Yeah. It is a Rant.

A few years ago in the state of Oregon, a law was passed that essentially said that school grades had to be tied to actually learning skills and demonstrating knowledge. The bill, in part, reads as follows:

The bill said, "Each district shall adopt a grading system ... that shall ... be based on the student's progress toward becoming proficient in a continuum of knowledge and skills."

The purpose was to a) help encourage districts to stop allowing teachers to give grades based on things like: extra credit that was totally unrelated to the class; allowing students to still pass grades (and even earn A's) without ever having to pass a test, when many of those point heavy class projects and homework assignments were completed by somebody else; never missing class all semester and getting 100 bonus points, etc. 

The second purpose was to allow districts already strictly adopting a proficiency-style grade system (in other words, you have to really prove what you know) the leeway and backing to do so without people raising a stink.

The bill was meant to be interpreted very narrowly.

Then it was sent to the Oregon Department of Education, where it was interpreted very broadly.

The ODE handed down new rules to the district three years ago regarding grading practices. Teachers were forbidden for giving points related to behavior. Oh, and homework was regarded as behavior. In fact, no more than 10% of any students grade could be related to anything that was considered "proof" of learning. Daily assignments became called "practice" and lumped into that 10%. Quizzes generally too. Some lab work. All homework. If the work is not done independently (by, by group work for points), in class and after sufficient practice, it cannot be given points. In addition, students may continue to retake-rewrite-redo this scored work indefinitely with an eye to continually improving their learning and therefore their scores.

I am all for a high school diploma meaning something. Absolutely. I think it is ludicrous for a teacher-coach to award 50 bonus points in a math class to students who come help at games. I think students should get second chances to demonstrate learning, particularly on things like writing assignments. I think schools should be more demonstrated-skills based than rote memorization. Absolutely.

But there are realities, too. And students see points as currency in the classroom. If you can't "pay" students, then there are very few (particularly among young teenagers) that are motivated to do the work required to pass the tests. By not awarding the process, you inadvertently downplay it as well. I may take hours to carefully craft a test that adequately reflects all that we learned in class . . . students doing retakes need a test that is different. And so I might spend hours writing that one too.

In the first year after implementation, teachers balked at all these things: the time commitment (so much of which is never paid for); the pounds of re-grading; our inability to reward the process as a valuable part of learning; the scorn for any question that isn't a written answer or a hands-on type of task despite what those types of tests mean for grading load; the very expensive administrative position added to our district staff to oversee implementation; the edicts coming time and again from people who have never had boots on the ground in a classroom.

Proficiency practice expectations have coincided with huge increases in class sizes. I teach five classes. Twenty years ago, this meant 100 students. A decade ago it meant 150. In 2014 it means 180 . . . though I'm supposed to bite my tongue and be grateful it isn't 200. Proficiency practice has also coincided with the adoption of the Common Core which will result in vast changes to our classes, much of which is good, but all of which is very, very new. This year it also coinciding with new professional standards that are causing lots and lots of extra work, but cannot possibly set out to prove what they think they can.

After tens of millions to implement these proficiency rules--money from the districts, not the state-- not to mention tens of thousands of frustrated parents and teachers, the Oregonian released this report last spring:

Oregon Schools' Big Switch is Kaput

The politician who passed the bill, and the nearly 100% majority who agreed with, realized what the ODE was doing and said, "WAIT!! THAT ISN'T WHAT WE MEANT!!!"

And yet, in spite of everything, our district decided to go ahead because they are so ridiculously invested at this point. And they aren't just going ahead, they are expanding--even to the point of introducing an even more rigorous grading standard that puts everything on a 5-point scale. This whole post is the result of, six weeks into the school year, is that my middle school-er has a C in history based on one assignment that he got 3/5 on. He has no math grade, just a test tomorrow that will also be worth 5 points. His English grade is a B based on the fact that he seems to be earning more 4's than 5's on his assignments. At the high school our heads exploded over the 5-point scale when we pointed out that our grading program will ONLY do total points; that a 3/5 cannot in any way be a C, but only a D-. On a five point scale, in fact, there is no way to earn a C at all. 

They have also taken alignment (horizontal and vertical) so far that they are not only going to specify what should be taught in each grade, but mandate that we teach it on nearly precisely the same schedule. In other words, not only do I need to be teaching the same things that the teacher next door to me teachers, but we need to be within two days of one another when we do it. This is nearly impossible, and it looks a helluva lot like Texas: the place I left teaching in order to get more freedom.

I love kids. I have moments of perfect clarity when I love my job and know I'm in exactly the right place. But I will say it, flat out, the expectations and paperwork and the constant changing of systems and approaches and on and on and on is sucking the joy out of what I do. And, there is no way around it, it is hindering my ability to do it well and to focus on my students' needs. At this fledgling end of my career I can honestly say that I don't see how I could survive 20 or 30 years as a classroom teacher.

Education is a trendy field. Today's proficiency is tomorrow's debunked idea. Legislators pass laws and throw money around like it is no big deal. But everything they do affects my job in real ways that are painful. All of this legislated and mandated pain is happily coinciding with our district digging in its heels over a modest raise despite running a huge surplus this year. Not only are we expected to do a better job under worse conditions than ever, they expect us to do it on a food stamp budget. 

So while I hate the big government stupidity that handed down these enormous problems, I'm still going to gladly march with my union. How is that for being a conflicted democrat with five weeks until election day?

Common Core

Some years back I was hired to teach 7th grade science at a school frustrated by its low test scores in the arena. Despite it perfect-community-school demographic, the school was scoring dead-last city- wide in its end-of-level science scores. I was hired for a number of reasons, but I think two really stand out. I'd been accustomed to teaching science on a full-year schedule; the school was on a semester rotation with all the kids filtering through one teacher in large classes. They needed somebody with the background to expand their program out curriculum-wise. The second reason for their decision to hire me, I think, was that I was coming from Texas. I knew a LOT about standardized testing.

Within one year, our school went from last to first in the rankings.

It wasn't just me, of course. The school made many good choices that year. They offered more sections of science, making the classes smaller. The expanded year teaching ensured that each child had science education up until the time of the test. Science became less about study guides and more about hands-on experiences and labs as we expanded our curriculum. So yes, smaller classes and more seat time, what the teachers always tout as the magic elixirs of education absolutely worked. However, I would also submit that my colleague and I became committed to teaching the standards to which the kids would be tested. We pored over them exhaustively and adapted our curriculum accordingly, hitting each vocabulary word and concept with renewed vigor. Our renewed commitment to the best pedagogical practices we knew, in the end, were largely driven by a need for improved test scores.

If this sounds like I'm of two minds for testing then you are reading this correctly. The parents are right, more local control is needed--in that classroom teachers need more autonomy, not that school boards should guide classroom content. The teachers are right. We need classrooms of no larger than 24 students and the resources necessary to make student learning up-to-date, relevant and dynamic. The politicians are right. All of this money spent should MEAN something measurable.

I do think that when a child graduates from high school, the diploma should mean something. An "A" should not be handed out because a student did enough extra credit by taking stats for the track team when the coach/teacher was in a bind. Teachers have traditionally allowed for a lot of crazy stuff totally unrelated to an understanding of the subject to count for "points." In the end, you have an arbitrary bundle of meaningless grades, kids teacher-shopping for the most grade-friendly instructors, and diplomas that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed.

Standards keep teachers focused. Good assessments keep them honest. And by honest, I don't necessarily mean truthful. I mean honest with how their class time (read: taxpayer dollars) is spent. There must be a system of accountability in place for both teachers and students.

Having said that, however (you all know me well enough by now to know there is nearly always a however coming), the idea that education can pour in children as culturally, mentally, ethnically, and economically diverse as any you will find in the world into a machine and churn out the an ideal learner with the same set of skills is not only unreasonable, but it might not even be desirable.

When we insist that each child be tested to an identical set of standards with no wiggle room then we are stifling creativity, individuality, joy, curiosity. Many of our important innovators, thinkers, writers and artists have had very unconventional paths to greatness. To attempt to put every child on some kind of standardized or "normal" path is to shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot as far as the future is concerned. And to quote Princess Leia (or paraphrase), the tighter we grip, the more students will slip through our fingers.

As for Common Core.

Each state has developed curriculum standards for all levels of education. In some states these are very good. In some states these are just terrible. A curriculum standard is harder than you think to write--it must be sufficiently vague that you aren't just giving lists of facts and vocabulary for students to memorize and regurgitate, but also sufficiently specific that it can be measured. The Common Core grew out of an effort to try and align the states in some kind of cohesive standard. This part of it is not so bad.

