Dear Tiffany,
Will we see a follow-up story on the Hilo High School “peace” speaker, James Albertini who caused such a stir in the last couple weeks forcing his way into Hilo High to speak to students supposedly on the subject of “participation in democracy”. I sayforced because after it was learned what he was about and his nefarious past, Mr. Dircks wisely uninvited him only re-invited him upon threat of a lawsuit.
My understanding is that not only the librarian but other faculty were not happy or willing to have their classes subjected to Albertini. Likewise, the parents when they learned what was afoot wisely “opted out” for their children and Albertini’s speaking engagements were a total flop. Since most of the public saw the run-up, read your story and others describing in detail why Albertini should be free to exercise his 1st Amendment rights, that now a follow-up is definitely called for to complete for people how it ended up.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I’ll be looking for your article on this matter.
-
Posted by Tiffany Edwards Hunt @ 7:07 pm
48 Responses
March 14th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
What ‘nefarious past’ are you referring to? Why uninvite him because a few war mongerers threw a hissy fit?
March 14th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Sounds like a reasonable request Tiffany, got a line on anyone who attended?
March 14th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
And Mikie, phrasing from a less polarized viewpoint might get a better response. I have my opinions, you have yours, if you want something sugar serves better than baiting. If this is just going to turn into a flame war i wouldn’t blame Tiffany for not responding. But way to hold her accountable as a journalist. Just remember though she’s provided a forum, the commentary does not necessarily represent her views. If you had been denied a speaking engagement i’m sure you’d appreciate a public discourse as to why that happened also. Don’t shoot the journalist/messenger.
March 14th, 2013 at 11:53 pm
I see the outcome a lot differently than Mike no matter what the the size of the audiences were at the school talks. Here is why.
What would have been a pretty routine discussion on differing views of why we fight wars and the the morale implications of that, turned into a state wide story that played for weeks. Instead of suppressing the message the opposite occurred as evidenced even here on the blog.
A debate was ignited that was discussed on campus in and out of class not only at this school but far beyond this one venue. Garnering far more attention to the debate because a few people attempted to stifle dissent by controlling what can be talked about in schools and elsewhere. What they accomplished was the polar opposite of their intentions, they actually expanded the audience by magnitudes. Pouring gasoline on a small flame in an attempt to put it out and instead causing a forest fire.
How that could be considered a “flop”, being the issue was discussed by thousands seems an illogical and unrealistic conclusion.
Thinking kids that were told they could not attend will not be curious and want to look at the issue themselves now is extremely naive. Kids are curious by nature, it’s how we learn. Their curiosity has been peaked.
Like him and or his message or not, he reached far more people because of the knee jerk reaction of a few who do not understand that in their attempt to control the flow of differing viewpoints, what they really did was provide a much larger stage to the issue. These kids will hear this message again and many will be inclined to listen because they were told they could not hear what Albertini had to say. It’s not over, he is not going away. He has been at the federal building every Friday for over ten years, it is not like these kids will not have another chance to listen to his views.
“Flop” I think not, more like a strategic mistake and miscalculation by people that erroneously believe they can control what people believe or are allowed to hear and read.
It won’t work, it’s akin to burning books, it just drives people to want to see what all the fuss is about.
March 15th, 2013 at 7:06 am
Bob I respect your view point, but It may have got traction in the media (points for Jim), but it also brought more awareness to the parents and educators at Hilo High School. Majority of the teachers have now been “educated” in understanding better the “full implications” of inviting a guest speaker. Depending on where you stand, and how you want to view things, I am told that a similar incident should not happen again. My niece goes to this school, and my sister gave my niece the option of missing school if she decided she did not want to attend the talk. I am not sure what she did, but at least choices were given. I am curious what the outcome was for Jim attendance wise. If my niece is an example, I think the audience was small, as I think most kids would take the day off. IMO
March 15th, 2013 at 8:52 am
Letter to a blogger 150 years ago;
Will we see a follow-up story on the High School “Suffragette” speaker, Susan B Anthony, who caused such a stir in the last couple weeks forcing her way into a school to speak to students supposedly on the subject of “participation in democracy”. I say forced because after it was learned what she was about and her nefarious past, the school wisely uninvited her only re-invited her upon threat of a lawsuit.
