Politics

Today’s New York Times contains an editorial criticizing the “strange silence in Kearny” in response to David Paszkiewicz’s proselytizing in his U.S. History classroom: The vast majority of Americans deplore such proselytizing in public classrooms. But the truly disturbing aspect of all this, described earlier this month by Times reporter Tina Kelley, is not that one teacher so blatantly crossed the church-state boundary but that so few school officials and community residents seemed bothered by his behavior.The editorial points out the bravery of Matthew LaClair: The only reason anyone knows about Mr. Paskiewicz’s behavior is that one student, Matthew LaClair, 16, had the courage to speak up in September. Before doing so, he taped Mr. Paszkiewicz for eight classes because he feared officials would not believe him. He has since received one death threat, lost many friends, and says he can “feel the glares” when he goes to school.The editorial concludes: ...

Talking Points Memo has been collecting examples of information (website content, reports, studies, etc.) that the Bush administration has suppressed because they were somehow contrary to the administration’s positions. The list has become fairly lengthy. Here’s what they’ve got so far: * In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support. * In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. ...

Matt S. at The Only Republican in San Francisco quotes from a Scientific American column by Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society to argue that conservatives are more generous than liberals: Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of “bleeding heart liberals” and “heartless conservatives.” Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.Matt says that, even though he’s not religious, he admires people of faith because of their morals, their value for community, and that “they walk the talk when it comes to generosity and tolerance.” Further, he concludes, “Faith, ultimately, is about optimism. Perhaps this is why I think it’s worth defending." He’s got a point, but Shermer’s piece is somewhat more equivocal about the evidence, observing that “Religious social capital leads to charitable generosity and group membership but does comparatively worse than secular social capital for such ills as homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies." I don’t think there’s any disputing the value of community and mutual aid, nor that the secular have had a harder time promoting those values, in part due to the fact that we are fewer in number and widely dispersed. But the nonreligious have made some very dramatic philanthropic contributions which are likely to have a much greater beneficial effect than any church tithing will ever have. ...

From the Jimmy Kimmel Show.

Remember this Dana Carvey bit on Saturday Night Live from 1996?

Ed Brayton’s detailed dissection of the Sternberg affair (see Ed’s post here and Steve Reuland’s here) has been responded to by Krauze at the Telic Thoughts intelligent design blog, including a response by Richard Sternberg. Ed Brayton responds quite ably.

This looks like it might actually be a fun game. (Via Bruce Schneier’s blog.)

Looks like the FCC had a hard day before the U.S. Court of Appeals defending its arbitrary indecency standards, and Susan Crawford points out an example of just how absurd those standards have become in the era of YouTube. UPDATE (June 4, 2007): The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Fox Television Stations v. the FCC, and the FCC has decisively lost. Adam Thierer points out how the case could pave the way for completely removing the FCC’s authority to regulate content for indecency. Susan Crawford reports on the content of the decision in the form of a letter to the FCC. UPDATE (April 28, 2009): The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 2nd Circuit in a 5-4 ruling.

Via Bruce Schneier’s blog: Historical Comments AlisonM (2006-12-23): Funny, and yet scary at the same time. . .