At my son’s Pop Warner football practice the other day, I watched as a clear demonstration of all that’s good about the game crystallized before my eyes.

During a conditioning lap, a few of the slower players fell behind the faster ones.  Once most of the team had finished, three or four remained, running slowly but steadily towards their teammates now waiting for them around the water station.  Our coaches have a rule preventing anyone from drinking until everyone has finished the lap, which doesn’t sound too bad, until you’ve experienced the 100-degree Texas heat. 

With no prompting from the coaches, more than a dozen players, all aged nine through eleven, left the comfort of the water station and ran to the three players still pushing against the last half of the lap.  In an act of selflessness, these dozen or so ran alongside their slower teammates speaking encouragement to them without saying a word.  Some ran beside the struggling players, some ran behind them, all forming a pocket of support that guided everyone to the reward of a cool drink and a few moments rest.

This display of teamwork and self-denial made me think about the differences between today’s NFL and the NFL of my youth.  And it made me think about the unchanging values this, the greatest sport ever invented, can teach our children.

I remember going to sleep each night under the watchful eyes of the Dallas Cowboys team posters hanging over my bed.  These were the posters sold for a nominal fee at McDonald’s each year as the season began.  I looked forward to getting a new poster each fall, and most of the time left the previous year’s poster on the wall, adding the new one to the display.  I’d pore over the poster each year, trying to match the names with the faces and jersey numbers without peeking at the roster printed towards the bottom.  I was pretty good at naming most of the players, using jersey numbers as the primary clues.  I mean, you really can’t see their faces with helmets on during games and back then, you only saw NFL players during the occasional sports report during local newscasts, so jersey numbers were better than faces for identification purposes.  Of course back then, the jersey numbers rarely changed.

I could always count on jersey number 12 being on the front row towards the center.  The only change my eyes detected in Roger Staubach each year was a slightly different hairstyle.  Number 88 was there, Drew Pearson being my first inspiration to try my hand at wide receiver.  Numbers 41 and 43 were always there as well, Charlie Waters and Cliff Harris a seemingly inseparable tandem of hard-hitting safeties.  The rest of the second Doomsday Defense was there too, none more memorable to me than Ed “Too Tall” Jones and Randy “The Manster” White.  I never considered for a minute these guys wouldn’t be on next year’s poster, and no one member of the team had a more prominent place than another on those bleachers.  I don’t think I’ve seen a team poster from any NFL team in some time.  I suppose you can find them somewhere, but isn’t it telling that they’re not prevalent any longer?

These are the days of Fathead, the low-adhesive vinyl cutouts that you can stick and reposition leaving no sticky mess on your wall.  I’ve perused through Fathead’s website and I can’t seem to find a team cutout.  There are plenty of individual players you can stick to the wall, but no team.  You can celebrate your favorite running back, quarterback, wide receiver or other skill position player, but not the other 52 guys who helped them achieve their fame.  Free agency, thy name is Individuality.   

In the most team-dependent of all team sports, the focus has shifted from the team poster to individual cut outs of players who are flashier, louder, or more inclined towards criminal behavior, but that’s not football.  Football teaches many things, none of which are actually related to the sport.  The sport is simply a tangible framework used to embed values like sacrifice, perseverance, selflessness and pursuit of the greater good over individual achievement into the minds and hearts of its players.  I can’t think of any man who will use a pass blocking technique beyond the gridiron, but I’m certain every man can and should use the values taught along with that technique.  It seems these values erode somewhere between high school and the NFL for many players.  Is it the lure of big contracts, or national fame that leads some players to put aside what their early coaches tried to instill in them?  Probably, and for other reasons as well. 

I love the game of football and all that it stands for in its purest form.  That’s why on a hot Texas evening, I was mesmerized by the sight of young men doing what few NFL players would; delaying their reward to make sure everyone finished as a team.  These players were poster kids for all that’s still right with football; the solid foundation of a sport whose pinnacle is a tad misshapen.

Three recent events have exposed the stark contrast between Planned Parenthood’s (PP) talk and their walk. The obvious contradiction between their name and their near-universal advocacy of abortion for every pregnant woman entering their office is apparently just the tip of the iceberg. Two cases in Ohio and an undercover investigation in California may drain the swamp at PP clinics, exposing secrets lying stagnant for decades. Why should you care? Because you pay their bills.

In Ohio, a 14 year-old-girl was the victim of sexual abuse by a 21-year-old soccer coach. He took her to a PP clinic where she used a school I.D. and he paid with a credit card, and showed his driver’s license. According to court records, the clinic employee failed to report the abuse to law enforcement as required by state law. There are similar cases in Kansas and Indiana.

Another Ohio teenager was sexually abused by her father for five years beginning at age 13, becoming pregnant at 16 when her father forced her to have an abortion.  The girl says she told a clinic worker her father had repeatedly raped her, but again the clinic failed to report the crime. The abuse continued for another year-and-a-half before the girl finally went to a school counselor who then reported the information to authorities. John Blanks, Jr. was sentenced to five years in prison for five years of raping his own daughter. The girl has now filed suit against Planned Parenthood saying she suffered nearly two years of abuse that could have been prevented if the clinic employee had obeyed the law and reported the abuse.

In California, Lila Rose, a female college student writing an undercover investigative story for a school newspaper secretly videotaped her interaction with a Santa Monica clinic employee. Rose told the clinic worker she was a 15-year-old who had been impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. The clinic worker, required by California state law to report the pregnancy since the girl was under 16, told Rose to lie about her age by “figuring out a birth date that works,” to make her appear older and skirt the law. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California President Kathy Kneer admitted the worker broke the law, but decided to show how concerned she is for women’s health by focusing on the method used to expose the crime instead of the crime itself. Kneer called the undercover methods “manipulative,” and has filed a cease-and-desist order to prevent Rose from further exposing the clinic’s actions.