My understanding is that not only the librarian but other faculty were not happy or willing to have their classes subjected to Anthony. Likewise, the parents when they learned what was afoot wisely “opted out” for their children and Anthony’s speaking engagements were a total flop. Since most of the public saw the run-up, read your story and others describing in detail why Anthony should be free to exercise her 1st Amendment rights, that now a follow-up is definitely called for to complete for people how it ended up.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I’ll be looking for your article on this matter.
Status J. Quo
Male
March 15th, 2013 at 9:19 am
Haas had no problem with Jim.
March 15th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Dear Mikki (Kerr)
What do you mean “fighting like a girl”? You mean a civilized debate versus a military show of might? The United States has been as war constantly since its inception, (Indians, Mexicans, our own citizens, plus all the other wars) and many wars are financed on both sides, either by US or the Rothchild’s (illuminati) indirectly, of course… so they will always make money by selling weapons, and there will always be a job for our kids killing people.
“25 disturbing facts about psych drugs, soldiers and suicides”
by Mike Adams
We are living in an age of upside-downs, where right is wrong, fiction is truth and war is peace. Those who fight the wars are subjected to their own house of mirrors via pharmaceutical “treatments.” Instead of providing U.S. soldiers and veterans with actual health care, the government throws pills at them and calls it “therapy.”
Stimulants, antidepressants, anti-psychotics, sedatives and pain meds are the new “fuel” for America’s front-line forces. While the idea of sending medicated soldiers into battle was unthinkable just three decades ago, today it’s the status quo. And the cost in human lives has never been more tragic.
Here are 25 disturbing facts about psych drugs, soldiers and suicides. They are disturbing because everybody seems to be pretending there is no link between psychiatric drugs and soldier suicides. So soldiers and veterans keep dying while the Pentagon (and the VA) keep pretending they don’t know why. (Sources are listed at the bottom of this article.)
1) 33% of the U.S. Army is on prescription medications, and nearly a quarter of those are on psychotropic drugs
2) In 2010, the Pentagon spent $280 million on psychiatric drugs. That number has since risen.
3) There are now over 8,000 suicides each year by U.S. soldiers and veterans; that’s over 22 a day
4) 33% of those suicides are attributed to medication side effects
5) That means medications are killing more U.S. soldiers and veterans than Al-Qaeda
6) 500% more soldiers abuse prescription drugs than illegal street drugs
7) Under the Obama administration, the number of veterans waiting for VA care has risen from 11,000 in 2009 to 245,000 today
8) More active duty soldiers die from suicide than from combat: 349 dead last year
9) The number of prescriptions for Ritalin and Adderall written for active-duty soldiers has increased 1,000% in the last five years
10) For every active-duty service member who dies in battle, 25 veterans die by suicide
11) Only 1 percent of Americans have served in the Middle East, but veterans of combat there make up 20% of all suicides in the United States
12) The suicide rate of active-duty soldiers in the Civil War was only 9 – 15 per 100,000 soldiers. The suicide rate of active-duty U.S. soldiers in the Middle East is 23 per 100,000. And casualty rates were far higher in the Civil War, meaning the Civil War was more psychologically traumatic.
13) In the Korean War, the suicide rate among active-duty military soldiers was only 11 per 100,000
14) To date, the Pentagon has spent more than a billion dollars on psychiatric drugs, making it one of the largest customers of Big Pharma
15) In 2010, over 213,000 active-duty military personnel were taking medications considered “high risk” by the Pentagon
16) In the years since the Iraq War began, twice as many soldiers of the Texas Army National Guard have died of suicide than in combat
17) Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calls military suicides an “epidemic”
18) Of all the branches of the military, the Army has the highest number of suicides each year, almost 400% more than the Marines
19) Most active-duty soldiers who take psychiatric medications consume a combination of three to five prescriptions
20) The use of prescription medications by active-duty soldiers is largely unregulated. Soldiers are given a bottle of meds and sent into combat. If they run out of meds, they are given a refill, no questions asked.
21) The mainstream media says the answer to lowing suicides of veterans is to take away their guns so that they cannot shoot themselves. This is the logical equivalent to trying to fix your car’s engine by removing the “check engine” light.
