Day Trip to the Zoo

 

"Get away from the keyboard, go travel, visit some friends, see a movie, or go to the Zoo and be enthralled by the wonderful creatures of our world…" This line began a short piece on Positive Writer, a blog I follow.

Ironically, when asked what she wanted to do this weekend, my daughter said, "Go to the zoo." Her cousin was visiting so it seemed like a good way to entertain an 8 and 11 year old. We planned on getting there right at 9am (Chaffee Zoo in Fresno opens at 9), but my wife, being my wife, delayed departure until 10.  Apparently her make-up was not quite right and according to the girl she was having a tough time picking out an outfit from a whole closet full of clothes.

What is it about kids and a zoo? And by kids I mean ages 5 to 12 and then leapfrogging to 40+. Those exotic animals seem so....well, exotic. For the kids they are new, fascinating, ugly, weird, and a myriad of other adjectives. For the older crowd, the zoo ignites past memories and sparks a new interest. For most of those in the middle, the zoo just doesn't have the same magic.  My 15 and 19 year old sons would be complaining the whole time.

While the girls were chatter boxes at each exhibit, I actually found myself reading the description on the nice little placards nearby. The girls were amazed how big, small, fearsome, or cute an animal was. I noticed little details I never noticed before, especially...ugh!....age. I felt a kinship with the slow, aging, but still kicking elephant and Galapagos turtle. The girls were drawn in by appearances, but I noticed behavior--the restlessness of the Red Wolf, the towering presence of the giraffe, the gall of the Desert Addax lounging in the hot sun (while the rest of us were seeking shelter).

And then we saw something amazing. The Chaffee Zoo has undergone a lot of renovation (federal grant money being used in a good way). They added Sea Lion Cove. Unfortunately it was kind of a bummer. But we stopped at the Manta Ray petting pool. It was full of grey and black rays, many swimming right up to the edge for a human hand to caress its wing. Once the girls finally got the courage to do it, they couldn't stop.

 

I noticed a barrier at one end of the pool. Secluded there were the less friendly rays or pregnant rays (hmmm...those two characteristics might be related). That's when I saw it. It was hard to make out because of its pale color, but as it swam closer it became obvious. It was a baby ray. About the size of a Frisbee, the ray was eight weeks old. I watched for a few minutes. It swam around slowly and then would stop, settling to the bottom, becoming nearly invisible.

 

The little ray was something new. And maybe that's part of the magic that is the zoo. You never know what you might see.  Even with the one hundred degree heat, it was worth it.  So if you're feeling like you are stuck in a rut, go to the zoo.

Posted with Blogsy

Policy versus Philosophy

 

For the past year and a half I have been engaged in verbal combat with a high school buddy on Facebook. 90% of the time we disagree on politics and how to handle issues. This individual has a distinct dislike for the "thinkers" in the political and media world. He discounts ideology or any firm political philosophy and stays focused on policy, which makes sense since he is a take-action kind of guy (a former NFL defensive lineman with a couple Pro Bowl selections). His had a job that required active involvement, a game plan, producing tangible results on a regular basis. And I understand that much of America operates that way; however, to discount philosophy or ideas, a code to base one's political decisions on, opens up the door for pundits, polls, and disinformation to influence you and your power of the vote.

Even though political philosophy is really the issue here, the term code might be a better fit. Philosophy does not necessarily mean the basic criteria by which someone basis a decision, since philosophy is a general term that might focuses on the broad spectrum of possibilities. Every voter needs to decide what their code is. Far too many voters do so from an uninformed position. Some may have a simplistic code of always voting either Republican or Democrat. Others get more sophisticated, usually depending upon their knowledge of politics and current events. Having a political code to base your decisions, your vote on, is important for a number of reasons.

