If you're a parent, grandparent, or generally sane person who cares about the future of this nation, please watch this (from Breitbart TV):

Just try and wrap your head around a situation where a public school teacher brings people in to help students craft songs about how lazy and ungrateful the Occupy Wall Street-ers are? Imagine a public school teacher bringing a poet in to aid children in the formation of verses that are odes to Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand of the free market?

Can't? Now tell me there isn't a liberal, progressive bias in the education system.

Charles Murray is one of the most important thinkers/authors of the past 30 years.

He is a libertarian and currently serves as the W.H. Bradly Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.  For some reason this video I want to share has had the embedding feature disabled, but click here to see a 10-minute clip of a Murray speech on education reform that is more than worth your time.

It is based upon a book he wrote a few years ago called Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality.

I can be hard on Ron Paul, but I thought his appearance on NBC's Meet The Press yesterday is worth a few minutes of your time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We need voices like Rep. Paul's out there, especially during an election cycle.  He forces the discussion on the Right back to where it should reside: limited government.  I appreciate that.  A lot.

When in the last 10 years have you heard clarity like this from a prominent Republican politician?

This dude should be our next president.

Teachers unions use their constituents as human shields to grab more money, get Democrats in office, and advance a progressive social/cultural agenda.  Gov. Christie steam-rolls this smug teacher, but again, does it in a way that seems appropriate.  That takes talent and guts.

I'm telling you: this should be our guy, conservatives.

The man I think ought to be our next president is Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ).  I'm going to write-up my full thoughts on the Governor in a few weeks, but for now, take a look at his electrifying (and satisfying) answer to a question about what kind of school he sends his kids to:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Atta boy, Christie!  Now, some (even on the Right) are going to critique the governor's "tone."  Gag me with a spoon.  The man speaks from the heart, shoots from the hip, and is on the right side of the issues.  We need some bravado.  We need someone willing to mix it up and put smug liberal union members like this twit who asked Christie about where he sends his kids to school in their proper place.

Gov. Christie pays thousands in taxes into a system that he recognizes is so crappy (thanks in large part to the strangle-hold of teachers unions) that he and his wife are willing to dish out cash above and beyond so that their kids can get a better, religious education.

Doesn't this anecdote say much more about how awful the schools are than how mean Gov. Christie is?

I am a product of the Illinois public school system (K-12th) in the 1990's and therefore know all-too-well about the illustrious "Food Pyramid" some feminist nutritionist in a pant-suit and clunky jewelry (think: Barbara Streisand in Prince of Tides) conjured up to justify her graduate degree and subjected the rest of us to.  I was reminded about the Food Pyramid every year of my life until the age of 18, and for all of that incessant intellectual drilling...I cannot remember where a single food-group goes on that stupid thing.  I assume the very top must be "sugars and sweets," but even that is a guess.

The thing was meaningless.  And just to prove how utterly inconsequential it is, and again to justify someone's graduate (and probably PhD) studies, the Obama administration has announced a revamped and reformatted version of the Pyramid:

The Obama Administration is getting ready to ditch the Food Pyramid, a symbol of healthy eating for the last two decades.

In its place, officials are "dishing up" a simple, plate-shaped symbol, sliced into wedges for basic food groups and half-filled with fruits and vegetables.

Beside the plate is a smaller circle for dairy, suggesting a glass of low-fat milk or perhaps a yogurt cup.

The revised pyramid is part of the administration's crusade against obesity, led by first lady Michelle Obama.

And the award for the most overtly meaningless gesture in recorded political history goes to...

I get that this story isn't the biggest deal in the world.  (Mostly because of how stupid it all is.)  But the very notion that bureaucrats in Washington are sitting around concocting new strategies to teach us knuckle-dragging morons how to eat and feed our kids is so aggravating,

Just go away, Michelle Obama and your Food Police minions.  Encourage parents to invest in their kids' lives more and make healthier choices.

Other than that, get out of my face.  Please.

Getting into and selecting a college is an increasingly difficult task.  But should it be?  And what sort of education are (especially conservative) parents shelling out $100,000-200,000 for?

Editor of The Weekly Standard Andrew Ferguson has written a book (Crazy U) of his own family's experiences surrounding his son's move from high school to college two years ago.  I highly recommend the book, but in case you don't have time to read...I know we're in the middle of American Idol season...here's an interview Ferguson gave to Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge:

This is an important topic and important book for parents with kids reaching that stage of life where they leave home for higher education.

Here are my own thoughts from Education Debate at Online Schools.

The guy (Davis Guggenheim) who made An Inconvenient Truth with my guy Al Gore has a new documentary that everyone is talking/blogging about: Waiting for Superman.

When I first heard about this film I was understandably skeptical, but by all accounts, including a glowing review from The Heritage Foundation, this documentary is well worth your time. If you could sit through Super-size Me, a film about getting fat from eating fatty food for a month (also known as "a month in R.J. Moeller's life"), you can sit through this - a film about the current (wretched) state of American education.

An excerpt from Heritage's review:

From Guggenheim's own admission that he's "betraying the ideals" he thought he espoused (driving his children past three public schools to a private school he's chosen) to deplorable facts (for example, six in 10 students in East Los Angeles do not graduate from high school), the film breeds skepticism about a popular national myth.

This is a myth of long standing. It was called the "myth of the common school" by Boston University professor Charles Glenn in a book by that title originally published in 1988. The myth was spread by progressive reformers like Horace Mann in the 19th century amid anxiety over immigration and social unrest. By requiring all children to attend "common" schools, the reformers proposed to enlighten students with values that would transcend sectarian and cultural differences. The myth has dominated the American imagination for more than 150 years, even as it has failed to fulfill its founders' promises.

As Glenn writes: "We have expected that our schools would banish crime and social divisions, that they would make our children better than we have ever been. Horace Mann and others promised us that, and we believed them. It is no wonder that suggestions . . . that our society's secular church be disestablished arouse the deepest anxiety and confusion today."

True to form, education unions are seething about promotion of charter schools in Waiting for Superman and its proposals to end tenure and link pay to performance. "The film demonizes public education," said National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel. Local unions organized demonstrations outside some theaters.

Such protests reinforce what viewers witness in the theater: stories of a failed status quo, protected by powerful interests...

Read the full column here.

By: R.J. Moeller

"I believe we can solve the problems of urban education in our lifetimes and actualize education's power to reverse generational poverty.  But I am learning that it is a radical concept to even suggest this. Warren Buffett [the billionaire investor] framed the problem for me once in a way that clarified how basic our most stubborn obstacles are. He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education. 'Make private schools illegal,' he said, 'and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.' "

-Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of Public Schools (District of Columbia)

It is never difficult to find relevant, timely examples of people in positions of political power attempting (or at the very least, desiring) to impose their vision of how things “ought to be” on the rest of us.  To some extent, this is appropriate.  I would hope that every person seeking public office has some convictions of their own.  Nihilism is not the belief system I want my mayor, senator, governor or president to hold.  And, for better or worse, none that I know of, do.

Thus, the aptly dubbed “Culture Wars” are alive and well in every corner of this nation.  We argue and debate because we care; because we know the issues of our time matter.

Few issues strike a nerve quite like education, and for good reason.  The impressionable mind of a child is a precious thing.  Education of that mind typically leads to a richer, fuller life.  The agnostic and religious parent alike agrees on such points.  The “education debate” today isn’t over whether or not education is a good thing: fundamentally, the debate centers on who will do the educating.

Americans have always quarreled over their respective visions for the nation they love.  But there are some arguments that are made that would end the freedom to argue over them.  There are, as G.K. Chesterton put it, “thoughts that stop thought…and those are the only thoughts that ought to be stopped.”

And it is here, at the very heart of the education debate in America, where questions involving the appropriate role of government, individual liberty vs. collective “salvation,” economics, sociology, and history so clearly converge.  It is here where the dissection and discussion of the visions of those in power over us can (and must) begin.

Michelle Rhee is the Chancellor of the public school system in Washington D.C.  She was not elected, but appointed to her post in 2008 by Mayor Adrian Fenty, himself a liberal Democrat.  In a February 8^th commentary written earlier this year, Chancellor Rhee-Palpatine penned the words of the quote I opened my column with today.  Rhee was recounting the advice mega-billionaire (and Obama economic adviser) Warren Buffett had given to her concerning the difficulties in effecting “real” change:

He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education. 'Make private schools illegal,' he said, 'and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.' "

That does sound easy.

And dreadful.

The implication of Buffett’s suggestion is that if rich kids were forced to go to bad schools, the rich parents of those rich kids would make sure that their kid’s new school wasn’t so bad.

Ms. Rhee specifically references this exchange with Mr. Buffett in order to drive her guilt-ridden point home: This super successful guy agrees with my vision of social engineering at the hands of Ivy League experts, but he and I both know you selfish knuckle-draggers, those clinging to your guns, religion, and money, would never go for it.  And that’s what is really wrong with education.

For the purposes of this piece, my primary concern is with the cozy comfort level American liberals, progressives, Leftists and Democrats have with totalitarian ideas – like the one Mr. Buffett put forward and Chancellor Rhee pines for.  But let me get back to that thought in a moment.

