About Me

Name: Richard Larsen in...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Conservatives Should Follow Romney's Classy Example

Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/24/08
 
When Mitt Romney withdrew from the Republican Presidential campaign two weeks ago he did so with style and class. Acknowledging that he numerically could not battle back from his delegate deficit against John McCain, he threw in the towel. He then stated the need for the party to unify behind our candidate by identifying the threat of terrorism as one of the most significant challenges we face as a country. As he said it, “The other party just has no grasp of the challenge and has no answer for it.”
 
He later endorsed the front runner and encouraged his delegates to support McCain at the convention. In light of the frequent sparring that occurred between the two, this also was a classy thing to do.
 
Many conservatives have issues with John McCain, here are just a few. He is thought to have been on the wrong side of the comprehensive immigration solutions discussed in Washington over the past couple of years. He was in favor of a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally, while most conservatives think it is unfair to give priority to those who broke laws to get here over those who are waiting patiently in other countries trying to come here legally.
 
Many believe he was wrong to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. This is seen by many as an infringement on the freedom of speech by small groups who would otherwise be involved in the electoral process.
 
He was also part of the “gang of fourteen” in the Senate that effectively blocked many judicial appointments by the President.
 
McCain is seen to have been on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts, even parroting the rhetoric about the “tax cuts for the wealthy,” even though history has shown such rhetoric to be hollow and vapid. The wealthy now pay even a greater percentage of the tax receipts, and more people than ever in the low income brackets pay nothing in taxes according to Department of the Treasury.
 
Although he occasionally praises the family as the most fundamental unit of our society, he is opposed to Federal legislation to protect against the redefinition of marriage.
 
Even though the technology has advanced to the degree that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary, and never has been viable, McCain would loosen restriction on Federal funds being used to destroy human embryos for the sake of advancing a failed technology. All the advances in this area are coming from adult stem-cell research, and investment capital is pouring into that research because that’s where the results are coming.
 
He also buys into the now politically correct, although scientifically deficient, man-made global warming hysteria. Nothing will kill a national economy like pouring exorbitant sums of money into controlling emissions that are still not proven to cause fluctuations in global temperatures.
 
But there are some things McCain has right. He has the proper perspective on global terrorism which Romney referred to as significant. Especially considering that national security is one of few specific functions of the Federal government explicitly identified in the Constitution.
 
He says he would nominate constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, rather than those who legislate from the bench. This is significant considering the Supreme Court nominations from either of the other party’s candidates would more closely resemble Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former ACLU attorney.
 
McCain has a history of being very critical of excessive government spending, especially the abuses characterized by “earmarks,” special pet projects Federal legislators insert into legitimate legislation.
 
He is also more supportive of free-market solutions for national health insurance rather than creating another massive federal entitlement based on a socialist model.
 
And the Senator recognizes another fundamental function of government in protecting the lives of Americans, whether born or unborn.
 
And finally, his vision for the future of the country is based on less government intervention and more free market capitalism. This stands in stark contrast to the socialistic solutions being proposed by either Senators Clinton or Obama.
 
The question for conservatives now is whether they will do the classy thing like Romney did. In spite of differences of opinion and policy, will they rally behind the most viable option for president? McCain has to be compared with the available options based on ideology, not against an ideal that is nonexistent.
 
As for the New York Times allegations of an improper relationship with a lobbyist years ago, that shouldn’t even be an issue. It’s a badge of honor for conservatives to be attacked by the Times, even though they endorsed him just last month. If McCain was a Democrat, an alleged dalliance would probably be a resume enhancement for him.
 
As for me, I’ve already resolved what my bumper sticker this election season will say: McCain ’08, better 50% right than 100% wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Bigotry Alive and Well in America

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/17/08

At the beginning of the current presidential election cycle, political circles were abuzz over whether the country was ready for a woman or a black president. With the focus on sexism and racism, an even greater character flaw in America was somewhat overlooked. That flaw loomed larger and larger until the withdrawal of Mitt Romney from the presidential race last week.
 
A poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last month was revealing. Respondents indicated that sexism and racism in presidential politics is negligible and that far more Americans say they'd never vote for an Evangelical Christian or a Mormon than those who admitted they wouldn't choose a woman or an African-American. Only 7% indicated they were “very uncomfortable” with voting for a woman for President and 15% indicated they had “some reservations.”
 
Racism in presidential politics faired even better. The same poll indicated that only 4% were “very uncomfortable” and 13% had “some reservations” about an African-American candidate.
 
Now compare that with religious bigotry and it should be downright embarrassing. The poll asked about Evangelical Christians and 20% were “very uncomfortable” and 25% had “some reservations.”
 
Even starker is the fact that 21% said they were “very uncomfortable” and 29% had “some reservations” about an LDS (Mormon) presidential candidate. That’s 50% who would likely not vote for a Mormon for president. To put that in perspective, a Zogby poll last month showed 50% reluctance to vote for an atheist and a poll last year, showed only 40% would have reservations in voting for a Muslim.
 
While sexism and racism in politics are obviously waning, religious bigotry seems to be alive and well. It appears religious bigotry is not a monopoly of the right or the left, for there’s more than enough to go around on both sides. Leftists are leery of an Evangelical for President, while they’re more likely to support an atheist or a Muslim. Evangelicals are wary of a Mormon to the same extent as a Muslim or an atheist.
 
According to Democratic pollster Peter Hart, “The Mormon religion was the silent factor in a lot of the decision making by evangelicals and others,” as far as the Romney campaign was concerned. They ran into “a religious bias head wind,” he said.
 
Armand Mauss, a sociologist who has written extensively about religious culture, said last week, “I don't think that any of us had any idea how much anti-Mormon stuff was out there. The Romney campaign has shown us the equivalent of anti-Semitism still out there.”
 
Bigotry ran like a tsunami through the political punditry over a TV commercial that lit a bookshelf to appear as a cross in December. Mike Huckabees’ Merry Christmas ad was denounced for the subliminal appearance of the cross in the background while there was no similar denunciation of the “subliminal” messaging of a Hillary Clinton commercial surrounded by black children. It would appear that subliminal messaging is fine as long as it isn’t of a religious nature.
 
For some reason, American “tolerance” seems to be heavily qualified. It is to be applied to issues of sex, race, and sexual orientation, and even some religions, like Islam. But it is not to be applied to Christians.
 
Actually, tolerance is the wrong word to use, for inherent in that word is an air of superiority. Perhaps a more appropriate term would be mutual respect, which implies a greater equanimity and parity between perspectives.
 
This religious intolerance may have a theological basis for many. According to Richard Mohr “Religious belief is a fine guide around which a person might organize his own life, but an awful instrument around which to organize someone else’s life.” Ignorance does more to fan the flames of religious bigotry and perhaps anything else.
 
Our political history is replete with examples of religious bigotry, even beyond John Kennedy’s Catholic faith in the 1960 election. In 1928, Al Smith ran against Herbert Hoover and was pilloried for his Catholic faith and denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical, and “not in tune with American institutions.”
 
Senator Joseph Lieberman, the courageous and principled Senator from Connecticut was a Vice Presidential nominee in 2000, and a candidate for President in 2004. He experienced the equivalent of a colonoscopy by the main-stream media about his Jewish faith. Benjamin Disraeli, the first and only Jewish Prime Minister of England famously stated once, “The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.”
 
We seem to be going the wrong direction in this regard. Back in 1967 when Romney’s father, George, ran for President, a poll indicated that only 17% would not vote for a Mormon.
 
We have the freedom to be bigots, like we have the freedom to be jerks. But we must ask ourselves if it is moral. As a society, we’ve made progress with race and sex. It’s time to grow up in our mutual respect of other religions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Explanation for the Column Below on Property Taxes

The following column was precipitated by the defeat of the bond vote last week in Bannock County, ID, to generate $24 million for renovation and update of the Holt Arena, the covered football stadium at Idaho State University in Pocatello, ID.

