I am not a teacher, a student contemplating teaching as a career, or even a parent. I do not play one on television. Nonetheless, I found Mr. Kaufman’s book, Reclamation: Saving our schools starts from within, to be a compelling read. Indeed, I read the book in one sitting. Furthermore, I believe that teachers, students who are contemplating a career in teaching and parents will all find this book to be, at moments, an eye-opening exposé of the plight of our public schools, and also a prescription for reclaiming them.

Teachers who read this book will fall into one of two camps. The majority of them will be infuriated at having their worldview challenged. Those teachers are likely to vilify Kaufman for his positions, chalking it up to political bias, as his fellow teachers in Los Angeles did after he and a coworker wrote an op-ed piece promoting a merit pay proposal. However, there will be others who have spent time in the trenches and who have seen the biases, laziness, and self-centeredness of a large proportion of their fellow teachers and wish for something better – if not for them professionally, at least for the children who are a third, fourth or even fifth priority. Those teachers, even if they do not ultimately agree with Kaufman’s prescriptions, will recognize a kindred sense of moral outrage and will appreciate Kaufman’s attempt to steer a new course for public education.

Unfortunately, many students may be put off by Mr. Kaufman’s bleak portrayal of the culture in public schools where teachers are more concerned with padding their already bloated paychecks, with escaping responsibility, and with running out the clock before they can retire to a fat pension than they are with educating young men and women. There is an element of Kaufman’s narrative that may work to discourage potential young teachers from entering the profession. If so, that would be tragic, although Kaufman’s experience led him to make the same decision. Nonetheless, teachers-to-be owe it to themselves to read this account and to enter into their chosen profession with their eyes open.

Parents should consider sending their children to private school or homeschooling their children. But first, they should read this book.

Kaufman provides a two-chapter introduction, which probably should have been combined into a single chapter, explaining why he wrote this book and what he hopes to achieve from its publication.

Kaufman then goes about his work by establishing the problems inherent in the current public school culture. Lazy teachers, who are granted tenure after two short years, live in a world divorced from reality, but nonetheless believe that they are mistreated, underpaid, micromanaged, and unappreciated – none of which are true, at least after they achieve tenure. Kaufman shares an anecdote, which would be surprising to any but the most cynical, about one of his coworker’s reactions to the above-mentioned op-ed piece promoting merit pay. His coworker sent him an email agreeing that his reasoning was correct and that she largely agreed with him, but would nonetheless support the union, which strongly opposed merit pay.

Kaufman then convincingly shows the perfidy and moral bankruptcy of the teachers unions. He concludes that if any reform to the public schools is possible, teachers must reject the unions whose policies are positively harmful to students. Indeed one union head’s statement reveals the danger posed by unions to the welfare of children and their education when American Federation of Teachers president, Albert Shanker, said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, then I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Tragically, in light of that attitude, the vast majority of teachers vote the union line.

Competition, which the teachers unions strongly oppose and fear above anything else, Kaufman proclaims, is the great hope for American public education. Vouchers and charter schools, programs that give parents choices and force accountability on schools and teachers, are the path to reform of public schools.

Kaufman chronicles the hardly surprising liberal bias that inhabits American schoolrooms. From pointless field trips to shameful revision of American history and from eco-brainwashing of our children to outright anti-Americanism, the full pathology of the worst of the Leftist agenda is on display in our children’s classrooms. Moreover, any voice of moderation is shouted down, vilified and made into a pariah, all abetted by the administration of these schools.

Kaufman has a true gift for the use of anecdotes to illustrate his point. It is through the retelling of these stories that Kaufman is at his strongest. The book is sprinkled throughout with articles that he either wrote or co-wrote on the topics discussed in this book. While the writing is excellent, there are spots where a stronger editorial hand might have been beneficial to keep Kaufman’s narrative a bit more focused (for example, he spends a fair amount of time cataloging the evils of the anti-Semitic terrorist group, ANSWER, of which the teachers union is a supporter and perhaps loses focus on the main thesis). Overall, this is an excellent book with provocative content. Kaufman’s voice should be welcomed into any discussion of education reform and his thoughts deserve to be read widely.

