One of the hazards

One of the hazards of the job, when you're a paper carrier, is the police. You see, I have to be up and on the job by 2am. Yea, that is early, but normally I'm done by 3am, so it kind of balances out. The problem is the hour in between. From 2 to 3 am I have about 1200 papers to load into the car, drive around town, and deliver to various driveways, alleys, businesses and so forth. The Police know that we are out here, but our actions at any given moment in time are very much like the actions of, well, more suspicious looking characters. In the several years that I have been doing this, I have learned to expect a visit from the police about once every six months. This morning it must have been my turn as I was pulled over (for the third time) for failure to signal a turn. Funny... but 1) I have yet to be ticketed for this egregious offence, 2) I have -never- heard of anyone being pulled over in daylight hours solely for this, although, in times of heavy traffic I have seen situations where I thought someone should be, and 3) at 2:30 am in this small town, you can see for a mile in every direction and not see one single other car anywhere on the road. So just who needed to be signaled too anyway?

^-^ The wise

(*v*) Ol' Owl

() ()

--"---"---- Dan Willey

Domestic Unions

How is it, that our Government can pass a law that mandates the use of seat belts? Here in Idaho we also have a law that mandates the use of helmets when riding a motorcycle. Now in both cases, I want to know who gets hurt if a helmet is forgotten or the seat belt is not worn? The answer is -no one-! Not a soul. Now if I were to be involved in an accident -and- I had neglected the safety gear, then the one to get hurt (more) would be me. So if the only real danger in NOT wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet is to my own person, how is this bad for everyone else. Why should it concern them? How is it not a violation of my human rights to choose whether or not to use them. Why is it, that everyone thinks this is such a good idea, that an officer can pull me to the curb and have me fined for not wearing them? I hope you get the idea here. Not wearing a seat belt or helmet puts me at more of a risk in an accident. But the Government does not trust me to do the right thing, so they take away my freedom of choice in order to enforce a rule that is -mostly- aimed at saving me from my own foolishness. When it is just seat belts, no one complains. ... But doesn't this principle apply in other areas of life as well? Couldn't we use it as a base for comparison where domestic unions are concerned? Consider this: If it can be shown that the BEST domestic union is one man, one women, married for life, no divorce, no extra-marital affairs, and that this union produces better kids for the next generation. Children, having had a more stable home life, tend to grow up into more mature and responsible adults. This means healthier happier people, neighborhoods, and cities. So if the government can mandate the use of safety equipment to keep us from harming ourselves, why can't they mandate the conditions of marriage to prevent us from the same thing, and (hopefully) from harming the children as well?

The Trouble with Tribbles

Recently a new computer system brought about a cascade of change. I had had my desk and computer downstairs in our unfinished basement. It is a quite and roomy place for me to do my studies. Soon the junk that piles up, over took my desk and I was unable to concentrate on studies there. So, I bought a cabinet, turned it into a computer desk and put it upstairs, where I could study, and if I left a mess on my desk, I could just close the doors and it would all disappear! :-) Then came the new computer. I rebuilt the system I had on my desk downstairs, and the wife wanted it put in the new desk. It fit in the cabinet perfectly! This had the unintended effect of displaceing all my school books however. So I was banished to the basement once more. This is when I discovered the true meaning of the old Star Trek episode, "The Trouble with Tribbles". I had moved out of the basement because the junk had started to crowd my desk. By the time I got back down there, the junk had piled up on it, around it, and was twice as thick everywhere else. Not even the wide path to my desk was visible any more. Just getting to my desk was something like running the gauntlet! Could the concept of lovable, furry, innocent tribbles have been inspired by junk? You know the kind... it is the fodder of every garage sale. It is the life blood of every U-Store-It. It is the reason no American can actualy park thier car in the space built for the car to be parked in. Tribbe like junk, the stuff that is not good enough to be used, yet somehow too good to be thrown away or given to someone else. These days I am overly blessed with tribble like junk! I clean out my shop, carting off a thousand pounds of the stuff, and before I can return home, some new collection has turned up to occupy the space. I clean out the basement and before long a whole new generatoin of tribbles has grown up in the place. It seams like these days that I am either filling up the trailer for a trip to the dump, or planing my next trip. Which only leaves me with one question... Could the rapid proliferation of junk be caused by our frequent visits to WalMart? Or is that why we always have four cans full of garbage when the trashman comes around each week? Either way... all this business of sorting through piles of junk to pick out the things that need to be saved from the things that needs to be tossed out has serious put me behind in my homework. At least I did manage to clear a path to the desk, and clear it off. I am still looking at numerious piles of odds and ends that I cast suspicious looks at often. One false move, one sign that it is multiplying before my eyes and it is all going to go to the trash! As soon as I can get around to it, that is. Spring Break might afford me an opportunity. :-)

Bien Venidos!

