Michelle Rhee's Imprudent Concession

Wisconsin Gov. Walker's recent advocacy has stimulated much comment.  If you read the local DFL partisans, you get all kinds of invective--without addressing the dispute's central ideological questions.

The right to unionize--DFLers believe--ought to be in the Bill of Rights.

That state legislators should consider it open to reinterpretation 'shocks the conscience'--shriek the morally scandalized-appearing.

Will Wilkinson and others have argued that since public employees are hired by the people's representatives, it is not clear why decency requires their organization to be facilitated by public policy.

Rules have to be set by government, for how employees organize.  Considerable good-willed disagreement is apparent, when people discuss where government should set the dial--if recertification votes should be required annually, if member dues should be refunded to dissenting members, etc.  By setting the rules disadvantageously to unions, organizing can be made very unlikely, without coercion.

The choice before the state legislator, then, is not 'Should public employee unions be banned?'--it's 'Should unionization be encouraged?'

Given that public servants are employed by voters, their non-unionization would not constitute an injustice--and so I advocate withholding encouragement.

Jeff Fecke believes that a person who wants government to withhold encouragement-to-unionize is a person who is attacking teachers.  In other words, Fecke sidesteps the argument--he often finds people who disagree with him to lack ethical standing--and so their arguments needn't be addressed.

When the rules governing the formation and maintenance of teacher unions get tweeked so as to make unionization unlikely, teachers do not writhe eternally. 

Similarly, when one looks at the American auto industry's last several decades, it is not obvious that unionization has benefited the livelihood and number of US auto workers--to say nothing of their prospects.

I seek to minimize the state's encouragement-to-unionize, though not out of any hatred for teachers: I believe the profession can thrive non-unionized--just as other professions do.

So Michelle Rhee's article, defending teachers' collective bargaining, is a disappointment--though her reasoning doesn't impress.

Rhee assumes that society's choice concerns whether to allow or ban the unionization of teachers.  Pshaw.

Rhee does not divulge from whom she believes public school teachers need to be protected--or why she thinks voters by default underreward educators, in the absence of collective bargaining.

People who believe teaching would benefit from non-unionization do not think the change will scratch every itch--nor must we assert that it is central to educational reform.  It is a step in the right direction.

Rhee's misunderstanding of the debate--or refusal to address its central questions--shocks the conscience:

We founded StudentsFirst to create a balance with other special interests, not to snuff out other voices.

Whose voice would be snuffed out, were teachers not encouraged to unionize?

Are you, gentle reader, a non-unionized worker? 

Is your voice snuffed out, within your workplace?

PoMo George

Just cracked Decision Points this evening--which I am enjoying, with the occasional cringe. 

While a political contender, George W. Bush successfully misrepresented himself as a conservative Christian; after leaving office he admitted he does not hold conservative religious views.  (Our skepticism is in order--then and now.)

In Decision Points, Bush describes his late-blooming religiosity, in which he arrives at a devoted, 'Jesus'-centered idea-blob--without affirming biblical literalism.  One assumes he must have, once?

Politicians are not the only ones who craft for-public-consumption religious identities.  Even what people sincerely believe encompasses considerable contradiction and mutually-exclusive ideas--and often changes throughout life.

Had Pres. Bush's actual pietism been elicited earlier, it may well have been consequential--though he is merely one example, in a sea of politicians who craft dubious religious identities.

Weighty incentives--to self-misrepresent, spiritually--persist throughout life, in American middle-class culture. 

In Decision Points, W doesn't reject biblical literalism, though in describing the evolution of his creed, he never grapples with the veracity of the bible's central historical and magical claims. 

And it's not as if he is without the capacity to doubt--it's just that his people consider it weirdly pointy-nosed to discuss the bible's truthfulness.  (One always has the option of enjoying Christianity merely as story, so why get picky about it?)

The pre-presidential Bushes have Billy Graham over for dinner.  HW asks if one really needs to be born again.  Their Andover-Yale peers might consider this aspect of the family business weird.

I recently described a pleasant meeting with a minister employed at Eden Prairie's high-toned, ostensibly literalist Wooddale Church. 

At the end of our meeting, the minister recommended Did the Resurrection Happen? and The Rage Against God--both of which I am now suffering through.

In response to the the former's title, no evidence could point one to an affirmative response. 

It is surprising how many church-going Christians today--the Bushes, for example--think you can be a genuine adherent to the faith without affirming the truth of the religion's central historical and magical claims.

Religious Instruction

During a high school humanities elective class--at Edina West, in 1979--representatives of major religions spoke, telling us of their ways.  An atheist also spoke--he may have advertised himself a humanist--I'm not entirely sure.  Another assignment had me observe ceremonies at eight or ten houses of worship--a practice I found so illuminating that I've continued it sporadically, for decades.

In public high schools, students should be instructed about world religions and about the religious and cultural practices/demographics prevailing locally.  During such courses, they should also be introduced to undiluted anti-religious thinking.  Students should be made aware of their own rights, as Americans--very much including:  You are free to accept or reject any religious beliefs you like.

During such instruction, I would resist inviting students to make presentations as representatives of their faith traditions:  Within the secular educational environment, teachers should honor a 17-year-old's denominational self-description just as they would were the teen to have self-identified a monetarist--as Dawkins might put it. 

Dogmatism should be challenged--and kids should become accustomed to exploring opposing viewpoints and turning over stones.  When society urges one to stop asking questions--when the inevitable Pieklo- or Fecke puritanical mediocrity of your day presents itself--one should be encouraged to author one's gentle-but-credible no.

I recently emailed Eden Prairie schools:

Within Eden Prairie K-12 education, at what stage--and in what class[es]--are kids taught about world religions?  What texts/materials are used?  Are outside experts invited into classes, as representatives of various religions?

Here is the unedited, substantive portion of the response--for which I fervently thank them:

We did some research and learned that students are introduced to World Religions at 7th grade Social Studies and have a more in-depth look at them during 8th grade.

At the high school, students take World Civilization I and World Religion is taught within that curriculum as well, during 11th grade. Here's a bit more detail:

Middle School:
 In 7th grade, religion is introduced as an aspect of our larger study of culture. Classes spend a couple of days at the most reviewing the major world religions. We have a supplemental reading for this cursory review, as it is barely addressed in our 7th grade textbook (Prentice Hall, World Studies Western Hemisphere).

 In 8th grade, some of the teachers revisit the major world religions as they review culture, but then each of the major religions is addressed through the regional studies. For example: Buddhism and Hinduism et al. when they are studying Asia and ancient civilizations; Christianity during the unit on Rome; and Judaism and Islam during the unit on the Middle East. The text materials include both the 8th grade history text (Globe Fearon, World History) and supplemental readings. Speakers may have been used occasionally in the past but are not presently a part of the curriculum.

At the high school:

World Civ I is really the primary place where this content is shared...In Chapter 2-10 we cover: Judaism, Polytheism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism, Christianity, Mythology, Buddhism and Islam. It would be challenging to teach these cultures without infusing the origins of each of these world religions, and /or belief systems. We use the Torah, Tao Te Ching, The Analects,The Bible,the Quran, and the writings of other major historians. These teachers say they prefer that the students teach each other. They had students this term bring in their own religious texts for the other students to learn from.

In World Civilization II, they talk about the Christianity being the only religion in the west until the reformation (Chapter 12). Islam (Chap. 15) Those are the chapters that we have the bulk of discussions around religion.
 
I replied:
 
So Eden Prairie's curriculum--by design--does not expose students to any rigorous criticism of religion--and accepts each student's religious background [i.e. family/home religion] as 'beyond criticism'--right?

Students are at no point presented with any serious, articulate atheist thinking--is that correct?

Shouldn't a secular education explore anti-superstition, from time to time? Why doesn't Eden Prairie include any anti-superstitious perspective, within its curriculum? (Or do I have that wrong?)  
 
We'll give Teach the last word, hoy:
 
As we look at our curriculum, World Religions are taught in context with origins of world civilizations and cultures. It appears that our teachings of religions are not comparative in nature, but has to do more with exposure.

Eden Prairie School District's Social Studies curriculum is directly aligned to state standards and it does not speak to criticism of any religion nor directly speaks to anti-superstition.

Winning

Fourth-tier law school Adjunct Prof Jessica Pieklo:

Feminist apple polisher Jeff Fecke:

 

It's too bad Fecke and Pieklo don't allow questions--as I'd be interested in learning why they condemn Charlie Sheen.

Wikipedia mentions two 'stains' on Sheen's character:

[1] 'In 2009, Charlie Sheen pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault.'

[2] 'As of March 1, 2011, Sheen was concurrently living with pornographic actress Bree Olson and model and graphic designer Natalie Kenly, whom he collectively nicknamed his "goddesses". Also as of March 1, police had removed Bob and Max from Sheen's home. Sheen told NBC's Today, "I stayed very calm and focused." This move came after, according to People, Mueller had obtained a restraining order. The document said, "I am very concerned that [Sheen] is currently insane." Asked if he would fight for the children, Sheen texted People, "Born ready. Winning."'

If Pieklo and Fecke believe Sheen is to be condemned for Item #2, why? 

Sheen's ex-wife obtained a temporary restraining order against him--a restraining order which has since been lifted--and Sheen maintains an unusual domestic arrangement.  So?

Perhaps Fecke and Pieklo believe Sheen is debased due to the granting of the recent restraining order.  If so, it would be helpful for them to state their case; the mere existence of a restraining order does not prove Sheen is a threat to his ex. 

If Fecke and Pieklo believe every person against whom a restraining order has been temporarily obtained should--in perpetuity--be considered a disgrace, I would like to review their specific argument.  (It is not self-evident, is it?)

Perhaps their ire stems from the Bree Olsen angle.  If Pieklo and Fecke believe that sex workers and johns should be barred from interacting with children, I would like to observe their reasoning.  The world includes many sex workers and johns--and I'm quite sure many of them are capable of interacting non-abusively with children, no?

Perhaps Pieklo and Fecke find Mueller's insanity diagnosis--against Sheen, her ex--credible.  An ex's charge of insanity does not sound sui generis, on its face--does it?

Or perhaps Pieklo and Fecke speak snootily of Sheen because Sheen enjoys fucking around. 

Would they feel the same if Sheen were gay--and similarly enjoyed rough trade?  Would they direct an equivalent attitude at Robert Mapplethorpe?

I wouldn't care--and therefore, I don't care if Sheen likes slippin' around.  That would not move me to tweet in his dishonor--nor bar him from my ice cream social.

Stutter of Ignition

I breakfasted this morning with a local evangelical minister--and we talked religion.  Having met with a different (and equally friendly) conservative minister a fortnight ago, I really enjoy these meetings.  

One issue, from the handful we discussed:  Original Sin.  Christians typically believe humans are born bearing grave guilt for actions taken by distant ancestors--and that therefore an infant must have its vileness cleansed via baptism.

Both of these mainline conservative, evangelical ministers have implicitly abandoned Original Sin--as they believe 'God' doesn't distinguish between baptized and unbaptized dead infants--and that attributing weighty moral guilt to newborn babies doesn't make sense to anybody anymore.

One cannot accept the burden of 'Original Sin' until later, when--in one's teens--a youth can embrace her fallibility and 'need for forgiveness'.  Notice the fudging:  The evangelicals now instruct the teen to ponder his guilt for his own errors--not for the sins of distant forebears. 

A minister will occasionally attribute this now discarded doctrinal bedrock to Catholicism--though I think they underappreciate the literalism of their own immediate Protestant predecessors.  Even Protestants once took Original Sin quite seriously--and would readily acknowledge that adults must ponder their guilt for the moral transgressions of the first two humans.

This morning's minister couldn't have been friendlier--and we did not experience an unpleasant moment.

I told him one reason I reject Christianity is that there's no evidence--for the Resurrection, say.  The cleric countered that in fact there's a ton of evidence for the Resurrection. 

'What do you regard as the single strongest piece of evidence, then?'

'The Bible itself.'  He would not point to the particular passage where the most convincing morsel appears.  Later the minister tells me that other pastors specialize in that evidence thing--and it isn't his particular area of specialization.

It's an odd occupation--this minister thing.

Several Tweets

Prof. Jessica Pieklo:
@WentRogue This makes me wonder, does my liver have rights? What about my lungs? Stomach? So many clusters of cells to give rights to!

In discussing abortion, Pieklo seeks to deny any ethical issue is at stake--and to assert her DFL-feminist orthodoxy [= purity].  To achieve her identity-status goal, she must never acknowledge any speck of legitimacy, even to some pro-lifers. 

For society to express an interest in your fetus is morally indistinguishable from expressing a claim upon your gall bladder.  If you feel differently, you aren't one of us--and we can't talk.

Robin Marty:
Ummm...when was Kersten ever NOT a lobbyist. It's just now it's on record.

Among the true-blue DFL blogging tribe, one must incessantly assert the vile baseness beating within the heart of every prominent righty.  Katherine Kersten could not conceivably have arrived at her views through a legitimate effort to understand the world--of course not.  Kersten can only be on the take--utterly lacking Robin Marty's noble bearing.

Jeff Fecke:
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Or as I like to call it, the Reinforcin' o' the Stereotypes!

=
Both earnest PC statement and faux-ironic No I'm the lush middle-class joie de vivre identity grab.

Fecke can be both hyper-PC and 'self-deprecatingly twinkly', all in the same tweet, asserts his hypothetical non-brain-dead defender.  But Fecke is pure, lest ye doubt:  He refuses to read the Huffington Post, he tells us, because the site defends rape.  [Fecke opposes rape--Ed.]. 

Fecke's ostensible Marcotte-conferred gender-issue purity merit badge impresses someone, some theorize, perhaps.

Wisconsin, Zealotry

On the Wisconsin matter (noting this and this) people are still energized.  Pro-unionism is an article of faith in the DFL.  Since public employees are hired by the voters' representatives, I accept that the best public policy is one that does not encourage their unionization.

Virtually all local liberal/progressive bloggers are incensed by the very notion I just uttered--and loathe and abominate any politician who takes a Scott Walkerish position.

Realizing their argument isn't strong but is widely accepted, the left has now rewoven Wisconsin into a dozen molehills of process--which they think will allow them to sidestep the central questions:  From whom do public employees need to be protected?  Why should public employee unionization be considered such a sacred thing?

PZ Myers, as if in reply to Gov. Walker, argues against the notion that teachers are overpaid. 

To argue that the state shouldn't promote unionization among public employees, one needn't believe teachers are currently overpaid. 

A non-organized faculty enables greater ease in dismissing incompetent employees--i.e., it has a number of benefits.  (It is not advertised as a money-saver in terms of spending on salaries.) 

Supporters of Walker's proposal (myself included) tend to think districts will pay, on average, the market rate--exactly as people do in the private economy, and that such efficiencies tend ultimately to show up in growth, benefiting society.

A number of other economics-penumbra haze about, within the progressivista mind-cloud:  A popular notion that a really, really nice government could legislate everybody a big raise; and:

A folk-Chomskyian view that private enterprises would benefit greatly from top-to-bottom democratization.

Pro-public-sector-unionism cannot now be questioned within the DFL, just as one cannot shit on the altar at the Basilica.  Gov. Walker's position must be banished from the psychic landscape, for their equanimity to return:  No ethical individual could consider resisting public-sector unionism.

The new DFL requirement--of noisy pro-public-sector-unionism--repeatedly exemplified by our dim, dour Fecke, Pieklo, Rosenberg and Marty then, is really bad news for those of us trying to open up the DFL to a less dogmatic, less antithought mindset. 

May the present DFL phase--of self-congratulatory victimology--pass quickly.

**

Elsewhere today, Terri Bonoff complains that in-your-face evangelical Christian praying makes her uncomfortable.  I initially thought right-on, sister.

When people ask us to participate in non-perfunctory public religious observance, we should push back.  They should be told we do not desire to participate in their incantations--that our social requirement to honor their superstitions should be as untaxing as possible, achieving nirvana at imperceptible.

Instead, Sen. Bonoff takes a naive, parochial perspective:

"I'm a very religious woman and believe deeply in God," Bonoff said. "We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that's proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state."

In the face of Christian chauvinism, then, Sen. Bonoff responds not by challenging the equation of uprightness and devoutness--but by proclaiming she shares the belief.

Similarly, I have often ranted about the Eden Prairie News' Spiritually Speaking column, whose authorship is rotated among a half-dozen Eden Prairie dog collars. 

The ministers consider it obvious that they should be the go-to people on how life ought to be understood.  Each writer unmistakably accepts the view that--concerning the ethical realm--non-believers cannot possibly have anything to say. 

'It would be ridiculous to ask an atheist a question concerning right and wrong.'  That's really how people think, here, now--it's that weird. 

It would be funner to be the state senator who'd speak out against religious chauvinism, no?

Hitchens' 'Wisconsin' Veil

Vanity Fair just published Christopher Hitchens' Don't Mess With Wisconsin.  A former Trotskyite, Hitchens maintains some sentimental attachment to the old- and New lefts.

In Don't Mess With Wisconsin, he strikes a number of lefty-pleasing poses: 

1.  The Buffalo Beast prank reveals something that ought to embarrass Gov. Scott Walker. 
2.  He once met an old Lincoln Brigade veteran in Wisconsin--with whom Hitch reflexively bonds.
3.  Hitchens waxes sentimental for Robert Lafollette's pro-labor populism.

Recall the faux-Koch stunt: A 'rich supporter' engages a pol in an off-the-record chat--and suggests an illegal/unethical act. The politician flatters the contributor's suggestion while explaining that it will not be pursued. Yawn!

While Hitchens exudes nostalgia for yesteryear's left, he does not in fact say anything confirming his support for the Wisconsin public employees' central demand: 

When negotiating the terms of their employment--across the table from the people--a decent society must tip the scale in public employees' favor, assisting so that public employees bargain as a cartel.  [My wording.]

During such negotiations, should the force of law be used to strengthen public employees' position--and weaken the relative position of the general public? 

Does decency require such a move?

My answer is no:  I am not convinced the general public has a built-in Dickensian tendency against which public employees need to be protected.

I would be interested to learn what Hitch really thinks about the matter, and am saddened that--to the very end of Don't Mess With Wisconsin--Hitchens' true opinion remains unknown.