One, like religion or other belief systems, a political code becomes a compass to guide a citizen through their political life. In California (and most states), on Election Day there may be a dozen different offices you are voting for with sixty or more total names on the ballot along with a half dozen to a dozen propositions. Too much for the average voter to research and learn about, especially when bombarded by simplistic radio, television, and mail ads. With a little research and a code, that person can make an informed choice, bypassing all the campaigning stuff. For example, a proposition on the ballot calls for a an increase in sales tax. Your code guides you: if you are opposed to taxes (especially regressive ones) then you vote no, if government services funded by sales taxes is important to you then it's a yes. So a political code helps guide you through the most basic civil responsibility--voting. And you don't have to say you voted a certain way because your best friend said to.

Two, a political code can be an embarrassment saving tool. Granted, discussing politics has become less and less prevalent but if asked why you voted a certain way on an issue or for an office, a code gives you some basic rationale for that decision. Of course, based on the person and to what extent they dug deep and really have solidified a code, the justification may be simplistic. "I voted for her because she is in favor of measures to protect the environment like promoting public transportation and renewable energy." That sounds a whole lot better than, "Well, my neighbor said she's a good person," or "She seems smart." How many people voted for Barack Obama because he was a new face, but could offer no compelling reason why he would be a good President?

Three, every good political code should have an element of prudence to it. Until about three years ago, I believed one's political code was the word of God, and being conservative, to stray from the code was blasphemy. That's exactly what the pundits on both sides of the aisle want you to believe, but prudent policy is key to good government. I read about Edmund Burke and his influence on conservatism. Burke argued that prudence was a conservative ideal (thus part of the code) because it emphasized policy that best served the interests of the majority. For progressives this should be part of their code too. Prudence requires what is most often needed in our government and that is compromise. Compromising on policy is not always compromising on principles. For example, everyone agrees today that immigration reform is needed but a majority of conservatives will vote for no bill that does not secure the border effectively and securely in the near future, because that is part of their code. It would be prudent for progressives to compromise on that issue, so the other items in the proposed law they like they will get. In turn, it would be prudent for conservatives to embrace some type of path to citizenship plan for the 12 million here illegally.

Finally, good policy is based on a good code. Policy based simply upon the whim of public opinion or the pipe dreams of whoever holds office is rarely good policy. Good policy stems from bills that are critically read by our representatives and filtered through the sieve of the code. Once that is done then the two sides hammer out the differences. While there are times that demand immediate, sometimes less thought out action--World War Two, 9/11, etc.--such policy in the long run may be detrimental to our democracy. Few would argue the Patriot Act was not needed after the terrorist attacks in 2001 but that law may not be good policy in the long run. President Roosevelt's decision to intern 110,000 Japanese Americans is now recognized as bad policy.

Politics is a beast. Policy is the leash that controls the beast but philosophy or the political code is the hand that holds the leash. There's rarely ever a perfect answer but having a code to ground yourself in is comforting.

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Poor Man's Newspapers

The printing press may be one of the most neglected but vital inventions in history. Although first developed in China, the perfection of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1450 transformed western civilization. From the bible, to books, and newspapers, the printing press was in many was the Renaissance Age's version of the Internet. While newspapers tended to appeal to those with money and good reading skills, another common publication that was free and available to the poor was the broadside.

The best equivalent to the broadside can be found on college campuses. Walk the "quad" area of any public university and there's stuff posted everywhere. Most of them are advertisements for meetings, roommates wanted, used book sales, and upcoming courses, but a few are informative manifestos, political platforms, or backgrounders on various current issues. These college postings are much like colonial era broadsides. Some were advertisements but many were newsworthy pieces covering events of the day. Physically, the broadside was an oversized sheet of newsprint that focused on a single topic or was a reproduction of a government proclamation. The most famous broadsides were those that informed America about the Declaration of Independence.

(The famous Dunlap broadside of the DOI.)