I encourage everyone to buy a copy, or better yet, to buy three to give as gifts.

I think about my own childhood education. I was one of those students who never did his homework, but tested very well. I had grades that reflected that – where a class was heavily graded on the homework assignments and less focused on test scores, I did poorly and vice versa. I remember one class in particular – I had an algebra class in 7th grade and the teacher (I wish I could remember his name – Frost Junior High in Schaumburg, Illinois, circa 1982) assigned daily homework assignments. Each day, at the beginning of class, he would walk up and down the aisles and check that each student had completed his homework – it wasn’t actually graded, he just wanted you to do it. And each day, he would pause at my desk, look down and say, “No homework today, Karl?” He would shake his head, mark my failure down in his grade book, and move down the aisle. After each exam in that class, when I scored perfect or nearly so, he would try to talk sense into me, telling me that I could get a great grade in his class if only I would do the homework. I would always respond, “Why should I spend my time doing homework for material that I have down cold?” One day he announced to the class that the math team would be conducting “try-outs” (i.e. take a test filled with tricky math problems) and anyone interested should come to his classroom after school. When I walked into the classroom, his look of disbelief was plain. He even asked me if I was serious. I assured him that I was and proceeded to score second highest on the exam and became one of the math team members. His disappointment that I would not do his homework assignments had caused him not to challenge me, but to dismiss me as a lost cause and he was astonished, I think, when I rose to the biggest challenge with which he could present me.

Teachers would routinely decry my failure to live up to my potential to my parents. The conclusion, according to the educational cognoscenti was that I was bored. Indeed, my nearly daily fist fight during lunch with Brian Brocce was proof of my boredom (either that, or I was a contumacious bastard). That was in the 70s; today I would be diagnosed as ADHD and medicated to treat my behavior problems. The one thing, even then, that never occurred to anyone was to challenge me academically.

If I were to suddenly win the lottery (which would be a miracle since I don’t play – after all, a lottery is only a tax on people who can’t do math), I would want to open a school along the following lines. If I learned anything in my algebra class (other than algebra), it is that capable students will surprise you when they are presented with a challenge. With that in mind I would love to start a school where the student is encouraged to proceed at his own pace. He would not be locked into a single class, segregated by his age peers, all year or semester long. Rather, he would be segregated into classes based upon his ability to master the material. Clearly, some students would master the material faster than others and those students should be passed on to the next level as soon as they demonstrate that mastery. The way the school would be structured would be that teachers would teach a particular subject (say, math) of a certain difficulty level (say, first year algebra). When a student demonstrated mastery of the subject, he would move on to the next level. Teachers would not be Fourth Grade teachers since there would be no such thing as grades based on age group. During the course of a year, a student may sit in three separate math classes while he progressed through the ever-tougher material. At the same time, the same student may only progress one classroom in composition. In the end, it would be the child’s capacity to excel that would determine his studies rather than some rigid age group limitation.

The way schools are set up now, the smartest students are slowed in their progress. The pace of instruction has to be determined by the least capable student in the classroom. To go any faster would be to frustrate that student and cause him undue stress (i.e. undermine his self-confidence and destroy his self-esteem). Meanwhile, the rest of the class becomes bored and perhaps spends its time getting into fights with the Brian Brocces of the world (what did bored girls do?). Under the plan I envision, the slowest student would be challenged, but not pressured by artificial demands to keep up with his age peers, while the brightest students would be encouraged to maximize their progress. Teachers would be chosen, not based on some state credential or possession of a teaching certificate, but on their ability to teach, their mastery over the subject area, and their ability to motivate students. A school such as I envision would serve the needs of the community better in that it would produce the high-flyers who could go on to push the boundaries of mathematical or scientific understanding or who would contribute to the culture through their superior literary development.

