Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Footbath's and freedom of religion

This was a story not widely publicized a few months back.

The skinny: Religion is pretty much banned from state-run schools, yet Muslims get to have foot baths added to public restrooms at the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan, and it will be paid for by taxpayers. Wait, let me rephrase that: student fees will supposedly pay for this. And when student fees are not available for other projects, taxes will likely foot the bill for them.

I am curious as to how the ACLU can distinguish between a State-run school spending money on a footbath for Muslim students to prepare for prayer, versus say, purchasing a Bible, or a cross, or a prayer room for a Christian student to use. One of the commenters makes a great point. How fast would the ACLU jump on a state-run school that wanted to open a non-denominational church on campus for everyone to use?

Well, the article cited did state a possibile answer- a safety issue. Kind of spotty, but if you accept that argument, how about a private prayer room for christian students to pray without fear of persecution or harm from zealots who hate religion?

I then came across this article, (sorry for the cut-off, but the LA Times does have free registration) which also addresses the installation of the foot baths. I like how the foot bath is different than a normal religious request because it solves a safety issue, have no symbolic value, can be used by anyone (including Janitors!), and are not stylized in a religious way.

I finally refer you to a well-written essay from Rabbi Aryeh Spero, which speaks to the heart of this and other examples of religion, particularly Christianity, being attacked.

Religion is part of everyone's life, even if you choose not to participate in a belief structure, study, or particular faith. The fact that separation of church and state is mentioned means very little regarding the barrier that was created as a result of overanalyzing this section of the Constitution. I once wrote a lenghty article on this, so I might try to find it and dust it off for my blog here. I do see an interesting item brought up in this debate. If the students pay for it, does that make an item endorsing religion ok?


Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Local- Gay pride parade involvement prompts sexual harassment lawsuit

I had delayed the posting of this story in hopes that there would be further developement in the investigation by the fire department. Unfortunately, bureaucracy- be it government or fire department , moves at a snails pace.

This story deals with harassment of firefighters who participated at the annual San Diego Gay Pride Parade on July 21, 2007. For those who live outside our corner of paradise, San Diego has a large (what I am told, one of the largest) pride parade each year through the University Avenue area of Western San Diego. It gets a lot of coverage and for the most part is a peaceful and fun event for its participants.


I found this story particularly interesting, but not because it deals with the Gay Pride Parade, per se. I am not concerned with the allegations of the fire department pushing a “gay agenda”, as it is the right of the gay community to express themselves, be it a parade or other avenue. I do not know for sure, nor fully believe that the department was pushing any agenda in the first place. This deals with free speech, the appropriate use of government employees and equipment, and sexual harassment of males.

On July 20, four department firefighters (Captain John Ghiotto, engineer Jason Hewett, firefighters Chad Allison and Alex Kane) were told by fire chief Tracy Jarman (via supervisors), that they would be participating in the parade. In previous parade’s, participation was voluntary, but according to John Ghiotto, filling volunteer spots was a tall order. All four indicated they had no desire to participate. They were then faced with a direct order, which they complied with.

The firefighters gave detailed accounts of the vulgar comments and sexual gestures made at them as they drove their engine down the parade route. All felt extremely uncomfortable and did not like the idea of being forced to participate in this event. Since the event, Captain Ghiotto and the other firefighters have filed suit against the city and the department for sexual harassment, putting their careers at risk.

The free speech issue in this case deals with expressive speech, and is quite simple to analyze. A person has a right to express themselves in the manner that they choose, which includes the right not to speak or participate in a voluntary event contrary to their beliefs. What is important to note here is that the men stated that they did not want to participate, yet they were forced to. My issue is not with the event itself, and I do not choose to go so far as their counsel does, by saying this is an attempt to push a “gay agenda” on anyone. What is unacceptable is the forcing of these firefighters to participate against their wishes, by threatening them with discipline, especially since this is a voluntary event.

I heard an interview with fire chief Tracy Jarman on AM 600 KOGO, where she stated that it was normal policy to participate in various parades during the year, but she was silent on the issue of the four men being forced to participate. She did do the right thing by meeting with the firefighters, apologizing to them for what happened and promising an investigation would proceed. She also stated that she intended to change the policy on participation at future events. Only time will tell if this turns out to be the case.

The use of government employees and equipment is bothersome. Why the “normal policy” is to participate in parades is beyond me. There is no need to advertise for the department, and while it is important to show community support, San Diego has serious budget issues that result in shortcomings for the department to begin with. There are no shortages of stories that deal with budget shortcomings, budget issues and various proposals that result in shortages for the department. So why spend money on salary and wear and tear of an engine, just to have a brief presence at a parade? It just does not make sense.

The final issue I find particularly interesting deals with the sexual harassment of men. Not just any men, manly men- firefighters- rough and tough men. Interestingly enough, the talk around town has been mixed. There has been plenty of support for the firefighters, but a lot of people are asking what the big deal is. Why can’t they just let it roll off their shoulders? I wonder a couple of things as I write. What if this was a woman complaining? Second, what if a gay participant in the event complained of harassment? Would the comments and opinions be different? My position is simple: it does not matter who is harassed. Sexual harassment cuts both ways, for men and women. What a man does for a living is irrelevant.

More to come on this story as the case unfolds . . .

A look at myself on a more personal level

I wanted to take a minute to thank a few of the huffingtonpost.com readers who have happened to comment on my blog's content, while commenting on that site. For some reason, one of them could not leave a comment on here, which I thought was odd. So, I tested, and it allows me to comment, so hopefully that will end the issue and the comments can move forward.

Another commenter indicated I should do more local stories. I have a few in the works, but as I told him, the issue of unions seems to come up in every one since this is a union-run town, so I get tired of them. However, I do have a few that will be done over the next few days. He also said to discuss more of what I sometimes refer to as "liberal talking points" and self-critique. I don't see what's the issue in posing my side and letting the other side speak for itself, but it's food for thought. In any event, thanks again.

Now, for a daily rant. My better half has had some issues with her company's health insurance offerings, so she is joining me on my insurance. It has been a nightmare getting the right paperwork to submit to my company, and I am hoping they don't nail me for her having an "option" of other insurance, since she chose not to keep her coverage. My insurance coverage is fine and I am happy with it, but the paperwork is a nightmare. And the kicker- I work for an insurance company.

Monday, August 6, 2007

HEADLINE: Bush causes mine collapse

I was reading about the tragic Crandall Canyon mine collapse today in the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Utah. Six coal-miners are trapped below 1,500 feet of earth and rubble. As rescuers make valiant efforts to save these poor coal miners, many of the the liberals of this country are busy blaming Bush for these recent tragedy.

They started in with the "Big Coal" comments on Huffingtonpost.com, then made reference to the Sago mine tragedy, then boldly announced how he has done "nothing". I engaged one of the bloggers, as did another commenter, and asked for proof of this assertion. The comeback was typical- no evidence, just comments that other moonbats would agree to. I then gave them this article to read, which says the exact opposite. The response: an AFL-CIO website which says safety programs allocated in the budget are not enough.

Yes, that's right. Have you ever heard of a labor website that says any money budgeted to their program is sufficient? That was the "great" proof.

Remember- if it's bad, Bush is to blame. If there is no way to blame him, it's the fault of "Big Coal/Oil/Corporation/insert your choice here".

Thursday, August 2, 2007

More Bush derangement syndrome, live from Minneapolis!

In yet another round of the "blame Bush for everything" crowd, the connection is being made again and again and again that Bush is to blame for the bridge collapse in Minnesota, earlier this week. In one day I saw the following posted on Huffingtonpost.com and a few other blogs (I apologize for the spelling errors and grammar issues, but they are exact reprints of original comments):

Why do we need terrorists when we have Republicans destroying our own infastructure?

Why DO republicons HATE America SO much???

The Administration, and other corporists do not care for America.

IMPEACH BUSH!

We spend billions of dollars in Iraq, we could just spend that money here and fix ALL our infastructure in a few months.

Then, I read this article from the Associated Press, which states that this bridge has been getting poor reviews since 1990. Funny, I don't see Clinton mentioned anywhere in cyberspace. Instead the new tactic was to talk about how Republicans drained all the surplus money from when Democrats were in charge.

I also found this fatigue evaluation from March of 2001, a mere three months after Bush took office. The bridge had fatigue cracking back then, and was deemed "structurally deficient". The repairs done in the 1990's did not include an overhaul of the bridge, rather, repair of cracks and corrosion. Yet again, nowhere do we hear about the sins of a prior administration. And think about how much could have been done with all that "Democrat surplus"! Now remember, when Clinton took over from Bush I, the calls for his mistakes in Somalia were due to the prior administrations involvement. Yet, the same cannot be asserted here? Hmmmmm . . .