Laurie Taylor, a mother of two young teenage girls, complained to the board of education inFayetteville, Arkansas about three library books that contained explicit descriptions and depictions of sexual activity. The controversy that erupted shortly after is a great example of why I do not support public schools. Before you judge me as the kind of parent that chooses private school as a ’shelter’ for my children, please read on.Albert Mohler chimes in on the debate on his blog and echoes what I think is a common sentiment among Christian parents:
Predictably, national library associations and anti-censorship groups quickly jumped into the fray, charging Mrs. Taylor with launching a crusade to take the Arkansas public schools back to the dark ages.source
I am offended at the tone of this post. I certainly do not want my children exposed to the content in question (without the proper parental involvement), but I am glad that someone speaks out in defense of freedom. That is what this controversy is about - freedom.This reminds me of another recent story involving Internet access at public libraries and another controversy some years ago about pledging the flag. Public schools are public insttitutions run by the government. Every year, the government takes more and more control of schools. As public institutions, schools have one drawback - freedom. My dad and I used to have this discussion. When he was in school, public schools were fine. By the time I was in school, students and parents were beginning to figure out that the government had no right to infringe on our freedoms.If my children attended the public school, would I really want the school to decide what my children should be reading (and not reading)? I know many of you are screaming “Yes!” You should think again. If you think someone (other than your child) should decide, I would agree with you, but do you want that someone to be the school (government)? Okay, maybe some of you do, and that is okay. You’ve made that decision. Many of us would prefer to reserve that role ourselves or enroll our children in private schools run by people we trust.In order to educate children, certain freedoms need to be curbed. Public schools, as an extension of the government have no right to curb freedoms. As a matter of fact, our government exists solely to protect our freedoms. It is a parent’s responsibility to direct, guide and discipline children so that learning can take place. Parent’s have the freedom to choose the correct course of action. Some parent’s choose private schools for this, some choose home-schooling, others choose public schools.Although it may be hard for some of us to believe, some parents do not mind the content involved in this controversy being available to their children. If my children were in the same school and some of the parents were in support of the content, how would this decision be solved in a public institution. The only solution is for one of us to choose another school.Please remember, this is not about sheltering my children. Anyone who knows me would tell you I don’t believe in sheltering children. I have reviewed the content involved in this dispute. Some of it is offensive, but some of it might be helpful to children given the proper involvement of parents. It is not about hiding this content from my children. This is about placing children in an evironment where learning can take place. I want my children in a school where students must do as they are told. I happen to believe that children will only learn in an environment of discipline. I want my children to learn respect for adults and obedience.It really boils down to this - I would fight to defend a student’s right to not salute the flag in a public school, but I want my children in a school that expels children for not saluting the flag!Does this make sense to anyone?
I remember seeing this debate on PBS in 1997. I taped it and watched it with my students. Mr. William F. Buckley, Mr. Philip Johnson, Dr. Micheal Behe, and Dr. David Berlinski argued that schools should point out that Darwinian evolution is not the only plausible theory for explaining the origin of life. We enjoyed the debate, but decided the solution was not clear. It is obvious to me that Darwinian evolution does a poor job of explaining the origin of life, but whether public school should present ‘alternate’ theories is not clear to me.One of my favorite parts of the debate was when a presenter from the con side began to confront Mr. Johnson about books written by ICR. In either case, Mr. Johnson was noticeably conflicted. No doubt, he wanted to distance himself from a radical ‘creationist’ organization without compromising his strong faith. When challenged to respond to questions on the ’silliness’ of books depicting dinosaurs roaming the earth with men, he finally responded by saying
It is silly. Just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins.
Saying this turned the tables. It was evident that the con side wanted to treat Dawkins just as the pro side wanted to treat organizations like ICR.This is the light in which I’ve always seen Dawkins. He can resort to philosophical games regarding the ‘problems’ with Darwinism. He can talk in terms of generalizations. Why? He doesn’t have to worry about the science. He is not a scientist. He can spout generalizations and grandiose verbiage. No need to support it with facts. I’ve read Dawkins’ books and I enjoyed them, but I see him for what he is. He is a militant atheist who believes he has found in Darwinism a tool which he can use to demolish theism. He is not a scientist. He writes popular books in order to persuade his readers that Darwinism can be applied to other areas of life.Albert Mohler correctly points out that Dawkins has is a committed atheist with an aggressive and undisguised secularism, but misses the point that this irrational behavior stems from his mixture of science and philosophy. I pray that proponents of Intelligent Design do not become known for the same.
Charlotte, N.C.-based Scientigo owns two patents (No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of “data in neutral forms.” These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert.link
This reminded me of something I read about a year ago:
If I were a patent terrorist like some, I could probably even patent these ideas. Isn’t it a shame that in this country today, you can have nothing more than an idea, do nothing with it, but still have a chance to make money?Mark Cuban on blogmaverick.
One whiner left a comment on Mark’s blog complaining that big companies with ‘rich friends’ shouldn’t be the only ones who make money. He says “Should I not profit from my ideas just because someone else had richer friends?”Well, philosophers have debated this for centuries. I am going to say “Yes, you should not profit!” I don’t think an ‘idea’ is good enough.He also complains that the founders of Google were able to raise $25,000 from friends and family for their idea, something he claims he could not have done. Just a thought - If you cannot raise $25,000 for an idea that you think should eventually make you rich, then you shouldn’t expect to get rich.Better keep playin’ the lottery.