Some will say that a student benefits from being kept with his age peers, but I wonder how true that is. All of us of a certain age will have grandparents, especially if they lived in rural areas, who attended one-room schoolhouses where students of varying ages were instructed in a single room. It is not unprecedented to have different ages educated simultaneously. The plan I have outlined would, I think, be an improvement over those schools because every student in a classroom, regardless of his age, would be on the same academic level within that discipline. For instance, look in a college classroom on any commuter campus; one will routinely see a spread of ages present in such a classroom.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

General Attributes of the Plan

As mentioned above the current overall price tag (before amendments and the inevitable earmark add-ons) is $825 billion. That is split into two general categories of spending.

The first category is $275 billion in “economic recovery tax cuts.” Presumably this is the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” that Obama continuously talked about on the campaign trail. If there are 305 million Americans and they split the tax cut evenly, each would enjoy a lessened tax burden of $949.09 each. I’ll take it gladly; indeed, they owe us more of our own money back. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly be offset by the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts, which there is little doubt Congress and the President will allow to expire.

The second category is $550 billion in “targeted priority investments.” According to the summary from the Committee on Appropriations, “[t]his package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and being the process of transforming it for the 21^st century.” The committee summary goes on to state that, “with the passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.” As such, assuming these numbers are correct and this package would prevent the unemployment rate from experiencing an additional 3% rise, the package will prevent the loss of 3.93 million jobs* through new unemployment claims. This means that by their own numbers, this package will not create any new jobs, as Obama has been touting, but rather would prevent the anticipated loss of 4 million jobs.

* In case anyone is interested, I came up with this number by looking at the increase in unemployment as reported on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) for the December report. That report said unemployment rose from 6.8% to 7.2% or by +0.4%. That increase corresponded with a decrease in the number of jobs of 524,000. If 0.4% is equivalent to 524,000 jobs, then 4% would equal 3.93 million jobs.

The summary acknowledges that the plan will result in “a large deficit for years to come.” But, justifies its passage by playing on the fears of not passing it: “Without it, those deficits will be devastating [as though the deficits we invite will not be] and we will face the risk of economic chaos.”

Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society [I assume they are not referring to the government]. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard [sic] of living. They sustained it by borrowing…and borrowing…and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington [who have already received government welfare in the form of bailouts which took priority over taxpayer relief].

Finally, before getting into the specifics of the “targeted priority investments,” it should be noted that “[t]here are no earmarks in this package.” I guess I don’t really know what an earmark, because I thought it was an appropriation that was targeted to a particular project, or “priority investment,” if you prefer. Oh well. Orwell lives.

One last note before we dive into an examination of the specific spending proposals. We should probably keep in mind that, according to most of the economists I’ve heard speak about the crisis, the overriding problem is that credit is unavailable to consumers and businesses. It is probably helpful to hold this in the forefront of one’s thoughts as he approaches each of these broad spending categories. A thoughtful person would probably ask, “Does this spending help to free up credit to consumers and businesses?”

The Targeted Priority Investments

The “Targeted Priority Investments” fall into seven broad areas.
[Please do not call them earmarks]

The first is “Clean, Efficient, American Energy.” The overall goal of this spending is the “doubling of renewable energy production and renovate buildings to make them more energy efficient.” To that end, Obama proposes to spend $32 billion on upgrading the energy delivery system (“The Grid”), $16 billion to repair public housing, and $6.2 billion to weatherize “modest income homes.”

Until very recently, I haven’t paid a ton of attention to Obama’s rhetoric about this package, but what I have heard seemed to focus on this area of spending as its main selling point. Kermit’s lament notwithstanding, Obama wants America to be green. And yet, it seems that this plan allocates only 6.5% of its budget to that end. What gives? I thought that was the focus of the plan.

