My roommate told me of how Mitt Romney wants Obama's energy secretary, interior secretary and head of the EPA all fired.
Romney called them the "gas-hike trio,' saying, "No question in my mind that these -- I call them the gas-hike trio ... are on a mission to drive up the price of gasoline and all energy so that they can finally get their solar and their wind to be more price competitive."
I suppose I would be a little surprised if the three Obama administrators actually wanted gas prices to rise in hopes of helping solar and wind power gain a footing. It's an accusation, but is it a fair one, and is it plausible?
Or, is it just picking enemies and picking a fight with those on the opposite side of the aisle? Our nation has become so polarized, each side finding false faults with the other. Of all the problems our nation has, this is not least among them.
If you don't want them to divide up and fight in partisan fashion, don't elect them in partisan fashion. Elect a few independents.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Mike Lee Disappointed Me Today
Mike Lee disappointed me today.
I opened the newspaper to see how Sen. Mike Lee voted against President Obama's nominee, David Nuffer, for federal judgeship in Utah. Now, Lee actually supports Nuffer, saying he would be an excellent judge, but Lee has committed himself to voting against every Obama judgeship nominee as his way of protesting the way Obama made an appointment. Obama appointed someone to head a consumer watchdog agency, under a law that allows him to make appointments without congressional approval if Congress is in recess. The Senate was meeting for minutes every few days in order to technically remain in session, and thus thwart Obama from making such appointments, but Obama refused to recognize that as actually being in session.
Lee says he will vote against all Obama court appointees until Obama reverses his recess appointments.
Wish Obama and Lee did not have to fight like this. Would be better if the Senate had not concocted the plan to thwart an appointment. Would be better if Obama had not made the appointment when the Constitution forbids it. Did he do it just to spite the Senate? I don't know. Would be better if Lee voted for judgeships based on their own merit and not on a spat with the President.
Wonder what would have happened if Sen. Lee had just called Obama up and asked him, in person, to reverse the recess appointments? Would be a wonderful thing if two elected officials could actually talk over their differences, man to man, instead of sending messages through what they do.
This means, we don't like you making appointments when we're in recess.
This means, I don't like you pretending you're in session when you're not.
Yeah? Well, this means I didn't like the way you made that appointment.
Messages, messages. Have we become so polarized that we can't even sit down and talk with each other? Among the problems our nation has, this, too, is one we should work on.
I opened the newspaper to see how Sen. Mike Lee voted against President Obama's nominee, David Nuffer, for federal judgeship in Utah. Now, Lee actually supports Nuffer, saying he would be an excellent judge, but Lee has committed himself to voting against every Obama judgeship nominee as his way of protesting the way Obama made an appointment. Obama appointed someone to head a consumer watchdog agency, under a law that allows him to make appointments without congressional approval if Congress is in recess. The Senate was meeting for minutes every few days in order to technically remain in session, and thus thwart Obama from making such appointments, but Obama refused to recognize that as actually being in session.
Lee says he will vote against all Obama court appointees until Obama reverses his recess appointments.
Wish Obama and Lee did not have to fight like this. Would be better if the Senate had not concocted the plan to thwart an appointment. Would be better if Obama had not made the appointment when the Constitution forbids it. Did he do it just to spite the Senate? I don't know. Would be better if Lee voted for judgeships based on their own merit and not on a spat with the President.
Wonder what would have happened if Sen. Lee had just called Obama up and asked him, in person, to reverse the recess appointments? Would be a wonderful thing if two elected officials could actually talk over their differences, man to man, instead of sending messages through what they do.
This means, we don't like you making appointments when we're in recess.
This means, I don't like you pretending you're in session when you're not.
Yeah? Well, this means I didn't like the way you made that appointment.
Messages, messages. Have we become so polarized that we can't even sit down and talk with each other? Among the problems our nation has, this, too, is one we should work on.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Reframe Sex Education into Morality Training
How about we retool sex education into morality training?
As I sit and write, I wonder what the reactions to this might be. On one side, there would be those who ask just who I think I am, that I should thrust my values on others. Another segment of them would be on the verge of disapproval, but would want to know a little more what I had in mind before opting against the idea.
Then, there would be those who say morality training is what we already have. They would say it is already being done right. I hope they are right, but fear sex ed isn't always geared as much toward high morals as I would like.
Somewhere along the line, someone would agree with me. If we are to teach sex education at all, the emphasis should not be on what sex is all about, but what morality is all about. Rather than sex being the main topic, and morality fitting in here and there, I would like morality to be the chief topic, with the how-to of sex being discussed only within the framework of how it is done in a moral way.
