The foes in life are many. But none are worse than the refusal to face a foe.
Monday, June 3, 2019
From the Birds and the Bees to the Bible, What is it We Should Teach?
Putting a lid on knowledge is not what education is all about.
So what of banning sex education, or the Bible from the classroom? Those teachings are at the opposites ends of the spectrum, in regards to what we say is acceptable to teach.
But, should either be banned?
I will grant that the way you teach, and the way you approach a topic can make it wrong. But, I hesitate and wonder if learning about the birds and the bees is something we need to know.
And, if we need to know, something, it ought to be taught.
You may argue that parents need to teach this lesson. Not schools. I hesitate on that. Parents should be involved in all the teaching of their children. All things moral should be taught by parents.
But, that doesn't mean others cannot teach as well.
Some tell me that the teachings of the Bible should be taught in the home, not in the school, for the teachings of the Bible are something the parents are responsible for.
If you are learning in depth about what the Bible teaches, perhaps those classes should be elective. If you are teaching that the Bible is truth, then surely that should be an elective class.
But, I would not ban the Bible, altogether. Nor the Koran.
So what of banning sex education, or the Bible from the classroom? Those teachings are at the opposites ends of the spectrum, in regards to what we say is acceptable to teach.
But, should either be banned?
I will grant that the way you teach, and the way you approach a topic can make it wrong. But, I hesitate and wonder if learning about the birds and the bees is something we need to know.
And, if we need to know, something, it ought to be taught.
You may argue that parents need to teach this lesson. Not schools. I hesitate on that. Parents should be involved in all the teaching of their children. All things moral should be taught by parents.
But, that doesn't mean others cannot teach as well.
Some tell me that the teachings of the Bible should be taught in the home, not in the school, for the teachings of the Bible are something the parents are responsible for.
If you are learning in depth about what the Bible teaches, perhaps those classes should be elective. If you are teaching that the Bible is truth, then surely that should be an elective class.
But, I would not ban the Bible, altogether. Nor the Koran.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Religion Might be Most Important Thing to be Taught in Our Schools
Christianity is an important element of society. It is not wrong, but rather important, that you learn about the world about you.
Let the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and Wiccans all be explained. In life, we brush shoulders with all beliefs. If school is to prepare you for life, it is not wrong to learn about the world about you.
It is important.
Perhaps an understanding of Muslim beliefs might help us be more tolerant of them.
It would seem to me, that of all the things to be taught in school, nothing is more important than learning about the society you live in. Wars are fought over religion. Mass murders are committed. If we would reduce these things, we must learn why we should not fear each other, and why we should not hate each other.
Religious education (taught in this manner) is perhaps more important than math, or chemistry, or anything.
Let the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and Wiccans all be explained. In life, we brush shoulders with all beliefs. If school is to prepare you for life, it is not wrong to learn about the world about you.
It is important.
Perhaps an understanding of Muslim beliefs might help us be more tolerant of them.
It would seem to me, that of all the things to be taught in school, nothing is more important than learning about the society you live in. Wars are fought over religion. Mass murders are committed. If we would reduce these things, we must learn why we should not fear each other, and why we should not hate each other.
Religious education (taught in this manner) is perhaps more important than math, or chemistry, or anything.
Saturday, June 1, 2019
The Question is How Many Times He Committed Obstruction of Justice
I read of how and hear of how and am weathered by those who say, Two years of investigation and all this money spent and the Mueller Report came up with nothing.
Nothing, they say. Nothing.
Are their eyes closed?
A video I just saw spells it out. "Former Republican Federal Prosecutors Speak Out Against President Trump's Obstruction of Justice."
If you look at these incidents, many of them (if not all) were so public, the average person can clearly see they were obstruction of justice -- and that they did occur and were not fake news. You don't need a federal investigator to tell you these things were obstruction of justice; It is obvious.
The video is short. You might want to view it. It points out how the Mueller Report discusses these incidents. We don't need Mueller's Report to tell us these were criminal acts. We can see as much.
