Why Is Everyone Leaving?

My brother has been guest-blogging over at Junkyard Blog this week, and I've actually added the JB to my blogroll. Fond as I am of my brother, I'm never certain just where his editorial whims will take him next. In this post he comments on an article written by Michael Barone of the OpinionJournal.

Barone's basic premise is that people are leaving the major coastal cities by droves and moving to the less crowded areas of the so-called "fly over" zones of America. Meanwhile, immigrants surge into those coastal cities to replace those who have left. The overall effect is one of having precisely the sort of two-tiered society against which the Democrats continuously campaign. Unfortunately, those same cities are the ones that provide the largest support base for Democratic policy and power today. It's a delicate tightrope for pols like Feinstein and Pelosi to have to berate the very societies that gave them birth, so to speak.

(Yes, yes... sweeping generalizations. That's what we do, here at the Woundup.)

Cam argues that it's not necessarily a cause and effect sort of situation, and I agree with him. I'm not altogether sure that's where Barone was heading with his numbers game, but I'll stick to Cam's extrapolation. The main reason why people leave cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco and move to Fuhgedabahdit, Colorado is... money.

I live in Orange County, California. Orange County has, for decades, been touted as one of the richest plums in a state full of plum trees, if you get my drift. I happen to live in an area right smack between two of the snootiest-per-capita areas of the county, Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills. When I say there's gold in them thar hills, I'm not really kidding. There is a lot of money here, old and new, which is why Yorba Linda's self-absorbed statement is "Land of Gracious Living." I don't think Anaheim Hills has any such statement, but they don't really need one. You don't find a dwelling under $1.5 million unless it's a condo. Maybe only $1.1 mil for a condo. At those prices I couldn't afford to rent one of their bathrooms, let alone a room with kitchen privileges.

But Cam also got me to thinking about our own situation and why we're still here in California, and why we won't be as soon as we're able to retire. Money is part of it, yes. But we also have some health considerations that will deeply narrow the choices of retirement communities when we're ready to make that plunge in about 15 years. Give or take.

Mrs. Woody and I both have arthritis. Actually, not to alarm those who happen to be my mother (not that this would come as any real shock to said mother), but my own arthritis is still only suspected, not diagnosed. And, of course, it's nowhere near as bad as Mrs. Woody's. But all this joint trouble means that we're probably going to be looking for places with nice, moderate temps for as much of the year as we can get away with. So, nice, moderate temperatures at nice, moderate prices. Any ideas out there in Woundupland? (Hands down, Mom and Bob. You, too, Matt and Amy. You'd be at the top of the list if it weren't for all those doggoned TORNADOS you keep running into.)

Therein lies the rub, alas. You see, we've basically grown up here in Southern California. We know what this weather is like from year to year and from El Niño to La Niña. We know all about earthquakes. Pound for pound, we tend to prefer temblors to tornados. Call us biased, but we don't care. If not for the fact that our biggest customers at work are various agencies of the United States government, I could honestly say that I'd much rather not have to deal with that much wind.

Believe it or not, the immigration "problem" (regular readers of this blog know what I mean by that) is nowhere on the list of reasons why we feel compelled to leave Southern California at some point. Immigrants don't generally bother me, unless they refuse to control their kids in public. In this part of the world, if my home were to be burglarized, it's about even money whether the perp would be an illegal, or dark-skinned, or some bored brat kid of some local politician.

Cam mentions the skyrocketing crime rates in places I used to live (Lancaster and Quartz Hill among 'em) and he's absolutely correct: I don't miss them. Not one iota. Housing was much cheaper "up there" than "down below," which meant that poor families were settling in those places and bringing their gang-indoctrinated kids with them. By the time I left, I was living just outside the boundaries of what was quickly becoming just another South Central LA slum, only about 75 miles to the north. We began calling our neighborhoods "Bloods and Crips, North."

So crime is a constant worry here. But I don't worry about (or fear) immigrants largely because I know quite a bit about where they come from. I lived in Guatemala for nearly two years, speaking their language and living in the same conditions they lived in, only with more money to spend in a month than they would see in a whole year of work. I can tell you what circumstances south of the border compel these people to risk everything to try for a better life in the hated United States. Politics may make for stange bedfellows, as the saying goes, but scrabbling for an existence can make them even stranger.

I dunno... maybe I'm over-simplifying the situation. I refuse to live too close to areas where illegal immigration causes the most trouble, so I'm removed from that dynamic. The people I know who are not native to this country are, for the most part, genuine people. I have them for neighbors. I count some of them as friends. I work with many of them. I find them to be honorable, hard working, decent people. They are not among the reasons why I need to leave this place. Eventually.

No, I leave because I won't be able to afford to stay here. I'm a middle-class guy living in an area that requires us to be either one strata up, or two strata down. I can't afford the one, and I really don't want the other. So we'll leave. We will move to a place where the cost of living will hopefully stay within our means until we pass into the next life, and hope the weather won't cause our inflamed joints to throb painfully for too many weeks out of the year. It will need to have relatively easy access to wherever our children are living by that time with their own families so we can do the Grandma-and-Grandpa-come-for-(SHORT)-visits routine. It will, if Michael Barone is correct, likely have immigrant families living there.

So long as I have Mrs. Woody there with me, it will be perfect.

An Ocean of Memories

[I meant to post this on Inner Dad. I don't generally post schmaltzy stuff like this on the Woundup. The Woundup is my mosh pit, for corn's sake. You know the kinds of commenters I get over here... why would I subject family stuff to that atmosphere?

On the other hand, since when did I ever do or say anything that made sense?

Vive le blog!]

[UPDATE: Okay, I couldn't do it. This sort of post is just too innocent for the Woundup. You'll have to link over to Inner Dad if you want to read this one. Sorry!]

A Dying Newspaper is a Wonder to Behold

The Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune is dying. At least, that's what we presume from Lilek's announcement that he's being "reassigned" to work a straight news beat rather than provide his excellent commentaries via his wonderful "Quirk" column. Several folks, including Dave Barry and my brother, have indicated their support of Lileks, and I thought I'd do my part. This is what I sent to the STrib's "reader rep:"

I am writing to ask what in the heck the STrib was thinking when they "reassigned" James Lileks to a news beat. Lileks has a deep following that reaches far beyond the meager influences of your paper. If the STrib has more than a local following, you can thank James for most of it.

Lileks has a writing style and point of view that makes him a very refreshing counter-balance to Minnesota's other "celebrity" writer, Mr. Keillor. Don't get me wrong; I used to be a fan of Garrison's. Over the years, however, he's become simply too bombastic in his denunciations of roughly half of this nation's populace to be at all enjoyable as a writer of folksy wit and humor. Lileks, on the other hand, has never yet failed me.

If one had to guess, one could easily envision the editorial staff at the STrib wondering just how they might stanch the bleeding subscriptions from a paper that is merely symptomatic of the industry as a whole. Well, you could do just what big guns like the Los Angeles Times have done; fire your competent staff writers and columnists and streamline the rest. That'll bring in the subs for sure! Corporate arrogance is an awesome thing, indeed.

You people worry me.

For the record, the primary reason that poseurs like myself pretend to write today is that people like Lileks helped pioneer the way. He remains one of the most effective voices of the northern mid-West, and you're about to muffle that voice so as to make it nearly soto voce.

What a tragedy.

The day that Lileks ceases to write insightful columns (NOT insightful, over-edited news soundbites) is the day my interest in your organization also ceases.

Sincerely,

Woody (real name sent to the rep)
Writer Wannabe
Anaheim, CA
http://woodyswoundup.blogspot.com/

Do your part! Support Lileks! We tried, as a blogospheric joke, to get him to run for Senate two years ago, but this is serious. We need writers like Lileks to do what they do best; not what the editorial bosses think is best.

Historic Veto

In exercising his right and executing his duty, President Bush has rightly vetoed the defeatist Democrat-induced bill that would have established a dangerous timeline for withdrawal of our troops.

Key disingenuous quote:

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring American's desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

That may be, but you might think they'd remember the niggling little factoid that Democrats only speak for roughly half of this nation's voters.

Make no mistake: I'm no fan of the war in Iraq. I personally think it has indeed become the very "quagmire" that many people feared it would become over time. I just don't appreciate the violence involved, no matter who's doing the shooting.

But.

I also believe — and have stated before — that the War on Terror is the Cold War of this generation. There are differences, certainly, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that you can draw a direct parallel between the two. Yet the War on Terror has already lasted long enough that children who were born at the beginning of it are now entering the classroom and have known only a world where we are at war with a hideous enemy. For as long as we are engaged there, these children will have the fight in Iraq shaping their world views and their vocabularies.