22) The Pentagon is initiating new research (in 2013) to try to figure out why psychiatric medications cause soldiers to commit suicide. The research involves tracking brain activity by attaching electrodes to the skull.
23) One-third of military suicides are committed by soldiers who have never seen combat
24) In the last year, the military wrote over 54,000 prescriptions for Seroquel to soldiers, and all those prescriptions were “off label,” meaning the intended use has never been approved by the FDA as safe or effective.
25) Dr. Bart Billings, a retired Army Colonel and former military psychologist, refers to psychiatric drugs as a “chemical lobotomy” for soldiers.
Sources for this article (in order of appearance)
http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-Epidemic-Psychiatric-Drugging-…
http://www.toxicpsychiatry.com/storage/Military%20why%20are%20we%20dr…
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/11/ap-military-suicides-out-of-con…
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/in-this-issue-the-militarys-billi…
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-report-says-suicide-danger-t…
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17148761-why-modern-soldie…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57563857/u.s-military-suicides-ex…
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/01/29/Army-wo…
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/s…
http://www.prweb.com/releases/psychiatricdrugssuicide/10/prweb1000132…
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039473_psychiatric_drugs_soldiers_suicides.html#ixzz2NWc16e4B — with Fernando Tróchez.
March 15th, 2013 at 11:31 am
Greg, I think it is shocking to compare women’s rights to Mr. Albertini’s right to be anti war. Susan Anthony did more for women and history of the United States, than Jim Albertini will EVER do for Hawaii or the United States.
March 15th, 2013 at 11:34 am
Me thinks the yellow-bellied principal and “Aloha Mike” (?) missed the point in all of this. Further I guess nether had a notion of the First Amendment might be all about.
March 15th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Gee Redland, How do you differentiate a person’s right to free speech? Do feminists have a more valid right to speak their mind than pacifists?
How about racial equality? Where does that stand in your order of free speech topics?
Please prepare a list of First amendment subjects and their order of importance so we can use our freedoms appropriately.
March 15th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Here’s you follow-up Mikie, “fight like a girl” Kerr.
Aloha peace ohana,
I spoke at Hilo High School on Wednesday, March 6th and today, March 8th to several classes of students each day. It all went well. I was told that the security presence on campus was three times the normal, in anticipation that the right wing “Gathering of Eagles” might protest my speaking. The Eagles were a no show. All went smooth. I spoke on the ongoing wars, the military presence in Hawaii, the use of DU weapons at Pohakuloa (PTA), increasing use of drones and drone training at PTA, and the role of non-violent resistance for justice and peace. I handed out lots of literature to the students on the above issues plus literature to counter military recruiting propaganda. Hilo HS has a junior ROTC program, recruiters regularly visit the campus, and there is military recruiting material in the school library. To counter my presentation, the same classes will be hearing from Mr. Bill Moore, a Big Island civilian aide to the Army coming to the school next week.
During my presentations, I showed various slides on the issues (too big of file to include here), and video clips of “Living Under Drones” http://livingunderdrones.org/ done by Stanford University and New York University documenting civilian drone deaths. Also an Air Force video clip about the next generation of what’s called “Swarm drones” which combine surveillance and killing capability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4
The students had good questions and seemed quite interested. The Hilo HS principal, Robert Dircks, sat in on all the classes and took notes. The teachers had to call each of the parents to get permission for their students to hear my presentation. At least one other teacher’s cancelled bringing his students. I’m not sure of the reason but I suspect the extra work required to call all the parents. I’m not sure if parents will also have to give permission to hear Mr. Moore –the Army’s representative. I made clear the Army has been stonewalling the community by refusing to answer questions on DU contamination for years and that the Army has ignored the Hawaii County Council’s resolution 639-08 passed by a vote of 8-1 in 2008 calling for a halt to all live-fire at PTA until there is a comprehensive independent assessment and clean up of the DU present there.
I made clear to the students that just to get me into the school to speak after being invited by a teacher, required the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union and attorney Eric Seitz along with a possible civil rights federal lawsuit based on equal access to schools where there is a military presence. I especially thank Hilo H.S. teacher, Joseph Watts, who had the courage to issue the invitation for me to come and speak to his students. He is the one responsible for the students learning an important lesson on free speech for peace and non-violence. My gratitude and aloha to him and all of you who have shared your letters and solidarity.
