible.

Don’t try to shut the door politely; my foot, you will find, is firmly wedged into the jamb, preventing such demurring.  I don’t wish to be rude; it’s simply that I feel what I have to tell you is of such vital importance that it easily outweighs any imposition upon your time.

But I will be brief.

I know you have probably heard a lot about this book; indeed it has been the subject (and cause) of many controversies, and this has given it quite the shady reputation.   There are many out there who spend great amounts of time and effort to denounce and vilify this fine text, smearing its good name and tying it to countless atrocities which are in no way the fault of the book itself.

My own sincere hope is that you will not allow such slander and calumny to dissuade you from picking up the book and delving between the covers.  No matter how you may feel about some of those who also have read it, don’t let their actions color your perceptions towards its contents.  Just because the assassin of John Lennon was a fan of Catcher in the Rye doesn’t mean one should not read the book (there are plenty of great reasons not to read J.D. Salinger’s dreary magnum mopus, but not because one of its readers killed a Beatle.)

Please do not seek to dislodge me from your doorstep and curtail my diatribe by insisting that you are already familiar with the Bible.  So many feel that because they belong to a religion that claims the bible as their default system reference document, this is analogous to serious readership.  This is as ridiculous a claim (even for the most devout followers,) as those Americans who feel they have no need to read the Constitution merely because they are citizens.

No matter who you may be, this is the book for you. 

I have heard all your protests:

·      “I don’t believe in the Bible!”

·      “I belong to a different religion!”

·      “I’m already a devout follower!”

·      “I don’t even know you, get out of my house!”

And I say unto thee:

·      “The book’s existence has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, so just read it.”

·      “You will still belong to that religion after reading it, so just read it.”

·      “Then you, more than anyone needs to understand that for which you claim to stand, so just read it.”

·      “My name is Chris, I log smart-ass observations here, nice to meet you, just read it.”

Look, here’s the thing.  I know it seems completely dated and out of step with modern life, and I know it’s been inextricably linked with more than a few religions, and thus with every less than savory activity with which they may have been involved with over the years, and obviously I know that many people equate reading it with giving tacit approval to religions and their activities.  I know all this, and I want you to read it anyways.

Because it’s an important book.

Not necessarily a great book; I mean it was written a long time ago and compiled by countless individuals collating innumerable accounts and creations, and accusing it of bias would be like accusing water of being wet; not only redundant but also redundant.  But important?  Forget about it.

This book is (at least in part,) the foundation of so much of Western civilization.  To leave the Bible out of one’s education is like omitting Shakespeare from a modern curriculum (oh wait, bad example,) or ignoring the contributions of Greek philosophers to the development of Western thought.

One can barely teach the concept of allusion without alluding to the Bible.  Our own language is entirely permeated with such references, while the book remains the prime source of baby names for people who are not so emotionally needy they would saddle their offspring with some yuppie garbage like Bleu, Aiden or Addysyn. 

And the values and ideals within are considered the underpinnings of modern culture and society.  The Bible is at least cited as the inspiration for countless writers, lawmakers and leaders who have shaped our contemporary civilization.  Something that served, in any small part, as an inspiration for so many who have in turn inspired so much of what we value ourselves simply has to be worth a look.

But the true stars of the Bible are the stories.  Action, adventure, violence, blood and gore, thrills and chills, romance, it’s all in there.  From the numerous battle scenes to the rom-com antics of Rachel and Jacob, there are some great ancient stories in there, many of them displaying a level of sophistication many do not associate with tales of such antiquity.  Even if you’ve heard the stories countless times before (usually in those awful low-budget animated videos,) every soul in Christendom (and out,) should really read them in their original text.

Now I know what worries you, revealed in your gentle shoves out the door.  You do not subscribe to the religious beliefs, and fear that the stories only work if you believe in them as the literal truth.  Perhaps you associate stories like Adam and Eve with controversy and belligerent arguments, and feel that because you accept scientific explanations of natural phenomena, that these ‘mere fables and fairy tales’ have no use for you, and have nothing to offer you.

But plenty of folks who enjoy ‘mere fables and fairy tales’ avoid the stories in the Bible entirely, and that’s a real shame, because these stories are packed with meaning and significance for the studious reader.

All one needs to do is think of them as symbolism.   Think of them as lessons told in story, asking us to read them in search of meaning and message, and applying them to our own life experiences.  In that way, they are no different from any other collection of stories.  Viewed as metaphor, these are stories that can resonate with all who read them.

But what about those raised within the religion?  Many of the faithful are leery of reading too many of the stories in the Old Testament, lest they be confronted with those tales that are not very… apt for today’s audiences.  We all know that there are stories that fly in the face of modern beliefs, especially in regards to equality and human rights. 