All three of these clinics receive millions of dollars in federal grants every year. Glad to know my taxes are giving law enforcement something to do. I guess finding that “right” to abortion-on-demand in the Constitutional “penumbra” isn’t so bad after all. I mean, if taxpayers are forced to fund abortion rights, then maybe I can get federal money to fund my right to bear arms and use federal tax money to buy handguns from reputable dealers. That way I wouldn’t have to buy them in those scary back-alleys where Planned Parenthood says abortions used to be performed.

As these three cases unfold, more are coming to light. A group called Life Dynamics conducted a phone campaign in 2002, having a woman posing as a pregnant 13-year-old call clinics operated by both PP and the National Abortion Foundation. Life Dynamics said they’ve collected over 800 tapes with clinic workers saying things like, “[T]ell them your boyfriend is 16 or something because he could get in a lot of trouble," and, “I wouldn't advise you to say anything about your boyfriend being 22, because that's statutory rape."

Consequently, PP is now circling the wagons and resorting to the standard ploy of attacking the victims instead of addressing the problem, saying many of these girls are pawns of conservative organizations. But none of these girls went to political action groups with their stories; they went to law enforcement and private attorneys for help. Now that those officials have kicked the anthill, all kinds of things are turning up and PP officials are scurrying for cover.

Do these clinics have a right to exist? Sure they do. Do they have a right to our money to fund criminal activity that enables predators to abuse young girls for years? Absolutely not.

And guess what money Planned Parenthood will use to defend themselves in court?

I’ve noticed an amusing (and somewhat pathetic) trend in recent days. As the newly-minted Democratic congressional majority enters the last stages of settling in, liberals across the country feel emboldened to wave their flags proudly. Gone are the stifling days of conservative control with its high-sounding morals and musty absolute truth by which we were all judged. Enter the crisp days of freedom with their bracing winds of change bringing acceptance and equal treatment for all.

That’s what liberals would have you believe anyway, especially those grappling for the Democratic presidential nomination. But here’s the irony: The more emboldened they become to preach their brand freedom, the more they expose just how loony and out-of-touch they are with a majority of Americans, the very group they claim to represent. Try as they might, they just can’t conceal their true agendas for very long.

A few examples:

It seems Hillary’s campaign is trying to regain balance after slipping on loose gravel thrown in its path by the Family Research Council (FRC). After news leaked that Clinton accepted $800,000 dollars from a fund raiser hosted by misogynistic sleaze rapper Timbaland, FRC encouraged folks to contact campaign headquarters and voice their opinion, which they did. How did the campaign respond to complaints that Hillary accepted money from a profane performer? Apparently by using profanity themselves. The FRC’s Tom McClusky said he was on the receiving end of a string of F-bombs dropped by a campaign worker. Campaign leaders later said the worker's comments were not consistent with the kind of tone they’re setting. Notice the response did not condemn either Timbaland's or the campaign worker’s use of profanity, but merely said the language could have been communicated in a way more consistent with the tone of the campaign.
Hey Hillary, here’s a way to get those female votes; just use money from a crowd that enjoys hearing performers rhyme about various ways to use women as objects for sexual abuse.

Then there’s John Edwards, tap dancing his way to the bank while looking appropriately sympathetic for the poor. Edwards said the time he spent reaping from, I mean working for a hedge fund gave him an opportunity to learn how monetary markets relate to poverty. I guess the lesson being, “I’m rich and they’re poor. Yep, we’re different all right.” The millionaire candidate loves to trot out his father’s blue-collar occupation but neglects to inform his fellow “common man” just how much money sits in his account. He’ll fight for you all right, assuming the retainer is large enough.

Lastly, is a bizarre man who thinks the world can be saved by genocide. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society says humans are a disease and their numbers should be reduced by more than five million. We’ve all heard kooky ideas like this before, most falling under the eugenics movement championed by folks like the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger and the liberal’s favorite boogey-man Adolf Hitler.
How come people who believe the human race should be smaller never think of starting with themselves, as an example to us all?

While it was a setback in the battle to restore America to her conservative roots, last November’s elections may have done more to advance traditional ideas than a continued Republican majority. If liberals will only keep talking, their true colors will be revealed. Time is on conservative’s side, because no one can double-speak forever.

Well, maybe Jesse Jackson.



Read more of my articles here!

My mental filter catches weird stuff sometimes.

While sifting through headlines and commentaries about the Virginia Tech shooting, I came across an article and an interview addressing an often overlooked aspect of this tragedy. While most are focused on the families of those killed (and rightfully so), a few are probing the question of whether there is a spiritual aspect to the shootings. Specifically, did Satan or his demonic agents have a hand in the rampage?

Despite a few moments of lazy journalism, an article by Fox News’ religion reporter Laura Green digs into the issue fairly well, and raises the topic to a higher level. Not only are there people debating whether Satan had direct involvement in the shootings, they are debating whether he exists at all.

At each end of the opinion spectrum are those who concretely affirm or deny not only Satan’s existence, but God’s as well. It’s the middle of the spectrum, where things get a little messy, that thoughtful debate is growing. In this area, there is a blending of truth, tradition and ignorance.

Most evangelical Christians weighing in on the subject say there absolutely was demonic influence roaming the Virginia Tech campus in the person of Cho Seung-Hui. Depending on whom you talk to that influence ranges from outright possession to manipulative oppression. No less than Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, staked out his position on Fox News’ morning show. He didn’t commit to either state of influence but said acts of this sort are definitely the result man’s corrupt nature and evil forces' willingness to take advantage of that nature. In her article, Green quotes Dr. Richard Roberts, President of Oral Roberts University saying essentially the same thing as Graham:

“…there’s no doubt that his act was Satanic in origin.”

