Right Thinking - rightthinking's Blog

Right Thinking - rightthinking's Blog - Bakersfield.com http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking en-us Duck attack horrible, but tragedy is in youths http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29630 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29630 If we measure our collective health by the way we treat the least of those among us, then Bakersfield is looking pretty peaked these days. <div> <img height="512" alt="" src="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/07/03/17/624-duck.embedded.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" width="318" /> Photo by Henry A. Barrios / The Californian Lyle the duckling that survived an attack by four teenagers swims in Lisa Andrew's bathroom sink. Lisa is Shannon Andrew's mother. The mother duck died, as did six of her seven ducklings. Lyle, the lone survivor, also swims in the family pool and gets the attention of the family dog that has been able to control his natural instinct. </div> Not since 9/11 have I so dreaded reading the news, so inconceivable are recent crimes and those suspected of committing them. We all know the stories by now. Three young boys are found naked in a trailer; a neighbor stands accused of molesting them. A former high school football coach is arrested on charges of possessing child pornography. Most tragic of all, an elderly man is savagely beaten to death as he goes about his morning routine of collecting aluminum cans. In a shocking turn, five teenage boys, some as young as 13, are suspects in the attack. These are only the most recent stories to make headlines, which brings me to one that won't, but should. One evening two weeks ago, 22-year-old Shannon Andrew and her 2-year-old daughter were in the driveway of her parents' Fairway Drive home, when a SUV load of men, each in his late teens or early 20s, suddenly stopped in front of the house. Unnerved by their staring, Andrew scooped up her toddler and hurried inside. As it turns out, it wasn't Andrew they were staring at. Peering into the fading light, Andrew could see and hear the young men as they leapt laughing from the car and began to “kick something up and down the street.” Later, after they tired of their sport and left, Andrew went to find what that something was. It wasn't until another car passed by, stirring up a cloud of feathers, that she spotted the still form lying on the street. The duck was still alive, but barely, her head bloodied, a dead duckling by her side. Andrew gently placed the duck on a towel as neighbors tried to round up surviving ducklings. They found only one. When the mother heard her duckling's cries she tried to rally and rise, but her body was too broken. She died about 10 minutes later. “They had tortured her,” says Andrew. “It was so sad, I just wanted to cry.” It's a happy ending for the duckling which, for now, has found a caring home with Andrew and her family. A more grave issue - one greater than the economy, the presidential election or the price of gas - is the sadism and cruelty of youths who torture animals and beat our elderly to death. Why? Why do they do it? Because they're angry. And getting angrier. Dr. Dean Haddock, a Bakersfield psychologist, says repeated exposure to violence, family breakdown, violent video games and films and the lack of religious education have conspired to create a frightening and growing population of calloused children and teens. “It's an aftermath of the 60s,” Haddock says. “I haven't lost hope yet, but people have to realize what a problem this is.” It's not that teens are committing more crimes. According to the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, violent crime among young people has dropped significantly in recent years. It's just that our criminals are getting younger, their crimes more cruel. And it's not just boys, either. Girls are jumping into the fray, too. It's time, Haddock says, for a “come to Jesus meeting.” He's right. It's time to get serious about teen and youth violence, about combating it with every resource we have before it's too late. If it isn't already. He gave her the White House for celebration http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29223 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29223 A small wedding, a quiet honeymoon. That’s all Diane Rutledge expected when then-beau Jerry Bryson proposed last year. <div class="story_assets"> <div> <h4><a rel="lightbox" href="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/06/26/12/769-DianeandJerryBryson.standalone.prod_affiliate.25.jpg"><img height="212" alt="" width="318" src="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/06/26/12/583-DianeandJerryBryson.embedded.