Although the event is particular to my locale, the inequities inherent in taxing property are fairly universal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Inherent Inequities of Property Taxes

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/10/08

The Holt Arena is a tremendous benefit to Eastern Idaho, and the Pocatello area especially. As the home to ISU sports, the Simplot Games, the Dodge National Circuit Finals Rodeo, community events, high school sporting events, high school graduations, and concerts, it would be safe to say that we all have benefited from and enjoyed the Dome. Consequently, it was with mixed emotions that I witnessed the rejection of the proposed property tax increase to fund necessary enhancements to the facility.

It seems to me that the vote has nothing to do with the critical relationship between the communities of Pocatello and Chubbuck and Holt Arena. Instead, it has everything to do with already exorbitant property tax levels being required of the citizens of Bannock County.

Regrettably, the pattern for local leaders here is to always lay the burden on tax payers, and property tax-payers in particular. Whatever the cause, worthy or not, the tax-payer is the bottomless well the local leaders draw from to finance their projects.

The firm declaration from voters last week was, “enough is enough.” With Bannock County already struggling under the highest property tax levels in the state, local leaders went to the “well” one too many times. Yes it’s true that we benefit from the Dome, and we all enjoy the privileges with its presence in the community, but increasing property taxes was clearly not the answer.

Property taxes are perhaps the most inequitable and least forgiving of all the taxes imposed by government. It has no “ability to pay” provision. If you are unable to pay your property taxes, the government can seize your property. For those living on a fixed income, this is a genuine concern. Many of the letters to the editor regarding the bond election were from those with limited resources and income to subsist on. Although the purported $7 per month on property taxes may have not broken the bank, so to speak, on top of everything else it can be insurmountable for someone living primarily on Social Security and hoping every month they can make ends meet and hold onto their homes.

One additional inequity posed by the bond election was that there are many people who live in the county but own property in Pocatello or Chubbuck. Those people were precluded from voting on the bond proposal, even though their taxes on their property located within city limits would be affected based on the outcome of the election. Seems to me that there was a war fought a couple hundred years ago based on that same concept of taxation without representation. Not a good policy.

Usually, when the local taxing authorities demand more funding, another bond election is placed before the voters at the least opportune time. Not when the major elections are held to ensure high voter turnout, but on odd dates that will ensure a low turnout and the greater probability that the sponsoring entity can marshal its forces and assure approval of the bond. That is, until last week.

My father, Allan Larsen, was a gubernatorial candidate when the 1% initiative limiting property tax levels was placed before voters. He always maintained that there were two major quandaries with property taxes, one philosophical and one practical. Philosophically, property taxes create the perception that although we are ostensibly buying real estate, we’re instead just renting our homes from the government. Inability to pay our property taxes allows the government to take our homes from us, like the landlord that would evict us for failure to pay the rent. It seems inconceivable that in America where the promise of owning property could be so fundamental to us, that we keep paying the government for property that we’ve already paid for, and if we can’t, the government can evict us. Even long after we’ve finished paying off our mortgages, the government continues as a de facto landlord.

Practically, the worst position is reserved for business owners and landlords of rental units who must defray rising property tax assessments with higher prices and rising rental rates. Landlords and business owners are essentially tax collectors for local government, raising prices and rental rates to pay for ever increasing property taxes. They have no home-owner’s exemption that affords them protection of indexed rates on their taxes.

Property tax law changes in the past few years have created distorted incentives for our local units of government to raise their budgets. The Legislature removed the only state required property tax and replaced it with sales tax. The cities and county saw this as an opportunity to raise their budgets and did so to the tune of millions of dollars knowing that the public would not notice since their overall property taxes dropped last year. And true to form, Bannock County, and the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck had massive increases in their property taxes this year gobbling up the tax relief the State provided by last years special session of the legislature. Now this year, our tax burden is higher because not only are we paying more sales tax, but our “property tax relief” was all spent by our cities and county. Consequently, property taxes have become even more of a millstone around the financial necks of home owners, small businesses, and renters. This requires much more attention in a future column.