Deep Toughts Some of my familey lives in Spain. I married a girl from there, see. So perchance they should find me here.. Bein Venidos cededa famila! Estamos alegre que te ha encontrado esta blog! Porfavor, click "post" & escribes una nota... :-) My spanish needs help! Dan.

On School Vouchers

America needs better schools. The reality of the world today, is that our children will not be competing with each other in the job market as much as they will be competing with the people of foreign nations. The goal of our education system today has to be to prepare our youth for the global economy that is indeed already here. On the global scale however, American schools are only mediocre. The National Center for Educational Statistics, ranks American students about 18th among 38 participating Nations in the “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS). Most oriental countries like Japan achieve far superior results, but spend a fraction of the money that we do on education. Our public education system is built upon the model of a government bureaucracy, which is an inefficient system. The “No child left behind” act is nothing more than a band-aid on this fundamentally flawed system. No act which merely addresses the schools policy without changing its structure is going to bring about the needed change. The real problems lay much deeper than a mere policy change can effect. A school voucher program will address these problems and more. It is simple and eloquent. The idea is as simple as giving parents a freedom of choice in education. Allow parents to enroll their children in any school, public or private. Provide these parents with a voucher to cover a set amount of the tuition costs. Our government collects taxes for the purpose of education and everyone pays these taxes. Everyone is entitled to the education, but these funds currently available only to government run schools. Vouchers would bring free market forces to the government monopoly of education. Parents could then determine which school would cater best to their children’s needs and would be free to enroll their children in those schools. As a result, schools will compete for students. Schools systems will be compelled to work smarter and with a leaner budget. The up shot is some tax relief for all of us while education becomes more globally competitive. This is a win, win situation of the best kind! The truth is that vouchers provide more than just a better education. A Vouchers for Education Tuition program will make it possible for more kids to attend private schools. Clearly the proponents of vouchers are salivating at the chance to supplement their religious affiliated schools with monies from the public treasury. Well, you might think so. The truth is that they are not. Government funds tend to come with government regulations and piles of paperwork! Two things these private institutions are happy to be without! At the same time the opposition is crying foul, separation of church and state, and screaming that public education will suffer even more from the loss of funding. The battle is over billions of dollars. More importantly, the battle is being fought over who educates our children. The answer to that question determines the fundamental values of this nation. The hand that rocks the cradle, rocks the world, so the teachers of today, will influence the beliefs, values and morality of our nation tomorrow. So what about the Separation of Church and state? Isn’t it illegal for the government to send money to a religious school? Short answer, No. At least three states have already passed school voucher programs. College students may receive federally funded student grants and loans even if they are attending a religious school. Both the Prison system and the Military have government paid chaplains. If that isn’t enough proof for you, consider that Public Libraries are not prohibited from purchasing religious books. To ban this practice would be censorship! The Milwaukee Voucher Program has already been dragged into the Supreme Court, but they tossed it out. They would not even hear it. So the argument that it violates the “Separation of Church and State” is clearly untrue. In the public schools, religious teaching has become such a taboo that even the holidays can not be properly observed. Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter all have a specific meaning which is not eating turkey, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. I spent four years working in an elementary school. One day a student came to me, convinced that the word “God” was a bad word, and reported that another student had used the “G” word. His teacher had taught that the “G” word was a bad word. Now a lot of good people are happy with that, and want to keep it that way. With a voucher system, they are free to use the public schools the way they are. No one is taking that away from them. Not everyone is happy with this, however. As the left is wont to say, “Don’t impose your religion on me,” so we say to them. I firmly believe that the public schools have a religion. A religion is a system of beliefs. Schools have a system of beliefs, and they teach from that system of beliefs. They found a faith that has no preachers, prayers or pulpits. This faith has a manifesto. It has a name. It is called “Humanism” and public education is founded upon the same planks of human reason, and human achievement as Humanism. This has become the States Religion. To force people to support Humanism through taxation is a violation of church and state in the truest since, and runs contrary to the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and our parental rights. The Religious Humanist Manifesto is easily researched. Allow me a moment to compare and contrast Humanism with Christianity. The Religious Humanists; “regard the universe as self-existing and not