#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.

#159 - Our Fathers' Sorrows

With apologies in advance, but only for having rambling thoughts.

Via Michelle Malkin comes this story of a middle school in Colorado that found themselves listening to a somewhat modified version of the Pledge of Allegiance. A guidance counselor at the school, no doubt having the best of intentions, changed the phrase "one nation, under God" to read "one nation, under your belief system."

Nice out.

The debate about the importance of God to this country is, of course, old news. One can only imagine how the founding fathers must feel. I'm guessing they frequently hang their heads in shame every time we feel a need as a nation to apologize for believing in God.

It's easy - perhaps too easy - to blame the atheists for this. Certainly they made it a battleground when they launched law suits to have God removed from as many public venues as possible. Still, except for a few shining voices, the believers largely let them get away with it.

Political correctness is, in fact, a symptom of a much more ravaging illness. A cancer of such magnitude that it threatens to destroy every quality of life for which our forefathers fought in every war since the Revolution. One of our most basic rights is the right to worship in any way that we may choose, without fear of government interference, and yet we abdicate that right every time we allow some humanist to strike the word "God" from public view.

I suppose, if I were to give atheists the benefit of the doubt, that there may be some genuine offense taken in hearing the name of God invoked in public. Certainly Cain took offense. In fact, he got so tired of hearing it that he destroyed the life of his brother and made himself an outcast for the rest of his existence. But I don't remember hearing about any apology from Adam. "Sorry, Cain. I know we never understood your need to disbelieve in our Creator, and you'll never hear us mention him again." Show me that scripture, and I'll buy into the atheistic argument.

The very amendment that guarantees freedom of speech as well as freedom to worship also implies a right to never have to apologize for having faith in God. Why should we? What is it that seems to be so offensive to so many today?

Probably it is the aspect of personal accountability that galls them. "One nation, under God" implies that this country - rightly - is founded on laws that have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. The laws that demand respect of other peoples' civic rights are squarely in synch with revealed law from God himself. We cannot and should not force others to believe in God, but neither should we feel compelled to shut our mouths in public lest we be accused of offending others because of God. Those who would live a life free from personal accountability risk having their freedoms severely curtailed by literally throwing them away. Certain things are still illegal in this country, and living a life without accountability ultimately leads to those illegal acts. Those who somehow manage to escape that accountability in this life will have that much more to account for in the life to come.

There is a basic argument that says that those who don't appreciate this country are free to leave it. I personally have found that argument to be somewhat harsh. I have lived outside the country. I fully recognize the blessing it is to live in this constitutional republic. I know how repressive other governments can be and often are. I suppose there is also a temptation to ask those who feel offended by basic Christian beliefs to simply close their ears, but that argument, too, is harsh.

Most of us who profess belief and faith in a living God feel absolutely no need to apologize for believing the way we do. In fact, it offends us when someone forces us, practically at gunpoint, to close our mouths and worship in silence.

Make no mistake: a revolution awaits. It will come when society has degraded itself sufficiently that the only way to go is up. Life will have become so wearisome that knowledge of a loving God will be a healing balm.

A knowledge for which I will refuse to apologize.

#158 - Giving Me Gas... [Updated]

Our summer will disappoint this year, I'm afraid. We usually look forward to summers if only because we have a chance to take a week or two and travel around with our little family. There for awhile we alternated between our friends up in Washington state and family in Utah. Last year we decided to putz around the mountain regions of northern California, admiring the beauty of Mount Shasta (while worrying about the decided lack of water in Shasta Lake) and surrounding areas.

This year, I'm thinking our big destination will be the local putt-putt and pizza palace.

It's not that I'm complaining, but it isn't as if the country has had little or no warning about these pesky fuel costs. I was a new driver during the "Energy Crisis" of the late 70's and had to spend a few days at our local gas stations. We slowly inched our way around the block waiting for our turn (wouldn't you know both of our vehicles had odd numbered license plates!) to put some go-juice in our go-buggies. Every time we did, we lost several hours of life sitting in those cars, softly swearing at some faceless organization called "OPEC" and wondering when Detroit was ever going to get a clue.

