#156 - Cooley Doesn't Get It

Steve Cooley might well be a terrific lawyer. I have no idea, personally, and don't much care since I no longer live in Los Angeles County. I remember his campaign for LA County District Attorney being somewhat aggressive as he attempted - successfully - to cast former LACDA Ira Reiner in a "soft on criminals" light. Beyond that, I have no idea as to his qualifications for the job.

This has nothing to do with those qualifications.

What Cooley has done is worthy of the most contemptible politician. This is classic "biting the hand that feeds you" material. After the highly publicized trial of actor Robert Blake ended in acquittal on all but one count (deadlocked 11 to 1 for acquittal on that count), Cooley made a public statement that the jurors in that case were "incredibly stupid."

My hero.

Now, for the record, District Attorneys generally don't go to trial unless they feel they have a case. Certainly, Cooley and his staff must have felt like they could not only make the case, but sell it to the jury as well. As trials go, it was remarkable for it's lack of behind-the-scenes drama. In fact, there wasn't a single case of juror misconduct and the judge made note of that fact in thanking both the jury and the alternates. By all accounts they were attentive, and their deliberations left no doubt that they were considering everything entered into evidence.

So, Mr. Cooley, tell us how this doesn't sound like sour grapes?

The foreman made an excellent point in one interview. He said that comments like Mr. Cooley's only serve to cool prospective jurors' interest in future trials, and it's going to get harder and harder to seat an objective jury. That's not a good thing when you consider the number of people today who go out of their way to avoid jury duty. All they need to know now is that any disagreement with the District Attorney's office will forever brand them as "incredibly stupid."

That, Mr. Cooley, is no way to define our constitutional system of justice. The system worked in this case, and it worked well. I don't necessarily believe Mr. Blake was any more innocent than you apparently do, but I also know that your office did not do the job they were paid to do. They did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Blake pulled that trigger. Period.

Care to denigrate someone's intelligence, Mr. Cooley? Talk to the mirror.

#155 - Careful Neutrality

There are reasons why I have not sounded off on the Terri Schiavo case to date. Primary among them is the simple fact that I'm not there and have no right to impose my judgement based on facts as they've been reported by others. I am not the woman's husband, nor her parent, and it is impossible for me to say how I might act were this my wife or one of my daughters. I can speculate, of course, but that's all it would amount to. Speculation.

The stories, images and sounds that have so captured everyone's attention these past months have been carefully crafted by those who have strong opinions on either side of the question. Yesterday I heard one expert talk about Terri's vegetative state and how she truly is not there. This morning I heard the story of one woman who was diagnosed with persistent vegetative state and recovered. We are meant to see every shred of hope held by the grieving parents, and every plea for dignity and quality of life made by the husband. We are also meant to see the parents as deluded souls who are desperate to save their daughter, and the husband as some sort of monster who wishes to snuff out this woman's life for purely selfish reasons.

Who among us, though, is truly qualified to make these judgements?

Not me. As I pass through life, even with a strong understanding of the eternal nature of man and God's plan for his mortal children, there are events for which there is no possible preparation. Not direct preparation, I should say. When I took my new wife by the hand and placed the ring on her finger, did I know for which trials I should prepare? Of course not. The things that may happen (and even many that have already happened) are not written down in a book somewhere that I can read. There are no telegrams that tell me that one of my children is about to require surgery, or that I might become incapacitated and unable to provide for my family sometime soon.

How, then, can I possibly adjudicate the actions and opinions of a family that has been thrust into that position?

I can't. Especially when you consider that, no matter what I may feel about the facts of this case today, I very probably would change my mind were I suddenly placed in that position myself. Were I the husband or father in this case, I would probably -- even irrationally -- hold onto every glimmer of hope, even if all medical evidence or opinion told me that no hope was possible. Even if my wife and I had talked about such things and agreed in advance not to prolong such suffering, I would probably have second thoughts.

I would have to consider not only the mortal consequences of my decisions, but all the eternal consequences as well. I would be in constant communication with my Bishop and other church leaders. I would be on my knees just as constantly. Even then, I have no idea whether I would have strength enough to either pull the plug, or hold on until the inevitable end. How can I possibly predict what I would do or how I would feel?

I understand and respect every opinion expressed by those who have such obviously strong feelings about this story. I, for one, will not be quick to judge anyone who sides either with the parents or the husband.

I merely pray that God will be merciful to all parties concerned: the husband, the parents, all those who support one or the other.

And, of course, Terri.

#154 - Of Codes and Wizards

I worry about people sometimes. I really do.

Two books (well, one book and one franchise, if you will) sit firmly atop my list of Books Most Overreacted To. It's quite an honor, to be sure, but the winners will not be notified anytime soon. I'm certain the authors are a little busy these days defending themselves against the scurrilous charges that put them on my list in the first place. Or, more probably, they're laughing themselves silly wondering what all the fuss is about.

Harry Potter (five published, one coming soon, and one to go) qualifies as the franchise. The primary reason I began reading the books, of course, was all the hullabaloo being raised by certain Christian groups claiming that Harry Potter was nothing less than a tool of the devil, encouraged devil worship, and would somehow convert millions of innocent children to the celebration of Wiccan. Or something. I tuned it out so long ago that the details have become a bit hazy in my memory.

What Harry Potter really is depends on one's point of view. Mine says it's a wonderful introduction into a world of fantasy that places it on par with my old childhood favorite Oz series by L. Frank Baum. Others may (and do) disagree to varying degrees, but to insist that these books are dangerous is silly. A knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly harmless story line.

Naturally, there will always be those who carry devotion to such stories to dangerous extremes. I feel confident that we may dismiss most of these as people who would be just as likely to believe everything they read in the National Enquirer.

