Religious Understanding Must Exist Outside Relgious Practice

Concerning an article published last Saturday in the American Statesman, our friend Jenny Tran wrote strongly against Texas public school districts being required to offer a course on literature and the history of the Bible. The course was created by a law in 2007 and now falls into requirement. I think the main point of confusion for Jenny is that students will not be required take the course in their standard curriculum, and schools will not even be required to teach the course. That is to say, the district must offer the course as a possible elective - if the schools want it - and students may elect to take it.

I find it interesting, personally, that such a class would be created by law. Then again, I'm not completely sure about how a school curriculum is set up.

I can understand the argument made in the Statesman article that world religions are already covered in history and geography courses. In fact, it surprises me that no point is made of having the ability already to tie the Bible into literature in English classes. My own English classes did exactly this.

But I am surprised at the strong opposition. I suppose it may stem from fear of religious fanatics pushing their agenda, but the article refutes that thought:

"I first thought it would be devout kids who just wanted more Bible," Stratton said.

But the students want to take the course because they have an intellectual curiosity and understanding that the Bible is important to grasping literature, history and culture, said Gillory, an English and creative writing teacher at The Woodlands College Park High School.

We see that more often, children are eager to learn ways that their core classes are threaded together, and this class does just that.

As far as not being able to really teach literature and history without the Bible, I must also disagree with Jenny. By selectively deleting motivations and allusions in history and literature, you will lack full understanding of a subject. If you blindly ignore religious influences relevant to these courses, you are failing to consider and understand the concept, and understanding is what we all must strive for, especially when such contentious issues are at hand. Western society is riddled with the influence of Christianity, both in its structure and history; you don't have to be Christian to understand it.

I would say that if there is a demand for the class, why shouldn't it be offered?

One Good War Deserves Another

Yochi Dreazen and Peter Spiegel have posted a foreboding article in the Washington Post today: according to US General Stanley McChrystal, the Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan. What does this mean to the United States? A troop increase, of course - at least that's the suggestion. It looks like as the involvement in Iraq ramps down, involvement in Afghanistan with ramp up.
Our troops stand to face almost the same problem with this foretold troop surge: an elusive guerrilla enemy. Around 45 soldiers died last month in Afghanistan, and already this month we have lost 12. Often the cause of these deaths can be attributed to roadside bombs, random village encounters, and militants with rockets. How are we to ever control an enemy that attacks mostly in small numbers and sets up shadow governments that we have little to no information on?
My estimate: it is doubtful we can. We have set out to fight a war on terror, a war that sets out in vain to eliminate a concept. Not only are $4 billion dollars of taxpayer money going to the war in Afghanistan every month, but they are funneling into the most pompous of motivations. This, not the fact that we are "losing," is what I find to be foreboding.
The United States thinks quite highly of itself, deigning to clean up the government in Iraq by instituting for them a democracy. Continuing Cold War ideals of making sure our hand is guiding any unstable pocket of the world remains an important tenet of the collective government mind, and this hubris is the reason for much militant opposition to America today.
I don't remark that pulling our troops out will do Afghanistan any good, maybe the opposite, but we never belonged there in such great numbers in the first place. To find terrorists, you need special teams, not extensive armies. We were there to find first and foremost Osama Bin Laden, and we have failed to do this. If' he is the tactical mastermind that the government makes him out to be, he probably isn't hanging around the country where we'll have 68,000 troops by year's end.
I know the argument is that if we pull out our troops we'll seem to have been defeated rather than as acknowledging that the effort was ill-founded to begin with. The Taliban will gloat that America could not defeat them. They will have their words, but that is all. They will not have actually weakened us but in frustration at ourselves. If the influence of the Taliban increases, we have secret services that can take the missions as we have in the past, but we need not ramp up the Afghanistan war and sacrifice American lives perpetually for a symbolic war.

On Adapting the French Healthcare Model

Last Thursday, our friend Mediana wrote a blog entitled "Our Health Care and Our Country" about a potential health care reform proposal that she agrees with. That is, in a nutshell: some major European countries survive as world powers providing only free healthcare and no insurance, why shouldn't the US do the same?
Well, saying that the French do not have health insurance is untrue, but her overall idea still rings true. French health care is provided by the government and does not include extensive waitlists like those distastefully found in the Canadian system. In fact, according to Paul Dutton, the World Health Organization ranked France as #1 in healthcare in 2001, with the United States at #37.
The way Dutton paints it, French insurers aren't "out to get" their clients, the way Mediana makes it seem American insurers are. I understand generally that American insurance companies in general do "everything to deny a claim," as she says, but I do wish that she would provide a case in point. Otherwise it is hard to completely side with her.
Another point to address is that France pays a considerable $3,500 per capita to provide for their healthcare, and their taxes to help cover healthcare are rising. Compared to the US, however, which pays $6,100 per capita, France's price is almost a pittance.
Applying this in reality, we must take into account that the United States has about five times as many people as France and covers at least fifteen times more land. Our girth is a considerable factor in the strength of centralized enforcement of programs. That is, we may not be as apt to quickly spread these healthcare reforms as France was and would be.
Yet another unaddressed point is why American insurance companies are the major issue concerning health care. America's capitalism is its pride, and its economy is the best in the world. This is precisely because of the tenacity of business, for better or for worse. American insurance companies are going to be accommodated to some extent, at the very least they will not be completely abolished.
The same goes for changing healthcare policy in America. Many accommodations will have to be made for voters to side with any healthcare reform. No change so dire as complete government control or free healthcare will go over easily, much less a complete drop of an economic institution like insurance.

Texting While Driving is on the Chopping Block

On Wednesday, legislation was introduced into the Senate that could block substantial federal highway funding to states that do not ban texting by drivers. Lately over at the New York Times Online, Matt Richtel has been regularly updating on cell phone related issues.
It turns out, according to studies from Virginia Tech and the University of Utah, that texting while driving is twice as dangerous as both talking on the phone while driving and being legally intoxicated, a risk quoted as being eight times greater than for a driver that is not distracted.

Surely, no one should be surprised at the fact that multi-tasking while driving is dangerous. Fourteen states currently have a ban on texting while driving, which, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, is more widespread than any ban on regular adult drivers talking on cell phones. Clearly, distraction by texting is an issue.

I'd say it's about time cell phone use while driving was regulated. A 2003 Harvard study (also cited by Mr. Richtel) estimates that cell phone distractions cause 2,600 traffic deaths every year, as well as 330,000 injuries via traffic accident.
Texting was pioneered around the mid-nineties, but it took until the turn of the decade for cell phones to become a truly common and widespread phenomenon. Now, not a day goes by that I don't see a person talking or texting on a cell phone as I make my transit to and from work. Often, I'm guilty of talking on a cell phone myself.
Personally, I believe that different people have different abilities when it comes to multitasking while driving. Some are able to talk and maintain sufficient attention to the road, others are not. The problem is that there is no way gauge this to keep the public safe. Making cell phone use illegal while driving is probably the best way to go.

To be clear, it is the state's job to regulate roadways. The federal government is using the bill that just entered the Senate to pressure states into passing cell phone traffic regulations. They did the same thing in 1984, pressuring the states to raise the drinking age to twenty-one. It is likely that states will regulate cell phone use rather than lose federal highway funding.

A problem I see is the enforcement of a no-text law. Texting, like wearing a seatbelt, may be almost invisible to a person outside the guilty party's car. A driver that's texting may appear to just be looking periodically into his or her lap. The Governor's Highway Association, a group that represents state highway safety agencies in every state, opposes these laws because they are "unenforceable," but just because it would be a hard law to enforce does not make it unnecessary. Safety advocates argue that although these laws would be hard to enforce, they "create awareness about the issue and set social guidelines for the behavior."

I believe the US government is pressuring state government with good reason. The more we can reduce traffic deaths, which total at around 40,000 per year in the United States, the better.