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" /></a></h4> </div> <div> Diane and Jerry Bryson pose with President and Laura Bush at the White House in March 2008. The couple were at the White House for Jerry Bryson and Laura Bush’s 44th class reunion. They graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in Midland, Texas. (Photo courtesy of the Brysons.) </div> </div> It was, after all, the second marriage for both, she having lost her pilot-husband, Phil, in a crop dusting crash; he a widower since wife Debbie died of a brain tumor. A modest celebration, followed by a week in Hawaii. She asked for Maui. He gave her the White House. The couple’s plans for a Hawaiian get-away changed abruptly when, just two months before the wedding, Bryson received an invitation from the President and Mrs. Bush to join them March 29 at the White House for the 44th reunion of Robert E. Lee High School, class of 1964. Seems that Bryson and Laura Bush — Laura Welch, back then — attended the Midland, Texas high school at the same time, or did until Bryson’s folks moved the family to Bakersfield his senior year. Bryson ended up graduating from Bakersfield High School, but left his heart in Midland. Fortunately, he also left a forwarding address. This wasn’t the first time Bryson was invited to party with the Bushes — he and Debbie attended Lee High’s “33 and a Third” class reunion at the Governor’s Mansion in Austin, when Bush was governor of Texas. This time, though, the reunion fell on the same weekend Bryson and his bride were scheduled to marry. No problem. The giddy couple, both staunch Republicans, moved their wedding up a week, marrying on March 21. Instead of Maui, they flew to New York, where they spent two days before heading to Washington, D.C. It turned out to be the trip and time of their lives. The Brysons spent five days in the nation’s capitol, arriving at the White House in time for a Friday night pre-party and a grand entrance by Bush via presidential helicopter on the South Lawn. Not all in the crowd of onlookers were there for the reunion. Some, like U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whom Bryson noticed standing at his elbow, was there with his family for movie night with the president. At least that’s what he told Bryson. The newlyweds met with the Bushes the following day in the opulent Diplomatic Reception Room, where presidents routinely greet foreign dignitaries, prime ministers and potentates. The Brysons quickly posed with the First Couple for a formal portrait, a nerve racking moment, at least for Diane. “All I could think about was I had my arm around the president of the United States,” she says. Once photos were taken — the Bushes posed with each of the few hundred guests in attendance — the party was on. The classmates danced to the music of the Jelly Rolls, reportedly Mrs. Bush’s favorite band, and feasted on a Texas spread of hors d’oeuvres like mini cheeseburgers, small slices of pizza, diminutive chicken fried steaks and tiny pecan pies. Taxpayers counting the cost can relax. Attendees paid their own way, $150 a head. It was a bargain, said the Cinderella couple, who, for one evening of their already memorable honeymoon, reveled in the grandeur and history of what is arguably the world’s most famous residence. And chatting up the leader of the free world wasn’t bad either, Jerry said. “After we finished with the pictures, I turned to the president, looked at Diane and said, ‘I did pretty good, didn’t I,’” he said. “Bush smiled and gave me the thumbs up and said, ‘You sure did.’” Recalls should be last resort, not first http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28828 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28828 Is it my imagination, or is Kern County suffering from a severe outbreak of recall fever? Calls to “kick ’em to the curb” have become the knee-jerk norm in recent weeks, whenever an elected official — usually a conservative elected official — makes a decision or statement not popular with those who don’t share his or her views. It’s becoming quite the trend. And an ugly one at that. The effort to recall City Councilman Ken Weir, last I heard, is plodding along, with signature gatherers trying to convince the good people of Ward 3 that Weir’s proposal to fire Planning Commissioner Russell Johnson was egregious enough to warrant his removal from office. Weir’s proposal may have been ill-advised, but certainly within his purview and not nearly as “disruptive to the functions of the Planning Commission and the City Council” as supporters of the recall would like voters to believe. Other damning examples of Weir’s incompetence, as cited by those who instigated the recall effort, include the councilman’s poor “attitude” and his one-time use of the “In God We Trust” city seal on his campaign literature. Wow. Maybe we could skip the recall and go straight for the tar and feathers. In other recall efforts, a few poor sports in Pine Mountain Club have pledged to start a recall against newly re-elected Supervisor Ray Watson in what basically sounds like a bad case of sour grapes. And somebody, identified in media reports as “a man,” picked up forms to initiate a recall against Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett, ostensibly over her decision to end wedding ceremonies at the county clerk's office. Barnett has served her constituents well in her eight years in office and exercised the discretion of that office when deciding to halt all county-performed wedding ceremonies. In order to bump Barnett from office, “the man” will have to come up with about 38,000 signatures of registered voters in conservative Kern County, to get a recall measure on the ballot. He should buy sunscreen. He’s going to be out there for a while. Most recently, there is Chad Vegas, a pastor and Kern High School District trustee, who — gasp! — had the nerve to write a letter to county supervisors, insisting they support Barnett. If the recent barrage of letters to the editor are any indication, those offended by Vegas’ sentiments want to see him recalled, reproved and run out of town. Or at least out of office. There’s no question it was a real barn burner of