An elementary school in New Rochelle (Westchester County, NY) assigned its children the task of coloring in pictures of The Obama.
Quoth:
The drawings depicted Obama in various heroic poses, flags waving in the background, but one drawing went beyond adulation into overt political activity disguised as a pedagogical exercise. The drawing is a campaign button, in the center of a circle Barack Obama is smiling surrounded by another circle with the words "Students for Obama 2008".
I don't want to steal all of Robert Cox's (the reporter) hard work, so you'll have to go to the link to see the button. It's delightful.
I can't wait for the giant portraits of The Obama overlooking city squares. Won't that be fun?
HEY! TEACHERS! LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE!
So, why is this evidence for getting rid of the public school monopoly? Choice, of course!
For Conservatives, Choice is less about slaughtering fetuses and more about where and how you get to educate them should they survive the gauntlet that is the modern womb.
To point out the unnecessary for the umpteenth time, if someone did this with George W. Bush in late January of 2001, would Progressives think it was so magical? Of course not.
(What's funny is how many of these kids grow up thinking only Conservative Christians were indoctrinated in their youth.)
Progressives are fond of saying that teaching students Creationism (or whatever it's called) will make them all ignorant to the facts of biology. I can see the point, but let's remember that the generations before 1950 were all taught some variation of it, and that the education system in America since has not exactly covered itself in glory.
That is, if you want an indicator of a poor education, you're probably going to have better luck looking at fool things like sycophantic coloring assignments and politically-correct multicultural classes than spending a day or two trying to fit the square peg of Genesis into the round hole of geology, astronomy, anthropology, anatomy, the fossil record and genetics.
++
Don't want to paint with too broad a brush here, but whenever you see a guy with the Paul Krugman beard, if he isn't retired Navy, he's probably a leftist. Its semiotic value is supposed to convey an outdoorsy ruggedness and wisdom: "I'm comfortable with home-composting and I've read Flaubert."
It's like the whole t-shirt-and-sport-jacket thing. You find it a lot on academics. Not that I would ever presume to predict the behavior of free-thinking, true seekers of wisdom.