1/10/2011

Shooting in Arizona

Filed under: — Joe @ 8:15 pm

I don’t really have the wit or the writing skill to explain what troubles me most about the recent shooting in Arizona.  It’s troubling on so many levels.  There’s plenty of valid criticism to be made about the poisonous, venomous, right-wing rhetoric (and yes, you can find some on the left, too, but these days it’s overwhelmingly from the right) that passes for political “discourse.”  There’s plenty to be said about “don’t retreat, reload” and crosshairs on congressional districts, and “second amendment solutions.”  All of that is very dangerous, very ugly, and while it’s a symptom, not a cause, it’s still a troubling symptom.

But there’s also some other rhetoric that demands critique and examination and soul-searching.  I’m reading, from all sides of the political spectrum (but again, mostly from the right), things like “lunatic,” whackjob,” “psycho,” “nutter,” “head case.”

The main, primary tragedy here is the innocent people, including the young girl, who were killed or wounded. But there’s another tragedy, too.  And in a way there’s another victim.  The young man who did the shooting had a terrible illness.  And (as far as we know now) it was completely untreated.  We haven’t at this point heard anything from his family, but I know how hard it can be to treat someone with this illness.  How hard it can be to watch him deteriorate and separate from all that he was.  We do know that this young man acted out in class, and we do know that the school identified the problem as one of mental illness.  And I know that sometimes schools, even schools where they should know better, identify the kind of behavior he demonstrated as just “bad” behavior, without even asking for or requiring treatment.

Most people with the illness this young man had are not violent at all–at least not to other people.  And it’s a terrible shame that he killed and hurt so many innocent others.  But it’s also a terrible shame how vastly more often this illness kills and hurts the people who suffer from the illness–taking away the people that they were, even taking away their physical health or sometimes their lives.  And hurting–even if not with shooting–many innocent people, too–their families and friends.

We need to think about political discourse.  We need to think about poisonous partisan hatred.  But we also need–every day–today–to think about how we respond, how we fail to treat, fail to understand, fail to identify, the illness that destroys so many more lives all the time…even (or especially) when there is no gun, no shooter, but still a complete and tragic destruction of a person.

3/9/2009

Newspapers Will Fold?

Filed under: — Joe @ 9:52 pm

Time Magazine lists 10 Newspapers that will either Fold or Go Under Next.

1. The Philadelphia Daily News
2. The Minneapolis Star Tribune
3. The Miami Herald
4. The Detroit News
5. The Boston Globe.
6. The San Francisco Chronicle.
7. The Chicago Sun Times
8. NY Daily News
9. The Fort Worth Star Telegram
10. The Cleveland Plain Dealer

They give their reasoning for each one in the linked article above. It could be they’re right, even about all of them.

But here’s something I notice…I read this list because of a link from one of my twitter community–somebody I don’t know in “real life” at all. He linked to this Time Magazine story. On Yahoo News (where that link above is going to). And Time is actually just taking it from 24/7wallst.com.

So if I’m counting right, this story reached me only after being re-purposed 4 times from its original source. And now it’s reaching anyone reading this after a 5th.

Content “producers” become content aggregators–and content “consumers” become content disseminators in the new media economy. And then those disseminators comment on the content, and re-purpose it, and make their own points. Like I’m doing here. So everybody’s role gets reshaped. Who’s the “real” producer?

Interesting times, that’s who.

(And by the way, I can’t think of a time in the past 10 years or more when I’ve actually bought a paper copy of Time Magazine–or even touched one except when stranded in a doctor’s office with nothing else available.)

5/4/2007

Citizen Journalists

Filed under: — Joe @ 11:55 am

In all the reporting and discussion about the LAPD’s actions at the May Day Immigration Rally in MacArthur Park in LA, I came across a vignette in LA Times reporter Jill Leovy’s first-hand report:

At a press conference with Chief Bratton about 9 Tuesday night at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Park View, tensions between the informal press and the formal press bubbled over.

As the chief spoke, with Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger at his side, at least 40 people surrounded him, with six or seven squatting on the ground in front to hear better. About half of the group appeared not to be official members of the press corps, but rather, protesters and self-appointed journalists affiliated with the protesters. When it came time to call out questions — often a competitive moment among reporters from competing news agencies — the protesters held their own.