Mahalo! Mahalo! Mahalo!
Jim Albertini 10:40PM friday, March 8, 2013.
–
Jim Albertini Malu ‘Aina Center For Non-violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB Ola’a (Kurtistown) Hawai’i 96760 Phone 808-966-7622 Email ja@malu-aina.org http://www.malu-aina.org
March 15th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
I guess the parents who didn’t want the children get this information would rather they join up and go kill some people. Because we sure as shite aren’t bringing democracy to anyone. We bring DEBT, DEATH and DESTRUCTION to every country we set our military in. HLS is arming up for this country next. Why are so many adults caught in cognitive dissonance?
March 15th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“The role of non-violent resistance for justice”. That is where all the bs and hypocrisy in his beliefs are.
The idea that first amendment rights were infringed upon is a bunch of bs as well.
March 16th, 2013 at 1:03 am
Sorry Hilo35, it’s the LAW..if a school allows pro military speakers it must also allow pro peace speakers. Ya got a problem with fair and balanced?
March 16th, 2013 at 7:58 am
If you have something that shows his first amendment rights were infringed upon then state them, otherwise it is just more bs.
People have every right to voice concern over what is being taught to their kids, the best example being when it comes from someone as misleading as Jim is in terms of what peace is.
March 16th, 2013 at 8:49 am
Hilo 35 makes a great point. Why not Jim rent a conference or ball room at your expense, advertise at your expense, and let people decide if they want to hear what you have to say. Using a captured audience like a school or a venue where peoples “choices” are limited, is a weak excuse for YOU exercising your freedom of speech. Do it like they do in England, hop on a soap box and let people decide if you are worthy of their time. Maybe Greg will help you defray expenses? Bet it would be standing room only. lol
March 16th, 2013 at 11:03 am
Change Jim to military recruiters.. see, it works both ways.
March 16th, 2013 at 11:57 am
Yes they are both bad bad ideas in our schools but this isn’t what we are talking about.
The idea that you represent fair and balanced
is as bad as Jim’s view of what peace is. You both require the use of or threat of force to achieve your vision. You either are or aren’t peaceful, there is no in-between.
March 16th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Jim was invited by a teacher initially, right?
Denied by administration.
Re-invited by embarrassed officials.
Spoke about relevant issues with no problems.
“Captured audience”?
School where “choices” are limited?
The “threat” of peace?
Sorry, but this confused veteran doesn’t know what you guys are talking about.
March 16th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Sadly a lot of followers just hear the word peace and fail to grasp the whole message that Jim advocates for and how it is inconsistent with what peace truly is. A truly good messenger would represent peaceful ideas all the time not just when it fits into their vision.
March 16th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
” Real peace comes from the Marine Corps , not the Peace Corps ”
Semper Fi
March 16th, 2013 at 5:32 pm
When a speaker who is well known for supporting a very specific ideology is invited or is self-invited to speak at a school or university, good judgement dictates that a speaker from an opposing viewpoint also be given the chance to speak. Instead we go through more polarizing discussions and promote social and cultural divisions when it appears that schools only care about one side of the ideological spectrum.
Teachers- Put a stop to all this nonsense and be more appreciative of how certain topics are divisive and make sure our students get a balanced education
March 16th, 2013 at 8:20 pm
If schools should only present ideas that the school administrations endorse; Who exactly decides what ideas are presentable?
I trust students to hear different points of view and reach their own decisions.
This isn’t about peace or war or Jim; it’s about developing minds that are capable of independent thought. This simply can’t be done by dictating to students a single point of view, or by attempting to make up their minds for them.
You insult the intelligence of our students by assuming they need protection from diverse ideas.
March 17th, 2013 at 7:55 am
Following in Greg’s perspective, the schools in Hawaii have a certified curriculum that they teach. There can be variations, and that is why each school principal and district office has the ability to decide what is appropriate and not appropriate. No system is exactly perfect, but the school system is what we have. I rather err in the school curriculum side versus Albertini’s teachings and/or perspectives.
March 17th, 2013 at 9:48 am
Students don’t need protection from diverse ideas and with all the information available on the Internet it is ridiculous to suggest they could be protected. What should be vetted for these kids is whether these speakers are good or bad messengers for whatever topic they are being brought in for.