Discuss everything you like -- contraceptives, same-sex relationships, etc. -- but teach them only as how they fit into a moral lifestyle. Teach love and respect for all people, and allow students to have their own views, but teach morals.
Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of sex education being taught in a major American city, Chicago having introduced it in 1913. (I don't know whether it was taught in smaller cities at all before that.)
Why not mark the anniversary with a sweeping shift towards morality?
This is important, to me. I cherish that a nation should teach itself values, that it should strive for them, and teach its children them, and practice them as adults. I wonder if we, rather, at times only teach what sex is, if in some of our classes we teach too much of the how-to and not enough of the when-to.
Let us turn it around. As we mark the 100th anniversary of sex education in public schools, let us reframe sex education into morality training. This would be significant, a worthy matter, an endeavor helping the people of our state become, as a whole, a better people.
As I sit and write, I wonder what the reactions to this might be. On one side, there would be those who ask just who I think I am, that I should thrust my values on others. Another segment of them would be on the verge of disapproval, but would want to know a little more what I had in mind before opting against the idea.
Then, there would be those who say morality training is what we already have. They would say it is already being done right. I hope they are right, but fear sex ed isn't always geared as much toward high morals as I would like.
Somewhere along the line, someone would agree with me. If we are to teach sex education at all, the emphasis should not be on what sex is all about, but what morality is all about. Rather than sex being the main topic, and morality fitting in here and there, I would like morality to be the chief topic, with the how-to of sex being discussed only within the framework of how it is done in a moral way.
Discuss everything you like -- contraceptives, same-sex relationships, etc. -- but teach them only as how they fit into a moral lifestyle. Teach love and respect for all people, and allow students to have their own views, but teach morals.
Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of sex education being taught in a major American city, Chicago having introduced it in 1913. (I don't know whether it was taught in smaller cities at all before that.)
Why not mark the anniversary with a sweeping shift towards morality?
This is important, to me. I cherish that a nation should teach itself values, that it should strive for them, and teach its children them, and practice them as adults. I wonder if we, rather, at times only teach what sex is, if in some of our classes we teach too much of the how-to and not enough of the when-to.
Let us turn it around. As we mark the 100th anniversary of sex education in public schools, let us reframe sex education into morality training. This would be significant, a worthy matter, an endeavor helping the people of our state become, as a whole, a better people.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Fighting Abortion is 'Duty of Strong to Protect the Weak'
"When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins." So said former Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey.
Does does our love of a child begin when he or she is born? Or can we love the unborn? Should we care about someone as soon as they are conceived? Should we want to protect them? Should we, as a nation, protect them?
Here's another quote, this one from George W. Bush: "The most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent." He made the comment while signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Earlier in the same short speech, he spoke of "the duty of the strong to protect the weak."
Does does our love of a child begin when he or she is born? Or can we love the unborn? Should we care about someone as soon as they are conceived? Should we want to protect them? Should we, as a nation, protect them?
Here's another quote, this one from George W. Bush: "The most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent." He made the comment while signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Earlier in the same short speech, he spoke of "the duty of the strong to protect the weak."
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Teaching of How-to in Sex Education is not Enough
Why should the maxim, "As a man soweth, so shall he reap" not apply to sex education?
The art of teaching the topic should be touched with the same care and respect as you would have it practiced. If you show no care in your teaching for when there should be sex, you should expect the person to learn no regard against having sex with whomever he or she will and as often as he or she might want. If you teach, "Here is what sex is," you will have taught the how-to without the when-to.
That is not the way to raise the child. It is like throwing seeds to the wind, carelessly. The result cannot be good. "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind," says the prophet Hosea (Hosea 8:7).
I have never sat through a sex education class in Utah. But, I think this matter of grave concern. The topic of sex is not to be dealt with lightly, not without care. I think of a person who might teach a child about guns, and how to shoot them, and then give the child the gun to have and to shoot at will.
Would that be all the parent teaches, just the how-to? Would not the parent also teach when to use the gun, teach that it is not a toy, teach of the harm that can be done, the damage?
Someone might tell me those things are well taught in our schools, but, I wonder.
The art of teaching the topic should be touched with the same care and respect as you would have it practiced. If you show no care in your teaching for when there should be sex, you should expect the person to learn no regard against having sex with whomever he or she will and as often as he or she might want. If you teach, "Here is what sex is," you will have taught the how-to without the when-to.
That is not the way to raise the child. It is like throwing seeds to the wind, carelessly. The result cannot be good. "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind," says the prophet Hosea (Hosea 8:7).
