Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

It's Going to Be One Heck of an Election Day...

...if the lines for the early voting in my county are any indication. I'd been hearing predictions of a heavy voter turnout for next Tuesday's election for a while now, so when I happened to be over near the county elections office this morning I decided to swing by and cast an early ballot. Even though it was mid-morning on a Wednesday, the place was mobbed. I had to wait about half an hour before it was my turn.

As I was leaving, I happened to remark to a Fed-Ex deliveryman that I was surprised to see it so crowded. He told me that it'd been that way for the past couple of weeks!

Although I have a feeling that I may not be too happy with the outcome of this year's election, I do think on the whole it's a good thing for our country for its citizens to show a higher level of civic engagement than has been the norm in recent years.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

George Weigel 1, Catholic Apologists for Obama 0

Boy, do I wish I had the disposable cash to make photocopies of the article by George Weigel in this week's issue of Newsweek to put on each car at my parish this weekend during Mass. The article is entitled "Can Catholics Back Pro-Choice Obama?" and it's a brilliant critique of the flaws in the arguments of several well-known Catholic supporters of Sen. Obama such as Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi.

It's a message that many of my fellow parishioners would likely not want to hear, but as St. Paul wrote two millennia ago to the Galatians:
"Am I now seeking human approval or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of God." (Galatians 1:10, NRSV Cath. Ed.)

Despite House Speaker Pelosi's recent assertions to the contrary, the Catholic Church has had a clear and consistent record of opposing abortion dating back to the 1st century A.D. teachings of the Church Fathers in the Didache.

Pope Benedict XVI, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote that a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons only when those reasons are "proportionate". Under Catholic teaching, the taking of innocent life is considered the most serious sin prevalent in society today. For that reason, none of the commonly suggested reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate like Sen. Obama such as peace, health care, poverty reduction, etc. are considered proportionate.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Government-run School Sponsors Field Trip for 1st Graders to Gay "Wedding"

I haven't really talked much about Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Amendment. which would restore the traditional definition of marriage in the state as that of one man and one woman. Not because I don't think it's important but because it's one of those issues where you either hold traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs or you don't. Supporters and opponents can talk each other blue in the face and nobody's going to convince the other side of anything.

The whole argument about legal rights is a smokescreen because homosexual domestic partners in California already had the SAME rights as married couples under state law BEFORE four activist judges overturned the will of the people back in June. Nothing in Prop. 8 would change that!

Where Prop. 8 IS important is how marriage is presented in the state's government-run schools. The CA Ed Code requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage- and if Prop. 8 does not pass, that would include gay "marriage". Teachers in government-run schools would have to treat gay "marriage" as NO DIFFERENT FROM traditional marriage regardless of how parents feel about the issue. Obviously this is an issue about which there is tremendous controversy, which is why PARENTS ought to be the ones making the decision about how they want it presented to their own children in accordance with their own family's values.

What prompted me to bring up the subject of Prop. 8 today is a story that is shocking but sadly not surprising. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a government-run school in San Francisco sponsored a field trip Friday by a FIRST GRADE class to a GAY "WEDDING" officiated by mayor (and notorious adulterer) Gavin Newsom.

The interim director of the Creative Arts Charter School, Liz Jaroslow, justified the trip on "educational" grounds thus:
"It really is what we call a teachable moment....I think I'm well within the parameters....As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me."
If the teacher in question had chosen to invite her students to attend her "wedding" outside of class time, then I wouldn't really have a huge problem with it. That would've been a non-school event and no taxpayer dollars would've been spent funding it. I might still question its appropriateness for such young kids, but that's a judgment call for the students' parents. But this trip was done during time that the state is paying this school to educate the children.

I looked up the data on the Creative Arts Charter to see if the school is doing such a wonderful job that it can afford to waste time on non-academic pursuits such as this field trip. Here's what I found:

Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above in Math: 28.6%
Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above in Language Arts: 56.8%
Ranking of this school compared to others in the state with similar demographics: bottom 10%

Seems to me the administration needs to spend a bit more time teaching its students academic basics and a bit less time on indoctrination...

Friday, October 10, 2008

Bill Ayers: "Guilty As H***" and Proud Of It

The more I'm learning about Bill Ayers, the more repugnant I'm finding him- and the more unbelievable it seems that so many of the elites in this country are excusing away his atrocious past behavior.

