A common rhetorical tactic is the 'straw man.' Formally, this is misrepresenting the opposing view. Unless you are very careful surfing, I'm sure you've more than your fill of straw men arguments in this season.

This will be one more. Feel free to skip if you don't feel inclined to indulge me my misrepresentations.

See, the difference is that I know I am creating (baling?) straw men arguments. However, I am at a loss to what other logic could result in my observation, so I'm left with the distasteful alternatives of either leaving it unknown, or positing possibilities.

And, when only one possibly presents itself, then temptation to ascribe intentions to the opposing parties becomes all too easy.

I see a marked campaign against what I feel to be practical education in our public schools. Now, before we continue, I should elaborate what I mean by 'practical education.'

I don't mean rote learning.

I don't mean reflexive judgments of right and wrong.

I don't mean one-size-fits-all policies or lesson plans.

I feel that students are ill-served by people telling them what to think, no matter how well-intentioned. I want my daughter to learn how to think, and I want to work with young adults who have a broad selection of perspectives, experiences, tools and styles.

I joke that my job as an engineer entails trying to foresee problems, and then, when I fail, trying to solve them. While I am a software engineer, I think this mindset benefits our country as a whole.

We speak of international competition for talent. We see countries racing to develop new technologies, for profit, for security, for pride, or for humanity. (Were that the latter be the primary, but I am too cynical for that.)

Now, I admit that free thinking without discipline is wasted potential. We all need some measure of focus and order. I want my fellow engineers to be reliable and trustworthy folk.

I worry the current public education system leans too far toward discipline and homogeneity at its best, and stifling and soul-killing in some policies I see advocated.

I want my daughter to understand not just what is legal, but why the alternative is not. I want her to see the world beyond simply in black-and-white.

I want her to understand what the law says, and what the heart says. Justice is not the law, nor is it determined by the law. At its best, the law seeks to codify justice, but it can never keep pace.

I want her to know that the world is more than simple memorization, more than rote regurgitation. I want her to question. I want her to question authority, to question me. I want her education to encourage her to learn, not to be the whole of her learning.

I see some ill winds today suffocating all this. I worry that, should they come to pass, they will train her to be a drone at a All*Mart or McEatery. I ache at the thought that she be indoctrinated to think that one person's Diety (or should that be 'diety'?) is sufficient authority for all others.

At this desolate possible future, I ask, "Why?"

Here comes the ascribed intention. The only reason I can think of for anyone wishing this on my daughter is that they wish her to be a member of the underclass. See, the rich can afford to school their progeny overseas, or in private institutions that are not subject to No Child Left Behind. Their spawn will be gifted with that which I wish for my child, but will be denied in this bleak world-yet-to-be.

After all, a member of the ruling class will need some larger number of unthinking, obedient servants.