For example, it is ludicrous that a group of highly conservative people in one part of a state can mandate through lobbying money or floor votes that certain scientific concepts (thinking most immediately of global warming and evolution) not be taught. Or that history be taught properly--from the viewpoint of the vanquished as well as the conquerors with a critical and thoughtful eye to our own not-always-gloried past. Common Core is, in part, an attempt to stop local school boards from willfully keeping children ignorant of the larger world and the facts that help organize and define it.

This is one reason why conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal about Common Core. They fear that the standards (actually fairly vague; everyone should read these before freaking out) are an attempt to brainwash their children into skepticism and liberal thinking. In truth, Common Core standards are an effort to help children learn to think. Period. If their faith traditions cannot stand up to all this "thinking" and "choice" then what possible good are those traditions, anyway? The more adversarial conservatives make school (vs. religion too often) the more children will be lost either to critical thinking or to religion. This false dichotomy, I am convinced, is a trick of Satan. The idea that deep intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive denies the very nature of God.

Ahem. Back on track.

So while I think Common Core standards that states adopt or at least align their own standards to is a good thing; I have a much harder time with Common Core assessments. Two examples to help explain this.

At my current school we are supposed to be aligning our assessments with one another. There are five of us teaching the class I'm teaching, three of us with fairly strong opinions. While we have all agreed on the standards, each of us are teaching them in slightly different ways based on our own personalities, interests and gifts. As a result, we feel to emphasize different things in our testing, as well as the nature of our tests. One of the teachers has a standard that I would say is much higher, but he gets frustrated when the kids don't already come to his class with a skill set he thinks they should have. However, my teaching philosophy is much more geared to meeting the kids where they are at and then scaffolding them to greater learning, understanding, interest. Is my class a little easier? At least initially, probably yes. But in the end, I think my students may stand a better chance of actually meeting the burden of proof regarding our standards. I don't know; I can't say at this point.

In other words, five teachers cannot even agree entirely on a common assessment to give our kids; Common Core assessments work from the idea that thousands of teachers will get on board with what is being taught and tested.

Second anecdote--back to the same school I began this piece with. My colleague and I prepared our kids very carefully according to curriculum standards with particular attention to vocabulary so that the students would know how to "speak" the language on the test. The curriculum standard regarding heredity was quite thorough, but also left off the term "DNA" in regards to heritability. You can actually teach a lot about genetics without ever talking about the specific biochemistry of your cells. And for 7th graders, this is quite appropriate. You can save the technical stuff for high school biology. We carefully avoided any mention of DNA so as to not confuse the kids and to save a week's worth of time when we could be focused on the core.

Test time rolled around. Sure enough, one of the heritability questions used the terminology "DNA" in one of the questions. I was deeply frustrated. The question, if reworded to reflect what was actually in the standard, could have been answered by nearly every one of my students and still shown a very thorough grasp of heritability. As it is, I bet many of my kids saw that unfamiliar acronym and just guessed on the question.

In other words, the danger of common assessment is that it will still be a small group of people writing the assessment. There is no way for me to teach to a test (not a horrible thing by the way--I'll end on that note in a moment), that I have never seen before and which may or may not align to the curriculum standards the way I'm reading them. In addition, to assume that this test written by somebody else is the BEST possible measurement of the learning taking place in my classroom is to discount my own learning and expertise.

When I structure a class from the ground up, I look at objectives provided by the state (Common Core based in Oregon) and then I "unpack" them--extrapolating my own course objectives (in student friendly language) based on these standards with a vocabulary list for each standard. Then I write a test. What do I want the kids to know? do? understand? explain? analyze? calculate? etc. etc. Then I build my content around helping them meet these goals. Parents and too many teachers are becoming increasingly critical of "teaching to the test" but I prefer to look at it like teaching to the objectives . . . students should look at it like learning to meet their goals.

Teachers should be allowed the autonomy in their classrooms, if not to design their own learning targets (there should be some consistency across schools, after all), then at the very least to build their own assessments (at least in part) and certainly design their own assignments. If there is only one right way to teach, assess and learn, then we should just plug them all into headphones and show them videos of master teachers all day with tests afterward.

In short, I think that states should align their standards with some kind of common core, but I am very much against nationalized, standardized testing for individual courses or subjects. I think that the Department of Education should function like the National Science Foundations--as a granting agency that provides money for schools and districts (not even states) that show innovative ways to teach; the efficacy of which are yes, measurable by some local or even state standard. Each state has their own way of training and retaining teachers, as well as conferences and standards for teaching. The structures already in place allow for better dovetailing of standards and assessment. Schools were given to the states; they should be allowed to stay there. 

Now I've covered everything. Almost quite literally. See what you get after a long silence? I'll stick to pictures for the next few months. Then we'll talk about how much good could be done for education in my state if the army chose to build ONE less plan next year to the tune of 500 million dollars. What if it built fifty fewer planes? How much good might we do in a single generation if we truly started funding schools in a way that matches our rhetoric for how important education is?

Here's the Thing

I've noticed lately that people who have a tendency to weigh-in on political blogs/stories/etc. are those with the strongest opinions. And maybe sometimes crazy. (Plantboy found one the other day slamming the "comunist public eduacatoin" system. Spelling from the original.) Reasoned discussions are getting harder to come by, though I dearly love them. I feel like throwing in the towel entirely when a friend, an actual friend, basically announced to the world on my Facebook page that people who didn't see Romney as the one to save us from ourselves just hadn't prayed enough about it. Okay, that is maybe a little bit dramatic . . . but any implication that my spirituality is in question because I'm an Obama supporter is just really not okay. And I wish members of the Church would just STOP IT. And I also am sorry to those Romney supporters out there if I have made you to feel that wasn't okay. I am sorry if my criticisms at times have crossed over from problems with him as a candidate or his positions into problems with members of his voting bloc. Members of the Church need to STOP THAT too.

And along with things we are stopping, how about dropping some of that gloom-and-doom last days stuff we hear in Sunday school in exchange for optimism, hope and joy. Contrary to whatever some people think, I don't come to Church to feel worse about my neighbors or terrified about raising my children. And I think most of my neighbors are pretty good folks . . . and I have no idea what (or if any) religion they are. We focus so much on what is OUT THERE, but the scriptures tell us the Church was never destroyed by what was out there, only by what was inside.

Just yesterday we were riding our bikes and rode through pile of crunchy leaves and I felt unbelievably happy to be alive at this time, in this place, with these kids and with that sound. Whenever we talk about getting back to the "good old days" let's at least be realistic about what life looked like then. Few opportunities for women. No voting rights. No community diversity. Uncertain air and water and food supplies. Education for some, but no for all. Work from sun up to sun down just to feed your family. No laws to protect women from male piggishness; which, let's face it, has been a part of humanity since the discovery of sex. Sanctioned segregation. Again, if we are to talk about some fictional return to Mayberry, let's remind ourselves that it really is fiction.

I've also noticed that mom-blogs with the most hits and responses are those that tend toward pictures of cute new mommies throughout pregnancy, book reviews, recipes, fashion tips and decorating ideas. Don't get me wrong; I like these blogs too. But I hope we aren't losing our chance to say something important because there are things easier to think about than hard things. Conversely, I hope I don't lose my chance to enjoy life because my head is always filled with the hard things.

On these musings I'm going to close by saying that I'm not going to post anything political here or on Facebook until the election. You know my views and for the most part I know yours. TamathyC said that we don't post to convince (how often does THAT happen), but to know we aren't alone. You have taught me to know that I'm not alone. That there is place for me in the culture of my choice. It is just that the opposition voices are getting too loud, and sometimes too personal. I just think I can't stand up as a target anymore. Of course, I'm still happy to have a private and reasonable conversation with any one of you. You know where to find me.

Random Stuff and Head Hunting

I was head-hunted for a job yesterday.

Okay, it is kind-of a job. One of my professors had his TA quit on him and when the personnel person asked him to submit a list of students he would chose to replace this person, he put my name at the top of the list! I am sure it is because I use terms like "personnel person." I have had him for a couple of classes, and his research is all in middle school science.  The class is all on-line, and my work will be too. It is a very good resume builder for my field--now I will have experience both taking and teaching on-line courses. This professor isn't very old; I probably have more teaching experience than he does, actually.