A lot of people have a lot to say about the nomination of Harriet Miers.George Will doesn’t like her because she is a woman. We can dismiss his opinion as what one would expect from someone with his view of women.Many have raised issue with her involvement in her evangelical church, including a few writers at The Washington Post and The New York Times. David Kuo, a former White House staffer, likes her and points out that her involvement with her church is a good thing. Her church membership indicates character and “character matters,” according to Kuo.Reading all of this just makes it more and more clear to me that her qualifications, experience and mastery of the law will make her a good justice (or a bad one). Her involvement in her church may make her a bad justice, but maybe it makes her a good justice. We simply do not know. We do know, however, that qualified lawyers with experience and good mastery of the law usually make good judges. Seems very simple to me.Of course, we all know the question is really about abortion. Many people feel that her involvement with a church that is vocally pro-life will influence her interpretation of the law. The fact that she will not answer questions about how she would rule in a case seems to concern many. The fact that many people feel as though she should ‘tip her hand’ indicates that they do not understand how decisions are supposed to be made in court, which incidentally points out how poorly they would do as judges. Making a decision on a case without the benefits of the facts is bad judgement, plain and simple. I don’t want a justice who knows how she would rule on a case ahead of time. Do You?In the midst of all this confusion many fail to realize that being a Christian, evangelical, or even a pro-lifer does not mean you would overturn Roe. Justice Nathan Hecht, a member of the Texas Supreme Court and a close friend of Miers (’on-again, off-again boyfriend’ according to the Washington Post) who describes Miers as ‘pro-life’, said this:
You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe to be upheld
Absolutely.
Under law, the property owners and their tenants must vacate the land within three months unless a judge declares the seizure unconstitutional.D.C. Seizes Property For Stadium Project
Eminent domain is unconstitutional in every case . . .if you ask me 
I know the ACLU does some things that seem anti-American, but cases like this one, remind me why we need someone who is willing to defend our freedoms.If it were not for the ACLU, many abuses of power like this would go un-checked.
Citing confidentiality, Transportation Secretary Nathan Hayward III couldn’t say whether motorists, already paying $3 at the Newark tolls, would pay more if a partnership deal is finalized.delawareonline ¦ The News Journal ¦ Privatized I-95 deals kept secret
So, I am not allowed to know if my tolls will be increased. Why? Because it’s confidential.Oh, okay. Thanks.
This is actually the one quality I really like about Bush - his “stubborn confidence in his own judgement.”
“I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes,” said the president last week, after he nominated Miers to the United States Supreme Court. “I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today.”In other words: trust me. For a president under attack recently for staffing his government with hacks and cronies, the appointment of his personal lawyerâ€â€who has never judged a day in her lifeâ€â€to the nation’s highest court showed a certain stubborn confidence in his own judgment.Mild About Harriet - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
Now the right doesn’t like her because she wanted to be “inclusive of women and minorities.”Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides
Official Google Blog: Guess what just turned 34?I remember when I first disovered e-mail. It was 1979. My parents purchased my brother and I a TRS-80 color computer, and a 300 baud modem. Of course, we used the modem to dial our friends directly to ‘chat’ and to connect to a couple of very cool BBSs. The computer did come with an introductory membership to compuserve which included e-mail. The connection was $12.95 per hour, so we never used it after the free trial ran out, but I remember thinking how cool the idea of e-mail was. Remember those e-mail addresses 7,12345,678@compuserve.com.Almost seven years would go by before I actually sent an e-mail to someone I knew. Of course by the early nineties I was using it all the time. And now - I get 1000’s of e-mails a day. I still love it, though!BTW, I still keep in touch with many of those friends and the guys who ran the BBSs.
I may not like what these teens did, but I certainly don’t think the punishment shoud have been 17 years in prison!
The Kansas Supreme Court yesterday struck down a state law that penalized same-sex statutory rapes by 18-year-olds much more harshly than heterosexual cases, ruling that the law unconstitutionally discriminated against gays.In a 6 to 0 opinion, the court said its decision was required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas , a landmark victory for gay rights that abolished all state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults.
One of my worst memories as a Jets fan is of that fake spike.
As most remember, with little time left, Marino had driven the Dolphins near our goal line and lined up as if he were going to spike the ball to stop the clock. But instead, he faked the spike, and as our defense let up for a split second, Marino threw the winning touchdown. Things were never the same for the Jets after that game. We went on an awful losing streak, the coaches were fired and it took three years for the franchise to turn it around.former Jet remembers it too
Anytime it comes up, I don’t want to think about it. It was painful.It does feel a little better now, though. Coach remembered it too! I wonder how long he’s been waiting to use this.Nice goin’ Pete!NPR : USC Win Tops Frantic Football Weekend
Frankly, this kind of thing doesn’t surprise me. I know it should, but it doesn’t.I saw a report on ESPN that these guys believe they need to get out there and win. They believe that is the only way to redeem themselves. You know the sad thing is that they are right. People will forgive them as long as they win.Vikings Face Boat-Load of New ProblemsSome people never learn.
Everything I read convinces me she is a good lawyer, and will probably make a good judge.
“She appeared to have an innate sense of fairness,” recalled lawyer Sam Baxter, who lost the Microsoft case to Miers. “She was not doctrinaire.”from the Washington Post - As a Lawyer, Miers Focused on Policy
I found one paragraph of the Post article particularly interesting:
Her one foray into the controversial social subjects that can animate the high court was her work as a member of the ABA to get the organization to withdraw its official support for abortion rights. Her colleagues said that stemmed from her belief that the national association of lawyers should not take a stance on abortion and other issues that are matters of personal conscience.
I have nothing here to go on except her colleagues opinion of her intentions. If this is her opinion on the matter, I agree. Certainly, lawyers should not take such a stand. Judges, on the other hand, should support abortion rights for the same reason - it is a matter of personal conscience.
[powered by WordPress.]
22 queries. 4.144 seconds