Yet the statement that President Bush's veto ignores "American's desire" to "end the war" is misleading. I don't care what the polls say: even those of us who don't like this war continue to support the President's decisions to support his commanders in the field.

Harry Reid is not a commander in the field. Neither is Nancy Pelosi. For that matter, neither is George W. Bush, but there is a key difference. Bush wants to listen to his commanders. Reid and Pelosi will shout over those commanders so that they, in effect, can say, "Not listening! La, la, la!"

Of course the veto means a long, drawn-out, messy in-house fight over the war effort. That's what vetos do. And far from making Bush look like a weak-minded war-monger, it instead shows Congressional Democrats for what they really are: defeatists.

As I said before, when the Dems find themselves in the Commander-in-Chief's chair, they can bring the troops home just as soon as they like. Then see how many terrorist attacks they will have "prevented."

Leaving Iraq now will only be an enabler of the jihadists' blood-lust.

One of the (Innumerable) Reasons Why We Homeschool

[Welcome, Junkyardblogites! Glad to have you browse the Woundup.]

[Welcome, also, to Susie-Q&A readers! Most of my homeschool stuff resides at The Inner Dad, but the really brainless stuff generally finds its way over here. Enjoy!]

Mrs. Woody tossed another one my way that instantly drove my blood pressure right off the scale. "Listen to this," she intoned. "Kindergartners in Pennsylvania are in school from 8:40 in the morning to 3:10 in the afternoon with no recess!"

I beg your pardon?

"Kindergartners?" I asked, certain I'd not heard her correctly.

"Kindergartners!" she affirmed. "Kids have to play! It's part of how they learn!"

There was a lot more to this discussion, but these were the salient points.

Mrs. Woody and I homeschool for a multitude of reasons. At the top of that very long list is the incompetence of education "professionals" to provide anything remotely resembling a true education to the children of this nation. I say that with all affection towards those dedicated people for whom education is a way of life and a cause to which they have sworn undying allegiance.

The rest of that industry are the biggest morons I've ever encountered. Including most members of Congress.

1. I have never in my adult life heard persuasive evidence that children — especially small children — must be cooped up in class for longer hours every day with less play time. How is this in any way justified? I'm sorry, but as both a parent and a former child (keep your opinions of "former" to yourselves, please) I refuse to buy into this hysteria. Children are children, and must be allowed to burn off their incredible reserves of energy throughout the day. For heaven's sake, have none of these so-called "experts" ever heard of metabolism? My own, as a child, was ridiculous. I burned off calories while I was eating, and still had energy to spare when I got home so I could build entire forts out of the bricks that Dad had earmarked for the steps leading up to our do-it-yourself gazebo that ultimately blew down in Santa Ana winds approximately two weeks after we finished cementing those same bricks in place. That's the kind of metabolism I had, and it stayed with me, right up until I married a half-Latina, half-Italian (She-Who-Is-NOT-Mrs.-Woody) whose mother thought I had rickets. At that point my metabolism finally surrendered, but I was well into my twenties by that time.

Children must play, and they need to do it rather frequently throughout the day. Insisting that they spend that precious childhood play time in a classroom with their little minds wandering everywhere but on the chalkboard is criminal.

The activists-with-very-little-brain who promote mandatory preschool will not be far behind.

2. Perhaps Pennsylvania school officials in Woodland Hills think it's a boat-load of fun, sitting in one of those stuffy, overcrowded schools for seven and a half hours with only a break for lunch and no recess. Perhaps they feel that the kids are getting the state's money's worth by saving them that $47 million for 15 minutes' worth of recess time.

Perhaps Pennsylvania school officials are idiots.

Tell you what, I propose a compromise: Let's make it mandatory for anyone wishing to be a Pennsylvania school official — elected or otherwise — to sit in those same stuffy schools for twelve hours a day (because, you know, they're adults and everything) and see how long it takes before the district psychologist diagnoses them as being ADD or ADHD. About one month, would be my guess.

3. Speaking of ADD, I have to tell you another reason why we homeschool. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my incredibly bright, eager, sensitive, and exceptionally intelligent elder Woodyette would by now have been identified as an ADD child by whatever school shrink she might have seen. The fact is that her imagination, which has spawned entire universes, would have long since gotten her into all kinds of trouble with conventional educators by this time. She can't help it. Fantasy is important to this young lady, and she thrives on being master of her many environments. Does this mean she is in any way dysfunctional? Of course not. But no teacher who is held to lesson plans, increasingly restrictive curriculum choices, and pressure to teach to the tests could possibly have the patience to deal with such a child without playing the Attention Deficit card.

Because this child is frighteningly like her Dad was at that age, I also know that she will all too soon grow out of this fantasy stage of her young life. It will be a sad thing to watch as parents. Another one of those "our little girl is growing up!" mixed blessings that mark every milestone along the path. My baby sister may crow about never having to buy another diaper in her life, but the cockiness won't last. All too soon those sweet little boys of hers won't want quite so many hugs anymore, and will really really wish that she wouldn't walk with them everywhere they have to go. It just happens.

But teachers nowadays don't — can't, really — have the kind of patience that recognizes the true needs of those kids as they achieve those less definable milestones; the ones you won't find in any lesson plan.

That's all I really wanted to say about this issue. I know that, somewhere deep down in the lumps of coal that serve as their hearts, professional educators everywhere really want only what's best for kids in this country. I just wish to heck they'd take a few moments and remember what it was like to be kids themselves, and quit punishing our kids for it.

Scandal of the Week... So Far

So the new darling of the MSM — the so-called "D. C. Madam" — has claimed her first victim.

I hold no sympathy for former Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias. He admittedly used an "escort service" (what he chose to do with these "escorts" is immaterial at this point) and must now pay the piper, so to speak. There are, of course, a couple of questions that now spring to mind:

1. How does it enter into the mind of any public figure, but especially a politician, that they are somehow immune to the potential consequences of such activity? Here we have a man in a position of no small power and authority who represents the interests of the United States to the world. At what point did he decide that calling in a few "Central American gals" for "massage" work would be harmless? (Okay... technically two questions asked, but closely enough related that I count them as one.)

2. Now that ABC has pulled down a Bush administration official, how long will it be before we hear the name of the first prominent Democrat to have imbibed from the Madam's seemingly exhaustive fountain?

As I say, I don't really care two figs for Tobias' fate. He made his choice, and he gets to suffer those consequences. Period. I would expect no less if it transpired that Bush himself were on that list of clients.

I will, however, be absolutely incensed if ABC targets only Bush administration officials (or any other prominent Republicans) and leaves the Democrats unscathed. I say this because, thanks to Clinton the Philanderer, I find it impossible to believe that there are no Democrats on those lists. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Bubba himself was a benefactor of her services, except for the fact that he studiously avoids the D. C. area since leaving office, and Palfrey wasn't in operation during his term. But there are still a lot of Democrats in Washington these days. An awful lot of them.

ABC, of course, has a dilemma on their hands. Republicans, it goes without saying, are open season. But even if ABC begins leaking names of Democrats, they have to be careful to only leak those names that wouldn't potentially damage the campaigns of their candidate(s) of choice. So the real question becomes, are Obama, Clinton, or any of the others sacred enough cows that ABC won't pour any negative spotlights on their campaigns?

Only time will tell. In the meantime, good luck (and good riddance) to Mr. Tobias. Take your dirty laundry and your pending family troubles with you. On to the next "victim."

Dang It

I despise having to agree with someone whom I consider to have intelligence on a scale ranking between carbon atoms and paramecia. In this case, Howard Dean (one of the most useless suit-stuffers in this country today) actually says a few things about media coverage of politics and politicians with which I agree.

Not that I'm getting soft on ol' Howard the Duck.

He was responding to a query by a banker who was attending a Mortgage Bankers Association conference. (Pardon me whilst I attempt to imagine anything more desperately dull than a Mortgage Bankers Association conference.) This banker was frustrated with candidates who "only talk in sound bites."

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

Which sounds great, but significantly reduces the possibility that I'd ever hear whether the candidates said anything of which I need to be aware. Still, Dean summarizes the primary difficulty with modern media this way:

"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."

I guess I blame the whole thing on our reduced attention spans.

"Info-tainment" (as with "edu-tainment") is a double-edged sword. Our time is precious to us as consumers; we feel a need to digest things quickly, make more snap decisions. In business we are constantly under pressure to do more, faster, with fewer resources (read: headcount) than ever before. My email inbox at work is my haunting spectre; it reminds me of all the demands on my time and attention.

