Considerettes

And another reason homeschooling looks better all the time (and why those folks in California need a re-hearing on that homeschooling case).

It’s an increasingly familiar scenario: An educator or coach, someone in a position of great trust, is accused of sexual misconduct with one or more students.

In Chicago, former Walter Payton College Prep basketball coach George Turner, 45, was charged recently with the criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of two 15-year-old female students.

While it’s "increasingly familiar", a study in 2004 makes one wonder how bad it must be now.

In 2004, Congress released the results of a report it had commissioned on teacher sexual misconduct. Compiled by Hofstra University Professor Charol Shakeshaft, it concluded that an estimated 4.5 million of 50 million students in American public schools "are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade."

It’s still a very underground sort of thing, as it mostly goes unreported.

"These cases tend to slip under the rug," said Terri Miller, president of the national organization Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation. "They let teachers quietly resign and move on."

That’s possible in part, she said, because state boards aren’t required to report incidents to the U.S. Department of Education.

"One of the big problems is that you’re in a situation where the acts by themselves are very private," said Chicago personal injury attorney Joe Klest, who has represented victims of sexual abuse by teachers and coaches.

"And even though they’re involving minors, and minors can’t legally consent, they are often groomed into consenting. So you’ve got two people — one saying it happened, one saying it didn’t — and there’s very rarely any extrinsic physical evidence."

I’ve covered this before, but it bears repeating.  What I’m waiting for is a public outcry like that which followed the same issue among Catholic priests.  The cynic in me wonders how much of this goes unreported so that the public school system doesn’t look bad, which would put privatization and homeschooling in a much better light.  The Teacher’s Union should be taking the point on this, but other than issuing statements tut-tutting each incident, not much changes. 

Technorati Tags: education, homeschooling, sexual abuse, George Turner, Charol Shakeshaft, Terri Miller, Stop Educator Sexual Abuse Misconduct and Exploitation,

Popularity: 13% [?]

From a press release from UN Watch.

To the sound of cheers, and by an overhwelming [sic] majority of 40 out of 47 votes, the UN Human Rights Council today elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the "Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," as an expert advisor representing the Western world. And for its new Palestine expert, the council chose Richard Falk, who, like Ziegler, accuses the U.S. of being responsible for many of the world’s ills and describes Israel in Nazi terminology.

Well, at least Ziegler is an award-winner, eh?  UN Watch comments in the press release:

"Even within the benighted UN Human Rights council, today was a dark day for human rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring agency. "The very credibility of the UN human rights system is now at stake."

No, sorry, this move won’t change any minds.  For those of us who already understand that the UN is irreparably broken, their reputation is long gone after watching this sort of nonsense for a very, very long time.  For UN apologists, however, nothing is too foolish or insane to change their minds.  For them it’s just a matter of "fixing it", which is typically just defined as rearranging the deck chairs while it sinks.

Technorati Tags: United Nations, human rights, Jean Ziegler, Richard Falk, Muammar Khaddafi, UN Watch

Popularity: 7% [?]

Trying again to deflect attention from the man behind the curtain, pulling lever and pressing buttons to make people believe he’s a wizard, Hugo Chavez continues the Blame Game.

Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chavez blamed the United States for violent protests in Tibet during the last two weeks that he said were aimed at trying to destabilize China.

In comments reported by his press office on Sunday, Chavez said the protests were an example of the U.S. "empire" "going against China" and trying to divide the Asian powerhouse.

Communist China has occupied Tibet, a Buddhist region previously ruled by monks, since a military invasion in 1950.

In other news, Chavez blames Bush for Vietnam, the Boxer Rebellion, and Adam and Eve’s disastrous choice of trees.  Honestly, protests about Tibet are nothing new, and there may just be a less paranoid explanation.

China has been widely criticized for a crackdown against the demonstrators ahead of August’s Olympic games to be held in Beijing.

Could those same Olympic games be the reason the monks thought this would be a good time to call attention to their situation?   Yes, but Chavez wasn’t done with the deflection.

Chavez is a relentless Washington critic who says he favors a multipolar world to balance U.S. dominance.

Yes, what the world needs now is another Evil Empire to balance things out.  Wonder if he’s bucking for that position.

He also refuses to recognize Kosovo as an independent republic, saying the new European state is a U.S. imposition.

"Look over there!  And look over there!  Just please, don’t look over here, where the food lines are getting longer."

