#195 - The Real Body Count

Legacy media types will now be falling over themselves to demonstrate just how insensitive they truly are. Bad enough that they indulge in the sort of grandstanding that we've come to expect from certain celebrities during a crisis of any sort. Now they have pressed for, and won, the opportunity to film dead bodies for their increasingly sensationalistic reports.

This would appear to hearken back to a time when newspapers gleefully published photos of gangster related crime. The bread and butter shots were of those gangsters who themselves were on the receiving end of several automatic rifles. In fact, the gorier the shot, the better it sold. Capitalism at its finest, I suppose. By the time I was growing up, however, the media had implemented a different code. Whether by compulsory or self-inflicted means (I'm no historian on this topic, so I'm not sure) the media had scruples against showing dead bodies in their reports. The closest we ever came to seeing a dead body was when it was completely covered by a blanket while being loaded in the Coroner's van. Crime scenes were verboten unless the body were removed, so that all we ever saw was the chalk outline.

These images - tame though they are by today's standards - were plenty powerful to an impressionable young mind such as mine. I had no need (or, truly, desire) to see an actual body to appreciate the horror associated with whatever shortened that individual's life.

Our consciences have become seared, however, over time. More and more we have become so desensitized to death and destruction, that we (the generic "we") now crave ever more graphic depictions of the violence that surrounds us every day. And the media are the baying hounds who can't wait to unleash that horror into our living rooms.

Two statements stand out in CNN's report of this issue:

CNN's brief argued, "It is not the place of government to replace its own internal judgment for that of a free and independent media."

Perhaps not. But is my right and obligation to exercise discretion as to which media I use to glean my information. That's what free market truly represents, and, I notice, CNN's share is dropping.

Because of controversy about how FEMA and other agencies handled the disaster response, CNN lawyers argued, "it is even more vitally important for the public, Congress and the administration to have an independent view of the conduct of this important phase of the operation."

Or, stated more truthfully, it is vitally important that the news-consuming public have CNN's opinion of the conduct of this important phase of the operation.

I have said it before and I will say it again. What once represented the noble cause of reporting events as they occur has now devolved into a need to shape American political ideology and public opinion using the liberal religion of zero personal accountability.

Is there culpability to be impugned over the fiasco that was Katrina? You bet. Let's start with the media, and work our way up from there.

You certainly can't work any lower.

#194 - Sierra Missed

I want to like the Sierra Club. I really do. As a young lad, I remember going to Sierra Club-sponsored classes on backpacking and actually getting excited about stepping out into nature and seeing the bigger picture. Until, that is, I hefted my first actual backpack, at which point my excitement evaporated.

I love the environment. That is, I love what it should be: clean, robust, and self-sustaining. I worry constantly about how badly we seem to be managing our resources, and the damage we cause as a part of living in "civilization." And so it's easy for me to sympathize with such groups as the Sierra Club whenever they try to make a stand for those resources. I secretly cheer whenever the Club goes after some corporation and stops them from making parking lots out of the territorial home of some obscure species of bird that only mates once every four years.

Call me a closet environmentalist.

By the same token, I have only one caveat to my latent liberalism: I don't favor protecting nature over the needs and, especially, the safety of our citizens both living and yet-to-live.

Michelle Malkin points to this article in the National Review by John Berlau which outlines attempts by the Club to halt upgrades to stretches of the levee system which, up until a couple of weeks ago, protected much of the developed portions of the Mississippi delta. Berlau makes it clear in his article that we cannot simply level blame for the breaches in those levees on the Club or any other organization. It's just too much of a stretch. So this post is not about blaming the Sierra Club for any part of the disaster that we all are anxious to see resolved.

This post is mostly about why I find myself getting irritated with any organization that seems to think that we somehow are merely adjunct to nature and are therefore intruders on terra firma. PETA, for example, gets more upset about the abuse of animals than they do the destruction of unborn babies in this country. I just don't get that. And (for you who are even now whipping out your snarkiest comments) I never will.

Let's focus on New Orleans as an example. The city is nearly 300 years old. The greater New Orleans area is home to over 1.3 million people. Much of that area, as we all know by now, sits below the water line and is in constant threat of flooding. For that one simple reason alone, I cannot understand why so much opposition would be raised against an initiative to shore up and improve the levee systems that protect that many people. It smacks of weakness in our priorities. Let's first reasonably ensure the safety of our citizens, then worry about whether we're about to upset an ecosystem.

Now, I'm certain that such things can be done concurrently. It must be possible to address both needs without upsetting balances already in place. But if we're told that we have only so much money, and we can either protect people or the environment with it, I tend to side with protecting the people.

This is, I realize, a horribly simplistic perspective on the entire situation. As I say, no one can (yet) adjudicate where blame rightly rests for this disaster. There is, I'm sure, more than enough blame to pass around. The finger-pointing has only just begun, and will end only when no one can think of anything else to say about it. I'd say that, in reality, the finger-pointing will have its own nuclear half-life. I therefore do not blame the Sierra Club for any of this.

But I reserve the right to later on, if they deserve it.

#193 - 1941

The gorgeous Mrs. Woody points me in the direction of this article in Meridian magazine. The author, Steve Farrell, describes the unthinkable: An official position of the National Educators Association that actually espouses God, Christ, and religious principles as saving graces for the United States of America.

I actually had come across something like this not long ago as I was researching the NEA and wondering to myself what, exactly, had happened to embitter them so in what is alleged to be an enlightened age.

Of course, before we get too excited about some sort of "hidden agenda" that the NEA might have tucked away deep in the bowels of their humanist creeds, we need context. This is not the manifesto of a modern, atheistic NEA; this was the God-fearing NEA of 1941.

The context, then, is war. A world having entered a conflict as much about ideology as about dominion. A world waiting breathlessly to see if the United States would join the battle and help those who needed our strength, our industry, and our faith. A world filled with increasing hatred and animosity. This was the NEA's considered response to this dangerous time in our country:

The American concept of … government had its roots in religious belief. This ideal of the brotherhood of man roots down into the fundamentals of religion. The teachings of the Hebrew Prophets and of Jesus Christ inculcate the idea of brotherhood. The growth of the idea gave us the concept of democracy in government. It ennobled home life. It emphasized the sacredness of human personality.

Do tell! And where was the ACLU when American children were being spoon-fed this obvious propaganda?

The source, by the way, was an NEA-published document entitled "American Citizens Handbook." It was created to be a resource for anyone, young or old, citizen or immigrant, to prepare to be productive and responsible contributors to society. A noble idea, and one not destined to survive the twentieth century.

In the face of war the NEA advised, "Is it not plain that what the world needs just now is a new devotion to the great religious ideals?"

It boggles the imagination to think that a handbook that was apparently in use throughout the 50's and beyond has, in just a few decades, become obsolete to the mindset of our so-called "professional" educators.

As I say, I've come across similar ideas in American education before. Many of them come from my own experience. Can you ever imagine today having a teacher stand before your class and announce that a prominent American had just been assassinated, and suggest that all bow their heads in silent prayer? Unthinkable, right? And yet, that's what we were counseled to do when, first, Martin Luther King, Jr., and, later, Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated within months of each other during a turbulent 1968 and I was an impressionable 5th grader. I remember going home to discuss these events with Mom, and I remember Mom doing a lot of comforting. With prayer.

Once again we face war. Disasters, both natural and man-made, are increasing in frequency and intensity. (Events, by the way, that have been foretold in the very scriptures that we no longer allow in our classrooms.) In an age of "inclusion," when so much emphasis is being placed on tolerance towards special interests and sensitivity towards all, does it not make sense to remember (and include) those who still believe in the religious principles on which this country was founded? Must we consider that people of faith are "dangerous extremists" and liable to be the cause of all our country's ills?

Some would have us believe that. There are many - a dangerous many - who believe that religion ought to be vanquished and completely removed from society. This sentiment is no different in its practice than was that of all those who fronted the Communist Manifesto as their basis of government. And this sentiment is currently the basis of all propaganda currently being issued by the NEA and all of its affiliated organizations.

In 1950, teachers could advise us to pray.
In 2005 we can sue teachers for even mentioning prayer.

In 1950, teachers could speak the name of God.
In 2005, God is relegated to literature, if at all.

In 1950, teachers could teach the Golden Rule.
In 2005, schools "reprimand" students for using profanity more than five times.

God bless the NEA...

...of 1941.

Katrina Relief

Glenn Reynolds, the omnipresent InstaPundit, calls for a "blogburst" tomorrow in support of Katrina relief efforts. The idea is to encourage donations to your favorite charity that will pledge support to the relief efforts being spearheaded by the American Red Cross.

True to that call, I strongly urge LDS faithful everywhere to perhaps put a bit extra in your fast offerings this week. The timing would be perfect. The Church has already put out a bulletin to the effect that its numerous resources both at the local level as well as from Salt Lake are being made available to the victims of this storm.