created… that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process… asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values… considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.” These attitudes, extracted from the Humanist manifesto, are the very attitudes found in our Public Schools today. Christian teachings assert that God created the Heavens and the Earth… that man was created by God in the image of God… that faith, hope and love are powerful values that can change the material world… and that there is a life eternal, which will be realized in Heaven (the here-after) by those who are redeemed and have learned to live in righteousness. Both share the goal of bettering mankind, but they have very different ideas on how to do so. Humanism rejects any existence if God, while all traditional religions, not just Christianity, start with the acceptance of a God. Why would anyone purposefully want to teach children something different than the religious tradition upheld by their parents? Does that make any since at all? It does if you are a Socialist. French economist, statesman and author, Frederic Bastiat distributed a pamphlet in 1850 entitled “The Law” in which he explains, “If you [the legislator] desire to prevent these opinions and customs (understand religious customs) from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children.” This is how you change the core beliefs of a nation, not by working with adults, but by controlling the education of their children. The framers of our Constitution had some concept of this. It is why they wrote the very first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is no constitutional language which requires the much touted “Separation of Church and State”, nor did these men envision such a law. In fact, Thomas Jefferson clearly had a different idea of what the law was. As president, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercise, its discipline, or its doctrines, nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. (The Annals of America Volume 3. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1976. p.235).” President Jefferson clearly understood that the hands of government had been tied where matters of faith were concerned. This was an effort to prevent any particular faith from gaining the support of the government and becoming the official religion. Religious persecution with full support of the government had been the modus-operandi of the countries from which our fore fathers had fled. "To those who employ ignorant men to instruct their children, permit me to suggest one important idea: that it is better for youth to have no education than to have a bad one, for it is more difficult to eradicate habits than to impress new ideas," Noah Webster: (The Education of Youth in America. Revised edition of 1790) To the issue of who should teach the children, Webster said, "For these reasons children should keep the best of company that they might have before them the best manners, the best breeding, and the best conversation. Their minds should be kept untainted till their reasoning faculties have acquired strength and the good principles which may be planted in their minds have taken deep root. They will then be able to make a firm and probably a successful resistance against the attacks of secret corruption and brazen libertinism." (Libertinism: from the word Libertine: a freethinker esp. in religious matters, a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality) Noah Webster is the guy who wrote the first dictionary. In this passage he is clearly telling us that it would be better not to educate children with the wrong people, no education at all would be less harmful than an education from the immoral or secretly destructive. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports," George Washington: Farewell Address. (Printed in the American Daily Advertiser, 9 September 1796) to which he added, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on the minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." In the face of this assertion from the father of our nation, the current situation in public education concerning religious instruction is clearly backwards. I assert that to not allow these funds to go to private schools, on the grounds that they have a religious affiliation is a violation of religious freedom. Another objection is that vouchers would re-create an unfair, segregated school system. This point of view expects us assume that the public school system has formed a level and fair system. The truth is that affluent area schools receive better funding than inner city schools. To further complicate this reality is the fact that private schools generally out perform public schools, but only the more affluent families can afford to pay the taxes and the private school tuition. Vouchers would open up access to private schools for more people. This would level the playing field rather than upset it. Kids stuck in inner city schools could opt out and attend a private school of their choice. Giving more kids access to a private school education will allow every one a chance to get a better education. I think this is the rub for our public school system. They would be forced to compete or all their funds would be siphoned off into private schools. Just how big this issue is, is hard to guess at. Finding accurate spending records for our public schools is complicated due to the multi facetted funding they receive. Here in Idaho, our Department of Education has State Funding, Federal Funding and Lottery income. The Federal and State taxes alone ran about 1.2 billion dollars last year. These funds provided almost 250 thousand kids a years education. That means that Idahoans spend about 5000.oo dollars per year, per student in the public education system. Nampa Christian School, a local private school, only charges $3045 on average.