Log in  |  Search

Pajamas Patriotism

Did you know that if the American economy returned to the “gold standard” monetary system, as libertarians and other right-wing social Darwinists urge, our immortal national soul would be spared and so would your Lord-fearing wallet?

And did you realize that patriotism and progressivism are incompatible and mutually exclusive, according to these protectionists of privilege and portfolio?

If you want to save your country from ruin and takeover, then close your eyes (or better yet, blind them with pokers) and be led by the likes of the bloggers at Pajamas Media,  the supply-siders of motherhood, apple pie and those other quaint Yankee things that folks in lands with more equitable distribution of riches cannot relate to.

They prescribe panaceas for everything that ails America, especially in education.

In “Beyond Politics: Removing the Progressive Drag on America,” Jeff Perren advocates “fighting the soul-killing, wealth-destroying acts of progressives” and “neutralizing their influence throughout the culture.”

He claims “They control curricula for public K-12 education almost everywhere… dominate credential-required education courses, and strongly influence test book selection.”

Does he mean “neutralize” in a military sense?  He sounds like a guy who likes his earth scorched.

Perren, whose embrace of free enterprise (as in “anything goes”) allows him the inexcusable liberty of reassigning meanings of words and mixing and matching synonyms, goes on to use the term “post-modern” interchangeably with “progressive.”  Perhaps he believes that the same Constitutional Second Amendment that entitles him to brandish a pistol on his hip while at work or at play also guarantees his right to mutate the language.

He says that “post-moderns” (he also calls them “liberals”, as well as “progressives”, using those terms as epithets) have dominated the film and television industries disproportionate to their numbers. He yearns for yesteryear when “their views very sparsely infected the law.”

His thoughts and perhaps some companion imagery that he may conjure to amuse himself is chillingly derivative of certain European bureaus of “popular enlightenment” in the 1930s.

We who are the beneficiaries of Perren’s loathing (and we are an extended family) should be proud of it.  We are in some admirable company:

He accuses Scientific American of being “an organ for anthropogenic global warming propaganda” which represents a “full-scale assault on all classical values… freedom and industrial production.”

Perren is mired in the mainstream of kookdom.

The role of government-sponsored (public) education is to advance the “objective ethics” of a Pax Americana, he would say. Unfortunately, he has a highly subjective grasp of objectivity.

He wants American values and culture, as he defines those terms, to rule our schools and indeed the world, but he wants absolute and non-negotiable “laissez-faire” when it comes to textbooks and teachers presenting any opposing convictions.

Perren is so hostile to “progressivism” that I bet he’ll eventually change his surname so it starts with a different letter.

What, exactly, does “progressivism” mean, anyway, in regards to education? What do its practitioners stand for? Why do non-sages like Perren peg its proponents practically as enemies of the state? What are the relationships between “progressivism” and “progress” and “libertarian” and “liberty”?

This small closet of Internet space cannot accommodate an exploration of progressivism. But it’s a sure bet that if it is antithetical and a foil to Perren’s biases, then it must ultimately be found wholesome and fit for intellectual consumption.


1 Comment:

  • 1 David Marshall
    · Sep 28, 2010 at 2:14 pm


    “[ Footnote 4 ] The intelligence community believed that it was necessary “to conceal these activities from the American public in general,” because public knowledge of the “unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission.” Id., at 394 (quoting CIA Inspector General’s Survey of the Technical Services Division, p. 217 (1957)).” See [Footnote 4 of IV] U.S. 709 U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiment case. [3] The “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[9] In accordance with the ongoing greater good necessity “to conceal these activities…” a veteran’s right to get the U.S. Senate’s “designed to harm” needed for treatment, and experiment identifying, evidence never became law.

    To-date rejected is the U.S. Senate 1994 Report’s, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[8] Despite the 16 of 66 year efforts of some, the U.S. Congress has failed to protect service personnel from “to harm” experiments. Therefore, do not the U.S. Senate’s reported Department of Defense (DOD) “EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM” [8] continue? All conducted under the cover of Patriotism!

    Please have your members in the U.S. Congress give back to service personnel and veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep, e.g., “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of” [prison] “inmates for medical…..experiments.”! See page 13 of 14, REF: [6] The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY [3] “to harm” DOD experiment is approved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 FERES [1] ‘can do no wrong, ends justify the means’ Doctrine. The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senate’s 1994 “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., the reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects.[8] It is a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments.[2] During the U.S. Senate’s reported past 50 years, most of the “to harm” service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving records!

    After the 1987 STANLEY, Congress passed the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA).[4] Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. In 1994 its Chief Judge stated, “The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.”[7] Congress dictated that, “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”[4] Given to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is the Judicial Branch’s final authority on “the policies underlying the schedule” questions of law![5]

    Each “to harm” experiment completes a Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is “designed” to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, victim treatment and protection. Accordingly, at the time known are the recorded and withheld “designed to harm” resultant “schedule” disabilities with their identifying symptoms and treatment. Ignored by the U.S. Congress is the service personnel rights lost vs. prison inmate kept!

    Overlooked by many in Congress is our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all” and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored own, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!


    [1] 1950 – Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html

    [2] 1953 – DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

    [3] 1987 – U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html

    [4] 1988 – Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and http://law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND

    [5] “United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.” US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.

    [6] 1994 – U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman
    or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Electronic Research Collections (ERC)

    [7] 1994 – Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. Chief Judge Frank Nebeker’s Statement STATE OF COURT – – – URL: http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm

    [8] 1994 – December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.

    [9] 2005 & 2006 – “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.