In recent years, the chosen manner of dealing with these inconvenient sections has been to simply avoid them, delete them from the common rotation of reading like Disney did with Song of the South (the older folks in the audience know what I mean.)  But I don’t cotton to that.  I think the entire book should be appreciated as a whole.

This of course can pose a problem, but not of one simply views these less contemporary tales as symbolism, no different from any of the thousands of other stories we enjoy today.  Indeed, I will extend that suggestion to encompass all of the stories in the Bible.  Doing so, I assert, will greatly increase your enjoyment of the Bible as a work of literature.

But how can a person trained to accept Biblical accounts (all Biblical accounts,) as incontrovertible fact, possibly appreciate these stories as mere symbolism?

Blame Jesus.

No really, Jesus is the key.  You see, even if you believe, truly believe that every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, not every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally.  Because Jesus.

Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah, Yeshua Ben Miriam, The Lamb of God, Emmaunuel, Aslan, J-Dawg, Jeezy-Creezy, however you call him, his word carries a lot of weight, resonating like no other in the Western Canon (that term itself is saying quite a bit.)  And he had a lot to say in the Testament in which he appears (the New one, if you were unaware.)

Called ‘Rabbi’ by his followers, he does a lot of talking in the book.  Because that was his gig, really.  He was a teacher, first and foremost.  He did not perform too many really flashy miracles, or master dragons with his magic powers, or even fall from the path of righteousness in his youth, terrorizing others with his power and have to be corrected by his father to remember what he is on Earth for in a fully-developed character arc (actually he does all of these things in the Apocrypha, but you know how editors always leave the best parts on the cutting room floor.)

No, what he does is try to teach the people.  He talks and talks and talks, bringing his message of “knock off that sinning, already!” to the masses.  He leads by example with the whole ‘turning the other cheek’ thing, and extols the crowds with rousing speeches, but when he really wants to make a point, he whips out a parable.

Parables, in this context, are fiction; artificial stories designed to teach a moral lesson by presenting a hypothetical situation designed to make the reader think.  The veracity of the story is in no way pertinent to the message itself, it is how the reader interacts with the events of the story that conveys the crucial information, and that is the whole point of the telling.

So if parables are good enough for Jesus, why couldn’t a contemporary person of faith extend that to the rest of the Bible?  What if we considered the story of Noah’s Ark on the same level as the story of the Good Samaritan?  Rather than quibbling over unnecessary details like who Adam & Eve’s remaining son did his begetting with, or waving placards about gaps in the fossil record, what if everyone was able to enjoy the beauty of the story itself, and treat it as a valuable teaching aid, inspiring spirited discussion and analysis?

And that’s what I’m here to sell you today dear friend: the idea of Bible that is not secularized, but freed from its religious context.  A Bible that is open to everyone, and free to educate and enlighten anyone who is looking for guidance and wisdom.  A Bible that can bring all of its readers closer together in pursuit of understanding.

Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

Also, do you happen to have a Koran lying around?  I haven’t read that one yet, and I hear it has Djinn in it.   That sounds cool.

On The Objectification Of Schoolchildren

It is now 2014, the year by which all students, and I mean ALL students, are supposed to be grade-level proficient in reading and math.  This was the deadline set by George W. Bush’s landmark act, “No Child Left Behind,” which received bipartisan support and ushered in a sweeping series of educational reforms, promising to fix the woefully broken and languishing education system by enacting rigorous national standards for testing and evaluation with the goal of ensuring all students have the opportunity to succeed.

Not surprisingly, it has been an utter and dismal failure.

Now I know there are those out there who may point to some examples they feel are successes of the program, and while I find most of them specious at best, I’m going to let those points wait for another day.  I’m pointing the finger at that “100% grade level proficient by the end of the 2013-2014 school year” thing.

I will grant you, it’s only February, and we’ve still got a good three and a half months left before the final bell, but I’m giving you all the heads up: <SPOILER ALERT!> we ain’t gonna make it, folks.   It is my sad duty to inform you that at my school (and I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess at roughly all of other schools,) 100% of the students will not be proficient.  Not gonna happen.

But then, it wasn’t ever going to happen, was it?

I mean, who expects 100% in anything?  If you have a garden, do you expect 100% of your seeds to sprout?  Surgeons have to be prepared for losing a patient or two, tragic though it may be.  Hell, even a cook at McDonald’s is going to face ruining a batch of French fries once in a while, tragic though it might be.

No, I’m not saying that any of those are the same as teaching, but 100% just isn’t realistic in pretty much any area, especially when human beings are involved.  And remember, that’s not just talking about the ‘regular” kids (ever met any regular kids in your life?)  They are talking about all students, everywhere.

