What Do You Cut in School?

A school in New York City does not have physical education classes for its kindergarteners. This has outraged parents, who want structured gym classes so that their kids learn to understand the value of physical activity and as it would keep them from outside recess (one parent said this was because the school was in a bad neighborhood). The school received a failing grade in a review last year, all of which seems to point out that criticism is justified.

But not because of a lack of `phys ed.

No one disputes that children who are physically active are better than those who aren't. Yet of all the things expected of our schools, isn't this the least important? Isn't being active something far more of a parent's responsibility than that of the schools? Why in the world, anyway, should the lack of physical education appear to matter more to those Brooklyn parents than the fact that the school is failing all around? Shouldn't learning sums and how to read rate higher than that pale concern?

The obvious retort is that children who are physically active tend to be better students all the way around. Still, that begs the question of whose job it is to keep them active, and it blows the question of academic integrity out the window. Further, being in good shape hardly matters if you can't communicate with everyone around you, or if you lack the basic skills which you need to hold almost any job out there.

The article goes on to cite that only 6 states actually require a recommended 150 minutes of phys ed (oh heck, skip that: gym class. Prettying up what we call it really doesn't matter) per week in elementary schools. We should be horrified at that? Not if play time isn't a true part of a school's daily grind.

And that's what it is, when all gets said and done. Play time. That's not a bad thing by itself. Yet not every good thing is or ought to be the province of the schools. Especially for skills as relatively unimportant as hitting a ball with a bat or shooting a ball through a goal. When the question of school budgets come up along with the discussions about about to keep and what to cut, gym class ought to be the first item to go.

Pink?

It was all over the National Football League yesterday. It has been all over the World Wrestling Entertainment shows for the last several weeks. It isn't a color you would expect on either production. It's pink, and it's meant to spread breast cancer awareness. There are several objections which may be made about that, not the least of which is that pink is hardly the color of a manly man. But this isn't about men. It isn't about anyone in particular. It's about a deadly disease, and it's serious. We can debate about the degree to which it is taken seriously by those calling attention to it. We might say that it is nothing more than an attempt at ratings glory, and that is that. We might say, as such, that it is shallow and unworthy of our attention. And it might be little more than that. Yet, is it? Is anything which puts before us a reminder of something which kills people wrong? Is it ever wrong to remind people that there are diseases out there which threaten to kill half our population and encourage us to act against them? Even if it is presented to us not, perhaps, for the best of reasons, is it wrong to do something which calls us to work against a deadly affliction wrong? Of course not. We must support any and all reminders of our duty towards our brothers and sisters. We are all in this together, and we must fight all which afflicts any of us, together. We must support any and all calls which remind us to fight for life; for the lives of those around us, in our offices, in our everyday experiences; in our homes. It's as simple as that.

Joe Biden and personal beliefs

Okay, it's been two days now, but it still isn't too late to talk about the vice presidential debate this past Thursday.

Perhaps the most telling moment of the entire debate came late, when a question was asked about abortion. Paul Ryan came out against it in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother. Vice President Joe Biden came out for it. Neither position was unexpected. Yet the stance taken by Vice President Biden was surely the weakest. He's personally against it, but can't force his beliefs on others.

Really, Joe? Really? How long have you been in politics? Between your years in the Senate and the Vice Presidency and a county council seat in Delaware, just about 43. And what have you done in all those years? You've made laws. You've forced your personal beliefs on others.

Any lawmaker who says he can't force his personal beliefs on others is a charlatan. He does it all the time: makes judgments about what is good for the people and works to put in place statutes which compel them to do his will. That's not a criticism, or said with any disdain. It's what lawmakers do. It's okay in itself.

But what is not okay is when a lawmaker says he cannot convert his personal beliefs into law. Aren't all your beliefs personal, Mr. Vice President? Aren't you the person who holds them? Even after debating a point, even after the consideration of what may or may not be the best thing to do in a given situation, isn't what you support a personal view? Again, in itself, that isn't necessarily wrong. It's what you have come to believe. And the circumstances by which you came to be believe them hardly matter. They're your beliefs, and you are trying to transform them into public policy.