The second book on my list is "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. As usual, I waited for awhile to read it. When I did, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

WARNING TO THOSE WHO HAPPEN TO BE MRS. WOODY: Mild spoiler follows! (She hasn't read it, yet)

I will grant you that, from a doctrinal perspective, some of the points raised are troublesome. Those who believe that the Savior was never married, especially to Magdalene, are most passionate in their faith. I have no argument with those beliefs since I, myself, was raised with them. What I can't understand, however, is why a book that is clearly labelled a novel would be considered so dangerous to people of faith.

Of course, as a Latter-day Saint I've had to endure my share of literature that is - shall we say? - less than complimentary to my religion. I generally find such writing to be reprehensible and, in some cases, downright libelous. A lifetime of dealing with such writings has taught me to simply ignore them. The good ol' First Amendment says that I really can't prevent such nonsense, so I just won't rise to the bait.

Taken at a different level, how different is this book from just about 99% of all movies and TV shows written today that will either take the Lord's name in vain, mock those who believe in him, or teach us how much better it must be to worship sex and money?

The primary difference, in my mind, is the entertainment value.

As stories go, "The Da Vinci Code" really doesn't go out of its way to mock, blaspheme, or even resort to profanity. No more than any other novel I could think of these days, anyway. It's a good yarn with plenty of red herrings and plot twists to keep one guessing right up until the end. I can see where some sensitive souls might take umbrage with Brown's depictions of Catholic beliefs and practices. Still, were I as sensitive as some seem to be, I would never have gotten past Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes novel "A Study in Scarlet," where Mormons are grossly misrepresented both as to beliefs as well as hierarchy within the Priesthood. Scandalous! And yet, I love the stories. All of them. "A Study in Scarlet" merely makes me chuckle during the more sensational parts.

Even if, by some chance, the allegations made in "The Da Vinci Code" happen to be true, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the documents alluded to had any real historical value anyway. Forgery is, perhaps, the third oldest profession, and such hoaxes have been around from the time of Adam.

Fear not, believers. The end is nigh.

The end of this post, that is.

#153 - On the Carl's Jr. Wagon

Every once in a great while, we find something that just hits us completely the wrong way. So much so, in fact, that we feel a need to lodge a protest. The problem is, I'm not a protester. I don't like confrontation and really despise the idea of getting in anyone's face. I barely have room enough for the face I was born with, let alone someone else's. Besides, I don't know where that thing's been...

Some few truly choice entities, however, can still raise my hackles. Quickly. Like the RNC, for example. Most of the time I can ignore them, just as they ignore me. Until they need money. Then they're all over me. "Mr. Woody," they say, "you know we really can't get the job done unless we have every ounce of your disposable income in order to tell everyone why they need to vote for whoever our candidate is this election as opposed to that scumbag pinko commie Diss-ocrat that gets all of his or her money directly from Hollywood. How much may we soak you for?"

Then there are people who advertise on TV.

For some reason, Madison Avenue (I assume it's still Madison Avenue... it's been a few years since I paid any attention!) has lately felt compelled to create ads that push the envelope of poor taste. In fact, the more offensive the punch line, the better for the ad execs and sponsors. Case in point tonight: Carl's Jr.

I've not been a fan of their advertising for quite some time now, beginning with those lovely, mouth-watering images of the glop dripping down onto some athlete's smelly gym shoes. Yummy! And hygienic! But now, they've violated every pregnant woman in America by shoving a camera up into previously private recesses (except for National Geographic, Nova, and a few score books on the subject) to hear the rantings of a neo-homeboy talking about "busting out" and "taking some of this with me" (as he grabs a handful of placenta). Yeah. I want a kid like that in my home. And, oh, by the way, guess I'd better go patronize Carl's Jr. so any future unborn generations won't hold things against me.

So, once again, Carl's Jr. (and they're by no means the only offenders in today's market) have seen fit to alienate my particular demographic (middle-aged men and women who happen to treasure thoughtful exchanges between parents and their offspring) and perpetuate the idea that the only attitude that sells today is the in-yo-face variety.

My heros.

Hence our boycott.

We do not ask - nor do we expect - anyone to join us. Ours will be a silent protest. We will simply refuse to eat Carl's Jr. food until the offensive advertising is eradicated. Which, I suspect, means that I have now gone cold turkey on Carl Karcher Enterprises.

So, gee, really sorry about ruining a booming economy for everyone. Really, I am. But a man's gotta make a stand.

I plan to make mine upwind from Carl's. The smell is starting to nauseate me.

#152 - *sigh* Bill Doesn't Understand Us

Interesting topic over at INDC Journal. Bill's original post dealt with moderates in the GOP feeling a need to bolt if right-wingers (I be self-professed!) don't turn down the heat on a few of our talking points. He uses Roe v. Wade and gay marriage as his catalytic points, mentioning that if we keep harping about total bans on [choose your controversy], we just may drive moderates out of the party and into the arms of some other party.

As always, we on the right remind our esteemed moderate brethren that (for me anyway) it's not really about the party. The GOP may come or go with the tide for all I care. I've already documented my disdain for their inability to use whatever money they milk out of the party faithful every election cycle wisely. Certainly there are things that President Bush has implemented during his administration of which I am less than fond. I even feel that, though I don't believe Social Security was constitutionally appropriate when FDR ramrodded it through Congress, we shouldn't be trying now to "fix" it by monkeying with it the way Bush proposes. I guess that makes me atypical, but "typical" isn't what I strive for.

As a so-called "Christian conservative," it is my personal tenets which drive my political choices and not a need to see one party or the other "in power." Those tenets have far greater control over who I am and how I live than any government ever could. In fact, if the man (or woman) in the Oval Office is honorable and sticks to his/her constitutional limits, I could care less whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or worse.

Do I have my own social agenda? Certainly. Will I fight against those issues that Bill wishes I'd leave alone? You bet. Am I doing it to spite Bill and his fellow mods?

No, sir. I am not.

I despise Roe v. Wade not so much because it made abortion legal, but because it made abortion the thing to do when a mistake is made. Society suddenly, seemingly overnight, turned abortion from a whispered, emotionally and physically torturous procedure to a nearly casual afterthought - as if destroying a young life is no big deal. That's what I wish had never happened. As a Christian, I've been taught that all life is sacred, and that we take life only in defense of our safety, or to fulfill the requirements of justice where warranted. Most abortions satisfy neither parameter.

Gay marriage is, by all spiritual measures, denied by the heavens. Of course, politics long ago removed itself from spiritual boundaries by creating a wall between the state and God that the founders - especially Thomas Jefferson - never intended to impose. Jefferson himself would never have supported legalization of gay marriage in this country. But, more to the point for those of us on the right, it flies in the face of everything we have learned through centuries of study of God's laws. The eternal ones, not the woefully inadequate human ones imposed by legislators. That's why we oppose gay marriage.

Does that mean that I abandon the party if it suddenly supports these things? Not necessarily. As it usually happens in any election, it boils down to choosing the lesser among evils. Sad, but generally true. You can legalize abortion, gay marriage, insider trading, or any number of things. I will, of course, vote against them every time they come to a vote. But should society prevail and impose these things on me, I can still choose not to participate. This is the beauty of life in this country. I can not only not participate, but I can teach my future generations not to support them, either. Making a thing legal does not make it compulsory by any means. (Should compulsory language be introduced, I would, of course, immediately spearhead a recall of the idiots that introduced it!) So far, the First Amendment protects me in my desire to speak out (and teach) against these and other issues.

So, Bill, you have little to fear, at least from this particular right-winger. I won't flail against your opinions. We can agree to disagree.

On some things, anyway.

#151 - Tally Ho!

Utah is leading the charge to turn our collective backs on President Bush's No Child Left Behind program.

It's about time.

I tend not to form strong opinions about most domestic policies, largely because I'm not that smart. I have always figured that if I were smart enough to fisk a government program, I might as well run the silly government while I'm at it.

However, as a parent I have always been concerned with whatever direction our education gurus appear to be pointed. Generally speaking, it's always the wrong one. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is no exception.

The basic premise of the Act appears good on its surface. Leave no one behind. Make sure everyone graduates with all the right skills and knowledge. Just as we don't leave a wounded Marine in the field, neither do we leave kids without all the tools they need to succeed in life. Quel noble.

The problem is - and has always been - in the assumption that kids can be made to learn at the same pace as their classmates. Just as "one size fits all" is a lie, so "one pace fits all" is likewise. A lie. A scam. A farce.

Exhibit A is my son. My ex-wife and I had decided early on to homeschool him. Try as we might, he just wouldn't get interested in reading. There was no question about his intelligence. All his other skills were right where they should have been by any reasonable measure. He just wasn't interested in reading.

As our marriage began its sunset, we realized that our son would have to go to public school. We were worried about how it would be perceived that a second grader had such sub-standard reading skills as he seemed to be exhibiting. Then, very suddenly, he started picking up the books and almost literally overnight became a voracious reader. Had he actually been in a public school before that happened, we would have been subjected to all sorts of testing, conferencing, and angst over his perceived non-performance. In fact, he was just waiting for his interest level to catch up with his skills. He actually could read, he just didn't want to.

NCLB, in this case, would have caused a lot of grey hair for no good reason.

The Woodyettes are another fine example. Here we have two youngsters who love to learn. They love the fact that Mommy is their teacher, and Mommy (an ex-teacher herself) loves teaching them. They have lots of fun together. The girls constantly amaze me with their progress. Reading is no exception.

Mrs. Woody settled on Hooked on Phonics for her curriculum and the older Woodyette went to work toward the end of her Kindergarten year. A year later, she was reading the first Harry Potter book by herself. Daddy was blown away. Mommy just wears that smug smile of a parent who knows her kids. Interestingly, while we hadn't planned on starting her quite so soon, the younger Woodyette began - on her own - to pick up on what her big sister had done. NCLB wouldn't have done that for my girls. Mommy did that because it was a natural progression for them, and they demonstrated that they were ready.

I'm pleased to see states demonstrate the kind of backbone required to snub the Feds. Shucks, if I thought California was capable of putting together a responsible and comprehensive education program, I'd even support higher state taxes to offset the loss of federal money. They're not, so I don't, but I can dream.

In the meantime, NCLB is dead. Long live NCLB. Now, let's move on to a program that works. For a change.

#150 - America's Choir? Sure, But...

Kris Wright over at By Common Consent wonders about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and its somewhat recent cognomen of "America's Choir." The question is essentially asked (as I interpret it, anyway), "Why would a choir that represents a religion that was for years oppressed by its own country suddenly become a masthead for that very country?"

Based on some highly cynical comments that followed the post, it might appear that some members of the church somehow feel that the choir is not only representative of some high-level church-wide hypocrisy, but incompetent as a choir to boot. I'd like to address myself to the cynics.

Goodness. Where to start?

One cannot discuss the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without discussing its musical heritage. From the very first revelation directing Emma Smith to compile our first hymn book, the Lord has made it crystal clear that music is an integral part of the gospel. Music - by which I mean uplifting and edifying music - is said by the Lord himself to be equivalent to prayer. Prayer, as understood by Latter-day Saints, is the highest form of communication of which man is capable. Would that not by extension place music at the same level?