That means that by the end of this year, according to the great minds behind dear old NCLB, we should no longer have any students with special needs.  No students with mental handicaps or learning disabilities, no children with developmental language issues, not even a single swatch of color on the autism spectrum.  Those children will all be grade level proficient in a few short months.

And as for those children who have just arrived in this country, and do not yet speak THE language?  Well don’t worry about them; they too will be able to demonstrate mastery of THE language on the state-designed test, which is given only in English.  And then everyone will be happy, n'est-ce pa?

And that should have been the second hint that NCLB was doomed to failure.  100% grade level proficiency in thirteen years is so laughably unrealistic, displays such a criminal lack of understanding of how education works, that it should have been a huge red flag to those who approved the measure.  Couldn’t they see that setting such an unattainable goal would undermine any good it might achieve?  I mean even from a political standpoint, this is such an easy avenue of attack, why would you leave yourself open that way?

But then, that just points to the first warning sign: the name itself.  I mean, let’s analyze the grammar and structure of the act’s title and consider what it tells us about the motivations and perspective behind it.

“No child left behind.”

A simple enough phrase, and full of the feel-good proactive tones that are the hallmark of such grand gestures of legislation.  But beyond the pie-eyed optimism and woefully unrealistic optimism of its message, there is a sinister secret lurking in the grammar of the phrase, revealing the fundamental flaw in the logic, the glaring oversight that will ever doom such well-intended, yet imperiously blind acts of governmental officiousness, the single addition error that inevitably causes such vast equations to crumble into mathematical gibberish.

Let’s begin with the verb shall we?  “No child left behind” is not a complete sentence, for it lacks a subject, although there is certainly one implied, but we’ll get to that later.  But we definitely have a verb here, in the form of ‘left.’  This verb is further modified by the preposition ‘behind,’ gamely playing the role of adverb, informing the reader that 'behind' is how whatever is being left is being left.

This is all well and good, as we can all understand that the phrase ‘left behind,’ as it is used in the common vernacular, is an undesirable outcome, wherein one is excluded from the desirable, pushed out beyond the safety of the communal firelight and cast into the outer darkness of ignorance and fear (or something involving Kirk Cameron or something, I’m a little fuzzy on that one.)

But being left behind sucks, I can grok that.

And who, precisely, is being left behind in this phrase?  Why ‘Child’ of course.  It should go without saying that a child being left behind would be terrible indeed.  Thankfully, ‘No’ appears like an adjectival white knight to complete the phrase, and reassure us that the number of said children who shall be summarily left behind is zero.  Hooray!

But still our sentence is incomplete; we lack a subject.  “Just who is it that is not leaving the aforementioned children behind?” we may well ask.  And here’s where things get sticky.

Seeing that it is the great and the good within our fine government, the men and women behind the creation and passage of this bill who enacted this great legal endeavor, should we not assume that the mission statement is for them to execute?  Shall they not perform the tasks necessary to avoid such behind-leaving of our children, whatever they should be (conspicuously not specified within the titular phrase.)

Much as I fear to shock you, dear reader, I’m afraid it was never the intent for this august body to engage in the daily practices necessary to avoid such dire consequences.

No, such tasks fall (as indeed so many tasks tend to do,) upon those lower in the bureaucratic hierarchy, in a thunderous cascade of delegation and passed bucks until it reaches the local education systems.  It calls to mind one of my father’s great aphorisms: “shit rolls downhill.”

Casting our glance ever downwards along this descent, we end up at the bottom with the humble classroom teacher.  It is these menials upon whose backs rests the burden, and it is incumbent upon them to ensure that the number of childs is no, and their lefting is not behind.

So if we were to complete this sentence, it would most likely read: “No child left behind by teachers.”  This is a terrible sentence, and not just because it is written in passive voice.  We could of course restructure it thusly: “Teachers agree that no child left behind is a laudable goal,” but that still will make any fan of the English language cringe.  But since we are talking about legislators, not writers, I think we need to take what we can get regarding language skills, and accept the flawed, passive structure and make our peace with it.

But passive voice isn’t the real problem.  However you structure the remaining sentence, the phrase ‘no child left behind’ remains fundamentally flawed.  Because by making the teachers the subject, they turned every child in America (well, the ones in public school anyway,) into mere objects.

Direct objects, but objects nonetheless.

So the children do nothing in this model.  They have no input, no action to take, no direct influence or effect.  Even though it is they who are in peril of being left behind, it is in no way up to them to work against this fate.

By putting the onus entirely upon teachers, it absolves children of any responsibility in the process.  If a child finds him or herself being left behind, there is no pressure to run faster, it is up to the subjects of the sentence to verb on over there and prevent it.