I was in New Orleans last year. It's a beautiful city with an old world flair that has rightly become a cultural icon for our country. Mrs. Woody and I have friends who live in the south. It would indeed be a shame if we didn't find a way to provide just as much support to this disaster as was done for the tsunami last January.

Time enough to evaluate, analyze, and criticize later. For now, let's get these people some assistance.


Technorati tags: flood aid Hurricane Katrina

#192 - Worthy of Death

I consider myself to be a quiet supporter of the death penalty. I prefer to remain quiet primarily because it's one of those arguments that cannot be won; those who support it will probably never be convinced not to, and vice versa.

I also refuse to be drawn into a discussion of racial inequities in the dispensing of death sentences. I've heard plenty of empirical evidence on both sides. No winners in that discussion, either.

I personally have always felt that the death penalty should be meted out only in the most brutal and extreme of cases, which in California is still a pretty high number. I may joke about politicians having standing appointments with the executioner out of wishful thinking, but I actually think it would be more cruel to revoke their pensions instead.

However, I have finally found a sector of the population that I believe I can hold prejudice against without guilt or remorse: the idiots that are responsible for the timing of traffic lights.

Specifically, the traffic lights found in Orange County. More specifically, the traffic lights found in the city of Anaheim. If you really pinned me down, it would be the idiots who program the traffic lights at the intersection of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue in the city of Anaheim.

When I first moved to this town, I found it incredible that anyone - no matter how much special interest money they received to get them elected - could possibly approve the installation of a traffic light within 30 yards of such a major intersection, but that's what they did. Then, just to add insult to injury, they apparently hired traffic analysts who interned at Microsoft (motto: "If There's a Way to Take Your Money, We'll Find It!"). I am convinced these are the same geniuses responsible for error messages like "Error 32002: There is no message for this error." When taken in that context, it makes perfect sense that these same mental midgets are now responsible for timing our traffic lights. In Anaheim. At Imperial and La Palma. (Note: I am not trying to be disrespectful of the vertically challenged. I am merely pointing out that these traffic engineers make up a complete six-pack, but lack the plastic thingy that holds them together.)

I favor the death penalty for this entire sub-human race without any need for trial. In fact, I believe that the minute they sign an employment application for any job dealing with traffic engineering, they should be taken to their physical exam on the 27th floor of a civic building (if we don't have one with 27 floors, we should build one for this express purpose) and pushed out of a specially designed breakaway window. It would save us all a lot of grief.

I used to believe that justice would be served by having them simply be subjected to their own idiocy. Make them sit through three lights before having a chance to get through the intersection every afternoon and see how they like it! Let them have 12 SUVs in a row nearly rearrange their car's entire front end so they (the SUVs) can "edge" their way into the intersection before it turns red and park so that no one can get through for yet another light. Better yet, have them move into a left-turn lane that used to be directly opposite another left turn lane, but now has been off-set so that neither car can see around the guy in the opposing lane, thus paralyzing both left-turn lanes for up to three hours! Now that truly reeks of genius, that does!

But the older I get (I age approximately 1 year for every 1 hour I spend waiting for traffic lights nowadays), the more I realize that I would never be satisfied having them suffer through their own stupidity. No, the only logical solution to this problem is death. Immediate death. I favor reinstating the electric chair specifically for the Imperial and La Palma team.

Alas, the ACLU and assorted liberals would never back me up. Ditto the SUV owners, who have not paid attention to a traffic light since Ford came out with Expeditions capable of carrying their own area codes. I'm guessing they use those cell phones to communicate with their kids in the back seat. Nor will I get any sympathy from the powerful Traffic Light Manufacturers Association lobby in Washington. They apparently have dirt on every single Orange County representative in Congress, or this problem would have been addressed years ago.

No, I'm afraid it's up to me to act. I need to go camp out in front of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to make statements that the press will publish. I need to get French journalists to accuse our traffic engineers of abusing steroids. I need to get Governor Schwarzzenwhozits to get my proposal in front of the voters in another special election.

But most of all, I need to start saving my pennies to buy a new civic building.

#191 - It Must Be Monday

And the number one rule for a cynicism-free Monday is...

NEVER read Number Two Pencil and Joanne Jacobs first thing in the morning on an empty stomach.

Kimberly comments about the start-of-school spending spree that many parents indulge in as they prepare to send their kids off to school. Granted, the article on which she bases her comments deals more specifically with college kids, but I have noticed that school shopping has become more of an MTV fashion extravaganza than what it used to be in my day: an opportunity for Mom to buy some clothes that didn't hang three or four inches above my wrists and ankles.

Nowadays, kids seem unable to go to school unless their clothes make a statement. As a youngster, my clothes always made the statement, "I'd rather be anywhere but sitting in this hyperboring sensory deprivation chamber listening to the worst teacher on the planet." At least, that's the statement they made about three weeks into the school year. At the beginning of the school year, my clothes always said, "I just came from Sears!" It always took me a few weeks to give them that stylish "lived in" look. Generally speaking, my Mom probably spent more time worrying that my teachers were thinking I must live in a hobo jungle than in a nice, comfortable suburban home right next door to the school.

The fact is, I never once considered what kind of "fashion statement" I was making. I was a kid. I always played (hard) in the same clothes I wore to school. Consequently, after about two or three months my trousers began to look exactly like a football uniform. Comfortable, but well worn.

I'm not sure who first came up with the idea of wearing attitude statements. Certainly it didn't used to be hard to tell who had money and who didn't. Now, however, it seems clothing needs to be edgier in order to be fashionable. It has to have some sort of "in your face" element before kids will even look at it.

Exhibit A would be this tidbit from Joanne Jacobs the other day. Joanne makes particular mention of the "It's Happy Bunny" phenomenon. "It's Happy Bunny" is the creation of Jim Benton, who appears to want to capitalize on the growing disenfranchisement of today's teens. His web site proudly proclaims that "It's Happy Bunny dislikes everybody." What fun! Of course, just to show that Benton really does have a sense of social and moral responsibility, his web site also states that "It's Happy Bunny" is "for advanced teens and up."

Whew! Glad to hear that! I'd sure hate for anyone to capitalize on some teenager's natural cynicism without taking some responsibility for it! I mean, we very nearly lost control of all those kids sneaking into R-rated movies without their parents. Aren't we glad there are controls in place?

Joanne, of course, hits the nail on the head:

Happy Bunny says: A lot of parents are wimps.

Fortunately, all is not necessarily lost. At least one principal was quoted as saying that such tee shirts would be considered a form of harrassment and not tolerated. At least, not at his school.

Come to think of it, Mrs. Woody and I won't tolerate that sort of thing in our school, either. Nor will we support The Gap™'s retirement fund while we're at it. Mrs. Woody's sister is just too good of a garage saler for that to happen.

#190 - Huh? (Updated)

In the "How'd That Happen?" category: I jumped overnight from "Marauding Marsupial" to "Large Mammal" in the TTLB Ecosystem. I was impressed until I saw the point spread. These are the folks ranked from somewhere around #100 to #1863. I'm at #1803, so my stay here is tentative at best.

On the other hand, this is my highest ranking ever in the system. This is largely thanks to The Bear Flag League, membership in which instantly guarantees you a certain level of linkage. That's what catapulted me into Marsupialhood in the first place.

All of this is very fun, but it does point out one thing: it's possible to rise in rank without doing much of anything. I'm not really into link-whoring, so I don't go begging for folks to please, please, pleeeeeeeeeze link to my blog. And still I get linked. Membership in the League and the LDS Blog Ring have helped, of course, but I joined those confederations because they espouse things I believe in or support. Otherwise, I don't try to cater to any special interests but my own family and those who may also think and feel as I do.

Long live the Ecosystem. With or without me.

UPDATE: Heh. What'd I tell ya? Back down to #3062 this morning. Looks like a whole bunch of my "unique links" dropped off. The Ecosystem giveth, and...

#189 - Welcome to the Woundup! (Updated)

Today we bid welcome to Code Red Mama of In the Hot Seat. Code Red is an LDS blogging and homeschooling Mom. She's added the Woundup to her blog roll, and we are nothing if not a reciprocating outfit. Surf on over and check out her homeschooling adventures.

In the meantime, Red, you'll find more family (and homeschooling) essays at my other blog, "The Inner Dad."

Feel free to visit anytime. I'll be sure to do the same!

UPDATE: David B., hubbie of the aforewelcomed Code Red Mama, joins the roll with his blog entitled "The Whole Note." The title resonates with an old musician, and he has a clean writing style that I appreciate.

Welcome one; welcome all!

#188 - New London - A Great Place (Not) to Live!

(HT: BrianB of Memento Moron)

I have no legal background, and so I leave the dissection and analysis of New London's recent homeowner barbeque to the experts. And while I applaud any community that wants to improve its image, this is just slimy.

If this is true, I sincerely hope that any potential gain the city might have realized through the development is more than offset by people with scruples refusing to buy a home in New London.

"Rent."

For shame.