To be sure, one cannot make what are solely points of faith into public policy. It would be wrong to make a law which says you must accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as that is entirely a matter of faith. But abortion, the question at hand, simply isn't a question of faith. It's a question of right and wrong which exists outside of any particular faith. It's a question which you have legislated about, Mr. Biden, by trying to force Catholic institutions to provide abortion related services.

Why is that personal belief all right, Mr. Vice President? Because it has gotten you elected to office? If such is the case, then you are worse than a charlatan. What you are then should not be said. It is understandable that you turned your head down when discussing abortion. You know and understand the real embarrassment of your position.

Lawmakers enforce their personal opinions on the people all the time. To say anything else is simply stupid. It treats the people with disdain rather than respect. And it calls into question a lawmaker's virtue, and, in this particular case, the virtue of a Vice President of the United States.

High Gas Prices Hurt Everyone

As Michigan gas prices continue to remain high, and as we face the continual threat of sudden spikes in gas costs, life has become more difficult for Metro Area drivers. Whether you're simply going to work, doing charity, hitting the town or taking a recreational spin, it hurts the pocketbook when fuel is four bucks a gallon.

Government supporters at all levels, federal, state, and local, love to preach about how budget cuts hurt the entire community. Yet we rarely think about how, in detail, high gasoline prices hurt more, and more profoundly. When people complain that state parks can't be closed because it hurts the locality, no one talks about how high gas prices may well keep people out of the campgrounds anyway. When government lovers assert that certain air routes losing subsidies hurts localities, no one talks about how high gas prices make it more difficult for anyone or any supplies to get to the less traveled areas. When Lansing supporters says budget cuts hurt the poor, no one complains about how high gas prices make it harder to help the poor simply because willing helpers and needed services can't get to them.

Gas prices affect us all, directly and every day. And something could have been done about them long ago. Our leaders could have opened up more areas to oil exploration. But they have not, by and large because they believe that the environment is more important than people.

This should be a premier issue in the November elections, whether we're talking about elections in Michigan or nationally. If we can't move people and things around cheaply, we all hurt. Think about that before you pull the lever next month.

Respect Life at all Times

Today is Respect Life Sunday. It is a day which the Catholic Church has set aside each year to remind people that life must be respected from the moment of conception. Naturally enough, the aim is to convince everyone that abortion, and things such as assisted suicide, are moral evils.

It cannot be said enough that being against abortion is a philosophic and not inherently religious stance. Society likes to dismiss it as merely religious so that it can justify the deed. Separation of Church and State and all that, you know. It's funny how they don't mind religious action on other matters, such as poverty and capital punishment, but that is a question for another time.

Human beings have human babies. Common sense tells us as much. Science, if you simply must have everything interpreted empirically, tells us as much. When a couple decides to have a child, they fully expect a human child. Even in the despicable cases of rape and incest, we cannot set aside the question of personhood involved with the child simply for the sake of the unfortunate (in terms of having a crime committed against her) mother. We know that a pregnant woman is carrying a human being. To deny that is intellectual dishonesty, or worse: a moral evil perpetuated by those who benefit from the act of abortion. This must include the men and women who happen to want one merely because a child would cramp their style.

Likewise, assisted suicide and any form of euthanasia must be seen too as abhorrent. Did you put yourself on this Earth? No; indeed, you had no say on the matter. Why ought you have in say in how and when you leave? We have addressed the question philosophically, without an appeal to any higher authority. This before we get into the question of someone helping you...which means that someone helping you check yourself out must be doing something wrong too.

These conclusions can be derived by logical argument and inference without any reference to religion. It is time that we as a society accept it as such, and act accordingly. Short of that, we are simply savages.

Finally, you must respect life from conception if you expect your life to be respected equally. We are less than human otherwise; you are less than human otherwise. If you will not respect someone else's life simply because it is their life, on what grounds can you demand respect for yours? Because you're already here? Listen to how selfish that sounds. Where's the respect in such attitudes?

All right, this is harsh. But it's less harsh than denying a human being humanity.

Respect life at all times. Especially at its weakest and most defenseless.

The Wind Roars?

Michigan, along with five other states and with the blessing of the Obama Administration, has signed on to a plan to, perhaps, in the future, put wind turbines offshore in the Great Lakes. The idea, of course, is to create alternative energy sources. And, of course, there is significant opposition to the plan.

We are skeptical of the long term value of wind power. Yet it seems a better alternative than solar power, at least in the short run. Especially when you consider that the folks behind the current plan, if their numbers are good, expect that enough energy could be created to power 300,000 homes while providing about 20% of the world's wind generated electricity. The plan would also, supposedly, anyway, encourage investment in wind power technology. That would in turn create jobs.

So far, so good, so far as it goes. But what are the criticisms? They could harm life on the lakes. They will kill birds (as wind farms already in existence do) and perhaps displace other animals. They would mar the seascape of lakeside homeowners. They might even drip greases into the water, causing harm to the ecosystem.

None of these concerns are without merit. It is wrong to wantonly harm animal life, for example. But would the harm caused by offshore wind farms be wanton? Not really; we need the energy, and as such the harm to animals becomes corollary and not directly intended. People and their needs are more important than birds and fish, after all. Possible injury to the ecosystem needs to be taken seriously too. If our aim is help our brothers and sisters with necessary human requirements, then we cannot do things which may, however unintended, hurt them.

As to hurting the view, well, perhaps. But now we are getting into the matter of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. That's not a point to be administered lightly, for we never want to harm the legitimate rights of the individual even if it's of a minority view. But we cannot have a tyranny of the minority either. If a feasible new energy source for the bulk of us means a less spectacular view for, we might as well say it, the economically better off (how many dirt poor people have lakeside homes?) then that's just their bad luck. Besides, we doubt the view would be particularly good from cold and dark homes.

As with so many other innovations, a proper caution and a decent respect for the needs and rights of all involved must be taken into consideration. But in the end, reason must rule. If lake generated wind power has far greater pluses than minuses (so long as no real moral objections are found), pursue it. Otherwise, forget it.

The real ideal on the issue would be to allow private initiative to seek other, better, and cost effective energy sources rather than government pushes for presumably PC ideas such as wind power. But we write in context and expect to be taken that way. That other issue is for another time.

The Race is Closer than the Left Concedes

The November elections are nearly upon us. The first presidential debate is this Wednesday, and pundits are, of course, all over it. Many are already explaining away President Barack Obama's anticipated performance, saying thing such as Romney is a better debater and that the President's explanations tend to be too long for the debate format. All of that is as may be; such things can be argued as subjective and without real merit. Still, that defenses such as those are coming out well ahead of the debate itself may suggest something about the upcoming election which the President's supporters don't care to see.

We are told almost incessantly about Barack Obama's lead in the pools and that the race looks like his to lose. He has momentum, supposedly; Romney does not. He has big leads in the swing states, the media tell us, and that will be all the difference. If such is truly the case, and when you look at the more reliable pools such as the Rasmussen Report we doubt it, why the worry about the opening debate?

Part of the fears are natural enough. Anybody, in the heat of the moment, can make a mistake so galling that it turns things around while an opponent may say something which so resonates that it captures the public imagination and propels them to victory. Yet that can't be the Democrats' whole worry. It seems more likely that they, in their hearts, aren't all that sure of victory.

When you consider that the GOP leads in almost every generic Congressional poll (and indeed is expected to gain seats in the House as well as retake the Senate) you have to wonder whether the Democrats themselves really believe that an Obama reelection is preordained. When someone so out of the mainstream as Michigan GOP hopeful Kerry Bentivolio has been placed in the likely Republican column of most congressional polls, you have to question the depth of support for the President. Further, political races tend to become closer anyway as actual elections approach. What does it all mean?

It means that November 2012 is far from locked up, and the President and his allies know it. Indeed, they are likely driven by fear, whether a simple fear of the unknown or perhaps something worse. When you consider the fact that most pools are skewed Democratic and against likely voters, you can see their fear quite readily. When the Administration is trying to harm the military vote while shoring up the vote of those without proper identification, you can smell it. They won't say it because they can't, for all the obvious reasons. The President and his minions are panicking. It is a delightful aroma.