Thursday, December 20, 2007

Teaching History

Chad Farnan, a student in Capistrano Valley High School has sued his history teacher, James Corbett, alleging that Corbett has made anti-religion remarks in his Advanced Placement European History class this semester.

Students and alumni rallied outside their school Wednesday to show support for the embattled teacher. They say that Corbett encourages thinking in his classes; that he encourages discussions in an intelligent way.

I have taught history at both college and grammar school levels. I know how difficult it is to make history intellectually challenging, as opposed to a mere litany of dates and events. All I know about Mr. Corbett's class is what I read in the newspapers, but I can tell from the support he has received that he is one of those teachers who knows how to breath life and spirit into the subject.

When he ignites the fire of critical discussion, however, he runs the risk of it burning out of control. This is not a matter of "political correctness," or simply using prescribed language. Rather, it is one of exposing the strengths and weaknesses of various viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them. It is important to point out that a person's own baggage--religious, educational, or experiential--may some times prevent him from seeing an event or a decision with total objectivity.

One danger is that it is all too easy for the teacher to inject his own bias into the discussion. When he does, his position of authority gives the weight of fact to his personal opinions. A second danger, especially with younger students, is that the teacher's attempt to inject a contrary view into the discussion may be misinterpreted as an endorsement of that position. In either case objectivity is lost, and a fire of emotions flares up.

Either or both of those things may have happened in Mr. Corbett's class. Without hearing the actual discussion, we cannot be sure. It seems to me, though, that either a clarification of the misunderstanding or an apology for 'crossing the line' should suffice. It should be a matter that can be resolved between the teacher and his student, if both are objective and open-minded.

A lawsuit or other form of punishment only deprives us of a dynamic teacher who has found the way to get his students deeply involved in critical analysis of history. We can't afford to lose that.

President Bush Lied to Us

In the past, when someone put this statement on the table, I responded, "Prove it." The story was that President Bush convinced Congress to authorize military action in Iraq based on intelligence reports that the Bush Administration had edited in such a way as to indicate that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I agreed that the intelligence reports were inaccurate and misleading, but nobody ever showed me concrete evidence that Pres. Bush or Vice Pres. Cheney had been personally involved in the alteration of the reports.

As of today, I have still not seen the evidence, but I am convinced that President Bush has lied to us. In fact, I see the President as being both shrewd and crafty, and capable of lying to the nation to promote his own agenda to the detriment of national security.

The proof is on his desk, in the form of an omnibus spending measure that he is about to sign.

Last year, President Bush signed an act that authorized the building of a fence along our southern border, along with other measures to prevent aliens from entering the country illegally. He announced the action with great fanfare, assuring us that he wanted to ensure the security of our sovereign state.

But the 3,500 pages omnibus spending act that he is about to sign contains a few paragraphs, written by one of his Texas political hacks, that not only reduce the funding for the fence, but cripple the building process with a nightmare of departmental, state and local approval requirements. The Democratic authors of the welcomed these neatly hidden restrictions, and the rest of Congress had only a few hours to read the bill, let alone find the wording and propose changes.

President Bush lied to us about the building of the border fence, and has ignored his oath to ensure the security of our country. And I now believe that he lied to promote his agenda in Iraq. Because of his diversion into Iraq, Afghanistan is still a dope-ridden mess, Bin Laden remains uncaptured, and both the Taliban and Al-qaida are rebuilding their strength. Now his second big lie leaves us open to thousands of illegal aliens entering our country and draining our resources for the benefit of his wealthy supporters.

Some folks say Bush is the dumbest president in the history of our nation, but he is not. He is shrewd, crafty, and also beholden to the Texas oil and agribusiness interests, and he makes no apology for it. If not the dumbest, he is nearly the worst president we have had, vying for the bottom slot with Presidents Harding and Buchanan with his deceit and the damage he has done. I only hope his successor has the wisdom and the strength to rebuild our national security and our confidence in the Presidency.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

God and Country

Two letters appeared recently in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I have reproduced them below. The second comes from a lifelong friend of mine, and it makes a lot of sense.

  • Letter #1--Regarding the Nov. 8 letters "Government and religion shouldn't mix": This is a Christian nation! So stated the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, on Feb. 29, 1892. In fact, in 1787, during the rancorous debates over a national Constitution, Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues of God's help and intervention during the Revolutionary War. He initiated daily prayer to ask for God's assistance and blessings in their deliberations.
    The Founding Fathers were Christians, who believed and read the Bible, and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. (Yes, a few were Deists.) George Washington took the oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, ending with the statement, "I swear, so help me God."
    Good government requires Christianity: Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
    Wouldn't you like our government officials to follow these precepts? For more information on America's Christian heritage, see americanvision.org. RON MASEK, Strongsville
  • Letter #2--In Sunday's Letters was this statement, "Good government requires Christianity. Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Christianity does not have an exclusive patent on these ideals. Christianity does not own a monopoly.
    I have lived my life trying to follow ideals like these, not because a higher power has told me to, or because I'm threatened with eternal punishment if I don't follow them, but because it is the moral and ethical way to live and treat others. It is the right thing to do - the right way to live. That is just as true for non-Christians and non-believers.
    Ethical, moral, just and compassionate living does not require a religion to teach those qualities to humankind. They are qualities that should be practiced just because we are human and we live with other humans. The notion that religion is the only way to teach those morals is wrong. BRUCE FRUMKER, Cleveland Heights

I agree with Bruce that we need not embrace a specific religion in order to practice ‘ethical, moral, just and compassionate living.’ In fact, many of the Christians we have elected to offices in Washington DC today seem to be doing exactly the opposite.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the US is, or should be, a Christian nation. The Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion as the state religion. Furthermore, we could never agree on which brands of Christianity are acceptable.

But each of us must have the necessary imperative and discipline to teach morality, ethics, and compassion to our offspring. Organized religions provide a structure that enables and enhances that teaching mission—they are not necessary to the running of the government, but rather they help citizens to raise the type of people we need for future leaders.

I strongly oppose those people who would remove references to God from our pledge, our currency, our national documents, or our monuments. They go much too far. I do not find Allah, or Buddha, or another diety to be offensive. Nor should atheists or people of other religions, if they are intelligent, rational, and sane, find God to be offensive. I have never believed that the Government insists that I worship God. Instead, the Government acknowledges that our founders and leaders were and are inspired and guided by their God and His principles. And that's the way it should be.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

No End in Sight

According to Fox News, in SYDNEY, Australia, the recruitment firm Westaff, which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country — has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

Two Santa hopefuls reportedly quit the course because the of "ho, ho, ho" is being discouraged. One would-be Santa told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute. He also quit.

Westaff's national Santa co-ordinator, Sari Hegarty, wrote to stores explaining the company's position: "Westaff has been a provider of quality caring Santas for over 40 years...Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience," she added. "We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas."

Westaff national operations manager Greg Jansz said it was "misleading" to say the company had banned Santa's traditional greeting and it was being left up to the discretion of Santa himself.

Well, there is another company where a couple of "political correctness" idiots have gone off the deep end. The Sari Hegartys of the world need both smarter brains and a serious attitude adjustment.

The simple fact is that nearly nobody, adult or child, would be both stupid enough and hypersensitive enough to be offended by Santa's "ho ho ho." It might make sense, though, to coach the Santas not to over-emote the line.

I am deeply offended by the repeated attacks by politically correct idiots on the customs of our society. But it seems that what offends me does not matter to the p.c. crowd. Only their petty grievances matter. It's long past time that we stop acting like we are walking on eggshells because of misplaced fear of a handful of hypersensitive, vindictive idiots. If we don't, then we won't be able to name our teddy bear Mohammed, or wish someone a Merry Christmas any more. We should just tell the crackpots to shut up, go home, and learn how to cope with situations that are less than ideal.

Aren't there some really serious injustices in the world that we should be using our energy to eliminate?