These broadsides were posted in public places, and many towns and cities had special areas for that purpose. They were early versions of a university's "free speech area." Even small villages had an inn or tavern where the public congregated to read the latest broadsides posted outside the establishment. Even those who could not read demanded others read it to them. The civic dialogue did not stop there. People would discuss the latest news and events over a pint or two. Unlike today, a majority of the population saw it as a responsibility and duty to be informed and engaged in the democratic process.

Broadsides had a long lifespan. Appearing in the early 1600s, these posted announcements were the source of news for many until they began to fade away in the late 1800s. By then the affordability of newspapers, increase in literacy rates, and rise in worker wages ended the need for the broadside. They did not fade away though. The rise of the modern advertising industry resurrected the broadside as a means of communication, often promoting questionable products. But the glamour years of the broadside were over.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Do We Give A Shit Anymore?

The lack of civic awareness in the United States is pathetic.  More young voters know that the Kardashian/West baby is named North than know what the IRS/NSA/Benghazi events/scandals are about.  Most high school graduates have little knowledge of the Constitution or the founding principles of the country.  They have no idea how local and state governments work or the relationship between those levels of government and the feds.  Too many Americans vote with their heart (or ass) and not their brain.

Now good reader, you may be prompted to think this is another conservative rant, but is it.  Doesn't what was just said hold true for both sides?  If not, it should.  An active and involved, need I say vibrant, "civic body politik" (that's from the Mayflower Compact) must exist in a democratic republic like ours.  Today it does not.

But did it ever?  I say yes.  Granted, not every citizen or voter has been engaged in politics, but from the settling of Jamestown and Plymouth it was believed to be a responsibility to be engaged in the political process--to make one's views known and if you had the vote to use it wisely from an informed position.  Americans knew what life under tyranny was like, that's one of the reasons many fled to the east coast of North America.  People read newspapers, and if they could not afford them, they read the numerous "broadsides" posted on public buildings to be informed and aware (more on the history of the broadside tomorrow).  This trend held true through the 1700s and 1800s.

The Twentieth Century saw the decline in civic awareness.  I'm not even talking about civic participation, just the mere awareness of what was going on in their community, state, nation, and world.  It was a gradual death, aided by the marginalizing of basic factual recall in education.  The "student-centered curriculum" (more on that this week too) replaced the traditional, classical method.  No longer was there a compelling need to know the basic concepts in the founding documents--you could just look it up.  Not many teens will just look it up if they haven't been taught it.  Civic education may have suffered the most from the reforms begun by John Dewey.  School was about knowledge construction and learning a good trade, not about natural rights or the theory of radical republicanism.

So today we are paying for it.  A generation of people, most of whom are under forty, who don't have the background knowledge to understand what's going on in politics and current events, tune out because they feel no responsibility to be informed or to use their vote wisely, and are influenced by ideas of relativism and apathy never before seen in our history.  Change can occur but it has to be a rebirth of an educational system that teaches what being an American, regardless of your ethnicity, is all about.

Religion and Reform

During the 1830s and 1840s America went through an age of reform. Politically and economically the young United States was stable and growing. The War of 1812 finally settled the political issues between Great Britain and the US, and the government was balancing their budget more often than not. People began to look to carrying out the ideals found in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This history of reform is largely inherited today by the progressive/liberal segment of the political spectrum who tend to be atheist or agnostic. They would be surprised and some might be disturbed by the fact that they have taken over what was a predominantly religious tradition.

Some of the social issues that were addressed by various reform groups in antebellum America include: alcoholism/temperance, education, prisons, treatment of the mentally ill, women's rights, and abolitionism (the ending of slavery). The only one of the six that is, in some respects, an exception is education. Although Horace Mann, the most significant educator of the age, was Unitarian and believed basic Christian values should be taught, he also stressed that education should be nonsectarian. Curriculum materials from the early 1800s to the early 1900s also had a strong Christian influence. The infamous McGuffey Readers are excellent examples. William McGuffey had a minister father and was an active member of his congregation and this is reflected in his works.