a letter, one the local media characterized as “threatening.” And what was it about the letter that was so threatening? “Please know that I will work vigorously to remove from office any supervisor that does not support her (Barnett) in this difficult time,” Vegas wrote. I asked Vegas precisely what he meant by “remove.” “I meant that come election time, I will campaign vigorously against them,” he said. “And it’s not a threat. It’s a promise.” Wow. Not exactly a pistol to the temple, as threats go, but apparently enough to send the more delicate among us on a frantic search for smelling salts. So Vegas wrote a snarky letter to some elected officials. It’s one of those things involved citizens do. So the gentle approach isn’t something Vegas is particularly fond of. Is that reason enough to call for his removal as a trustee, for an investigation into his church? Hardly. Weir, Barnett and Vegas are able and dedicated public servants. They have faith in their core philosophies and will not be swayed, a trait that is as admirable as it is controversial. If Kern County is very lucky, they may stick around for a while. Barnett's views shouldn't be fodder for obsessive media http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28390 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28390 I  realize the decision by Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett to stop all county-performed wedding ceremonies is controversial, but, yikes, we haven’t witnessed this kind of media coverage in Kern County since our last multiple-murder case. <div class="story_assets"> <div>No laws were broken, no rules were bent, no office policies trod upon, yet pundits, reporters and news anchors from here to New York continue their breathless, though not always accurate, daily reports in the wake of Barnett’s decision.</div> </div> This, despite the fact her decision will not keep any couple, gay or straight, from getting a marriage license come June 17. Barnett cited space restraints and budget concerns as her reasons for halting the ceremonies, but frustrated media types all but camped out in her office foyer in an effort to dig up the REAL explanation. True, Barnett has been cautious and deliberate in her response to reporters. Critics, like Los Angeles Times columnist Patt Morrison, in her Thursday column, even suggested Barnett is so intent on dodging the media “her home phone had been disconnected.” Odd. It was working just fine when I called. And always has, Barnett said. Those opposed to the no-wedding edict also point to Barnett’s early consults with the conservative legal group Alliance Defense Fund as evidence of her REAL intentions. But attorneys with the ADF — characterized by one reporter as a “gay-marriage opposition group” — say Barnett “is taking a legitimate legal position” they’re willing to defend. Of COURSE Barnett consulted the ADF. No matter what professional and personal reasons lay behind her decision, the politically savvy Barnett knew full well how her announcement would be received by the pro-gay-marriage press. Who was she supposed to consult? The ACLU? Budget problems, over-burdened staffs and space restraints — especially space restraints — are ongoing issues in Barnett’s offices, as they are for many county administrators. Given the anticipated hike in requests for wedding ceremonies — County Counsel Bernard Barmann reportedly said he expected a “landslide” of same-sex couples to come forward for weddings on June 17 — Barnett’s reasons for putting a stop to wedding ceremonies should not be so quickly dismissed. As for her personal feelings on the issue, they are her own and should stay that way. “The main issue here is that she has the legal right as clerk to decline to perform marriage ceremonies and she’s exercised that discretion,” says Brian Raum, ADF senior legal counsel. “She sought our advice and it’s our position that any clerk who decides not to perform ceremonies is entitled to a defense.” Until the voters say otherwise, she’s also entitled to run her office as she sees fit. “My decision was based on facts and the fact that it’s discretionary,” Barnett said Friday. “If people don’t agree with it, I’m sorry, but it’s my decision to make and I made it to the best of my ability.” The California Supreme Court has spoken, their decision is the law, at least for now: couples, gay and straight, may marry. That they may not marry at the county clerk’s office is not discrimination. Just an inconvenience. High school district admits Bible blunder http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28006 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28006 Kern High School District officials take note: If you’re going to violate students’ civil rights, it might be a good idea to dodge the valedictorians and mock-trial champs. <div class="story_assets"> <div>Those kids know their stuff.