War on Christianity??

Members of the Christian community are still pushing the idea that there is a national war on Christianity. Do you remember the "War on Christmas"? Same type of rhetoric, I suppose.

Here's my take on the whole thing:

1- I'm a Christian, and the most persecution I've ever felt is having a rock thrown at me by a school kid while I was a missionary in Chile (more an annoyance than anything). However, my Mormon ancestors were driven out of their homes in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois before they came to Utah (It was legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri for a time under Governor Boggs's Extermination Order). So, my faith knows something of persecution, but no real problems recently.

2- I believe that the problems Evangelical Christians are having is because they are too involved in politics as an organization. Now, I believe that people of faith should have a voice in politics, and I believe that it is good; however, when a faith endorses a political party or a candidate with the type of financial and political support that some have done with Bush, DeLay, and others, they have gone too far.

Religion is a private matter that should govern one's private life if they so choose. It can help a person decide which candidate to vote for, which school to send their kids to, which programs they watch on TV, or a myriad of other decisions that are PERSONAL decisions. It can even guide politicians in the decisions they make. I believe that they should make value judgments on issues. However, no religion should donate to or support a political party, and no party should make religion the focus of their policies.

Furthermore, I believe that this new declaration is more of a red herring to try and garner support for DeLay. If the mantra, "DeLay is a persecuted Christian about to be martyred for the faith," catches hold, the indicted congressman just might be able to keep his job. Shame on those who would use religion as a political tool. I've said it again and again.

Cheers,
Jeff

Kanab's "Natural Family Resolution"

Well, I'm back from my little "vacation" with my students. It wasn't too much of a vacation. It was work, but it was fun. While on my trip, our bus driver, Roger, brought to my attention a serious issue in Kanab, Utah.

For those not familiar with Kanab, it is a small town of about 3,000 people that lies in the extreme southern part of Utah. It is 60 miles or so from Page, Arizona, and less than two hours from the Grand Canyon and several other national parks. If you are coming to Utah to see the desert beauty, Kanab is a great place to start.

Kanab is also home to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, which I visited on my field trip (AWESOME!). Best Friends has been at the center of controversy in Kanab recently. The sanctuary apparently published a pamphlet that said Kanab was a good place for gay people to come. They praised the town for being open-minded and respectful of homosexuals and their lifestyle. Boy, were they in for a shock.

In response to this pamphlet, Kanab's city council and mayor passed a resolution called the "Natural Family Resolution." The Salt Lake Tribune explains the high points (I use the word "high" loosely) of the resolution:

The nonbinding resolution - drafted by the conservative Sutherland Institute - calls marriage between a man and woman "ordained of God" and urges homes to be open to a "full quiver of children." It also encourages young women to become "wives, homemakers and mothers" and young men to grow into "husbands, home builders and fathers."

It also says that families who do not meet these criteria--ie. any non-traditional family, including homosexual families--do not merit the protection of law as a family.

Needless to say, this resolution has sparked a huge fire in southern Utah, an overwhelmingly conservative area with a huge population of LDS people, or Mormons. It has also put The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) right in the middle of the whole mess, which is why I feel I must set the record straight.

As a Mormon, I'm appalled at the action of the city council and the mayor in Kanab. It appalls me on several levels:

1- It changes the image of Kanab from a loving, respectful community to a prejudiced and ignorant community.

2- It makes the LDS Church look terrible. The Church does not support political action of this type, it is not affiliated with the Sutherland Institute, and its leader, Gordon B. Hinkley, has said that our first responsibility toward the homosexual community is to "love them as sons and daughters of God."

3- By making this a religious issue, the people responsible for this resolution ignore the fundamental principle of separation of church and state, an issue I have already blogged about.

4- Kanab's livelihood is based on tourism. This resolution will hurt that industry as this story develops into a national issue, which it will.

The people of Kanab, both conservative and liberal, need to stand up for their town. This resolution should be repealed, and the dignity that Kanab once showed of being a good town for all types of people to live should be restored.

I have a lot more to say on this issue, and I will continue in future posts.

Cheers,
Jeff

Out of Town

I'm off on a field trip with my students. I will be gone about a week, so I won't be able to blog. Sorry about the delay.

Until then,
Jeff

Why Are We Allowing This??!!

Yesterday, the Senate approved legislation to allow our country to borrow $781 billion dollars in order to avoid raising taxes or cutting money from domestic programs. The money, of course, will go to fund the on going debacle in Iraq and the war on terror.

