Straight paths through crooked roads

Civility in American Politics is on trial but can be redeemed.

The main stream media has indicted and put on trial the Tea Party folks.  They stand accused of the crime of lack of civility.  They are unfairly added to a variety of genuine right wingnuts being condemned in their papers, their TV news, and magazines.  Fox News has replied with Bill O'Reilly putting the main stream media folks on trial for neglecting coverage of the lack of civility by certifiably left wingnut wackos who shout down Carl Rove and preach that the "white right" is planning assassination of the President.

How is it that since Viet Nam, civility in the body politic has been on a chronic malaise?  It has gotten worse over the years.  Why?  Because civility has suffered two deadly blows.  First, the philosophical concensus that made civility possible and useful has been destroyed.  Second, civility can no longer function to reconcile or compromise the two major competing parties.  How can this be?

Civility existed in government from the turn of the 19th to 20th century until the death of President Kennedy in 1963 because there was general political consensus between the two parties.  There was overall ageement on the basic major goals for the country but differences on the steps to achieve them. 

Then, there was a political revolution spawned by conflict over justification for the Viet Nam war from about 1965 until even now.  This went to basic philosophical assumptions that were different between the younger and the older generations.  There had been a turning of philosophy as a social undercurrent from about the 1920's but had not risen to the surface of political leadership. This controversy in thinking was put in the spotlight at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. 

Since that time, the conflict has evolved.  The principles are now embraced on both sides by all of the age levels.  These opposing sets of values assume different principles to be fundamental truth.  These two sides are identifiable and both make mutually exclusive claims on the beliefs of Americans. 

There is the Obama-nation which is allied with a network of liberals.  There is also an opposing alliance of moderates and conservatives who struggle on compromise and reconciliation with each other.  Both sides maintain a united front so as to contest for leadership in all levels of government.  Both sides have come to assume a zero sum game.  That is to say, both see any gain for the other side a loss for them and vice-versa.  They hold their values so closely that there is no logical way for them to see their values as anything other than the best interests of the United States.  Thus, both sides have become what are called "idealogues".

As I recall, an "idealogue" was described by Napoleon Bonapart as a person who builds his pyramid from the top downward but never quite reaches the ground.  Thus, both sides are lacking for a foundation of practical results upon which they can agree as the highest priority. It is difficult to find basis for agreement so, it is difficult to be agreeable.

In this political environment, civility and compromise does not work to win the other side nor does civility serve to destroy the other side.  Civility has been cast aside as irrelevant. 

Wait a minute!  Civility is important in and of itself, isn't it?  Yes, it is if you wish to avoid resorting to chaos and violence.  But, civility is losing its foundation.  If the foundations are destroyed, what can a reasonable and good person do?  

One can try to separate the bad ideas from the people who believe them.  As a Bible believing, bragging on Jesus Christian might say, separate the sin from the sinner.  Once the opponent understands that you are not rejecting him or her as a person, but only criticizing the idea, it becomes more possible to speak with a rational voice.  If we can do this, civility may be returned to its original purpose, accomplishing great things in behalf of our entire country.  That is to say, civility may be redeemed.

May God bless the USA and have mercy on us all.

President Obama's turning from Isreal: what might this mean?

Presdent Obama left Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel after a confrontational meeting at the White House.  President Obama went to have dinner without his guest from Israel.  This pointed snub is a sharp contrast to President Obama's apparent bow before King Saud at a different meeting earlier in his presidency. 

There is speculation that the differences between President Obama and Israel go deeper than the controversial building by Israel of more than a thousand Jewish homes in east Jerusalem, claimed by the Palestinians as their capital.  Yes, this is a big point of contention.  However, it is voiced by some that President Obama may be even more disturbed by an even more critical problem. 

That would be the possible insistance by Prime Minister Netanyahu that Isreal must unleash some sort of attack on Iran.  Iran has directly threatened Israel with destruction, has pursued the building of nuclear means of building atomic weapons, has purchased and developed sophisticated missiles capable of carrying atomic weapons to Israel.  Israel is critically concerned over this eventual certainty and feels that it must act to prevent it from happening.

Such an attack would most certainly be by Israel's air force.  The flight plan would almost certainly require permission from the United States to fly over Iraq or cooperation to fly over areas of the sea dominated by US naval power. 

If the United States refuses permission, as President Obama seems most likely to do, then Israel is truly on its own.  Israel will have to defy the United States, the United Nations, the oil interests of virtually every nation in order to carry out such a mission. 

This would mean that the conditions set in the book of Revelation will have been met that call for all nations to turn against Israel.  Coincidentally, it is also coming about that there is an international turning against the Christian faith. 

President Obama's faith based programs from the White House forbid any negative stance against the practice of homosexuality.  Obama's philosophical stance is in direct opposition to the evangelical view of the Christian faith as a belief in all of the scriptures to be accurate and true. 

Large segments of the American media, academe, government and society are attempting to place Christians "in the closet."  With political rhetoric in Washington becoming ever more inflamed, it is certainly possible to have a future in which America and the world will see a massacre of Christians as happened in China after the communist takeover in 1947-48 and is happening now in cities of northern Africa. 

Thus, there is a parallel that can be drawn between the rejection of Israel and the rejection of world Christianity.  One does not cause the other.  However, perhaps both have the same cause.  That cause is the fulfillment of the Book of Revelations.

President Obama's turning away from Israel may mean that there is a sign written large in our understanding.  Jesus Christ frequently spoke of understanding the signs of the times.  This conclusion of mine will seem very foolish to those who may be perishing.  However, this sign can be a great encouragement to those with the eyes of faith and a spirit alive in Christ.

Obama's nation-wide school district.

According to the local paper, the new education standard proposed by President Obama would have at least two themes.  First, subjective or more flexible standards which would indicate that the student was now ready for college or a job would replace objective national standards in language development and mathematics (which we have now under the No Child Left Behind act). Second, the schools  would be largely on their own as to determine whether or not they had achieved this readiness.

Concerning the change from a more objective to a more subjective set of standards, the proposed policies seem to be a horrible step backwards.  I am a high school teacher.  One advantage of the current act is that I can tell by records whether a student has tested as below basic, basic, proficient, or advanced in either or both language development and mathematics.  Thus, I can see at a glance which students will need more or less help.  That is because the current standards are objective.  They are the same all across the nation.  I don't need some subjective standard as to whether or not my student is ready for a job or for college because I know that community college will only require the basic, state four year university will require proficient level, and an elite university will require advanced levels.  I know that any job will require enough proficiency in language to follow detailed instructions and enough mathematics to solve simple problems.

There are a great many teachers who state that they object to "teaching to the test".  There is truth in that.  Tests are meant to only sample at random those things that students need to learn.  The content of their programs needs to be far greater than the items chosen as samples for testing. 

However, there is another and sometimes hidden agenda behind the objection to teaching to the test.  Many teachers are afraid of being held to any objective standard at all.  They may feel that they are the professionals in education and that it is not the business of the community to impose other expectations on their academic freedom. 

That may be true even if the community voices include business people who have a legitimate claim upon the schools.  Schools should give diplomas only to students  who will not require businesses to teach them as employees what they should already have known before graduation.

The new proposed standards by Obama seem at first glance to offer flexibility by location and even socio-economic group as to what is required for college entrance or job readiness.  I am concerned that such flexible standards will dissemble into a lack of actual meaning. Diplomas will lose total credibility.

The flexibility of schools being able to determine policy without reference to the needs and expectations of the business and social communities of the local schools means that the education system will be a world unto itself.  That has been the problem in the past and was a major focus of the reform by the No Child Left Behind act.

The intervention of Obama's program upon the 100,000 schools of the United States seems to be a simple imposition of his administraion to create a single nation-wide school district with neither the legal authorization of the Constitution to create it nor the social moral authority to justify it.