There’s an aphorism that taxation is the art of plucking a chicken with the least possible squawking. In light of the double-edged sword of property taxes, it’s easy to see why they continually rile taxpayers. Taxes may be a necessary evil, but the most pernicious of all is the property tax.

Perhaps the generous Pappenberg donation of $1.5 million of Driggs real estate should be used as seed money for a capital campaign for Dome improvement in lieu of additional property tax imposition on home owners.

Dubby Holt, for whom the facility was named, was a pragmatist, and I can’t imagine him objecting to selling the naming rights on the Dome. He would have probably been the first to argue in favor of renaming the facility if Simplot or someone else were to make a sizeable donation to provide for the necessary improvements. Have you noticed that there’s no longer a Delta Center in Salt Lake City, but there’s an EnergySolutions Arena there that looks just like it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Indoctrination vs. Teaching, Part II

By Richard Larsen
02/03/08

A few weeks ago we addressed here the issue of education versus indoctrination. Therein I provided anecdotal evidence of a few teachers not teaching, but instead, indoctrinating. The evidence was drawn primarily from each of my children’s experiences from public secondary education through their higher education experience at Idaho State University.

One such referenced experience was an upper division literature course that my daughter took last semester. The instructor for that class, an adjunct instructor in the Foreign Languages Department, took exception to the allegations that he was indoctrinating instead of teaching. In a letter to the editor last week he identified himself by name and knew he was the instructor in question based on how I recounted my daughter’s experience in the class.

I questioned the propriety of pursuing this any further, even after his acrimonious letter. I’m accustomed to such criticism, and actually take solace in such attacks when they are aimed at me, for then I know they lack the substance to debate the basic tenets of my theses. Having substantially lost the argument, they must resort to ad hominem attacks against me personally.

I was also reluctant to pursue this any further because there are two segments of our citizenry in this great country who are my heroes: those who have or are serving in the military, and teachers. But considering that a few abuse their role as teachers, and indoctrinate rather than teach, it is incumbent upon us to stand up and seek to correct this impropriety. After all, we taxpayers pay their salaries and entrust them with our children to be taught, not to be opined to day after day.

The course in question was a critical theory class that according to the description in the university’s Course Catalogue was about “The application of critical theory to the reading of world literature.” If the course syllabus as provided by the instructor had on objective different than that, as the instructor indicated in his letter last week, his syllabus did not conform to the Course Catalogue. Consequently, he may have taught the wrong course, or at the very least, was guilty of “bait and switch” with the students.

In typical fashion for those who assume an unwarranted arrogance due to their position, the instructor questioned how I could pass judgment against his indoctrination efforts in the classroom when I had not even attended it. I would remind him that common in the practice of law and other segments of our society, is witness testimony. Witnesses testify and provide evidence that prove or negate allegations. In this case, not only the testimony of my daughter, but that of another older member of the same class afforded such testimony affirming what was previously alleged.

Both said when the assignment material was covered, the class was enjoyable and the instructor engaging. But, in the words of the other class member, “Almost every single day of class he would lecture us about how the United States was so bad and how France and Europe were so great. Whether the lessons called for such comparisons or not, almost every day was the same. One day I asked him to tell me one good thing about the United States and after a long pause he told me that you could get rich quick in the U.S. I was amazed.”

Perhaps the instructor can elucidate for me how this is not an effort at indoctrination. A critical study of world literature would necessitate some comparative cultural analysis and their respective weaknesses and strengths. But a daily denunciation of the U.S. as one of the students indicated, “like it was an obsession to him,” can hardly be labeled “teaching.” The instructor marveled in his letter to the editor how I could “portray [him] as a cardboard cut-out and [his] class as an indoctrination session.” Actually, I didn’t have to. He did that perfectly well on his own. In his own words, “Yes. The commies and socialists have arrived.”