This new loan will raise the national debt ceiling to the point that every man, woman, and child in America will owe approximately $30,000 each. This type of borrowing and spending is outrageous. By 2005, President Bush had borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 presidents combined!!

President Bush needs to bite the bullet and roll back his tax cuts on the wealthy (and that would be just a start). He needs to show fiscal discipline after the model of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. We cannot continue on this course to financial ruin. Something must be done. This is bad for the economy and for national security (if we owe foreign entities, which we do), and these are two things that we keep hearing are just fine from the Bush administration.

It's time for America to wake up and challenge this administration. We can't continue to throw pebbles at the problem. Republicans and Democrats alike need to say enough is enough.

Cheers,
Jeff

Book Review

I recently finished reading Mark Haddon's novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. It tells the story of Christopher John Francis Boone, a young man who is autistic. Christopher discovers his neighbor's dog has been murdered, and he decides that it is his duty to solve the crime. He uses his super math and memorization abilities and a lot of heart in order to solve the mystery.

This novel is delightful. I worked with kids who had mental disabilities while I was in college, and Christopher struck a chord with me. His first-person narrative is wonderfully written in the matter-of-fact style that only someone familiar with autism could produce. The story is also full of drama as Christopher's world falls apart around him and as he makes discoveries that will change him forever. I would recommend this book highly.

To those readers who are sensitive to profanity, this book has some harsh language. That would be my only worry in recommending to everyone. Some people worry about that more than others.

I love this book.

Cheers,
Jeff

Kerry for Energy Reform

I'm so sick of hearing that Democrats don't have a plan. While I believe that the Dems are pretty disheveled right now, I do think they have a plan for how to better America. One of the huge issues that we face right now is energy reform. We are too reliant on Middle Eastern oil--and on oil period. We are using natural resources at an alarming rate, and global warming is becoming a huge problem.

John Kerry sent out an e-mail today outlining his plan for helping us through this energy crisis that we face in America. Here is his five-step plan:

1. INCENTIVIZING RENEWABLE ENERGY

More than 20 states have implemented market-based Renewable Energy Portfolio programs that require utilities to gradually increase the portion of electricity produced from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. We should build on that success at the national level. Tell your Senators to enact a nationwide Renewable Portfolio Standard so that 20% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that implementing this policy would save $26.6 billion and that commercial and industrial customers would be the biggest winners.

2. PROMOTING BIO-ENERGY

We have the ability to transform our transportation sector from one that fuels our addiction to one that drives us toward a sustainable future. The President should build on that demand and fuel new production opportunities by supporting a mandate that agriculture will provide 20% of the total energy consumed in the United States by 2020.

3. INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

In addition to developing new sources of energy, we must make better use of available energy. New technological advances in appliances, energy grid systems, and buildings can boost productivity, create jobs, improve the reliability and safety of the energy infrastructure, and make dramatic inroads in reducing air pollution. Congress should enact energy efficiency measures to decrease energy use by 20% by 2020.

4. PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUPER-EFFICIENT VEHICLES

The government should provide an aggressive set of tax incentives and grants for consumers and for industries that are retooling plants to promote the manufacturing and purchase of hybrid vehicles, which run on a combination of gas and electric power to sharply increase efficiency. Twenty percent of all passenger cars and trucks on the road should be high-efficiency, low emissions hybrids by 2020.

5. SETTING AMERICA FREE FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL

Today, America spends more than $500,000 per minute on foreign oil or $30 million per hour. We paid more than $42 billion for Persian Gulf imports alone in 2005. It is bad enough that these dollars will not help grow our domestic economy -- it is even worse when you consider their impact on our national security. Congress should act to eliminate America's oil imports from the Middle East by 2020.

Kerry's plan is good, and we should support it. It is a far more common sense plan than drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness.

Cheers,
Jeff

Roe v. Wade for Men??

I just watched a segment on Anderson Cooper's show that chronicled the fight of a young man seeking reproductive rights for men. He has an 8-month old daughter that he never wanted, and he doesn't want to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend. Therefore, he is suing his ex and seeking a court order to suspend the child support. In exchange, he will have nothing to do with the child, which he doesn't anyway.

I think this is a joke. I have a pretty moderate view on abortion. I think that women should have the choice in cases of rape or incest, and I also think that if there are serious health risks to the mother, an abortion is sometimes necessary. But, I absolutely believe that no man who has helped to conceive a child through consensual sex--men can be raped too--should be absolved from at least some financial responsibility of that child. If a man absolutely does not want a child, as this man apparently does not, he should get a vasectomy or abstain from sex (or at bare minimum make sure he uses a condom every time even if other contraception is being used, which he didn't because he thought--she did too--his girlfriend was infertile. Plus she was taking the pill). Otherwise, if the couple accidentally gets pregnant and the woman chooses to keep the baby, the man has some responsibility.