Modern media has rushed to fill available time by shrinking itself into bite-sized chunks that we obviously can digest more quickly, but is rather light on caloric content. In other words, as with a certain brand of "light beer" (of which I, personally, have absolutely no knowledge!), it may taste great, but it's less filling. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

Oh, we try. We bloggers delude ourselves into thinking we're providing the bridge between a jaded ADD public and increasingly heavy political and social commentary. But mostly we just point to some other guy (or gal) and say, "Hey, look at what he (or she) said! Go read that!"

Along the way we attempt to provide our own analysis of the issues that most concern us, but in the end, we all turn to Fox, CNN, or even Tiffany to tell us what the flamin' candidates are up to today. Have they embarrassed themselves? Have they made tremendous strides in the looming issues of presidential hair grooming? Or are they trying to re-invent themselves by learning second languages?

Then we harumph at the obvious bias with which the network serves up our desired sound bites, and start the process all over again. We are hopelessly addicted.

Of course, Dean has been on the receiving end of some rather unfavorable press himself on occasion:

Dean said politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said. "If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

But, of course, you really can't.

For one thing, the Mortgage Bankers Association is so desperate to have someone — anyone — notice them, that they have to invite the press to report that Howard Dean, Lord High Democrat, came to speak with them. I guess you're likely to be desperate if you're willing to publicize that.

On the other hand, do we really want our candidates being too careful with what they say? Isn't that, after all, how Howard found himself as a former candidate for President of the United States?

I guess, to that extent, I'm forced to agree with Howard. We need our candidates to be able to speak their unscripted minds from time to time. There's always time for another scripted speech somewhere or other, but those candid shots are worth far more than a thousand words.

Right, Howard?

Virginia Tech

There is no need to link to stories. No need to point to reactions around the blogosphere. The Virginia Tech tragedy is now firmly a part of our American psyche, and there it will remain for months to come.

We've seen this before. Colorado. Washington. Wisconsin. Our nation's capital. Senseless taking of lives through violence that seemingly accomplishes nothing.

Here in my home I feel somewhat safe. In some ways that's just an illusion. Safety always means steps that we take to avoid being acted upon by others. I lock my doors every night to prevent break-ins. I lock my cars everywhere I go so they'll be there when I need to go somewhere. I wish I could safely lock up my kids, but they're human and locking them up is cruelty in the extreme. The older they get, the more I have to let go. I don't want to.

I'm a dad. I've worked long and hard to become one. I'm still working on it. I want to be a better dad tomorrow than I am today. I'm sure my kids want that, too. Being a dad means watching these little copies of yourself — and your wife and a smattering of other assorted relations down through time — grow up and away. It is a bittersweet process.

We want them to succeed. We try to give them tools to help them along their journey. We teach them about strangers and how to avoid them. We teach them about friends and how to cultivate them. We try to teach them the difference. We know that one day, much sooner than we care to think about, they will leave our home and make their own way in this world. This very large, very cruel, increasingly violent world.

One day my kids will go to college. When I was their age, we were hearing about protests and violence at many of our campuses across the country. The Vietnam war was the purported reason, although I have long suspected that so many of those kids protested just because it was "cool" to protest. Everyone else was doing it, and it was a chance to become an anarchist for awhile without suffering any real consequences. But if you asked them why they were doing it, they could point to the war and "the Man," and everyone else sort of understood what that meant.

I didn't want to become a part of that. I suspect that I was so jaded by these stories, especially Kent State, that they became part of my rationalization for never completing a four-year degree. College was just too dangerous.

This is silly, of course. My sweet wife got her degree from BYU. Several years later she completed her Masters at ASU. I think she suffered one broken finger during her entire school career. Certainly she never felt compelled to "protest" anything but the occasionally boring class.

Then we hear about a Columbine or a Virginia Tech and my old rationalizations pop back into my head. I don't want my kids becoming another tragic statistic.

So far the girls are cooperating. The older one wants to do community college before deciding on a university. The younger one says she'll do her degree online. Daddy likes that idea; but the girls are only 7 and 9 now, and they have plenty of time to decide what they really want to do when it really matters. The heck of it is that I can only serve as an advisor. They'll have to decide for themselves where they want to go, and all I can do is support them.

Which, of course, I intend to do. I have plenty of precedent to support sending them wherever they choose to go. One Perfect Soul supported his Begotten Son as the Savior came to the earth and was subjected to every kind of trial and persecution imaginable. As God must have wept while watching his Son suffer as he did, so also do we weep when we see tragedy of this scale. We imagine those grieving loved ones who now must wrestle with the cosmic questions of Why. Why my little boy or girl? Why would this monster do such a thing? Why me? Why now? Why? Why? Why?

I have my own answers to these questions. My spiritual perspective helps me make some limited sense out of events such as these. I have to trust that, at some point in my eternal progression, the true answers will finally be known and understood. Then, and only then, will we have true "closure."

Until then, God bless the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims and the shooter. May they all find rest and peace in a coming day.

The Cranky Reviewer™ Strikes Again

Oh, does he ever.

The intended target is a book entitled "The Jesus Mystery." Needless to say, this tome will not find its way into the library of Hacienda Woody. If your name is Lena Einhorn, be afraid (if strictly in the way that authors fear critics of my brother's ilk), be very afraid.

My Final (I Promise!) on Don Imus

Okay, I lied. I have to toss out one more thought about the Don Imus affair.

I have a few cleaning aids in my house. They reside under the sink, for the most part. Clearly labelled containers of chemicals that use words like "poisonous," "caustic," or "dangerous" in plain sight. They serve a purpose in my house, and that purpose is to clean surfaces in my kitchen and bathrooms. It's a wonderful combination. The cleansing properties of the chemicals coupled with my elbow grease in liberal proportions has a magical effect. My counters gleam, my floors shine, and my family feels protected. (When, of course, I actually do these things. Lately my family has not benefitted tremendously from my elbow grease.)

Naturally there are inappropriate uses for these chemicals. Says so right in the directions. I need to avoid contact with skin and - especially - eyes. Do not drink them. Ever. Aside from cleaning my house, they serve no other useful purpose.

This is precisely why I choose not to listen to people like Don Imus or Michael Savage. Their reputations precede them. They practice a brand of public commentary that is carefully calculated to incite, rather than inform. It matters not that they happen to hold similar views to my own on critical issues. They are firebrands, and I have better things to do with my diminishing time.

I'm not a big fan of Pat Buchanan. He's more of a raspberry seed under the gums than a firebrand, but I still find him to be pushier than I'm comfortable with. I guess this is how you become a public commentator; write a few speeches for dead presidents, torque off large sectors of the populace, and whammo! You're a commentator. Anyway, I followed a link from Drudge to Buchanan's thoughts on why, precisely, this whole affair smacks of "hypocrisy." Buchanan is, it turns out, a big fan of Imus. Listens to him every morning. Enjoys the whole show. In his view, the idea of firing Imus for this egregious insult is hypocritical in the extreme so long as people fail to demand apologies from everyone who excoriated the entire Duke lacrosse team when they were, in fact, innocent.

But Buchanan's argument falls flat. Imus is a public figure who has made a considerable living out of insulting people. It may or may not be true that he is very well read on current events and has a solid understanding of the issues. He may or may not be one of the better interviewers on the air today (in Buchanan's opinion, anyway). All of this is immaterial to the primary issue: Imus is a commodity. Imus, Buchanan, Coulter, Malkin, and countless other media personalities are commodities to be employed, traded, bought or sold at the will and whim of the outlets that employ them. In other words, the issue here is not whether what Imus did was insulting and demeaning. This has been accepted by all but the dimmist of wits across the country. But MSNBC and CBS have responsibilities. Certainly we want them to provide insightful and meaningful access to news and commentary to keep us informed, but that is not their primary responsibility. Their first and most significant responsibility is to provide value (money) to their shareholders. For this reason, and this reason alone, they are more than justified in firing Imus and anyone who looks like him.

Hey, I sympathize with Imus. I really do. I've said more than my fair share of stupid things in my life, and I've only been fired for them once. Once was enough, and I like to think I've learned my lesson. I no longer say stupid things to the people who can fire me for them. But when your primary job is talking, you might be a bit more careful about what you say in which forum. I think it's all to the good that Imus seems genuinely contrite about what he said. However, that doesn't seem to have mellowed his nature in any way, nor does he seem repentant enough that we can expect him never to repeat himself at some point. I suspect the bosses at CBS read him exactly the same way. He might well do it again, and in the current politically-charged arena, that just isn't smart business.

We can complain all we want about MSNBC firing Imus but holding on stubbornly to Matthews and Olbermann. But I think they understand their audience, and that's their business decision to make. I don't have to agree with it, but I'm not the CEO and I don't answer to MSNBC shareholders.