Thirty years and about a gazillion SUVs later, we're still clueless. We still choose to ignore those who warn against our dependence on foreign oil, and laugh at those who tout alternative fuels for a commute-happy society. Worse, we threaten to find creative ways to punish those who dare to purchase energy efficient vehicles, because some poor politician isn't getting enough money to waste on highway maintenance projects. (If you've ever seen a CalTrans road project, you know that "efficient" is not allowed in the current bargaining unit agreement.)

With the cost of gasoline steadily creeping upward (we're pushing the $3.00 ceiling here in sunny southern Cal!), the next voices I expect to hear would come from the various tourism boards across the country. I, for one, will likely not be taking my family very far from Orange County this year. I've done the math, and even my easy-on-the-mileage Saturn will be too expensive for anything but day trips. If even 10% of the families who normally find some way of travelling elsewhere for vacation find themselves in a similar situation, I predict a few ghost towns increasing their spiritual populations by summer's end.

Me? I'm not getting into this debate. I can't really afford to do anything but wait it out and either buy an alternative-fueled vehicle when I can next afford one (retirement, I'm thinking), or save up for five years at a time so we can take two more travelling vacations before the girls get too old to enjoy them.

Yeah, it's that bad.

UPDATE: So Mrs. Woody and I were budgeting for our vacation this year, when Mrs. Woody hit on the idea of checking into the train. (Note: the Coast Starlight is not suffering from brake trouble these days)

Turns out that travelling by train actually saves us over the cost of gas, hotels and food that we would pay for the trip up and back. So, odd as it may sound, saved by Amtrak!

#157 - Death Watch du Jour

It's been interesting to note how the world reacts to death. Or, I should say, it's interesting to note how the media wants us to see how the world reacts.

With Terri Schiavo there appeared to be a huge following of people who wanted - desperately - to empathize with her suffering. Not the brain damage, mind you. It was the family struggle that seemed to spur most people into one corner or another. I, for one, cannot for the life of me figure out why her husband was so dead-set against handing care of his wife over to her parents, who certainly seemed perfectly willing to handle her care and keeping for the rest of her natural life. It has made absolutely no sense to me.

Then again, I'm a little worried about letting the judicial system handle this sort of problem. Worse still was having Congress turn it into a political statement. No; circus, really. If the issue boiled down to the argument of whether a given person has the "right" to die, please let the participants be those who can still speak for themselves. Making Terri the poster child for this issue violated her right to suffer privately. There was no reason to parade her through the public square in order to press a point.

Has my mind been made up on all of these points? Absolutely not. As I mentioned before, there but for grace...

Unfortunately, any time the media gets involved in these affairs, the whole spectacle reminds me of vultures circling some wretched animal just before the final blow. Reporters swoop in and out like so many scavengers, making what they hope to heaven is a profound statement on the human "angle" of the story, then riding the crest to yet another journalistic prize. Terri lies dying while the J-school knock-offs make their marks on the story. Watching the reporting of this tragedy has reminded me forcefully of the reporters in "The Right Stuff" who were always accompanied by the sound of plague-carrying insects. How appropriate.

Even with the passing of a spiritual leader, such as the Pope, the circus changes nothing but the tent. Same tired acts, new tent.

I'll grant you that the passing of a Pope is of great interest to me. The Catholic church has fascinated me for decades as an academic study, and I'm very much interested in watching the process of selecting a new Pontiff as it unfolds. Succession in the LDS church is nothing if not predictable, and there's nothing political about it. That's why it intrigues me to watch a religion deal with its own political issues in something as significant as choosing its next spiritual head.

In the meantime, rather than merely report on the failing condition and eventual passing of a great man, the media had to turn it into Death Watch du Jour. The ticket hawkers sat pompously at their anchor desks and barked for everyone's attention. "Getcher front row seats right here! Witness the gripping drama! Watch bereaved Catholics everywhere! And don't forget: we still have a chance to sway church policy about such media-critical issues as women in the priesthood and gay marriage!"

Oh, yeah. Couldn't forget that.

So now the death watch has turned into a social-issues watch. Terri and John Paul II are dead.

Long live their controversies.