#187 - Another Reason to Support Judge Roberts

This can only be good. (HT: Drudge)

Key quote:

Roberts wrote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

No argument here.

#186 - A Little More Anguish, Please!

Kimberly Swygert at Number 2 Pencil ably fisks the wild notion that school testing of any kind may cause brain damage. It's a fair bet that the reporter in this case was simply supporting a pre-conceived notion and didn't really bother to fully research the topic. More likely is a need to support the educators unions by giving them more ammunition in their battle against anything that smacks of measuring their own performance by seeing how much the kids aren't learning today, and why.

As Kim puts it:

Translation: We don't like tests with their objective standards for all kids, because it was much easier to teach students when all we had to do was get them to meet their own goals, as opposed to society's. I suppose "literacy" is something Paris would consider one of those evil "comparative standards of excellence."

Rather than dwell on the "tests = victimhood enabling" meme, however, I'd like to flash forward to what happens when we don't test these students enough.

I work in a very large business. Fortune 100 stuff. Aerospace, to be more specific. As you may well imagine, we employ every type of business professional you could possibly imagine. Everything from engineers to scientists to bean counters to keyboard jockeys; we got 'em all. Since I work in a "support organization" I get to deal with multitudes of infants fresh out of college. The funniest part? Having every single one of them state, unequivocally, that they have a "working knowledge of Microsoft Office." I don't work in Human Resources, but I'd wager good money that it's a rare C.V. indeed that doesn't include that statement for anyone interested in a desk job. I'm sure that some career counselor at their school gave a seminar on how to get your foot in the door, and said something like, "ALWAYS say you know how to use Office! They won't even bother shredding your application if you don't say it... they'll just take it home and paper their kid's gerbil cage with it!"

So they say it. Then they come to work in my office and cannot, for the life of them, make a simple trend analysis chart in Excel. "I've been told you know something about computers," they tell me when they introduce themselves in my cubicle. (I long ago had the phrase "COMPUTER DEMI-GOD" tattooed on my forehead for just such emergencies.) "Why won't Excel do what I need it to do?"

Since I am a long-suffering Libra, I always mutter something about "PEBCAK"* under my breath before very graciously helping them create a chart. Of course, I spend the entire session wondering how on earth these people ever managed to graduate from high school. Then I read about "test anxiety" being the cause of no small amount of cerebral trauma, and it all becomes clear to me.

I long ago learned that a person's ability in an office environment like mine has little to do with the education they forced themselves through. In reality, it's those who not only want to learn, but make it their objective to master their field that will ultimately succeed both in business and in life. The degree is, of course, important, but more because it's harder to get promoted without it. The knowledge one accumulates in college may in fact have little bearing on the duties you ultimately will assimilate, or indeed the career path that you decide to pursue once you've established yourself.

By the way, don't even get me started on business communications. Since 1984 I have had two managers who had any concept about the proper construction of a business letter. They both retired before 1990. With the advent of email, most managers have absolutely no concept of how to construct a presentation without relying on increasingly ridiculous lingo and catch phrases. I recently called up a presentation that was created in just such a fashion over ten years ago. I could not, without consulting a glossary compiled about the same time, make heads or tails of the intent of the presentation.

No, I'm all for a little mental anguish before foisting these half-wits on me. It could save them the embarrassment of having me demonstrate for them where to find the "Power" button, and how to use it.

* PEBCAK: "Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard." - my favorite techie phrase!

#185 - Hmmm...

Every parent instinctively knows this.

#184 - PETA Pettiness

Via Michelle Malkin: A PETA exhibit sparks outrage from local NAACP members who were insulted to have black slavery compared to the sale and slaughter of animals.

[sigh]

What does one expect from an organization that sees more harm in the abuse of animals than they do in the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives via abortion?

#183 - The NY Times Declares War

I've never been able to respect the New York Times. Not that I ever tried, of course. Being on the extreme opposite end of the country, I always wondered why they ever tried to peddle themselves here in California. Now I get it: there's a huge liberal market over here, and they sure don't want the LA Times getting all the attention.

The Times (NY variety, that is) has had its fair share of indiscretions over the years. Everything from leaking secret documents, to reporters who can't seem to write without copying someone else or simply making it up as they go. Their scale of moral sensitivity runs from "Sell the paper, dammit!" to "Screw the truth! This is for their own good!" Far from protecting the people's right to know, they instead protect our right to have their opinion.

None of which makes them too far different from any other fish wrapper today.

Now, however, they have truly crossed an ethical line from which there can be no graceful retreat. They have attempted to violate the sanctity of someone's family by gaining unlawful access to the sealed adoption records of the children of Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts.

Hat tip: Matt Drudge

I can only presume that extreme political prejudice against this conservative has driven the Times to undertake a "background check" that seeks to uncover sealed and privileged information of this nature. I cannot imagine, for example, any check of this kind against a liberal nominee. But let's set politics aside for a moment. Let's instead examine the implications of this clear invasion of the Roberts' privacy.

I am an adoptive parent. My two older children were both adopted, and I have very clear memories of the judges in both cases. Each declared, unequivocally, that signing adoption decrees were among the most wonderful of their many duties -- even in family court. They both commented that the joining together of a family was an increasingly rare opportunity these days. Beyond those comments, of course, were the explanations of the legal aspects of adoption. It was, for me, the realization that I was now truly their father in every respect that made the occasion so important to me. These children are every bit as much mine as if I had been their biological father.

The principle of adoption also happens to be an eternal one: If, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the family unit is basic to the Lord's kingdom, then adoption is both a saving as well as a legal principle. These children will now also be mine throughout eternity. No one can take that away from me.

Now, the Times raises the chilling possibility that anyone, in the name of public interest, could try to get my adoption records unsealed to see whether there were any "irregularities" in the process. In my mind, based on my prior statements, this would be tantamount to placing my rights as a biological father in jeopardy -- as if it were somehow possible that my two biological children came to my family through "irregular" means.

Without having direct knowledge of this situation, beyond what has been reported by Drudge, it's difficult to explain why, exactly, the Times felt compelled to pursue this line of investigation. But I can try. I'm certain it begins with a desire to find something -- anything at all will do -- that will give the Times leverage to kill Roberts' nomination to the high court. The Times has enough toadies in the Senate who are waiting for just that much ammunition to be able to drag out this process until Roberts, like others before him, is forced to withdraw rather than subject his family to continued hostile scrutiny.

The New York Times has declared war on John Roberts. But they have also declared war on the institution of family. I really don't think they are equipped to fight that kind of war.

They just don't have a moral leg on which to stand.

#182 - What To Get...

...for the parents who simply can't be bothered to spend quality time with their youngsters?

Kiddie cell phones.

I have only one question:

WHAT POSSIBLE USE CAN A SIX YEAR OLD HAVE FOR A WORKING CELL PHONE??

Thank you.

HT: Dave Barry

#181 - The Professional Educators Reach Lower and Lower...

I have already posted at least once about attempts by parents to fast-track their kids through school by starting them even two years (or more) before they would normally enter kindergarten. I stand fast by my earlier thoughts on the subject. The so-called pre-school years are a time for kids to learn the basic lessons of life - at home - from Mommy and Daddy. It's far too soon to begin adding the pressures of formal tutoring and greatly increases the risk of either a negative educational experience later, or even a complete burn-out before reaching junior high.

This is different, mind you, from kids who show a desire to grasp and learn different skills and concepts, and are gently tutored along those lines by their parents. Heck, my Mom tutored me in my reading and writing skills for at least a year before I entered first grade (they didn't teach more than alphabet recognition skills in my day in Kindergarten), and it was driven by my constant harangue of "Mooooom! How do you spell my name?" She quickly realized it was just easier to coach me along and nurture my native ability. By the time I walked into class in first grade, I was already reading a little ahead of most of my class. By third grade, I was reading better than most sixth graders. All because I wanted to, not because Mom and Dad felt that I needed a "leg up" on my education so I could nail that Ivy League appointment.

You may then imagine why I don't like the sound of this article in the Washington Times.

Key quote:

The national tutoring chain has expanded since January to include students as young as 4 as pre-kindergarten students -- part of an increase in tutoring nationwide that analysts attribute to parents eager to push their children to the front of the class.

Apart from my initial "here we go again" thoughts, something else jumped out at me while I was reading the article. Flashing back for a moment on that story I just related about my Mom's tutoring, I recognized the more disturbing trend here: Parents have become all too eager to abdicate their parental right and responsibility to teach their own children.

Professional educators have been most effective in creating an atmosphere of implied incompetence among parents. They have successfully foisted on us the idea that we are somehow incapable, or, worse, unworthy to teach our own children. This evolution has been most visible just in the forty-plus years since I first walked into a classroom myself. In those days, I was being handed over to a teacher who had been reasonably well educated, and was prepared to teach me in the simplest terms possible the knowledge I needed to succeed in life. My own parents were able to reinforce what I was learning in school by providing me opportunities to use what I was learning. (Note: Dad could never believe what I wasn't learning in school. In his day, by golly, you knew calculus before you graduated from kindergarten! Yet another reason, I guess, why we lag behind the rest of the world in productivity.)

Today's parents, by contrast, are overwhelmingly bewildered by the teaching methods being employed by modern educators. The methods for teaching basic mathematical principles have changed no fewer than three times since I first learned them in grade school. Heaven help me if I ever had to go back to sixth grade and try to learn that stuff today; I'd be completely lost! No wonder parents have to hand off tutoring responsibilities (at $45 an hour!) to companies like Sylvan!

I firmly believe that this has become one of the primary motivators for parents to begin homeschooling their kids. Everything is happening sooner, faster, and more expensively. It has now become all about forcing kids to excel before they're even ready to tie their own shoes. It's also about following the money.

Phooey.

We homeschool for two reasons: our two Woodyettes. I have no desire to have them taught by an increasingly cynical profession that more and more believes they are the only saving grace our children have. It's as if (dare I say it?) they want to be my children's only religion.

Well, not as long as Mrs. Woody and I have anything to say about it, they won't.

UDPATE: The Woodyettes found a cauldron this morning full of new school supplies direct from Diagon Alley (they've been doing some Hogwarts schooling this year). The kids (and their Mommy-Teacher!) have been on summer hiatus this past month. Thus, on finding the new treasure trove, Jelly Woodyette exclaimed, "Mommy! Does this mean we can do school today?"

Makes a Daddy feel good, that does.

#180 - What the...?!

Um, Matt? Is there any reason why we should care about this??

#179 - Not a Political Church - UPDATED

An interesting discussion over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. Seems the poster had a discussion during a temple recommend interview regarding support of the Church's position against gay marriage. In essence, the author was informed that by not supporting the church's stated opposition to gay marriage (truthfully, the author is agnostic about the whole gay marriage issue), she may not be worthy to hold a current recommend.

Two questions were then posed:

1. Is there anyone else out there who feels as ambivalent about this as [the author does]?
2. Is there political freedom in the church?

The commenters, so far, appear mostly to mirror her views that the Church really shouldn't be making any kind of statement with regards to what is, essentially, a political issue.

And yet, it isn't.

The fires were well stoked here in California several years ago with the Church's support of Proposition 22. Prop 22 amended California's constitution to legally define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. You can imagine how well that sat with mostly-liberal Californians who couldn't wait (and didn't, it turns out) to challenge that amendment both in court and by way of civil disobedience. San Francisco (surprise!) leading the way.

The Church's support of the proposition was incalculable in getting it passed. Enough Christian voters turned out in support of the measure to carry it to a successful passage. I remember attending special meetings where we were directly counselled by members of the Quorum of the Twelve (via satellite, of course) as to our responsibilities to support this initiative.

The bottom line, of course, is the Proclamation on the Family. The Proclamation merely formalized in one statement the Church's stand with regard to the sacred nature of the traditional family. If we truly support the prophets as duly ordained mouthpieces for the Lord, then we have a sacred duty to speak out in support of the Lord's plan - in its entirety - whenever it may be threatened.

Many are young enough not to remember the Church's stance against the Equal Rights Amendment. Interestingly enough, the Church opposed the ERA for exactly the same reason it has come out in opposition to gay marriage; both issues have a direct impact on the survival of the Lord's established family unit, and supporting those issues encourages the degradation of this sacred institution.

The Church is not a political entity. You can argue the point all you like, but the Church has always stated, unequivocally, that members are free to vote their consciences on any issue. At the same time, the Church has also said that it will always stand in support of those issues which are seen to directly threaten our ability to live a Christ-centered life. Remember, too, that occasionally our decisions and philosophies will place us in a condition of disobedience, and consequences will follow. That has always been the Lord's way.

When you stop to think about it, there is never anything "political" about the Church. This issue of gay marriage is not now, nor has it ever been, a "political" issue where members of the Church are concerned. The sacred union of a man and a woman is one of the essential ordinances that makes us eligible to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Anything that corrupts that practice means that those who participate in any other kind of union - no matter how loving - do so at their eternal peril. Should we not, as ambassadors of the living gospel, do everything in our power to prevent such things from happening? Isn't that the essence of conversion?

It may not make us popular, but... since when has popularity been one of our articles of faith?

UPDATE: Interesting comments on this topic. Mostly, I suspect, non-members trying to get a rise out of me, or maybe just see if I have a pulse. Still, this one statement in particular I find to be very telling:

It is very surprising to me that a church led through direct communication with Christ would be so consistently behind the times when it comes to social issues.

There are countless arguments that could be raised in response to this sentiment which is shared by so many who don't understand either the purpose or the nature of the restored Church. In short, the Church does not exist to support societal passions or political agendas. The only agenda we have - and have ever had - is the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth.

When we come right down to it, shouldn't it be the Savior who sets the agenda for society, rather than the other way around?

Very early in my blogging "career" (if one can call it a career), I posted about a disturbing trend - supported by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury - toward designer scriptures. The basic premise seems to be that if society has evolved to such a degree, surely the scriptures should evolve to match the times. The fact that many of the truths contained in the KJV are now so distorted as to be completely unrecognizable doesn't seem to faze the revisionists.

Money quote:

There is nothing final about this translation. It is a rolling translation. It will be changed in future editions in response to constructive suggestions from those who find it helpful. It is not meant to replace any other translation, merely to provide a fresh and exciting alternative.

Oy.

For the record, Will, in response to your "codification" comment, don't forget that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was really an attempt by the framers to codify so-called "natural law," most of which is based on Judeo-Christian tradition.

Carry on...

#178 - Non-Issue Alert!

So it appears that New York's MTA has created a database. While I understand Drudge's interest in the story, I don't think this one is nearly as disturbing as civil libertarians will try to make it seem.

The database concerns people who have been questioned as to why they were photographing New York tunnels and bridges. MTA officials make no bones about their motivation: they wish to avoid the same kind of terrorist attacks that have nearly crippled London public transport in recent weeks.

According the the Daily News story, interestingly, no one appears to be terribly upset about being asked to show and explain their photography to law enforcement. One person interviewed was unaware of anyone having refused to cooperate so far. This is all to the good, of course, but it raises an interesting question. Just how likely are they to make note of every single bridge or tunnel photographer in a huge metropolitan city with hundreds of thousands of potential tourist-photographers milling about during the summer travel months?

Still, with heightened alert levels in force, and constant exhortations to maintain vigilance and report any suspected activity, I expect that MTA and other law enforcement types will be kept plenty busy following up on leads. To their credit, the lack of complaints from those who have been questioned thus far shows an amazing restraint. This is, after all, the city where citizens have been known on occasion to shoot wrong-doers by way of assisting an over-burdened police force. I'm guessing this is indicative of an acceptance on their part that the rules have changed a bit. Living that close to 9/11 may have increased their sensitivity to security issues.

In any case, I'm hopeful that no one will try to make a civil rights issue out of this exercise. Me? I can always find pictures of bridges on the internet. So long as I don't download them, I'm safe.

Right?

#177 - Another Exercise in Futility

It must be getting time for school to start again. Homeschoolers everywhere are having once again to look over their shoulders and see who might be ready to stab them in the back.

The truth of the matter is that politicos have absolutely no idea what to do with homeschoolers.

We present a double-edged sword to most politicians. Republicans and Democrats (and everything in between) alike will talk to homeschoolers and say, "You represent what is truly noble about the American spirit. Your desire to be actively involved in the education of your children is a clear demonstration of American ideals and the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers." Then they wave the flag.

The next day, in session, those same politicians will talk to the educators' unions and say, "You represent what is truly noble about the American spirit. Your desire to be world leaders in the education of our youth is a clear demonstration..." Then they wave the flag.

This teaches us, of course, that politicians need better speech writers for starters. But it also demonstrates that, far from representing that which is noble about America, they cannot politically accept homeschooling as an unalienable constitutional right without enraging a significant voting bloc that they must have in order to get re-elected.

Dateline: Escondido, California.

There are 140,000 citizens residing in Escondido, and apparently most of them are truant. At least, they seem to have been powerless to prevent truancy in this city of fun and sun in Southern California, because they just enacted a daytime curfew that will be in force in time for the coming school year.

Essentially, any child between the ages of 12 and 17 found in a public place during school hours can be referred to a social-service program and have their parents contacted. Repeat offenders face fines, community service, and even jail.

Personally, I favor having Escondido adopt the British "deferred success" label for truant kids so the local school districts can still claim that the kids really were attending school. That way, the district gets its money, and the cops can go back to catching career criminals.

Homeschooling parents, you can imagine, are less than thrilled. While the article states that homeschooled children and those with equivalency degrees are exempt, most law enforcement agencies are 1) not allowed to profile people, making it necessary to stop and harrass everyone who looks to be 12 to 17 years old, or 2) unable to tell the difference between a truant and a homeschooler, except for the fact that the truant will be more likely to be engaged in some activity involving a gun or a can of spray paint. I don't like the odds.

Potentially more disturbing is the fact that eight other cities in the county have already adopted daytime curfews. I'd be interested in knowing two things: How successfully has any such curfew reduced truancy, and how many homeschoolers have not been adversely affected by those curfews? If anyone knows and can cite sources, I'd love to hear it.

As homeschooling families well know, it doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to see the day when a local school district - once again ignoring state educational statutes - declares homeschooled kids to be "automatically truant" and makes those kids targets of their "program." It's a well-established fact that anything public officials cannot control, they fear. Many politicians, local school districts, and every single professional educator's union in the country fear homeschoolers. And they should: we make them look incompetent.

Knowing the minds of teenagers today, I'm skeptical that simply dragging truant kids back into classrooms is doing anything but fulfilling attendance requirements. True success stories - those where a truant kid is saved from him/herself and ultimately graduates with honors - I suspect are still rare, no matter how "robust" an anti-truancy program may be.

I wish Escondido luck with their program. And I wish Escondido homeschoolers continued success.

#176 - Your NEA - Working to Spend Your Dollars

As it often happens when we're both at home during the day, Mrs. Woody and I will spend time working on our laptops in the same room. We Woodys are devout homeschoolers, and Mrs. Woody (our Headmistress) subscribes to several homeschool-related groups and lists. Occasionally, Mrs. Woody will read portions of some news article or other that relates to the subject, usually to gauge my reaction. All too often, these articles do nothing more than show their complete ignorance of homeschooling as a lifestyle choice, and make me angry enough to post about it. This one is a real corker.

This is the first solid fisking I've done of an article in any depth for quite some time, so forgive me if my fisking skills appear to be a tad rusty:

By Dave Arnold

There's nothing like having the right person with the right experience, skills and tools to accomplish a specific task. Certain jobs are best left to the pros, such as, formal education.

There are few homeowners who can tackle every aspect of home repair. A few of us might know carpentry, plumbing and, let’s say, cementing. Others may know about electrical work, tiling and roofing. But hardly anyone can do it all.

Same goes for cars. Not many people have the skills and knowledge to perform all repairs on the family car. Even if they do, they probably don’t own the proper tools. Heck, some people have their hands full just knowing how to drive.

So far, so good. No argument so far except for your "best left to the pros" line. But I'll get to that later.

So, why would some parents assume they know enough about every academic subject to home-school their children? You would think that they might leave this -- the shaping of their children’s minds, careers, and futures -- to trained professionals. That is, to those who have worked steadily at their profession for 10, 20, 30 years! Teachers!

Okay, Dave. You lost me.

One of the primary problems with an ad hominem statement like this is that I've met far too many trained professionals who couldn't think their way out of a rat's maze in a laboratory. Some of them leapfrog those of us who can use our heads for practical solutions to real problems, and end up becoming our bosses. This is why we continually lag behind other nations in productivity.

[snip]

Of course there are circumstances that might make it necessary for parents to teach their children at home. For example, if the child is severely handicapped and cannot be transported safely to a school, or is bedridden with a serious disease, or lives in such a remote area that attending a public school is near impossible.

Nice bit of patronization, that. But let's hearken back to your original argument. If I, an untrained amateur, should not be teaching my healthy children, why should it be okay for me to teach my unhealthy children? Already the argument is losing steam.

However, before we close the books on this non-debate, let's examine motive for a moment:

The number of parents who could easily send their children to public school but opt for home-schooling instead is on the increase.

Ah. Of course. How dense of me, really, to have forgotten that organized "professional" educators are far more worried about our taking children out of their systems, and, hence, the money associated with them. The inference here is that we who choose to homeschool fly in the face of conventional wisdom. We've heard this many, many times before. We are, fortunately, unswayed by such empty rationale.

Yes, we could "easily" send our children to school. But each and every day those children attend those schools would be days of agony for me, wondering whether my child is learning how to have disrespectful attitudes from other children, or whether my child will be preyed upon by a sexual predator that thinks no one will ever find out. So, okay, maybe "easy" isn't the word to use. Maybe insert the words "under extreme duress" instead.

Continuing:

Several organizations have popped up on the Web to serve these wannabe teachers. These organizations are even running ads on prime time television. After viewing one advertisement, I searched a home school Web site [Ed.: http://www.homeschoolcentral.com]. This site contains some statements that REALLY irritate me!

• "It’s not as difficult as it looks."

The “it” is meant to be “teaching.” Let’s face it, teaching children is difficult even for experienced professionals. Wannabes have no idea.

Difficult and, I daresay, increasingly impossible for many overwhelmed professionals. Get over it.

• “What about socialization? Forget about it!”

Forget about interacting with others? Are they nuts? Socialization is an important component of getting along in life. You cannot teach it. Children should have the opportunity to interact with others their own age. Without allowing their children to mingle, trade ideas and thoughts with others, these parents are creating social misfits.

If this Web site encouraged home-schooled children to join after-school clubs at the local school, or participate in sports or other community activities, then I might feel different. Maine state laws, for example, require local school districts to allow home-schooled students to participate in their athletic programs. For this Web site to declare, “forget about it,” is bad advice.

When I worked for Wal-Mart more than 20 years ago, Sam Walton once told me: “I can teach Wal-Mart associates how to use a computer, calculator, and how to operate like retailers. But I can’t teach them how to be a teammate when they have never been part of any team.”

And since I revere the name of Sam Walton, I will change my whole educational philosophy to make sure my kids can work at Wal-Mart too, someday. Give me a break. Socialization is so important that I make sure my kids attend Church every week. They go to various activities both at church and such subversive places as the public library. Mrs. Woody takes them to a regularly scheduled homeschool group activity once a week during the school year, with (at least) monthly field trips to museums, theaters, and other locally significant educational opportunities.

And, by the way, the quote, "forget about it" is taken completely out of context. The rest of that paragraph indicates that not only is socialization important, but of equal import is the parents' ability (one would say responsibility) to choose the child's socialization wisely. Quite frankly, the way so many parents are raising their kids today, I really don't want mine socializing with most of them.

• “Visit our online bookstore.”

Buying a history, science or math book does not mean an adult can automatically instruct others about the book’s content.

Fair enough. No more so than having a credential, I must say. In fact, I've known plenty of teachers who were never worth the price of the fake sheepskin upon which their degree was printed. But, while we're on the subject, what in heaven's name is wrong with an online bookstore? Let's go out on a limb here and say that Mrs. Woody has been a credentialed teacher before. How on earth will she teach if she doesn't buy supporting materials?

Oh. Wait. Mrs. Woody was a credentialed teacher. Sorry! But my argument stands: Whether you consider someone to be "professional" enough to teach is irrelevant. Teachers - public and homeschool teachers alike - need books. Period.

Gullible Parents

Another Web site asks for donations and posts newspaper articles pertaining to problems occurring in public schools.

It’s obvious to me that these organizations are in it for the money. They are involved in the education of children mostly in the hope of profiting at the hands of well-meaning but gullible parents. [Ed.: And the NEA isn't??]

This includes parents who home-school their children for reasons that may be linked to religious convictions. [Ed.: Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!] One Web site that I visited stated that the best way to combat our nation’s “ungodly” public schools was to remove students from them and teach them at home or at a Christian school.

I’m certainly not opposed to religious schools, or to anyone standing up for what they believe in. I admire anyone who has the strength to stand up against the majority. But in this case, pulling children out of a school is not the best way to fight the laws that govern our education system. No battle has ever been won by retreating!

Two problems:

1. Please stop making it sound as if taking our children out of public school were some sort of punishment. We do it to protect our children in ways that public schools either can't, or won't.

2. It's not a battle if I refuse to engage the enemy. I pick my battles, and I choose to fight on the home front. Far easier to protect my children from unsavory influences from the sanctity of my home, than to leave "professionals" to do that for me.

In conclusion:

No Training

Don’t most parents have a tough enough job teaching their children social, disciplinary and behavioral skills? [Ed.: Yep. And who ever said it would be easy, I'd like to know?] They would be wise to help their children and themselves by leaving the responsibility of teaching math, science, art, writing, history, geography and other subjects to those who are knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible.

So long as we don't think that only credentialed teachers fit this description, then I have no argument.

(Dave Arnold, a member of the Illinois Education Association, is head custodian at Brownstown Elementary School in Southern Illinois.)

Ummmm...

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NEA or its affiliates.

But neither did they mind publishing this travesty in their official website.

#175 - Looking for Pole Position in 2008

Sen. John McCain of Arizona appears to be doing all that he can to "hip-ify" himself in time for the 2008 campaign. The problem is, the stuff he's doing sends out a set of very mixed signals to those who are watching his waning conservatism with no small alarm. Like me.

Caveat: I am no McCain fan. Haven't been for quite some time, because I find his playing of the uber-patriotic former POW card to be a little on the sanctimonious side. It's as if the fact that he was, indeed, a POW somehow makes his opinions that much more credible.

It could also be argued that I tend to be biased against him based on his stand against the 767 Tanker procurement, seeing as how I work for one of the key players in that program. Far from it, however: I see no reason why we shouldn't slam all defense contractors up against the political wall from time to time in an attempt to keep them honest. (Can you say "ethics violations?" I knew you could!)

The issue for me (today) is that Mr. McCain has chosen to take an apparently hypocritical stand with regards to the issue of Hollywood soft porn being peddled as R rated entertainment. After castigating Hollywood for both creating and marketing such entertainment to kids, McCain has now decided it's perfectly okay for him to take part in one. He even (warning: attempted hip-ification in progress!) stated to Leno that he "works with boobs every day" in Washington.

Har, har. That's a good one, John. Nothing like ennobling the use of a sexually demeaning stereotype to connect with the young voters!

Whether or not McCain feels justified in appearing in this movie is not, as he well knows, truly the point. The fact is that even if no one under the age of 17 ever sees this movie (and how likely is that?), it's the appearance of impropriety and hypocrisy that will, ultimately, mean his defeat in 2008. If he runs for President, that is. So far, the more he sticks his foot in his mouth, the more the Arizona electorate seem to love him. Maybe that's why Arizona has never fronted a successful presidential candidate.

Former prisoners of war are, in my book, heroes for having paid such a terrible price in the service of their country. That does not make them, however, de facto candidates for President of the United States. Character under fire is one thing. Continuing character in the political arena is completely different. McCain has a ways to go just yet.

#174 - California Special Election Du Jour

I had promised to blog eventually about our upcoming Useless Special Election, and so I shall.

In California, the term "Special Election" is political shorthand for "I Ain't Got the Cojones to Ram This Legislation Through On My Own." It's a red flag that means that the sitting (or travelling) Governor is having serious trouble with his political agenda, and needs the voters to sort it all out for him.

We voters get a little tired of bailing out our failed Legislature.

Let's be honest: Governors are really not much more than political figureheads. Their primary purpose is to put a face on whichever political platform they support. Schwarzenegger became Governor not so much because he has any real political prowess, but because he was the Anti-Davis. The Face that would get us past Gray Davis's own political ineptitude and save us from the dreaded Energy Warmongers.

Two years on the Energy Warmongers have largely imploded from lack of infrastructure ("What? You mean we need actual money to be a viable company? Who knew?"), and even some Republicans are beginning to think back on Davis with wistfully reminiscent looks on their faces.

The problem is our state initiative process. While I'll grant you that the ability to send critical issues directly to the voters has proven to be beneficial in many cases, it also represents the idea that we voters become a supplanting Committee of the Whole; effectively replacing the Legislature by bypassing their constitutional authority.

In other words: Why have a state Legislature?

The redistricting issue is a classic example: No one, it seems, will admit that redistricting should never be in the hands of the very people who have a vested interest in furthering their own political careers. Political powerfeeders will do everything they can to stay in power, one way or another. Because of Terms Limits (with which I do not necessarily agree, even though it could represent another Willie Brown fiasco), legislators can only serve two terms in any given office. This means that in the best case they would serve two terms as Assemblyman, two terms as State Senator, then (hopefully) have enough face power to become a High Elected Official.

In order to get around these pesky limits, some legislators try to get their districts gerrymandered out of existence, so they can be eligible to run for a new district, meaning they start the clock over. Also, the art of gerrymandering itself has become so ludicrous, that even legislators themselves understand just how transparent their power grabs really are. And when they have to admit that they're being transparent, that's pretty bad. It's like having temperatures drop so low that lawyers are suddenly forced to keep their hands in their own pockets. (Old joke - no apologies.)

In the meantime, thanks to Terms Limits, no single legislator has a snowball's chance of getting enough face recognition in time to run for Governor without doing something that will land them in federal prison during that time when they should be governing, so we end up with actors, who are the only ones with both face recognition and copious amounts of time on their hands. A dangerous formula, in my mind.

All of this means that ballot initiatives will forever be a part of the California political scene, and special elections will be called by junior-grade Governors who cannot, on their own, handle the Legislature. It also means that we voters tend to be perpetually overwhelmed with trying to keep up with the things we supposedly elected our legislators to handle for us. Aren't they adults, these legislators? Are they not capable of working things out without our constant hand-holding? And if not, why do we continually elect them?

Maybe it's not chlorine in our water supply. Maybe it's Kool-aid.

#173 - Preschool Academia

I sure don't want to get into a flame war with a company that seems sincere in its desire to educate your child, so long as you hand copious amounts of your dollars over to them in return. Still, it's difficult to stand by and watch a company whose name, which for copyright infringement purposes I shall only say can be found in the word representing the state of PennSylvania, is fast becoming synonymous (in my own self-important opinion, of course) with evil. There are others, of course, who have an equal interest in your child's demographic, by which I mean money, but the focus here is on PennSylvania.

Worse yet are parents who are more and more becoming entrapped by some perceived need to have their children become super-scholars barely after most of them have mastered the ability to properly utilize your porcelain plumbing. And I do mean barely.

The idea, it appears, is that if your four year old cannot already spell his or her name, identify all his or her colors and letters - in short, everything that at least 29% of your elected officials can do - then that child is forever doomed to be a poor performer in school and, by extension, life. At least, that seems to be the message being forwarded by untold numbers of equally unidentifiable researchers, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Now, I've been a parent for a few (*cough*) years, and I've had my share of reasons to worry about my kids. I worry that my Woodyettes haven't yet mastered bicycling skills, for example. It's my own fault; every time I think about teaching them, it's too hot outside, or I have a work assignment that requires my attention that night (so long as it doesn't interfere with my CSI watching, that is). But they've started to learn finally, and they'll get the hang of it when they (and Daddy) are good and ready.

That said, the idea that a four year old's lack of scissor skills can panic any parent into throwing money after PennSylvania's program is enough to make me laugh until my partial plate drops into my lap.

At the age of four, my Doodle Woodyette's primary scissor skills consisted pretty much of cutting any available piece of paper into as many small pieces as possible, then scattering them all over the floor that Daddy just vacuumed. In fact, she still has those skills, but now she's much more precise in her ability to cut. If that should have been enough to panic me into enrolling with some over-priced tutoring service, then I guess my Daddy skills are also just shy of the mark.

I remember watching the movie Baby Boom many years ago and wondering whether this idea of having a child excel before they can even walk would be just another fad. Sadly, the answer appears to be a resounding "NO." No longer is it acceptable, apparently, to just let a child be a child anymore. I wait for the inevitable day when some moonbat legislator - at the equally inevitable behest of the professional educators unions - will float a bill designed to label any parent who does not enroll their child in mandatory pre-school as an abusive parent. It is no longer much of a stretch.

Money quote:

"We don't want to supplant childhood," which is why the company doesn't accept 3-year-olds, says Richard Bavaria, Sylvan's chief academic officer.

My homeschooling bias is clear, in this case. Mrs. Woody and I - not the state, and certainly not any professional educator - determine how best to educate and prepare our children for life. And, when the chips are down, it really becomes the Woodyettes, and not Mom or Dad, who truly determine whether or not they are ready to learn what we may be ready to teach.

It's a terrific partnership. I highly recommend it to PennSylvania and its customers.

#172 - Heh.

Not exactly sure why this made me chuckle: Banner of Heaven has me listed on their Roll under "The Inquisition."

Torquemada, anyone?

Viva la Revolucion!

#171 - Ye Gods

I feel a screed coming on...

Joanne Jacobs links to a report out of Victorville, California regarding a community college student who was penalized for daring to write an English paper using the "G" word. Joanne's first thought was that the gal had simply submitted a badly written paper. Then, when the school didn't seem to deny the allegation, she understood that this school was serious: No mention of what they termed "one true God argumentation," or the paper would fail.

The basic argument was that mention of God might (you know this is coming!) "offend others in the class."

Balderdash.

This is just the latest attack against religion in general (and Christianity is particular) by the academic community, and it's got to stop.

Or, to keep things fair, they should also make it a punishable offense to mention Allah, Buddha, Ishtar, or Quetzalcoatl. And, while we're at it, they need to ban Morrigan, Guan-Yin, Zeus, and Wotan (or, if you prefer, Odin). Let's not forget Tiki, Altjira, Apocatequil, or Ixchel while we're at it. Neither should we allow mention of whatever nature object the pagans are worshiping these days.

I am absolutely certain that the mere mention of God offends certain clueless individuals. This has been foretold by prophets throughout time: Many of them saw the day when the very mention of God would cause men to be offended or embarrassed. Still...

Isn't the real problem here that people choose to become offended at the drop of the proverbial hat? Think about it: Can it really be that the same people who find nothing at all offensive about anything they show on MTV become so upset at the mention of God that they need the ACLU to chase Him out of public sight? I get so offended by Hollywood Blvd that I simply refuse to travel it, day or night. I don't see the ACLU doing anything to help me eliminate even the mere mention of, say, Larry Flynt, do you?