I hope Imus lands on his feet. There is a place and an audience out there for Imus and everything he stands for. I'm just not one of them, and I hope never to feel a need to become such.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes

There are times I wish I stayed a little more out of touch with current stories. Headliners of the day today bring that feeling into sharper focus. For example, Don Imus. Never once heard the man; never intended to. He smacks of being the kind of firebrand that brings absolutely nothing original to the table by way of thought process or philosophy. Yet he's a (former) national personality who managed in a (not, apparently, isolated) moment of stupidity to bring his career crashing down around his ears.

Then, of course, there's the Duke story. Three members of the Lacrosse team for Duke University have a wild night with an exotic dancer, who then apparently fabricates a rape story. Later this same woman is found to have some history of mental problems, and has been in and out of trouble with the law for several years. The zealot who tried to string the Duke players up by their unmentionables both in court and in the media has himself been forced to issue an apology over his handling of the case. You can bet there will be reprisals in the form of large amounts of money and civil suits.

It almost goes without saying that both of these stories have a common thread: Al Sharpton. Back in the days of the wild west (or modern Los Angeles; take your pick) the phrase was "shoot first and ask questions later." Sharpton and his thuggish band of activists have modernized that phrase to read "march, protest, and destroy reputations first and ask questions after we die." I say that because you can bet that the MSM will never get Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or any other race-card-playing bigot to admit they were wrong when they forced an entire town to castigate these young men. I'm sure some lunatics on the left still crow about how, even though they didn't actually do anything of which they were accused, they sure would have eventually. Probably meant to, and just didn't get around to it.

Finally there's this bit of human mockery. This is a clear case of science doing something merely because they can, and not because there's any sort of life-saving benefit in doing it. Allowing women to reproduce in an essentially asexual manner is not - repeat: NOT - going to be the tremendous shot in the arm that some lesbians may hope it will be. Our only saving grace so far is that a) it's still a theory; not a proven process, and b) they need stem cells that are limited in supply and that other scientists are not going to want to share right now. So, this "breakthrough" will likely have to wait for another day. The bit I found most amusing was the statement that they needed to get "ethical" approval to proceed. This is like saying that Santa Claus needs greed before he can deliver toys. Come on... who, exactly, determines whether a procedure of this nature is "ethical?" Other scientists? Some dysfunctional United Nations committee? (UPDATE: Apparently there's an "ethics committee," presumably attached to the university where these scientists do their research. Who knew? Still, this is a little like asking Torquemada is there's any objection to putting another heretic on the rack. Académia and social ethics? Oil and water.)

I'm sorry if I sound cynical this afternoon. I don't usually like to be this gloomy. News days like this just bring it out, I suppose, and I use this blog as a form of therapy. Having said what I've said, I probably won't feel a need to revisit any of these stories for months to come.

And that's probably a good thing.

MySpace - Keep out of the reach of children!

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs)

Every once in awhile we come across something that makes us ask what this world is coming to. Joanne Jacobs points to this article regarding four students who smeared a principal's reputation on MySpace. After being portrayed by these kids as being a pot-smoking, woman-battering alcoholic, the principal is now fighting back by suing those responsible.

One of the participants had already sued the principal. Shortly after the fake MySpace profiles appeared, the school offices contacted MySpace and had them removed. Further actions were taken, and one student (the one suing the principal) was suspended and subsequently moved to an alternative education program. He was carrying a 3.3 GPA at the time.

That complaint argues the school's actions were excessive, violated Layshock's First Amendment free-speech rights, and interfered with his parents' freedom to judge how best to raise and educate their son.

An interesting argument, inasmuch as his parents hadn't exactly been demonstrating a firm grasp of the problem at that time.

I have often spoken out against the evils of a permissive society. It is ridiculous, of course, to try to make this a First Amendment argument. While the First Amendment protects speech, it does not remove natural and legal consequences from that speech. I picked this up from the Law Dictionary at law.com:

defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment.

Strictly speaking (and without a personal knowledge of the facts in evidence) this sure sounds like libel to me. The deeper damage, though, is even more pernicious.

When I was still a lad, my father made it crystal clear to me that if I did something stupid, he fully expected me to take my lumps. (The setting for this discussion was a ticket I'd received for rolling through a stop sign as a new driver. In those days, the first offense was an automatic appearance in traffic court. The judge's first question was, quote: "How do you spell 'stop,' young man?" As if he questioned my public education, or something.) He included in this expectation any jail time I might somehow deserve for such stupidity. I took his meaning to heart, and have tried to follow that guidance throughout my adult career.

These kids were doing something that, to them at that time, seemed like quite a lark. "Hey, ol Mr. Trosch is a pain in the fanny. Let's ruin his career." Actually, their thought processes probably didn't even carry them quite that far. More likely they were only parroting something they'd already seen done, either on TV or by some other kids. I don't think they were knowledgeable enough to think to themselves, "I know, we'll create phony profiles on this dude on MySpace, smear his reputation, and make it hard for him to shake the stigma of what we say for the rest of his career." I know that runs counter to my belief that this really is libel, but I'm not altogether certain that these kids were that smart. For one thing, I doubt whether they've ever used "stigma" in a sentence before. They merely thought it was funny. It probably never occurred to them that it was libelous. I'm hoping it occurs to them now.

More disturbing, from my perspective, is the idea that these kids would have thought something like this was funny in the first place. It isn't. Those who happen to think it is will be the ones to complain the loudest when they find their own lives turned upside down with no power to do anything but live through it. That's where these kids (and their principal) are today; they're trying to live through a nightmare, caused by this relatively simple but unthinking act.

The fact that one of the perpetrators sued because he was made to suffer a consequence would seem to indicate that this particular lesson has not yet been learned. Either by him or by his freedom-seeking parents.

While We Stay Wrapped Around the Immigration Axle...

...the realities of everyday business dictate a course of action.

I'm all for this plan. Yeah, okay, there's probably a hit to the taxpayer. Sure, there's still a question about whether non-residents who are here illegally should even be offered this opportunity. But while we continue burning Rome to cinders, at least someone is hedging their bets.

Keep in mind that many Latinos who are here legally still can't communicate in English effectively. I talk to people like that from time to time. I'd much rather see them able to communicate effectively in their adopted country than remain silent in their suffering. Helps to avoid certain problems downstream.

It's a start.

It's a Brave New World Out There

Someone should tell the Democratic candidates.

John Edwards having already cut and run from the second proposed Fox News debate now stands merely as first among "equals." Hot on his lead, Barack Obama decides that cowardice is the better part of valor and also decides not to participate in the Fox debate. A debate, one might add, co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus of which Obama is presumably a member.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton apparently becomes now the third major Democratic candidate to suffer from vulpeserophobia in just a few short days. Clinton's mouthpiece goes so far as to say that they will only participate in Democratic National Committee sponsored debates.

This is no longer a case of merely trying to avoid potentially uncomfortable questions from a Fox moderator. This is now a concerted, orchestrated effort by the DNC to attempt to discredit a legitimate news agency during a time when candidates need all the exposure they can get. Yes, we freely admit that Fox correspondents and editors are no friends of the Democratic party. But when - when - was CNN or PBS ever a friend to the Republican party? Do you mean to tell us (with a straight face) that CBS provides "fair and balanced" coverage of any Republican?

Thus it is that we mere nobodies (I believe we are cynically referred to as "voters" every couple of years) are left to wonder just what it is that these Democratic powerhouses are hiding. Or, perhaps more appropriately, hiding from.

Of course, I try to ignore the DNC even more than I try to ignore the RNC. But I caught this on some obscure news program earlier today, and it reminded me just how much of a liability Howard "The Duck" Dean has truly become to the Dems:

John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton announce that they will not be participating in the second proposed debate co-sponsored by Fox News

Howard "The Duck" Dean defends the decision to participate in DNC-sanctioned debates exclusively: "Hey, if we want to take our ball and bat and go home, that's our Constitutionally guaranteed right."

Not sure about you, but somehow all of this fails to surprise me.

I'm Sure He Has Excellent Reasons...

...but I have only one comment to make about John Edwards and declining to participate in a Fox News debate for the second time:

Do I really want a man in charge of my country's military who is this afraid of a news network?

I mean, c'mon; so Fox has a decidedly conservative bent. How is it that Republicans have never been so afraid of CNN (or PBS, or NBC, or even the Letterman Show) that they wouldn't go a-whoring after votes on any of those venues? Reagan was certainly never afraid of "liberal agendas" when he debated Carter back in '80. Can you imagine McCain passing up an opportunity to pimp himself to any network that'll give him the benefit of his "war hero" status? Of course not!