Popularity: 8% [?]

During the debate some years ago over whether or not to continue to grant China "Most Favored Nation" trading status, the pro side of the argument included the idea that if we isolate China, their actions against Christians, and the religious in general, would get worse.  They could do it outside of the view of the world and would be unhindered by their watching eyes.  Keeping trade open would allow external influences to affect the culture.

I personally wasn’t convinced, but it was a reasonable argument.  So how’s it going there these days?

The violent protests in Tibet that began last week and have since spread across (and beyond) China are frequently depicted as a secessionist threat to Beijing. But the regime’s deeper problem in the current crisis is neither ethnic nor territorial. It’s religious.

If there’s a template for Beijing’s policy on religion, it’s the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." In 1995, the regime effectively kidnapped Gendun Choekyi Nyima, a 6-year-old boy named by the Dalai Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama, the second-highest ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism. In Nyima’s place, Beijing designated its own "official" Panchen Lama, the slightly younger Gyaltsen Norbu. Nyima’s whereabouts, assuming he’s alive, are unknown. More recently, a new set of "implementation regulations" on Tibetan religious affairs has come into force, drastically curtailing the freedom of monks and nuns to travel within China, and introducing political themes into the qualification exams required of religious initiates. Of the roughly 100 Tibetan political prisoners, fully three-quarters are monks or nuns.

Much the same goes with China’s Christians. The regime has substituted its own Catholic hierarchy — the Catholic Patriotic Association — for Rome’s since 1957, leading to endless friction between the Pope and the Communist Party. Similarly, Chinese Protestantism officially operates under the so-called "Three-Self Patriotic Movement" (the three "selfs" being self-governance, self-support and self-propagation), which in turn is regulated by the party. "The purpose of [the regime’s] nominal degree of sympathy for Christianity is to indoctrinate and mobilize for Communist Party objectives," says journalist David Aikman, author of the 2003 book "Jesus in Beijing." "I’ve often joked that the most leftist people in China are members of the Three-Self Church."

I’m not really seeing how the world’s eyes have done much to curb government abuses in China.  Not even the arrival of the Olympics there has helped.  In fact, it’s possible that it’s causing more oppression so that the government puts it best facade forward. 

But there is good news…

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 11% [?]

“Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” In Venezuela these days, that venerable saying could be morphed to, “Give Hugo a company, and he’ll take the industry.” Not content with RCTV, Chavez is gunning for one of the last independent voices in Venezuela.

President Hugo Chávez is trying to whip up public support to close down Globovision, the remaining Venezuelan television channel critical of his administration.

Chávez has called Globovision “an enemy of the Venezuelan people,” and fervent government supporters want the national tax office to investigate the station. Hundreds of them rallied outside of Globovision last month.

The threats against Globovision come less than a year after Chávez knocked RCTV, the country’s most popular television station, off the commercial airwaves. RCTV had broadcast unflattering news coverage of Chávez for years.

Alberto Ravell, a Globovision part owner who runs the 24-hour news channel, has come under personal attack.

“Ravell: Fascist, coup plotter, murderer, liar,” read signs held by Chávez supporters at one of the president’s speeches late last year.

One thought is that Chavez won’t really nail Globovision because, as Ravell notes, he needs the station as a foil; someone to blame and accuse. In fact, just accusing them of being an enemy of the people and reducing their credibility with rhetoric may be all he needs to do to marginalize them and effectively take them out of, or minimize their impact on, the equation.

Another thought is that Chavez is looking for a distraction from the (predictable) shortages that his utopia is failing to curb.

The tension between the news station and Chávez comes as the leftist president appears to have lost some of his popular support.

The pollster Datos, in a quarterly survey of 2,000 Venezuelans last month, found that some 34 percent said they support Chávez’s government, down from a high of 67 percent in early 2005, and the lowest level since 2003, the Associated Press reported.

Another survey, by Venezuelan pollster Alfredo Keller, found that 37 percent of Venezuelans queried identified themselves as Chávez supporters in February, down from 50 percent in mid-2007, AP reported.

I honestly hope that the Venezuelan people are turning against Chavez for something other than just not enough “free” amenities from this socialist experiment. Hopefully, this dose of authoritarianism, along with Chavez’s penchant to blame everything else but his economic policies, will help the people to see what a mistake they made.