A more specific beef, however, is that last line item. The government is proposing to spend $6.2 billion to weatherize poor peoples’ houses. I thought it was the fat cats that used all the energy. Why in the world would we focus our expenditures on making those who use the least energy, the most efficient? Of course, it makes no sense, but as you will see, there is a theme running through this package. It seems the package overall purpose is to give poor people as many goodies as can be packed into one bill – all while wrapping it in rhetoric that favors the “middle class.” I’m beginning to think that the part of the middle class to which I belong is being seen as the obscenely wealthy. Orwell again, I suppose.

The second area is “Transform our Economy with Science and Technology.” This is Obama’s version of faith-based initiatives, I think. All told, $16 billion is earmarked er, targeted to this spending area. To this end, Obama is proposing spending $6 billion to deliver broadband and wireless services to rural areas. (Maybe he thinks he can turn these Red areas into Blue areas with this pandering?). According to the House summary, for every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment. Even if that is true, I would guess that is largely because the market has focused on investing in high-population areas where the investment is much smaller relative to the benefit. This proposal is almost certain to lessen that ratio as each dollar will return much less benefit. It fails to occur to those in government that if there were such a clear return for providing broadband to the hinterlands, some enterprising private concern would have already done so.

There are couple other items in this category that warrant a word or two. First there is this: “$400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.” This represents two-thirds of the money that is earmarked er, targeted for NASA. One hopes that the government money does not come with strings attached as to the nature of the results they expect from their money. Along those same lines, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to be given $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including censors and climate modeling. They’d better hurry because the space shuttle flights are coming to an end. They’ll probably have to purchase space on French rockets in order to do anything other than have some nice shiny satellite to put in their corporate lobbies. Between these two line items, it looks like we are firmly committed to furthering the narrative about the coming devastation of global warming, er, cooling, er, climate-change-that-could-go-either-way-but-in-the-end-will-be-catastrophic-to-life-on-earth.

Thrown into the middle, and fitting under no category, is a line item for spending $650 million to continue the coupon program to enable American households to convert from analog television transmission to digital transmission. On a spending for spending basis, this ranks in priority as more than four time more important than funding the improvement of our air traffic control system (“$150 million for research, development, and demonstration to improve aviation safety and Next Generation air traffic control”).

The third spending area is “Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways.” This is the other big selling point I have been hearing for Obama’s stimulus package – Green Jobs and Good Roads. All told, $90 billion dollars have been set aside for this category. This is a traditional area of federal government expenditure, and inasmuch as that is so, I really have little problem with this section. I would quibble with the government’s continuing folly with the funding of Amtrak ($1.1 billion) to make them faster and higher capacity (so there will be more empty seats – at least the ride will be roomy for Amtrak’s few customers), but overall the government should be spending money on maintaining the channels of interstate commerce. However, $9 billion is devoted to transit systems which all tend to be intrastate in nature. It seems these expenses should be borne by the States which will benefit from them and not by the federal government.

Lumped under this category, however, are several items that have little to do with roads, bridges, transit, waterways, channels of interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. For instance, $245 million are targeted for “critical IT improvements to systems that have been unable to handle workload increases” in the Farm Service Agency. Of course, the other way to solve that problem would be to shut down that program and sell whatever equipment they have at auction. Seems to me that would be a net gain going forward.

It seems that the Veterans Administration has identified a $5 billion backlog in needed repairs to its medical facilities. To address this need, the plan includes $950 million for veterans’ facilities. Does this seem to be a metaphor of this president’s views of our troops to anyone besides me? Stay tuned for Walter Reed II: the sequel.

The fourth spending area is “Education for the 21st Century.” This is the largest of the “targeted priority investments” representing more than 17% of the entire package with an outlay of $141.6 billion. It seems the days of hoping that a president would eliminate the Department of Education and restore the traditional roles of local government vis federal government are firmly behind us. We can thank George W. Bush, I think, for this with his Head Start program. Its passage has green-lighted every liberal federal intervention into our communities that they can dream up and connect to the children.

One particularly galling item is this: $13 billion devoted to IDEA special education. Keep in mind that the stimulus package states that the spending on education is to “help our kids compete with any worker in the world.” I know this is going to sound callous, but how much money will it take to make a special education student the equal of any worker in the world? Will any amount? Why do we persist in flushing our tax monies down the toilet like this? No matter what we spend on educating these students, they will still be capable of only the most menial tasks. We should teach them to tie their shoes, be continent, and maybe make sandwiches for themselves. (“No, son, the baloney goes on the inside and the bread on the outside. Not the other way around”). Beyond that, it seems we are wasting our money on attempting to “educate” special education children.

Under the banner of “signs of the times” is this one: $2 billion to provide day care for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families while their parents go to work. We truly are the nanny state, quite literally.

The fifth area of spending is “Lower Healthcare Costs.” This area represents $26.7 billion of spending. Most of that spending will be on computerizing health records ($20 billion).

Another $1.1 billion is set aside for “Healthcare Research and Quality” wherein will we conduct a study to “compare the effectiveness of different medical treatments funded by Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP” in order to find out what works best. While I cringe that this will cost us $1.1 billion, I welcome the inevitable outcome of such a study that reveals that none of it works because there is too much government involvement. But, of course, who am I kidding? They’re paying for the study. We all know how that one ends. The problem, I foresee, is that we haven’t been spending enough money on those programs.

The House summary contains the following enlightening nugget, “$600 million to address shortages [of primary care providers] and prepare our country for universal health care. (See? They already know the answer to the $1.1 billion study – I say we dispense with the charade of a study and at least save ourselves $1.1 billion).

Does anyone besides me feel like they are living through one of those scenes in the movies (wasn’t there one in one of the Indiana Jones movies) where you’re in a coal bucket careening out of control into the depths of an ancient mine toward a yawning chasm where the tracks suddenly leave off?

The sixth area of spending is “Help Workers Hurt by the Economy.” Before you get all excited thinking that maybe here there is some sort of program that addresses the credit crunch, think again. The government proposes to spend $102 billion in this area. The larger programs are $4 billion for training and employment services; $27 billion to extend unemployment benefits an additional 33 weeks; $9 billion to increase the unemployment benefit by $25 per week; $30.3 billion to help unemployed pay for COBRA; $1.5 billion “to help local communities to build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies;” and $5 billion for building repair and modernization of public housing.

On this last item, the House summary states that for every dollar spent on the Public Housing Capital Fund, there is a $2.12 economic return. This begs the question of why we don’t just spend $68 trillion on the project, reap the $144 trillion economic return and everyone can go home happy secure in the knowledge that the economy is humming blithely along.

This section contains a group of programs that seem like more of the same. First is a neighborhood stabilization program, costing $4.2 billion, to help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant properties in order to create more affordable housing. Second, is a program, costing $1.5 billion, which would provide “temporary” rental assistance, housing relocation, and stabilization services (whatever those are) for families during crisis. Third, is a program, costing “$500 million, to support $22 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees to help rural families and individuals to buy homes during the credit crunch.” It seems out leaders don’t get that putting people who can’t afford homes in homes is a recipe for disaster. It seems the government will continue to perpetuate the same errors repeatedly of either forcing lenders to provide loans to people who can’t afford them, or by making the loans itself. We’re screwed.

There’s also a one-time welfare payment to disabled and elderly folks which will cost $4.2 billion; a $1 billion block grant for community development; $1 billion to help low-income families pay for home heating and cooling; and $1 billion to provide federal incentive funds to collect support owed to families.