Yet here we have a man who really, really wants to lead our nation as Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Muckity Muck, and High Priest of the Sacred Roundish Office that can't stand the thought of Fox exercising their right to free speech.

Pity.

Michigan House Democrats Finally Certifiable

I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. The constant brain-freezing cold (what global warming??) has finally reduced Michigan Democratic legislators to tax-and-spend-spewing zombies, rising up out of whatever ancient peat bogs formed Michigan a million years ago to terrorize their state's already over-burdened budget.

In a scathing editorial published yesterday, The Detroit News (detnews.com) had this to say:

An iPod for every kid? Are they !#$!ing idiots? (Note: their use of upper-case, not mine)

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

Wow. An iPod for every kid. What a deal.

I did some quick and dirty research and came up with the following numbers:

Total K-12 Public School Enrollment (1999-2000): 1,685,952
Current Price of Apple's iPod Shuffle® (1 GB): $79

So let's see. Even with a price break (hey, stranger things have come from Apple), let's say 10% for a government customer, that's still 1.69 million kids times $71, which works out to a budget allocation of $119,702,592.00, more or less.

Now, taken as a number in and of itself, $120 million is not generally a big hairy deal. Not in California, anyway. The Governator regularly goes through that much in Bowflex® machines for the mansion. However, if Michigan's budget deficit has only just passed the $1 billion mark, $120 million is, what, 12% of that total? And that makes the proposed iPod purchase all the more significant for its blatant stupidity. Which, I suppose, is Detroit News' point:

No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.

The Democrats, led by their increasingly erratic speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township, also pledge $100 million to make better downtowns.

Their plan goes beyond cluelessness. Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter.

We say that because the House plan also keeps alive, again without specifics, the promise of tax hikes.

My goodness. These same legislators probably would have excoriated Reagan a couple of decades ago for practicing "voodoo economics." If this iPod plan wasn't created by some shaman in the bayous of Louisiana, I'd sure like to know where it came from.

Of course, I can almost hear the rationalizations now. "But if we don't, then Michigan kids will be the only kids in the nation who don't have iPods! What will they listen to instead of listening to their teachers?" Based on the critical thinking skills of the Michigan House of Representatives, I'd say this makes perfect sense. What were they listening to back then, one wonders?

It also cracks me up to realize that the total iPod budget (my numbers, remember; I'm absolutely certain that Michigan legislators will slash that amount considerably when they spin the budget numbers in session) could end up being equal to or greater than their proposed downtown improvements. If that isn't proactive politics, then I don't know what would qualify. Opines the Detroit News: "We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else's kid an iPod." Or, I imagine, how they might feel about paying more for iPods than for renovated downtowns.

Finally, the editorial (author unknown) concludes:

Stop the stupidity. Michigan can't tax or spend its way out of this economic catastrophe.

The only responsible option is to bring spending in line with current revenues. The mission must be to expand the tax base, rather than to expand taxes, by crafting a budget that encourages growth.

We won't get there by wasting money on early Christmas presents for Michigan kids.

This is the crux of the argument. It is a wonderful indictment of the Entitlement Movement as irresponsible politics at best, and criminal misconduct at worst. Desperate for cash? Go ask Alan Mullaly for a loan. That iPod money, whether it's the $120 million I calculated, or even only $50 million (the actual numbers have yet to be revealed) needs to go elsewhere.

It does not need to be plugged into the ears of youngsters with already severe attention-span deficits.

DISCLAIMER: Woody readily acknowledges that he has not seen the actual proposed legislation, and that he is not now nor has ever claimed to be an expert in such matters. He also does not live in Michigan, although his beloved grandfather was born and raised there. However, Woody reserves the right to make fun of Michigan (or California, or any other doggoned state) merely because he feels like it. This is why Woody blogs, for heaven's sake.

The Anti-Christian Jihad Continues

(H/T: Mrs. Woody)

From the StatesmanJournal in Salem, Oregon we find this column by Michelle Malkin. The column details attempts by two different school districts to hold "terrorism drills" as part of a commendable effort to prepare their students against the possibility of an attack. Most unfortunately, they chose to use "Christians" in their portrayals of terrorists who would threaten the lives of their students in these drills.

I well remember the first incident. In Muskegon County, Michigan, administrators chose to have their terrorists be "crazed Christian homeschoolers." (I could have sworn I'd written something about it at the time, but an exhaustive search of this blog fails to find any evidence of such a post.) Being a Christian homeschooler I was, of course, incensed. What could these idiot administrators have been thinking? The obvious inference, naturally, is that the local NEA affiliate likely has "Christian Homeschoolers" at the top of a list of subversive elements that may well organize to attack a public school.

Speaking as a Christian homeschooler let me be the first to say, "Are you OUT OF YOUR MINDS?" Homeschoolers, as a whole, are the most disorganized bunch of people I've ever met. You ever try to coordinate more than three families to have a Play Day at a park? And you think we're suddenly going to burst into a public school and start taking hostages? The far more likely threat is that one family might wander onto your campus, find an open classroom (because the air conditioning isn't working. Again.) and embarrass the class by winning their own spelling bee.

So the idea that Muskegon even considered using homeschoolers (and not just any homeschoolers, but those dreaded Christian homeschoolers) as their prototypical terrorists is painfully ludicrous. If this clumsy attempt at appeasement is laughable, those of us who homeschool are not laughing.

Moving on, then, we find another incident as recent as last month. In New Jersey, one high school chose to use a "right-wing fundamentalist" group - fictional, one assumes - who "don't believe in the separation of Church and state." "Right-wing" always equates to "Christian" it goes without saying. Just as "polygamist" always equates to "Mormon." So this right-wing fundamentalist organization - which was probably long since disavowed by any reputable Christian faith - becomes the bad guy in this exercise. All done in the interests of not offending Muslims who have been feeling the heat ever since 9/11.

I do have to admit that the second scenario is somewhat more likely than the first. Certainly we've seen our fair share of "fundamentalist" whack-jobs over the years who have chosen to take vigilantism to the next level. Cults abound in this country, and many people who have very loose grips on reality claim that God has told them to do some reprehensible act in his name. Whether we should consider these people to be "terrorists" is really just a matter of semantics. I myself would be more likely to use gangs - all of whom I personally consider to be terrorists - if I were organizing a terrorism drill for my school. They tend to be just as well armed as your basic fundamentalist, and most of them are battle-hardened veterans of the turf wars.

The point is, I'm sure that there are many, many examples of violent subcultures that these school administrators could have used to represent the evil terrorists. But they chose to use Christians, or those who are identified as Christians, rather than risk offending some other belief system. Which begs the question: If it's not acceptable to offend Muslims in this way, why should it be any more acceptable to offend Christians?

The answer is that they just didn't think about it that way. Really. The fact is that we in this country have a long-standing tradition of making fun of religious people. This tradition has mutated over time into a sort of ironic cultural jihad against organized religion of any kind. This is the only explanation for such phenomena as "The Simpsons," "South Park," and "Congress."

Well, Burlington Township, I'm offended. Truly, truly offended. So offended, in fact, that I may have to protest in front of our local public school district offices. Taking a point from Seattle anarchists, maybe I'll even burn an NEA union leader in effigy. Surely that wouldn't offend anyone?

"Flag" "Montebello" "Hoax"

(This was NOT a hoax. I know many of you who visit this article were searching on "Montebello hoax" or some similar string. Hence the title. Sorry if I misled you, but this was not a hoax. I'm sure you were hoping to find proof that we poor, silly conservatives were merely overreacting to a collosal joke, but it happened. If you still want to read about it, forge ahead. If not, sorry I wasted your time. - Woody)

When this incident took place last year, I wrote a post concerning the whole anti-America sentiment currently being tolerated by so many politicians in this country. What disturbs me most, however, is that deniers are already spreading the idea that this very recent history was, somehow, a hoax. Never happened. Just more overreaction by right-wing conspiracy nuts. This is indicated by the frequent appearance of those words in a search string that leads people to the post I wrote last May.

How I wish it was a hoax.

But the unfortunate fact is that it happened. High school students exercised their rights to free speech by deliberately placing our flag underneath the Mexican flag, and compounded the insult by hanging it upside down; a clear violation of flag etiquette, and a sure indicator of the political allegiances held by this coming generation of youth in this country. A slap in the faces of those who pledge allegiance to this country willingly and with meaning.

Setting aside for a moment the idea that these kids may or may not be in this country legally, I feel a little background may be useful in examining their protest. Most of these kids are probably third or fourth generation latinos whose roots lie in Mexico or any of the Central American nations. Statistically, their families probably entered this country illegally. Legal immigration has always been difficult, and one must generally be at least somewhat affluent before even attempting the process to enter the United States with our blessing. So their ancestors entered this country at a risk, willing to make whatever sacrifices may have been necessary in order to provde a better life for their families and their descendants.