As questioners peppered Bratton with demands for answers, some seemed more intent on expressing their own views than hearing Bratton’s and there was confusion about whether those speaking were paid by an established news organization or were self-appointed.

A large man in front of the chief to his right, who had been heckling with words of skepticism throughout the event, repeatedly asked in a loud voice whether the chief planned to appoint a civilian panel to investigate the incident. He interrupted reporters. Tempers flared. Dave Clark, a well-known broadcast journalist with KCAL 9 and CBS 2, admonished him to be quiet. “We are trying to work here!” Clark said.

At one point, Bratton also asked this man to be quiet. The press conference was being held for the benefit of the official media, he said. The man responded by insisting he was a “citizen journalist,” but then backed down, professing his respect for the chief.

Increasingly, it seems, the “citizen journalists”–bloggers, amateurs, “protesters with cameras,” whatever you want to call them–are not just holding their own, but surpassing the “official journalists.” The coverage they provide is wider, more blatantly subjective, polemical, less professional, untrained…it’s a whole different kind of new medium.

I like this–I find it exciting, and I find the potential for a better-informed, more media-savvy public to be quite promising. But there are also drawbacks, of course. We need to learn a new vocabulary, and new critical standards for evaluating this new medium–it’s unfiltered, and while I would never say that it should be filtered, I definitely think that we need to develop and clarify our own filters.

But that’s something we should have been doing all along–the “official” journalism was really never any more trustworthy or objective (not at any time in history–rosy-colored nostalgia aside), and if the new journalism foregrounds that fact, it’s a very good thing.

Josh Wolf (the videographer/blogger who was jailed for six months for refusing to turn over his video of a demonstration) was asked (while he was in jail) “Are Bloggers Journalists?” His answer (in part):

The question has no simple answer, just as there is no easy way to respond to being asked, “Are Christians good people?” Most would respond that some are and some are not; certain zealots would proclaim that all Christians are good people by definition, and still others would argue that all people are good despite whatever bad things they may have done. A fourth group would claim that the very idea of “good” and “evil” is an entirely artificial construct and a completely irrelevant measure, and all of these arguments are a valid response to the question that is before us tonight.

The simplest answer is that some bloggers are journalists whereas others are not. After all, few would contend that the 16 year-old who writes about her daily exploits on her Myspace page is a journalist. But what happens when this very same girl manages to break a story on her principal’s scheme to embezzle from the school? Does she then become a journalist? When she returns to writing about the guy in chemistry, is this now journalism? In a recent essay, Bill Moyers cites Tom Rosentiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism who points out that “the proper question is not whether you call yourself a journalist but whether your work itself constitutes journalism.” Given the paradoxes inherent in tonight’s question, I’m inclined to think that Moyer and Rosentiel are onto something.

Can bloggers be journalists? Absolutely. A blog is nothing more than a medium. Sure, the cost of entry is cheaper than launching your own daily newspaper and the rules of engagement aren’t nearly as formalized, but when you think about it, how different is this than the development of any new medium? I imagine that when radio was invented there were plenty of newspapermen and a few newspaperwomen who were clamoring that radio-news was not real journalism. This same scenario likely played out again with the advent of television. Today it’s the internet, and like the journalists of yester-year many are quick to discount blogs as a viable medium for transmitting news and some probably feel threatened by the development as well.

Are bloggers journalists? Is it good for us to have “citizen journalists”? That’s probably not an important question. We have them. So the better questions might be how should we regard them? How should we use them?

10/24/2005

Despicable Hypocrisy and Dishonesty

Filed under: — Joe @ 3:31 pm

I know that hypocrisy is epidemic in politics…and I know that the Republicans throughout this administration have held firmly to the belief that only Democrats, ever, can be guilty of anything. Republicans, they think, should get a free pass.

But on yesterday’s Meet the Press, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas, surprise!) took even my breath away with her blatant, bald-faced, hypocritical lying.

