My letter to the school

Dear Principal _____________,

I was concerned to learn that my son was handed a copy of the New Testament of the Christian Bible after school today. He was given this while exiting the gate and lining up to board the school bus to come home. To this end the gentleman, who I believe was representative of Gideon's International based on the copy my child was given, may not have broken any law, but I do have concerns about his actions.

I find the tactics of the Gideon unsavory, to say the least. While the Gideon was not on school grounds he was blocking the students' access to the buses, so they had no choice to ignore him before boarding. My son reported that the man put the orange book into his hand before he could ask what it was, then refused to take it back when he didn't want it. Further, I have taught my children, as many parents have, not to receive gifts from strangers. The content or intent of that gift notwithstanding, for a Gideon to aggressively hand my child something without my permission, teaches my child to ignore parental guidance and favor the guidance of a stranger who has best intentions in mind. Finally, I am certain there are safety rules that ensure students are not distracted while boarding the bus, that their school materials are put away so they may use their hands to assist them and prevent an accident. If a Gideon is making his way through the students, be it on a city sidewalk, that directly conflicts with safety rules.

For purposes of safety and to prevent the proselytizing of a captive audience, I hope that the Gideon is not acting with your permission. As such I am asking that you contact Gideons International and ask them not to distribute bibles at Rio Vista, citing school safety regulations. Should the Gideons protest I would like for you to contact the city regarding the sidewalk in front of the school where the buses pick up and drop of students, work with the Gideons to establish an acceptable area on public property that does not interfere with school operations, like boarding a bus. Also that you establish with them firm guidelines for students who do not wish to receive their wares. Lastly, on the off chance that the Gideons are acting with your permission I ask that you rescind that permission, in writing, immediately. If you choose not to rescind that permission, I would ask that you research religious organizations that distribute free literature from at least three other non-Christian sects and invite them to pass out their religious texts to bus riders who can't refuse them, providing equal time for all sects.

I am well supportive of the religious and speech rights the Gideons exercise; however, from the sound of it their expression may be infringing on the students' rights, which we can both agree is unacceptable. I look to you as the administrator of our school to enforce safety rules and protect the rights of the children under your care. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you as to how we will proceed.

Best Regards,

Al Rodriguez 

HER-story: The Story So Far

March, 2011 is Women's History Month. The theme this year, Our History is Our Strength, looks back to the accomplishments of women in the past. It celebrates achievements and reclaims accomplishments that have been ignored, disdained or denied. Learn about the tenacity, courage and creativity of women throughout the ages to find strength, to find role models for everyone.

I have a complicated relationship with national anything months. I agree with their goals, in general. I am a willing and happy participant. Many ... History Months are an admission of guilt, however. We, as a culture have overlooked major contributions by members of a suspect class either through sheer ignorance or outright malice. Though I can't claim to be a participant in the whitewashing of history (no pun intended), I share that collective guilt which I'm not certain is a proper motivation for highlighting and celebrating accomplishments. Further, these celebrations often conceal the fact that though we take steps toward equality, progress is difficult to measure and often backward momentum is overlooked.

So while we rightly study the struggles of women in history qua Women in History, it is also worthwhile to look at the current state of affairs. With that goal in mind I submit the following information about the state of gender equality in the US:

• For equivalent work women average $0.80 to a man's $1.00
  
• Both houses of Congress are represented by 17% women
  
• There are 89 countries with a higher percentage of women legislators (US rank: 72)
  
• Rwanda has 56% women in their lower house alone
  
• Countries where we claim to be nation building, Iraq and Afghanistan, have more women representatives
  
• Countries where we have identified human rights concerns, Cuba and China, have more women representatives
  
• Less than 5% of Fortune 500 companies are run or owned by women
  
• 7% of top grossing Hollywood films are directed by women
  
• 10% of Hollywood films are written by women

Ask yourself, do the accomplishments of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, monumental as they are, really show that much progress against such a yardstick? The fact that they stand out so much indicates that we may not be making the strides toward equality with which we credit ourselves. This concern is amplified when we turn our attention to the regress we've seen lately:

• The 2010 midterm election saw the first drop in women legislators since 1979
  
• HR 3, if passed would not only reinforce existing policy on abortion funding, but redefine "rape" so as to further restrict access to legal abortions
  
