Hate Crimes

It has been a while since election day and my last posting. While I have admitted that my party of preference pretty much took a sound whippin', I am proud that some conservative ballot initiatives passed in multiple states. The most important to me and the most controversial of the election season were the proposed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. (It still boggles my mind that such amendments are even needed--but I digress.) California's Prop 8 passed with I believe a 52% to 48% vote by the people. Similar measures passed by larger majorities in Arizona and Florida.

The biggest stink, however, seems to come from California's Gay Rights community. And their biggest target seems to be the church I belong to, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you may know us as Mormons. From TV commercials falsely portraying Mormon Missionaries harassing gay couples to envelopes of mysterious powdery substances being sent to Church headquarters to picketing in front of Latter-day Saint Temples to the latest burning of one of our sacred texts, the Book of Mormon, the attacks against the Church for its stance in favor of traditional marriage borders on the brink of 'Hate Crimes'. How ironic that these acts are being perpetrated by individuals and groups that often seek shelter from similar treatment under 'Hate Crimes Legislation'.

The following editorial from NRO sheds forth some interesting light on this issue:

Legislating Immorality By the Editors
Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?

Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.

To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.

Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.

Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

President-elect Obama

A fellow blogger stated that he thought McCain's concession speech was one of his best of the campaign. He also pointed out that some of McCain's supporters have started the old "I'm moving out of the country" stuff. The following is my comment to his post:

I have no plans to move. Like you, I thought that was one of McCain's best speeches. I was even more impressed with Obama's acceptance speech. Though he did not win my vote, he did win my respect as someone who has the potential to lift others with his rhetoric.

He is truly an American success story. He has overcome so many barriers to achieve. He overcame a broken home, absent father, bi-racial status, a grueling primary against the Clinton Machine, and lastly a general campaign against a more experienced opponent. He deserves the office he has attained.

When my daughter, Caison, awoke she asked me "Who won?" Upon hearing the results, my little Republican was upset. The consolation I gave to her, I echo to everyone else of my political persuasion. "It is going to be alright. We will help him when we think he's right. We will help him to understand when we think he is wrong." Her sleepy acceptance was, "Yeah, because he's new."

He is new. Our new president-elect. He comes into office with a resounding mandate. I hope he will live up to the expectations he has elicited from the electorate. My prayers are with him. Everyone's should be.

StarBoard PPT

Star Board™ Bt 2 G

From: guestba5786, 9 minutes ago

Star Board™ Bt 2 G

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own.

SlideShare Link

Obama/Biden Ban Tough Questions

Finally, a news cast that actually asks the Obama/Biden campaign some hardnosed questions. Their reaction? Ban anymore interviews with that station. Seems like "Joe-the six term-senator" and "Hussein-the not even one term-senator" are afraid to let America really know what they stand for--Socialism. Check out the following story from the Orlando Sentinel and Newsmax.com.

Obama Bans TV Station over Biden Questions
Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:52 AMBy: Phil Brennan
Article Font Size
Angry over a hard-nosed interview during which Barbara West of Orlando’s WFTV peppered Sen. Joe Biden with the kind of probing questions the pro-Obama mainstream media refuses to ask, the Obama campaign has completely banned the television station from future access and interviews.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Biden was so disturbed by West's searching questions that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best, for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Jill Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
During the interview, West asked Biden: "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?"
Biden appeared flustered by the question, but quickly gained his composure and denied that Obama had been close to ACORN.
Biden claimed that the campaign had not paid ACORN any money to register voters.
West did not challenge Obama on this point, though during the Democratic primary in Ohio, the Obama campaign had, in fact, paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN-backed group. West did note that Obama has worked with this group in the past. [See: Obama and ACORN: You Can Run But You Can't Hide].
West again stung Biden, asking him about Obama's statement to Joe the plumber that he planned to "spread the wealth around."
West queried: "A Gallup poll showed 84 percent of Americans prefer the government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps that distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder?"
Dodging the question, Biden attacked the Bush economic and tax policies and Sen. John McCain's tax program.
West bored in, quoting Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and asked Biden, "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"
Biden appeared stunned and asked, "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"
He then insisted that despite Obama's declaration that he would spread the wealth around, Obama "is not spreading the wealth around."
West then asked Biden about his now-famous statement that Obama would be tested and would not be able to stand up to the challenge without help.
"Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world's leading power are over?" West asked.
An obviously annoyed Biden responded by asking West who was writing her questions. West is a veteran TV news journalist who had worked as Peter Jennings' producer at ABC News.
Biden responded that whoever is elected will be tested, and then attacked McCain's record.
West returned to the “spreading the wealth” question, asking Biden what he'd "say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?"
Biden again ducked the question, saying only that he didn't know anybody who thinks that, "except the far-right wing of the Republican Party."
WFTV news director Bob Jordan told the Sentinel: "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."
He added that political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions. "

Thanks to Ms. West for not playing softball. Joe was struck out by her fastballs. He and Hussein decided to not play anymore. How do they think they will actually be able to compete in the big leagues of world politics?