SEN. HUTCHISON: I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people’s lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let’s just see what the charges are. Let’s tone down the rhetoric and let’s make sure that if there are indictments that we don’t prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice.

I’m not sure how she can look herself in the mirror–Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Only. Nothing else. He was charged with no other crime whatsoever. So when Bill Clinton does it, it’s a serious crime. When a Republican, any Republican, does the same thing, it’s just a technicality–some kind of fake, made-up prosecution. And she’s perfectly willing to make up some imaginary “other charges” to prove that a Democrat’s crime is serious, while a Republican’s is not.

Despicable.

10/21/2005

Middle School Searching

Filed under: — Joe @ 7:15 am

It’s a very weird system in NYC for public middle schools, at least here in Region 8. When I grew up in San Diego, we went directly from elementary school to junior high school, automatically. If you were zoned for elementary school A1, you went to junior high A2 (and high school A3). It was just based on your neighborhood, unless you had some special reason to try to go to some special school. I knew that NYC had a different system for high schools, where students had to apply and be accepted to the specialized schools, but I didn’t know (until late last year) that there was similar system for middle schools.

As the father of a fifth grader, I’ve learned that when she goes to sixth grade next year, there is no guaranteed or automatic middle school for her. She has to apply, and be accepted, even at schools in our own neighborhood. And the middle school which is closest to our house, it turns out, is one that usually gets something like 4 or 5 kids applying for every one spot they have available. It’s our neighborhood school, but it’s absolutely not automatic that she’ll get to go there.

There are a few things, too, to add to this equation. Where we live in Brooklyn, the neighborhood is racially very diverse…but the schools are much less so. We saw this in the elementary school arena (where she does go to her automatic neighborhood school–but where most white parents reject that school). There are only a very few schools in the district which white parents see as “acceptable.” The kids from the “best” (whitest) elementary schools (not my daughter’s school) only consider these few schools. That’s why the school nearest to us (which is one of the “acceptable” ones) is so hard to get into.

But we learned something in my daughter’s elementary school experience. Her elementary school (which is completely unacceptable to most white parents, because the kids there are mostly not white), has been very good. Some problems, of course, and there was a change of principal after third grade, and that was not a change for the better, but overall we’re quite pleased.

So in a way the district rules about applying and being accepted have been a good thing. Here’s why. Because my daughter couldn’t be guaranteed that she could go to the school closest to us, we had to look around. And we took a tour yesterday morning of a truly excellent middle school, the Sunset Park Prep Academy, MS 821. Again, it’s a school that the white parents, even white parents who do accept my daughter’s elementary school, have never even heard of, and would never even consider.

But we could tell immediately from the tour that this was a small school with young, energetic teachers, an experienced, caring and dedicated principal, and motivated, involved, active kids. There was in every classroom (and we at least poked our heads into all of them) that happy buzz of attentive learning that all good teachers want, and any experienced teacher can recognize immediately.

We saw group work that was truly collaborative and productive (in a math class, students were measuring each other’s height and “wingspan” to compare and graph and find the correlation), writing assignments that were stimulating and personal (an early-semester personal narrative, and a cluster diagram to identify “our stresses” for an essay on managing them), a focus on integrative learning (in a language arts class, students were evaluating assigned reading from social studies and science classes, to determine subjectivity and authors’ agendas), experiments with new and old technology (both an overhead projector directed high on the wall above the chalkboard, and a brand-new Smart Board which they were still trying to figure out how to use), and multiple methods of engaging students (a debate in a science class, and a Jeopardy-style game in a special ed class).

It’s not clear what school my daughter will finally wind up at…but it’s definitely clear that there are some great choices out there. Automatic acceptance, like automatic rejection, is not a good thing at all, even though they’re both a lot more convenient and simple.

10/2/2005

Good Blog on the PA Intelligent Design Creationism Trial

Filed under: — Joe @ 8:24 pm

ACLU-haters need not read this post!

The ACLU of Pennsylvania is blogging the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania. Some very good coverage, complete with transcripts. More complete (and opinionated) than the unsatisfying summaries we’re seeing in the news.