Even today, most who risk everything to enter this country do so because anything - even living here illegally and risking deportation (or worse) - has to be better than whatever awaits them back "home." Sure, there are always opportunists and gamblers, but of the people I've come to know over the years they represent a relative minority. I still believe these protestors do not represent the vast majority of latinos who live, work, raise their families, and contribute to society in this part of the country.

Over time, having lived here for at least a couple of generations, the children and grandchildren of those pioneers become naturalized by default. These second and third (or fourth, or fifth) generation youngsters are in little, if any, danger of ever being deported. Most of them have birth certificates and social security numbers declaring them to be citizens of the United States. That their citizenship came to them through the extreme sacrifices of their ancestors seems to be lost on them. Because they feel that we're not somehow making their lives carefree and easy, they feel the need to strike back. We'll show 'em! We'll take "our" country back, and declare ourselves to be Mexicans. Not Americans.

It is, I suspect, an attitude that would embarrass their ancestors. As it is, it brings no honor to their cause today.

And so they protest. We (and I suspect my white skin places me permanently in that classification) are discriminating against latino peoples in this country. (I guess discrimination is a full time occupation for a white male in America; I apparently discriminate against latinos, blacks, gays, women, and liberals. How I ever find time to work, raise my family, attend to my church responsibilities, and sing in a chorale is quite beyond my ability to comprehend. I just do it.) We are somehow refusing to make life better for latino people by wanting our borders to be more secure than they are today. We discriminate by only allowing them to work in jobs that no one else - certainly not us! - wants. (Someone better tell that to my niece, the newly-hired burger-flipper!) (Although, to be fair, she's only working the register at the moment, according to her Mom.)

But the protest is a bankrupt one, morally. These protests have nothing to do with discrimination in America. This is about anarchy and their desire to live ungoverned lives of freedom and entitlement. Give us the money, no strings attached, and no one gets hurt! When you set foot in East Los Angeles, bro, you're on our turf. You play by our rules. That's the message these kids really wanted us to hear.

The flag flew upside-down. It was no hoax, and neither was the sentiment behind it.

Why We Homeschool - Reason #2

No PTA.

According to Little Sis, the PTA in her community in the Lone Brain Cell Star State have adopted Amway tactics for recruiting. All that's missing are Diamond Retreats for top recruiters.

My daughter was drafted (almost literally) into her PTA when her hubby was stationed at Travis AFB. She became president by default in their last year there, and I spent many an agonizing hour on the phone with her so she could detox after each meeting, event, or issue to be resolved with the parents, teachers, and principal. She swore never to get involved again.

Instead, my daughter now volunteers at her daughter's school as an aide. This way she can keep a weather eye on her own daughter even as she helps an attention-challenged child in the special ed classes. It's not much more fun than the PTA, but (as my daughter points out) it most definitely is not the PTA. She'll take it.

My sister, at least, has the courage of her convictions. Keep the faith, kiddo!

Couric and the Edwards

Understanding that Hugh Hewitt is about umpteen times smarter than I am, I beg to differ with his characterization of Couric's interview with the Edwards on yesterday's "60 Minutes."

Couric was merely doing what she's being paid all those millions to do: interview people and report news. Hewitt opines that she stepped outside the boundaries of decency, however, when she tried to get John Edwards to admit that his decision to continue his candidacy was nothing short of callous disregard for his wife's condition. I don't quite see it that way.

Note: All previous disclaimers about having no love for Edwards' politics (or Couric's, for that matter) are still in effect; lest you think that I have somehow gone soft on Edwards the Candidate.

There are two problems here. One obvious problem is the definition of when, precisely, something that occurs in the life of a very public figure should be none of the public's business. In this case, although I happen to understand Edwards' decision, I also understand the need to keep our candidates under the microscope. We're talking about a man who has designs on the seat of perhaps the highest political power in the civilized world. His motives for seeking office are just as suspect as his views on the issues we all face. It behooves us to know how this man supports his own family, how they support him, and whether any of this factors into his ability to lead the nation.

The second problem is Couric herself. She finds herself trying to fit into a mold cast by newscasters of days past. Newscasters are supposed to ask the "tough" questions in order to root out the news that they then pass along to the unwashed masses. Unfortunately, Couric is no tough-guy newscaster. She spent far too long portraying the "America's Sweetheart" personna on daytime TV to be believable as a hard-nosed reporter today. Thus, she comes off as more of a Barbara Walters-like touchy-feely interviewer (she practically fed them the answers to her "tough" questions) as opposed to a Mike Wallace ambush interviewer.

Like Hewitt, I didn't watch the segment. I refuse to watch "60 Minutes" unless my name is mentioned somehow (in which case I'll likely be in prison). However, having read the interview, I can state unequivocally that I'm glad I didn't.

Another non-event.

Llamas and the Anglican Church

One needs to be extremely careful when reviewing Robbo's ongoing Episcopalian Church Deathwatch. Be particularly careful following links he puts in his posts, as they can lead to, um, rather colorful language and imagery.

That said, this is precisely why I prefer belonging to a restored church rather than a (prolifically) protesting one.

Good luck and best wishes to all my Episcopalian friends, assuming I have any left.

Regarding Elizabeth Edwards

When I saw the flash on Drudge last night, I immediately suspected a recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer. Turned out to be true.

While I was initially surprised that Edwards would decide to continue this campaign in spite of his wife's condition, I certainly understand not quitting. Whatever else I may think of John Edwards, he is no quitter. Whatever his underlying motivations may be (and it's all mere speculation on our part), he is completely dedicated to running for the office.

One thing this blogger will not do is take Edwards to task for this decision, nor impugn any ulterior motivation on his part. That would not only be impolitic of me, it also lowers me to the level of some Kos Kid who crows over the deaths of anyone with whom he does not agree.

Cancer is insidious. It cares not what a person's politics may be, nor what color their skin reflects. There are also as many ways to react to cancer as there are victims of this disease in its seemingly countless forms.

I have written elsewhere about RoboMom. RoboMom is my mom-in-law, and she fought that battle for six years before succumbing to the disease. One thing she did not want was for anyone to be inconvenienced on her account. Fortunately, we as a family (all of her kids, grandkids, and siblings) were far too stubborn to let her get away with that. We graciously overrode her objections to "fussing" too much over her, and I think she was secretly pleased and grateful that we insisted.

Elizabeth Edwards is a politician's wife. Being a political spouse requires certain sacrifices; sacrifices that, I suspect, Elizabeth came to grips with many, many years ago. She understands what a campaign like this means to her husband, and she is just as dedicated to seeing it through as he is. The last thing a woman like Elizabeth wants is to be a distraction to her husband. I count this as a good thing.

Decisions like this are never made lightly. When Edwards says that they really never even discussed the possibility of his dropping out, I take him at his word. What I suspect is that these issues were discussed and settled during the onset of the disease in 2004. The talking part is behind them. Edwards has already indicated that he will be where and whenever his wife may need him. This, too, I would expect.

This is not to say that this decision to go on might not change in the foreseeable future. Heaven only knows what kinds of treatments Elizabeth may receive, or how the disease may progress. Six years of watching RoboMom taught me that you can't reliably predict anything about cancer. Can't be done.

So, this blog may consider John Edwards to be a fool of a politician, and I reserve the right to rake him over the coals for his politics, but you will not find me berating him for his "handling" of this intensely personal issue.

You just won't.

What Goes Around...

So, Senator Hoyer, what you're saying is that extending vote times is an unacceptable practice for Republicans, but perfectly acceptable for Democrats. Is that what you're saying, sir?

Yep. That's what he's saying.

Attention, CBS Executives!

In case you were wondering about Katie-Poo's tanked ratings, we gotcher reason right here.

Save yourselves some money, guys. Kill the telecast and hire Huffington Post to podcast your news. You'll be wealthier, and we'll quit accusing you of having "liberal bias" in your so-called news organization. Can't allege you to have done something if you've already been convicted, right?

Yeesh.

Simon Cowell and American Idol - "Moo"

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs)

Professional educators do, on occasion, get it right. (I kid, of course; I have every respect for professional educators. It's only their unions for which I hold contempt.)

Nancy Flanagan, being a music teacher, understands the full impact of an American Idol society.

Flanagan is one of those souls who understand the value of music in a person's life, even if that person's voice would never make it on Simon Cowell's stage. She writes about music as a gift:

Singing is a great gift—a fun, wholesome activity that builds community, expresses joy, sorrow and humor, entertains and binds us together in life’s transitional moments. There is no human tradition that is not made richer and illuminated by good music.