But one of the most dangerous things in the world is an authoritarian who feels like he’s losing his authority. I am concerned for them.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Shire Network News #122 has been released. The feature interview is with British Member of Parliament for Wells, David Heathcote-Amery. He is talking to Tom Paine about the precarious state of democracy in Europe with a new European constitution (in all but name) being rammed down the throats of an unwilling populace. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This".

Senator Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia this past week on race issues. The speech was precipitated by connections being drawn between Obama and his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  This "religious Wright" has put the Left into a bit of quandary.  "How do we ignore or minimize this sort of speech, while still reserving the right to castigate the Right for the same thing?"

Take Pat Robertson.  Yeah, yeah, I know some of you want to say "Please!" (ba-da-dum), but hear me out.  The same folks who are telling us about Rev. Wright that we gotta’ understand his point of view, or understand his background, or consider the history of blacks in this country, never ever give the same consideration when Robertson says something inflammatory or just simply silly.  And when he does say something outrageous, here comes the Left with their size 82 paintbrush and their #10 can of tar, standing outside every church ready to paint all those church-goers with the same stuff.  >slop<  "Wingnut!"  >sploosh< "Extremist!" 

Now, frankly, we do need to take history into consideration when working cross-culturally.  Heck, even intra-culturally; not all people of pallor come from exactly the same background.  But there are a few points to consider.  First of all, is handwaving away or minimizing the best way to combat lies or conspiracy theories?  (I don’t think so.)  Sounds to me like the Left is more concerned with hurt feelings than, y’know, lies.  The press has clearly signaled that they’d just like this whole thing to go away.  "Nothing to see here, move along.  Oh look, McCain make a speaking gaffe!"

And maybe this would all be less of a deal if my second point wasn’t that these words were coming from a pulpit.  Most of Robertson’s statements that actually get press come on a TV show where he’s covering the news, not preaching.  Wright’s comments come directly from his role as a pastor.  I see this as more egregious in this context than normal political speech on the street.  And yet those paintbrushes come out from those on the Left >splosh< and they decorate us when a guy who’s not our pastor, priest or rabbi goes out on a limb. 

My third point is probably the most controversial, so let me be as plain as I can and lay this out.  When a man of one race says something controversial, he’s called out on it, loud and clear.  When a man of a different race says something controversial, all manner of considerations are made for him; from the history of how his race was treated — true as it may be — to the understanding of why he might hold such ideas to the fact that others’ views are worse.  What would you call that double standard?

In this country, the Right will call out nuttiness where it finds it, even in its own camp.  The Left won’t.  Which side sounds like it’s more ready for racial equality?  Consider that.

Popularity: 8% [?]

The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has, as it’s quick mission statement:

The Mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.

Among their web site’s many features is the Acton PowerBlog, and a podcast of the various lectures and radio appearances of Acton staff as well as their recently-started "Radio Free Acton" with a bit more production value (hosted by an old blogging friend of mine, Marc VanderMaas). 

Recently in the podcast stream was a talk by Acton President Rev. Robert Sirico entitled "The Rise (And Eventual Downfall) of the New Religious Left".  It is a 35 minute speech in which Rev. Sirico covers the fallacies of the Religious Left by noting history, scripture, and church writings.  He particularly notes the Left’s penchant for increasing the power of government (which history shows never ends well) in the name of caring, when the role of the church in society is to change hearts and allow human society to come naturally along. 

I’d like to suggest this quick listen those, both on the right and the left, who would like to hear a well-reasoned examination of the role of government in Christian charity.  (The page linked above has an embedded audio player.)

Popularity: 9% [?]

Tom, a contributor to Stones Cry Out, a group blog I run, said recently, "These are tough times to be a Democrat."  A commenter, noting that line, replied, "It still appears that McCain can’t even beat Clinton - with her huge negative ratings - much less Obama."

If you put your stock in opinion polls, McCain’s looking better all the time.

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.

Now, as I’ve said, I’m not a big fan of opinion polls.  They tend to judge emotion moreso that anything else, as I think this one does.  Nonetheless, I think Tom’s point stands, especially when you consider, as he did, the primary season debacle.