"He was never convicted of anything!" is one thing I've heard several times from liberals so completely besotted with Sen. Obama that they are simply unwilling to face the ugly truth about Bill Ayers.

In an interview with David Horowitz in the early 1990's, Ayers recounted the details of his terrorist activity. After he was finished, he gloated: "Guilty as h***. Free as a bird. America is a great country."

I also discovered that for all Ayers' talk about social justice, he was a child of enormous privilege. His father was the CEO and Chairman of the giant utility company Commonwealth Edison and a crony of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and President Richard Nixon.

It seems clear to me that Ayers developed the entitlement attitude unfortunately not uncommon among those who've grown up wealthy that he is above the laws that govern everyone else. Horowitz describes Ayers as possessing "a shallowness beyond conception" that has resulted in an inability to distinguish right from wrong.

So tell me again- just *WHY* are so many otherwise intelligent individuals rushing to defend Ayers?

Matthew K. Tabor over at the "Education for the Aughts" blog has an excellent mini-carnival of posts from education bloggers critical of Ayers. Definitely worth checking out!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Bill Ayers' Violent Past: "Passionate Participation" or Terrorism?

I don't always agree with the authors of the "Core Knowledge" blog (especially when it comes to their cheerleading about the No Child Left Behind Act and their push for nationalizing the curriculum), but there's an excellent post today from Robert Pondiscio regarding unrepentant terrorist/"education reformer" Bill Ayers. Here's an excerpt:

"The Support Bill Ayers document would have us believe that Ayers is being silenced as a means to 'intimidate free thinking and stifle critical dialogue.' Forgive me for saying so, but what is violence if not an attempt to intimidate and stifle viewpoints with which you disagree? It would be a lot easier to move past what the document dismisses as 'history' if Ayers might at some point allow that his particular brand of 'passionate participation' was ill-advised....

Ayers, for his part, has never come close to such an admission. 'I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough,' he told the New York Times in an interview that was sitting on millions of breakfast tables on the morning of September 11, 2001. This lack of introspection on Ayers’ part makes the education establishment’s embrace of him troubling on so many levels."

What I can’t understand is how such a large number of elites in this country can be so morally relativistic that they can’t acknowledge that terrorism is never justified. Even if they’re sympathetic to the goals of the attackers, why can’t they just admit that the means are despicable? Some things really ARE black-or-white, with no shades of gray.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Time Once Again to Play "Fill in the Blanks"

Here's the quote:

"The unease with [name of politician] is not [sociological term]-based. It is empirically based. [He/she] is a rising political star, a young [man/woman] — [he/she] is only [age] —who has done extraordinary things. It takes guts to offer oneself for election, and to serve. It is far easier to throw spitballs from the stands than it is to seek and hold office. [He/she] is a [current political office], and [he/she] has the courage to go into the arena. For that [he/she] should be honored and respected....But it is only prudent to ask whether [he/she] is in fact someone who should be president of the United States in the event of disaster. [He/she] may be ready in a year or two, but disaster does not coordinate its calendar with ours. Would we muddle through if [name] were to become president? Yes, we would, but it is worth asking whether we should have to."


So is the author here discussing Sen. Obama or Gov. Palin?

Here's a huge hint: the quote comes from an article in Newsweek. You can find the answer here.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Judith Warner Completely Missed the Point

The other day Judith Warner, author of Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety, wrote a blog post for the New York Times on feeling surprisingly sympathetic toward Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin entitled "Poor Sarah".

Ms. Warner's discussion is full of the typical elitist snobbery towards Mrs. Palin- at one point the author dismisses the governor as "a moose-killing Alaska frontierswoman with her five kids, five colleges, and pastoral protection from witchcraft" - and reiterates the Democratic party line of attack on her that she's allegedly "out of her league".

Am I a particularly big fan of Gov. Palin? No. Do I have concerns about her relative inexperience? Yes, but I have even bigger concerns about Sen. Obama's lack of experience. I would much rather see a young, relatively inexperienced politician as second in line to be the president than actually being president. The learning curve is much steeper and the stakes are much higher for the actor in the spotlight than for his/her understudy.

But what really caught my eye in Ms. Warner's blog post was her discussion of one of my favorite movies from the past few years, Legally Blonde. The movie is an adaptation of a semi-autobiographical novel written by a woman who was a sorority girl at party school Arizona State before deciding to attend Stanford Law School. Like the heroine of Legally Blonde, Elle Woods, the author felt out-of-place with her designer wardrobe and pink accessories and was subject to snobbery from the other students. She found solace in writing long letters to her friends back home skewering her classmates, which ultimately became the basis for her novel.