This situation arose like so many have in the past. You know that I quit my newspaper job in June, and that some weird, unexpected expenses have come up since then. I have been very worried, truthfully, and also wondering how we could afford to fly to Utah for Christmas. (Padawan wants to be baptized there; his birthday is in December.) And, like so many answers in to money questions we've had in the last decade, work opportunities have arisen.

It is the first time in a lot of years that I'll be working at a regular job that I really love. (I love tutoring too, but the work is spotty.) And it is the first time ever that somebody came looking for me. The excitement I felt at the offer tells me that I'm really in the right place.

The next random thing is that I just got an e-mail from Michaels that says they can give me "low-stress holiday help." Yeah, right. Going to Michaels for more Christmas decorations when there are already five boxes in my attic that don't fit in my house, is really the ticket for de-stressing. Oh, and thinking about Christmas three months ahead of time is going to help me simplify my life too.

The last thing is two shout-outs to famous Mormons.

The first is to Joanna Brooks, who reposted my last post on her Facebook page and garnered over three hundred hits! I sent her a friend-message after I saw her on the Jon Stewart show because I appreciated with how much aplomb she handled herself. (I also appreciate spell check for helping me spell aplomb--it only took four tries.) She graciously answered. On the Daily Show she was lovely and together and progressive without being disrespectful. I'm not a Mormon feminist. I just can't lump myself there, but I do appreciate in a lot of ways what she is trying to do. Besides that she was wearing turquoise jewelry with a red dress and her hair is fabulous. Go Mormon women!

The second shout-out is to Mitt Romney. I voted for Barack Obama in the last election, and am part of that 47% in his pocket for this election. I don't believe I am entitled to government handouts. Health care, food, or handouts. I work hard and help my neighbor and live within my budget. If the tax code changes I will do my part; I think more Americans need some skin in the game. If you are elected, you will be my president, and I sincerely hope that you don't write me off because it is not your job to worry about Americans who didn't vote for you. That's all.

Predictions

Before we are on to our next round of craziness here, I am hoping to get all the pictures from our adventures this summer loaded up. We'll see how that goes . . .

But as I only have a few minutes today I'd like to make a few predictions. Not that my track record is any more than mixed in this arena, or that my ideas are too original, but for what it is worth:

Obama and Biden win the 2012 election, narrowly. There is less of a mandate than in 2008. The economy will continue to stop and start because big business fear over a 2nd Obama term will keep them sitting on their money. The Democrats will make few gains in Senate or Congressional numbers--probably the Senate will stay the same and Congress will remain Republican but less so. Voter turn-out will be higher for Democrats--they seem almost as anti-Romney as Republicans do anti-Obama! The big difference is that more women will vote for Democrats. If the Republicans keep straying off message (economic downturn) and into issues like reproductive rights, they are going to sink even more.

Republicans, however will probably strike back again big in 2014 with the economy continuing to sputter. In 2016 they will run Marco Rubio and Chris Christie on the ballot. Neither of these gentleman, I think, chained their wagon to Romney because they don't think he can win and their ambitions are bigger than being a former vp nominee. I don't know who will run for which office, but I think with both of them on the ticket the Republicans are pretty unstoppable. Incidentally, this will also represent a c-change in the standard Republican thinking. Both of these men, Christie in particular, consider themselves to be social liberals. It will be interesting to see what kind of candidates a coalition of Libertarians and Conservative Christians continue to put together (the Mormon Romney, perhaps!), or if they can even continue to stay together. These two groups are both voting Republican currently but have major ideological differences on issues like gay marriage and war (on drugs or terrorism, take your pick).

The 2016 Democratic ticket will contain Elizabeth Warren. Probably as a vp. And, of course, provided she wins her race this fall. And . . . well it is hard to say who else. Okay, I'll be honest. I just would really like a chance to vote for her. As there are no immediate plans to move to Massachusetts, it must be a national election if I'll get to do it.

Republicans win in 2016 and the economy finally starts moving, mostly over perception that Republican policies will be better for business. I say perception because the historical reality of democratic vs. republican practices is worth discussion, and not nearly as cut and dried as "good" or "bad" for business as the pundits would want us to think.

That's all.

Job Creators

So we can't have higher taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans because they are the job creators. America has listened. This class enjoys the lowest tax rate EVER. And all this during a lousy economy and a war.

So create some jobs already.

This same group continues to blame the current administration for the poor economy. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that the economy is primarily poor because people are employed. Yes, yes you can argue that other causes started the downward cycle, but the main issue now is just that too many people aren't working, spending, paying taxes, etc.

The self-proclaimed "job creators" can't have it both ways. Either they can create jobs with that huge pile of cash they are sitting on and/or sharing on bonuses and take all the credit, or they cannot actually create jobs and therefore blame Obama for the bad economy. Since the most vocal choose to blame the Administration, then is the other also true? That they actually cannot create jobs? And if they can't, then why should they get extra breaks?

They might sign the paycheck at the end of the day, but roads and buses take those people to work. Public schools and colleges educate their workers. Fire fighters and police ensure their safety. Enormous tax breaks are given when they actually DO hire.

I'm not without humor. A comedian on Jon Stewart some months ago said, "Republicans are job creationists. We know the rich create jobs. Democrats just believe that jobs evolve from millions of years of stimulus packages." I want to vote for a politician who knows that the path forward is neither road . . . it is the middle road. This is increasingly the road less taken.

The Collective

Let's talk about Ayn Rand today, shall we?

Her's is a name we hear sometimes, often associated with her two most famous works "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." It is a name that might come up occasionally in the next few months, as Paul Ryan (VP candidate) has sometimes said he is an ardent supporter. He has dramatically changed his tune in the last few months, citing his reported support of her philosophy as an "urban legend." However, in remarks made a few years ago to a society dedicated to her teachings he is on record as saying, "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It has inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and staff . . . ." (It isn't clear which novel/pamphlet he is referencing there) ". . . . The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."  

So why is it important now that he distance himself? After all, what he said there merely points to an over-riding philosophy of individual rights versus collective good--the very debate many politicians wish to frame right now. (Aside: the weird thing is, of course, that which side a politician is on depends on the issue. Democrats want individual rights when it comes to marriage, reproduction, privacy, and actual, you know, individuals, etc. Republicans want individual rights when it comes wealth, business practice and, you know, corporations recognized as individuals, etc. So neither side really has a very good claim to individualism vs. collectivism. End aside.) Why is he so antsy?

Well, quite simply, Ayn Rand's fundamental philosophy, without apology, is anti-Christ. She rejected Communist economic theory wholly and completely when she immigrated to the United States (with childhood scars over her parents' crushed entrepreneurial hopes). What she did not reject, however, was the Marxist assertion that "religion was the opiate of the people." But whereas Marx believed that perfect, collective government control was the antidote to religion, Rand asserted that the real antidote was pure, unbridled capitalism where self-interest was the most important value.

Lest you fear my own progressive tendencies have caused me to misread Ms. Rand, here are a few more famous quotes/anecdotes.plots:

Her first novel was quite widely-read, though very controversial, and made into a movie. She was very angry when the following line was cut from the climax scene, because she found it the most important line her protagonist had to say, "I wish to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others." 

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values."

"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man--the function of the reasoning mind."

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

She condemned much of our great and classic Western literature and proved herself to be rather poorly read, much more interested in movies than books. She descried Anna Karenina as the most "evil book in serious literature." 

One of her novels refers to people outside free-market entrepreneurs as "moochers," "looters," and "college-infected parasites." 

Her first novel is about a man who is uninterested in money, only in preserving the integrity of his ideas. She drops this pretense by the second novel and casts millionaires, barons and tycoons as her protagonists, portraying them as the true oppressed minority.

It seems she followed her philosophy of self-interest to the end: she lived in an open marriage (with a long and well-known affair with one of her many acolytes who headed up what he ironically called a "collective" of her worshipers), isolated herself from anyone who bothered or disagreed with her, cut-off relationship after relationship with those who might have helped her. What she never did was start a business. Hmmm.

Am I cherry-picking? Of course. I am making a point. Liberals have sometimes quoted her too when it comes to individual rights and choice and privacy. She is the mother of Libertarianism, and in times past, libertarians were as likely to vote Democratic as Republican. Part of the difficulty in the Republican party of late is the very real distance between pure Libertarians and the Christian right. One side would legislate nothing, the other side would legislate nothing but morality. 