Democrats Pull in the Reins on Their Own Anti-trust Agression

Susie Madrak posted an article yesterday on the liberal blog Crooks and Liars criticizing Democratic officials in the Obama camp for wanting to slow aggressive anti-trust actions being made by the Justice Department. The Department's chief, Christine A. Varney, a fellow Democrat, has been pressing an array of companies - phone, cable, agriculture, airlines - on anti-trust issues. What her detractors fear, Madrak says, is the loss of big business's campaign contributions that help win Democratic votes. Ms. Madrak believes the politicians critical of Varney would be more apt to try appealing to voters.
I trust that Susie may know what she's getting at with her own criticism, as she's been a journalist for 15 years, but she certainly leaves us to read a lot into it for ourselves. I don't doubt, with the polar sort of blog that she writes, that Ms. Madrak expects her readers to be the type to instantly agree and see her point without her actually expanding upon it. I have a problem with this idea fundamentally, but I also have a problem or two with what she's saying in this particular blog.
Surely she's been in journalism long enough to know what I, as a simpleton college student, know: the party is likely to put itself first. If the Democratic party needs the support of big business to keep in power, it will draw the line for how hard Christine Varney can push AT&T and Verizon. Keeping itself in a tenable position is the foremost concern. Once that's relatively secure, the good of the people can come into play. Sure, in a perfect world, we, the people, would come first, and that's what Ms. Madrak and every liberal wishes for - a perfect world. But, sadly, the world is not perfect, and the party must compromise some of its standing with both big business and the American people to maintain stability.
Ms. Madrak's concern, therefore, is probably too idealistic to take seriously unless the whole system is overhauled. If there's one thing we can take from this article, it's that she highlighted an important issue, even if her critique seems naive.

Misguided Census Dodgers Must Wake Up

Raul Reyes posted an editorial this morning concerning recent urges by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC) for illegal Latino immigrants to boycott the 2010 Census. This group represents some 20,000 churches in 34 states and believes that national government fear of a severe miscount may press legislation concerning immigration reform.
Reyes points to flaws in their logic. He says that CONLAMIC is creating a link between immigration reform and the Census where none exists. The Census asks nothing about immigration status and has no direct link to US Customs Enforcement. Being a man of some Latino heritage, one would expect his motives to be pure in favor of helping the Latino community.
And Reyes is right. The Census count is used for federal redistricting, funds dispersal, and apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. Clearly, if the Latino community was conscious of this information, they would know how much every Latino counts. Not only would Census-counted illegal immigrants be able to continue working undiscovered, but their communities would receive more funding and more representation in US legislature.
Supporters of the boycott claim that funding will go to policing Latino communities and Census information will go to the Department of Homeland Security, all for the purpose of rooting out illegals. Reyes seems to believe that privacy rules concerning the bureau have strengthened sufficiently to keep this from being a problem.
Mr. Reyes is a New York attorney, so I tend to believe his word concerning legal changes and effects, which is essentially what the whole concern is. In fact, problems that he claims solution to, such as the fact that Homeland Security used information against the Japanese and Arabs in the past, are what CONLAMIC should be worrying about. His attention to and trust in law underlines legal ignorance, not to mention already plain distrust, in the Latino community characteristic of a lower income demographic.
The lower income bracket is also characteristically less informed. Would they be expected to read USA Today? Well, the Latino community is a wide and diverse group, so one can assume at least some small percentage must read the paper. This editorial is pointed at them. Sarcasm like "let's get serious" and strong words like "political suicide" must be meant to draw attention to the issue, and he is clearly directing these words at CONLAMIC and Census boycott supporters to halt irrational and harmful action. Those in favor of justice can only hope his message is heard.

Speculating for Truth on CIA Counterterrorism Program

Time Magazine Online published an article yesterday about Congressional Democrats continuing to probe the legality of G.W. Bush's secretive CIA counterterrorism program. They cited the Wall Street Journal as saying the program never really lifted off, while otherwise pulling quotes from Congressional members Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) saying that judicial inquiries should be made because Congress was not kept well-informed on the program. The counterterrorism program referred to was a CIA mission to capture and kill Al-Qaida operatives that was supposedly covered up by former Vice President Dick Cheney. John Cornyn (R-Tx.) agreed that Congress should stay informed, but claimed that Democrats were probably trying to cover for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's similar accusal of unlawful CIA torture in 2002.

Congressional Democrats and Time Magazine both probably believe in the legitimacy of the argument, but I believe that what they're really trying to do is keep the buzz on George Bush alive. The Bush administration has not yet been to trial, and anything unearthed at this point may lead to uncovering hard facts about the more controversial aspects of Bush's presidency. Time will tell whether this horse is dead or rearing to be beaten.