In the movie, Elle discovers to the surprise of everyone around her that there's much more to her than just a pretty face. She receives a near-perfect score on the Law School Admissions Test and once she decides to get serious about her law school coursework, she starts acing them. At the end of the movie, she has solved a big murder case through her quick wits and has graduated with honors from Harvard.

I've always felt a kinship with Elle Woods as someone whose abilities often get underestimated simply based on my appearance. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the back-handed compliment, "Wow, you're a LOT smarter than you look!" I could buy myself a pair of Manolo Blahniks. Like Elle, I've overheard myself being dismissed by one of my female classmates as a "walking Barbie" because I'm cute, blonde, and a bit of a girlie-girl. Yes, I was in a sorority and do like shopping, but that doesn't make me dumb. In this day and age, I resent the implication that women are still supposed to choose between being pretty and being smart.

In Ms. Warner's NYT blog post, she completely misses the whole point of Legally Blonde. She sees Elle as an "imposter", who hides the fact that she's "not the intellectual equal of her peers" behind a mask of self-confidence and "dressing up in a nice suit". Ms. Warner tells her daughter after they watch the movie together that (emphasis in the original):

"You can’t accomplish anything worthwhile in life just by being pretty and cute and clever. You have to do the work."

Which is *EXACTLY* the message Elle learns! She's spent her whole life up until law school merely getting by on her looks and aspiring to be a socialite trophy wife like her mom. She finally gets fed up with being treated as inferior by her snobby classmates and sets out to prove to them that she's just as competant as they are. How does she accomplish this task? BY DOING THE WORK! The whole point of the movie is that Elle *IS* the intellectual equal of her peers in spite of her designer suit and pink scented accessories. How did Ms. Warner manage to miss that?

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Like Josef Stalin or Kennedy...

At the beginning of every month, I pick up a copy of Bay Area Parent magazine from my local library to check out the upcoming family-friendly events in our area. In addition to event listings, the magazine features articles on various parenting topics.

One of the articles in the August issue is entitled "Early Returns: How to Get Tomorrow's Voters Interested in Politics Today". Most of the article is perfectly fine. However, it devotes about half a page to profiling two different families supporting Sen. Obama and only about a fifth of a page to one family supporting Sen. McCain. As if that wasn't bad enough, the magazine's cover photo shows twins with shirts bearing the campaign logos of the two candidates. The girl wearing Obama's logo is front and center while her sister wearing McCain's logo is nearly out of the picture. Inside another photo of the twins is shown; again Obama's logo is on prominent display and McCain's is almost completely hidden.

I am getting so completely disgusted with the way that the mainstream media is absolutely fawning over Sen. Obama. He seems like a decent guy personally and he's certainly a very charismatic speaker. But the way the media treats him you'd think he was the Messiah or something. It reminds me of that old Living Colour song "The Cult of Personality":

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your t.v.
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

The question is whether the American public will be foolish enough to buy the media hype like the children following the Pied Piper's song...

Friday, February 8, 2008

Reality Check on Sen. McCain's Alleged "Liberalism"

I'm getting pretty tired of this claim that Sen. John McCain is a liberal. For an excellent rebuttal of why he is not, check out this post from "Pro Liberate Et Veritate".

If you don't like his support for free trade or campaign finance reform or whatever, just say that.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Why 5 Year Olds Shouldn't Be Allowed to Vote

"It's not fair that grownups get to vote and kids don't!" my five year old DD wailed as we drove away from the polling place where I had just cast my ballot.

"Do you even know any of the people who are running for president?" I asked her.

She couldn't come up with a single name.

So then I asked her the name of our current president.

She admitted that she didn't know.

"I'll give you a hint," I said. "His first name is George."

She beamed: "Washington!"

Monday, February 4, 2008

What Happens When a "Weepublican" or "Demoquat" Grows Up?

As I recently switched my voter registration from "Decline to State" (Californian for Independent) to "Republican" so that I can vote for Sen. McCain tomorrow*, I'm the odd one out in my family. They're all Democrats of one flavor or another. One of my brothers totally flipped out when I told him & accused me of being brainwashed (he didn't say by whom, but I suspect he blames DH and/or the Church).