Of course, there’s nothing really “final” about this trial, as it’s almost certainly going to the Supreme Court, eventually, no matter which side wins. But the Intelligent Design Creationists are getting a very sound trouncing, so far, and every time that happens it’s a victory for everyone who cares about education, science, reason, and religion. Which of course includes me!

9/3/2005

Why didn’t they leave?

Filed under: — Joe @ 2:52 pm

For anyone asking the blame-the-victim question about Katrina’s victims–“They had warning, why didn’t they leave?” I recommend John Scalzi’s wrenching blog post, Being Poor.

8/31/2005

Geocentrism and Creationism

Filed under: — Joe @ 4:40 pm

I’m not a science teacher, but even so, two successive articles from the NY Times make me feel embarassed and depressed. Are we doing that bad a job in educating people in this country?

Yesterday we read that one in five Americans believes that the sun revolves around the Earth. Today’s Times tells us that almost half (42%) of Americans believe that humans and other living things have existed in their present form only–that there has been no evolution at all.

I’m not even going to go into the number who think that creationism deserves “equal time” with evolution.

What’s wrong with our schools, and our culture, that so very many people can be so totally ignorant of basic science? Is it really the schools? Were these people never taught? Did they never learn? Or are they just clinging, willfully, stubbornly, dangerously (for all of us) to ignorance? And why?

My only post for August. Too bad it’s such a bitter one! Maybe some good news will come in September.

5/28/2005

Some Encouragement

Filed under: — Joe @ 5:46 pm

In a follow-up to my rant a couple of weeks ago, I should report that I emailed all the members of the NY State Assembly’s Education committee, to tell them how I felt about the idiotic Assembly Bill 8306 (requiring the teaching of “intelligent design” in NY public schools). The majority of them responded with the standard automated “thank you for your interest blah, blah, blah” email.

But Scott Stringer (who represents Manhattan’s West Side and Clinton), bless him, not only responded with a real email, written by a real human being, he also has exactly the right position on this stupid bill.

Dear Dr. Ugoretz:

I am writing in response to your email regarding Assembly Bill A. 8036.

I strongly oppose A.8036. Assembly Bill A. 8036 would require all New York
State public schools to teach intelligent design alongside the theory of
evolution. While I respect the right of individuals to their personal
beliefs, it is the state’s duty to make sure that recognized scientific
theory rather than religious doctrine shape the curriculum of the public
schools. The Theory of Evolution has been a widely accepted foundation for
modern biology. Lacking comparable support within the scientific community,
intelligent design should not be taught alongside the theory of evolution.

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. If you have any further
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Scott M. Stringer
Assemblymember, 67th A.D.

Applause, Assemblymember Stringer!!!

4/5/2005

Sad but sadly not too surprising

Filed under: — Joe @ 8:52 pm

John Rennie at the SciAm Perspectives Blog describes a truly disheartening encounter with a group (more than a dozen, he says) of university presidents. At a media roundtable he posed the presidents this challenge:

Suppose we have a petition here that says, “As university presidents, we affirm that evolution by means of natural selection is a demonstrated fact of science. We also assert that any failure to teach evolution, or to teach ‘intellectual design’ as an alternative theory, harms students’ educational standing.” Who here would not sign, and why?

How many university president said they would sign? All? Some? A few?

Nope.

None.

:sad:

College presidents, unfortunately, far too often, have priorities that are far removed from student learning, or the growth of a rational society, or civilization or science. They see themselves, really, as executives, not as educators.

I remember the days, years ago now, when our own current (then new) president faced, and lost, a vote of no-confidence from the faculty. I remember thinking how much easier it could have been for him, and for all of us, if he had approached us (the faculty) cooperatively–as our leader, but our leader who was our ally, who was working toward the same goal as we were.

Time has passed since then, and my opinion of him (and probably his opinion of us as a faculty) has certainly improved. I’ve seen him take some actually brave steps, and I’ve seen clear evidence of a real commitment to our students. He’s still an executive, and I’ve begun to see reasons why an executive is an important thing to have.

