The diction of war is even more important in a Tik-Tok world

It's interesting to see how politicians find ways to manipulate language and hope to manipulate voters. "Pro Life" has become the accepted term for one side of the abortion debate, for instance, but the term often seems twisted when real events are considered. Whose life? How long should we be "pro"? What does "pro" even mean here?

In many ways, "anti-abortion" is much more accurate in describing what one side of the issue desires, but that "anti" doesn't appeal to most people. Some people are "anti-vax" but tend to identify as "vaccine skeptics," which seems far more reasonable.

In Colorado, some radical Republican legislators have offered a bill that teies to appeal to the general desire of people for more "transparency." But how much "transparency" is enough, and how many voters really want to see every detail of the "sausage being made," so to speak?

Where do such bills comes from? Certainly not from Rep. Tim Reitner, carrying water for anti-public education and thoroughly anti-Democrat forces. The bill he introduced (which gets a committee hearing this week) is identical to bills in other states... all written by the same man.

Christopher Rufo, an activist who engineered the conservative backlash to critical race theory, drafted model legislation on curriculum transparency last year and set a goal of seeing at least 10 states adopt it. “The strategy here is to use a non-threatening, liberal value — ‘transparency’ — to force ideological actors to undergo public scrutiny,” Rufo tweeted in January. “It’s a rhetorically-advantageous position and, when enacted, will give parents a powerful check on bureaucratic power.”

There is a lot to unpack in Rufo's quote (which basically spills the beans on the bill's intent, upon further reflection). First, it's a rhetorical choice to find the most reasonable word for an action, and assumes most listeners/voters won't spend much time considering the rhetoric.

"Ideological actors" are, based on the bill's details, teachers. Of course! There are just so many educators willing to be underpaid and over-pressured and consistently reviled (unless they are Suzie's teacher, duh!) just to undermine the American Way. For the most demented radicals, teachers are sleeper agents who are warping our values for years.

"Bureaucratic power" is lacking in any sort of transparency, which is is both frustrating and effective. No one likes those damn bureaucrats. Everyone loves those sweet elementary teachers. Attacking Suzie's fifth grade teacher turns off voters. Attacking some faceless entity which is never identified can succeed.

Much like chicken shit George Brachler (who I have mentioned in early posts), who eventually fessed up to filing the request to publish the names of every Douglas County teacher who called out sick a few weeks ago in protest (and then withdrew the request), Rufo also hides behind "transparency" and avoids the nasty implications of making it easier for nut cases to attack (sometimes physically) teachers.

Make no mistake: Radical legislation to force schools and teachers to publish all curriculum, all book lists, all professional development, etc., is not designed to highlight education's successes and encourage the public to feel good about the education their children are receiving.

It's not a question of being proud of what we do as teachers. And it's certainly not to deny that many days teacher efforts do not work out as intended. School is a messy place, physically and psychically.

The question is whether people trust that teachers are professionals and are providing the basic skills and background needed for future American voters.

Putin calls the invasion of Ukraine a "special military operation," and Russian censors have demanded that their own media NOT use terms like "attack, invasion, or war." 

The citizens huddling in bombed out ruins in Ukraine know the truth.

We all do.