I'm sorry, but those who get offended at the mention of God need to get a grip. They also probably need to relax with the idea that we speak English in this country, that we respect the flag, and that we see absolutely no reason why Howard Dean should not receive the death penalty.

Yeesh.

#170 - Independence

Since this is Independence Day, I thought it might be useful to talk about my own independence and how I choose to celebrate it.

I realize, of course, that there is much for which to be grateful in this country. Our system of government, while far from perfect, affords the best opportunities for individual growth and freedom of any in the so-called "civilized" world. We may have wildly divergent opinions regarding how best (or even whether) to level the playing field, but the very fact that we are allowed to debate those differences openly is itself a testimony to the strength of our Constitution.

On a personal level, however, independence represents my own ability to make my way in the world unencumbered by the opinions and attitudes of those who would seek to silence me. An explanation follows:

As a youngster, I was encouraged by my parents to think for myself. The fact that my thinking was often incorrect really wasn't a deterrent. Mom was always there to keep my spiritual feet under me, and Dad made it perfectly clear that there weren't wrong answers (except for "No, Dad, I didn't mow the lawn...") to any of the philosophical questions he often posed. He allowed me to hold an idea, even when he probably knew that somewhere downstream I would change my position on that idea. He realized all too well that so many of our perceptions change with time and experience. Most of my perceptions have changed over the years, and it turns out that at the age of 21, when I was pretty sure that I was right about many things, I was actually wrong about most things. Ah, well.

Today I am not so arrogant as to believe that I am truly correct in most of my thinking. My perceptions drive me in certain directions, and only time will tell whether those perceptions were themselves correct. The fact that I give voice to my perceptions makes me an active participant in life. It confirms the idea that I am a citizen of this country, a neighbor to many, and a friend to some. It also means that some, strictly on the basis of my opinions, may consider me to be an enemy. Or, at the very least, an annoyance.

One may feel that writing one's opinions in a somewhat public forum is really just asking for it, but that's not the point. I write because I do feel that, however miniscule, there is value to my opinion. Perhaps this value does not extend beyond my family and a few bloglurkers who actually read these memes of mine. According to the TTLB, my own circle of influence in the blogosphere is limited. My personal worth, however, has little to do with the ecosystem.

I do not claim independence from my family or my religious beliefs. On the contrary, I am completely dependent on those things for my personal safety and happiness. My family is mine eternally, and my religion makes that possible. As long as I have those enablers in my life, I am complete.

I still have a long way to go. Whether in this life or the next, my value can only increase. This assumes, of course, that I manage not to do something incredibly unintelligent when those opportunities present themselves. Even at that, I can make corrections and forge ahead. I can do that independent of any other outside influence, and that (he says, finally arriving at his point) is why I celebrate a personal Independence Day.

Happy 4th!

ASIDE: To answer Dave of Dave's Mormon Inquiry: The Bear Flag League is a loose association of conservative-minded bloggers who live in (or have lived in) California. Think of it as a caucus without all the corn fields and pig farms. I may get letters from Iowa for that...

#169 - Personal Blog Evolution

The Woundup celebrated one year of sporadic blogging this past June 21. Happy Blogday to Me. Looking back, it's amusing to see what evolutionary paths this ol' blog has taken.

In the beginning, I simply enjoyed blogging for blogging's sake. Of course, like many who have recently reached this milestone, the election year had a lot to do with my early motivation: Kerry simply afforded far too many opportunities to become hyped about some silly thing or other. Bush had (and has) his share of silliness, but Kerry's was, ultimately, far more dangerous to our national concerns and security.

As I continued, however, it became obvious to me that what I really needed was a thematic approach. My brother tried it a few different ways before I finally figured out for myself what I needed. I needed an outlet for my Inner Dad.

"The Inner Dad" is a book that I've written. Don't bother Googling, it ain't out there. It sits on my hard drive in various formats, mostly written but in serious need of massaging. It dwells on the idea that, like Dave Barry's "guys," many men are Dads deep down - appearances to the contrary. As my blogging skills matured, I realized that many of the essays that I've written over the years really pointed to this idea of canonizing Dadhood, with only occasional forays into the realm of the screed. For that reason, the Woundup really is my political platform. It becomes the voice of my inner activist, a persona I tend to keep locked up tight in a small box in an even darker dungeon. I let him out only when I smell an issue on which I absolutely cannot remain quiet. Long live the Woundup.

The Woundup, therefore, is my link to the conservative world. It remains mindful that there are voices that would destroy everything for which I've worked - in my own way - to protect. I may not have defended my country while wearing a uniform, but I am a soldier of a sort. I refuse to simply sit back while those who are far less in tune with my needs attempt to sabotage my basic rights. It becomes my responsibility to raise my voice, even when that voice is occasionally trumped by far more eloquent ones - my brother among them.

For that reason, the Woundup has allied itself with the Bear Flag League. I may not agree word for word with everything they espouse, but then even among minorities I tend to be a minority. (I refer, of course, to the idea of being not only a white middle-aged male in an age where to be such is considered terribly un-PC, but to the fact that I am a white middle-aged Mormon male in an age where to be such is considered heretical, especially among many so-called "Christians". Go figure.) Still, the League is a platform where my views will engender somewhat less disdain than they would on, say, MoveOn.org.

This year figures to be an interesting one, politically. Not only are the lines being drawn early for the 2008 election, but California has a useless special election coming up. As soon as vacation is over, I plan to get uptight about that.

But not before then.

#168 - The ONLY Star Wars Review You'll Ever Need to Read

Move over Cam, Jen, and anyone else who has reviewed/panned/critiqued or otherwise written about the Star Wars empire at large. Dave Barry trumps you all!

#167 - My Last Ever Post Re: MJ

So, the Lame Duck of Pop has been exonerated in court. He's free to go. His rabid fans can go home and pretend to have lives again. The press can crawl back under their collective rocks. Doo dah, doo dah.

My only and final question would have to be: Has Mr. Jackson finally learned enough from this incident to be able to avoid even the appearance of evil?

I have my doubts.

#166 - Why I Don't Worry About MJ

Contrary to what the local media would have us believe, the Michael Jackson trial is not the biggest news item on our radars. I base this on my scientific survey of my immediate circle of friends and co-workers, none of whom ever even talk about the trial, other than to snort derisively and say, "Ol' Mr. Bad himself? Heh."

The MJ Trial™ has, of course, garnered its share of national media. After all, this is the self-styled "King of Pop" we're talking about. But the locals act as if there is no other news story worthy of our limited attentions. Every morning for the past several weeks I have heard no fewer than three reports connected with the trial, and on those mornings when they can get on-air interviews from someone connected - however remotely - with the trial, they have literal swooning fits in the studio. On days when other news simply won't be ignored, they grudgingly give it some air time ("Um, about 1,000 people were evacuated because of some landslide or other. No deaths."), then return to the trial as soon as they can politically swing it ("But, in other news, Michael Jackson was seen in court to actually nod off during his lawyer's summation! We'll talk with Legal Anal-ist S. O. Terrik to get his perspective on how this may affect the jury!").

This morning was, I must say, the best of breed in my opinion. Comedian/Activist/Nutritionist-to-the-Stars Dick Gregory was scheduled to be interviewed on the early-morning commute show on our local CBS affiliate. They got him on the phone, then waited for commercials to finish. When they were back on the air they tried to ask some questions, but Gregory wouldn't respond. They could hear breathing on the line, so they knew they were connected. Finally they sent the hotel manager up to knock on his door, only to learn that Gregory had been up late with MJ and had fallen fast asleep while waiting for the interview to start. No amount of coaxing could rouse him, so that interview will have to wait for another day (and, one hopes, a more caring audience).

Meanwhile, MJ's life continues to unfold as a spectacle worthy of the scandal rags that are making millions on the story. Poor stressed-out Jackson is in and out of medical care, being worried over by zealous parents and (gasp!) The High and Holy Almighty Right Reverend More Powerful Than God Jesse Jackson, who holds nightly prayer vigils with MJ. I presume he prays to himself as he seems to ignore the Lord's counsel in just about everything else.

So why worry? This trial has nothing (repeat: n-o-t-h-i-n-g) to do with me, my family, or even my casual acquaintances. MJ could spend the rest of his natural (natural??) life in jail and it wouldn't make one iota of difference in my life. He could be acquitted and spend the rest of his days being lampooned by the press and over-adored by his fans. What's different about that? Assuming he survives the trial, would he be forced into exile on some wasteland of a beach owned by dead movie stars? Good. Hasta la Bye-bye.

Oh, wait. There will be one difference for me: Like OJ before him, MJ will finally drop from the local media radar, and I won't have to listen to this stuff anymore.

Until the next superstar screws up.

#165 - Deep Thoughts About Deep Throat

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

#164 - Coiffure Blogging

Heh. Cam learns the economics of modern hair care.