But I wonder if, faced with the kind of challenge Rennie posed, our own president would have reacted as an educator, as a colleague, as someone who cares about truth and learning and knowledge. I like to think that he would. I like to think that he would be braver, less political and more principled, than the presidents of the University of Texas, Stony Brook University, the University of Chicago, and the others (the hiss of shame upon them all) Rennie encountered.

3/29/2005

Under Attack!

Filed under: — Joe @ 6:11 am

I feel so bad for those folks in Dover, Pennsylvania. I mean those poor, beset (I should say “benighted”) religious folks who are having their kids abused in school science classes. Abused, mistreated, misled and misunderestimated because in science classes they’re actually having to learn…science.

…Pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point.

“If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we’re headed for an internal destruction of this society,” he said.

“Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories,” Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

“There is such a complexity in life, and science wants to hang its hat on a belief that life somehow started — they say there is no creator, no order … I believe there is a creator,” he said.

Both sides acknowledge the political context of the debate over Darwinism, and the relation to the re-election of staunchly Christian President George W. Bush.

“Christians are a lot more bold under Bush’s leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe,” said Mummert.

“We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,” he said.

You know, if that’s who’s “attacking” you, mightn’t it be a good idea to just maybe consider why you’re being “attacked”?

Thanks to DovBear for the link.

3/19/2005

Historical/Ahistorical Judgments

Filed under: — Joe @ 8:36 am

Jon Rowe has a blog that I like a lot, and read regularly (it’s right there in my blogroll). But in a recent post he made a point to which I had to take exception. It wasn’t his primary point in his post, but he was making an argument that tends to really annoy me–it was the “they didn’t know better in those days” argument. This goes (generally) “the Founders (or Columbus, or any literary or historical figure you’d like to excuse) lived in a time when nobody really questioned slavery (or genocide, forced conversion, racism, sexism, etc.). So we can’t blame them for just accepting what everyone else accepted and nobody at all ever saw anything wrong with.”

That argument just doesn’t hold up. In the guise of a call for historical accuracy, it’s a whitewashing of history. At the time of the US Constitution, there was a lively, active, and loud abolition movement, with a long and distinguished history. Las Casas was very clear about the immorality of Columbus’ treatment of the Indians, right there at Columbus’ moment in history. Conrad’s racism, or Hemingway’s anti-Semitism may have been more broadly acceptable in their times, but that certainly doesn’t mean that nobody saw the immorality and hate, or that nobody was willing to call it what it was.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t read Conrad or Hemingway, of course, and it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t honor the accomplishments of the Founders. But to let them completely off the hook for their lapses is just as ahistorical (maybe more) than to condemn them completely for those lapses.

To Jon Rowe’s credit, when I pointed this out to him in an email, he promptly and fairly put my email up on his blog–asking for more reader discussion. I hope he gets it. I’ll be interested to read it. (Although I do wish he would just have comments on the blog, rather than waiting for emails).

3/17/2005

Herzl’s Diaries

Filed under: — Joe @ 10:12 am

A big argument with an anti-Semite in a thread at DSL Reports motivated me to re-read, for the first time in many years, Theodore Herzl’s diaries. A fascinating read, especially for the window into the life and emotions of an important player in an important historical moment. Especially fun because he was such a cranky, nasty, angry guy. Pretty much walking around disgusted with everyone.

Sometimes big changes happen because of noble, heroic figures, and sometimes because of irritated, obnoxious curmudgeons, who would be a real pain in the ass if you had to deal with them.

It’s also interesting that a quote posted by the above-mentioned anti-Semite, and one which is repeated on many anti-Zionist websites, purporting to be from Herzl’s diary, is completely fabricated. It would be a good example of how with selective misquoting and liberal use of ellipses, it’s easy to make someone appear to have said something completely the opposite of what he really said.

3/15/2005

Community Colleges in the Bush Era

Filed under: — Joe @ 11:37 am

Last week I went to the League for Innovation in the Community College‘s Innovations Conference. Overall, I have to say that this conference was far less interesting to me than the League’s CIT, where I presented in Florida in the fall. This is not specifically an ed-tech conference, which was part of the reason, and it was here in NYC, which may have been another part, and I was only attending, not presenting, which was another part. (Although that confence did have the major disadvantage of Jeb Bush’s keynote).