March 17th, 2013 at 9:59 am
It’s futile to argue since folks are here to push their agendas rather than be swayed by arguments pro or con. That said, allow me to make my futile argument anyway:
I’ve never heard Albertini speak, and he wasn’t even on my radar until this silly issue was raised. I’m sorry but this is much ado about nothing.
If my children were attending that school it’d be a non-issue. I wouldn’t be focused on the content of the speech–they could listen to Hitler for all I care–because when they got home we’d TALK about it and process the information together: if I disagreed (and I absolutely would if it were Hitler), I’d say so and explain why–or agree and explain why. No big deal. Then I’d challenge my kids to agree or disagree with me, and they would respond accordingly because we have a strong, trusting relationship built on a core set of values.
So filtering out all the ideological noise, what I’m hearing from the anti-Albertini crowd is that they don’t trust their own children to listen to different points of views, think critically, then make their own decisions. They’d rather put all their trust in a semi-standardized and very flawed school curriculum. (But hey, it’s “certified” so we can all breathe easy!) Well that explains it: since their kids have been raised and spoon-fed a narrow worldview, they’ve never been given a chance to think for themselves. Of course they can’t think critically! But tell me, what happens when the kids leave the nest and you can’t dictate their information sources anymore?
No surprise I agree with Greg: parents who are afraid of exposing their children to diverse ways of thinking don’t give their kids nearly enough credit. I would also add that they likely don’t have a trusting, open relationship with them either. Bummer for the kids.
March 17th, 2013 at 11:10 am
That is good critical thinking right there
It is futile to argue but here goes my futile argument.
March 17th, 2013 at 11:36 am
Hilo 35 – could you explain specifically what Jis is advocating that you are against?
Nohea
March 17th, 2013 at 11:45 am
Tim you are absolutely right, and I applaud you for the great example you are to your children. Here is the million dollar question….knowing what we know about our current society, low voter turnout, broken and disconnected families and the list goes on….how many parents out there rely on the school system to be THE educational source for their children? Based on current measured outcomes…I venture to say the VAST MAJORITY utilize the school system to help shape the core value system in their children…thus why we are having the “futile” discussion on this blog. I wish and pray someday that the majority of parents out there will do as you do…discuss and talk to there children, but alas, I believe that is not what happens or is happening in todays world. People on both sides of this issue will use the “system” to their benefit, and that is what my comment all along has been, Mr. Albertini uses the system to his benefit…and to his credit.
March 17th, 2013 at 11:51 am
Jim advocates for equity in the form of re-distribution. In order to achieve this you need to take from one to give to another and requires the use of or threat of use of force. Whether you agree with this or not it still requires the use of force which is not a peaceful solution.
March 17th, 2013 at 11:53 am
RedHAWK– peace through military murders and massive destruction??? Your moniker outs you.
March 17th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Rachelle Moore, you made a great point.
That both sides were not invited, and one side shrieks about fairness, then attacks the other side, is proof I’d rather stay away.
I ask, “Who is to defend the USA from the crazies if we become defenseless?” A too often clumsy military or Jim’s followers?
March 17th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Hilo35, you totally missed my point, and also avoided commenting on the substance of what I wrote. In plain English, I have no chance in hell of winning you over, but I do have a right to state my case, just as you do.
You make a great argument against your own position when you say on the one hand, “Students don’t need protection from diverse ideas, and with all the information available on the Internet it is ridiculous to suggest they could be protected.” And believe it or not, I completely agree with you. So…why not let Albertini speak then? Is he more dangerous than the internet?
I also find your logic a bit contradictory (disingenuous?) when you say on the one hand, “What should be vetted for these kids is whether these speakers are good or bad messengers for whatever topic they are being brought in for. Well, “vetted” is just a fancy-schmancy way of saying you want to stifle an opinion you disagree with, but you don’t want to admit that. Personally I don’t think you are a good messenger for the libertarian cause, but since I don’t play a double-standard game, I would be all for the idea of you giving a speech at the same school on Libertarianism, and also offer a counterpoint to Albertini in the process. I also would welcome you to write an article here breaking down all your disagreements with Albertini, or maybe just educating us more on the Libertarian cause. Because based on what I’ve read so far, your arguments seem at best incomplete, but maybe I’m missing something? I’m open to having my mind changed!
As for the redistribution of wealth? I’m not crazy about it either. Especially the wealth that has been redistributed over the last 30 plus years from the middle class to the RICH. Logically the standard should applied in both directions, no?
March 17th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
March 17th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Why logically , I don’t agree with how the ” rich” rig the system. The problem with the train of thought is that their is no consistently. The ends justify the means.
This bring into question motives. For this reason I can’t Agree with you on just any speaker being acceptable. Not all kids have the support your kids have and they can be impressionable at this age. Your example of Hitler is a great one. If he gives a talk about peace, what purpose would that serve.
It is arguable that by inviting a speaker it could give validation where on the Internet or on his corner that validation would be harder to come by.
March 17th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
So let me get this straight. What you’re saying is that a public school, violently funded through the government’s forceful collection of our taxes, should play “nanny” to our children–even determine the content of what they’re taught–because the family structure in society has broken down? Is this really an acceptable option for a Libertarian?
March 17th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
It would be a responsible option considering you are okay with a “hitler” type talking to our students. It is not playing nanny it is about not wasting their time with people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
From a personal view I would like taxes back earmarked for education and I will be responsible for my child’s education.
March 18th, 2013 at 6:17 am
Hilo35, with every post you lose credibility and risk having Ron Paul come revoke your Libertarian license. I was expecting a more worthy opponent in this dialectic so I’m disappointed. Hell, I’m starting to think I’m more libertarian than you are! (For the record, I admire Ron Paul and agree with many of his ideas, although I don’t agree with everything he says because, well, I employ my critical thinking skills in all situations, not just when it suits my agenda.)
Based on these last few posts I can see your position is full of contradictions. You claim to believe in liberty and rail against the nanny state, and yet you want the evil public school system to muzzle anyone who YOU deem “not walking the talk.” Totally illogical, inconsistent and not at all walking the Libertarian talk. Your Libertarian rhetoric says we’re all supposed to “take personal responsibility” but now you’re back-peddling and saying you’re willing to make an exception if it’s Albertini (or anyone you disapprove of) talking to our children. You say that our public schools should decide what information our children should be exposed to, right? Wow, sounds like you’re a collectivist too, although you rail against that as well. And you also want the school to determine what is and isn’t a waste of time for our children, right? Contradictions abound! So based on your own standards, you are not qualified to talk to our children on Libertarianism because you are not a true Libertarian. And yet, I would still support you giving a speech at the school because, unlike you, I apply my standards consistently.
So. Instead of whining on line, why don’t you consider volunteering to go speak at the school? I’ll support you fully, even though I believe your arguments are deeply flawed and confusing. Hell, I’ll even go listen to the speech if I’m on island. Think about it. If you approach the school thoughtfully, they will either let you speak or not. If yes, you’re “in” and you can stop your on-line whining. And if they refuse, I would personally support your cause and rail against the school for not giving you equal time. What a great way to draw attention to your cause! Perhaps Tiffany could help facilitate it? And if THIS wouldn’t make you happy, then I have to question the sincerity of your motives. No sir, it’s not a waste of time to expose our children to different points of view, no matter how flawed, if our children’s critical thinking skills are put to the test.
Look, you seem like a bright young man, and a good person at heart. But frankly you come across as a bit naive and impractical, something that usually comes with youth. You are a prisoner of an ideology because you lack critical-thinking skills, and are simply parroting Libertarian talking points rather than cultivating the ability to put together a comprehensive, logical argument to promote your ideology. Critical thinking is not just about criticizing what you disagree with; it’s also about questioning your own assumptions and values, the basis of philosophical thought (something Ron Paul is pretty good at, btw). If you aren’t able to find any flaws, for example, in the Libertarian ideology you embrace, then it’s proof your critical-thinking skills are underdeveloped, and you forfeit your credibility in these on-line discussions.
So if you want to continue being a spokesman for the Libertarian cause, you might want to bone up on your logic and rhetoric because, frankly, your arguments are weak, full of holes, and not very persuasive. I suggest you start by reading Plato’s Republic as it will give you a deeper insight into Western culture (your roots), the art of the dialectic, which is the precursor to Western logic. From there you can tackle Aristotle and then it’s all gravy.
Honestly I feel like I’m talking to a tadpole who never left his tiny pond, kind of frustrating. You don’t know what you don’t know, and yet think you’ve got it all figured out. That’s the worst possible scenario–having everything neatly checked off inside your head. It means you’ve stopped listening and learning. Based on your posts, it seems your worldview is indeed narrow, dare I say ethnocentric? I’m just guessing here, but I doubt you’ve ever lived in a foreign country or learned to speak a foreign language, or studied the value systems of other cultures around the world. (If you have it would shock me.) You’re stuck in your own little cultural pond blindly clinging to an ideology that you aren’t very good at articulating. Perhaps with a little more seasoning in the international arena you might one day broaden your horizons and develop the ability to carry on a coherent argument rather than regurgitating boilerplate Libertarian talking points. Until then, I’ll sit on the sidelines, critique your illogical ramblings, and offer it as a concrete example to my children on how not to construct a persuasive argument.
That said, I am still open to being persuaded, and thanks to you, am now motivated to delve deeper into Dr. Paul’s philosophy. Not blindly, but with an open mind and a critical eye.
March 18th, 2013 at 7:00 am
Am I mistaken or is the purpose for me to educate you on libertarian principles,on a blog for that matter.
You arrive late to the party on your high horse and start demanding I fully develop my arguments. My statements require some thinking on the other end which is probably why I have to repeat things at times.
This all started on the use of force. I don’t agree that force is a peaceful solution to any situation, things should be voluntary. If kids are not forced then I have no problem.
I don’t agree he is a valid speaker in the subject so would not take my class to see him or would not invite him. My reason is that he believes in the use if force for purposes that suit him.
Should speakers not be open to criticism. You seem fine criticizing and I am fine with responding to it. What’s the problem.
Tim what else have you offered other then it is good to have various speakers to teach critical thinking. Of which may be the case but if you are going to listen to a speaker would you not want them to practice what they preach, would that not bring credibility to the speech, would that not be reasonable to consider when planning for teaching purposes. If they don’t practice then would it not be reasonable to question the motives or should we just assume all speakers have good intentions.
Please Tim enlighten me with that big brain of yours.
March 18th, 2013 at 7:18 am
Hilo35, I’m willing to acknowledge that you likely have a higher IQ than me. I just think your worldview is very narrow, lacking in real-world experience, and logically inconsistent. Hey, I’m not the one whining about Albertini, you are. So the onus is on you to make a credible argument. So far you haven’t. I’m still waiting.
And yes, I would like a speaker to practice what he preaches, but that’s not how the real world always works. And yes, it IS good to question the motives of the speaker, including Albertini. But criticizing the motives is not the same as stifling speech. Look, I really don’t know much about Albertini, but you can rest assured that if my kids were going to listen to him I would study him critically, and point out any inconsistencies I found to my children. Critical thinking! In this crazy world we live in with all this information being fed to us 24/7, it’s more important than ever for kids to learn to separate the pepper from the fly shit. They won’t learn it by listening to the same views over and over, and having people with an axe to grind vet all the information we give to our children.
From where I sit, you seem to believe in the use of force as well, because you want to dictate who speaks at our schools. Can’t you grasp the contradiction?
March 18th, 2013 at 7:54 am
I don’t view it as dictating and more as criticizing the speaker by showing the inconsistency in his opinion. Where does force come into play. You seem to assume a lot which takes away from your preaching. This forum lends itself well to criticize which is the intent.
My hope is that the kids get the best speakers possible in a subject as to make it the best experience or environment to learn. I don’t feel this speaker provides that.
March 18th, 2013 at 8:31 am
I think the bottom line here is that Hilo35 and friends consider Jim to be a dissident. I agree with them 100% on this.
Where we differ is that I consider dissidence a form of Patriotism. We live in a country founded on dissidence; a country that protects it within it’s constitution.
Jim has never to my knowledge advocated violence. His most notorious act of defiance was to jump in the water to protest the arrival of a Warship.
As a loyal citizen, I fear war profiteers and do nothing, status quo, Fox News watching tea baggers more than Jim Albertini; but I wouldn’t advocate banning them from our schools.
March 18th, 2013 at 11:32 am
<>
Once again, you are not addressing the issue and are being evasive. For what it’s worth, I applaud you for pointing out your perceived inconsistency of Albertini’s opinion, and I agree, that’s what these forums are good for. Good for you, Hilo35, you get a gold star! But I will never support your attempts/desires to muzzle someone that YOU don’t agree with, no matter what euphemism you use to try and justify it. Keep in mind that lots of folks wouldn’t want YOU teaching or talking to their children, as you are, by many people’s standards, also a kind of dissident. Would you be okay if they tried to muzzle you? I wouldn’t like it one bit.
The other flaw in your logic is that the kids would be forced to listen to Albertini. The parents certainly have the right to opt out of having their children attend his speech. And if they weren’t given the opt-out opportunity, then I’d have a problem with it too. (See, consistency is such a beautiful thing!) Can you prove that any students were forced to listen to him? If so, then you might have a case and I’ll jump on your bandwagon, at least in regard to that issue.
As I said, I don’t think you would be a very good speaker to talk about Libertarianism, but it shouldn’t be up to me to decide. Therefore, I welcome all voices of dissent. But for this to work, I have to take personal responsibility for my kids, something I think Ron Paul would agree with. And yet you don’t. Baffling.
I also find it interesting that when I point out YOUR inconsistencies it’s “preaching,” but when you point out Albertini’s inconsistencies it’s “criticism.” Once again, I see a double standard. So to recap: my issues with your posts are 1) Inconsistency (while you blame everyone else for being inconsistent); 2) lack of logic in constructing your arguments and 3) I don’t believe you are representing the spirit of Libertarianism well.
Look, you’re no doubt a bright guy. I’ve been hard on you in this thread, and if I hurt your feelings, please accept my apology. I truly believe if you had the chance to spread your wings, perhaps immerse yourself in another culture, etc. I believe your mind would open up, and you would blossom. You (is it Andrew?) might be the smartest guy in the world, but if you don’t learn how to critique yourself and apply logic to your thinking–whatever it may be–then you are wasting that great big brain you have.
Okay, time to get to work. No more time for this until much later. But I promise I will delve into Ron Paul’s philosophy in greater depth. And once I’ve boned up on it , I’d be happy to discuss our differences (and similarities) over a beer once, my treat.
March 18th, 2013 at 11:39 am
That last sentence should read, “…over a beer one day, my treat.”
March 18th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Tim, the reason I call what you do preaching is because everything you try to put on me is an assumption. You assume I am trying to muzzle someone but just because you say it doesn’t make it true. How quick you come to conclusions based off these assumptions. What culture teaches this that I should be learning this from?
How am I inconsistent? I said if the kids are not forced to listen then I have no problem. It was pointed out that they weren’t forced to listen so I have no problem. You came late to the discussion so maybe you didn’t see that thread. This doesn’t change that I think he is a bad choice for speaker on the topic of peace. Not sure how stating my opinion is trying to muffle him but again this is based on your assumption that it is my intent to do so. I do drive by them every Friday and could care less that he is there.
Where did I say I don’t believe parents should be taking personal responsibility. They should be, but sadly it doesn’t happen. Again another assumption on your part even though I said clearly that my preference would be to teach my own children.
Let me ask you this though. Why not tell me whether you are for or against redistribution because it wasn’t clear to me what your stance was. It kind of sounded like since the rich did it that others should be able to do it as well. Hate to assume anything so please let me know your thoughts.
March 21st, 2013 at 11:18 am
ya Hilo35 says “Jim advocates for equity in the form of re-distribution. In order to achieve this you need to take from one to give to another and requires the use of or threat of use of force. Whether you agree with this or not it still requires the use of force which is not a peaceful solution.”??
Yea? like the FED and an income taxes, and the ‘force’ in which your money is taken from you is fine. They have been taking from the working class for 100 years but the force is not bellicose, therefore not present?
The Koch brother have nothing to do with the “Grass Roots Tea Party” either. sheesh still watching TV? FOX?
“Vetted” by whom? the DOE? LOL
Your arguments are ludicrous.
Like children even pay attention to guest speakers.lol
March 21st, 2013 at 4:59 pm
The argument may be but just as much as anyone thinking peace is possible as long as the state holds the monolopy on the use of violence. This monopoly on violence gives it the power to take its revenue with the threat of force.
How many wars would we be in if taxes were voluntary?