This is a case of a dead-beat dad who wants to have a legal way out. He needs to grow up and face the consequences of his actions.

I will post a transcript of the 360 piece when it's available.

Cheers,
Jeff

Update:

Here is the transcript of the piece. You'll have to scroll down to find it. It's toward the bottom.

Good for Chile

I lived in Chile for two years as a missionary for my church, and I'm excited to see that they have elected a female president. I was there when former President Lagos was elected. He was overwhelmingly popular as I believe his successor, Michelle Bachelet, will be.

Ms. Bachelet was sworn in today. Good for Chile, and good for the women around the world.

CNN has the story.

Jeff

Orwell and the Junior Spies

In George Orwell's prophetic novel 1984, the ruler of Oceania, Big Brother, praises children who spy on adults. They are especially praised if they turn in their parents to the authorities. They are the Junior Spies, and they are the most feared of all the weapons that Big Brother has. Orwell modeled them after Hitler's Youth.

Now, in America, there are young people that are being encouraged to spy on adults and to report back to the right-wing media. On Hannity and Colmes (Friday, March 3), Sean Allen was interviewed. He was the student who recorded his teacher Jay Bennish for twenty minutes as the teacher talked about Bush's State of the Union Address. Among other things, Bennish said that some people compare George Bush to Hitler. Allen then, with the help of his father, delivered the audio to a right-wing radio show in Denver. The tape soon spread to the internet and the blogosphere, and Bennish was subsequently put on leave (He will return to class on Monday).

While I disagree with much of what Mr. Bennish said in his lecture, I agree with how he said it. He said repeatedly that he didn't care if they agreed with him or not. He just wanted them to think about it and form their own opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is what Hannity said about the issue to his young guest. Who's indoctrinating the young minds now?

Now every left-wing teacher knows that there might be a Sean in their class that might be recording their statements. Now, if they are so confident to say it in front of a captive audience of students, young students, then they ought to be able to debate them publicly. So I want to applaud you. You may have done more for the educational system than anybody has done in years.

There are a couple of problems with Hannity's reasoning. First, teacher's lectures are the intellectual property of the teacher and are therefore protected against outside classroom use, except for educational purposes. Second, Mr. Bannish's words were taken out of context. The world heard a 20-minute clip of a 45-minute class. Any time you take something out of context, you distort its meaning. We may never know the full context of that lecture. Perhaps the other 25 minutes were spent praising Bush. Perhaps. Third, Hannity is advocating fear and intimidation of teachers. Scaring teachers into submission will not work. Most teachers are very capable of doing other jobs that pay better and have less stress. Pressure them in this way, and they will find different jobs--I guarantee it. And lastly, in typical Hannity style he plays the bully card. "They ought to be able to debate them publicly," he says. With whom, Sean? You? It's easy for Hannity to sit and be the bully with anyone he debates because he controls the context. Get him off his show, without the cameras or fans, and make him debate an issue point by point with any liberal in America, and he will lose. He wins debates by bullying his way through them. Maybe if he debated more in private he would see that it's harder than debating in public when you control the entire environment.

On a side note, Hannity criticized Bannish for not teaching Geography, which was the assigned curriculum. He has apparently never read the curriculum for a geography class because if he had, he would have seen that it is not just about mountains and valleys; it is about politics, government, social construct, and customs as well. Maybe Hannity should come to a classroom and debate the value of knowing what you're talking about before you run your mouth.

What Hannity is advocating is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. He is sending the Junior Spies out to get the liberals out of the schools. I guess Craig Crawford is right--we all need to re-read Orwell.

Cheers,
Jeff

Education: The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy??

Mr. Kyle's AP Government class in New Jersey is still being slammed by the right for allowing kids to think for themselves about government. Fox News's Joe Scarborough blasted the Jersey teacher on his show last night. Among other things Scarborough said this:

This isn't about free speech. This is about slandering the commander in chief at a time of war.

Slander, Mr. Scarborough? Slander is defined as "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Mr. Kyle's assignment comes no where near doing this. First, it makes no false statement whatsoever. It just asks the kids to think about an issue that is being discussed around the world. Second, how does what goes on in a high school class of thirty students damage the reputation of the President of the United States? It's silly to think so. Dropping the word slander is propagandizing the issue.