Alcoholism was a significant social and economic problem in the 1800s. Few laws existed protecting women and children from violent alcoholics. The number of lost work hours was staggering and proportionally higher than today. The American Temperance Society was the largest of many groups and its leadership and membership used Christian principles as their justification for regulating alcohol. The Women's Christian Temperance Union obviously did not hide its religiosity. Granted, religion played a large role in society and most Americans were Christian but modern progressives would be shocked at this violation of secularism.

The treatment of prisoners and the mentally ill was also addressed in religious terms. Reformers used the words of Jesus to justify more humane treatment of both groups. In prisons, they demanded better housing, food, and opportunities for exercise. Segregating non-violent, white-collar criminals from the armed robbers and murderers was also one of the movement's goals. Dorothea Dix was the most famous of these reformers. Dix's Christian values fueled her passion. She testified before various legislatures on behalf of the mentally ill, calling for better treatment and special facilities deigned to study their issues and provide remedies.

Finally, women's rights and abolitionism are intertwined movements. Early on leaders saw he plight of women synonymous to the struggles of slaves. Frederick Douglass spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 on the issue of freedom and equality. Leaders of both movements shared names--Beecher, Garrison, Stanton, and Mott. Names with their roots in America's religious tradition. Like the other reform movements, religious arguments were put forth to justify women voting, owning property, and starting businesses. Of course, the plight of African slaves is directly connected to the enslavement of Jews by the Pharaoh and their eventual liberation led by Moses (what was Harriet Tubman's nickname).

This brief look at the role of religion in American and especially progressive reform movements is not meant to demean the more secular-minded liberals today and their attempts at social engineering and government supported reform. It is offered as a reminder that: one, religion is part of our historical fabric; two, Christianity offers very positive ethical values and has been at the forefront of social reform (YMCA-Young Men's Christian Association); and three, secularists are doing themselves and history to discount these contributions.

Posted with Blogsy

The Man Who May Have Tamed The West

Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett, and even Judge Roy Bean all had roles to play in America's expansion West. These famous lawmen brought a sense of justice to territories that were in states of chaos. But did they really "tame" the West? These lawmen provided the material for exciting stories, factual and otherwise, but in terms of taking control of their environment, for the average settler a man named Joseph Glidden may be the one that most deserves the title "The Man That Tamed The West."

Joseph Glidden looks like a Gilded Age millionaire in the image above, but he did not start out that way. A former teacher, widower, and recent migrant to Illinois, Glidden tried to rebuild his life by remarrying, farming and starting a family. He always dreamed, like so many Americans, of making it "big." Farming was not his pot of gold but something he invented for farmers was--barbed wire.

It's not clear exactly when Glidden figured out that a sort piece of sharp pointed wire could be wrapped around a longer piece at intervals along its length and then held in place by another long wire twisted around the whole strain. But his "barbed wire fencing" was officially patented in 1874. Although Glidden's invention was used everywhere, it had a profound effect upon settlement west of the Mississippi River.

While settlers faced numerous challenges in civilizing the Great Plains, one of the key ones was a lack of wood for fencing. Farmers needed to keep grazing livestock out of their fields to maximize crop yields, and this was tough to do without a supply of lumber. Barbed wire allowed livestock proof fences to be built with lumber only being needed as fence posts. While it's no fun getting caught up and pricked by modern barbed wire (I have snagged and destroyed a few pair of pants and have the leg abrasions to prove it) the original Glidden wire had long barbs that could penetrate deeply into the body of an unfortunate cow. Cattlemen started losing significant numbers from their herd. So barbed wire was an unintended but contributing factor to the famous "range wars."