I have never sat through a sex education class in Utah. But, I think this matter of grave concern. The topic of sex is not to be dealt with lightly, not without care. I think of a person who might teach a child about guns, and how to shoot them, and then give the child the gun to have and to shoot at will.
Would that be all the parent teaches, just the how-to? Would not the parent also teach when to use the gun, teach that it is not a toy, teach of the harm that can be done, the damage?
Someone might tell me those things are well taught in our schools, but, I wonder.
Monday, March 19, 2012
If We Refuse to Fight Drugs, the War will be Lost
I think of the many times we hear of drugs, alcohol and pornography being associated with crimes, everything from the soldier in Afghanistan who murdered the civilians having been "on" alcohol to Josh Powell having been involved in pornography.
Time after time after time, of late, I've noticed so many of the news stories about crime have had connections to drugs, alcohol and porn, so often that, yes, I do wonder if crime would drop if only we could eliminate such things as drug and alcohol abuse, and pornography.
Or, at least curb them, turn them back.
Yes, there are those who say you cannot legislate morality, and there are others who say you shouldn't, that in doing so, you deprive people of agency.
I will say this: If you do offer legislation against things immoral, it can have a positive impact, and it does. If houses of prostitution were legal, they would be out in the open, on the corner. Yes, more people would participate if they were driving past them daily. If legal, prostitition would be advertised, and the only reason companies advertise is that advertisements work. They do bring in more business.
If you legalized drugs, they would be sold on the corner, just as prostitution would if it were legalized. If nudity were legal, we would have people running around naked.
No, those are not things I want. I do not want them out in the open. Yes, criminalizing them does have an affect. You can, to an extent, legislate morality.
And, for all laws this country has, mankind in America has not lost its agency. While many drugs are illegal, and prostitution, and gambling, and even some pornography, people still participate in them. Their agency is not lost.
But if we refuse to fight against these things, the war against them will be lost.
Time after time after time, of late, I've noticed so many of the news stories about crime have had connections to drugs, alcohol and porn, so often that, yes, I do wonder if crime would drop if only we could eliminate such things as drug and alcohol abuse, and pornography.
Or, at least curb them, turn them back.
Yes, there are those who say you cannot legislate morality, and there are others who say you shouldn't, that in doing so, you deprive people of agency.
I will say this: If you do offer legislation against things immoral, it can have a positive impact, and it does. If houses of prostitution were legal, they would be out in the open, on the corner. Yes, more people would participate if they were driving past them daily. If legal, prostitition would be advertised, and the only reason companies advertise is that advertisements work. They do bring in more business.
If you legalized drugs, they would be sold on the corner, just as prostitution would if it were legalized. If nudity were legal, we would have people running around naked.
No, those are not things I want. I do not want them out in the open. Yes, criminalizing them does have an affect. You can, to an extent, legislate morality.
And, for all laws this country has, mankind in America has not lost its agency. While many drugs are illegal, and prostitution, and gambling, and even some pornography, people still participate in them. Their agency is not lost.
But if we refuse to fight against these things, the war against them will be lost.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Teaching Morality Should be Part of Sex Education
Coaches coach. And, in teaching sex education, that's what our teachers are doing. A good coach tells the player what he wants him or her to do, and helps him or her envision the player he or she can become.
If you want the youth to steer clear of sex before marriage, you teach that. You teach abstinence. If you want them to want them to not have sex outside of marriage, you teach that, too.
Teaching morality should not be a crime. Thankfully, Utah's law sees this. It says instruction shall stress "the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage . . ."
I like that. I do wonder if they should knock out the next few words, ". . . as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases." Is steering clear of sexually transmitted diseases to be the only reason for staying moral? I'm hoping it is quite alright to teach morality for morality's sake. Yes, teach that communicable diseases can come from indiscriminate activity, but let rightness and morality -- and even righteousness -- be at least among the reasons for not having sex outside of marriage.
And, do teach the other reasons for being moral, like that it will make the marriage stronger if the partners do not have affairs. Teaching that they should not have sex outside of marriage is a good thing, but also teach that to even go out with another person, once you are married, it wrong.
Coaches teach their players what they want them to do. If we do not want our children to become people who have sex outside of marriage, we should teach that.
And, we should be allowed to teach that, free to teach it. It should not be illegal to teach children to be moral. If sex is to be taught, the perimeters of its use should be taught. If it is good to stay within those perimeters, why would we not teach that? If we want the youth to cherish marriage, and cherish chastity, why would we not teach that marriage and chastity are things to cherish?