Of course, in American Idol's world view, therein lies the rub. How does one define "good music?"

American Idol exists for one reason: to make money. Simon Cowell, contrary to whatever altruisms he may spout in interviews, exists only to make money. His recent rantings about being worth more than Bruce Springsteen (just another of today's overrated and overpaid entertainers, as far as Woody is concerned) are far more indicative of how Cowell views his contributions to the entertainment industry. Cowell is a cash cow, and the industry will continue to worship at his feet for as long as he creates revenue.

Thus American Idol is less about "good music," and more about making sure that the industry continues to create revenue generators; talented (if only by Cowell's narrow judgements) people who look good and will sell records. I have long since given up on the popular music industry being able to define "good music" to my own satisfaction. Then again, I ain't in it for the money.

Flanagan continues:

What bothers me is that children watch American Idol, and children are now developing this idea that singing is something that should be attempted only by the “talented.” Some children now believe that judging singers is an amusing spectator activity, and making fun of imperfect singers is perfectly OK. Hilarious and justified, in fact: anyone who dares to sing in front of a camera deserves our scrutiny and scorn. None of this encourages children—or their families—to participate joyfully in group or individual singing. In the American Idol paradigm, singing is now reserved for those who have a “good” voice.

This is not unique to the popular music industry; this is the entire entertainment industry's paradigm. But we must be careful to keep things in their proper perspective. The entertainment industry does not represent the best that music has to offer. Not by a long shot. The best example of this would be classical music. While technically part of the entertainment industrial complex, classical musicians are typically ignored by the industry until the awards are handed out.

Quick: without Googling it, what classical albums scored Grammys this year? Were they even acknowledged in the telecast? I confess to not knowing for two reasons: First, I haven't watched a Grammy telecast in over twenty years. Also, my own tastes in classical music are fairly narrowly defined, and the stuff I tend to like would probably never win an award. But I find it odd to note that, for an industry that owes its very existence to classical music, there is so little appreciation of it among the rank and file.

So what, then, does American Idol represent? The superficial, I'd have to say. The shallow. The self-indulgent. The cash. Nancy Flanagan is quite correct: American Idol teaches our young people that if their voices are not worthy of Simon Cowell, they must be hidden away. American Idol encourages only American Idolators; those who worship at the false altars of pride and self-justification.

Thank goodness Simon Cowell wasn't around thirty seven years ago when a small, wiry boy who didn't know any better first auditioned for a small part in "Oliver!" I'm no American Idol, but I'm no slouch, either. And I'd much rather have someone come up to me after a concert and thank me for singing, than have Simon Cowell berate me for my lack of "presence" any day. What does he know, after all? He's just a cash cow.

Moo.

Getting Educated about Global Warming

As the debate widens over global warming (I absolutely refuse to use capital letters for this issue), I find myself in the uneasy position of having one foot in both camps. On the one hand, it's perfectly logical to me to assume that man as a creature has been less than responsible in caring for this planet. On the other, I see absolutely no reason to presume that man is entirely to blame for the current warming trends, and even less reason to teach that presumption in our schools.

Consider the fact that Woody has grown up in and around Los Angeles pretty much all his life. You can't grow up near a city of this size and not understand the impact that we have on our environment. Since I happen to be a life-long asthmatic I can tell you that whenever the atmosphere immediately surrounding the city is anything less than healthy (which is most of the time), I find myself at greater risk of not being able to draw a full breath. I've battled bronchitis and pneumonia from childhood. What's interesting, however, is that recent years have given me a healthier set of lungs overall. Strict emission controls that were implemented back in the 70's and 80's are paying off now. We haven't had health alerts due to air pollution anywhere near approaching the scale we saw as late as, say, 1985. Thus my asthma has been under control for several years now, and seems to flare up more from allergies than any other cause today.

Do I agree with those emission controls that were implemented? You bet I do. In this case it was easy to see the corollary between our manufacturing arrogance and the immediate effect it was having on our air quality. We even banned backyard incinerators in order to make our air a little more healthful.

But, of course, we're not there yet. Not by a long shot. As a society of commuters we are surgically joined to our vehicles. We really can't get along without them, at least not yet. The very fact that most of us need those vehicles in order to provide livings for our families will keep us firmly attached to those vehicles for years to come. It really has little to do with whether (as Al Gore insists) our continual driving of these carbon-spewing anti-climate machines of doom is obliterating the polar ice caps. That's disturbing and all, but pales in comparison with our immediate need to feed, clothe, and house our families.

On the other hand, and perhaps ironically, I still get upset whenever I drive behind someone who tosses his cigarette butt out of the window right in front of me. I'd take his license plate number and phone it in, but I suspect the local cops are a tad busy keeping tabs on all the sex offenders who refuse to tell people where they're living. The last thing they want to do right now is go after some smoker who never cleans out his car's ash tray (if, indeed, the car even has one).

I teach my Woodyettes to pick up after themselves in public. They've gotten so environmentally conscious that way that I have to occasionally remind them not to pick up after anyone else. One never knows just what kind of germs they might encounter, you see, and I'd rather they either learn to "tsk, tsk" at the problem, or carry a pair of rubber gloves around with them if they really want to clean up someone else's mess.

Then I pack them up in our gas-burner and drive them to church, play groups, field trips, family visits, and goodness knows what else.

(Speaking of field trips, if "An Inconvenient Truth" were to come to our local IMAX, do you think the screen would be big enough to contain Al Gore? Me, neither.)

So I'm conflicted about global warming. I don't really want it to be taught in our schools because public educators have a way of making these issues become a religion unto themselves, just as they have with evolution. Rather than teach it as a theory, they make it an absolute fact that entertains no other possibilities. This they will do (and have already done in many cases) with global warming. Thus they will instill in our children a sense of dread and guilt that no amount of reasoned discussion will ever overcome.

Wonderwood Academy will not be teaching Al Gore's version of global warming. And "global warming" will never be capitalized, unless rules of grammar (not Al Gore) insist.

About Mayan Purification Rites

They don't typically work. Given the fact that Guatemalan indigenous peoples have lived in obscurity and poverty for hundreds of years, I would submit that any purification rendered would be (to put it generously) symbolic at best. Guatemala's political past is riddled with tin-hat military dictators, Marxist crackpots, U. S. puppet-governments, and smatterings of leaders "of the people" who typically fiddled while indigenous factions burned. Literally.

If I read things correctly, this Juan Tiney has actually done what LDS missionaries to the region have been accused of for generations: exploiting the Maya. If you remove yourself from the less rural regions of Iximche and Lake Atitlan, it doesn't take long to find settlements of Maya who not only have no idea who George W. Bush is, they also couldn't care less. George W. has no effect on their ability to plant and harvest corn or beans. George W. is not the reason why they need to move their adobe huts from one corner of their land to another. All they know (or care) is that they have work to do. Politics is for those who have time on their hands.

Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Tiney was able to find very sincere Mayan "priests" (shamans, really) who are eager to purify the land after Bush leaves. Just be sure to ask them how life has been since they last purified it after one of their own government officials visited the place.

Pursuing Happiness

(H/T: Mrs. Woody, who has never once failed to make me happy!)

(Note: My apologies to those who found this post when you were, in fact, looking for reviews of "The Pursuit of Happyness." I don't talk about the movie starring Will Smith in this or any other post. I haven't even seen the movie yet. I'd like to, but we'll probably rent it sometime soon.)

Dennis Prager defines "happiness" over at Townhall.com. I heartily suggest you read the entire article. He does a beautiful job of distinguishing between happiness and pleasure, and makes one wonder just why so many people mistake the one (pleasure) for the other (happiness).

One of the hardest paradoxes in modern cultural debate is the idea that the men who framed the constitution of this nation knew exactly what they were saying when they indicated that one of our most basic, sacred rights is the "pursuit of happiness." I call it a paradox because, in today's world, far too many people confuse the pursuit of happiness with the attainment of happiness. In fact, the two are not at all equivalent.

As I watch my son mature into adulthood (only the law makes him an "adult," I'm afraid - he still has a ways to go in my view) I see the effects of an entitlement culture already in his thought processes. If (the thinking goes) I am unhappy, for whatever reasons or circumstances, then someone owes me. He cannot understand why he should not be allowed to indulge in whatever vice or self-destructive activity he currently favors without having to suffer some sort of consequence. In the entitlement culture there should be no consequences for hedonism. If he believes drinking should make him happy, then we (the nebulous "we" always referred to in progressive thought) owe it to him to allow him that pleasure.

