US News & Comment

Last week citizens in Utah voted down a measure to offer vouchers to families who wish to send their children to private schools.  This is the latest in the battle that has raged across the nation pitting school choice advocates against powerful teacher’s unions.

Vouchers are generally seen as the best way to let parents opt out of the Public School System and seek alternative education options.  Supporters contend that allowing parents to send children to the school of their choice, will introduce the market forces of competiton into the school system and improve public and private schools.  Opponents cite cost and contend that the state will end up paying the tuition for the children of wealthy families.

What few people have discussed is how the private schools feel about the plan.  If private schools, many of which are religious in nature, begin accepting government vouchers, how long before they are subject to the same restrictions that have been placed on public schools?  The Utah bill already stated that private schools receiving vouchers would have to be accountable to the state for academic standards. 

Government subsidies always come with strings.  Private colleges that have accepted federal funds have been required to conform to certain government requirements.  The Boy Scouts of America have been taken to court several times on the basis of taking money while maintaining exclusions in their recruitment standards.  Private schools may or may not be willing to alter their standards in order to be eligible to receive government vouchers.

It then raises the question, if private schools must meet government “standards” in order to receive vouchers, will there be any difference between private and public schools?  What choices will be left to parents when these are all the same?

Share This

Last week J.K. Rowling stated to an audience in New York’s Carnegie Hall that, “I always saw Dumbledore as gay.” This information was given in response to a question from an audience member and has sparked a flurry of discussion among Harry Potter fans. Rowling has also revealed that she crossed out a section of the screenplay for the film “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” where Dumbledore speaks about his love life and wrote a note simply stating that Dumbledore is gay.

In response to criticism, Rowling said, “He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him.”

The problem is that Dumbledore is no longer Rowling’s character. With the publication of the 7 Harry Potter novels, Rowling has given Dumbledore–along with all of the other wizards, witches, and muggles who inhabit their pages–to anyone who chooses to take the time and energy to read them from the page and into their imaginations. This means that Dumbledore belongs to all of us. And he is whatever any of us choose to make him.

The difference between a fictional character and an actual person, is that the character only exists as the imagination paints him. An author or filmmaker can give us an outline–sometimes a very detailed outline–but there is always room for us to fill in characteristics of our own.

Perhaps few people are as enthusiastic about this literary licence as I am. For instance, as a child I had an extreme admiration for the Star Wars character Han Solo. Among other things, I imagined that Han Solo was a talented pianist who turned to music whenever he was deeply troubled. As a young adult I read several novels written about the early life of Han Solo. Before reading them, I knew I would reject everything in these novels that did not fit in with the character’s history that I had stored in my memory for so many years. Today, I remember little of the novels I read. But I cannot forget the story I built in my own mind.

Now, Rowling may claim ownership of her characters in so far as she has legal rights to protect her intellectual property. She also has the right to say whatever she wants about them. And she can say what she thought about as she was writing about them. But she can no longer dictate what, or who, Dumbledore is. Her words are written and published. And as they are read, Dumbledore is turned into millions of Dumbledores based on the finite amount of words written about him.

Some may have always seen the character in the same light as Rowling. Some may choose to alter their picture of this character based on the Rowling’s opinions. Some, like the screenwriter of her movies, may be contractually obligated to change their view. And to many others, it will simply not matter. But for me, I disagree with Rowling. I choose to paint this character for myself and in my mind he is untainted by the brush strokes of others.

Share This

Today Pete Stark (D-CA) offered an apology for his inflammatory remarks made about President Bush and the troops on the floor of the House last week.

While his remarks were indeed filled with offensive hyperbole, his premise is merely an echo of the arguments of other Democrat Congressmen, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This is particularly unsettling considering that the President submitted a supplemental spending bill of $196.4 billion to Congress to fund the war on terror during 2008. And Democrats want to behave like my 3 year old and refuse to give him any money, because he didn’t give them any money.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-sends-updated-iraq-supplemental-to-congress-2007-10-22.html

It is time that people, and political leaders, in this country remember why the government was established in the first place. A little read and often ignored document from our nations history begins with a statement of exactly why the founders felt that a national government was necessary. It states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

No where in this preamble does it mention funding health care for anyone–even children. It does not mention social security, food stamps, medicare or prescription drug benefits. In fact, it does not commit government to provide any individual need besides liberty and justice.

It does, however, reference the general welfare and common defence. These are items that concern every citizen of this nation. And this includes defending all citizens from random and savage attacks of radical, hate-filled terrorists.

This same document names the President of the United States the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He is charged with the protection of the entire country from foreign threats. Whether the Democrats like it or not George W. Bush is the elected President of our country and endowed with these constitutional powers. And no matter who wishes to deny it, our country faces a threat from terrorists of various organizations who wish only for our complete destruction.

Most of President Bush’s two terms has been spent guarding against any further attacks on our soil. He has made tough decisions that have included putting our military in harm’s way so that all children here can play, learn and grow without the fear that they will be blown up. Perhaps he, and other Republicans, can be forgiven for feeling that this is a cause less open to partisan debate than insuring 10 million children whose need is questionable.

Comparing money for the S-CHIP program, which is not even a legitimate function of the government, to money needed for national defense, which is one of the primary functions of the federal government is ridiculous. And withholding money from the men and women who are protecting our security and liberty for political revenge is outrageous and irresponsible. Not to mention, it does no good for anybody’s children.

Share This