Regardless of its role in these conflicts between farmers and grazers, Glidden's invention became an important and affordable tool for farmers. Glidden started a company after the patent was issued and in a few years he was a rich man. He became richer when he sold his patent for $60,000 and royalties. He invested his profits wisely and by the time of his death in 1906 owned 250,000 acres in Texas, a hotel, a bank, and a newspaper. So in the long run he became a rich Gilded Age entrepreneur. Like Andrew Carnegie, Glidden was a philanthropist donating money to various causes including donating 63 acres to build a school in Illinois which is today Northern Illinois University.

The story does not end. Eight years after his death World War One began. Soon the war bogged down into a four year stalemate and became a war of trench systems. Barbed wire proved to be an excellent weapon in slowing attacks on both sides, allowing the killing power of the machine gun and artillery to be brought to bear. Barbed wire was resilient against pre-attack bombardments and was highly desired. Like so many inventions during peacetime, Glidden's barbed wire was adapted to a war situation with very deadly results.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Bear Flag Revolt

Scene: Normal day in Mr. Duvall's US History class.

Mr. D: (above image is displayed for all students to see). What is this?

Jimmy: That's the flag Mr. D!

Mr. D: Whose flag, Jimmy?

Jimmy: The great State of Cali, of course.

Mr. D: Good. But what's kinda weird about this flag?

(Class grows silent. Some just tuned out; some thinking about it; some knowing the answer but afraid of risk an answer.)

Monica: (Raises her hand tentatively.). There's a bear on it.

Mr. D: Yes! There's a bear on it!

Anthony: Cuz, there's some big ass bears here. Ya! (Knuckle bumps one of his friends.). Mr. D, would you say that image is a boy bear or girl bear? And when them bears want to get busy, what do they do?

Mr. D: Anthony, once again, thanks for the inappropriate questions. I will defer to Mr. James, your biology teacher, on matters of the sexual behavior of bear-kind. For us, the question is why is there a bear on the state flag?

Tia: My dad drags us all over on big summer vacations....ah....every summer....last year we went to Hawaii. It was sooooo much fun. I met this Hawaiian guy. He had a chiseled six pack that made me...

Mr. D: Umm, Tia, could you save that for later and get to the question at hand.

Tia: Oh yeah. Sorry Mr. D, but he had beautiful blue eyes like you. Anyway, when I was twelve we spent a couple days in wine country, because my mom is a friggin lush, and went to an old Spanish mission and some other historical stuff. I have a pic at home--I'm wearing a cute sundress in it--but it was taken at the spot where the bear flag thingy was first raised.

Mr. D: Ok, good. Do you know why there's a bear on it.

Tia: The tour guide said that some Americans decided to take over Northern California and claim it for the United States. By the way that tour guide's shorts were way too short and he needed a membership to the tanning salon. Anyway, he said they chose the California Grizzly as their symbol.

Mr. D: Excellent Tia. It was called the Bear Flag Revolt and happened in 1846.

Monica: But wasn't there a big war. The Mexican American War?

Mr. D: Yes there was but the Revolt kind of kick started the whole thing.

Pablo: Yo, Mr. D, why didn't the homies pop a cap in that ass and stop that shit?

Maria: (president of the school's chapter of MECHA). The whole thing was an illegal seizure of power. That's why all the southwest US actually belongs to Mexico. The gringos came in and stole our land. La Raza's land.

Mr. D: Ok, one question at a time. Pablo, many Californios...

Anthony: Calihornios!? Hell most of us are horny. (Laughter from class)

Maria: Cali-for-nios, you dumbass.

Mr. D: Ok....raise your hands from now on. The Mexicans that settled in California called themselves Californios. And many of them were not sure what to think about the United States setting there. Some actually hoped the US would take the region because Mexico City was doing a poor job administering such a big country.

Maria: Wait Mr. D. You saying Mexicans wanted the Americans here?

Mr. D: Some did. The most influential Californio was probably General Mariano Vallejo and it was his chateau that was the site of the Bear Flag Revolt. Although he was technically under arrest by the Americans, he was also working with them behind the scenes.

Pablo: Man, the Latinos still comin' because you can make bank here. Mexico still a shithole...

Maria: Shut up, Pablo. This land is ours. It belongs to Mexico. Your people.

Pablo: Girl don't trip on me. I ain't Mexican. I'm Guatemalan.

Mr. D: Ok, do you two see that you both make legitimate arguments. In terms of legal ownership, that can be debated all day with no resolution.

Tia: To the winner goes the spoils, right Mr. D. By the way, did you get a haircut? It looks good.

Mr. D: Good point Tia. The victorious side, which is obviously the United States in this case, gets to make the rules and generally write the history.

Monica: So what happened Mr. D? I mean, if the Californios supported the revolt, then why weren't they a bigger part of the new state?

Mr. D: Good question. That might be the saddest part of the story. Those Californios that supported independence initially were included. For example, Vallejo was a member of the new state government and even has a city named after him, but most Californios lost everything. Few had written legal deeds to their land holdings, the property was just passed down from one generation to the next. When the railroads came in and Americans wanted more land the Californios lost out and had their land confiscated.

Maria: See, the whites are criminals.

Monica: Well on behalf of us whites, you're welcome for the opportunity to get an education and a decent paying job.

Mr. D: Timeout! Let's save this debate for another time. I'll end class with some trivia. One of the islands in the Bay Area is called Mare Island. It got its name when a ferry loaded with livestock for General Vallejo overturned crossing te bay. A prize white mare, which is a female horse, was feared lost. It was found a few days later, having swum to safety on a small unnamed island. It then became known as Mare Island.

Tia: Great discussion today Mr. D. Like me you got brains and good looks. Ciao.

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Teacher Unions

Every rookie teacher enters the classroom naive. Whether you are a 22 year old just out of college or a 49 year old starting a second career, little if anything you learned in Teacher Credentialing Programs prepares you for managing an elementary classroom of 25 third graders all day long or six classes of 30-plus juniors in high school. But if you make it through a couple of years then you have developed some competency. Unfortunately, the classroom is not the only part of the educational game teachers show naivety.

First year teachers show up inspired. After all, they are part of a noble profession, looked upon fondly by the community, in possession of the moral high ground. Again, naive. Most quickly develop a healthy suspicion of administrators (see my blog post here) because their job depends on that evaluation done by the principals and vice-principals. In addition, they have been turned against administrators by veteran teachers in the dreaded teacher lounge where bitching about anything and everything is fair. Once tenured, teachers figure out that many administrators are just following orders, clueless, or flat out incompetent. The new teachers soon realize that school is not a place of professional bliss and is permeated by political maneuvering, parents and the community have more complaints than compliments, and that colleagues are not the epitome of moral professionalism.

The biggest shock to the new teacher is that their "teacher association" is not a club of professionals. The second or third week of school you get an ID card from your state organization (I live in California so will use CTA as an example). You feel kind of special standing there with your CTA card and membership number. As you nibble on that tuna fish sandwich in the lounge, you think about belonging to a "teachers' association." It sounds so formal. An organization for education professionals where important issues are debated in a civil manner in order to improve the public education system. Nope!

Soon you receive the association's publication monthly publication. You toss it on an end table to flip through as you watch television. Some typical first issue topics: "How To Manage Your Classroom Like A Pro"; "Beginning of the Year School-wide Team-building Tactics;" and, "Balancing Content and Skills in the Classroom". Your excitement builds as all three look promising to read. Continuing down the table of contents you see: "How to Reach an LGBT Student"; "Know Your Weingarten Rights Inside and Out"; and, "Why Card Check Is a Good Idea." This set of articles, while dealing with education, makes you a little uncomfortable, but every teacher should treat students fairly, know their workplace rights, and...ummm...what the heck is card check? That seems to be about it, but you notice in the back, where a lot of the advertising is, a section focused on pending state legislation with CTAs position on each. While it seems to make sense that CTA supports bills providing funding for public schools, they are vehemently against expanding charter schools or any school of choice program. CTA strongly endorses and co-sponsors a bill calling for a state-level single payer insurance program and is promoting a whole new series of gun control laws.