Don't just teach what sex is. Teach when it is right and when it is wrong
Coaches cannot expect their players to become any better than what they teach them. Coaches coach, so let's coach them.
Our current system allows school districts to offer sex ed if the districts so choose to do so. I wonder, of the districts teaching sex ed, do they teach such things as that love between an man and a woman is simply a beautiful thing, and that it will make the marriage stronger? Maybe such things are taught, but maybe they are considered taboo. I haven't been told and haven't sat in one of the classes to know.
Now, truth be told, isn't one of the reasons for chastity and morality simply that God says such things are right. He even makes it a commandment that we live chaste lives, and that is one of the reasons for remaining chaste.
Yes, it is not only one of the reasons, but probably the biggest reason. But we can't teach that? Can we teach the truth or is it to be taboo? We should be able to teach the whole of the matter, reasons and all.
Here's how we can do it, in a way that should make no one mad: Use the opt-out/opt-in approach. You know, the same one we already have in place for some of the things that are taught. Let the opt-out or in approach also be used here. Let the parents decide if their children will be in a track that teaches them that God commands them to be chaste, just the same as parents can dictate whether the child learns about contraceptives.
The opt-in/opt out idea is not the answer, though, to deciding everything that should be taught in Sex ed. What about teaching the youth what things are inappropriate things for adults to be doing to them, sexual abuses. Should we be teaching that it is wrong for adults to touch them in certain places? Should we be teaching them to recognize if they are being abused? If so, that would be one of the topics parents should not have an opt in or out choice.
And, parents should not have an opt in or out on teaching about communicable diseases. That is a danger they should be taught, period.
If you want the youth to steer clear of sex before marriage, you teach that. You teach abstinence. If you want them to want them to not have sex outside of marriage, you teach that, too.
Teaching morality should not be a crime. Thankfully, Utah's law sees this. It says instruction shall stress "the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage . . ."
I like that. I do wonder if they should knock out the next few words, ". . . as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases." Is steering clear of sexually transmitted diseases to be the only reason for staying moral? I'm hoping it is quite alright to teach morality for morality's sake. Yes, teach that communicable diseases can come from indiscriminate activity, but let rightness and morality -- and even righteousness -- be at least among the reasons for not having sex outside of marriage.
And, do teach the other reasons for being moral, like that it will make the marriage stronger if the partners do not have affairs. Teaching that they should not have sex outside of marriage is a good thing, but also teach that to even go out with another person, once you are married, it wrong.
Coaches teach their players what they want them to do. If we do not want our children to become people who have sex outside of marriage, we should teach that.
And, we should be allowed to teach that, free to teach it. It should not be illegal to teach children to be moral. If sex is to be taught, the perimeters of its use should be taught. If it is good to stay within those perimeters, why would we not teach that? If we want the youth to cherish marriage, and cherish chastity, why would we not teach that marriage and chastity are things to cherish?
Don't just teach what sex is. Teach when it is right and when it is wrong
Coaches cannot expect their players to become any better than what they teach them. Coaches coach, so let's coach them.
Our current system allows school districts to offer sex ed if the districts so choose to do so. I wonder, of the districts teaching sex ed, do they teach such things as that love between an man and a woman is simply a beautiful thing, and that it will make the marriage stronger? Maybe such things are taught, but maybe they are considered taboo. I haven't been told and haven't sat in one of the classes to know.
Now, truth be told, isn't one of the reasons for chastity and morality simply that God says such things are right. He even makes it a commandment that we live chaste lives, and that is one of the reasons for remaining chaste.
Yes, it is not only one of the reasons, but probably the biggest reason. But we can't teach that? Can we teach the truth or is it to be taboo? We should be able to teach the whole of the matter, reasons and all.
Here's how we can do it, in a way that should make no one mad: Use the opt-out/opt-in approach. You know, the same one we already have in place for some of the things that are taught. Let the opt-out or in approach also be used here. Let the parents decide if their children will be in a track that teaches them that God commands them to be chaste, just the same as parents can dictate whether the child learns about contraceptives.
The opt-in/opt out idea is not the answer, though, to deciding everything that should be taught in Sex ed. What about teaching the youth what things are inappropriate things for adults to be doing to them, sexual abuses. Should we be teaching that it is wrong for adults to touch them in certain places? Should we be teaching them to recognize if they are being abused? If so, that would be one of the topics parents should not have an opt in or out choice.
And, parents should not have an opt in or out on teaching about communicable diseases. That is a danger they should be taught, period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)