If Scarborough would have stopped at the slander comment, I probably would be blogging about something else tonight, but he didn't. To close the segment, Scarborough went on a rant about how the liberal public education system was polluting the minds of our youth. Here's what he said:

Friends, let me tell you what I think. I think we've got a system here across America, where you've got school teachers, you've got liberal unions, you've got liberal principals. They're going in and they're polluting our children's mind [sic.], and guess who's paying them to do that. You're paying them to do that, and I'm paying them to do it. Meanwhile, you've got people sitting back like the town councilman, who are saying, "Hey, you know what? It's free speech." No, it's not free speech. It's perverse. It's completely wrong.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to start, so I'll begin with the only thing that's right in it. The national teacher's union, NEA, leans left politically because the liberals are the only party that want to pay teachers a decent wage. One fact for Scarborough. The rest of his tirade is false. As I stated in my last post, teachers, principals too, normally reflect the values of the community in which they live. There may be a few exceptions, but for the most part, liberal communities have liberal teachers, and conservative communities, like the rural Utah town I grew up in, have conservative teachers. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy among educators to "pollut[e] our children's mind[s]."

What Scarborough's opinion does show is the utter contempt that the right has for public education. They never say anything good about public ed. Their rhetoric is "teacher's aren't doing their jobs," "public education is a disgrace," and "home-schooling or private education are the only ways to ensure that your child gets a good education." Further, their solution for the problem is not to pay teachers more to ensure that quality people enter the field, or to hold parents more accountable for their children's education, or to build more schools to lower class sizes, or to encourage teachers to use innovative instruction and assessment techniques (the testing that No Child Left Behind advocates is about twenty years out of date). No, their solution is to privatize it. Give parents vouchers to send their kids to private schools or charter schools and education will improve. Hold teachers' feet to the fire and they will do a better job. It just doesn't work that way, nor does it in business, which is the model they are using.

Private schools tend to perform better on standardized tests than public schools for two reasons--they don't have open enrollment, and since parents pay for tuition, they tend to be more involved. The key to improving public education is not to vilify it as the right does or to blindly throw money at it as the members of the left sometimes suggest. The key is to motivate parents, teachers, and students in a real way. Grades are shallow motivation. A diploma is necessary, but too easy to obtain. And, many students do not see a need to fall in love with learning. Activities like the one in Mr. Kyle's class are things that students don't forget. They help build a passion for learning and thinking that will be that intrinsic motivation that kids need to keep learning well into their adult years. Why are conservatives trying to stop that?

I will say one thing: teachers will become a bunch of liberals if conservatives don't start treating us better. If Scarborough, et al. don't want to see a vast left-wing conspiracy in our schools, they better change their tone.

Cheers,
Jeff

Why is it wrong to make kids think?

This weekend has brought criticism to the teaching profession for two incidents--one in New Jersey and one in Colorado. I've been appalled at the reaction from right-wing bloggers, who have called for the heads of two teachers.

As a preface to this, I will say that there are three things that teachers should do, and if they do them, they are helping to better our nation. They are 1) teach responsibility and values, helping students to be good citizens, 2) impart content (English, math, science, history, art, etc.), and 3) help students learn how to think for themselves, allowing them to research, form, and defend opinions. Students who have been given 1 and 3 tend to do much better on standardized tests that measure 2. Unfortunately, often giving students the opportunity to think for themselves meets with severe resistance. As evidence, I give you the two examples from last week.

In New Jersey, teacher Joseph Kyle is having his students hold a hearing for President Bush in which the President (in absentia, of course) is accused of "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners." The students are performing the roles of prosecution and defense, with several students being witnesses. A panel of 5 teachers will be the jury in the trial. The students have done all the research and prepared all their own legal arguments. It is an assignment that students will never forget.

Unfortunately, Kyle is being vilified by conservatives who are ranting about "liberal academics" who are trying to indoctrinate young minds with their "socialist" agenda. Not only do these attacks ignore the fact that most public school teachers reflect the political ideology of their community (my high school in rural Utah was overwhelmingly conservative), but they also, and more ignorantly, miss the value of such an assignment. The problem with education right now is that we can't challenge students to think. Education that focuses on passing multiple-choice, standardized tests is not education because it does not require critical thinking. Challenging students to think about and defend positions is essential to maintaining an educated electorate and a well-oiled democracy.