</div> </div> One of those kids, 18-year-old Brant Bonetti, called me a week ago Thursday, the day after his graduation from Stockdale High School. A constitutional right has been trampled, he said, apologies and assurances are in order. He couldn’t be more right. Seems that Bonetti, the outgoing president of the school’s Fellowship of Christian Athletes, came up with the idea of giving a Bible to any graduating senior who wanted one. Permission was asked for and received, money raised and Bibles bought. According to state and district regulations, every student enjoys “the right to distribute publications, printed materials and petitions on school premises, subject to regulations relating to time, place and manner of distribution.” Yet five minutes into the give-away, school officials suddenly demanded the group stop handing out the Bibles, by order of the district office. Seconds later, Bonetti was in the principal's office asking why. “I told him these Bibles are gifts our club bought for the seniors — that’s allowable,” Bonetti said. “I’m not overly emotional, but I was troubled to say the least.” Bonetti asked which district official put a stop to the giveaway, but Stockdale officials wouldn’t say. Bonetti returned to his fellow club members moments later, planning his first ever act of peaceful resistance. “I told my students the school was telling us to leave, but that I was going to stay and continue passing out Bibles and they could stay or go home,” he said. “I told them we were going to be extremely respectful, but this was wrong, morally and constitutionally.” Bonetti and his fellow students continued to give away Bibles until a school official — after getting “further clarification from district” — closed the box of Bibles and ordered the students off campus. The students, Bonetti said, moved to the parking lot where they “handed Bibles out from the back of a truck.” It was a disappointing end to an otherwise stellar four years of high school for Bonetti, who, this week, consulted legal counsel on the Bible issue. He didn’t want to leave his school, he said, until he was assured the rights of his fellow students would be upheld. “I’m not asking for exclusive privilege — it can be a Bible or a Koran and no one is forced to take them,” he said. “Just because someone is offended is not a valid excuse to shoot someone’s rights down. This needs to be resolved.” And so it will be. Chagrined district officials said Friday the call to halt the Bible giveaway was a bad one, a “misinterpretation of our own regulation.” “We have a process whereby students can obtain permission to do this,” said district spokesman John Teves. “These students followed every bit of that process; they did everything the right way for the right reason.” Teves declined to confirm the identity of the offending official, saying it was an internal personnel matter. He did say that steps would be taken to “make sure all (school) sites and site representatives are aware of this situation and how it should have been interpreted and handled differently.” Those interested in the identity of the official in question should stay tuned — Kern High School District Trustee Chad Vegas, who tends to be rather passionate about such matters, has pledged to bring the issue up at a future board meeting. Demonstrating the grace he was denied, Bonetti said he harbors no hard feelings for any school official and was satisfied with the district’s promise. “I’ve appreciated my time at Stockdale immensely, I’m extremely thankful for that,” he said. “At the same time, the way that situation was handled was wrong and I needed to do what I could to make it right.” Bonetti will soon leave Bakersfield for Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. I only hope, for their sake, they’re ready for him. Gay marriage ruling an act of judicial tyranny http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/27562 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/27562 I don't know what was more shocking about the recent state Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage — the reasoning behind the ruling or the justices’ blatant disregard for the will of the people. <div class="story_assets"> <div>A lot of Californians are still reeling from the court's 4-3 decision to overturn Proposition 22, the measure that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and was supported in 2000 by 61 percent of state voters.</div> </div> That definition, concluded the four, is unconstitutional. The court's ruling begs a host of questions, not the least of which is why Californians should even bother to vote. With activist judges waiting in the wings to override votes and fabricate new rights, what's the point? It's a valid question, but let’s not give up on the system just yet. Voters may have the chance to rectify this latest act of judicial tyranny when supporters of traditional marriage place a constitutional marriage amendment — now clearly a necessity — on the ballot in November. In the meantime, same-sex marriages may take place as early as mid-June, while we of the slippery slope school are left to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, behind the court's ruling. The main problem with the court's decision, besides its complete disregard for the democratic process, is that it doesn't expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. That's one of the findings of Heritage Foundation researchers, who posted a succinct and insightful analysis of the ruling on the foundation <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/family">Web site.