He continues his defense in his letter stating that he implements “a discursive, Socratic method of teaching.” Based on the experiences of the witnesses, it was genuinely discursive, as regular digressions to proselytize his anti-American venom were in great abundance. Socratic? There wasn’t too much evidence to support that claim. A true Socratic method would have proposed both sides of the U.S. issue and challenged students in a defense of the U.S. as well. Perhaps when he focused on the material, it was a viable educational experience. It’s when he digressed beyond that with the daily rants against the country that allowed him the freedom to bash it that it was no longer teaching, and had crossed the line to indoctrination.

Daily spewing of dogmatic ideology that is not supported by fact and that may have marginal relationship to the educational material is indoctrination, not teaching!

As stated before, I received an absolutely superb education at ISU because of the incredible professors I had. Not only were they extremely proficient in their disciplines, but they were not dogmatic in their instructional style. As their lectures coincided with current events, they were open to contrary opinion and divergent perspectives. They allowed open discussion without intimidation, in true Socratic fashion, only demanding of the students that they know and understand the facts, and be able to substantiate their conclusions accordingly.

While none of my ISU professors taught as ideologues, they nonetheless had their firmly held opinions and they shared them as warranted. However, even though their opinions were expressed, their lessons and discussions were open and engaging, and they taught us how to think without telling us what to think.

As adamantly and publicly as the instructor in question defended himself, he may not actually know the difference between teaching and indoctrinating. Some of my professors are still there, and I would encourage him to attend classes taught by Ron Hatzenbuehler, Jack Owens, or Rick Foster. They know the difference. They have never been “stuck” in any decade as the instructor accused, and continue to enlighten.

We as taxpayers pay our teachers to teach, not opine ad nauseam nor indoctrinate. As parents, we entrust our children to them to be taught. If the instructor insists on substituting teaching with incessant opining, and hates America as he daily told his students, perhaps he should go to Venezuela. I’m sure they’d welcome him with open arms.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Professors Response to Column on Indoctrination

This is a letter to the editor by an instructor at Idaho State University who too umbrage at being accused of indoctrination rather than teaching.

“In a Dec. 16, 2007, editorial, one Richard Larsen expressed his view that “indoctrination” should not be used by educators. In his article, he referred to an Idaho State University professor and quoted from my syllabus.

I am that professor. Mr. Larsen referenced his daughter as the source of her indoctrination, and she has informed me that I am, indeed, the brainwasher he mentions.

The quote he provideduotation marks, to be one of pure fantasy, or what one might deem fictitious. [Scott, I extracted the quote from the online course catalogue which described the course as follows: “The application of critical theory to the reading of world literature.” Is that the course, I think course 367 or something like that?]

His article then goes on to characterize my class as one taught by a stereotypical liberal. How a writer who does not know me nor has ever attended my class can misquote my materials and portray me as a cardboard cut-out and my class as indoctrination session is beyond any idea of journalistic integrity.

As a writer, I would like to suggest that some fact-finding actually takes place at your newspaper prior to the publishing of opinionated writing full of disinformation and bordering on libel.

I must also mention this fact: Mr. Larsen observes that 25 years ago his perfect teachers were flawless in their ability to educate. I’d like to remind him that ISU is a university and that teachers from strange and exotic and cosmopolitan places like Illinois (and even foreign countries!) who hold degrees from schools much more highly rated than ISU now teaching at his alma mater. Yes. The commies and socialists have arrived. I’d also like to remind him it is the year of 2008.

As an educator for 15-plus years, I can speak for my profession in saying that we appreciated a president of a brokerage firms defense of his university-attending children, but what he calls indoctrination is, in fact, a discursive, Socratic method of teaching based on reading and writing.

Perhaps Mr. Larsen might learn a thing or two if he could see through his own neo-conservative, ill-informed soapbox rant of educator vilification. Or perhaps, he finds life quite comfortable in his 1983 mindset.

 

Philip Kobylarz

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »