The Anti-bullying Wave

On Thursday November 18th, the Dallas Independent School District expanded their anti-bullying policy to include gays, lesbians and transgenders. That policy already applied to the characteristics of national origin, family background, religious and political beliefs. Although there was no particular incident at DISD that led to this policy amendment, the school board felt compelled to do something in the wake of recent bullying incidents in other parts of the country that even led to suicide. They were smart enough to change the policy before something happened. Punishment ranges from counseling to expulsion.

1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.

After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?

While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?

2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?

Changes

As I finish my last day as president of the University Kiwanis Club of Wichita Falls, I reflect on this and other interesting things happening in my life and that of my family. I certainly enjoyed leading this club which focuses on improving the lives of the citizens of Wichita Falls, particularly its children.

The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.

Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.

Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.

Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.

Debbie Specht

Our congregation today formally celebrated the reward of eternal life in heaven bestowed on our dear friend Debbie Specht who passed away a little over a week ago after an 18 month battle with brain cancer. While I reflect on how fully she lived her relatively short 48 year life, the last six years of which I witnessed, I will best remember her enduring faith to which her works testified.

Debbie and her husband Bruce were regular fixtures in Pastor Snyder's Sunday morning Bible class. While Bruce probably commented less than the average attendee, Debbie was not shy in discussing how the Bible verses at hand applied to a past or current phase of her life. One story that stands out is one of her father, Ken Walton, who had not accepted Christ as his Savior. It was her earnest desire that he come to that faith. I always enjoyed hearing her talk because I generally like to hear about the struggles and victories of my fellow followers of Christ. I think everyone has a witness story, but she particularly stands out in my mind as someone willing to share hers and thereby strengthen and encourage me and others.

Debbie always seemed genuinely happy to see me and my family which grew from three to five while we knew her. Everyone knows when someone really cares about you and what you say. Debbie was one of those people. Some people may be more inclined to do so, but it takes discipline to focus on others before yourself as our sinful nature wants to do. This testifies to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and her love of Christ.

Debbie also stepped up to be a co-director of our church's early childhood program, Sonshine Learning Center, in its waning months. I think it would be easy to lead something that is growing and successful, but she helped direct a program that had suffered from previous corrupt directors and an ever-increasing regulatory state. While that program was soon closed down, she worked diligently to make the best of it. I remember her specifically telling me that the Lord told her to take this position. While I did not press her on whether or not she literally heard His voice, I was still impressed with the mature level of communication between her and her Lord. It was a great example for me.

Finally, Debbie continued to lend her musical talent to the vocal and bell choirs as much as she physically could well into her cancer treatments sometimes beyond reason. She had every right to stand down and be served rather than serve as her cancer prognoses worsened. We "healthy" members of the body of Christ are without excuse.

See you on the other side, Debbie, and may the Lord bless and comfort your husband, Bruce, and your daughters, Katie and Kayla.

Nanny state

McDonald's is coming under fire for its inclusion of toys, specifically Shrek toys, in their Happy Meals. It's as if they think kids wouldn't want and parents wouldn't buy Happy Meals, and their supposedly obesity-causing food items, unless they included toys.

Although further intrusions of federal, state or local government into the affairs of a private business should raise eyebrows and objections, it's the following paragraph from the June 23rd L.A. Times story that bothers me.

"In April, Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county. The supervisors gave fast food chains 90 days to voluntarily comply before the ordinance became effective."

Do I conclude from this paragraph that conservatives are not nutrition advocates or that nutrition advocates are liberals? Conservatives do care about nutrition; we just don't care for government bans on Happy Meal toys. Conservatives stand for choice. If McDonald's thinks they can increase sales by including toys in their Happy Meals, then they should be free to do so. Are they forcing parents to buy their Happy Meals or even their food? So far at least not in Wichita Falls. McDonald's can't force anyone to do anything; the state however can force people or businesses to do things or face fines and/or jail time. Conservatives oppose this type of state action.

Government Moratoriums

There is no doubt that the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the last month and a half is a premier disaster. The damage to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida will go far beyond environmental. While oil is big business along parts of that coast, so are fishing, hunting and tourism. I make no apologies for BP or any oil company that does not follow good engineering practices and the law when executing drilling, completion, production and transportation operations. I would not be surprised if BP does not go out of business after all of the lawsuits from federal and state governments as well as private businesses and individuals. At least maybe they will focus on just oil and gas instead of "green" energy.

Laws regarding commerce, whether it be oil and gas, fishing, transportation, etc., in federal waters should be enforced by the appropriate agency consistently over time and across industry players regardless of their lobbying efforts. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) which is under the authority of the Department of the Interior which is under the authority of the President, has the responsibility to enforce oil and gas laws, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is their oversight authority.

According to CLTV-Chicago and the Center for Responsive Politics, BP spent $16 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and $3.5 million so far this year. Most of this money went to members of this oversight committee. President Obama was the largest recipient of BP campaign contributions in 2008 at $71,000 and second only to Senator McCain in total oil and gas campaign contributions in 2008 at $884,000. While I have no problem with companies contributing to politicians to encourage them to vote favorably for their business, I do have a problem when that money affects how the President enforces or does not enforce laws or how Congress does not thoroughly oversee their respective agencies.

The MMS declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater GOM drilling, cancelled the bi-annual GOM lease sale scheduled for this August, cancelled the 2012 lease sale off the Virginia coast and suspended Shell's permits to drill five exploratory wells in offshore Alaska. I believe that this is an over-reaction that will only further damage our already fragile economy even before this oil spill occurred. I realize that it is a natural political reaction that plays well to our emotions, but this move fails to put this disaster into perspective and consider the long-term implications of delaying exploration.