Barney to Blame for Mortgage Crisis

The following story from Newsmax.com sheds some light on Rep. Barney Frank's involvement with the financial crisis now taking place. If you remember he was blaming everything on the Republicans. I especially was interested in how he went against Pres. Clinton and in turn helped to forge parts of the crisis taking place now.


Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role
Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.
Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.
He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.
“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.
“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
“But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”
A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”
Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.
National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”
In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.

14 years later we're paying for Barney and his boyfriend's relationship.

So Much For Maybe

I am not that disappointed by the House's reversal on the Bailout Bill. Since I have been disappointed by them so much in the past, this is just business as usual. Not only did some of my backboned republicans and blue dog dems switch their vote, they switched it for an even bigger sum than the original $700 billion they rejected earlier. I guess it wasn't the large number that bothered them, it was the fact that the number wasn't large enough! The "new and improved" bailout bill increased to $810 billion due to the addition of "sweeteners" that have the flavor of PORK!!!!

This bailout has taken away John McCain's only economic talking point of the first presidential debate. Time and again he pointed out Obama's love of pork (spending earmarks). Time and again he expressed his abhorence of earmarks. He was proud to say he had never asked for an earmark. However, when he voted for the bailout he betrayed his previous record. He voted not only for an unwise bailout, he also voted in favor of $110 billion in earmarks. Earlier in the campaign while supporting the military surge in Iraq he said, "I would rather lose an election than lose a war." With his latest vote in the Senate in favor of the Bailout he has proven that he would rather lose $810 billion taxpayer dollars then lose an election.

The only difference between Obama and McCain on the bailout issue is this: I expected more from McCain, I expected no less from Obama. True to his liberal roots, Barak's Change is really just an old play from the Tax and Spend playbook with a new twist. This time he voted to bailout the richest segment of society at the expense of the middle class he claims to defend. Obama has already broken a campaign promise (change, yeah right). During the first debate with McCain, Obama critcized McCain for a $300 billion tax break for the wealthy earning more than $250 thousand per year. In contrast to McCain's catering to the rich, Obama would provide tax relief to 95% of the country. With his vote in favor of the Bailout, he quickly erased McCain's break for the wealthy and simultaneously saddled the middle class with $510 billion tax increase to fund the remaining part of the Bailout. The twist is that a liberal posing as a change agent helped the richest people in our country at the expense of the middle class.

And what did we get as a result? Another day older and deeper in debt. The stock market continue to topple another 370pts. Why? I thought that the reason it tanked more than 700pts. last week was due to the irresponsible vote of my backboned reps. and blue dog dems. If these people changed their vote in support of the bailout then shouldn't the market recover and continue improve?

Here's the scoop! Nothing has changed! The rich on Wall Street are still rich. The poor on Main Street are still poor. Politicians in Washington still do not stand on principles. And Change We Can Believe In is only make-believe.

Backboned Republicans and Blue Dogs Unite

It is good for this Blue Dog Republican to see that there is hope that the cream of each party can occasionally rise to the top. I realize that some think the "no" vote by the House was a mistake. I respectably beg to differ and it seems that many other Americans do too. I was impressed with the House Republicans and Democrats that bucked their leaderships and voted not to approve the $7oo billion bailout. It remains to be seen if this was just a fluke or if there might be some areas of agreement to build upon between the two parties.

If you had to relie on Barney Frank to give you the play-by-play you would think it was only a majority of the House Republicans to blame for the bailout not passing. He fails to mention the 40% of House Democrats, 94 in all, that also opposed the bill. The Liberal Democratic leadership cannot control all their moderate and possibly "conservative" members. The Go Along with Bush Republican leadership can't manage a majority of their members. Maybe some members of Congress are actually trying to earn the trust of the American people again. Maybe they will actually start working for us instead of their extreme leaderships.

Maybe???

Teacher/Administrator Tech Standards

Question #1--Should the new administrator standards parallel the new teacher standards?
Answer--Yes. With the exception being that the current administrator standard IV Support, Management, and Operations stand alone without a corresponding standard for teachers. Administrators have more responsibility for budget requests to facilitate the big picture of how the various technologies requested by teachers tie together for a cohesive technology program.

Teacher standards I and III should be combined thereby bringing the total number down to four and then matching up with administrator standards as follows:
TS I Inspiring Student Learning and Creativity by Modeling Digital-Age Work and Learning (this standard combines the present TS standards I and III) match with AS I Learning and Teaching (formerly AS II)

TS II Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments match with AS II (former AS V Assessment and Evaluation plus part of AS I Leadership and Vision)

TS III Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility match with AS III (former AS VI Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues)

TS IV Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership match with AS IV (former AS III Productivity and Professional Practice plus part of AS I Leadership and Vision)

AS V (former AS IV Support, Management, and Operations) this stands alone

Question #2--Are there additional standards to which administrators should be held?
Answer--Yes. As shown at the end of answer one--Support, Management, and Operations should be an additional standard that teachers do not share.

Question #3--What is your overall reaction to the current administrator standards?
Answer--I think standard I could be split and combined with standards III and V to bring the number of standards down to five and facilitate a closer paralleling with the teacher standards.