I have been a Church "musician" since my youth. I have both sung in and directed choirs at ward and stake levels since I was seventeen. I have served as chorister in Sunday School (pre-bloc, of course!), Sacrament, and Priesthood. I have served as a music chairman in wards and stakes throughout my adult life. I have learned through long experience that worship without music is dry. Worship with music that doesn't quite fit the Lord's pattern is actually worse. I've learned that there's a reason why we need revelation in the Church, and the music we sing or listen to in our services and conferences is a prime example.

Whatever appellation it may acquire or assume over time, the Tabernacle Choir serves a few primary purposes: Along with providing the music for the general meetings of the Church, it also serves as an example to choirs throughout the Church as to the music that ought to be performed. (Yes, I know. How many wards have their own orchestra? On the other hand, how many sacrament meetings have you attended where a couple of violins accompanied the choir?) The other primary purpose of the choir, of course, is missionary work. The choir is one of the most effective missionary tools the Church has at its disposal, and members of the choir are, in effect, serving as missionaries. Only those who are spiritually defiant will fail to be moved when listening to the choir, especially in person. They teach by the Spirit.

As for its technical prowess, the choir has improved dramatically through the successive efforts of its conductors. I've been following the choir since the days of Condie. The improvement in the choir was remarkable under Ottley's leadership, and it has become even more technically proficient under Jessop's baton. So the occasional word may be mumbled. Try getting 12 voices to sing a true pianissimo and you'll appreciate just how well the Tab Choir does with 360 in a hall that seats 21,000.

Several years ago, Mom and I had an opportunity to sing with the Tab Choir as part of a guest choir for Music and the Spoken Word. What a neat experience that was! Most gratifying was having a chance to visit with Choir members and realize that they are, first and foremost, humble members of a worldwide Church. They have testimonies of the gospel and a desire to share a talent with which they've been blessed with the rest of the world. Bro. Ottley still had the baton, and he, too, was very gracious in conversation.

In the end, the name "America's Choir" is really just marketing. An affectionate nickname that shows how highly regarded the choir is in its native country. A reminder that even though they represent the Lord's restored Church, they are also American citizens and proud to be so. On the other hand, its recent worldwide tours should also amply demonstrate the love people feel for this group wherever it may be heard. As an American I may feel justifiably proud of this Choir and its music. As a Latter-day Saint, I appreciate this Choir for bringing me closer to God.

Here's an idea: Show your ward choir that you appreciate them, too. After all, they serve the same purposes for you that the Tab Choir serves for the entire Church. They may or may not be the best musicians the Church has to offer. They may not even have a bucket with a handle big enough to carry the tunes. But they love the gospel enough to offer those prayers on your behalf. Thank them for that the next time they sing. You'll make their day.

#149 - Controversy at the Academy? Really?

Via Drudge:

Chris Rock "clarified" his previous statement about straight men not watching the Oscars. Thank goodness.

Rock stuck to his guns. "I really don't know any straight men who aren't in show business that have ever watched the Oscars," he said.

Dead on, Chris. Haven't watched more than a few minutes of the show since I was a kid, I believe. Even then I realized just how politically and socially self-serving the entire industry really was.

As for Mr. Rock, I've never watched or heard his stuff. Simple imperative, really. His reputation preceeded him.

#148 - Weeping For Joy

(H/T: Drudge)

This has got to be the nicest thing the Democrats have ever done for the country. If ever a chairman of the DNC could torpedo his party's chances of running this country, Dean is that chair.

Dean appeals to that liberal fringe of the party that helped them lose so handily in the last election. The ones who were so dead-set against anything smacking of centrism that they spent the entire election insulting anyone who dared believe differently from themselves.

I neither know, nor do I care, what most Dems think of this development. Typically, in my world anyway, party chairs have little or no influence on my political thinking. Heck, I'm not altogether sure I could even name the RNC chair. All I know is that sometime in 2006, this is the idiot who will be choking my mailbox with pleas for my money. Money they neither need nor know what to do with. I will, of course, be dropping those letters directly into my interactive round file. The one with the shredder attached.

Dean will, of course, be doing the same for the Dems. He will light fires under those same Hollywood luminaries whom we as Republicans are publicly thanking today just in time for the Academy Awards. And in the meantime, we can all expect to be treated to the following platitudes, ad nauseum:

"We only have one way to go, and that's up," Georgia delegate Lonnie Platt said.

You'll need a loooong ladder.

"We are trying so hard to be like Republicans and we're not. I think Howard Dean says clearly that we are different," Cusack said. "We are the party of ordinary citizens and not the elite, we are everyday working folk."

Ordinary, non-elitist, everyday working left-wing liberals. Remember which Democrats the Deanites will be playing to.

At the end of the day, Dean can do nothing more than play the old shell game. It's all about perception, and if you can swing the perception in your favor, that's what you do. Fortunately for us on the right side of the spectrum, he's telegraphing his moves:

Dean told Democratic committee members Friday that it's important to learn to be more comfortable discussing the party's core values.

"The way I hope to deal with that problem, is not to abandon our core principles, but talk about them in a different way," he said.

Democrats are not pro-abortion, but "we are the party in favor of allowing women to make up their own minds about their health care," Dean, a physician, said.

Democrats are not for gay marriage, but "we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people," he said.

"We are the party of moral values," Dean said. "There is nothing moral about cutting 300 million dollars that is used to feed starving children."

Neither is there anything moral about killing unborn babies for convenience, dissolving the institution of marriage, or talking about morals without having any.

Let the games begin.

P.S. Did I mention the relative morality of a party that fights harder for the protection of their pets than their unborn children? Didn't want to forget that...

#147 - Thus Spake the Poet

My brother is a serious poet. For all his chuff and bluster, his poetry does a better job of revealing his true nature than does his rapier wit. And that's saying something.

I hesitate to offer interpretations of efforts like this latest offering. First, it's difficult to know exactly what was in the author's head when he wrote it. I may (and have in the past) miss the point completely. Also, even if I'm right, interpreting such work somehow diminishes its impact. It's a little like watching a movie for the first time, only to have some idiot behind you tell you not only what's coming, but why the director chose to portray it a certain way.

So, with as little interpretation as possible, I encourage you to read this indictment of modern-day Holland. From noble past to reprehensible present, it's a neat encapsulation of what I consider to be the Dutch Deformation.

Well done, Bro.

#146 - "Arrest of the [insert chronological unit here]"

More years ago than anyone cares to think about, sports reporters on local and national sports shows began "Athlete Arrest of the Week" features. The title varied, of course, from reporter to reporter, but the substance was the same. Far too many professional (and not a few amateur) athletes were getting arrested on a variety of charges, up to and including murder. It may have seemed like a joke in the beginning, but courts quickly began working overtime to handle these celebrity cases.

After hearing about yet another teacher being arrested for chicanery of one kind or another involving one or more students today, I decided to see just how many other stories of this kind were currently being reported across the country. The answer is depressing.

Following is a list of teachers who have been arrested sometime in the last couple of months. In all fairness, none of these has, to my knowledge anyway, been tried and convicted, so innocence is still presumed. Still, the fact that these represent a mere fraction of the stories found on Google News is sobering. Any one of these charges, if true, carries with it not only the censure called for by law, but also the potential for ruining the lives of the individuals involved.

I really don't think I want to feature a "Teacher Arrest of the Day" as a regular part of this blog, but I wanted you to know that I've already got the material to do it. Yes, I'm a homeschooler, but this is not about some smug arrogance on my part. This is about warning parents to watch out for their kids. The list of people with whom we can safely entrust them is growing ever shorter.

Christopher Ryan Davis, sexual battery by an authority figure, Tennessee
Katherine Tew, sex offense with a student and indecent liberties with a student, North Carolina
Pamela Rogers Turner, sexual battery by an authority figure and statutory rape, Tennessee
Wayne E. Christopherson, first degree child molestation, Washington
Peter Ziskin, molestation, California
Joseph Conte, lewd conduct involving children under 16, Florida
Daniel Wayman, exposing himself and soliciting sex, Florida
Karri Suzanne Olmstead, drug charges, Indiana
Todd Christensen, endangering welfare of child and drug possession, New York
Chad Denis Maughan, third-degree child rape and second-degree sexual misconduct with a minor, Washington
Rebecca Boicelli, lewd acts with a minor and unlawful intercourse, California
Robert Gang, unspecified (used computer to correspond with minor, invited her to his home), New York
Dale Monnin, public indecency, Ohio
Jeffrey Brent Baber, child molestation, Indiana

I get queasy just thinking about this. Gotta go take some Tums.

UPDATE: Reader Scooter makes the case that any one of these individuals could be someone you know, or a family member. They may attend your church, or could be a co-worker. They may be completely innocent - victims of a "witch hunt" mentality. I'm not trying to be judge and jury in this case. I merely call attention to the need for parental vigilance, no matter what age the child.

I have every confidence that justice will be served in each case. If not, there's still one tribunal where mortal mistakes can finally be sorted out.

#145 - Adaptable Christianity

Hugh Hewitt was singing the praises of what must be a progressive church at the bottom of this post (long post, and you'll have to scroll waaay down to find this passage). He makes the following interesting statement:

As with every other institution out there, Christian churches have to adapt quickly to a new culture or decline just as quickly as audience share has for old newspapers and the big networks.

That sounds great in a market-based economy, but in reality it describes the greatest weakness of modern religion.

For years now we have witnessed tremendous turmoil in churches that were previously regarded as stalwarts. Just last year we watched in fascination as the Episcopal church threatened to implode over the elevation of an openly gay bishop. Had the church paid attention to its own doctrines over the centuries, it never would have reached this point. The question of gays - or even women - in the priesthood should never even have been subject to debate.

Every so often the Pope issues statements on topics ranging from abortion to celibacy in the priesthood. Agree or disagree with him, he's been consistent on those topics from the first days of his administration. With approximately one billion members worldwide, he can ill afford to have basic tenets of the church become subjects of open debate. He lays down the law and expects Catholics everywhere to obey those laws.

Those churches who have allowed such debate have seen tremendous struggles as they have evolved through societal changes and pressures. This lack of consistency is mirrored in the struggles their members have in dealing with those same pressures. Abortion, for example, ought to be a "no brainer" for orthodox Christianity. The sanctity of human life, even developing human life, is basic to our beliefs. Abortion, therefore, becomes an option only in extreme cases. Same sex marriage would be unacceptable upon careful examination of scripture because of statements made regarding homosexuality.

One of my own earliest posts pointed out the problems with what I call "designer scriptures" that have appeared recently. Statements by the "translators" made it clear that if enough people asked for it, changes would be made to accomodate their "needs."

Call me old fashioned (or, better yet, right-wing zealot), but I suspect that if the Lord had wanted such changes made to the scriptures, He would have dictated them that way in the first place. Rather than seemingly make eternal rewards easier to obtain, we should be helped to understand that those rewards are based on a lifetime of adherence to principles that never change.

I veer sharply from Hugh's path here. Adaptability is not what we truly need in our churches today. Consistency and conformity with eternal law are what we need. A return to the teachings of the Savior in their purest form is what we need.

We need it now more than ever.

UPDATE: Cameron at Way Off Bass correctly points out that some change is desirable, even necessary. We both agree, however, that such changes can only be administrative, not doctrinal. That's why the LDS Church will never have drum kits in their services. That's also why I spend so many hours at the church building on any given Sunday, instead of spreading my time out through the entire week as in years past. Life evolves and how we use our time will certainly evolve. The central tenets of religion, on the other hand, simply cannot.

UPDATE II: Mark Hansen over at Mo' Boy Blog picks up the thread. Good reading. Does a good job of defining the different kinds of change one could (and should) expect in a religious setting.

#144 - "Toys" for Attendance

Attendance at Los Angeles Unified schools has apparently gotten so bad, they're resorting to bribery to get kids to show up.

Heard this morning on local CBS affilliate KNX newsradio, the Los Angeles Unified School District has decided to award a Toyota to a "deserving student," defined as one who either shows markedly improved or outstanding attendance this year. Toyota, smelling a public relations coup, I'm sure, donated the vehicle to this worthy cause.

Time will tell what, if any, effect this raffle will have on the kids.

There's a commercial I dearly love. This is saying something because I detest most of them, but this one never fails to get a chuckle out of me. A dad is seen trying various ways to wake up his sleepy son in an attempt to get him out there fighting for those big scholarships. You may have seen this one. Dad is shown vacuuming the kid's room at some unearthly hour of the morning, blasting an air horn, and letting a squirrel loose. He then sends the kid off to school with the squirrel clinging leech-like to the kid's back. I laugh because I can easily envision my own parents trying stunts like that when I was a kid.

It also points out - in a more or less extreme way - that motivation of kids properly begins at home. Educators can do their best to keep education exciting and fresh for their students, but it begins (and should be perpetuated) at home.

The Toyota is, of course, a very large carrot dangling off of a very short stick. Unless they've decided to take every school's valedictorians and honor students out of the running, it's very possible that the car will be awarded to someone who is already (and probably always has been) attending school at or very near 100%. What motivation would that be to someone who has an honest desire to go to school but just can't get excited about facing another dreary day in the classroom? Let's assume such a kid decides that he or she would really like a new set of wheels. They put all that effort into improving their attendance, only to have the car awarded to someone who represents the school on the academic decathlon team. Bang goes another balloon in that kid's life.

I suspect, Mr. Romer, that most of your truant students are far too jaded to let a little thing like a new Toyota put their butts in a classroom chair any time soon. In fact, those who have found imaginative outlets for their energies are probably already driving something far racier than a stock Toy off the lot.

Mr. Romer either doesn't get it or can't do anything about it. Education needs to be its own reward. If the kids aren't seeing it that way, you need to do something about the perception. Lotteries that carry with them crushing disappointment for a large number of students aren't the way to go. Find ways to help parents get their kids out of the gang mentality. Make education more interesting. Cash in that Toyota and pay for another teacher. Whatever it takes, make it a practical approach with an exciting end result. For all students, not just the one that won the door prize.

Romer's strengths need to be in quality education, not bad marketing.

UPDATE: Welcome to Joanne Jacobs readers. Joanne teases me about bullying the Woodyettes. Hopefully I set her straight. ;-)

#143 - Celebrities Can Be Very Trying

Michael King (Rambling's Journal) opines that Michael Jackson needs to be given a long-term vacation at the nearest pedophilia rest home. One with bars that prevents dangling small children out of windows.

Celebrity trials have always presented a problem for me. Once upon a time I confess to being fascinated by the spectacle. Any time a headliner ended up in court, especially for more heinous crimes, I was just as sucked in as the media wanted me to be.

Until OJ, that is.

Dave Barry once stated that he expected the OJ trial industry to keep him busy for at least a year following the trial. If you took OJ out of the formula and substituted the word "celebrity," you'd have a lifetime supply of article fodder.

On one level I can understand the hype. Public figures have celebrity because they've done something at some point in their lives to make them famous. Movies, sports, politics. All have their iconic figures, and the public (assisted ably by the MSM) are constantly aware of their activities.

The OJ trial was the first one I paid much attention to, if only because it pointed out a few glaring inconsistencies in our woeful need for "hero" worship. Understand: I'm not saying hero worship is bad, so long as you're picking true heros to emulate. Unfortunately, most of the people branded as heros by their adoring fans are not so much worthy of worship as they are needful of serious counselling or intervention. Most of them are downright weird.

In OJ's case it was the idea that a man (a black man, to be honest) who had been a tremendous athlete, and had subsequently made a successful media life for himself could be somehow capable of such a heinous crime. We began to see how a life of celebrity began to unravel by stages. A man who had begun to buy into his own legend, a trophy wife, petty jealousies that escalated into violence. It was, and remains, a sad statement. Today the man lives in a fishbowl, hounded by a scandal-hungry public (assisted, again quite ably, by the MSM).

Michael Jackson is even more fascinating. Here was a man who, as a kid, had tremendous talent. There was no doubt the kid could sing. Then, mysteriously, he somehow missed that part of puberty where the voice changes. For years after most of us suffered through come-and-go Exorcist/PeeWee Herman voices, MJ still sounded like a twelve year old. As his music and celebrity continued to evolve, we watched him literally become a caricature of himself. His nose became pointy. His skin took on a bleached hue. His public antics and eccentricities were well documented. Then there was Neverland.

Rumors of sexual ambiguity and tales of children having "sleep overs." Young boys. Questions.

I had long since tuned it out.

The media-choreographed circus that was the OJ trial had finally cured me of my obsession with celebrity of any kind. As I watched his multi-million dollar legal defense team spin and conjure for the world to see, I became disgusted with the whole thing. With OJ. With his "dream team." With the drooling, fawning public who spurred the whole thing on.

Want to know the truth? I could care less whether Jackson is guilty of this crime. Let the justice system work its process quietly and efficiently. Close those doors and let the witnesses testify. Let the jury make their decision without becoming fodder for every media legal "expert" who doesn't have a real job in this country. Then let Jackson take the consequences of his actions. Let his empire crumble around him. He's had the spotlight long enough... probably far longer than he ever really deserved.

At the end of the day it will boil down to the same arguments. If he's convicted, it will be decried as character assassination. Jackson Senior is already playing the racism card. If he's acquitted, it will be seen as another celebrity "buying" his freedom.

Either way, it will make little difference in my own life. Except for not having to see his mutated image splashed in front of me every day. That, I can live with.

#142 - Blogger Returns from Bermuda Triangle

Wonders why there's been no progress on this planet

Cameron free-associates his work day (night? shift? I hate retail). Hilarious stuff, but you'll want to skip quickly past that cover of Li'l Kim. Or maybe you won't. Ya reads Cam, ya takes yer chances.

I've returned to the blogging yoke, with a piece of family history. Lighter fare if you need a break. Me? More CSI tonight and the new show "NUMB3RS." I like it. Appeals to my inner Geek.

#141 - Meme? What Meme?

Just a quick scan of Drudge tonight to see if there's anything fisk-worthy out there. Lessee now... hmm... D.C. is in "lockdown" mode for the inauguration tomorrow... wow, they've even got missile launchers deployed. Must be serious about this... Ok, Boxer insults Rice. Big Whoopin' Surprise there... Singer curses at youth inaugural concert. Look for an "I toldja so" from Malkin... Brits have their own hands full with Abu Ghraib abuses. Heh, join the club, fellas... Another UN alarmist predicts death and destruction for major cities. Big deal. Bible's been doing that for centuries, but will we listen? Noooo... Another Big Chill in Woebegon Land. More fodder for Moonbat Keillor, I suppo... Wait! What's this??

NOOOOOOooooooooo!!!

Not a scandal at KRISPY KREME!!??

It can't be, it just can't! Better check the link. Maybe Drudge is jumping the gun on this one... he's done that before...

Federal investigation... CEO with the intelligence of cottage cheese... accounting irregularities... stock plunges...

Oh, great. Now what'll I do on Breakfast Club days? Krispy Kremes are the only things I actually look forward to on Wednesdays! Danged low-carb diets, anyway.

Oh, wait. That makes it at least partly my fault. I'm guilty by association. Great.

*sigh*

Better hang up my bloggin' spurs. There ain't no joy no more.

#140 - Condi v. Senate

The hearings continue. I have little doubt that very little substantive debate regarding U. S. foreign policy will actually take place. It's always more of an opportunity for politicians who oppose the sitting president's policies to make their political hash in a forum where potential voters may actually be listening.

My only question is:

How difficult is it for multi-millionaire white males to have to question a woman who happens to be waaaaaay smarter than they are?

Just askin'.

#139 - Remind Me Why We Need Public Schools

Every time I find myself vacillating even a little about our decision to homeschool, something like this comes along. Joanne Jacobs points us to an article in the Mercury News about a middle school in Palo Alto, California who invited a rather, er, colorful speaker to their Career Day.

Assuming the salient talking points of the article to be true, I'm not sure which distresses me more: the idea that this fool was invited in the first place, or the fact that the kids thought he was the best speaker of the day.

Understanding that I'm putting myself squarely in opposition to all the ACLU bulemics who may wish to wave First Amendment arguments in my face, let me point out that anyone's right to freely express his or herself only serves to strengthen the argument that I should be allowed to control anything and everything to which my children are exposed. This becomes the essence of why Mrs. Woody and I choose to homeschool. There is no possible way that I or any relatively small group of like-minded people can significantly influence the academic agendas of any given school district to ensure that my children will be taught only those things of which I approve. This assumes, of course, that I tacitly approve of such things as math, history, English, science, and so forth. I draw the line, however, at moral issues.

So far as I can tell, modern schools, in concert with today's popular culture, have a lousy track record where teaching (or even encouraging) morality, integrity, or character are concerned. I see it as the height of irresponsibility to even suggest to any young person that by artificially increasing your natural anatomy you could make a fortune by exposing yourself to an addictive, destructive industry, no matter how legal it may be.

In fact, reading between the lines, the message shifts subtly: You don't necessarily have to work hard to make your way in this world. No one will think less of you for becoming a professional hedonist. Shucks, what do your parents know, anyway? If they nag, just leave. Go find someone who will become your enabler in life, so you can rationalize every dumb decision you seem determined to make.

The Principal, Joe DiSalvo, seems to have wonderful hindsight regarding the decision to hire this "management consultant" (now, there's a frightening thought!) as a Career Day speaker. Such a man would be allowed back if he were paired with a "strong teacher" and his materials were edited in advance. I guess that's why he's the principal, hm? To make those tough decisions and protect the kids, right?

If I were a Palo Alto parent and one of my children were in attendance at that event, Mr. DiSalvo wouldn't be taking quite so cavalier an attitude about it. He would find himself facing one hellatious fight at the District level with repeated demands that he step aside and let someone run that school who actually cares about the futures of the kids. There would be demands for a complete disclosure of every single event taking place at that school, and alternatives provided for activities where parents felt it inappropriate to have their kids attend.