Dude... why'd ya think I married my barber?

(Note to those who happen to be my barber: That's not the only reason I married you!)

#163 - One Must Occasionally Disappoint

Dear Newsweek,

I wanted to thank you properly for inviting me to join such an august body of subscribers. Recognizing the journalistic standards to which you hold, I am truly flattered to be offered your special "Professional Rate." I do, however, have a few questions.

First, judging by the rate itself, I'm guessing this rate is only offered to less than 5% of your total readership. Otherwise, I would be forced to suspect that the $20.00 annual fee you're offering me really means that your current mark-up is somewhere topping 1,000%, and I just know that can't be possible. I mean, honestly, how many rubes are there in this country who are willing to fork out $200 annually for your magazine?

Secondly, I refer to your list of "benefits." I appreciate the itemization, by the way. So nice to see a list of perceived benies without all the marketing hyperbole generally associated with such falsehoods.

For example, you state that this "introductory" rate is available to "professionals only." Really? Professional whats, may I ask? Now, granted, my company often refers to me as a "professional," but where on earth did you get hold of this information? Perhaps there is a publication titled "Professionals of America" in which I am featured. Could I trouble you for a copy? It would certainly help prove to my employer just how invaluable a resource I must be and could help me leverage a better raise.

Also, you offer a "Money-Back Guarantee" on all unmailed issues. Has this been a problem for you? I mean, I know we're only talking $20 here, but if delivery is a problem, why would I bother? None of my other magazines seems to have trouble getting here. Heaven knows, that includes the ones I never asked for!

Tell me more about this "Tax-Deductible Status" you offer if I use the magazine for business. Does that mean if I take the magazine in to work every week, I get to knock another $20 off my taxes? I must admit to being tempted. Must ponder this one further.

Finally, there's the promise of your special year-end double issue, "Who's Next." As a responsible consumer I can only ask, "Next for what?" I wish to take this opportunity to gently remind you of a small incident connected with less than savory reporting of a non-incident that consequently resulted in violence and death abroad. I'm sure you remember the one. The ominous sound of "Who's Next" calls to mind the stereotypical school yard bully who bloody's one child after another, then turns around with a maniacal glint in his eye and asks, "Who's next?" Dare I inquire as to whom you intend to mark for your next piece of irresponsibility? Myself, perhaps, for daring to question your journalistic integrity? One shudders at the mere thought.

No, on balance I'm afraid I must decline your most generous offer. I'm not much of a magazine reader these days. News magazines, to me, represent what might blithely be called "mainstream media," and, as such, are of questionable value. I blog, myself (terribly haute culture, you know) and find far better expressions of what today constitutes the bulk of my research into public affairs.

Sorry to let you down. Please feel free to pass this offer along to some poor lawyer who hasn't yet paid back his school loans.

Sincerely,

Woody

#162 - Friends in All the Wrong Places

Good thing: Having someone agree with me that the No Child Left unBrainwashed Act doesn't work.

Not-so-good thing: It's the American Federation of Teachers.

This is a little like saying the Cavalry should stop attacking the Injuns. Let's send in the Klan instead.

I have made no secret of my contempt for NCLB. The very idea that students must progress at the same rate determined by some panel of random experts has always been abhorrent to me. There is no such thing as a "one size fits all" education. Period. Branding a child as a failure (you can call them whatever you like, but that's the message they'll get) simply because they're not ready to adhere to your neat and tidy curriculum is, in my opinion, criminal. Those who concocted the Act to begin with need to be sent back a few grades and made to try again.

Parents, too, need to step back and take a macro look at what they're expecting their kids to do. Parents who are so eager to get their children into education-rich environments at the earliest possible ages may well miss so much of what makes childhood special for the kids. My daughters, for example, both read well beyond their current grade levels. In math, they're just about dead even with their relative ages. My (nearly) eight year old, though, occasionally exhibits the attention span of a flea when the course work gets a little intense. Imagine some teacher having this bouncing ball of energy in his or her classroom where other kids seem able to control their fanny-springs. She'd probably be evaluated for ADD or ADHD in today's academic environment. But I know my daughter. She's a lot like her Daddy, in fact. I had the same problem as a youngster, and it had nothing to do with any syndrome, real or imagined. I simply had a hyperactive imagination, and it manifested itself most prominently during the more boring parts of school. During those moments, school was truly in the way; an obstacle to be overcome. Unfortunately, since I wasn't becoming the little fact-spewing automaton the educators expected me to be, I spent a lot of time explaining my embarrassing report cards to Mom and Dad.

Those were the days!

My problem with having the AFT echo my sentiments regarding NCLB has nothing to do with the fact that these are teachers who are complaining. My problem is that this is a union of teachers who are complaining. Unions have no reason to exist other than to beg for money, then spend it all begging for more money. This is the way Congress creates budgets and tax codes, by the way. Also, unions always have an "agenda." "Agenda," as defined by the union, means "Keep yer nose, eyes, and ears out of my classroom, if you know what's good for you."

Also, the union does not generally represent the real personalities of many, many teachers I have known throughout my life.

Most teachers I know have genuine interests in bringing education to life for their students. They have a real love for the profession, and most go the extra mile for countless students every year. They are generally underpaid, overcrowded, and unappreciated. They hate the educational bureaucracy as much or more than we do. They despise the idea that they must continually return to school themselves - generally out of their own pockets - just so they can learn the latest new-fangled "theories" from professional academics who've never had to stand in front of a class of hyperactive 10 year olds and try to make learning about sentence diagramming more fun than, say, putting a huge semi-chewed wad of gum on the seat in front of them. They already know that the public education system in this country is broken, and they spend more time than we credit them thinking about how to fix it.

The unions do no such thing. They already know the answer to the problem, and that answer requires money. Your money. My money. The teachers' money. And their "agenda." Whatever that may be.

Well, thanks, AFT, for supporting me on this issue. Do me a favor, though. If you want to ask for my help, just back slooowly away from my wallet.

#161 - Many Happy Returns!

Way Off Bass turned one on the Blogospheric Calendar yesterday!

Although he is my younger brother, he's always been of the quicker mind and it surprises me not at all that he's been a few steps ahead of me as a blogger. In fact, my younger bro happens to be my BlogFather. Go figure.

So, Happy Blogiversary, Cam! Whatever form your blogging takes in the future, know that it will always be extremely important to at least one segment of your audience.

#160 - Utah: Love It or Hate It

Y'know, if it weren't for those danged crazy Mormons infesting all of Utah, I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Seriously, if you happened to catch "Cold Case" on the tube last night, you'd know by now just how crazy we must be. Our men all suffer from military attitudes. We apparently force our young people to wear temple garments despite the fact that a) they're too young to wear them, and b) they have no real idea why. Our moral strictness apparently forces youngsters into amoral dementia by teaching them that sex is evil, until you're married. This naturally sends young men into delusional "god told me she was dirty" killing sprees.

So, without question, I keep Utah in my hip pocket.

The "hip pocket" position is one of the first negotiation tactics you learn in business. Always go in with a fall-back plan. Something to whip out when your first plan just isn't going to work. I must note, for the record, that I am a lousy negotiator. For one thing, I have daughters. Anyone who happened to read "Non Sequitur" today will instantly know to what I refer. Also, I tend to freeze up when dealing with forceful personalities, such as car salesmen and other members of the leech family. This is why Mrs. Woody is our designated vehicle buyer. My hip-pocket position usually consists of trying to get out of the financing office with one of my two remaining shirts still in my possession.

"So, why," you ask, trying desperately to get me back to my original point, "do you consider Utah to be a 'hip-pocket' position?"

Good question. To answer this, I point you to a recent article on "Homeschoolbuzz.com" regarding a new law recently enacted in Utah.

The original bill was sponsored by a freshman state senator by the name of Madsen. Sen. Madsen had a child who had reached the age where he would need to start filing exemptions with his local school district before being able to teach the child at home. Sen. Madsen tells of thinking that, hey, this law is a tad vague, and decided thereupon to research it. The result is this law that shields homeschooling parents from having to meet state credentialing criteria, or having to submit to standardized testing.

This, in conjunction with Utah's recent knock-down of Bush's No Child Left Unbrainwashed, er, Behind, makes the Deseret State my hero. Well, and Sen. Madsen, too.

In fact, that law alone would make Utah an extremely powerful draw if California continues to harrass homeschoolers the way some families have been made to suffer in recent months. We've been fortunate to fly just under everyone's radar so far; filing our R4 affidavits like the good, law-abiding citizens we are. But it wouldn't take much to make me give moving to Utah serious consideration if the California EduNazis somehow succeed in overriding my constitutional rights.

I've always admired Utah's devotion to parent-directed education, and this really just clinches it for me.

------------------------------

An aside to the writers of last night's "Cold Case" episode: Try doing a little research, guys, before tossing your ignorance out there for all the world to see. As one old philosopher once noted: Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and erase all doubt.

Sheesh. What a market you could have had.