So what is the point? I think Rand's overriding philosophy is inherently dangerous and at odds with true Christianity. Has she said some good things? Certainly. In thousands of written (rambling) pages even somebody like Rand might stumble on some truth. My deep dislike of her philosophy is personal too. I must admit to carrying deep resentment of anybody who says that somebody is "too smart to be a Christian." It is at that moment I need to repeat the mantra: charity never judgeth, charity never judgeth . . . .

To conclude I'd like to contrast two quotes. The first is from Rand who said this, "It only stands to reason that when there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the masters." Rand was speaking of both government and God. Don't get me wrong, I have no delusions that the government has as much right as God to demand sacrifice. My argument is that any philosophy that leads us to believe that all forms of sacrifice (yes, even taxes) are wrong, eventually will lead us away from God too. When we are led away from God, we cease to love our fellow man. Here is the second quote, from Joseph Smith, " a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." 

When Plantboy and I were married, we were told that marriage over the altar symbolized the need to lay all we are on the altar of sacrifice for the good of our partner and our family. Rand's philosophy would have us take and take and take and find all our happiness in serving only our own self-interest. To use our agency to glorify only ourselves. Christ taught the opposite: to give and give and give and find all our happiness in service to God by serving others. To give our agency back to God and glorify Him.

I'm not saying I have arrived there by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I have a clear idea which direction I would like to be headed. And in the short term, that most decidedly means NOT voting for a candidate who EVER said his philosophy was primarily influenced by Rand. To now say otherwise is a flip-flop that should make even Romney blush.

Home

With the stomach flu. Possibly. I would be the third to fall. Traveling on your own is awesome with sick kids. Just awesome.

And Paul Ryan? Seriously?

Really? Calling People Pinko is so 1950.

I might not make it until November without my head exploding.

Maybe literally.

Figuratively is bad enough.

A Republican house member from Florida was in his home state this week and said that "about 78-81" Democratic members of Congress were Communists.

On how many levels is this just insane?

Is there a consipiracy?
Do they have horns or something?
Where does this bizarrely specific number even come from?
Do they carry cards?

My other new favorite is all the candidates who have pledged to vote a certain way AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not talking about campaign rhetoric--these pledges are something else entirely. This is signing their names to back positions before they see a bill. Before they discuss a bill. Before stopping to consider what might be best for the voters. They are selling out instead to the PACS with all the money. This is such thinly veiled vote buying that it makes me fear for the future of our country. Where are the statesmen??

Mitt Romney has committed both in writing and in words to a lot f these. The linked article is an editorial, and admittedly, a bit inflammatory, but it presents some really important questions. Who will really be running the country if he is elected? The money makes me sick. I know. . . . I know . . . those of you more right leaning can make the argument the other direction: who is running it now? The to-the-right answers range from socialists to communists to unions to intellectuals. But if I had to choose, I think I'll take my chances with the unions and intellectuals over the banks and oil companies.

Help Me Understand

I know politicians speak in hyperbole to make points.
I know that most people would rather hear sound byte moments than policy details.
I know that when attacks on politicians turn personal then all meaningful discussion degrades.


But I need a little bit of help here. If any of my Republican friends can help me understand then please, please explain some things to me in a way that make sense of some things I've heard this week. I will try to listen without contradicting or arguing. Really. 

Some weeks back, Mitt Romney spoke about not being concerned about the poor because (an important because often left off for how valuable the quote preceding his explanation was seen by the left) there was a safety net in place. By that safety net, I'm assuming he meant welfare assistance, medicaid, medicare (?), unemployment benefits, etc. On the other hand, he pointed out, he wasn't concerned about the very rich either, they were doing just fine. His greatest focus was going to be the middle class. I had the impression, from that, that he was interested in preserving the status quo for the rich and the poor.

I think many people from the middle of the political spectrum can get behind that idea. Disagreements arise, of course, from the best policy for helping the middle class. Jobs, of course, are the current main concern. This is where a healthy and robust and factual debate can be held about the best way to do this.

Instead, the Republicans yesterday released their long term budget plan. It is basically the same idea they keep presenting . . . an idea that even the Congressional Budget Office says will do nothing to actually reduce the deficit in the long run. This plan further cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans (already historically low and not helping create jobs). It makes drastic cuts to social programs. Most economists claim there will be no benefit to the middle class. 

So if this is the party for which Mr. Romney declares himself the best leader, why doesn't his rhetoric match the policy? Or does it, and he just isn't playing straight with us? Does he mean the poor are more than fine and should be cut off? Does he mean that the best way to help the middle class is through the favorite rich-man notion of trickle down economics? If the rich get richer eventually there will be jobs for the middle class? If that is really what the policy will be under a Romney government, then he needs to tell it like it is. Or does he recognize that his own philosophy is so difficult to swallow for people of ordinary means that he is keeping it on the down low?

Second point.

In last night's self-congratulatory speech politicians love to give, he leapfrogged straight over Rick Santorum to Barack Obama boldly declaring that it was time to take our freedom back.

Huh?

Can somebody help me understand (I asked the same question multiple times during the interim election) what on earth he is talking about? How has Mr. Romney's freedom in any way been curtailed in the last three years? As near as I can tell he makes several tens of thousands of dollars a day for doing nothing more than running for president. This money is taxed at a shockingly low rate. He owns multiple, beautiful homes and flies about in a private airplane. He is free to worship as he wishes. Say or print whatever true or untrue thing he wishes about the current administration. Carry a gun if he wants (because, remember, the only thing we've ever heard from Obama on gun rights is that the Supreme Court was right to overturn Washington D.C.'s restrictive gun law). Unless the government has forced him to quarter soldiers in his house . . . I am not sure which freedoms he has lost.

Unless of course he is referring to the stipulation in the Federal Health Care Plan, which hasn't actually been enacted yet, that he be required to buy health insurance. But wait. Mr. Romney already lives in a state that requires him to buy health insurance. By law. A law he signed. A decision over which he agonized for many weeks himself . . . and in the end decided that overriding public interest in this case superseded the individual right. (That bill might be one of the finest and most courageous bits of legislation ever signed by a governor, and if he was running on a states rights platform as opposed to repealing, then he wouldn't even have to face the question of how "Romneycare" is appreciably different from "Obamacare." It isn't--he needs to re-frame the issue entirely.)

So, if it isn't his own freedom that is being curtailed then what does he mean by "our?" More like how somebody says "we lost" when talking about a favorite team's defeat? In other words, Mr. Romney has as much freedom as ever, but those he is attempting to represent have had freedoms removed and he is trying to show solidarity? Okay. But again, what freedoms? If he is talking about the health care thing again then that seems pretty disingenuous--after all, again, he lives in a state where health care will never be a problem. For many Americans, gaining access to health care will mean MORE freedom, not less. If he is talking about something else then what is it? Freedom from a federal deficit? A reasonable point, but only the democratic plan put forward for budget reduction lines up with the bipartisan committee's recommendation for budget reduction. Is he talking about jobs? Only the democrats put together a jobs bill in the last few years. Which his party refused to even compromise on.

A third quote from Mr. Romney, however, is the one that is the hardest for me to reconcile with the other two. At a student rally in Illinois, a young woman raised her hand and insisted that she wasn't talking about birth control but, "you have said you want to defund Planned Parenthood. If so, where will poor women go for mammograms and pap smears?" His reply, "They can go wherever they want. It is a free country. But I don't see any reason these people have to pay for it." Huge cheers.

So wait . . . it is a free country now? But only if you are poor? Does he not understand that if they had ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO they would not be at Planned Parenthood in the first place? That funding birth control for poor women saves the governments tens of millions of dollars in the long run? If he is pushing for policies that seek to get rid of the safety net for the poor, then what of his earlier statement about the poor doing just fine? Is it really then, that the stolen sound byte is the truth? That he just doesn't care about the poor? Poor women in particular?

Okay. My logic has probably strayed too far. I know that somebody will read this hear and imply that I'm getting personal. That Mr. Romney personally cares for the poor--he has a track record of donation and ecclesiastical service. That may very well be true, I don't know the man. So help me to see how the policies he is advocating show compassion and concern for his fellow countrymen. All of them.

Chocolate IS the Answer

What is the question? Who cares?

I'm in a bit of a funk. I think a Texas sheet cake is just the answer. With pecans.

And Rick Santorum? Really? He's so far right he makes me look pro choice. *grrrr* He doesn't want the federal government to mandate anything but morality. The idea that we'll defund education AND make it harder to get birth control? Don't we want the teen birth rate to go DOWN??

Chocolate it is.

Wanting to Start a Conversation

So what do you all think about the accumulation of wealth? Hugh Nibley and C.S. Lewis have much to say on the topic that is very thought-provoking. However, neither of these men were actually leaders in any organized church, just very deep thinkers.

Obviously my thoughts are coming from the recent release of Mr. Romney's tax statements, and the ironic reaction to it from within the Republican Party establishment. It seems that Gingrich won in South Carolina on the strength of arguments that Mitt Romney must, by virtue of his vast wealth and low tax rate, be out of touch with regular folks. So out of touch, in fact, that there is really no way for him to ever be in touch. That by using the system to become a 1%er he is somehow unfit to lead the ninety and nine. The irony in all of this is that Mr. Romney is the embodiment of every policy the Republicans have spent the last 30 years pushing with increasing success. He is a practicing Christian who gives generously to his church (reinforcing the belief that the government shouldn't do what charities should); his income is primarily invested so that is taxes are low and his money is used ostensibly to create jobs; he started his own company; he was the beneficiary of inherited money; he is well-educated . . . . the list goes on and on. In fact, if the Republicans could, in a secret lab somewhere, create the perfect example of what-conservative-policies-can-do-for-a-person, Mittens Romney would come out on the other side. (A recent poll says that 2% of Americans think his name is actually Mittens, though Mitt is actually his complete middle name.)

And yet, his own party is attacking him as being too wealthy. As a non-Republican, I find this all very hard to understand. If the purpose of conservative policy is to create an America that creates men like Mr. Romney, then what is the problem?

At the end of the day, are we, with our upstart American attitudes, still basically distrusting of those who have a lot of this world's goods? Even if we laughed at and scorned the Occupiers and their 99% mantra, do we really believe that the 1% has way too much power, influence, opportunity, leisure, and, quite frankly, stuff.

I'm not sure how I feel. I don't begrudge anybody the opportunity to work hard and make something of themselves. In fact, the main reason I align my thinking more closely with the Democratic party is that I believe its basic platform is an attempt to correct the imbalances of birth through programs that create opportunity. (And yes, I fully acknowledge that this approach also carries its own set of un-intended consequences, it just sits easier on my conscience than a fend-for-yourself approach.) I guess I just don't see, to use a current and famous example, how someone like Mr. Romney who has basically coasted on his investments the last several years and exorbitant speaking fees, can really be considered as more worthwhile in our society than an awesome English teacher who runs a painting business on the side just to feed his kids. Or a woman of color who works shift work at two 30 hour a week jobs only to be denied insurance by each because she only works "part-time." Or a pipe fitter who works in the sweat and mud every day not knowing if there will be more work next month. Or a wife and mom who spends years working and sacrificing for her kids and never sees a paycheck. Or a Hispanic laborer living on a shoestring in order to send money to his aging mother in Mexico, all the time knowing he might be stopped at a moment's notice to prove his right to be in this land of opportunity.

At what point does wealth become so extreme that the notion of "earning it" is preposterous? At what point do we view the things we have accumulated and accept that it is just too much? If we believe the Creator endowed men to be equal, then what exactly does that mean when the circumstances of birth are so clearly unequal? What role do we play in helping to equalize people? Do we play any role at all?

What are your thoughts on the Christian's accumulation of wealth?

One to Watch

Here is my female candidate for President in 2016:

I heard an interview with her several months ago about her frustration with the inability of Congress to create a Consumer Protection Agency that had some teeth. This pictured quote is what I have been trying to articulate for a long time.

What do we think? Is there some unspoken underlying social contract? What obligations to our country and fellowmen come with being a free citizen?

Public School As Socialism

The Republicans are making it really difficult for me to vote as an independent this year.

Did you think we'd make it all the way to this midterm election without any political commentary from this quarter? I thought so; after all, I've said a lot (too much) before. By this time in 2008, I'd probably written 10 different posts that were tagged with the label "politics." My remarks today will be specifically about the Tea Party movement. Start your engines.

I'd like to first point out that for whatever disagreements I might have with the political motivation behind the Tea Party, there are things I love about it. It is a true grass roots organization, a real "of the people" situation. It is a wonderful example of America's great, democratic experiment. Its popularity has forced the major political parties to ask itself some hard questions. My understanding is that those affiliated with the movement aren't interested so much in becoming a political party, as an ideology--as a group who will fundamentally change the way Americans think about government. This is very interesting. People associated with the movement aren't shy about their disagreements on a variety of issues, their main commonality being a firm belief in a more limited government. This disharmony is something not tolerated very well in the mainstream parties. I've lamented before that the current system makes it very difficult for someone to be, say, a pro-life Democrat or an environmentalist Republican. Such questions are almost irrelevant to a Tea Party candidate--they don't think the government has any business regulating our personal lives or the environment.

Have I been complimentary enough? Good. Now for my other opinions.

* I deeply resent the take-our-country-back rhetoric I hear. Take it back from WHOM? People with different opinions? Minorities (who are noticeably absent in the TP)? Particularly Blacks who turned out in record numbers at the last election? The majority who voted for President Obama and other Democrats? This type of language is volatile. When coupled with the fact that another major area of agreement among Tea Party types is the right to bear arms, I just find that a little bit scary. Even if there is a landslide Republican victory in November, all of those people from which the country was taken back will also need to be governed. Their rights protected. Their voices heard. Even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. That is the whole point of United States.

* Our country has to be governed as it is. Lamenting about how much they wish it was like 1790 is completely useless. I once worked at a school where the principal said, "We have to work with the kids we have, not the ones we wish we had." He did not mean that we shouldn't have a vision and goals for our kids . . . what he meant was that it was a waste of time and energy to grump around the faculty room complaining that our kids came to school so under-prepared. We just needed to roll up our sleeves and do all we could to get them ready for the next part of life and school. My metaphor is that a politician cannot be elected on a platform of returning the government to the pre-Depression status quo. Is it possible for politicians to reign in spending? I certainly hope so. But ultimately, most people would see it an enormous step backward to abolish the EPA (along with our clean water and air), the FDA (along with our safe food supply), Medicare (along with the ability to retire after a long working life), the National Park Service (and all of those maintained trails built by the CCC during the Depression), etc. etc.

*The Tea Party argues that people have become too dependent on government and that government is trying too hard to "big brother" us. That this government intervention is the thing that led our country to financial meltdown. (Though most economists and analysts claim that it was a LACK of regulation on the banking industry that was at the root of the problem. The Tea Party folks say that people need to act more moral. Well, they do, but when billions of dollars and millions of shareholders are thrown into the mix, ethics take a back seat to profits. You can take that to the bank.) And yet, the intense anger exhibited by so many of the people you see at the rallies is just another form of blame toward the government.

*The party wasn't really started (if such a nebulous group can be said to have a beginning) by somebody intending to run for office. Candidates have emerged over the last several months, many of whom have won primaries, even. This party was really started by pundits: people who make their money from expressing controversial opinions. The more controversial the opinions, the more viewers/readers/listeners they garner. And the more money they make. The profit machine at the top of this party will cease to function if the leaders move toward more moderate, conciliatory opinions. In short, these candidates, if elected, CAN NOT compromise when they go to Washington or they can't afford to run in another election. Politics, by definition, is the art of compromise. What possible good can these folks do with no other platform than to STOP the government? Maybe that is the point--they don't have a chance of completely reversing anything, and won't agree to any kind of watered down legislation, so I think we can expect to see two years of completely impotent government. And that always leads to re-election. (Snark.)

* Glenn Beck's recent rally carried a heavy emphasis on religion, encouraging Americans to turn back to God. That statement should be up above under things I like. Americans, in general, could do with a healthy commitment to Judeo-Christian values. In word AND deed. However, his going back to the Puritans (to be consistent with the Founding Fathers theme, I suppose) as models of religious citizenry disturbed me more than a little. Did anyone read The Scarlet Letter? The Crucible? As necessary as the Puritans were to the founding of our country--the fleeing for religious freedom and that tradition making its way into the Constitution--these were not a very nice group of people. They burned "witches." They put people in the stocks. They banished people who couldn't keep to their very rigid view of the commandments. Their religious leaders were also the magistrates. Their law was based primarily on their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Women were deeply repressed in that society; those who tried to speak out were often seen as fallen or practitioners of witchcraft. Is all of this sounding a bit Taliban? Yeah, that is what I thought. Is this actually the rallying cry of one of the leaders of this movement?