And what has been the result of putting the entire burden for children’s success upon teachers instead of students?  We’ve seen an epidemic of teaching to the test, tragic mass extinctions of arts education, elimination of higher-order thinking skills and such a narrowing of the curriculum that what was once a beacon of knowledge, casting beams of enlightenment to all who would turn their gaze towards it into a laser, burning a tight pinprick of coherent thought into our children’s flesh, all in an attempt to have them pass a single test, at the cost of the rest of their lives.

We have torn down the rose lattices that allowed the bright, the gifted and the talented to reach skyward, bloom and grow, and rebuilt them into stands for rows of well ordered clay pots, where as long as each seed can reach the rim of its terracotta prison, that is considered progress.

It’s 2014, and NCLB has not only not fixed all the problems it was enacted to fix, it has created a whole host of new calamities, often worse than what came before.  It’s time to scrap this sham of an act and go back to the blackboard with some new ideas.

I’m not saying we should not have laws, or that government is automatically wrong and incapable of creating something that could actually benefit our children’s education, I’m just saying that next time, let’s be more realistic about what can be accomplished.

Maybe next time, ask an English teacher to name it, too.

The Curse Of The Pink Aisle

This morning, a friend of mine posted (from those fine folks at Buzzfeed,) a picture of a letter to the LEGO corporation, purportedly written by a 7 year old girl named Charlotte.  In her charmingly-scrawled missive, she complains at the lack of representation of females in their product line (I might be paraphrasing here a bit.)

She points out that the girls found in sets in the pink aisle merely "sit at home, go to the beach and shop."  She further elucidates that while these plastic females are gainfully employed, the boys get to go on adventures, work, save people, and even swim with sharks.

She concludes by asking that the company makes more female characters so that they too can go on adventures.

As the father of an extremely precocious little girl, who is as comfortable playing princesses with her little brother as donning her astronaut outfit and exploring strange new worlds, I am sensitive to the 'Pink Aisle Ghetto' effect.

Wiser men than I have commented on the strictly enforced gender boundaries in the toy store, and I too in the past have taken up plastic torch and pitchfork (actually, my little girl really has both of these,) and decry the blatant sexism inherent in the toy industry.

DOWN WITH THE MAN!

But I'm older now, and I realize some harsh truths.  You see, there really is no sinister pro-male conspiracy.  The pink aisle will never go away, not because of the desire of the phallocentric male oppressors (local #473) to ban the envaginated from all things awesome, but because of simple economics.

In other words, if you want to blame old white guys for this problem, point your fingers squarely at the benjamins.

Because companies are ruled purely by what market research shows will be profitable.  Armies of angry girls are not lining up to buy these fem-friendly toys; previous attempts have shown that.  For every strong little girl that demands an AR-15 accessory with her Barbie (or little boy who wants to buy Talkout™, the G.I. Joe sensitivity training specialist,) there are simply too many others who are paying money for the status quo.  Making those figures is a poor investment (that's what the smaller, online specialty producers are for, and there are a ton of them out there.)

A business can't stay profitable by appealing to those few kids.

So here is my response to little Charlotte, and the LEGO corporation has my permission to use it (for a small fee, payable in LEGO sets.)

Dear Charlotte,

We at the Lego company understand your complaint, and we have always striven to maintain a strong message of equality of the sexes in our younger children's lines.

However, we are a business, and that means that to continue to be profitable (and stay in business making the toys you love,) we have to follow the demands of the market.  To put it simply, we have to make toys that people will buy.  As you pointed out, we do make a few toys aimed at girls, or that are highly inclusive of them, just as we have for years.

But over those years, we have learned that if we focused more on that ideal, we would lose significant amounts of money.  Our product lines are driven entirely by what research shows will sell, NOT by our opinions on the value of little girls like yourself.

This, by the way is why you see the same gender disparity in the action figure and doll lines.  There will always be more male action figures (even those of superheroes, where there are already plenty of heroines in the comics,) than female ones.  Those toy producers have learned that it is not a wise investment to make that many female figures, because too many of them will sit on the shelf and never sell.

In contrast, although there are plenty of little boys who might like to play with baby dolls, or fashion dolls like Barbie, there will never be that many males (or male-inclusive lines) produced, because they too would lose money, gathering dust in the pink aisle.

In conclusion Charlotte, the problem you bring up IS a serious one in our society, but it is not in the power of toy producers, who rise and fall at the whims of the purchasing market, to fix it.

I hope you will understand our position and continue to enjoy our LEGO family of products.  Of course, you could always take those female figures out of their boring routines and have them have adventures and swim with sharks, or even swap heads and hair and decide your favorite lego minifigs are female.

After all, they are toys, and it is your imagination that give them life.

Sincerely, LEGO