Trials of this type are common in public schools. In a European History class that I took as a senior, we put Henry VIII on trial for killing his wives and breaking from the church. In a debate class we argued the merits of the formation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by Bill Clinton. My teacher blasted Clinton daily, and it was okay. He made me think. Mr. Kyle has used this technique before by putting Andrew Jackson on trial for crimes against Native Americans and by holding an impeachment hearing for President Clinton while Clinton was in office. Students learn debate skills, legal procedures, current events, and critical thinking skills from this type of assignment. What more can we ask?

In Colorado, a teacher was put on administrative leave because in a lecture he said that some people believe George Bush is like Hitler, referring to Bush's black and white, us and them mentality. I've listened to 20 minutes of his lecture, and it is partisan, but at the end of it he says that he just wants them to think about these things and form their own opinions. Isn't that the goal of education? Don't we want kids to be able to think for themselves and to be able to defend the opinions that they've formed?

I had a teacher in high school who said that Bill Clinton had turned the White House into a bordello. That was an unfair assessment, just like the Colorado teacher's assessment of Bush=Hitler wasn't a fair assessment (although he didn't say "Bush is like Hitler"; he said some people think that). However, it challenged the kids to think about what they believe. The young man recording the lecture in the audio is challenged to come up with arguments to defend his point of view. That's good for kids to do.

Why is it wrong to make kids think? Why can't we let them ask questions and form their own opinions? Why can't we challenge their opinions and make them defend them in order to examine the merits of such opinions?

If we can't do these things, then we truly will force public school into the abyss, and millions of young Americans will be denied the opportunity of a good education. That would truly be a tragedy.

Cheers,
Jeff

O'Reilly's Absolutely Crazy

In what appears to be proof that Bill O'Reilly is certifiably insane, the right-wing pundit threatened to sick FOX Security on a caller for mentioning the name "Keith Olbermann" in a call.

Media Matters has the clip.

I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't heard it, but I think Bill is feeling the cruch from Olbermann's popularity. In any case, he's lost it.

Cheers,
Jeff

Plame's Covert Status

A recent Newsweek article blows apart Scooter Libby's defense that Valerie Plame did not have covert status when she was outed by Robert Novak. It says:

But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

If the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal her identity," it would stand to reason that her identity was classified. This analysis is consistent with earlier reports of the memo that was circulated around Air Force One on which the paragraph with Plame's name was marked "S" for secret. The Washington Post reported about this memo in July of last year:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Furthermore, there is new information that is being reported by Raw Story that Plame was working on Iranian nuclear proliferation when she was outed. There have been few reports about Plame's actual assignment when she was outed, but this new article suggests that her disclosure may have had a far more reaching impact than what the administration would have us believe.

Here's just a snippet:

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

Now, I'm not about to suggest that everything in Raw Story is bona fide accurate, but if this story is true and if Libby's testimony that he was just following orders from above is true, this case will be a huge blow to the administration that is already embattled. Of course, I'm sure that there will still be people who will choose to take the side of Bush/Cheney, but that is just because of the 30-30 Partisan Blindness Principle. However, I don't believe that the American public will stand for it if these facts come out.

Even if the Raw Story article is proven to be untrue (I doubt it will be), Plame was still undercover, her identity was classified, members of the administration knew her identity was classified, and they leaked it to the press for political gain. Why people are still defending this act and impuning the character of Plame and Joe Wilson is beyond me.

And, don't forget that Wilson's assessment on yellowcake in Niger was right on. Iraq did not try to buy Uranium from the African nation. Wilson told the truth. Libby, Rove, Cheney, and the rest did not.

And the spurious claim of nepotism that the administration was trying to make by outing Plame doesn't hold water either. There are few Americans with as many contacts and diplomatic ties in Niger than Wilson.

These are the facts. Anything else is a red herring. If Wilson misspoke and said that the VP's office sent him when it was really the CIA at the behest of the VP's office, if Plame had worked at a desk for a year or two before the outing, if Libby claims that he didn't know she was covert, it is all irrelevant. Her identity was classified. It was leaked to silence a critic who has been proven correct. This whole affair is dirty politics and administration hubris at its core.

Cheers,
Jeff

An Appeal to Virtue

I've been reading the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis quite a bit lately. I've also been reading Ayn Rand a bunch too. I'm not sure how well those two would have gotten along, but I find amazing things in common with each.

While reading Lewis's work The Problem of Pain, I came across the following quote:

A consistent practice of virtue by the human race even for ten years would fill the earth from pole to pole with peace, plenty, health, merriment, and heartsease, and [...] nothing else will.

It sounds so simple, but it's not. However, in this time of turmoil in which we live, I believe that it is very important that we work on ourselves and on our own sense of virtue. It is the one force that can change the world.

God Bless,
Jeff