I’m Not the Idiot Whisperer

The best part of teaching children is seeing them learn new ideas. They hear or see something and work it in their minds until they understand it. 

Adults are hopeless. Okay, not all of them. But, damn, so many people refuse to do the research to find the truth. 

Here’s an example: Prayers in school. Kids can pray any time they wish. Before a test, at lunch, after a game. BUT I CANNOT LEAD THEM. That is leading a religion. Can’t do it even after a game; there is a coach in trouble for this. If the kids want to do it AND LEAD IT, no problem. Christians stupidly argue that we teach kids about other religions but not Christianity. Christians are being persecuted. Bull! Some knowledge of religions is taught—not to lead anyone to a religion, but to understand the reasons for certain actions. You know, like Puritans left for America because they were persecuted by other Christians. 

Would these complainers allow a coach, or any teacher, to lead their children in a Jewish prayer? A Muslim prayer? A Hindi meditation? How about a decade of the Rosary, even if they aren’t Catholic?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 

So no, we are NOT a Christian nation. We are not allowed to be. By law. 

But aren’t we “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? No. If a teacher or coach leads kids, it is not “free exercise.” It amounts to coercion. Students are expected to do what the teacher or coach is leading them to do. Even if they don’t believe in it; even if they don’t want to they will participate so as not to draw attention to themselves. 

“School districts limit teachers’ religious expression in order to avoid violating the establishment clause, which requires separation between church and state. When teachers speak to their classes, they represent the school and the school board. Teachers, as agents of the government, may not inculcate students in religious matters. Otherwise, they run afoul of the establishment clause.” (David L. Hudson Jr.  First Amendment Scholar)

See how easy that was? I went to Yahoo search and got a real answer. 

Wren

Election stuff, soon on this page.

Beginning 1 November, I will be posting my thoughts. The election for America's next president is on my mind.

Wonder what I'll say.

What I will miss...

The City Daily Photo folks are answering the question "What would you miss?" I'm guessing this is when I leave Texas. I thought about it for a long time. Skipping people (because I really don't miss people), I considered my job (nope), my house (sorta, but no), any food?- no. Since I was driving at the time it was a sign that gave me my answer.

I will miss the 75 mph speed limit.

Yep, that's all.

Sixteen more months and I am out of here!

Yipee!

2015

It is typical to post plans for the new year on New Year's Day. Not me. I have plans, true. But I am not going to blog about them. I know what I want to do and need to do, so writing it here for a few to see is pointless.
I would like to see some changes in the world. More news on the news shows and channels. Less call for racism as the default cause for a death, arrest, or questioning of a suspect by the police. More understanding of the differences between us. Less animal cruelty.
I would like to see people get along. Really try.
Change occurs daily. More evaluation of the value of change is needed.
But now I must sleep because there is lasagna to make in the morning.
Happy New Year!

Ferguson, MO

A cop shoots a young man to death. The crowd demands “JUSTICE.”
What do they mean by “justice?”

Well, from dictionary.com we get:
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:
              to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason:
             to complain with justice.
 3.  the moral principle determining just conduct.
 4.  conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
 6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings:
         a court of justice.
 7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
 8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
 9. (initial capital letter). Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
  Idioms
 10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
  11. do justice,
    a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
    b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
    c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do             himself justice as an actor.

The crowds wanted numbers 5 and 10. They did not want a fair evaluation of the facts in evidence and a decision. The Grand Jury was not good enough or right enough.
What was wanted is the following:
Indictment
Jury trial
Conviction
Death penalty

Our justice system does not work that way. It is not influenced by mob rule (or riots, or marches, or noise.)
Defending oneself by killing the aggressor is extended to police officers as well as citizens. If I, a woman of just over 5 feet in height in possession of a pistol, killed a man of almost 6 feet who is unarmed and is threatening me, I am not going to jail. Self-defense.

I do not profess to know exactly how our legal system works. I do know that a grand jury convenes to determine whether or not there is a case for trial. If the determination is “yes” then the suspect is indicted and awaits trial.

When a person is thought to have committed a crime, our system uses words like “alleged” and the suspect is at the advantage: the defendant needs to establish doubt. The state has to prove guilt.

The result may not be popular. Casey Anthony: not guilty. We thought she was. The jury said the evidence did not prove it. She’s free. O.J. Simpson: not guilty. We thought he was. The jury said “nope.” He was free until he did something he did get convicted of.

No, our system is not perfect. Innocent people have been convicted and even put to death. Innocent people have also gone free. But it is the system we have. Usually the decision is left to a jury of six or twelve. In some cases the defendant wants just a judge. Appeals are possible. So we do have checks and balances. There are hoops to jump through. Again, it’s the best thing we’ve got.

In the Michael Brown case, the police officer was not indicted. The grand jury said “no” to any charges. No amount of rioting, looting, burning, yelling, or breast beating is going to change that.

Michael Brown is mostly responsible for what happened to him. He stole cigarillos. He punched a police officer. He continued to fight after being shot (in the hand).

Do you want this kind of violence and killing to end? Teach your children to respect authority. They need to respect their parents’ authority, the school’s authority, their boss’s authority, the police’s authority.

My $.02

Supreme Court Ruling

We each have our two cents worth of opinion to toss into the fray. Here's mine.

Why would any employer need to know or care if their employees are using any form of birth control? Do they know or care if an employee is using anti-depressants? insulin? Acutane? Is it anyone's business besides the patient and the doctor?

I didn't think so.

This is one ruling I don't understand.

chef

If one of your friends or family members says "Let's see the movie CHEF," say "Yes" and go. It's about a chef who eventually runs a taco truck (but doesn't sell tacos.)

That description is not enough to get most people into the theater. How about this? Some of the stars making appearances are: Robert Downey, Jr; Scarlett Johansson; Dustin Hoffman; Sophia Vergara.

But the movie owes its life to Jon Favreau who produced, wrote, and directed himself in the lead role.  He is a chef who gets into a Twitter war with a food critic after the restaurant owner (Hoffman) has him present his usual fare for review. The critic, played by Oliver Platt, is unimpressed and says so in a blogged review that goes viral. (This is much nicer than the viral review of Guy Fieri's new NYC restaurant.)

The chef's son, the delightful EmJay Anthony, helps him with a Twitter account and the story takes off from there.

In the old style of movies, this is a road movie. The chef, his son, and an employee from his former restaurant (John Leguizamo) drive the former taco truck, now tricked out as a Cubano truck, from Florida to California, changing the menu as they go.

A treat and a delight.

Rating: R for language

Length: 114 minutes


My rating: A (on a scale of A to F)

Worthiness: Full Price (on a scale of full price, discount only, second run, rent it, free, don't waste your time.)