I'll spare you all the rant about how I've never felt like either party truly represents me and how they both seem dominated by special interest groups. The point is that I was raised by liberal parents in a very liberal state (Massachusetts), graduated from a pretty liberal university, and now live in an ultraliberal area. Yet somehow I wound up turned off by liberalism, and the older I've gotten, the more conservative I've become.

I cringed, therefore, when I saw the article on parents trying to "party-train" their kids on CNN.com. They're dressing their little ones in achingly hip partisan clothing:

David Kaplan-Perkins of Chicago wears a "My Mama's for Obama" shirt. He's 7...[David's mom Jackie] Kaplan, a lesbian, also dresses him in shirts supporting gay rights, one of which reads "Let My Parents Marry."

"Sure, we cringe when we see a child wear an anti-choice shirt," Kaplan says. "And I am sure conservatives may do the same when they see David wearing our family's politics on his chest. But we all want our children to share our values, and these shirts are one of the ways we get to express that."

...Nuggets for little ones include dueling digs that read, "I Only Cry When Democrats Hold Me" and "I Only Cry When Republicans Hold Me." There are the basics, too, such as a stick figure holding up a sign that says "Mommy and Me for Hillary!" and a shout-out to the GOP: "Bush is my homeboy."


So what happens if these kids grow up and come to hold different political beliefs from their parents? Is Ms. Kaplan going to disown David if he becomes a "born-again" Christian and votes Republican? What happens to a "Weepublican" who grows up to discover that he/she truly believes that government is the solution and not the problem?

I'm all for parents being free to raise their children in accordance with their own family's values. But I don't think that includes political brainwashing. It's one thing for a parent to say to the child, these are my values and that's why I support this particular candidate. It's quite another to dress a young child as a walking political advertisement.

That also goes for homeschoolers who involve their preteen children in political activism. These kids aren't mature enough to objectively consider both sides and then make up their own minds- they're just parroting whatever their parents are telling them in an attempt to gain parental approval.

*I'm not really pro-McCain as much as I dislike him less than the rest of the candidates running.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Is the Upper Middle Class Truly Better Off?

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about Barack Obama's class warfare play. Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes on the "rich", defined as those in the top 10% of the income distribution, to pay for higher government spending. The article claims that higher taxes are justified because:

"high-income workers have received far larger pay increases than others over the past generation."

While gross incomes for the upper middle class may be higher than two or three decades ago, in many areas there has been a decline in actual purchasing power. When my dad graduated from business school back in the late '70's, his student loan debt was equivalent to 30% of his first year's salary. When my DH graduated in 2006, his debt was equivalent to nearly 100% of his first year's base salary. My parents were able to purchase a starter home in the Bay Area for roughly twice my dad's salary. That same house today costs more than five times my husband's salary. We are paying a much higher percentage of our income for healthcare, too.

My parents were able to send me to private school for K-3 on my dad's salary, and when they had a 3rd kid and decided that tuition was too expensive for all of us, they were able to afford to buy in a neighborhood with a good public school. Today, my DH and I cannot afford the private school tuition for even 1 kid, nor even to rent in a good school district.

The hours for upper middle class workers have lengthened, too. More than 31% of college-educated males now work 50+ hours/week compared with only 22% in 1980. I would say the norm in our area for white collar jobs is 60, and in certain industries (financial services, management consulting, law, IT, etc.) folks often work 80-100+. A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that 1.6 million Americans now work "extreme jobs" that require more than 60 hours/week. The study found that 52% of the nation's top income earners -- those in the top 6 percent of earners and often making six-figure salaries -- work more than 70 hours a week.

To be fair, some aspects of our lifestyle are better than my parents'. We have a nicer car, for one thing. Our economy car has anti-lock brakes, 2 airbags, air conditioning, automatic transmission, power windows & doors, power steering, cruise control, a CD player, etc. while my parents' economy car had none of those things. But we didn't really have the option of buying an equivalent car even if we had wanted to.

Don't get me wrong- we're among the lucky families in this country. We can afford health insurance, rent in a safe neighborhood, healthy food on our table, etc. We can also do it all on DH's salary, to allow me to be home raising our children. Too many moms these days don't have that option :-(

But I just would like to see Sen. Obama, former Sen. Edwards, and the rest just try living in the Bay Area on what they consider a "wealthy" income and see whether they still consider those families "rich"...

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Is Fox Scared of Ron Paul?

Dr. Ron Paul told James Pindell of the Boston Globe that Fox News' decision to exclude him from its forum on Sunday is proof that the network is scared of him.