Not surprising positions based on Biblical accounts and Christian tradition clearly showing evil as personified beings out to warp and destroy God’s creation. What is surprising is a comment from Rabbi Peter Rubenstein from New York’s Central Synagogue. The good Rabbi doesn’t believe evil forces exist at all, but instead are indulgences by humans in their evil “inclination” that should be balanced by their good “inclination.” In other words, the existence of evil would be eradicated if we all just did good things, instead of bad things. I’m wondering if Rubenstein is reading the same Torah I’m reading, or simply ripped a few pages from the Star Wars script and inserted them. Anakin could have saved the Jedi order if he’d only ignored his evil “inclinations!”

As early as the book of Genesis the Devil is mentioned by name and has a distinct personality. You have to perform some impressive interpretive gymnastics indeed to get around all the places Jewish scripture and rabbinical writings mention Satan by name and attribute personal characteristics to him.

Then of course there are the Atheists who deny the existence of both God and Satan preferring to ascribe mass murders to psychological phenomena.

Clouding the issue from the outset is Western culture’s detachment from its moral underpinnings. There was a time when most Americans not only believed in, but planned their lives around an understanding and acceptance of an absolute, higher truth. Far from suffocating as so many radicals through the ‘60’s and ‘70’s shouted, these truths were liberating in that they marked clear boundaries leaving no confusion. Now we wander in a fog of conflicting ideas regarded equally as truth and wonder why we’ve lost our way.

How, we ask, could someone methodically execute 32 people as Seung-Hui did? A better question would be why does it surprise us? As we continually blur the line between truth and error by holding all opinions as valid for those who believe them, why would we look in wonder at the carnage of a man who believed his actions to be the expression of truth as he saw it? Haven’t we for decades hammered home the mantra of relative truth which validates all beliefs for those who believe them?

The unmistakable fact is absolute truth does exist, and it clearly delineates between good and evil, right and wrong. Those who believe truth is relative to a point of view, come take a drink from this glass of cyanide that I choose to believe is water. My belief makes the drink no less toxic.

Seung-Hui’s actions were an expression of evil. Those actions resulted in the absolute truth that 33 lives were snuffed out in a matter of hours. I guess now we can go back to our comforting belief that truth is relative, at least until the next tragedy forces us to remember that evil does indeed inhabit the earth, and its calling is death.

Some future guests of a Manhattan hotel could be upset over a fellow traveler’s presence. He’s quiet, keeps to himself and takes up very little space but they’ll still have a difficult time avoiding him and the controversy he’s created.

The guest in question is a six-foot statue of Jesus made entirely of chocolate. Dubbed “My Sweet Lord” by its creator Cosimo Cavallaro, the figure is scheduled for display at the Roger Smith Hotel in New York beginning Monday and continuing through Easter Sunday. That day will mark a special viewing from midnight to one a.m.

Aside from the obvious, calculated timing of the statue’s unveiling (the sculpture gallery’s creative director says the timing of the unveiling was an “unfortunate coincidence”), and the ridiculous appearance of the figure (by the way, it’s anatomically correct where that sort of thing counts and there’s no loin cloth), what’s astounding is the surprise those involved with the sculpture expressed at the religious community’s response.

The aforementioned creative director, Matt Semler said, “We’re obviously surprised by the overwhelming response and offense people have taken.” Well what did you think would happen Matt? Did you think you could unveil a nude statue of the most revered religious figure in history, a figure many consider God in the flesh and not make people angry? Are we to believe you’re so insulated in your “art” community you really had no idea this would offend people?

No, this was indeed calculated and designed to generate the exact sort of buzz it’s getting (yes, I know I’m contributing to the buzz and that irks me somewhat). The feigned surprise of Cavallaro and his keeper is laughable, as is the statue itself. Really, once you see the thing it’s not that impressive.

The face has very little detail and the only thing anatomically correct is the pelvic region. The rest of the figure looks gaunt and weak as if it was derived from photos of Holocaust victims. Only someone who’s never familiarized themselves with Jesus’ life would conceive him thus. The man was a carpenter. He cut, lifted and smoothed heavy wood before shaping it with his hands into something useful. No way was he the effeminate pansy portrayed in this sculpture.

But see that’s the point. Cavallaro did not familiarize himself with his subject at all. He chose it, the medium and the timing of the unveiling as pure self-aggrandizement. He couched his expression in a sweet solid to hide his flagrant ignorance. His Jesus is a sweet, skinny wimp who is much less threatening than the muscular carpenter who was strong enough to be tender and compassionate. Cavallaro’s Jesus is much easier to control and is therefore subject to his creator, which is ironic considering the opposite is true.

With his hands, this “artist” fashioned an object of mockery and divisiveness that will disappear on the ash heap of history. With His hands, his subject fashioned a world-wide faith of healing and unity that’s lasted more than two-thousand years.

Can’t understand why anyone’s upset, Cosimo.

Unwavering values and a quiet strength are Tony Dungy’s hallmarks. The Super Bowl-winning coach of the Indianapolis Colts makes no secret of his religious faith and the fact that he places it above all else in his life. His Christian beliefs have been somewhat public for some time now, but recent comments by Dungy have thrust this area of his life onto the national stage, and are now being unfairly attacked.

At an awards dinner held by the Indiana Family Institute recently, Dungy declared his support for the Institute’s efforts at convincing lawmakers to amend the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I appreciate the stance they’re taking, and I embrace that stance,” Dungy said. “We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else, but we’re trying to promote the family – family values the Lord’s way.”

While most of us could guess this would be Dungy’s position, the controversy arose after he made his views public. The response from the gay community was predictable.

“When the head coach publicly states that part of the Colts fan base should be second-class citizens, you can’t expect those same fans to support the team.” So says Bil Browning, operator of a blog site focusing on homosexual issues.

The hypocrisy by the gay community in reaction to Dungy’s comments is astounding.

Not only was Dungy not classifying homosexuals as second-class citizens, he unwittingly exposed the double-standard of the gay agenda.