The final area of spending is “Save Public Sector Jobs and Protect Vital Services.” This area is projected to cost $91 billion. This is comprised of $87 billion in Medicaid Aid to states; $2.5 billion in block grants to states to help alleviate the needs of families “and to prevent them from cutting work programs;” $4 billion to support state and local law enforcement with $1 billion of that set aside to pay for an additional 13,000 police for three years [and after that, the States are on their own, presumably]; and $1 billion for work necessary to ensure a successful 2010 census, with a special emphasis ($150 million) to ensure that minorities are not undercounted. I wonder if that is provided a la Acorn as direct bribes to overcount certain desirable demographics.

A few thoughtsAs you can see, there appears to be very little in the way of alleviating the credit crunch. Indeed, it would appear that Obama has taken advantage of a bad economy to advance a raft of new spending that will erect an unprecedented increase in bureaucracy since the New Deal. This is grossly irresponsible given the shape of the economy. He would have done better to provide an equivalent list of programs the federal government intended to discontinue.

I’ve said before, I’m not an economist, but I do have a calculator. It doesn’t take an economist to know that when a family experiences a shortfall in income, it is time to tighten the belt, not go on a spending spree. The government is no different. The country must cut its expenses and that starts with the federal government cutting spending. Putting our fiscal house in order will strengthen our economy by making investors more eager to invest in it. If we spend profligately, what incentive do we give to outside sources of income to invest in our economy? The more we piss away our money, the less enticing we look as anything other than a risky investment that someone might take on a flier.

This plan in no way addresses the underlying problem of the availability of credit or the tenuousness of the housing market (which is related). The longer the credit problem is allowed to persist, the worse the housing market will become due to illiquidity of assets and the resulting downward pressure on the value of those assets. If anything, this plan will make credit more expensive by making the investment of new money only possible by promise of a higher return on that investment (junk returns). On the other hand, fiscal restraint would make that inflow of money cheaper and more plentiful.

I think. Of course, I’m just a guy with a calculator.

There is the obvious argument here that public funds will go to promote a lifestyle that many find inappropriate and immoral.  Forget that for a moment.  What about all of the other straight kids who battle bullying and depression in high school?  Remember high school?  Remember the phrase teenage angst?  All high school students deal with depression in one form or another at one time or another.  I would venture a guess that many of them deal with bullies as well.  Where are their special schools?  Perhaps there needs to be a special high school for overweight students or for students with bad complexions.  Essentially, gay students are being singled out for preferential treatment.

On the flip side, isn’t this an odd form of voluntary segregation?  I guess the thinking is, if these kids can’t cope with a diverse student population, we the government, will shield them.  Won’t these kids have to eventually enter a workforce and a world where they are in the vast minority?  Won’t they have to deal with this damn diversity problem eventually?  These liberal elites are always chiming telling the rest of us that we need diverse campuses but when one of these diverse points of view does not gel with their world view that world view is branded as intolerant.  In this case, rather than tout the merits of diversity in the schools and branding the bullies as intolerant, they have merely chosen to cut themselves off from the world by using tax payer funding.

If, as LTG likes to point out, a child’s education is entirely within the purview of the parents, isn’t this an appropriate ruling? With the right, comes the responsibility. Of course, the flipside is: If the onus were on the State to educate the child, would then the delinquency of this minor fall upon her public school teachers? As tempting as it is for me to endorse that outcome, I find both results absurd. After all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

The point of the film is not whether ID is superior to Evolutionism, but rather that the mere suggestion that ID might provide some explanation as to the origins of life is strictly verboten in academic and scientific circles. Stein introduces his viewers to several scientists who have been drummed out of their positions because they had the audacity to mention Intelligent Design in their research.

One proponent of evolutionism, William Provine, an avowed atheist science historian at Cornell University, objected to the teaching of intelligent design in part on the basis that it’s “BOOOORING. I can’t think of any topic that is more BOOOORING!” Of course, when asked about the origins of life, Provine posited that aliens might have seeded life on this planet, deftly pushing back the question one generation (How did the seed scattering aliens come to exist, Professor Provine?).

Perhaps no single point shows that Stein was not attempting to advocate for the Intelligent Design position than the fact that Stein did not interview Michael Behe, a microbiologist whose book Darwin’s Black Box I found to provide much evidentiary support for intelligent design. Behe’s argument proceeded by examining the simplest of life forms, a single celled creature, and examined it at the microbiological level. At that level there are mechanisms (Behe uses a flagella as one example) that are incredibly complex structurally and functionally such that they could not have evolved happenstance. He coined the term “irreducible complexity”: Take away any of the structure’s complexity and it would cease to function and therefore would not confer an advantage which would be selected for. Indeed, extra baggage which provided no function would put the organism at a disadvantage, which Darwin predicted would ultimately cause its extinction. Critics of Behe have noted that some of the proteins that make up some of these structures that Behe used as examples occur in other contexts within the cell, however, that still fails to account for their combination into a specific structure which is much more complex than the joining of a few proteins randomly.

Instead, Stein focuses on the critics of intelligent design and their claims that ID is pseudoscience and thinly veiled Creationism. To that end, Richard Dawkins is prominently featured by Stein and given ample opportunity to advance his radical programme of atheism as the only rational position. At one point, he asks Dawkins if there were no circumstance under which Dawkins could concede intelligent design. Dawkins responded, like Provine, that he could imagine alien seeding as a possibility under which ID would not be completely ludicrous. Another opponent of ID suggested that life might have evolved from non-life “on the backs of crystals.” Somehow, Stein was able to quash the smirk which must have been fighting to spring into his features. Some people are born to be straight men.

Provine appeared later in the film to advance his (presumably non-boring) view of the world. To Provine the most liberating view is that human beings are nothing but random proteins clinging together for whatever brief moment of time they manage to cohere. That men are completely without any hope of any sort of afterlife, or indeed free will, but will simply blink out of consciousness and slowly decompose is for Provine ultimately comforting. Science is god enough, I suppose.

Unfortunately, Stein’s documentary lost its focus a bit toward the middle when he linked Evolutionism with Nazism, claiming not that evolutionists are Nazis, but that Nazis were Evolutionists and showing the linkage between Evolutionism and the Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. I have heard it said that when one party in a debate injects the argument with Nazism, he has lost the argument. And, Stein’s critics have been quick to seize upon this digression in the film. Unfortunately, the discussion on Nazism was entirely unneeded and only worked to unfocus the issue that scientists are being silenced and blackballed when they consider the possibility that the universe may have intelligent direction.

The final scene interspersed Stein addressing a packed auditorium, extolling the virtue of freedom upon which this country is founded – including academic freedom – with Ronald Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate address and scenes of people chipping away at the Berlin Wall. I thought he would demand of the establishment, as Reagan did, that they tear down the wall they’ve erected to keep Evolutionism free from competition in the scientific community, but instead he called on those scientists who remain in the shadows, afraid of the censure which would follow were they to consider the ID position, to come out and to storm the wall. In the end, Stein’s way is almost certain to be more effective than my way would been. Those who guard the wall have to see the masses gathering, pickaxes in hand, before they will allow the wall to come down.

Find out next time on “The Pope Pontificates” or “Benedict Benefits America!”

“A ban won’t stop them playing violent games. When the guns and swords are taken away they simply do what children have always done – make weapons out of twigs and Sticklebricks.”

Well, of course, the last thing we want to do is to dent these kids’ fragile self-esteem especially when it results in self-perpetuating cycles. Children should NEVER think they are bad. Even when they’re bad.

I think what’s really interesting about these “findings” is that when you outlaw (toy) guns in the classroom, only the outlaw children will turn their fingers into guns. Besides, if you can’t have fake guns, what are you supposed to do with the Indians once you catch them? Talk sternly to them? They’re already onto the whole make-a-treaty-with-them routine. Maybe we should just learn about the environment from them.

Ellen Donald, a nursery school administrator said, “We divert their attention away from this type of fighting and role play which they see on TV, on programmes like Batman and Superman, and provide them with a lot of curriculum activities which include running, jumping, tumbling. Children just want to run and roll about. They just need to play and vent all their energy.”  Well, sure, running and jumping and tumbling, but when they catch up to the bad guy they will want to shoot them or at least beat them up so as to make the world (or at least Scotland) safe for Truth, Justice and the American (or Scottish, in this case) Way.

The free exercise of religion is a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.  Many Supreme Court cases have demonstrated the importance of this clause.  In deciding cases based on a claim of free exercise, the Court traditionally applied a compelling interest test.  The Court also has expressed that facially neutral laws will not be subject to heightened or special scrutiny. 

Following the decision in Employment Division v. Smith, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. (P.L. 103-141).  The RFRA required courts to apply strict scrutiny to cases involving government regulation and restrictions on the free exercise of religion.  Both the left and the right sides of the aisle joined hands to sing Kumbaya and celebrate their victory.  Yet the song was not long lived.  The Act was struck down as a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.   

Recently Justice Croskey handed down a ruling effectively limiting home schooling to those who have obtained a teaching credential.  While the ruling caught many pundits and jurists off guard, it’s not without some backing.  The 4th Circuit, in Duro v. District Attorney, ruled in favor of the State of North Carolina.  North Carolina banned home schools and the court ruled that the state’s interest in regulating the means of education outweighed the claimed free exercise of the parent’s religious beliefs.  The case was quickly appealed to the United States Supreme Court which flatly refused to hear the case.  This essentially gave approval to the 4th circuit’s decision. 

The question that arises is does the ruling of Justice Croskey stand up against the level of scrutiny traditionally applied in free exercise cases?  The answer, I believe is no.  Many cases have been tried along these lines; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Wisconsinv. Yoder, etc….  The preferred test to be applied is the compelling government interest test.  In other words, the regulation imposed by the government must be reasonable and necessary and be the least restrictive means to accomplish the  government’s compelling interest. 

It will hardly be argued that the State of California does have a compelling interest in the education of students under the age of 18.  But is the abolition of home schooling except by those with a valid teaching credential reasonable and necessary?  Maybe.  If  one accepts compulsory education laws as both reasonable and necessary to the advancement of civil society (not to mention a  competitive economy) then one must also accept the application of reasonable regulations of teaching standards, methods and  subjects as a means to implement the compulsory education laws. The only remaining question then, if applicable, is the requirement that a parent hold a valid teaching credential the least restrictive means to advance the State’s compelling interest in education?  Here, I think, the answer is no.  California could achieve its objective by requiring home schooled students to attend  a certified testing center once a month for required tests, parents could be required to obtain certified teaching materials or students could be required to see a credential tutor a few times a week. In short, there are definitely less restrictive means of ensuring the youth of California receive an education that meets or exceeds state standards. 

Not often discussed is the fact that in California private school teachers are not required to have a teaching credential.  Therefore, the ruling by Justice Crockery is clearly under inclusive in application. If Justice Croskey believes that a credential is required in order to educate a student, every private school in the state should be trembling!  This, of course, is ludicrous.  Private schools are just that: private.  No Justice or elected representative is challenging the validity of private education as a means to achieve the State’s compelling interest.  Nor should Justice Croskey challenge the parent’s rights. 

Finally, the Superintendent of Public Education, Mr. Jack O’Connell, released a letter on the recent ruling.  In it, Mr. O’Connell states, “I have reviewed this case, and I want to assure parents that choose to home school that California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling. Parents still have the right to home school in our state.”  In addition, the Attorney General of California (sigh) Mr. Jerry Brown has indicated that his office will not seek to prosecute parents who choose home schooling.  While Justice Croskey’s rulings was clearly overreaching, it is at least nice to know that not all of our public officials are asleep at the wheel.  So we wait.  We wait to see if our highest state court overturns Justice Croskey’s crockery.