Katrina Relief

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

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

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

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


Technorati tags: flood aid Hurricane Katrina

#192 - Worthy of Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#191 - It Must Be Monday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Bunny says: A lot of parents are wimps.

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

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

#190 - Huh? (Updated)

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

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

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

Long live the Ecosystem. With or without me.

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

#189 - Welcome to the Woundup! (Updated)

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

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

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

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

Welcome one; welcome all!

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

(HT: BrianB of Memento Moron)

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

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

"Rent."

For shame.

#187 - Another Reason to Support Judge Roberts

This can only be good. (HT: Drudge)

Key quote:

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

No argument here.

#186 - A Little More Anguish, Please!

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

As Kim puts it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#185 - Hmmm...

Every parent instinctively knows this.

#184 - PETA Pettiness

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

[sigh]

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

#183 - The NY Times Declares War

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Matt Drudge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#182 - What To Get...

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

Kiddie cell phones.

I have only one question:

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

Thank you.

HT: Dave Barry

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

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

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

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

Key quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Phooey.

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

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

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

Makes a Daddy feel good, that does.

#180 - What the...?!

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

#179 - Not a Political Church - UPDATED

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

Two questions were then posed:

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

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

And yet, it isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money quote:

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

Oy.

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

Carry on...

#178 - Non-Issue Alert!

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

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

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

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

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

Right?

#177 - Another Exercise in Futility

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

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

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

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

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

Dateline: Escondido, California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#176 - Your NEA - Working to Spend Your Dollars

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

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

By Dave Arnold

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Dave. You lost me.

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing:

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

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

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

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

• “What about socialization? Forget about it!”

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

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

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

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

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

• “Visit our online bookstore.”

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

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

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

Gullible Parents

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

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

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

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

Two problems:

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

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

In conclusion:

No Training

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

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

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

Ummmm...

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

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

#175 - Looking for Pole Position in 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#174 - California Special Election Du Jour

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words: Why have a state Legislature?

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

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

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

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

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