Dungy is at the pinnacle of his chosen profession. He coaches, trains, teaches, and builds his players into a winning team. No one can dispute his success on the field, and isn’t that what homosexual advocates have been preaching for decades? That it doesn’t matter if a businessman or actor or politician or anyone else is gay, as long as they do their job and do it well? That our bedroom activities are personal matters and off-limits for public debate? Most major corporations go to great lengths to make sexual orientation a non-issue by teaching employees to treat everyone equally regardless of their beliefs. Job performance is the yardstick by which they’re measured, not whether they’re attracted to men or women.

But in the same breath, gay advocates criticize Dungy for having personally-held beliefs in conflict with theirs, even though his job performance is the best in his profession. As long as you fall in line with the gay mantra your job performance is the ultimate measure. But if you refuse to drink the kool-aid, suddenly your job success is irrelevant, and in fact should not even be brought up in the context of the conversation. All that matters then is that you don’t subscribe to the cult of tolerance, which is code-speak for acceptance and affirmation.

Make no mistake: Had Dungy made these comments in his coaching apparel during a post-game interview when he clearly represents the Colts organization, I too would question his timing. But when he makes the comments as a private citizen, invited to a ceremony honoring his commitment to family values (the same values by the way, that helped him build a winning team), then they should be left alone. Yes he’s a public figure and yes what he says carries more weight than some guy off the street. But he’s also a human, entitled to privately held beliefs as we all are, and entitled to express those beliefs without fear of reprisal.

Kudos to the Colts ownership for defending Dungy's right to express himself in this way. May the Colts enjoy Tony's brand of success for years to come.

Five British citizens, going about their daily work have been kidnapped by Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval personnel. A domestic coup in London perhaps, or a daring strike in England’s heartland? No. This happened to British sailors and marines as they completed a routine search of an Iraqi merchant vessel sailing through Iraqi waters.

That the Iranian crazies violated every known practice and expectation of sovereign nations, not to mention Iraqi and British territory, is really not the most dangerous part of the story. True, this incident heightens tensions between Iran and the West, but what’s new? Iran has, in their view, been officially at war with us since the early seventies. And it’s also true that this incident comes at a time when Iran is lumbering towards nuclear capability. But for the British, this incident holds far more dangerous consequences domestically than abroad.

A few facts:

-The total population of England is roughly 60-million.
-The total number of Muslims in England is roughly 1.6-million, nearly 3% of the population.
-Of England’s Muslim population, 96% are Sunni’s, the same strain of Islam once practiced by Saddam Hussein, and now followed by terrorists blowing up American and British troops in Iraq.

So what’s the connection between London’s Sunni’s and the ones now fighting in Iraq with the blessing of the Shia regime in Iran?

Religion, mainly, but consider that this religion offers no compromise when it comes to assimilation with host countries. Followers of Islam do not migrate to other nations with the goal of becoming a part of that nation’s tapestry. Rather, the stated goal of their religion is to devour non-Islamic cultures until none stand but “The One True Faith.”

Unlike other ethnic groups that swarm our shores and, to a lesser extent the coasts and borders of European countries, these immigrants do not want to fit in; they want to transform the very makeup of the countries in which they settle, typically by force. And once they enter another country, they don’t simply ignore the events in their sacred land. Make no mistake; they’re intimately in tune with what happens to their brethren in the Middle East.

And should British response to this kidnapping consist of military force (most likely with American aid), is it a stretch to imagine the violence that could erupt in London or elsewhere in England? The British now find themselves in the middle of a political crop-field, learning firsthand the law of sowing and reaping.

In the almighty name of tolerance and enlightenment, they’ve allowed unfettered immigration, embracing Muslims by the thousands each year, with naïve expectations that they’ll settle down and become “good Britons.” Sowing in self-imposed ignorance, they’re poised to reap violence, death and national dissolution. If the bullets start flying in Iran, the Molotov cocktails and car bombs could start flying in London. Witness France just last year. This makes a decision on how to respond to the kidnapping dicey indeed. A strong response could trigger massive violence at home. A weak or no response could trigger massive violence at home, as Islamo-facists understand nothing but superior strength.

Lest we sit back and cluck our American tongues in arrogance at English folly, we’d do well to tend to our back yard. True, the Muslim population in the U.S. is less than 1%, and most of them are converts, not immigrants, but we don’t necessarily need a large bloc of Muslims to reap the same crop as the British. There are those in our own Congress sowing seeds of defeat in the Middle East, overtly signaling their intention to hand victory to the terrorists.

The recent vote by the House of Representatives ordering President Bush to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008 is treasonous. By codifying a timeline for withdrawal, they’re telling the very lunatics murdering our troops to hang on just a little longer and victory will be theirs. They could not do much more to aid a victory for terrorists and a defeat for the U.S. if they grabbed a rifle and shot our troops themselves. The only difference is shooting them face-to-face takes guts; something in short supply on the Hill. They’ve taken the cowardly way out, using their positions of responsibility as blunt instruments of power.

We pat ourselves on the back and feel safe from the crucible of war. But a lesson the British are now learning the hard way is on our syllabus as well.

I’ve long been a proponent of school vouchers, and the five-year anniversary of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) seems as good a time as any to explain why.