President Trump asked James Comey to take it easy on Michael Flynn. That is attempting to influence the even handidness of an investigation; It is obstruction of justice. Then, when that didn't happen, he fired James Comey. He, himself, acknowledged the firing was due to the Russian investigation. If you fire someone because they are investigating you, how is that not obstruction of justice? Then, President Trump tried to keep Mueller from being appointed special counsel, and tried to get him removed. The White House asked Bob McGhan to fire Mueller, then asked McGhan to place a false statement in the file saying he was not asked to fire Mueller. As the video points out, asking a witness to lie to create a false record is a classic case of obstruction of justice. The President also sought to influence the witness of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen by dangling the possibility of pardons' before them. His words were public, and on record, and in the news. When asked if pardons were possible, he said he was taking nothing off the table. The witnesses in the case read the papers, so whether he communicated the possibility of pardons to them more personally, or not, they got the message from the news.
The question is not whether he committed obstruction of justice, but how many times he committed it. If someone were to write a history of obstruction of justice, I doubt they would find a person in all of U.S. history who has committed more such acts than President Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwnMpneFR34
Nothing, they say. Nothing.
Are their eyes closed?
A video I just saw spells it out. "Former Republican Federal Prosecutors Speak Out Against President Trump's Obstruction of Justice."
If you look at these incidents, many of them (if not all) were so public, the average person can clearly see they were obstruction of justice -- and that they did occur and were not fake news. You don't need a federal investigator to tell you these things were obstruction of justice; It is obvious.
The video is short. You might want to view it. It points out how the Mueller Report discusses these incidents. We don't need Mueller's Report to tell us these were criminal acts. We can see as much.
President Trump asked James Comey to take it easy on Michael Flynn. That is attempting to influence the even handidness of an investigation; It is obstruction of justice. Then, when that didn't happen, he fired James Comey. He, himself, acknowledged the firing was due to the Russian investigation. If you fire someone because they are investigating you, how is that not obstruction of justice? Then, President Trump tried to keep Mueller from being appointed special counsel, and tried to get him removed. The White House asked Bob McGhan to fire Mueller, then asked McGhan to place a false statement in the file saying he was not asked to fire Mueller. As the video points out, asking a witness to lie to create a false record is a classic case of obstruction of justice. The President also sought to influence the witness of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen by dangling the possibility of pardons' before them. His words were public, and on record, and in the news. When asked if pardons were possible, he said he was taking nothing off the table. The witnesses in the case read the papers, so whether he communicated the possibility of pardons to them more personally, or not, they got the message from the news.
The question is not whether he committed obstruction of justice, but how many times he committed it. If someone were to write a history of obstruction of justice, I doubt they would find a person in all of U.S. history who has committed more such acts than President Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwnMpneFR34
What about this?
Was it late April? Was it a month ago, a story broke about Ukraine not cooperating with the Mueller investigation in exchange for receiving weapons?
That story didn't get much coverage, did it? I just heard of it today.
If a president gave weapons of war to someone in exchange for their not cooperating with an investigation against him, isn't that a high crime? Do we want a president who would do this? Should we not be gravely concerned?
Or, do we just turn our heads? Do we dismiss it as another red-herring, and say, Enough with all these investigations. They're over. Finished. Just accept that Trump is cool.
A president got Ukraine to not cooperate with an investigation against him in exchange for warheads? If that is not high crimes, what is it? If that is not bribery, what do we call it?
And, we don't care about this? It barely makes the news?
You can dismiss this as a false story, but from what I read, there might be plenty of evidence it is true.
Says a New York Times article:
"The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruptions prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country's sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins."
The article says one Ukraine official "readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manfort's activities 'in the long-term box.' "
That story didn't get much coverage, did it? I just heard of it today.
If a president gave weapons of war to someone in exchange for their not cooperating with an investigation against him, isn't that a high crime? Do we want a president who would do this? Should we not be gravely concerned?
Or, do we just turn our heads? Do we dismiss it as another red-herring, and say, Enough with all these investigations. They're over. Finished. Just accept that Trump is cool.
A president got Ukraine to not cooperate with an investigation against him in exchange for warheads? If that is not high crimes, what is it? If that is not bribery, what do we call it?
And, we don't care about this? It barely makes the news?
You can dismiss this as a false story, but from what I read, there might be plenty of evidence it is true.
Says a New York Times article:
"The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruptions prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country's sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins."
The article says one Ukraine official "readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manfort's activities 'in the long-term box.' "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)