• HR 217, if passed would prohibit Title X funds from being granted to any organization that pays directly or otherwise funds providers that perform abortion services. Planned Parenthood, which already segregates goverment funding from their abortion services (less than 2% of their operations) would receive ZERO DOLLARS to cover contraceptives, pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling
  
• HR 358, if passed, would prevent funds from the Affordable Care Act from covering any health plan that provides abortion services

Worse, (only because legislation meant to restrict access to women's health services but would functionally increase unsafe, unsanitary abortions stands little to no chance of passing) we give equal attention, equal praise, to the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin as the aforementioned Clinton and Pelosi. Let me be clear, Palin and Bachmann are dunderheads who lack the basic knowledge in reading, math, geography, history, poli sci, and law required for the leadership roles they have/had.

So as we celebrate generations of accomplishment and progress, let's do so with awareness. Progress is slow and it is up to us to make it go faster. If we want our daughters to be as successful as our sons we need to fix wage disparities. We need to remove from office any representative who thinks he/she knows better about personal health decisions. And for the love of all things we must not--MUST NOT be guilted into thinking the Palins and the Bachmanns are role models. Anyone who quits the job with which the people of her state trusted her, for a reality show, is no role model.

... fiscal conservative

A trendy description for folks who are heartless, but don't want to seem like a complete jerk, is to say, "I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." I'm here to say that in terms of economic policy, there is no difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' except who will suckle at the government teat.

In the first place, terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are classically political, referring to the divide between those who support the despot and those who wanted to engage in self-rule. That isn't to say that the terms cannot apply to fiscal ideology, but the practical application of these terms points to a false divide. It is also to say that as an economic policy, the classical definition of 'liberal' IS conservative by nature. It is concerned with free markets that are tolerant of regulation and private property in the means of production.

What has become interchangeable with 'liberal' is more akin to socialism. But no honest, so-called conservative truly believes his ideological foe to be a socialist. That is because mostly we, the ideological foes of the so-called conservative, are not socialists. The ideological contrast is far more subtle than that, as we shall soon see. Further, there is far more agreement between conservatives and liberals than one might think.

A major plank of the conservative platform is a balanced budget. But this is voiced in terms that imply that liberals are unconcerned with balancing the budget. But consider that the last 'liberal' administration actually balanced the budget, and more, created a budget surplus which would have considerably reduced the national debt, another conservative plank. Contrast these actions with the mythological Perseus of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who not only ballooned the deficit/debt, but also grew the size of government exponentially.

We could go point by point debunking false distinctions between apparently opposing ideologies, but that would take some time. Let's then look at the one area that defines what is meant when we label ourselves (or each other) 'liberal' or 'conservative.' The question is simple: When the government writes its checks, who is the payee?

A conservative would have you believe that it's the poor. They are lazy and good for nothing and suck resources dry. We need to chuck out the illegals, drug test welfare recipients and for God's sake stop these public employees from receiving their gold-plated Mercedes that good-for-nothing unions negotiated for all those years ago. That is the path to fiscal health.

But they never say anything about closing revenue gaps, like by tax increases. They never say anything about reducing labor arbitrage, like by denying tax incentives to companies that send jobs overseas. They do, however tout tax cuts that clearly benefit the wealthy and say they don't need to be paid for. they will support deregulation of industries that will boost profits, while eviscerating vital protections of resources, human, natural and otherwise. All of this is free money, taxpayer money, that is vacuumed from the pockets of the common folk and put into a trough for the likes of Kochs and Goldman Sachs executives. When bailout money (read tax money) was being shoveled into the pockets of the men who were directly responsible for the Great Recession conservatives shook their fists and stamped their feet over efforts to recoup that money on behalf of the taxpayers. Now those same conservatives are shaking their fists and stamping their feet over taxpayer money being used... wait for it... to pay teachers and correctional officers!

To be fair, anyone protesting in Wisconsin right now will tell you that their fight isn't over money. It's about the right to bargain collectively with the state. The same right, the same fight, in the same state where the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime were practically born. But I digress.

The point is that the only true ideological difference between the conservative so-called, and the liberal so-called, is who is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding. For my part I would rather my tax dollars go to people who actually need it, AND in whose hands the economy has a chance to actually grow. Would I prefer a better way of weeding out the freeloaders that any subsistence program would entail? Sure. But freeloaders are a far cry from my tax dollars going to benefit millionaires who will employ me only so long as they can't get a better return from someone else, some where else.