Notice I said I’m a proponent of vouchers, not necessarily of the NCLBA. As it was originally written, the Act did much to push authority and decision making down to state and local levels where it belongs. After enduring the massage parlor that is Congress, it came out looking much different and added layers of federal bureaucracy instead of eliminating them, leaving many of the provisions giving parents education choices on the floor. What remained in the way of school choice were very minor allowances that have failed. As just one example, the White House Office of Management and Budget revealed that the NCLB Act resulted in an additional 6.7 million hours of additional paperwork and reporting requirements for state and local educators. As Ronald Reagan was so fond of saying, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Let’s look at Government’s report card and see if he was right:

• -Total education spending per child has doubled since 1975 and Federal spending per child has doubled since 1980.
• -National test scores have remained stagnant, especially for those receiving federal aid.
• -Federal education spending has increased so dramatically that states now hold a combined $6-billion in unspent funds. (The location and disbursement of these funds is a topic for another day)
• -The pupil/teacher ratio has decreased from 22/1 in 1970 to 16/1 in 1999.
• -For every dollar spent on education, 40 cents is taken for bureaucracy and never reaches the classroom (my bet is much of those funds are routed to union groups via educators paychecks which isn’t fair to the teachers).

I’d say that amounts to a D- at best.

There are signs of hope, however. Several states have enacted their own version of school choice programs, none quite as exciting as the one Utah’s governor recently signed into law.

Under the law, called the Parent Choice in Education Act, families choosing to send their children to private schools of any type will receive scholarships based on family income and the number of children in the home. The amounts range from $500 to $3,000. All students currently attending public school now have the option of changing schools and using taxpayer funds to help defray the costs. Students already attending private schools are not eligible for assistance unless they meet the federal free or reduced lunch criteria. Over time this will change. All students entering kindergarten in 2007 or later, regardless of where they attend school, will be eligible for the scholarships.

Many of the misleading arguments against school choice raise the specter of funding reduction for public schools resulting in critical degradation of resources. Well guess what? Utah’s plan compensates for that, making it a non-issue. Each time a student transfers to a private school, the state will send the public district funds, amounting to more than the average voucher amount paid throughout the state. Initially, this will result in a slight cost increase for taxpayers, but will save significant amounts in the mid and long-term.

Once the new school year rolls around, all children entering Kindergarten this fall and beyond will be able to choose public or private schools, with no additional funds sent to public schools if the child never attends one. This means there will be thousands of students who never darken the door of a public school, and taxpayers will not be stuck with the bill to support those schools. They’ll know their money is being used to support an education product they choose to consume.

This all leads to a basic market principle that’s been pushed to the side of the education debate for far too long: Competition. Once Utah’s plan has time to take hold, those schools providing an inferior product will give way to others providing a product of choice. Studies conducted on other school choice programs have all shown several benefits. Parent’s satisfaction with the schools they choose is dramatically higher, academic achievement is higher and participating schools respond to the competition by improving performance and becoming more efficient.

This comes as no surprise to those who make their living fighting for consumer dollars; the question is why teacher unions and legislators have refused to recognize this dynamic force for change? Back to Reagan for the answer:

“This is the issue… Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

Amen Ronnie, amen.

I’ve long been a proponent of school vouchers, and the five-year anniversary of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) seems as good a time as any to explain why.

Notice I said I’m a proponent of vouchers, not necessarily of the NCLBA. As it was originally written, the Act did much to push authority and decision making down to state and local levels where it belongs. After enduring the massage parlor that is Congress, it came out looking much different and added layers of federal bureaucracy instead of eliminating them, leaving many of the provisions giving parents education choices on the floor. What remained in the way of school choice were very minor allowances that have failed. As just one example, the White House Office of Management and Budget revealed that the NCLB Act resulted in an additional 6.7 million hours of additional paperwork and reporting requirements for state and local educators. As Ronald Reagan was so fond of saying, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Let’s look at Government’s report card and see if he was right:

• -Total education spending per child has doubled since 1975 and Federal spending per child has doubled since 1980.
• -National test scores have remained stagnant, especially for those receiving federal aid.
• -Federal education spending has increased so dramatically that states now hold a combined $6-billion in unspent funds. (The location and disbursement of these funds is a topic for another day)
• -The pupil/teacher ratio has decreased from 22/1 in 1970 to 16/1 in 1999.
• -For every dollar spent on education, 40 cents is taken for bureaucracy and never reaches the classroom (my bet is much of those funds are routed to union groups via educators paychecks which isn’t fair to the teachers).

I’d say that amounts to a D- at best.

There are signs of hope, however. Several states have enacted their own version of school choice programs, none quite as exciting as the one Utah’s governor recently signed into law.

Under the law, called the Parent Choice in Education Act, families choosing to send their children to private schools of any type will receive scholarships based on family income and the number of children in the home. The amounts range from $500 to $3,000. All students currently attending public school now have the option of changing schools and using taxpayer funds to help defray the costs. Students already attending private schools are not eligible for assistance unless they meet the federal free or reduced lunch criteria. Over time this will change. All students entering kindergarten in 2007 or later, regardless of where they attend school, will be eligible for the scholarships.

Many of the misleading arguments against school choice raise the specter of funding reduction for public schools resulting in critical degradation of resources. Well guess what? Utah’s plan compensates for that, making it a non-issue. Each time a student transfers to a private school, the state will send the public district funds, amounting to more than the average voucher amount paid throughout the state. Initially, this will result in a slight cost increase for taxpayers, but will save significant amounts in the mid and long-term.

Once the new school year rolls around, all children entering Kindergarten this fall and beyond will be able to choose public or private schools, with no additional funds sent to public schools if the child never attends one. This means there will be thousands of students who never darken the door of a public school, and taxpayers will not be stuck with the bill to support those schools. They’ll know their money is being used to support an education product they choose to consume.

This all leads to a basic market principle that’s been pushed to the side of the education debate for far too long: Competition. Once Utah’s plan has time to take hold, those schools providing an inferior product will give way to others providing a product of choice. Studies conducted on other school choice programs have all shown several benefits. Parent’s satisfaction with the schools they choose is dramatically higher, academic achievement is higher and participating schools respond to the competition by improving performance and becoming more efficient.

This comes as no surprise to those who make their living fighting for consumer dollars; the question is why teacher unions and legislators have refused to recognize this dynamic force for change? Back to Reagan for the answer:

“This is the issue… Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

Amen Ronnie, amen.

