by Lady Liberty
09/28/2003

In recent days, many of us have mourned the loss of music great Johnny Cash and the sudden death of actor and comedian John Ritter. I'm no exception. I felt sorry that Cash had passed away (though his death was not unexpected), and actually shed a few tears over Ritter's demise. I even felt a small cloud over my head for a couple of days after I first heard the news. But why is that? Why do we grieve for men the vast majority of us never even met?

Perhaps we feel the loss because, though we didn't know them, we feel as though we did. Maybe a particular lyric in a Johnny Cash song tugged at us and made us say, even if just to ourselves, "Yes! I feel exactly like that!" Or it could be because John Ritter visited many of us regularly in our own living rooms through our TV screens, and when he did, he made us smile. Millions wept when Princess Diana died, yet almost none of us could say we knew her personally. But she embodied a dream most of us had at one time or another, and with her death our fantasy was forever and irreparably tarnished.

Americans are, by and large, emotional and unafraid to show it. I was in a department store the day of the space shuttle Columbia tragedy and, as I watched events unfold on a display television set, I stood there and wept. I suppose I should have been a little embarrassed, but there was no reason when I looked at the others also watching the latest news and who had tears sliding down their cheeks as well. And we celebrate in public just as unashamedly. Who hasn't seen the over-the-top joy of the winning Superbowl team, or the Olympic gold medal ceremony honoring a broadly smiling, teary-eyed athlete?

Americans also tend to be outspoken, something that citizens of other countries sometimes find bemusing and often find insulting. But telling it like we see it, whether we're speaking factually or with all the conviction of a much-loved opinion, is almost a hallmark of our citizenship. And we're an information culture in this country, so we hear the facts - and often the fallacies - and then establish and broadcast our opinions almost at the speed of light.

That's why I find it so puzzling that Americans aren't more upset, as a group, over the grave threats to so many of our civil rights. We weep over men we've never met, and talk to our friends and acquaintances about how we've been affected by their deaths. Yet we complacently ignore the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act, the proposed PATRIOT II and VICTORY Acts, and other less well known legislations are systematically stealing our rights away from us.

Johnny Cash and John Ritter have gone and left holes in our lives because, as I said, we felt we knew them. Perhaps many of us aren't feeling other losses because we don't know them nearly as well.

Even the members of Congress have acknowledged that education in American history and civics has been lacking. That's why the Senate has submitted S. 504, and the House is considering H.R. 1078, the "American History and Civics Education Act of 2003." These bills would "establish academies for teachers and students of American history and civics and a national alliance of teachers of American history and civics." The academies would be created via competitive grants to non-profit educational institutions which would, in turn, offer workshops to teachers and outstanding students. Great idea, right? Not necessarily.

Gunowners of America has spoken out  against the Act because it fears the legislation "would continue the dangerous trend towards erasing our foundational principles from America's schools - principles such as the right to keep and bear arms." Although a WorldNetDaily article on the subject quotes a spokesman who denies any anti-Second Amendment bias to the proposed program and says, in fact, that no curriculum has yet been developed, GOA's fears are far from baseless.

Previous federal legislation passed allegedly to improve the quality of education in this country resulted in the publication and widespread use of a textbook entitled "We the People." That textbook not only encourages students to question the wisdom of the Second Amendment, but to decide what "limitations" should be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. The book also encourages students to think globally rather than nationally or locally, in essence promoting the UN and UN resolutions as being above and beyond the Constitution, particularly  when it means America could live in greater "harmony" with the rest of  the world.

That train of thought, of course, directly threatens the entire Bill of  Rights. The UN has already issued resolutions that subvert everything  from the right to free speech to property ownership (UNESCO ) and its designations of "world heritage" or "bio diversity" sites are a prime example of good motives resulting in bad policy) to the right to keep and bear arms . And while the UN considers its proclamations to supersede the constitution of any sovereign nation, its own guidelines for human rights specifically state those rights can't be exercised if doing so would conflict with the UN.

Aside from fears of textbooks with erroneous or misdirected material, a recently released Albert Shanker Institute  report titled "Education for Democracy"  says that the existing American history and civics curriculum in US schools is "too negative." The report issued findings that included the discovery that students are being taught about negative events in US history but little or nothing of positive events, and that a significant decrease in the number of young citizens voting over the last thirty years is one likely result of that teaching emphasis.

It's patently obvious that an "American History and Civics Education Act of 2003" is needed. What's almost certain to negate any benefit of the legislation and will, in fact, cause far greater damage to students' knowledge of American history, is the likelihood that the National Education Association will have significant input into the resulting teaching academies.

Columnist Alan Caruba calls the NEA "America's Fifth Column", and suggests it is "an enemy within that uses our public schools to turn children against their nation." He reminds us that, at a time when many are justifiably worried about a lack of history and civics education in schools, the NEA has told its members to teach about the events of 9/11, but not to suggest that any group is responsible, and to "discuss historical instances of American intolerance." That's not a lack of history talking. It's a reprehensible re-direction of history, and it's sanctioned by the very organization we've been relying on to set the curriculum from which our children are to learn.

Yes, we feel the loss of certain famous men and women because we felt we knew them. And we're comforted somewhat by the realization that Johnny Cash will remain alive as long as his recordings are heard, and John  Ritter won't die while Jack Tripper cavorts in re-runs. But how long can  the Constitution and Bill of Rights survive when fewer remember it every  year, and many today don't get to know it at all?

Lady Liberty
March 11, 2003