So now Democrats find themselves in a thoroughly uncomfortable position. Their nominee will ultimately be selected by the party’s elite, unelected delegates rather than by the millions of voters who turned out in during the primary season. Depending on which way they go, they run the risk of alienating a huge portion of their base. They could potentially disenfranchise millions of voters (particularly if they cannot resolve the Michigan/Florida problem). It’s rather ironic that the same party that since 2000 has routine accused Republicans of disenfranchising voters may do the same to their own base. How they solve these issues in selecting their nominee could mean the difference between a huge victory in November and utter self-destruction.

It ain’t over ’til it’s over, right Yogi?

Technorati Tags: politics, Democrats, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, presidential primary, disenfranchisement

Popularity: 8% [?]

Senator Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia yesterday on race issues. The speech was precipitated by connections being drawn between Obama and his black liberation theology pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Many people have been turning to the Internet to view statements by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who suggested in one sermon that the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself and in another said blacks should damn America for continuing to mistreat them.

Obama rejected Wright’s divisive statements but still embraced the man who brought him to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and inspired the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope."

Not disown, perhaps, but much of that association has been scrubbed from Obama’s website and elsewhere on the Internet. And that’s begging the question; are Rev. Wright’s view extreme for black liberation theology? See here for Mark Olsen’s look into this. If they are extreme, what does it say about the candidate who supports that church by his attendance and, likely, his money? If they aren’t extreme, what does it say about the theology, in addition to the candidate?  [UPDATE: James Taranto reports that they may be more mainstream than some would like to think.]

So then, are a candidate’s pastor’s views fair game for consideration on the campaign trail? Before you answer, consider how the occasional words of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell have been used to paint evangelical Christians with a broad brush, both in the media and in the blogs. But Falwell wasn’t, and Robertson isn’t, the pastor of the vast majority of those people for whom the Left likes to suggest they speak for. Obama, on the other hand, attends by personal choice. If the Left wants to make Robertson the spokesman for millions who may have not heard him speak, doesn’t that standard then apply to someone with a 20-year, close association with a presidential candidate?

Or is there one standard for the Religious Right, and another for the Religious Wright?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, race issues, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Religious Right, Christianity

Popularity: 8% [?]

Shire Network News #121 has been released. The feature interview is a continuation of the discussion from last week with retired Green Beret Lt Col Gordon Cucullu, who is worried about the increasing cultural gap between western military forces and the civillian population.  This week’s show comes to you, not from London, and not even from our emergency backup studio in Australia. No, Shire Network News this week is hosted by Meryl Yourish in Richmond VA!  Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

I did not have a commentary this week.

Popularity: 8% [?]

He was captured at 16 years of age and forced to be a slave in a foreign country.  He was a herdsman for 6 years until he believed God told him to escape, which he did, back to England.  A few years later, he had a vision of someone from that foreign country asking him to return to spread the Gospel of Christ, which he did.

As you wear your green today, spare a thought for the country of Ireland, the country to which Saint Patrick was taken, and back to which he went to lead them to Christ.  St. Patrick’s Day isn’t about shamrocks and green beer any more than Christmas is about reindeer and Christmas trees.

Technorati Tags: Saint Patrick, Ireland, St. Patrick’s Day

Popularity: 5% [?]

Shire Network News #120 has been released.

This week’s feature interview is with former Green Beret Lt Col Gordon Cucullu, who says there’s a growing cultural rift between the US military and civilian society, which is endangering preparedness to face unexpected challenges, such as the Venezuela/Colombia War of 2008.

What’s that? You hadn’t heard about that potential regional conflict which might drag the US in? Precisely the Colonel’s point.

Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

Barack Obama is campaigning to be the nominee from the Democratic Party for President of the United States.  A video was released on YouTube in which he enumerates the defense policies he would like to enact should he be elected President.  In the interest of the public service, I will be translating what he says into practical terms, so that all those listening can truly understand what he is saying and can make an informed decision, should he be on the ballot.  Here, then, is Senator Barack Obama.

I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning, and as President I will end it. 

Translation: I’m the only major candidate who thought that liberating Iraqis, and cutting off the flow of funds to terrorists from Saddam Hussein, was a waste of time.  Shooting at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones was no big deal.  As President, I vow to remove all troops from Iraq, where the enemy is, but keep them in countries in Europe where the enemy isn’t.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending. 

Translation: I will sound vaguely conservative.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.  I will not weaponize space.  I will slow our development of future combat systems.

I will be fiscally "responsible" by shirking my duty to defend the country from new threats and new technology. 

And I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used justify unnecessary spending.