Unfortunately, I'm sure Mr. DiSalvo's job is safe. Parents may be angry over the incident, but few, if any, will demand that level of accountability from their local educators. This has been the trend through most of the last century. Parents continue to abdicate their responsibilities to the schools. We've been conditioned to believe somehow that we are incapable of understanding what's best for our kids' educations. The unions can't see beyond the money they claim to need, administrators feel that only they have enough education themselves to be able to teach our youngsters, and the politicians can't stand the thought of anyone but themselves having control over the entire affair.

To those who do avail themselves of the public education system I say: Stay involved. Don't ever assume that your school is a "safe" haven for your kids. Question everything. Accept only the best. As for me...

Public schools long ago ran out of compelling arguments for why, exactly, I should submit my children to their tender mercies.

UPDATE: It's late Sunday evening, and this post has generated - by far - the most comment traffic I've ever seen on this blog. Between comments posted below, and those on my brother's site, I've been encouraged by the breadth of the discussion. Perhaps I can make more than an occasional ripple in the blogpond. Thanks to all who have commented. Even where we disagree, I have found the discussion to be both enlightening and stimulating.

#138 - Of Storms and Men

The recent winter storms that have pounded California have left me looking somewhat like a prune lately. While my eyes readjust to sunlight, I can take time now to ponder the fate of those who, like the recent tsunami victims, have been called upon to sacrifice seemingly without cause.

Most heart-wrenching (for me, anyway) are two stories. Obviously, the landslide at La Conchita is an extreme tragedy. We Woodys pass by this little community every time we drive up to Santa Barbara to visit family. It always amazed me that people would be plucky enough to build homes in a spot where that cliff had given way at least once before. It amazes me still that people there are already talking about rebuilding.

Another story that made the local news was of a mother in the Antelope Valley, north of Los Angeles, who had driven around a flood barricade and gotten stuck. She managed to get herself and three children out of the vehicle and onto the roof to await rescue workers. A helicopter got her two older children, then began to lift her while she held onto her two old. Part way up, the woman's grip slipped and the child plummeted back into the raging water below. They found the child's body downstream a few hours later.

These are incidents that I cannot possibly imagine having to live through.

There are lessons here to be learned, of course. Now, however, is not the time to expound them. Now is the time for compassion and action on behalf of the victims. We can save the debate for why these things happened for a later day.

So, what to do? Many, many people have already banded together to give assistance, whether physical or financial, to victims of storm damage. Some of us, unfortunately, are not in a position to offer that kind of assistance. But there are still ways we can contribute.

If your physical faculties are limited and money is tight, you can always give blood. Back in October, I posted about having visited the "friendly vampires" of the American Red Cross. I'd do so now, but have to wait for this dratted flu bug to pass. In the meantime, let me recap what I'd written in that post:

Being close to Halloween, I visited the vampires the other day. It's been awhile and I had some extra blood that was just laying around looking bored, so I gave it something to do. Years ago, this would never have happened without heavy sedation.

<Ensuing long-winded story about my unreasonable childhood fear of needles and how I overcame it.>

The "vampires" are, of course, the friendly American Red Cross volunteers who work blood drives throughout the world. I've been on the receiving end of their services, and I'm grateful they were there. I've not been a consistent donor over the years, but I always feel good when I do. I always feel like I'm making a real contribution to society, as opposed to this incredibly self-serving blog stuff I write.

The Red Cross gave me a donor's card last year, and it says "Type O Hero" right on it. Given my history with needles, I feel a little like a hero.

Please donate. Call 1-800-GIVELIFE to find out where and how.

Please donate. I will, once I'm safe again.

#137 - Is CBS Worth Redeeming?

I simply do not have time to get into a deeper analysis of the CBS investigation, and I'm perfectly content to trust those who have torn the report limb from limb elsewhere. Cases can be made for all opinions I've read so far. CBS did take some serious collateral damage from Thornburgh's team, but still managed to neatly side-step the more basic issue of whether they displayed "political bias" in their Bush/TANG smear campaign. (Oopsie... did I just let my own bias show? Silly me!)

For my part, I really don't care about the report. Unlike many bloggers, I simply have not been holding my breath waiting to hear from some respected yahoo as to whether CBS poked itself in it's own Black Eye. The real question for me is whether CBS (or any of the "legacy" media) is worth the effort it would take to rebuild.

CBS (as well as every other long-established news organization) touts itself as a reliable, respected source for news and information deemed important to our lives. Never mind that we seem to spend copious amounts of time listening to "important" reports of celebrity trials, athlete arrests of the day, and "in depth" reports consisting of 5 minutes' worth of heavily filtered material. The fact that this pablum comes from organizations like CBS somehow makes it "respectable."

Once upon a time the news orgs held sway over the world of information. They were able to keep us well informed because we lacked the abilities, energies, or resources to learn otherwise. Dissenting voices were drowned out as they lacked the infrastructure to make themselves heard over the din of nightly newscasts.

Enter the Internet, and the instantaneous exchange of information from around the world. Not by "seasoned" professional reporters, but by human observers of all kinds in every nation. People not only "on the ground," but intimately involved with the events that shape our perceptions. We were given streaming video of images from the tsunami within hours of that event, making those images superfluous when shown later in the day on any given network. Before I ever heard a news anchor talk about relief efforts, the 'Net was abuzz with multiple ways to donate and contribute to those efforts. I didn't need another talking head in an empty suit bravely standing under a 30 foot wall of water to tell me how bad it was.

I already knew. (Do I even need to mention how quickly the blogosphere reacted to the tragedy?)

For my money (or lack thereof), CBS can go the way of the dodo. Their brains have already been sucked out through their noses. Let's just finish the embalming job and bury them in the nearest pyramid.

Who knows? In another 1,000 years or so, even CBS may be worth something.