"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will. They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative. They will not win this skirmish."
Dr. Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton, accused Fox of bias against his candidate in the International Herald Tribune:

"Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq."

Dr. Paul is currently polling ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. Some believe that he may well come in 3rd in NH, ahead of Giuliani. From The Wall Street Journal:

"Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.

Why? For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for 'likely' voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven't voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul's supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election....

There is another reason to discount the polls on Mr. Paul. The one thing that unites his supporters is a desire to be left alone, not only by government, but by irritating marketers and meddling pollsters, too. Mr. Paul's supporters might well be screening their calls and not-so-inadvertently screening out pollsters."


The NH GOP chairman, Fergus Cullen, is also unhappy with Fox News' decision and told the Manchester Union-Leader that:

"Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first-in-the-nation primary. The level playing field requires that all serious candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate -- not just a selected few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast. The state party has notified FOX News of our position and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6."


I haven't decided yet who I'm going to vote for in the primary, but the way Dr. Paul is being railroaded is making me very angry and more inclined to join the " rEVOLution".

Fox News Gives Ron Paul the Shaft

Question #1- How many of you know a single Fred Thompson supporter? Yeah, me neither.

Question #2- How many of you know multiple Ron Paul supporters? Yeah, me too.

Actually, the only people I know who are really jazzed about their candidate are the Paul fans. Everyone else I know (Republican, Democrat, or independent) are all lukewarm. They may support Romney/Giuliani/Huckabee/McCain/Hillary/Obama/Edwards/etc. but it's with reservations.

I was very disappointed to learn that Fox News has excluded Dr. Paul from its upcoming forum in New Hampshire. It just baffles me why the mainstream media has decided to ignore Dr. Paul when he's got a ton of grassroots support. He raised $19.5 million in the last 3 months of 2007, nearly as much as Hillary Clinton did during the same time frame. He's all over the 'net and I've seen more signs for him around than for any other Republican (granted I live in the Bay Area).

What I really don't get is Fox's decision to include Fred Thompson. Here's a guy who reportedly told voters at a campaign event in Iowa last weekend that he's "not particularly interested in running for president." For all that the Associated Press claims that Thompson has the support of 11% of likely GOP voters as opposed to Paul's alleged 3%, those numbers just don't gibe with my personal observations.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Despite What the Elite Media Asserts, Not All Homeschoolers Heart Huckabee

The elite media is jumping all over the supposed groundswell of homeschooler support for Mike Huckabee. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have articles today on the subject. Both give prominent placement to Michael Farris of the HSLDA and the WP one also mentions Gregg Harris. Neither mentions Dr. Ron Paul (is it just me or does it seem like the elite media has deliberately decided to ignore him despite his significant grassroots popularity?)

As I mentioned last week, what really irks me about the coverage is the use of "homeschooler" in the elite media as codeword for superfundamentalist Protestant. Most families who educate their children at home do not have 10 kids or believe that the Biblical commandment to "honor thy father and mother" mean that parents should dictate their children's votes such as the Hurleys of Iowa whose quote leads off the NYT article.

According to the 2003 survey done by the National Center for Education Statistics, 29% of homeschool families have only 1 or 2 kids. The NCES unfortunately lumped together medium-sized and larger families, but it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of the rest have 3 or 4 kids rather than 5+. Not that there's anything wrong with having a larger family- it's just not the norm, even among homeschoolers. The media may give a lot of attention to the Duggars and other very large homeschooling families, but that paints a misleading portrait of the average homeschooler.

The NYT and WP articles also implied that homeschoolers have monolithic opinions on gun control, abortion, homosexual unions, a flat tax, and other "hot-button" issues. While certain homeschoolers do agree with Huckabee's position on these issues, others disagree with him on some or all of them. People from all over the political spectrum educate their children at home. Just because we've chosen against traditional schools does not mean that we all heart Huckabee or anything else.

I'm not trying to pick on Mike Huckabee, who seems like a decent guy personally. It's not his fault that the media has decided a good way to try to discredit him is by linking him with groups viewed with suspicion by a large segment of their readers (Evangelicals and homeschoolers) and to perpetuate the stereotype that all those in the latter also belong to the former.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Note to Mainstream Press: Michael Farris Does Not Speak for All Christian Homeschoolers

Mike Huckabee seems like a decent guy personally, but it absolutely infuriates me when the mainstream press touts him as "the homeschooler's choice" based on his endorsement by Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association. The HSLDA has done a lot of good work over the years but they don't speak for all homeschoolers. I personally don't think they should get involved in partisan politics, particularly since there is another strongly pro-HS candidate in the election (Dr. Ron Paul). Now, I've got my own concerns about both Huckabee and Paul but that's a discussion for another time. Anyways, the Des Moines Register ran an article yesterday entitled "Homeschoolers propel Huckabee".

Although not monolithic, home-schooling Republicans are united by core principles, especially their rejection of public schools in favor of their own religious-based teaching.
Let's stop right there. While all HS families have rejected the public schools, not all those who vote Republican are HS for religious reasons. The GOP is the party not just of the religious right but also of secular libertarians, many of whom also have decided to educate their children at home.

Likewise, they are civically active and well-connected to Iowa's evangelical churches
Again, why does the mainstream press insist upon equating homeschoolers with Evangelical Protestants? Some are, but many aren't. There are HS families of every Christian denomination, and also plenty who are other faiths, atheists, or agnostics.

Michael Farris' endorsement of Huckabee in May, meaningless to much of the voting public, sent a strong signal to Crawford and other Christian home-school families in Iowa. Farris is founder and chairman of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association and the national figure for Christian home-school families.
The national figure for Christian homeschoolers? Maybe in his own eyes, but I know plenty of Christian home educators who do not believe that he represents them.

Estimates by the Oregon-based National Home Education Research Institute put the number of Christian home-school families in Iowa at roughly 7,500 to 9,500. As a group, they are disproportionately active in politics, partly out of strong opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage, core positions for socially conservative Republicans.
Not all Christians are socially conservative, anti-abortion, or hold traditional views on sexuality. These are hotly debated issues and several denominations have taken official positions that are definitely on the liberal side: the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the American Friends Service Committee (aka the Quakers), etc. While I personally disagree with those positions and I'm glad that the Vatican has held the line on traditional sexual morality, my point is that Christians are a pretty diverse group. Just knowing whether someone considers Jesus to be the Savior of the world doesn't automatically mean one knows where he/she stands on "hot button" issues.

Socially conservative Evangelicals may be a vocal subset of the homeschooling community, but they don't speak for all homeschoolers and it annoys me when the mainstream press treats them as if they do.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The "Sancti-Mommy" of Silicon Valley Strikes Again!

As many of you are aware, presidential hopeful John Edwards' wife Elizabeth has decided to homeschool their two youngest children on the campaign trail. Elizabeth's own mother, who is a certified teacher, is helping out with the homeschooling but Elizabeth is still playing a direct role in her children's education.

Although I'm not a fan of John Edwards as a politician, I applaud the Edwards family for this courageous decision! I hope that they continue to homeschool their children after the 2008 election.

Anyways, Rebecca over at the "Silicon Valley Moms" blog, wrote a very nasty "holier-than-thou" piece about Elizabeth Edwards. Here's a choice excerpt (emphasis mine):

"Take your kids home. Get off the campaign trail. Your husband is not going to be the candidate, and he is not going to be president. He is not ahead in the polls. He is not going to make it. We need a Democratic in office desperately, and you are harming that chance by going around saying negative things about the TOP candidates and splitting the vote. Worst of all, you are forcing your young children, who should be in school to ride in buses and talk to the press when they obviously don't want to. This election is NOT ABOUT THEM. They deserve some peace, not time with nannies and campaign-trail daycare providers, since, as the Times article describes, you don't have time to see them when you are busy campaigning too.

Do I sound callous? Perhaps. I am truly, seriously, sorry that you are sick and that you are dying. But let this be your parting gift to the world: give your children some actual QUALITY time with you, which they are not having on the bus or in senatorial-aide-nannycare. Help give your children a next new Democratic president, who is NOT going to be your husband."

Apparently, Mrs. Edwards saw the post and discussed it on Good Morning America. As a result of the firestorm the post ignited, Rebecca has very weaselly taken it down and replaced it with a tamer version you can read here.

When I first came across this debate today, my first thought was that this is not the first time that a battle in the so-called "mommy wars" has resulted from a post at the "SV Moms" blog. I remembered that about a year ago there was another nasty "holier-than-thou" post criticizing moms who choose to forgo some or all immunizations for their children. The author was a yuppie executive who was whining about how her SIX WEEK vacation to Hawaii might be ruined by the fact that her son was exposed to chicken pox:

"I am a better person than you, Non-Vaccinating Hippy Mommy. I vaccinated both my children from every disease where vaccinations exist because I don't want my children to get diseases, and, importantly, I don't want them to give them to other people's children. Because maybe, just maybe, other people's children will get sick during the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take almost two months off work"


Boo-fricking-hoo, poor you! You can just hear the entitlement oozing out of every one of her pores. I'm supposed to place *MY* child's health and well-being at risk so that *SHE* can take a SIX WEEK long luxury vacation that 99% of us moms could never afford. Sorry, ain't gonna happen you rich witch!

It was no surprise then, when I discovered that the rich yuppie executive bashing different vaccination choices is the same sanctimonious Rebecca bashing Mrs. Edwards for homeschooling. I know it's not Christian to hate someone, but I'm finding it *REALLY* difficult to feel charitably towards the "Sancti-Mommy of Silicon Valley". She bashes the size of the Edwards house (which I agree is absurdly large) when she goes on ridiculously long luxury vacations to exotic tropical islands herself. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Just shut your piehole and go back to your yuppie executive job...

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Ron Paul Supports Homeschooling!

I know he's got a snowball's chance in Hades of winning the election, but Congressman Ron Paul absolutely has the right idea when it comes to education. Here are some great quotes from him:

"I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents - consulting with teachers and local administrators - to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government."

"One of my main goals in Congress is to return control over our children's education to parents and teachers in Texas and across America. Unfortunately, as the federal government continues to increase its influence over education, the role of parents and teachers becomes more and more limited. Over the last 30 years, this increased federal control has proven harmful to education standards while wasting taxpayer dollars. I believe that parents and teachers can better educate our children than federal education bureaucrats and politicians."

"Each time we are presented with a new education proposal from Washington, it involves another layer of harmful federal bureaucracy. No big-government spending program can or will solve our nation's education problems. One-size-fits-all programs simply do not work. I want to give parents the freedom to choose the best options for their children. I want teachers to know that their services are valuable to our nation without making them subservient to federal bureaucrats. And I want to encourage local residents to get involved with their local schools through educational programs and scholarship funds. My agenda of returning control over education dollars to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education."
I call on the other candidates to embrace a similar philosophy when it comes to education!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Sen. Obama Believes Sex Ed for Kindergartners is "Right Thing to Do"

I just saw an unbelievable clip from MSNBC's Hardball (scroll down the page & click on the clip called "'Age appropriate' sex ed & politics") on Sen. Barack Obama's telling Planned Parenthood that he supports "age-appropriate" sex ed for kindergartners. There's been a lot of controversy over what exactly he meant by that, but Sen. Obama's spokesman Bill Burton specifically referenced the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) curriculum.

So what exactly are in the SIECUS guidelines for young children? A lot more information than most parents would want their 4-, 5-, or 6-yr old to know! (Be forewarned that the link contains some pretty graphic language)

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney's but he absolutely has the right idea when he said at a Colorado campaign stop:
"How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my view, zero is the right amount. Instead of teaching about sex education in kindergarten to 5-year-olds let's clean up the ocean of filth, the cesspool in which our children are swimming."

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Romney told ABCNews:
"Let's let our 5-year-olds be 5-year-olds. When students are old enough for sex education they should be taught abstinence as part of their health curriculum and that marriage should come before babies."

Sen. Obama considers himself to be a Christian- so why is he calling on government schools to promote behaviors condemned by Scripture to innocent young children?

It's really too bad that Sen. Obama holds such dangerous beliefs because he seems a very bright and charismatic man :-(

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Educational Issues

I can't say that I really care all that much for any of the 2008 presidential candidates, but here's a very interesting website that lists where each of them stand on various issues affecting education.

If you want to know how the NEA rates a number of the candidates (IMHO the lower the approval rating, the more likely it is he/she supports true education reform), here's the breakdown:

John Kerry 100%
Evan Bayh 91%
Joe Biden 91%
Russ Feingold 91%
Dennis Kucinich 90%
John Edwards 83%
Hillary Clinton 82%
Chris Dodd 82%
Ron Paul 67%
John McCain 45%
Chuck Hagel 36%
Sam Brownback 27%
Bill Frist 27%
Duncan Hunter 17%
Tom Tancredo 8%

No rating was listed for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Thommy Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Al Gore, or Newt Gingrich.