What is it with Washington State? Not only did they have the most unusual looking group of folks audition for this year's “American Idol," they also have state legislators calling NASCAR fans criminals who leave junked cars in their front yards, and teachers conducting Marxist experiments on their students (see Re-Thinking Re-Education below).  I know Washington is a pretty liberal state, but some of the things coming out of Starbucks/Microsoft/Google-land are unbelievable.

I just finished reading a bill working its way through the Washington state legislature that gives near carte-blanche freedom to high school students producing school-sponsored media. By the way, the bill would also apply to colleges, but most of them already let students do or say anything they like as long as it is liberal in scope and message. No right-wingers in academia please.

The bill states that students, according to the American and Washington State Constitutions, have the right “…to engage in robust and uninhibited discussion of issues.” I’m okay with that. Nothing wrong with discussions that lead to realization of truth. But the bill doesn’t stop there. It gives students freedom to write, speak or show anything as long as the words, speech and images aren’t obscene, libelous, slanderous or an incitement to break school rules or federal communication laws. In the same breath, it denies school administrators the opportunity to inject sanity through editorial review by saying the student-produced content is “…not subject to prior review by school administrators.”

There used to be a time when school teachers and administrators were understood to be acting in Loco Parentis: In Place of Parents. They were authorized and expected to keep peace and order in schools by drawing up and enforcing rules that enabled children to learn. This bill, if passed into law, would remove from the schools the very restraints most parents employ at home. Well, in homes outside Washington State at least.

The bill’s definition of the areas students cannot explore; obscenities, slander, libel and inciting others to break rules, are laughable at best. To be classified as obscene, the student-produced media must relate to sex. That’s it. Any profane or obscene word or act is fair game as long as it doesn’t invoke sexual acts. As for inciting others to break rules/laws, the only ones mentioned are school rules and federal communications laws. That means a student could write or speak the following sentence with complete impunity:

“All Americans are filthy @#!!$% pigs who deserve to die, and anyone who wants to kill as many $##&%# Americans as possible has my undying gratitude and will receive ten-thousand dollars in cash from a Kill %%&#** Americans fund I started three years ago. Please do not kill any #@@$&$ Americans on campus though, or I’ll be in trouble.”

Under the bill’s provisions, not only would these statements pass inspection, they aren't even open to inspection! They could be published school-wide with no administrative review or ramifications. In fact, the bill specifically protects school officials from being “…terminated, transferred, removed or otherwise disciplined for refusing to suppress the protected free expression rights of student journalists.” Beautiful. Students get a free pass to say the most vile things imaginable and school officials posses a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Under these rules, you can’t publish an article in the school paper telling kids to run in the hallways, but you can absolutely tell them to blow up the principal’s car with a pipe bomb.

This stuff is unbelievable. If a student ever felt oppressed and filed a suit against an offending school administrator and won, the school (which of course means the taxpayers) would have to pay attorney’s fees at a minimum, with some monetary damages thrown in for all the emotional turmoil and life-altering stress the student no doubt suffered.

I have no problem with students expressing themselves and will champion a student’s right to say, discuss, debate and propagate any ideas, beliefs or issues they hold dear. What I cannot understand is state lawmakers saying the taxpayers must fund this expression with no oversight. Governing processes must be put in place. Appealing to the Constitution as a guarantor of minors’ rights to say practically whatever they want whenever they want doesn’t make sense. The Constitution also guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, yet we restrict that right for handguns to citizens over the age of 21. Same for the right to vote, except the age is 18. But for the right of free speech, we’ll open the flood gates to words and expressions that, in the long run, could do more damage than any handgun ever could.

After watching Seattle's “Idol” auditions and hearing their views on NASCAR fans, I’m glad I live where I do, even if there is the occasional junked car in a front yard.

*Quotes from House Bill 1307

My last post detailed the unbelievable situation at Hilltop Children’s Center in Seattle.  The teachers at Hilltop perform the most amazing curriculum contortions, and see their work educating children as a “political” tool to generate a socialist nirvana.  You can read my blog below (Lego Lunacy) and the article by Hilltop’s Mentor Teacher Ann Pelo here.

Prior to doing research on Pelo and her comrades (yes, communist inference intended), I thought this level of social engineering took place only in the lofty halls of academia, the Hillary Clinton campaign war room or, thanks to her husband, in the U.S. Military.  How wrong I was.  It seems there is a whole cadre of educators linking arms around this system of learning.

Pelo’s article was featured as a cover story for “Rethinking Schools” magazine.  The publishers are in the vanguard of teachers pushing for educational change along the lines of Pelo’s efforts.  Although self-identifying as an activist organization, Rethinking at first paints their vision in very broad strokes saying, “...public education is central to the creation of a humane, caring, multiracial democracy.”  Lest you think the inclusion of race in that statement is odd, Rethinking’s website continues with this gem:

“While writing for a broad audience, Rethinking Schools emphasizes problems facing urban schools, particularly issues of race.”

And there you have it. Rethinking Schools approaches the same socialist promised-land as Pelo, but from a different route.  She wants to break down the walls of capitalism while Rethinking strives to arrive at the same destination by wiping out all racial inequality, an enemy which, by Rethinking’s definition doesn’t exist.

Further into its manifesto, Rethinking asserts that, “…racial and class inequalities are growing in our country.”  No doubt some inequality still exists in America.  I know I don’t pull down the same income as say, Bill Gates.  But are today’s disparities due to race and the enforcement of a class structure?  There are literally hundreds of laws, regulations and best practices that effectively close if not eliminate any inequality between races, especially in the schools.  Does Rethinking really believe that some races are afforded better educational opportunities than others?