* Of course, Glenn Beck's ideas seem downright temperate when you compare them to Newt Gingrich's latest theory: Obama is an African Muslim who sought to become president in order to take down the entire American system. Really.

* If any person reading here, who is in favor of the Tea Party movement, can give me a reasonable, comprehensive list as to how the government has somehow curtailed your freedoms, please let me know. This is also common rhetoric from the party, that we are somehow not free. If you are unemployed, I'm especially sorry about that. However, I'm not certain that in most cases the government can be directly responsible for it, unless you had a government job that was cut. If that is the case, though, the Tea Party's goal would be to cut a majority of government jobs.

I'd like to point out that I haven't criticized any one person directly, just their ideas. I'm working very hard to keep within my no-name-calling parameters I wrote about last year when talking about civility in public discourse.

My last discussion point will seriously try my resolve.

My choices for Congress this year are very extreme. The Democrat I haven't been crazy about is trying to brag right now in his ads about breaking with the party when it came to health care and the bailout. Trying to appeal to independents, I suppose. However, what he doesn't say is that he broke with his party because he favored a more nationalized form of health care, and he didn't think the bailouts* were large enough. The man he is running against calls himself the "independent" choice. To me, independent candidates are stylized by their varied and balanced stances between the two parties, candidates who vote on issues instead of down party lines, and those who seek compromise.

Truthfully, however, Independent really just means that they don't affiliate with any particular party, so you can get any number of opinions from such a candidate. When I received the literature on this candidate, I was intrigued. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He styles himself as an "educator" in his material. He has worked outside the political establishment. I have often thought we needed more scientists, teachers, and "regular" folks to run for office. So far, so good.

Then I read further.

The candidate believes that America has been on a slow decline since the 1950's. (Let's not forget that since the 50's, Americans have been able to receive insurance and therefore medical care through the collective bargaining of unions and companies; there was a civil rights movement which expanded rights for women piggybacked; the voting age was lowered and America led a world wide technological revolution.) He maintains that we are now in the midst of an immoral, socialist regime under which we have few freedoms. He is a leader among the anti-global warming crowd, comprising less than 5% of the scientific establishment in this country. He criticizes most forms of alternative energy. His petition was an attempt to prevent Congress from passing laws regulating energy production. He is deeply opposed to any government intervention or regulation in anything to do with farming or forestry. He wants to send ALL illegal immigrants back to their country of origin without regard to how long they have been here or how they have contributed. He maintains that people will act with integrity and charity if the government would just get out of their lives. He calls for a repeal of socialized medicine. He calls this "Obamacare." It is interesting really, considering that we don't actually have socialized medicine in this country. Even under the new law.

But the jewel in his crown is his attitude toward public education. He says that the public schools have more than enough money, but a deeper dig indicates that he has a home schooling curriculum he sells because he really believes that public schools should be "abolished," that they are taxpayer-funded socialism, and school is government-sponsored child abuse. (I am not sure if I can recommend the home schooling course; his web page has a shocking number of grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. Including the word independ"a"nt.)

On the upside, there are things I like about him too. He is pro-nuclear energy, though he blames the government almost entirely for Americans choosing to not tap this resource. (Any official who tries to support this is immediately voted out of office, and even pro-nuclear Americans would probably say "not-in-my-backyard." We need more education, not less regulation of a potentially dangerous resource.) He raised a large family to be science-minded: his kids are all in science-related schooling/careers. He seems to be a man of integrity and intelligence. His official line on public education has a couple of helpful things--more local control and fewer administrators with less pay.

The thing is, I have no doubt that this candidate might be very appealing to some people. That is great. Go out and vote! But my husband is a public employee who works to conserve water and maintain its integrity. I am also a public employee. Most of our retirement money right now is in the state retirement system. I'm an educator and environmentalist. How can I support a candidate who honestly thinks my goal for becoming a teacher was to indoctrinate children with subversive political philosophy? Doesn't this border on a conspiracy-theory approach to reality?

On the other hand, my (barely) preferred candidate has a counter on his website called "The National Debt Clock," that runs continuously counting up and up and up. The speed at which is counts is seizure-inducing, and the 13 trillion and a whole lotta change nearly gave me a heart attack. And yet, he continues to vote WAY left of center.

Is this what our attack-style politics have created? The pundits have engineered an America where only the most extreme opinions get any traction. Where the angriest among us will make the decisions? Where the most extreme will argue themselves to a standstill? Maybe it is from the pundits we should take America back!



* A note on TARP: my paper reported last week that a vast number of economists are in agreement about its effectiveness in halting the recession, and that it won't cost as much money as anticipated. Jobs are always the last thing to recover, and the recession cannot actually reverse until those numbers are down. It should be noted that it took nearly 20 years, a major world war, rationing, and astronomically high taxes to reverse the Great Depression: the economic disaster this housing bubble most closely recognizes. I'm sorry; these facts don't read like government failure to me.

A Big Country

Two posts left to go on vacation coming and goings, and then I'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming.

In the meantime, here are a few news bullet-points from our recent goings-on:

1. I cry every time Dobby dies. Every. Time. I love JK Rowling more with each reading. We are more than halfway through Book 7--I have read all 7 volumes out loud to my nine year-old in the past 13 months. Whew. That's a lot of pages. It has been wonderful to see them all fresh again through his eyes.

2. One of week of swimming lessons down and one to go. It was hot last week, so the pool was a good fit. However, I spent TWO hours folding laundry on Saturday night because I had gotten so behind.

3. Yesterday was razzleberry pie day. This only happens once each year. I think it is better than Christmas.

4. This news story (and others like them) has me so angry that my head was exploding yesterday. I found TamathyC at church just so we could freak out together. (I linked that particular website because the author extensively links to other news stories.) The AP did a story Sunday about some protesters in Tennesse actually attempting to break up a Friday worship service at an existing mosque with the volume of their protest. I find the cherry-picking of the Constitution that these people are doing horrible, as well as the highly public Tea Party involvement in these demonstrations: WE can "peaceably" assemble, but YOU may not worship as you choose, at least in public; oh and we all carry guns, too. If there are LDS people involved in these protests, well, they of course have political rights like anyone else, but I genuinely hope they have studied the history of our own people before they decide that America isn't a place for any particular religion.

As to the post title.

When we came home from vacation, we stayed at a hotel in Idaho. Being on the tail-end of its time zone, western Idaho stays light until very late in the summer. My mother and I had the kids (Plantboy had to come home early). They had been fed and had a chance to swim and it was still only 8:00 and bright sunlight was streaming through the room.

In desperation we turned on the TV and found three choices: porn, $10 for a movie we'd already seen three times or the TMC movie that was just starting. We opted for the third choice. It was called "The Big Country," a western starring Gregory Peck. Yes, that's right--a WESTERN starring Gregory Peck. We thought the kids would make it about 30 minutes through, get bored and we'd all go to bed.

Two and a half hours later we turned out the lights.

I was ready to call it quits and then Burl Ives showed up at party to make a speech I couldn't tear my eyes from. Later I learned he won an Academy Award for the performance. I should say so.

But I will back up.

The movie is the story of a Yankee, Gregory Peck, who has fallen in love with a Texas rancher's daughter (Pat) who went to the east, probably for boarding school. James (GP) is a tough guy where he is from as some kind of naval captain, but he is really out of place in Pat's world. Within a few hours of getting off the stagecoach, he is drawn into the middle of a terrible feud between Pat's family and the Hennesseys, who also own a ranch.

The fued has been going on for some time, because neither ranch has easy water access on their land. Each depends on a third ranch, left to the last-living Maragon--a beautiful young woman named Julie who happens to be Pat's best friend. Her ranch is called "The Big Muddy," so named after the wide, slow river that runs through her property. Her family has, for generatios, arbitrated between the two parties by allowing both to have whatever water they want. But the Big Muddy isn't what it once was and Julie isn't sure she can continue maintaining the ranch. Pat's father wants to buy her out at a handsome price; the Hennesseys are hoping that their creepy oldest son will be able to woo Julie into marriage. (She is educated and classy, he is ignorant and filthy--THAT'S going to happen.)

Riveting conflicts abound. James, moderate and modern in his ideas, seeks from the very beginning to placate the Hennesseys and stay out of the feud. Pat's attitude toward her neighbors, "they are little better than dogs!" is overwhelming to James, as he is confronted with a side of the woman he thought he was coming west to marry. Pat's father is a tough and terrifying old fart who outwardly keeps up the trappings of a civilized and well-ordered home but is filled with prejudice, hatred and disgust for those who are different. His ranch foreman is played by Charlton Heston--a man who has loved Pat for a long time and so automatically hates James. The families hate each other in a rivalry that would give the Hatfields and McCoys a run for their money. As for the cherry on the top of all this tension, James begins to have feelings for Julie, seeing in her a kindred spirit whom the west was unable to turn into a savage.

This movie is epic in the way old movies are epic. Grand, tough, and sometimes overblown performances. Amazing panoramic shots and technicolor made-up ladies. Gorgeous costumes and settings. Stunts that are simultaneously more real and more silly because there is no special effects department to clean them up later. Stark settings without green screens. It is the kind of production that earns the title "film" instead of the default, "movie."

It was a weird sort of western and I loved it. The shootout at the end is more characterized by who walks away, than in who walks away victorious. Reason wins the day, not might. The only clear good guy is James himself, and James is good because he finds a way to champion everybody, to bring out the best in them. From the overly-stereotyped Hispanic ranch worker to Old Man Hennessey to Pat herself. A fact she discovers too late to save her engagement.

The kids were funny, and kept asking a hundred questions throughout. My favorite had to be the Youngling, however, bouncing on the bed in time to the soundtrack of James riding through the ranch, "I love this music!"As the evil posse/mob forms and the music darkens he said, "I no like this music." Padawn kept asking a hundred questions about The Big Muddy. The next day, when driving through Eastern Oregon, we passed a small, meandering river and he pointed out the window shouting, "It's the Big Muddy!"

There has been much commentary done on this rather out-of-character western, with a lot of mention made of Cold War symbolism throughout. Everyone keeps telling James not to get lost, because after all, it is a big country. It almost becomes a joke. But I think that is the point of the movie. We DO live in a big country. There is a place for everyone. In light of the recent protests against Muslims across the country, perhaps the message of this classic movie is more timely than ever. Our differences are real. Very real. It is useless to pretend they don't exist. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that we can't exist side-by-side, in a spirit of love and community.

What we need is a great mediator. Someone like James McKay. Like Julie Maragon. Where HAVE all the cowboys gone? Old Man Hennessy called such folks "real ladies and gentleman." How has reason and compromise and mutual conciliation been replaced with reaction, rigidity and loathing? What happened to civility? United we stand. Divided we fall.

Law

My last post perhaps generated as many questions in my own mind as it answered. Some time ago I was reading on a blog about a political issue. Though I can't remember the issue, the discussion became one of personal freedom, indicating that the more laws that are passed, the fewer freedoms people in fact have. There was actually a general conference talk last year on moral responsibility that addressed this very issue. While I agree that if people took greater care for the way they behaved, paid closer attention to traditional (and might I add, God-given) commandments, and then assumed responsibility for the consequences of their bad actions, we would have far fewer societal problems, I am not sure that I agree that laws are the hallmark of a society in decay.

"Laws" of course is a very general term, and not all laws can be classified as either being detrimental or beneficial to every person, but my opinion is that our laws demonstrate an attempt to make order out of chaos. Laws are a recognition that there are people in society, even if it is a small number, who will flout and even destroy conventions that keep us safe. Laws are an attempt to right centuries of poor traditions. Laws help us deal with the world as it IS, not just how we wish it to be, though laws can also help create a world that is more ideal. Laws can protect those in our world who would otherwise be the most marginalized. For example . . . .

* Sexual harassment laws have made it possible for women to progress and excel in the workplace. It might be argued that it men had just acted better then they wouldn't have been necessary, but in centuries of running the show, men didn't act better.

* Child labor laws and education statutes make it possible for children to be educated instead of being forced into sweat shop at very early ages.

* Laws have helped preserve some of the most beautiful places on earth--places that might have been lost or ruined due to greed and profit and carelessness.

* Environmental laws make the air cleaner to breathe now than it was 100 years ago, and give even American cities better air quality than many countries where no such laws are in place.

* Immunization rules help to make my son's school safe, instead of deadly incubator of disease.

No doubt we could make a negative list in the opposite direction, or add to the positive list, but I think the point is made sufficiently.

Back to the blog post about freedom I started this entry with: In one of the comments, a reader noted her frustration over having bought a home with some acreage outside the city limits. She was technically still in a subdivision, though the properties were all substantial. Due to some robbery issues, the majority of the neighbors wanted to hire a security guard to man the gate. All of the neighbors would be expected to share the cost of his wage. The reader was furious about this decision that she had voted against--believing that her individual right to spend her money as she wished was more important than a majority decision made in her community. She was considering moving.

Another example: My parents' community recently passed a curbside recycling program. The program costs each homeowner an additional $7/month on their garbage bill. People are not required to recycle, but all were required to pay the additional $7. The man in their community most adamantly leading the crusade against recycling claims that he is being "taxed without being represented," that only people who want to recycle should have to pay. The problem with his idea is that if there is an opt out (or the opt-in he favors) costs would skyrocket for the recyclers and the whole program would probably flop, which is not in the long-term interests of the community.

In my state, a liberal governor in the 70's saw that part of Oregon's draw was its lovely green space. He didn't want to see a time when the I-5 corridor was a solid city within two hours any direction of Portland. (Can you say Ogden to Provo?) Laws were passed regarding how much a city could grow. If your family farm was inside the city limit and you wanted to sell? Awesome. You could make a fortune. But if your farm was just outside the boundary then you couldn't sell. In addition, other laws made it nearly impossible for these same folks to bequeath land to their children or add houses to it. The result? Oregon's home values stay high; neighborhoods don't become deserted, just renewed; and five minutes from my house there are local farms, lovely open space and traffic is never a nightmare. The small farmers hate it. Personal freedoms to do what they want with their property and so forth.

On a broader scale? The civil rights laws of the sixties were in direct opposition to popular sentiment, at least in certain parts of the country. But the legislature and the courts were firm: the majority has no right to oppress the minority in its quest for the Constitutional (and natural) freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As our society grows increasing complicated, how can the needs of the individual be balanced with democracy- where the majority chooses for everyone? Is it worth giving up some of our freedoms to maintain peace in our society as a whole? When have we given up too many freedoms? How much freedom are we actually entitled to?

It's Only "Activism" If You Disagree

One of the favorite get-out-the-vote techniques among conservatives is the question of the appointment of judges. The reasoning has been that conservative judges are less likely to "legislate from the bench."

My understanding of this phrase is that courts, at any level, will not write laws, but merely rule on whether or not certain laws are constitutional. This is why California's high court began allowing marriage between gay couples (18 months ago now?) despite a referendum against them passed by the people the previous year. The court ruled that the law was inherently discriminatory and that, as such, was in violation of the California State Constitution. Voters responded with a stronger referendum amending the constitution itself. The Court then had to reverse its decision and now marriages between gay couples cannot be performed in California either by law, or by mandate. Of course, it is only a matter of time before a case goes through enough appeals courts to ask the Supreme Court whether or not laws regarding marriage between people of the same sex are in violation of the federal Constitution.

Can you see the difficulty? My own reading of the Constitution makes it clear to me that the states are allowed the ability to regulate laws regarding marriage, because it is not a power specifically given to the feds. However, the Constitution also states in Article IV that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Marriage, being a public act with a public record should therefore be valid from state to state, like a driver's license, right? But what about the law in Utah, dating from the mid-nineties (I was on the floor when it passed) that no marriage would be recognized in that state unless it was between two people of opposite sexes? Similar laws exist in many other states.

The controversy and lawsuits on both sides make it a given that a case regarding the legality of marriage between homosexuals will make it to the Supreme Court in the next few years. There is little precedent here. State sodomy laws were struck down by the High Court nearly a decade ago based on the "right to privacy" that formed the basis of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision. But marriage is different--marriage is inherently public. People get married in order to publicly declare their commitment to one another; to give legitimacy to their relationship and to their children.

I've gotten sidetracked. This post wasn't meant to be about the issue of "gay marriage." I treated that at some length last summer. I merely use the complexity of the issue to illustrate a point about the Court.

It is this: People of conservative values have worked very hard in the last generation to ensure the election of public officials who will appoint conservative judges with the end goal of helping to preserve laws that maintain some level of public morality. On its surface this seems like a very worthwhile thing. However, it has been mentioned here on more than one occasion, that government will often create a set of laws hoping for a certain outcome, but there are other, unintended, consequences that come along as well.