It absolutely must be pointed out that the United States of America spends more per public student than any other country, save Switzerland, so all of this “It’s all about the Benjamin’s” talk is garbage.  Switzerland, as well as many other countries that spend less than the U.S., actually gets what it pays for and is ranked higher in overall “Math, Science and Reading” scoring systems than we are.  An 8^th grader today in the United States knows less than an 8^th grader 100 years ago.  School administrators make six-figure salaries while insisting their districts don’t have money for books; bad teachers are protected by mafia-like unions; and good teachers are limited in what they could potentially earn by the bad teachers and suffocating unions.  Parents drop their kids off at school, treating all teachers as if they were babysitters who can only make the parents happy by giving their kids an “A” (earned or otherwise).

But the answer to highly unsatisfactory results in public education is to shut down the schools that actually work?  The answer to a problem caused by a complex blend of sociological, economic, bureaucratic, and moral problems will be best solved by handing the reigns solely over to the bureaucracy – the sector of society least equipped and most detached from the individual students and families whose education we’re supposedly concerned with?

The types of schools (i.e. private, parochial, etc.) that purposely avoid making the mistakes that have tanked the American public education system are understandably the targets of those responsible for running that public education system into the proverbial ground.  The same private citizens who are forced to pay both their regular taxes and the tuition for their child’s private education are vilified for wanting something better than what people like Ms. Rhee can provide.

And to be fair, it isn’t Ms. Rhee’s, or any particular public school teacher or administrator’s fault: it is an inherently flawed system, built on inherently flawed ideology.

I happen to follow the podcast of a D.C.-area radio talk show that is frequented by a rotating group of Washington Post columnists and journalists, and to a man (and woman), every single media pundit on Tuesday’s show were in full support of the Buffett-Rhee proposal to silence free assembly, speech, and private education.  Of course each of them were quick to add that they “weren’t sure” that they would want their own kids to be the first test-subjects of such a plan should it be tried in selected areas of the country some day.

These Washington Post pundits are all progressive liberals.  So is Michelle Rhee.  So is Warren Buffett.  So are President Barack Obama and his wife.

So are more than 80% of public school teachers and administrators.

Please understand that what I’m trying to do here is clarify, first and foremost.  I don’t believe that the Left is evil; just wrong.  I firmly believe that Warren Buffett and Michelle Rhee have nothing but the best intentions when they suggest that making private education illegal will make education better for the collective, just as I believe that President Obama meant well when he annexed 1/6^th of the economy under the control of the federal government via the stealth health care bill.  And just as I believe that Nancy Pelosi means well when she pushed for unprecedented levels of centralized power and control over the U.S. economy with Cap-and-Trade legislation.

But whether you intended to be wrong, or you are mistakenly wrong – you’re still wrong.  Whether you meant to propose something that is contrary to the very heart of American republican democracy, or you accidentally proposed such a load of rubbish – it’s still rubbish.

What we need in this country is more school choice, not less.  We need more parental involvement, not increased decision-making responsibility in the hands of Department of Education officials.  We need for principals to be able to more easily fire rotten teachers and more frequently reward outstanding ones.  We need more financial accountability and transparency in our education system, not less.

None – and I mean none – of those (and many other) things are possible in a centrally-planned, socially-engineered bureaucratic quagmire like the one we currently have.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote extensively and spoke passionately on the subject of school choice and school vouchers.

Dr. Friedman was concerned about the practical, logistical components of the education system and its flaws, and he offered many tangible solutions for improving it, but he also was aptly able to take a step back and see the underlying conflict this issue embodies: the tension between centralized control and individual choice.

I could, with the best of intentions, put an end to all automobile accidents tomorrow by outlawing cars.  But are we willing to sacrifice the freedom, comfort, and time-saving miracle of an automobile so that I and my good intentions can sleep easier at night?  What about all the lives that are saved because ambulances and first-responders can get to the scene of an accident or house-fire so much quicker than the horse-and-buggies of yore?

The United States of America is different precisely because we chose liberty over forced equality or pie-in-the-sky Utopian schemes.  Our freedom to choose is one of our great strengths, not crippling weaknesses.

There are ways to cut down on the number of automobile deaths each year without banning cars.  There are ways to improve education without putting an end to private education.

Sadly, for all of us, progressive liberals tend to pursue the choices that put an end to choice.  They support the alternatives that leave the rest of us without any.

“Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.”  -Thomas Sowell

Milton Friedman's Free to Choose is one of the most influential books written in the past 50 years.  In it, Nobel prize-winning Dr. Friedman explains the intricate link between economic, political, and religious freedom.  One of the most important chapters in his book, "Cradle to Grave," dissects the problem with the welfare state that progressive liberals promote.   Thankfully for those of us with shorter attention spans, PBS actually allowed a 10-week miniseries on Free to Choose to air back in 1980.  Here's the beginning segment from the "Cradle to Grave" episode.  Watch it!