But I kept being reminded, forcefully, of how different we are at BMCC from other community colleges–especially in today’s world. President Bush has said, repeatedly, that he thinks of community colleges, and will fund community colleges, specifically and (relatively) exclusively as job-training (or retraining) institutions–vocational programs. Now, that’s certainly a part of all education, but, as I’ve commented before, it’s not what I see as the primary or optimal objective. Particularly at BMCC (more than most community colleges, perhaps because we’re part of a larger university), we’re committed to the idea of a liberal education, not just job skills. Our faculty are required to have PhD’s, and to research and publish, exactly like faculty in the senior colleges. I don’t think this is the case at most community colleges.

Two specific anecdotes to illustrate…

First, Maricopa Community College‘s Vice Chancellor Ron Bleed talked about “Overcoming the Biggest Barrier to Student Success.” He gave us some observations which made a lot of sense, and some which made less sense (a disquisition, for example, on the superiority of Barnes and Noble stores in Arizona, to the one on 5th Avenue in New York). But his main point, his “biggest barrier to student success” was (I’m oversimplifying) spending time in class. Now, I certainly understand that student convenience is important, and that students (especially in community colleges) do have limited time, and multiple responsibilities. I teach online, after all, and I certainly know that distance learning has advantages which are practical, not just pedagogical. But there’s such a thing as being too practical by half. And when I raised this point, when I wondered whether there were actually some advantages to having students spend an extended time on a subject, working together, and learning as a community, I got dismissed quite abruptly. “Well,” Vice Chancellor Bleed answered, “I don’t think we’re in any danger of losing that model. There will always be some old-fashioned faculty who will never let go of that.”

But he really wasn’t so bad…at least not relatively. The low point was reached in the conference’s closing session, with Gay Gilbert, the Administrator of the Office of Workforce Development, Education and Training Administration in the Bush Department of Labor. “For too long,” she told us, “community colleges have been social service institutions first, and market/economic institutions second. This administration, this president, will reverse that. We see community colleges as market institutions with economic benefits, with any social benefits only incidental.” She went on too describe, with glee and relish, how very much money the Bush administration would be throwing at community colleges which would fall into line with that vision, and how easy it would be to get that money.

I couldn’t really get a sense of how she was being received by the audience (closing session of the conference–most people had their coats on and their rolling suitcases by their feet), but she was being received by me with shock and horror. I don’t work for a “market institution” (I’m not so sure it’s “social service,” either, but that’s closer). I work for an institution of higher education. Increasing productivity, economic growth, sure, those are benefits of higher education. But they’re incidental. We’re here as part of a much grander tradition–the tradition of culture, and knowledge, and civilization.

I would hate (and I will fight against) the idea that what we do is primarily a market function…that we serve “customers.” There will certainly be a place for that function, and maybe some community colleges are that place. But if so, I wish they wouldn’t call them “colleges.” Because we’re a college, a campus of a university, and we don’t have that mission. We’re doing something very different, very much more important, and very much more admirable.

3/11/2005

No more cross in La Jolla

Filed under: — Joe @ 9:24 am

Americans United for Separation of Church and State reports some encouraging news from the San Diego Union Tribune. The giant cross on Mt. Soledad in my hometown of La Jolla is finally, really, going to have to come down (it looks like). That cross was always there as I was growing up, serving as a constant reminder that I and people like me were outsiders in our own community. It was on public land, the highest point in the immediate area, serving as constant proof that the Constitution didn’t really apply when the majority wanted to demonstrate their superiority.

Well, in 1991 (long after I no longer lived there) a Federal judge made the right decision, upheld the Constitution, and ordered the cross removed. The city tried almost endless wrangling, wriggling, and slithering, transparently trying to keep it there by whatever stratagem or excuse they could find.

Finally, last November, the voters overwhelmingly rejected the ploys, and finally finally (I hope) the city attorney and the city council have confirmed that the struggle is over and the cross will go. It probably won’t go far, but it will go to private land (a church’s land), which is where it belongs. A big victory for the Constitution and the American way.

23 queries. 0.425 seconds. Powered by WordPress version 4.0.1
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.