Conservative judges don't just rule on "values" types issues--abortion, marriage, rights of churches, etc. They also tend to rule favorably on other things--torture, political breaks for big business, broad gun laws, etc. . . . things that a person vehemently opposed to abortion might also dislike. The courts have become as politically extreme as the politicians--when most Americans count themselves as somewhere in the middle.

No where is this more telling than in the Supreme Court decision that came down late last year regarding campaign finance reform. Here is a description:

"Most notoriously, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, which President Bush signed into law; earlier this year, in a decision by Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court eviscerated that legislation and decreed that corporations have the right to spend unlimited funds to elect the candidates of their choice. In that case, known as Citizens United, the majority also reversed two recent Court decisions."

Stevens, the Justice who will soon retire, wrote a scathing descent in the case. His anger was based primarily on how broad the ruling was. He felt that the majority could have easily ruled in favor of the particular corporation in question, without applying broad Bill of Rights-type protection to a company and overturning precedent. The court, if it had truly been outside the political system should have ruled on the case without overturning the bi-partisan legislation that took years to pass.

The above referenced article continued, "[Chief Justice] Roberts and his allies, like the conservatives of seventy years ago, profess to believe in judicial restraint (the opposite of activism) and respect for precedent, but their actions belie their supposed values."

The "seventy years ago" refers to the conservative court that was seated when Franklin D Roosevelt came to office. Limited government proponents from California to Maine declared war on the New Deal by filing law suit after law suit, hoping that at least ONE would find its way to a friendly court who would then gut the New Deal and banking reform. Longevity won out: FDR ultimately appointed eight judges during his 3 1/4 terms, effectively ensuring that his particular vision of government would last a very long time.

Whether or not this is a good thing depends entirely on whether you see FDR as one of the finest presidents we ever had or if he started our country on a collision course with socialism. History repeats itself: President Obama was elected in a time of financial crisis, to a country already at war on two fronts (instead of later, as in FDR's time), high unemployment, in a razor thin election and with courts unfriendly to his agenda. Unlike that time, he is also faced with real-time reactions to his speeches, pundits with more sway than reporters, and comments "published" with every single news article on the web.

Like the conservatives at the time of the New Deal, our modern Republicans have also sworn to repeal Health Care (and whatever else might come out of this administration). The irony is that the more moderate Republican party of Bush Senior and the early Clinton years proposed a health care bill in essence very much like the one that just passed--back then it was the Democrats who screwed up. They were pushing so hard for a nationalized system they didn't see what was being offered as a good compromise. Now the most conservative Republicans are pushing so hard for what? A complete dismantling of government? that they can't see that what they are being offered IS a compromise.

What lessons will we take from history? Will the current Supreme Court foil the most progressive political agenda in a generation? And who ultimately will benefit/suffer if it does?

Change We Can Believe In?

I have mostly stayed a-political for some time now, fully believing that you were all very patient while getting and earful for a good six months last year. Then this week happened. I think I'm anxious to start another conversation here, remembering that discussions should attack ideas and not each other. Four points for discussion:

1. Wednesday, on my Facebook page, I posted the following, "STM is wondering if a thin majority of Massachusetts voters will derail healthcare overhaul, and if Ted Kennedy is doing the proverbial "turning over in his grave" for the potential loss of legislation he spent three decades advocating. Where is a great deal-maker when we so desperately need reasonable consensus?"

My attempt at "reasonable consensus" turned into 31 comments (including my own) mostly from decidedly opposing camps, though not everyone seemed to be arguing against the plan as it is actually written. There were also six "likes" which I can only assume means that those folks were somewhere in the middle.

I think the thread beat the topic as much as necessary for a gray Wednesday afternoon, but I would love to add one point that didn't get broached on Facebook. Each individual votes as they wish, and so making broad statements about why the election in Massachusetts went the way it did is educated guesswork at best. However, it is probably reasonable to say that Tuesday's election was at least partially a referendum on national health care. But before Conservatives get to feel all smug about how this means that "most" people don't want this bill, it is important to note that everybody in Massachusetts who voted FOR the Republican and/or AGAINST national health insurance reform ALREADY HAS HEALTH INSURANCE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. The great irony in all of this is that one of the leading advocates for the elected candidate was Mitt Romney. The same (Republican) governor who signed the state-wide health insurance mandate into law earlier this decade.

The truth is, if you are from Massachusetts, you would have been crazy to vote for a candidate who would pass federal laws about health care--all it would do is potentially raise your taxes and not change your quality of life. This result has already caused the Democrats to speak about backing down from the extent of the legislation regarding health care. What the (thin-ish) majority of Massachusetts voters told the rest of the country is, "Make your state legislatures figure it out. Just like we did."

Hm . . . . maybe this isn't such a bad idea. Unless, of course, you are one of the 30 million working but still uninsured Americans and you live in a state that consistently elects a very conservative state legislature. Do you know anybody like this?

2. The Supreme Court yesterday (in another partisan vote--shocker) overturned a campaign finance law that has been in place for a hundred years. The law basically imposed limits on contributions from corporations and unions, and the Supreme Court voted 5-4 for its unconstitutionality. Interestingly enough, though intended to benefit unions as well, the type of justices typically accused of being in the union's pocket voted against overturning.

Corporations already find ways to donate plenty, usually through political action committees, but now they won't have quite so many hoops to jump through in their attempts to grease the palms of Washington politicians. Do we really need MORE money in politics? Red money or blue money is all the same to me when it comes to buying broad influence, and there is no doubt that this overturning will have an enormous benefit for Republican candidates. And yes, while they aren't in power now, they have enjoyed plenty of it in times past. Public sentiment will ebb and flow without Wall Street money pushing it along.

And yet, the thing that disturbs me as much as the overturning is the reasoning behind it. Free speech is the Constitutional issue the attorneys for the corporations hung their case on. Basically, corporations have been granted equivalent rights to individuals under our Constitution. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is there a slippery slope of unintended consequences here?

3. The Obama administration, trying to fight "wars" on all fronts, issued a statement this week that they were going to be moving on banking regulation. Stocks immediately plummeted for nearly all of the country's major banks. Okay, not Black Friday plummeted, but dipped across the board under threat of new regulation. Shareholders don't like rules that prevent their investments from taking risk, because the greater the risk, the greater potential return.

Free enterprise and capitalism and market economies are certainly a necessary part of a functioning democracy, though to the degree these factors are unfettered varies across democracies world-wide. However, I feel very strongly about the banks' (and their shareholders) audacity to complain about the regulation. First of all, most of these major banks were beneficiaries in some measure of the bank bailouts that so dominated the news in late 2007 and early 2008. And secondly, all of these banks are FDIC insured. In other words, if you bank with Wells Fargo and they go under, the federal government backs the first $100,000 you have in that bank; you would recover every single dime. The government did this long ago in order to allow the banks to assume a certain level of risk, but the dismantling of regulations over the last 15 years simultaneously eliminated all need for banks to be cautious. Bad investments and bad loans in the relentless pursuit of higher and higher profits (and unsustainable economic growth) crashed the economy.

Americans need to start working and innovating to make more products instead of just shuffling paper to make more money. An on that note . . . .

4. Mr. Obama unveiled the generalities of his education plan at a school in the DC area this week. The philosophy behind these latest education grants (5 billion federal dollars) is based on something that has been working in Chicago in recent years: failing public schools are closed or shrunk, students are redistributed to much smaller charter schools where accountability is very high and the waiting lists are long. In Chicago, with its widespread inner-city type school difficulties has found a way to do something that welfare-type programs always find problematic. By targeting the very worst schools, they have identified both those in need of help; but by moving to the exclusive charters with very high standards and low tolerance for deviant behavior, they have identified the "deserving" poor. In other words, those with low incomes with true desire to change their situation.

These smaller schools have expanded both the length of the school day and the school year. Uniforms are the norm and most extra-curricular type activities have been eliminated. Class sizes are dramatically reduced from the mainstream public schools. And test scores are through the roof. This latest round of grants, if carefully and systematically applied, will do very well in some places as receipt of the money requires failing schools to close or shrink and charters to open.

They also require that teacher pay be linked to testing.

I shared some (okay a LOT of very specific) thoughts on this topic over a year ago. My fear is that the teacher money will only be tied to the testing, and leave too many effective teachers out in the cold because of their core populations.

Anyway, it is has been a busy week for American policy. What do you think of some of this stuff. Or, if you don't think of it at all, just drop in to say hi. Such connections might keep my own thoughts from driving me completely crazy.