</a> The ruling, they say, isn't about race or a particular people group, it's about the nature and purpose of marriage, which the court brushed aside. “To redefine marriage so it's not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.” The analysis also points out that “changing the definition of marriage has vast cultural consequences, including religious liberty implications.” Those who doubt those implications are simply ignoring reality, says Greg Scott, spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group. “You will see all sorts of situations where the right to exercise our faith in ways we see fit are going to be seriously compromised,” he says. Think he's exaggerating? It's already happening. In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a Christian and a professional wedding photographer, was hauled before the state's Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In April, the commission found that Huguenin had violated the state's anti-discrimination law and directed her to pay more than $6,600 in attorney's fees to the two women who filed the complaint. Last year in New Jersey, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow the couple to hold a civil union ceremony on the camp's property. So far the camp has only lost tax-exempt status on part of its property, but the homosexual advocacy group that's threatening to appeal that consequence says it's “looking for a bigger victory.” How big a victory the group will settle for is anyone's guess — utter destruction, perhaps? Since gay marriage in California is now a “constitutional right,” what protection is there for those whose faith beliefs forbid such unions? What will priests, pastors, churches and private property owners be forced to condone in the years to come? Through the years, the state of California has given to domestic partners every right currently enjoyed by married couples, but even that has failed to satisfy. It is God's blessing they want, it is His approval they will have. Or else. Theft a wake-up call to give blood http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26810 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26810 There’s been a lot of bad in the news this week, but first place in the how-low-can-you-go category surely goes to the creeps who stole the field trailer from Houchin Blood Bank early Tuesday morning. <div class="story_assets"> <div>The thieves apparently stopped by the blood bank in the wee hours, unhitched the trailer from a company truck, hooked it up to their own ride and hightailed it home.</div> </div> Stealing from a blood bank? An agency whose sole purpose is to save lives? Makes one wonder how the sticky fingered cretins spend their time when they’re not victimizing charitable nonprofits. Probably with something really fun, like drowning kittens or snatching purses from old ladies on walkers. Houchin officials say it was a nice trailer, as trailers go, but there was little inside of monetary value — a half-dozen folding donor chairs, tables, camping cots and the like. Officials also took pains to point out there was no blood, blood bags or personal donor information in the trailer. Nothing of any real worth, at least not to the average crook. But when it comes to the business of blood, the equipment had life-and-death value, say Houchin staff, who regularly hauled the trailer all over Kern County in their endless quest for donations. “An equipment loss like this effects everyone,” says Houchin spokeswoman Tracy Hunter. “This is personal. It’s personal to our Houchin family, our donor base and our community.” The loss of the trailer is especially disappointing in a county where people apparently aren’t real excited about donating blood. The folks at Houchin were too polite to say that, but the numbers do. In a county where 60 percent of its nearly 800,000 residents are eligible to donate blood, only 3 percent do so. That amounts to about 50 to 60 units of blood, per day, not nearly enough to maintain the local supply, Hunter says. Not when one cancer patient can use up to eight units of blood per week. Or when one leukemia patient can use up to two units per day. Or when one victim of a car wreck or stab wound can use up to 50 units of blood. Three percent, people. What a wimpy number, especially for a community as caring as Bakersfield. So what’s the problem? Afraid of needles? Strapped for time? Never even think about it? Please. It’s just a little pinch, takes about 45 minutes and Houchin staff will gladly give you a call about every eight weeks or so. For some busy folks, the field trailer was more than a mere convenience, it was a reminder to give and encouraged some to donate who’d never done it before, Hunter says. The trailer — a white 1996 Wells Cargo trailer with the Houchin logo and license plate No. 4DC2022 — is still at large and may take a while to replace. But the week doesn’t have to be a total wash. As it happens, Houchin and members of the local chapter of the Disabled American Veterans are hosting a military blood drive Saturday in celebration of Armed Forces Day, a day we Americans occasionally set aside to remember and honor our military forces. There’s music, food and ice cream. Need more incentive? When you donate blood, you save a life. What better way to celebrate Armed Forces Day than to donate blood in honor of those who have spilled theirs? You have until 3 p.m. on Saturday. Get going. ••• In my column five weeks ago, I wrote about Bakersfield High School’s ROTC cadets and their all-out effort to raise $5,000 to buy new flags for veterans’ graves at Union Cemetery. Thanks to Bakersfield’s usual generosity, the cadets raised $4,300, and at $1 apiece, that’s a lot of flags. The flags go up Memorial Day, May 26. Good job, cadets. Two propositions, two very different promises http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26411 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26411 In case you haven’t heard, there’s an election coming up, on June 3. <div class="story_assets"> <div>I only mention it because some folks tell me they were surprised this week to find sample ballots in their mail. And if the turnout Tuesday night at the Bakersfield Republican Assembly’s candidates forum is any indication, voter interest in this particular election is very low.