My wife and I both work to provide for our three children.  Without question, we don’t have the financial resources to fully-fund our oldest daughter’s college education. But does that mean she has fewer opportunities than any other college student?  Has she been denied access to any part of the educational process because she’s Caucasian or not as well-off as wealthier students? Absolutely not. She can pursue the same educational opportunities as anyone else, but she’ll have to take different, more difficult routes to get there.

As for public schools, any family's children are welcomed regardless of what economic level or race they come from.  But Rethinking’s vision isn’t really about equal access; it’s about equality at the expense of freedom. In their world, all things and all people should be equal without distinction. No winners or losers, no haves and have-nots because such delineation would be unfair to those who must work harder than others to achieve the same success. Their world is one where all are the same, and to suggest that one’s skills are better honed or applied to a certain task than another’s is to create an “inequality” that simply cannot be tolerated. In fact, Rethinking lists several items about which they think we should be “discouraged.” They include:

“School districts nationwide continue to slash budgets; violence in our schools and cities shows no signs of abating; attempts to privatize the schools have not slowed; and the country's productive resources are still used to make zippier shoes, rather than used in less profitable arenas like education and affordable housing.”

Okay, I’m with them on stemming violence. But an attempt to privatize schools, and making footwear the public obviously wants is discouraging? No mention of terrorists or global warming caused by Al Gore's hot air? And how in the world does Rethinking link education and affordable housing? I guess the better educated we are, the more we’ll realize how guilty we should feel for spending money we earned in ways that benefit our families instead of everyone else’s.
This is the basis of their thinking and it’s communism/socialism at its very core.

Think it won’t affect your schools? Rethinking boasts adherents in all 50 states and all 10 Canadian provinces. If Rethinking has its way, American schools will become “classrooms…where students and teachers gain glimpses of the kind of society we could live in…” You get three guess as to what kind of society they mean, and democracy and republic are not correct.

*Quotes from: Rethinking Schools website; www.rethinkingschools.org Copyright 2002 Rethinking Schools

Building The Socialist Community One Child at a Time, could be the motto for one Washington-state school. Seattle’s Hilltop Children’s Center has found itself in a not-so-flattering light after a Lego-banning exercise came to national attention.

The center’s teachers decided a Legotown built by Hilltop’s after-school students fostered too much competition, power-grabs and class-consciousness, so they banned the blocks before rugged individualism became rampant.

In an interview, the center’s Mentor Teacher Ann Pelo said banning the toys led the children to a 
“…strikingly profound understanding of the ways in which private ownership falls short, or the ways in which private ownership is inherently unfair,"

I see. The system that provides her a building in which to indoctrinate young minds along with an ever-increasing salary as her tenure lengthens is “inherently unfair.” I expect to see that next paycheck evenly distributed among all the staff members at Hilltop, Ann.

I did some investigating and found this sort of Marxist drivel is not unique, but actually endemic among the staff and curriculum at Hilltop, and taught in pre-school as well as before and after-school programs. Pelo outlined part of her systematic approach to education (or re-education, as the Soviets liked to call it), in an article for Rethinking Schools, a print and on-line publication dedicated to shaping “reform throughout the public school system in the United States.”
(More about them in a later blog).

The article begins with Pelo describing an exchange between three, four-year-old boys in one of Hilltop’s pre-school classrooms. Each boy had a doll tucked under their shirt and announced, “It’s time to have our babies!” Pelo then describes how the boys removed the dolls from under their shirts, and cradled them before cutting the umbilical cords, wrapping them in blankets and “…holding their babies to their chests to nurse.” According to Pelo, the boys were “…wrestling with how to be both male and maternal.”

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that schools, (and in this case Pelo and the rest of Hilltop’s staff clearly think of themselves as a school, complete with a teaching curriculum), were designed to teach information that led to assimilation of facts, figures and skills. Said knowledge was then used to pass those infernal final exams, as well as secure a higher-education leading to a decent paying job, or to excel on a chosen career path sans a college degree, with the exception of the military which, as John Kerry recently informed us, is only for idiots who don’t stay in school.

Lest you think the exchange between these boys is abnormal, Pelo and her colleagues actually studied this type of behavior among their students as a “research question” in order to produce a curriculum “that counters racist, sexist, and classist understandings.”

But who gets to define those terms, and who gets to determine the antidote to them? Pelo and her staff do. In her article, she says the curriculum was built with the goal of strengthening the “values we want to pass on to the children.” Values like socialism, gender neutrality, and racial guilt. Pelo says it’s “…an aspect of white privilege not to think about race…” Sorry, but I never thought about race or the difference between myself and any other kid, and I was raised in a lower-middle class family.

It’s this kind of schlock that would have me pulling my child out of Hilltop faster than Pelo could pose another “research” question, and “study” my kid right into the left-wing fringe.

Towards the end of the article, Pelo exposes her liberal agenda in all it’s glory:

“I wanted us to acknowledge and claim our work as political work—seeing teaching as not only about supporting children's individual development and learning, but also about cultivating particular values and practices that counter oppression and enhance justice.”
(Emphasis added)

Oppression like a new, privately-owned building the center is moving into and a paycheck assembled from the $1,000 per week fees the center charges parents for each pre-school child. Thanks Ann, for stamping out that kind of evil before we all go down to our doom.

*Quotes from “Playing With Gender,” by Ann Pelo: Rethinking Schools, Volume 20 No.1
“Inside Our Schools: Lego Ban Intrigues Local Educators,” by Meghann Cuniff, SpokesmanReview.com, February 3, 2007 and
www.rethinkingschools.org

The confluence of two recent events has me pondering our nation’s direction. The first event is the precarious dip Wall Street took yesterday amid concerns that not only the U.S., but global economies are cooling and may even stagnate within a few years.