On May 24-25th, a full month after this spill occurred, USA Today/Gallup asked the following question of 1,029 adults: How serious a threat to the future wellbeing of the United States do you consider each of the following: terrorism, federal debt, healthcare costs, unemployment, illegal immigration, size and power of the federal government, having combat troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, environmental damage, size and power of large corporations and minority discrimination? In the "extremely serious" category, federal debt was second only to terrorism and environmental damage was eighth. Nearly 80% of those polled said that the debt was a very to extremely serious threat whereas only half said the same of environmental damage.

If the government places a moratorium, or freeze, on drilling to protect the environment, which is far from the top of the list of perceived threats to our nation's future wellbeing, why can they not also place a moratorium on spending instead of setting record deficits and debts and refusing to fundamentally reform the big three entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? While protecting the environment is important, the public outcry for debt reduction is far greater. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey declared that their $10.7 billion budget gap could be closed by essentially placing a moratorium, or freeze, on spending. He employed the Saul Alinsky method to eliminating problems...pick you target, isolate it and freeze it. Saul inspired the President; maybe Governor Christie can too.

On Elena Kagan

Maybe my most relished part of our government's Constitutional role is that of the President to nominate and the Senate to advise and confirm, or deny, those judges and justices to the federal judiciary. In addition to being a rare occurence, this situation also presents an opportunity for deep discussions and analyses, both in the news and in committee hearings, on the Constitution and laws of the land and how they affect our lives, good or bad. On this point, I agree with the latest nominee to the Supreme Court, current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who wrote in a 1995 University of Chicago law review the following:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. ... [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

I also want a serious discussion of the issues and viewpoints. I want a legal analysis. I want an education. I do not want a growing cynicism of government. I have grown weary of hearing or watching all nominees since Bork, to some degree, dodge questions of a political nature that as they typically say "may come before this court in the near future." I suspect it is due to the fact that they well remember what happened to Bork and do not want to be rejected by the Senate or "Borked" for taking firm stands on those political issues as he did. For instance, Bork was explicit on the Constitution's silence on the issue of abortion. While he probably expected that he would "fall on the sword", I think he knew, or hoped, the debate would be good for our Constitutional republic.

This debate on political issues will be even more important with Elena Kagan since she has no judicial experience. Not in over 40 years has someone been nominated to the Supreme Court without some experience on the bench. While this is not and should not be a deal-breaker, the lack thereof provides Senators with no idea how she will interpret the Constitution and laws of the land. Another advantage of judicial experience is that judges and justices usually refrain from taking sides on political issues for fear of having to recuse themselves at a later date if a related case comes before them. She has been free to take sides on political issues up until now, as we all have a right to do, so it is fair game, and the only game, for Senators. Will they take her advice as they advise her?

I will gladly take her advice as I hope Senators do. Here is one example. How does she resolve her view that schools can violate a law, known as the Solomon amendment, by taking federal money while barring voluntary military recuitment from its campus? As Dean of Harvard Law School, which took $517 million in 2005-2006, she not only disagreed with the law, she fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, which soundly rejected the claim, through an organization called FAIR, or Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. It is fine with me if she, as a private citizen or even the dean of an elite university, disagrees with that law or with military recruitment of any kind. However, should not that frustration be directed at changing the law through elected representatives and not whimsical violations? As with most government funding, there are strings attached. If she is elevated to a Supreme Court that hears a similar case, would she rightly recuse herself or rule in favor of the next Ivy League school that violates that law?

Finally, here is another example. In another law review article, she expressed a belief that the courts exist to pay deference to the "despised and disadvantaged." Should not the law, and the interpretation thereof, be blind to race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions? This is how the equal protection clause is honored. If the "despised and disdvantaged", whoever they may be, are violating the law, should not the courts rule against them and in favor of those in the right, no matter what their race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions?

Government oversight

Consider the following excerpt from USA Today:

The U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the FCC overstepped its authority in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from interfering with Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.

The cable company said the sites were hogging scarce Internet bandwidth, which slowed all Web traffic. The FCC said it wanted to prevent Comcast from using its clout as a broadband service provider to favor some services over others.

But the court unanimously agreed with Comcast that the FCC doesn't have an explicit right to regulate broadband service, and can't infer it from its power to set rules for cable TV and phone services.

In response to this ruling against the FCC, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) said that "without oversight, market giants would be free to do as they wish, even if their actions hindered the free flow of information, treated consumers unfairly or discriminated against content creators."

I do not pretend to know the intricacies of laws regulating cable TV, phone services and broadband services. Lawmakers probably paid little attention to the language when they voted for those laws and wouldn't be able to determine if the FCC was taking too many liberties with the letter of the law in its enforcement of those laws. It took one of the highest courts in the land to determine that the FCC overstepped their bounds.

I do know that as long as there are even just a few market giants instead of a singular market giant, in the long run, as Senator Kerry would say, information will flow freely, consumers will be treated fairly and content creators will see no discrimination. How do I know this? Competition. One search of broadband service providers (BSP) shows a list of 29 all the way from Adelphia to Comcast to Yahoo. What if Comcast continues to engage in such activity? Would disgruntled consumers not switch to another BSP?

Consider also this excerpt from www.fastcompany.com.

An attorney who defended FCC said that the federal court's decision "represents a severe limitation on the agency's future authority."

We should not be worried about severe limitations imposed on the FCC, or any other agency, by our federal courts who strive, or at least should strive, only to interpret laws and see that they honor the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. We should, however, be worried about the largest market giant, namely the federal government, which naturally seeks to insert itself into the daily decisions of millions of free people. We need less government oversight of the free market and more free market oversight of the government.