</div> </div> The forum featured the eight judicial candidates running for two Superior Court seats and the two men vying for the job of 4th District supervisor. The audience was sparse to begin with, but when it came time for the round-table discussion on eminent domain, of which I was a part, it had thinned out considerably. I think there were about 13 people, including the sound guy. Not that I blame anyone for leaving. The issue of eminent domain, particularly in this election, is confusing. It can be boring, too, as dry as day-old toast. Until it happens to you. Then it gets really interesting, really fast. Which is why local folks should take a hard look at the only two propositions on the June ballot, both of which promise to offer private property protection and much-needed reforms of current eminent domain practices in California. Proposition 98 delivers on that promise. Proposition 99 does nothing. That’s not just me talking. Folks at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser, found that Proposition 99 “would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.” Sure, it offers a teensy bit more protection for private homes, but what about farmland, small businesses and churches? Where is the protection for those? Why is one piece of private property more privately held than others? Proposition 99 is bad news for California’s private property owners, who have clamored for some real measure of protection since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2005 that using eminent domain to seize private property to fork over to other private owners is constitutional. Even so, that decision doesn’t trump states’ efforts to reform eminent domain statutes, which more than 40 have already done. California is three years behind in such efforts and will be even more so if Proposition 98 is defeated in June. Proposition 98 will curb eminent domain abuse, but the measure’s most vocal opponents, groups like the League of California Cities, insist the measure will make it impossible to develop new water resources and toss hordes of low-income elderly from their homes by phasing out rent control. Draconian? Sure, if it were true. Kern County doesn’t do rent control, but other cities do. Proposition 98 would allow landlords in those cities to raise rates, as is their right as property owners, but only after said properties have been vacated. Nobody’s throwing anybody out on the street. And the water? Eminent domain will continue to allow the government to take private property for roads, parks and public utilities like, for example, public water storage facilities and reservoirs. Some farm groups are caving in to the hype, but the California Farm Bureau Federation is backing the measure. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made a very bad call. A year later, Californians voted down the chance to protect private property. Now we have a chance to set things right, to protect our property and that of our neighbors. Vote yes on 98 and no on 99 — before things get really interesting. Film evolves from lack of scientific freedom http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26020 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/26020 If the point of a documentary film is to get people talking, then Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is wildly successful. <div class="story_assets"> <div>Film critics — always among the most reliably liberal of the liberal mainstream media — find nothing to like about this movie, which takes up the debate between evolution and intelligent design by interviewing college professors and scientists who were reportedly fired or denied tenure because they had the nerve to question the Darwinian theory of evolution.</div> </div> Two weeks after its release, the movie is still showing at Bakersfield theaters or was, as of Friday. Still, if the movie’s critics had their way, few would see it. The critics don’t merely dislike “Expelled,” they hate it, calling the film “creationist crackpottery,” “stacked-deck, religious-right propaganda” and the most “shameless, stupid and loathsome piece of propaganda ever to skulk its way into the theater.” Whoa. I haven’t heard critics so savagely and uniformly trash a movie since “Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.” No argument there — the trailers alone were incredibly gross — but what is it about “Expelled” that has the critics so enraged, so shrill, so frightened? It’s the message, of course. It’s the message that there’s room in the scientific community for those who can make a case for intelligent design, the theory that living things are too complex to be accounted for by Darwin’s theory of evolution and that a higher intelligence may be responsible for those complexities. The film isn’t so much about ID, as it is about the freedom to debate ID in academic and scientific circles. It’s about the exchange of ideas and the freedom to question anything and everything, which is what science is supposed to be about. Isn’t it? One thing the film does NOT address is ID in public schools, a topic