For the newbie teachers that last set of articles are ignored. They tell themselves it's just politics at work. What nags at you though is the fact that no real justification is given for CTA's positions, especially on issues having little if anything to do with education. Over time that newbie realizes that the top governing body of their state organization is not composed of "normal" teachers representative of the union population but of progressive ideologues. There's shock number one. It also becomes obvious over time that the association or union is concerned only with its own survival. CTA is not opposed to charter programs because they are bad for kids but because the "charter" written to govern the school does not allow for unions. Shocker number two--it's not about the kids, it's about members and membership dues. All of a sudden that professional association holding the moral high ground is now a labor union rolling down the hill, bumping its head along the way.

Once that rookie teacher has put in fifteen plus years they know what CTA is. A third of those teachers hop aboard because of ideology or the desire to be important. A third don't care. As long as they get raises every couple of years all is cool. And then there's about a third that hate it due to political differences or the fact that the association is just another big bureaucracy. Less than 40% of a members dues makes it back to their Uniserve area (mine serves all schools in Kings and Tulare counties) and probably three-quarters of that (30% of your total dues) makes it back to your local chapter. There are multiple layers of leadership that filter out common sense-thinking educators that do their job for the kids and not for the union. What filters to the top ranks of CTA are progressive activists, union strong arms, and big wigs in the Democratic Party. President Eisenhower warned the nation about the military-industrial complex. Today, especially in California, the danger is the Democratic-union complex.

Been there, done that. I was naive once, but no more. Unfortunately what should be a professional organization is merely a labor union. A group that should put kids first only puts themselves first. An organization that should value and embrace differences in opinion and honest debate instead tells members how to vote. A CTA rep spoke in front of my staff last year about an upcoming proposition and said, "it's a no brainer," like she was addressing a bunch of idiots. I raised my hand and said, "Anytime someone tells me 'it's a no brainer' I'm thinking they are trying to sell me something I don't want." She didn't appreciate that. Teacher unions are a necessary evil but they are also one of the factors hurting education. Some advice to prospective teachers question everything a union does or stands for, because they are only out for themselves in the end.

Posted with Blogsy

Fathers Day

When you fancy yourself as a writer you feel pressure to produce something great on special days like today. The passing of my own father nine months ago doesn't help, but it is too early for me to do him justice on Fathers Day. It is like history. What happened a week ago is technically in the past but has enough time lapsed to put it in proper perspective? Probably not. This is one of the key thing that separates history and journalism or current events.

So with that subject off the list, what's left? A great bitch piece or more creatively a comic pice could be done on Bill "Where's a cigar when you need one" Clinton. But there's no way I would want to dishonor great fathers by doing that. So I did what so many do today--I turned to Google. Looking for great essays on fatherhood was not easy. Lots of quotes out here but not so much on the web in terms of a thoughtful essay. I will make a plug for William Bennet's The Book of Man. Bennett has a large section dedicated to fatherhood. Then about ten-thirty last night as I was watching (sort of) one of my daughter's Disney Channel shows, I found it.

Like many fantasy readers around the world I love J. R. R. Tolkien. I first read The Hobbit during the summer of 1978. The world of Middle Earth amazed me. Over the years--aside from reading some of Tolkien's short stories and The Lord of the Rings trilogy--I have read various pieces on Tolkien's inspiration, his linguistic skills, the Christian thread in the stories, and more. Last night I came across an article on Tolkien as father. It' a short, simple piece but interesting.

If you too are a fan of the fantasy genre, tune into my writing blog "With Pen In Hand" because I will be flirting with some fiction writing, especially fantasy.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Enabling Terrorists, Part Two (link)

I found this article in American Thinker reiterating the theme of my last post.

 

Posted with Blogsy