The other day in class we were talking about the chemical spill in West Virginia by Freedom Industries (ironic name, no?) and that discussion led into the topic of renewable energy. I mentioned the windmills we see when we drive down to Iowa to visit my in-laws. That was right around the time a student name Billy chimed in. A little background first...
Billy clearly has very conservative parents who feed him a lot of disinformation. When we do current events, he always makes some sort of anti-Obama comment followed by right wing blogsphere nonsense. The rest of the class usually rolls their eyes (even the Republicans) and, invariably, a debate ensues. Billy is a good kid, though, and is a ton of fun.
When the subject of wind power came up, he asked, "You mean those socialist windmills?"
"What makes you think they are socialist?" I wondered.
"Because Democrats support them so that means they are socialist."
After a brief explanation of the differences between the Democratic Party and socialism, as well as assurances from me that wind power in Iowa is privately owned, Billy seemed to understand the nuance.
I have to wonder how much longer we are going to have to clean out plaque from these poor people...
11 comments:
And you claim you don't indoctrinate your students. Thank you for demonstrating otherwise.
How exactly was I indoctrinating him, NMN? More like deprogramming:)
Did you mention anything about 'renewable portfolio standards'?
Federal tax credits?
Explain how wind can stand in competition without government support
No?
Then you were indoctrinating.
Indoctrinating into what exactly?
Deprogramming from what exactly?
From right wing propaganda that somehow manages equate renewable energy (a platform point of the Democratic Party)from a privately owned company like NextEra Energy with socialism.
Indoctrinating into what exactly?
You do realize that just by saying you need to 'de-program' from the right to into something that the left likes is admitting, de facto, that you are indeed indoctrinating.
If you instead gave them more information, in order to make informed decisions, that would be educating.
But you failed to give the entire story, didn't you?
Just like you completely failed to address the points I made above:
Renewable portfolio standards.
Federal tax credits.
Lack of ability to compete in the market without government support.
You have twice raised the private ownership of the energy company as some sort of talisman that it's product is not socialism.
Bull shit.
Wait. Let me re-phrase that. Classic socialism places the means of production in the hands of the community. I guess you're right, it's not 'socialism'. It is Fascism, where the means of production is still held by private hands yet controlled by government dictate.
But since Fascism is just a different flavor of socialism, it really doesn't matter. And your protests are therefore shallow.
Hmmm...your definition here essentially states that all companies are socialistic in the United States. Socialist financial companies? Socialist Fox News? Socialist Brietbart.com? At least you answered my question, though:)
your definition here essentially states that all companies are socialistic in the United States
Mark sure loves him some straw men.
And he is teaching kids 'critical thinking'?! oh boy....
your definition here essentially states that all companies are socialistic in the United States.
Community, as it relates to commune, a la communism.
Not community as in 'not government'.
Post a Comment