of considerable interest to many in Kern County. Of the ID proponents interviewed for the film, not one so much as suggested that the teaching of ID be required in public schools, which, according to the film’s production notes, might “politicize the theory and hinder its fair consideration by the scientific community.” Room at the table. A level playing field. That’s all the scientists want. And scientists they are, despite film critics’ claims to the contrary. Roger Moore, film critic for The Orlando Sentinel, blasted Stein for loading the film with “disgruntled, under-credentialed academics” and “anti-evolution think-tank cranks.” Cranks? Under credentialed? Perhaps Moore failed to check his sources, or maybe his standards are simply higher than mine, but I’d hardly call men who hold doctorates or professorships from universities like Yale, Princeton, Oxford and the UCLA School of Medicine under-credentialed. There’s no doubt the film gets heavy-handed at times. The suggestion that Darwin’s theory set the stage for the Holocaust — driven home by disturbing images of Nazi death camps and a droning, funereal soundtrack — goes on too long. But the film’s crowning moment is worth the price of admission. That moment comes near the end of the documentary, when Stein confronts noted atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins with the question “How did life begin?” “I don’t know,” Dawkins replies. Dawkins, who has since claimed he was duped by Stein into making the film, offered up a couple educated guesses, but admitted the anti-ID community can not yet identify the spark, the catalyst behind the creation of life. They don’t know, yet ridicule and squash any argument to the contrary. This is a film about freedom. This is a film worth seeing, no matter what the critics say. Weir drama shows we're selective in our outrage http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/25603 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/25603 If Wednesday night’s City Council meeting is any indication, Russell Johnson will keep his job as planning commissioner. So he should. By most accounts, Johnson has served ably; many say his service has been exemplary. City Councilman Ken Weir’s call to remove Johnson from the commission, while allowed under the council’s appointment criteria, was ill conceived and poorly timed. It also stirred up considerable community angst, not to mention the overkill media coverage. But before we haul out the tar and feathers, let’s consider, for a moment, how selective we are in our outrage. The dismissal earlier this month of Bakersfield Sen. Roy Ashburn from the Senate’s Rules Committee raised nary an eyebrow in these parts, even though the move was widely perceived as retribution for Ashburn’s early refusal to back Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill for minority leader. Cogdill, who replaced Ashburn with Rancho Cucamonga Republican Jim Battin, basically said it was nothing personal, he just liked Battin better. Back in January, local folks merely shrugged when Sen. Dean Florez successfully fought to boot a Fresno County supervisor from the California Air Resources Board, despite her years of service and expertise in the field. Nothing personal, he just didn’t appreciate her point of view. Weir insists his move to fire Russell isn’t personal either, but, given the timing of his proposal — the controversial Canyons project, in which a long-time friend of Weir’s is heavily invested, will come before the planning commission soon — he’ll have a hard time convincing his constituents and fellow councilmembers. OK, so Weir’s proposal was a bad idea. That said, it does bring up the interesting question of how our elected officials select their appointees. Johnson was appointed to the planning commission by former-councilman-now-supervisor Mike Maggard, who, like Weir, has a long and colorful history with The Canyons controversy. Johnson is now employed by Maggard as an at-will employee, meaning Johnson does not enjoy the same job protections as other county employees, but works at the pleasure of Maggard. Isn’t it right, then, that Weir and his fellow councilmembers should consider the possibility that a conflict of interest may exist? Weir never said as much, but should have. In his letter to the editor blasting Weir’s proposal, Ashburn rightly points out that “planning commissioners are not appointed to be the voice of the elected official,” but must “remain objective and fair in the items that come before them.” He went on to say Johnson should be allowed to finish his term on the commission “free from outside political influence.” I agree. But how reasonable is it for us to expect Johnson, and others on the commission in similar circumstances, to avoid the “political influence” of those who employ them? It’s a reasonable question with no easy answer, says Councilman David Couch. “If I had to eliminate from consideration to any city position anyone who had an association with anyone else who might have a different opinion from me on something some day, I could never appoint anyone to anything,” he said. True. But the employer/employee association is just too close for comfort. Weir will have a turn to make an appointment to the planning commission next year. When that time comes, perhaps he’ll consider a candidate who’s NOT looking to jumpstart a political career; a candidate who may actually know what it’s like to build something. Now that’s a plan.