I will create a new committee to make sure that the other committee’s report isn’t used to stay ahead of the bad guys.  If we drop our weapons, it stands to reason that they will drop theirs.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. 

See previous translation.

To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material,…

Which, I am sure, Iran, North Korea and China will be more than happy to join me in.  I trust them implicitly.  Oh, and al Qaeda.  I will endeavor to bring my Swiss Army Knife to all gun battles.

…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.

I trust Vladimir Putin, and his hand-picked successor, implicitly.  Thank you, and sleep tight.

This has been a public service by Shire Network News, and the McCain for President committee.  OK, McCain doesn’t know we’re doing this, but tell me with a straight face that he wouldn’t like it.  Consider that.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu, military, Barack Obama, defense spending

Popularity: 11% [?]

Scott Ott, writer at the fantastically funny Scrappleface, also has a more serious blog at the Townhall website.  Today’s entry is a sobering look at the situation with Eliot Spitzer and the prostitute.  The money quote: "The difference between me and Eliot Spitzer is largely this: I have never been elected governor of New York."

Please read the whole thing before you, Republican or Democrat, pass judgement.

Technorati Tags: Eliot Spitzer, Scott Ott, politics

Popularity: 8% [?]

When Maureen Dowd finally sees the problems brought on by identity politics, and calls it like it is, you can just see the chickens coming home to roost. However, in the entire article, there’s something missing. We’ll get to that, but first…

Dowd lays it on the line as to the choice that Democrats have to make.

With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.

People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?

As it turns out, making history is actually a way of being imprisoned by history. It’s all about the past. Will America’s racial past be expunged or America’s sexist past be expunged?

My question to this is; in spite of all the common cause the Democrats have made with Martin Luther King, whatever happened to “the content of their character”? Or their policies, given that this is the highest office in the land? Instead, Democrats are fixated on race and gender.

Oh, and age, too.

But Hillary — carried on the padded shoulders of the older women in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island who loved her “I Will Survive” rallying cry that “I am a little older and I have earned every wrinkle on my face” — has been saved to fight another day.

And so we wind up with the very thing Democrats accuse Republicans of doing; voting (or not voting) for someone based on their gender or race or age or some other external characteristic rather than their positions. This leaves Democrats in the unenviable position,and one of their own making, of seeming racist or sexist even if their true motives have nothing to do with either.

Welcome to our world, folks, where Republicans get accused by the Democrats, the media and the blogs of being racists and bigots regardless of how we explain our positions and our votes. Stinks, doesn’t it? So here’s what I see as missing from the article; can we possibly hope that this will be the end of identity politics?

I’m not so sure. Dowd’s article, while noting the disaster awaiting Democrats…

Just as Michelle Obama urged blacks to support her husband, many shoulder-pad feminists are growing more fierce in charging that women who let Obama leapfrog over Hillary are traitors.

Julie Acevedo, a precinct captain for Obama in Austin, noticed that things were getting uglier on Friday, during the early voting, when she “saw some very angry women just stomping by us to go vote for Hillary. They cut us off when we tried to talk about Barack.

…doesn’t really seem to renounce it. The sooner Democrats get rid of it, the sooner Spelman students will be able to make an informed decision as to whom to vote for.

Technorati Tags: Maureen Down, New York Times, Democrats, identity politics

Popularity: 5% [?]

Where were you fellas for the past 2 years?

Former US president Jimmy Carter and former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan wish to arrive in Israel in the coming months in order to help negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Army Radio reported.

(Hat tip: Meryl Yourish, where she lists a number of other new stories worth your time.)

Kinda’ gives you a peek into their heads.  A ceasefire is to get combatants to stop firing.  But apparently hundreds of Qassam rockets aren’t considered "firing" to these guys.  Or, more likely, it’s only "firing" if Israel is doing it.

And this is revealing as well.

According to the report, Israel is opposed to the initiative, but officials said that Jerusalem would be well advised to try and channel the visit into a positive track so as not to damage the country’s image in the media.

Don’t know who these officials might be, but it’s interesting to note that Carter and Annan are just shills, knowingly or not, for the Hamas PR machine.  Are these the kinds of naive negotiators we need in the Middle East?  (Hint: No.)

I know I’ve been on this kick the past few days, but this sort of foolishness and outright bias doesn’t seem to get enough notice generally.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, Jimmy Carter Kofi Annan, Middle East

Popularity: 8% [?]