The second event is a piece of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln shown to me by my wife:

“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”

So just where are we headed as an American people and upon what are we traveling? I heard the other day about ancient Myan engineers who built concourses between cities using primitive methods that outstrip any road construction methods we have today. These roads were hand-made from gravel and cobblestones, and then covered entirely with white stucco. The amazing thing is, some of these roads ran for 60 miles or more over undulating terrain and through thick jungles, but their lines are not off by even one degree. Certainly, the Myan kings could walk on those roads and know they were following a true path.

What are we walking on? I see much around us revealing “paths” that are not only crooked, but twist back on themselves, have confusing markers and often lead nowhere. Some are simply dead ends. Some display all that is wrong with our national soul, and yet we revere those actions and the ones committing them as the pinnacle of human achievement. Some display our garbage, and yet strangely we take perverse pride that our scandalous behavior is somehow more laudable than other country’s. The ancient poet spoke well:

“The wicked freely strut about, when what is vile is honored among men.”

Yesterday’s stock performance? A chink, a pothole at best. There are entire canyons looming on our nation’s “path,” and we fret over a few hundred points lost in one day’s trading. It appears the market is back on track this morning, but do we believe yesterday’s drop (or an even sharper decline), is an anomaly? The events of 9/11 revealed, among other things, that the nerve centers of our national wealth are not immune to attack. The horsehair of our prosperity was never meant to hold the weight of the Damoclean sword that is national decline and failure. We rely too much on our success and talents, buying into the illusion that we are gods and the true God will not let us continue in that fairy tale for long. Let us plumb our “paths” by His schematics before they lead us into the abyss.

<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/57510/dale_ream.html" ><img

    Read this morning about a report detailing the Chinese army’s alleged practice of harvesting organs from prisoners for transplants. According to Canadian officials, the People’s Liberation Army runs hospitals much the way civilian hospitals are run, except the military doctors are apparently making up for budget cuts by cutting into their captives. The organs have turned up in patients in Canada and the United States. The Canadian investigators who spent two-months looking into the issue before filing the report, are asking drug companies to stop selling anti-organ rejection drugs to China and physicians to break ties with any Chinese counterparts suspected of organ harvesting.

    Then there’s the Senate bill passed out of committee yesterday that would protect workers and dependents from genetic discrimination by insurance companies. It seems some companies reject insurance applications and payments if the customer is genetically pre-disposed to certain illnesses or has a genetic problem like Down’s Syndrome. The problem with this bill is the safeties it provides do not extend to the unborn. 95% of babies diagnosed in the womb with Down’s Syndrome are aborted each year. And that’s just one example. I’m sure others exist with equally high abortion rates.

    Surprised? You shouldn't be. We’ve been moving down the path of utilitarianism for some time now. Terri Schiavo is the most recent, high-profile example, but there are others. Our societal norms are rapidly shifting towards a day when humans are valued not for themselves, but for their potential contributions to the collective whole.

    Can’t walk or talk or take care of yourself? Then you’re a drain on the resources of others and don’t deserve to live. Oh we may use your organs to help cure others who could be productive if they only had a new liver or kidney or lung. But aside from how healthier humans can use your spare parts, you’re a burden that’s headed towards disposal, IF you even make it out of the womb, which often times won’t even happen.

    Yes Aldous, it’s a Brave New World indeed.

Two quick thoughts today:

1.  Jerry Jones needs to pull the trigger on two hires and get on with the off-season. He needs to hire Norv Turner as the Cowboys’ head coach and try to hire Mike Singletary as the defensive coordinator. Turner is (probably) the best candidate right now, assuming Jones isn’t interested in any of the assistant coaches on either Super Bowl team. Singletary has stated he’s only interested in the head coach’s position, but Jones can be persuasive. Couple that with the fact that Singletary is a Houston native the confluence could be too strong to resist. Besides, the defensive coordinator’s position would be step up for Singletary, albeit a small one.
At any rate, Jones hiring Jason Garrett is a coup already recognized by other coaches, and soon to be recognized by NFL fans as well.

2.  Is it just me, or have some commercials sunken to new lows with boorish behavior? I know, I know; commercials and television in general, have been pretty tasteless for awhile now. But two ads I viewed last night during American Idol exemplify what I’m talking about.
*Full Disclosure: Yes, I watch American Idol as does the rest of my family, and yes we’re part of the reason Katherine McPhee was sent packing last year in favor of Taylor Hicks.  I not-so-secretly want to be part of Randy’s Dog Pound.*

The first example is the most recent series of H&R Block ads featuring a couple in the beginning stages of yearly tax woes.

The man sits at a table, obviously distressed over not only this year’s return, but last year’s as well. His wife enters the scene and begins to verbally pummel him with fists full of sarcasm about his idiocy in using tax software instead of a human to prepare their returns. It’s not just the normal, “Men aren’t too bright sometimes,” sentiment you understand. This lady dishes out some of the most biting sarcasm I’ve heard in awhile. Sure it delivers the message that only H&R Block can do your taxes properly, but it could have been done without the woman treating her man like he was something to be wiped off her shoe.

The next entrant is a series of ads by Burger King featuring the daily lives of the Burger Family.

Dad and son are human-burger hybrids while mom is a normal person. The series centers on the efforts of adolescent burger-son to be popular and desired by everyone (mostly girls) and the lengths to which he’s willing to go to achieve that goal. Lengths such as selling himself for $.99 which burger-dad equates to cheap prostitution. The rub here is the harsh dialogue between burger-son and burger-dad as they hash out their differences. Aside from burger-dad’s obvious, tasteless allusions to hookers, burger-son’s comments are rude, demeaning and void of any respect for burger-dad. In the latest ad, burger-son tells burger-dad to, “…pull your head out of your bun.”

Okay, it could have been even cruder, but I find myself having to explain to my children why burger-son’s and burger-dad’s language and mode of interaction isn’t to be emulated.

Come on BK and H&RB!

You can deliver the same message without causing me to tell my kids not to imitate the character’s behavior. I do enough of that when the America Idol judges are on the screen.