In fact, the only person who can be truly responsible for his happiness is himself. If anyone "owes" him anything, he does. This is the essence of the "pursuit of happiness." It is also anaethemic thinking to a young person who wants to live the life of a party animal.

These are the same forces that perpetuate the myth of "political correctness." Political correctness draws its power from those who believe that it is our sacred right never to be offended for any reason. This thinking is illogical in the extreme. If any one individual or group has the power to limit what we may say in any arena, then the very First Amendment that those same individuals or groups claim to cherish becomes, in fact and deed, null and void. There has never been a constitutional guarantee that we will pass through this life having never been offended by something someone said or did. We have only the guarantee that we will be allowed to pursue our own happiness in spite of those offenses.

I once had a co-worker who was the quintessential bachelor of the 90's. Every Monday he would regale me with his tales of bar-hopping and romantic conquests over the previous weekend. He really wanted to sell me on the idea that he was of all men most happy in his life. Yet what he had could hardly be classified as "happiness." He was single and seemed to have tremendous difficulty with relationships. He drank probably enough to be classified as an alcoholic, and it was probably a miracle of statistical averages that the man never was arrested for DUI. He had talent and training as a concert pianist, yet had trouble achieving any real measure of success as a pianist. Happy? Only in his self-justifications. What he had was the freedom to pursue any number of pleasures, but lacked the character to truly pursue a course leading to happiness.

Consider my own life. I have married twice. My first marriage ended for various reasons with a healthy heaping of issues on both sides. But I still find happiness in my two children from that marriage; even in the aforementioned son, who also has contributed to the graying around my temples. My second marriage has been a match made in heaven. We are not wealthy people, but neither are we living in poverty. We have a common love for and grounding in our religious beliefs, and we are passing those beliefs along to our own two children. I have never once been bar-hopping in my entire life, nor even so much as sipped an alcoholic beverage (not counting some cough medicines). I have never smoked. Do I feel deprived? What a silly question. Do I consider myself to be happy? Absolutely. Compared with my former co-worker, is there anything that I am missing in life? Probably. Is there any one of those things that I need in order to be happy?

Not one.

If, as Dennis indicates, I have a moral obligation to be happy, then I feel justified with my life to date. Am I happy every hour of every day? Of course not. The pursuit of happiness means that there will be times in my life when sadness intrudes, or tragedy intervenes. But a happy person is one who can meet such challenges and overcome them. When my wife's mother passed away this winter, a great sadness entered our lives. Two months later we still grieve, but we also remember that we are happy in general. Do we still miss Mom? We do, and we're not ashamed to shed tears when those feelings are near. But we find happiness in the thought - in the belief - that we will see her again.

Of course challenges will always exist. This will be especially true of the next eighteen months, when our pursuit of happiness will be tested to its uttermost limits.

But then the election will finally be over. Happiness will return, if only because the windbags will go away for a couple of years.

Ordinary Conservatives to Coulter: "Not Helping!"

It says something about modern culture that no one in high visibility positions of the media (whether news or entertainment) seems able to communicate without going for the "zinger." That one sound bite guaranteed to catapult them back into the limelight, where they will spend the next umpteen months having to defend themselves.

Et tu, Ann?

I have admired some things Coulter has said in the past because they show that many conservatives are not afraid to confront the insanity we see in the so-called "progressive" movement from the political left. "Progressive" is another word for "irresponsible" in most cases, as it denotes the kind of philosophy that worships at the altars of "choice" (abortion), "diversity" (gay marriage), and "immigration reform" (entitlement programs). As a conservative I find these things unpalatable, and I've certainly never been shy about saying so. Count me firmly among those who count entitlement programs as socially irredeeming, gay marriage as just another attack on the traditional family unit, and abortion as pre-meditated murder in most cases (not all cases, but that's a subject for a much later date).

No matter what my views may be, however, and no matter how passionately I believe those views, I see absolutely nothing of value in lowering ourselves into the depths of bitterness and gall that generate the kinds of filthy mud-slinging we've seen in recent decades in our on-going national debate. Vehemently disagreeing with an opponent is one thing; calling that opponent a "faggot," even indirectly, is worthless.

It's as if every nationally visible firebrand - conservative, liberal, and everything in-between - attended the same twelve-step program that I attended briefly in the 90's. "Speaking your mind, even if it's profane, is therapeutic," they said. This is the same kind of empowerment and enablement that has created an entire generation of comics who can't generate any true comedy of their own without resorting to what used to be shocking and vulgar language. This verbal dysentery has now spilled over into what used to be a reasoned and insightful discussion of the issues we all face. Global warming, the war, gun control, gangs; these are topics that need reason and insight, not an ability to out-shout or out-profane the other side.

Wanna know what effect profanity and name-calling have on Woody and his family? We have no idea who you are, because you have made yourselves irrelevant in our lives. Truly. Do you think this family ever has seen or ever will see "South Park?" Not a chance. Do you know how nervous I get whenever a movie comes out that we think we'd like to see but worry about it because it has Robin Williams in it? We generally don't see those movies in theaters anymore because Mrs. Woody and I feel a strong need to pre-screen them before we let the kids see them.

Well, Ann Coulter has just placed herself in the same category as Margaret Cho. One is a failed comic who tries to impress us with her "social awareness" and sewer-mouth, while the other is a failing pundit who can only express herself in terms of perceived liberal inhumanity.

John Edwards learned the hard way what happens when one allows guttersnipes to represent one's image to the nation. You become that image, even if that may be an unfair representation. You assume responsibility for the actions of those who are associated with you. At least, you assume that responsibility in the eyes and minds of your intended audience. Whether or not that may be fair, it's still a fact. Your reality is created by your audience's perceptions. You can't escape it.

I refuse to read Kos because this is a world that thinks comparing people with insulting bodily functions is funny, and who seriously believe that assassinating the Vice President is not only funny, but necessary. I don't need people like that running my country. I have a hard enough time trusting the ones that don't talk that way.

Which is precisely why, Ann, what you said at CPAC - joke or not - did absolutely no good to the conservative cause. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be able to express our ideas without insulting the honor of the office we're striving to capture. That is why the candidates are backing away from you. Sure you're an intelligent pundit. You definitely have a firm grasp on the issues that most concern us. But you're also a loose cannon, and candidates do well to separate themselves from loose cannons. So do we average, ordinary conservatives.

Pack it up, Ann. You're not helping.

Truth Worse (NOT Stranger) than Fiction

(H/T: Drudge)

Somehow, socialist educators at a private school in (where else?) Seattle have decided to use Legos® to teach kids about the evils of a capitalist society.

Pardon me while I pause momentarily in stunned silence.

[...]

Thank you.

Here are a few quotes from the article:

According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

So I'm an evil person for owning my two cars, assorted pieces of furniture, and the clothes on my back. Interesting ideal. (Notice I do not include my home in this list. The bank owns my home, not me. Just wanted to clarify.) I also happen to own [numerous] Legos. That probably makes me twice as evil.

There's more, of course:

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

And aren't those teachers just so miserable that they missed out on all the fun they could have had in the Soviet Union? But there's still time. I'm certain North Korea is accepting permanent resident visas.

The key phrase, of course, is "full democratic participation." Ah, yes. The old fall-back position. Fairness can only be achieved when everyone has an equal say in everything. Which means that I should be perfectly happy if I really wanted to buy a Honda (which, by the way, I do) but my neighbors voted me down, insisting that I buy an American-made car so I can support our poor, oppressed unions. They forget that this is precisely why the framers of the Constitution opted for a representative form of government in the first place.

A few days ago, ZeeMeister Bob (or "Step-Dad" to Woody) sent along something he'd gotten in one of those email strings that I tend to regard with suspicion, unless I happen to agree. I happen to agree with this one:

Father- Child Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, And let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

Agree or disagree, in my mind her father gives a perfect description of "full democratic participation."

Seattle private schools - reason #1,276 why we homeschool.

Detroit Public Schools - Financial Geniuses, or What?

At least it's nice to see they've got their spending priorities in order.

Here at world-famous Wonderwood Academy ("Where the Leaders of Tomorrow are Whupping Their Principal Academically Today") we have also purchased tons of art, most of which adorns our 17 cubic foot refrigerator. We're thinking of opening a museum on campus, right next to our Teachers Lounge which was constructed with money we saved by closing three of our auxiliary campuses last year. In the meantime, our students and their teacher continue to enjoy the luxuries of a school room designed to look exactly like an average family's dining room, except that the school room is also currently doubling as a storage room. Ditto the school cafeteria's kitchen.

Perhaps, next year, if Detroit has any further budget for art, we could sell them some of ours. I could sure use a piece of that $1.6 million!

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs)