Are All Pro-Voucher Arguments this.....well, bad?

First of all, two disclaimers:

1 - I do not claim to be an expert on this voucher thing. I only know what I read and what my Dad tells me.
2 - I do not have children, and if I did I would definitely consider sending them to a private school...but I would not use vouchers, I would make the sacrifice, apply for the scholarships, and in other ways pay for my own choice.

That being said, I read the Op-Ed linked to above, and I think common sense can refute most of the arguments laid out in it. So, here we go:

First of all, the title Like to make your own choices? Vote for vouchers, makes me wonder at what point we weren't able to make our own choices for our childrens' education? Can you not home school your child, send them to charter schools, or even send them to private schools now? Indeed you can...vouchers are not suddenly going to give you choices: you already had them. Don't have the money to send your child to a private school? Apply for scholarships, work with the private schools to get better rates on tuition...there are options. Vouchers aren't really going to help with that much of the cost in the end anyway. According to the pro-voucher website UtahVouchers.com you can get between $500 and $3,000 per year...which hardly makes a dent in some private school tuition bills.

Next, "It's bad for public schools," they say. Why? Supposedly, because it will bankrupt them. But I say if the financial part of this bill could make it past the Utah Legislature, then I figure I don't need a degree in accounting to realize the money part will work out.
Common sense here is as simple as knowing that the Utah Legislature does not always know best. Most of them don't have degrees in accounting either, and they operate based on politics, not common sense. Anyone can see that by taking a look at what is accomplished in each legislative session in Utah.

Utah has a lot of kids. In fact, about one fourth of our population is school-aged children. And we all know we don't spend a lot of money per pupil. Generally, that's bad. So if a private school thinks they can do better, with even less money, then go for it. Isn't this a free-market economy?
First of all....we don't spend a lot of money per pupil. So why not give more funding to PUBLIC schools? Seems the obvious answer. Secondly, the idea of the free-market economy is not that it should run based on government dollars but private dollars. Also, the school system should never be run like the economy. If it was, the least privileged and most oppressed citizens would be left behind.

Private schools and charter schools work on the idea of providing a sound general education with perks -- maybe religious, maybe a focus on science or language, generally smaller class sizes. If you want to choose that for your child, I am willing to pay some tax dollars so it can happen.
Personally, I am willing to pay some tax dollars so that every child can get a quality education that isn't influenced by religious ideologies or by schools over which the government has no oversight. If we were to better fund our public education system, we could have smaller class sizes and improve instruction in science and language. I don't want my tax dollars to contribute to the religion you teach your child. Pay for that yourself.

"Your child could be taught by a teacher without certification, or even a college degree," they warn. Guess what? A good estimate in Utah is that your child will spend an entire educational year being taught by substitute teachers before they graduate from high school. Most substitutes do not have a certification, and technically they do not even need a college degree.
In talking with a teacher friend of mine yesterday in casual conversation, she stated that she wished substitute teachers didn't need to have a degree. That indicates to me that, in fact, substitute teachers are required to have degrees in most school districts. Also, one year (if in fact that is a reliable estimate of the number of days your child's public school teachers will not show up for class) of unqualified teaching is far better than 12.

"Average Utahns can't afford the difference in tuition," the ads intone. So what if tuition was $4,000 and you, according to the income guidelines, got $2,000 toward a private school you liked for your child. Is $2,000 a year too much to pay for your peace of mind? That comes down to $222 extra a month -- less than a car payment for many people.
Honestly, $4,000 a year isn't too much to ask for peace of mind, is it? If you can't afford $335 a month, apply for scholarships or loans. People do it all the time.

We also need to realize this has, quietly, becomes a national battle. It is sort of pitting the teachers' associations (anti-voucher) against the pro-voucher people. Many other states are looking to Utah to see what will happen. Does the teacher's union have enough power to dictate your choices to you? I hope not. Besides, if the unhappy parents decided to take their children and leave the public schools, the teachers should be even happier.
The teacher's union has never dictated my choices, the choices of my parents, or your choices. We do not live in a country where we are helpless about everything from what we eat and wear to where we live and where our children go to school. This author loves to play the helpless card, but I'm sure she simultaneously believes in the American Dream...the idea that if you really want something, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and go get it. No government handouts required.

That's perhaps the most perplexing part of this whole argument. Most of the people arguing for vouchers call themselves conservatives. Traditionally, conservatives have been against government handouts. So perhaps, on this issue, I come out on the conservative side. I believe that if you want to make the choice to send your child to a private school, that's your prerogative. That doesn't mean I should have to pay for it. It's a free market, you have choices, and I say go out and make them. More power to you. Meanwhile, without children of my own, I'm happy to have my tax dollars go to a school system that, while sometimes broken and less than stellar, still serves ALL children, regardless of who their parents are or what they believe. That's the true American dream.

Conserve Water and Taxpayer Money

I've been saying it for a long time, but it's nice to finally have an "official" opinion on water problems in Southern Utah. Read more by clicking the title above.

An Honorable Distinction?

Davis County has recently received the honorable distinction of being the county that is ranked first in the entire United States for homes with 4 bedrooms or more.

Of course, to those of us who have witnessed the explosive growth and encroachment of Davis County suburbs, this comes as no surprise. Huge McMansions are crammed together on what was once open farmland, coming closer and closer to the important wetlands of the Great Salt Lake.

Sure, Utah families are some of the largest in the nation, but according to the article "In much of the country, the growth in big houses is fueled by suburban homebuyers seeking luxury, rather than big families needing space." I wonder if this is true in Utah? I have only one personal example:

My sister and her husband are currently on home #3 in Davis County with four or more bedrooms. They have made a habit of building large homes, staying a few years, selling, and building an even larger home somewhere else. This for their family of 4. Certainly they do not have a need for 4 plus bedrooms. I wonder how many other families are following the same path?

The McMansion trend is destructive not only environmentally but in terms of building communities. They are thrown up haphazardly with little thought for infrastructure, they encourage isolation by their design, and they suck up energy and water in a West that is struggling for both.

More reasons to do away with Vouchers!

Post 100----Thoughts on Extremism

In recent weeks, I have noticed two protests from opposite ends of the political spectrum that make me feel exceptionally moderate, and I've been meaning to address:

1) From the extreme liberal end:

Loch Wade, a resident of the small town of Boulder, Utah, insisted recently that The Nature Conservancy return a donation from the controversial EnergySolutions Foundation.

Conspiracy-theories aside, there is no logical reason that The Nature Conservancy, or any other non-profit, should be censoring donors according to what they believe, do, or practice. Consider the slippery slope down which this censoring would lead...soon, non-profits would not be able to accept donations from any corporations, or even individuals with political persuasions that are opposed to the "purists"...no Republicans allowed!

We cannot let our own "pure" beliefs about something stop important work from being done. I have seen this countless times from extremists, but one example comes to mind: I used to be a subscriber to Mother Earth News, the bible of hippy enviros everywhere. One issue had a particularly maddening letter to the editor, in which the writer blasted the magazine for using a celebrity to discuss environmental issues, claiming that this celebrity was not doing it "for the right reasons." What is this elitist "you can't help because you aren't doing it for the right reasons" view going to do to actually solve the problems we are faced with? We cannot judge the person or company that wants to help, or we will never do the important work that needs to be done.

2) From the extreme Conservative end:

The Bountiful PTA wrote a letter condemning the national PTA magazine for running an ad purchased by PFLAG that advertises a scholarship they offer. They claimed that running such an ad means the national PTA is supportive of alternative lifestyles and went further to say something about these alternative lifestyles not being based in science.

First of all, PFLAG is "Parents, Friends, and Family of Gays and Lesbians"...read: not gays and lesbians, but people who know and love them. These are straight people! Secondly, they are advertising a scholarship, not an alternative lifestyle. The truth is that there are kids out there, even in Bountiful, that are "gasp" GAY! and could use not only a scholarship, but compassion. The Bountiful PTA seems to be sadly lacking in the latter.

Furthermore, why this sudden obsession with science? It seems these people are fair-weather friends of science...only when they think it's useful will they use it, but their use of it in this case is ludicrous, false, and....well, not based in ACTUAL science. Last I recall, science was being thrown out the window in favor of "intelligent" design.

And finally, the same argument applies here as with the EnergySolutions/Nature Conservancy example...why should the national PTA turn away groups that are willing to purchase advertising space in a magazine that is an important part of an important organization trying to accomplish important things? Particularly if said ad is focused on helping our children, of all backgrounds and persuasions, continue their educations and grow as citizens?


On another note, HURRAY for Post #100!

Refreshing

Do you think anyone will get fired over this?

I heart Carolyn Tanner Irish

Our family has a Christmas tradition of visiting "other" churches on Christmas Eve to observe their traditions and worship styles. It has been a very enriching experience over the years, and quite eye-opening when I was a young Mormon girl being taught that my church was the only true church.
I am not religious anymore, but the tradition still stands. This past Christmas, I wanted to be sure and visit a church that leaned more toward acceptance, inclusion, and even blessing of gays and lesbians. I attend the Unitarian Church occasionally during the year, and they certainly are inclusive, but sometimes I truly crave the words and hymns of the devout: the people who are not afraid to say Jesus in their hymns. So we (myself, my Father, and my youngest sister) went to the Episcopal Church this year. It was quite beautiful: the hymns were fast-paced and exhilirating (not like the slow LDS hymns of my youth). The sermon, given by the Right Reverend Carolyn Tanner Irish, was thoughtful, inspiring, and uplifting.
But I am still not religious. This weekend, I visited my sister in San Diego. She has labeled herself agnostic for several years now. I didn't know how to feel about this, because I don't know how I feel myself. But this weekend she told me that she believes there must be a God, though not the God of our youth or the one we were told to believe in. There are too many things in her life, she says, that are good and happen for no other reason. I was glad to hear it: of anyone I know, she is the one that most needs a center to ground all her amazing energy and drive.
But what of me and my center? I have been watching the laboring of the Episcopal Church in regard to Gays and Lesbians, hoping that I might find a place where I can go to investigate my Christianity while being fully accepted and loved for who I am. I was disappointed with the national church's leaning away from full inclusion of GLBT people.
But Rev. Irish has been a bastian of tolerance in a state where little is to be found. She and other open-minded supporters have proved to be little islands to which my sanity can cling when I think I have chosen to live in a state where who I am is not only not okay, but downright wrong. It is especially relieving to see this fair-mindedness after the dark days of the Utah Legislature.
Thank you, Reverend....and God Bless You.

Being Green in the West

There is a house on 1300 East in Salt Lake City that has a powerful draw for me. It has large expanses of green lawn, both in front and stretching back behind it to what looks like beautiful green gardens and shrubbery. It feels like home, even as I drive by and catch just a tiny glimpse of it.

But as an environmentalist in the West, being drawn to that beautiful green place, even coveting it for my own, is truly a dichotomy. After all, as Patty Limerick said at this week’s Stegner Symposium, the environmental movement in the west should not so much be called green, as brown.

There are many colors that make up the palette of Mother Nature in the West. Green has a minor role, and is usually quite pale and pastel. Much more prominent are tones of red, gold, brown, gray, and blue. The colors of the spectacular vistas of the west have little room for green.

Water is such an intrinsic part of who we are, and perhaps we must surround ourselves with its byproducts, namely lush green lawns and bushes, and even water features such as ponds and fountains, so that we can feel secure in an otherwise hostile and waterless environment.

We evolved in the lush green jungles of the world, thrived and grew as a civilization in the green expanses of Africa, Europe, and Asia. We staked our places on the banks of lakes, rivers and oceans and the lush green countrysides bountifully watered by the skies. Only much more recently have we begun to find our places in the desert, where storms are sporadic, brief, and powerful, and evaporation extreme.

It would seem that living in such a hostile environment would breed an appreciation for water…even a religious fervor for it. But somehow, we in the west have managed to ignore the precarious nature of what little water we have.

With so many environmental issues pressing on our minds, it is hard to prioritize where our focus should lie. But if I learned anything at the Stegner Symposium these past few days, it is that every issue in the West, and indeed worldwide, that we can imagine either affects or is affected by water. Climate change will affect water. Power production is affected by water. What we do each day in our showers and with our lawns affects our neighbors both upstream and down. It is not an issue that can easily be overlooked…indeed, it is a life and death issue in the arid West.

I was also privileged to hear a speech from Pat Mulroy, the controversial head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which has proposed various water projects and has many people up in arms around the west. The conservation methods that have been undertaken both in Las Vegas and other major cities in the West, such as Phoenix, are inspiring. But it is not enough for just a few cities, or even just for the major urban centers, to conserve water. It is essential that all people in the west rid their minds of the idea that water is abundant and theirs for the taking, and begin conserving everywhere from the banks of the Colorado to the edges of the Great Basin, to the small towns of backcountry Wyoming. We must take a larger view of the water supply in the west, no matter where we live or how many people surround us.

We must change our hearts and minds when it comes to green. In a land of so many colors, we must let go of our ancestral affinity to the color that is most harmful in the West. We must embrace brown, gold, gray, red, orange, and blue.

We must change the message of environmentalism in the West. Through our water conservation actions, through the rethinking of water systems in the west, through innovative ideas and approaches to water use and conservation, we must fight together for the browning of the west, and the embracing of a new life in the desert.

There is a house on 1300 East in Salt Lake City that has a powerful draw for me. It has large expanses of green lawn, both in front and stretching back behind it to what looks like beautiful green gardens and shrubbery. It feels like home, even as I drive by and catch just a tiny glimpse of it.

But as an environmentalist in the West, being drawn to that beautiful green place, even coveting it for my own, is truly a dichotomy. After all, as Patty Limerick said at this week’s Stegner Symposium, the environmental movement in the west should not so much be called green, as brown.

There are many colors that make up the palette of Mother Nature in the West. Green has a minor role, and is usually quite pale and pastel. Much more prominent are tones of red, gold, brown, gray, and blue. The colors of the spectacular vistas of the west have little room for green.

Water is such an intrinsic part of who we are, and perhaps we must surround ourselves with its byproducts, namely lush green lawns and bushes, and even water features such as ponds and fountains, so that we can feel secure in an otherwise hostile and waterless environment.

We evolved in the lush green jungles of the world, thrived and grew as a civilization in the green expanses of Africa, Europe, and Asia. We staked our places on the banks of lakes, rivers and oceans and the lush green countrysides bountifully watered by the skies. Only much more recently have we begun to find our places in the desert, where storms are sporadic, brief, and powerful, and evaporation extreme.

It would seem that living in such a hostile environment would breed an appreciation for water…even a religious fervor for it. But somehow, we in the west have managed to ignore the precarious nature of what little water we have.

With so many environmental issues pressing on our minds, it is hard to prioritize where our focus should lie. But if I learned anything at the Stegner Symposium these past few days, it is that every issue in the West, and indeed worldwide, that we can imagine either affects or is affected by water. Climate change will affect water. Power production is affected by water. What we do each day in our showers and with our lawns affects our neighbors both upstream and down. It is not an issue that can easily be overlooked…indeed, it is a life and death issue in the arid West.

I was also privileged to hear a speech from Pat Mulroy, the controversial head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which has proposed various water projects and has many people up in arms around the west. The conservation methods that have been undertaken both in Las Vegas and other major cities in the West, such as Phoenix, are inspiring. But it is not enough for just a few cities, or even just for the major urban centers, to conserve water. It is essential that all people in the west rid their minds of the idea that water is abundant and theirs for the taking, and begin conserving everywhere from the banks of the Colorado to the edges of the Great Basin, to the small towns of backcountry Wyoming. We must take a larger view of the water supply in the west, no matter where we live or how many people surround us.

We must change our hearts and minds when it comes to green. In a land of so many colors, we must let go of our ancestral affinity to the color that is most harmful in the West. We must embrace brown, gold, gray, red, orange, and blue.

We must change the message of environmentalism in the West. Through our water conservation actions, through the rethinking of water systems in the west, through innovative ideas and approaches to water use and conservation, we must fight together for the browning of the west, and the embracing of a new life in the desert.

Taking Action for Education

As I posted during the legislative session, there are more than a few reasons that vouchers are not the answer to helping the public education system help our schools. Although some dirty back room deals got the vouchers bill passed in the Utah Legislature by one vote, and various conservative groups across the nation are hailing it as a landmark, the idea is fundamentally flawed, and the politics behind it are untrue to the people of this state, a majority of whom do not support it in polls.

I have just returned from a UEA function I attended with my father. It is inspiring that despite huge odds, the people who know and love education are not willing to give up in the face of the adversity that is Utah. In fact, they have started a petition to gather at least 92,000 signatures from across the state, that would put this issue to Utah voters. It may be a close call...but every fight worth fighting usually is. Read about it in both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.

The group that is running this petition drive, called Utahn's for Public Schools, also has a website that will be up at www.utahnsforpublicschools.org.

This is democracy at its best. When the legislature does not represent the majority of the people, but blindly ignores their opinions and even votes (Curtis is a fantastic example...after nearly losing his last election he not only ignored what the people were trying to tell him but turned around to slap them in the face on voucher legislation), the only choice is for a groundswell of people to take it back to them and make them hear what the people have to say.

They may not have the dollars of Parents for Choice, but they do have the passion and the people, and a firm belief that public education is the greatest achievement and strongest foundation of a representative democracy.

E.O. Wilson: The Rock Star of Conservation

I have just returned from the keynote lecture in the Nature of Life series sponsored by the Utah Museum of Natural History and The Nature Conservancy. The speaker was Dr. E.O. Wilson, the world-reknowned entemologist, scientist and conservationist that has taken on the taboo task of merging science and religion in the pursuit of a common goal: the preservation of biodiversity around the world.

His lecture was insightful, sprinkled with humor, and surprisingly optimistic. He spoke with certainty not only of the ability for these two seemingly diametrically-opposed forces to join together for the good of the environment, but of our ability to surmount the mind-boggling problems of global warming, loss of biodiversity, and the destruction of our planet.

His most resounding message was just that...his optimism. He firmly stated that no matter the challenge, we are not incapable of halting the destruction or indeed, of reversing some of the damage, if we act quickly and with resolve. He continued by saying that no nation on Earth is more poised and able than ours to take on these challenges.

But first, he said, we must create a cohesive force among the different religious and scientific factions. Dr. Wilson has stepped out from the crowd of scientists and environmentalists: the ones that are crying wolf but refusing to cross the chasm to reach out to the very people who need to be reached the most.

It may be a lonely place, for the time being, but E.O. Wilson stands with resolve and undying optimism that his work will lead to the changes necessary. He refuses to give in to extremist stubbornness that characterizes so many of his colleagues, but instead cavorts with the "enemies" of science in the hope that together, their love of The Creation, no matter their beliefs on how it came to be, will motivate the saving of it.

He called this the "Century of the Environment", and perhaps the most important time for us to focus on the planet and how we have affected it over the years. We can work together to save the places we love most. The places that are not only our most amazing and diverse places, but the most necessary to our survival as a human race. We cannot do it alone, but must embrace those of different backgrounds and beliefs to create the changes necessary. Dr. Wilson has begun this work, and it is my hope that the scientists and Evangelicals he continues to meet with will follow his lead.

Check out the other lectures in the series here.

New Tourism Tagline for Utah!

Why Today is a Good Day

Here's why today is a good day (despite being a mostly bad day):

1- Tomorrow, there will be no legislature to roll my eyes at.

2- Tonight, a great event to see E.O. Wilson live at Kingsbury Hall.

3- Today, giving blood at 1:00 like I promised I would.

4- Currently, it is not snowing, but the snow is still white!

5- My Alma Mater, UVSC, has been given the go-ahead to become Utah Valley University.

6- I do not have class tonight!

What makes today a good day for you?

More Reasons not to visit Kanab

It seems that one developer in Kanab will capitalize on anything, including ancient Anasazi ruins located on a site he plans to develop into 700-800 homes...but he'll preserve 20 acres of open space for an active archealogical dig among the new homes. Does anyone else feel slightly uncomfortable about this?

Ah, to be Ignorant

Schreiner has a great post on Republicans, Bush, and Utah lagging behind on the biggest issue of our time...climate change.

Talk like a Liberal, Walk like a Conservative

The article I have linked to above is from November 30, 2006. I just stumbled across it last week while completing an old list of To-Do's from my boss, one of which was to find this article for him.

I was stunned to read it and thought it deserved a revival here. I wanted you to know how it shook me to the core of my liberalism. No, I am not and never will be a born-again conservative, but I have been forced to consider a few things.

Am I a young idealist? Yes. I dream of a world where the poor and the rich are not quite so far apart, where the environment and the economy can live in harmony, where all humans have all the basic rights afforded to those that were lucky enough to be born into privilege. I am a liberal and have been since I was born. I believe in government's role to help the people, not just govern them. But what am I if I am not willing to do more than just talk about what I believe in?

I do not want to be the brand of liberal that Arthur C. Brooks has discovered most of us are. I don't want to just talk the talk...I want to walk the walk.

Brooks says there are three main areas where liberals really lag behind conservatives: money donated, time donated, and blood donated.

Here's how I plan to address those three areas in my own life:

I believe in gay rights, but rather than sit back and just blog about it, I plan on giving (through workplace giving) $500 to Gay Rights groups this year. I also plan to volunteer...a lot. I serve on the board of a local lesbian group called Swerve, and just this past weekend put in 8-10 hours of volunteer time. I plan on volunteering at Pride this year as well.

I believe in preserving the environment. Besides working at an environmental non-profit every day, I plan to give $200 to groups like The Nature Conservancy and Grist.

I believe in Public radio, so I plan on donating $80.00 to KCPW this year and volunteering for the fund drives.

There are so many other things I believe in, but I want to put my money, time, and blood where my mouth is. So, though I am deathly afraid of needles, I plan on giving blood at least three times this year.

I do not want to be the classic hippy liberal, the one that goes about my own business...live and let live. Perhaps this is the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives have a sense of duty to their country, their churches, and their peers. They live by a code of etiquette. I want to do that also. I want to have an ideal, a voice, a duty, and a code by which I live and address my fellow human beings.

I want to talk like a liberal, walk like a conservative.

Fighting for the Square

It's personal. I wasn't there, I don't know anyone who was, but that doesn't mean I am not personally affected by the killing spree at Trolley Square. I drive by every morning on my way to work. I visit the Old Spaghetti factory with my wife almost monthly. I frequent Tabula Rasa if only just to look around because I love the feeling of that store.

And this morning, I'm going back. Tabula Rasa is open, and I plan on picking up a few Thank You cards. Tomorrow, my wife and I were planning on going to the Old Spaghetti Factory for a little Valentine's dinner...and our plans remain unchanged.

Because we can't let fear get the best of us. Sure, it's frightening to go on living life. Sometimes it even feels a little disrespectful. But President Bush, shortly after 9/11, was right on one thing: we can't let fear stop us from doing the things we've always done...or else the terrorist/murderer has won.

That's why I have to go back. There's no other way for me to make it right in my own heart and mind. It is my own personal healing process. I have to fight for Trolley Square, so it can feel normal again...so the legacy of the place can outlive the legacy of the killer.

Amaechi Mania

The sad thing is, I'd never heard of the guy before he came out.

But props to him for standing up and being out in the homophobic world of professional sports -- both men's and women's sports.

And then there's his assertion that Salt Lake City is the best gay community east of San Francisco! HURRAH! If that's not taking it to the man, I don't know what is.

Get Out to See It

Last night after class I stumbled back to my car, but to get there I had to walk through the Jewett Center on the campus of Westminster College. I was amazed at what I saw there.

In the lobby and areas surrounding the Emma Eccles Jones Conservatory, there are hundreds of t-shirts in a rainbow of colors, making up a display known across the country as The Clothesline Project.

This stunning display has t-shirts in colors that stand for different kinds of domestic violence: White represents women who died because of violence;
Yellow or beige represents battered or assaulted women;
Red, pink, and orange are for survivors of rape and sexual assault;
Blue and green t-shirts represent survivors of incest and sexual abuse;
Purple or lavender represents women attacked because of their sexual orientation;
Black is for women attacked for political reasons.

I walked around, tears streaming down my face, as I read what survivors had written on their t-shirts: stories of loss, despair, hopelessness....but also, stories of strength, of moving on, of overcoming. It is powerful.

This display is part of a larger event including Westminster's production of "The Vagina Monologues," which I'll be attending this Thursday or Friday proudly wearing my Vagina Warrior t-shirt. Get your information here and get out to see it!

The Gay Agenda Hoax

Troy Williams has penned a fantastic article in the Salt Lake Tribune about the "Gay Agenda", the radical likes of Gayle Ruzick and Chris Buttars, and a few humble kernels of truth that many people should understand.

That's right Gayle, the "Gay Agenda" includes such immoral pursuits as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those of us that you would term "gay activists", such as myself and Mr. Williams, really just want to spend the rest of our lives with someone we love and have what every human being rightfully deserves. So we fight.

But we are not some huge force bent on overtaking the planet, "recruiting" heterosexuals to the "homosexual lifestyle". If anything, I take a look at my GLBT community and wonder why some of them just don't seem to care. Sometimes they seem nascent, too caught up in life to fight for their own rights. Then, I realized...it's because they're too busy living their lives, building partnerships, buying homes, raising children, coming out (often painfully) to friends, family, and strangers every single day to devote any time to seducing the youth of the nation.

I would venture to say we're much more normal than Gayle.

The War on Schools

It is obvious from the slate of bills before the Utah Legislature that there's an agenda here...and it's distinctly anti-school and conversely, anti-school children.

We begin with the voucher bill, or the spin title "School Choice". This elitist bill would take money from the worst-funded (even during a huge surplus) public schools in the nation and give it to parents to send their kids to private schools. Here's why it doesn't make any sense:

1 - The upper limit is $3,500 per year. At last count, the tuition for Waterford School in Sandy was $15,000 a year. The rich can pay that with or without tax credits, but why not throw another bone their way? They claim these credits will benefit people with all incomes, but what poor family can come up with $11,500 more to pay for private tuition?

2 - Private Schools would receive public money without having to answer to the public. Private schools can hire whomever they please, as long as they meet standards set by the board of the private school. They can teach whatever they want, or not teach whatever they want. There are not testing standards or attendance standards.
While I agree that parents should be able to have a say in what their child learns in school, if they want to send their kid to a place where there is more focus on religious tenets than math and science, public dollars should not subsidize that.

Learn more here.

Next comes the bill taking away in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants. This hateful bill would take away the chance for children who are already here, many of them citizens, to become more productive members of society. But why do that when we can trample them down and create a secondary class of citizens?

Finally comes the partisan school board race. As if the majority party does not control enough of the state, they want to make school board elections less about kids and more about making sure they have the right people to support their anti-education agenda. In addition, they would make the superintendent an elected position, rather than one determined by the elected school board according to qualifications. Would this also be a partisan election? One would hope that a persons education, experience, and devotion to education would outweigh the letter that follows their name on the ballot.

What will?

"It won’t stop us."
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY, on CNN, discussing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s approval of a resolution opposing President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Non-biased reporting at it's best

Just thought it was interesting to note a few headlines in today's major papers:

On School Vouchers:

Democrats signal concern over school voucher legislation Salt Lake Tribune, January 23, 2007

House Demos attack tuition voucher bill Deseret Morning News, January 23, 2007

ATTACK!!! Wow...that's pretty strong wording!


On Bennett's assertion that the new Democratic Congress could hurt funding for Utah:

Salt Lake Tribune is silent

Demo takeover could hurt Utah, Bennett says Deseret Morning News, January 23, 2007

But two headlines and counting where Demos attack, hurt, and takeover!

I was just noticing. :)

Also, hat tip to the demise of the UPD Blogwatch!

Waiting for the "Chris Dodd Watch"

We have another Utah connection to the 2008 presidential election, but don't expect the "Chris Dodd Watch" to show up in Utah Policy Daily anytime soon.

Despite the fact that neither Mitt nor Chris are from Utah, they both have their share of Utah connections. Mitt is Mormon (automatic in, unless you're Harry Reid) and went to school here, but Chris did a much more daring thing: he married a Mormon. Not just any Mormon, but a politically active Utah Valley Republican, Jackie Clegg.

Now, I consider that just as much of a connection to Utah as good ol' Mitt, but I don't expect radio and television stations to start calling Chris Dodd "Utah's own" anytime soon. Nor do I expect Utah Policy Daily to give Chris Dodd any equal time in the right-hand column.

Do you?