Do-Over begins

A few months ago, I posted an entry about Ian Usher, who wanted a d0-over in his life. Seems Ian was tired of his current life, wanted to sell it and start over. Well, it seems like he's accomplished his goal (at least on the surface) and the auction is over.

The winning bid was $399,300, an earlier bid of $2m was found to be fake. My earlier report indicated he was hoping for $390,000, so he didn't do too bad.

Ian packed up his life: his house, car, etc. including his job and friends. Yep, his employer promises to give the buyer a try at his former job and he's sending a list of his friends.

So why do it? "Of course, at the root of it all was a girl" according to this article. Makes sense. Most of the major decisions in my life can be traced to a female. Some for the better. Some, well I'd rather not think of those.

Now Ian gets to start over. Good luck Ian. I hope you find what you're looking for. More importantly, I hope you get away from the things you don't want.

I want a do-over

Seems that a man in Australia wants a do-over. Ian Usher is putting his entire life up for auction on E-bay. The lucky winner will get his house and all it's contents, his car, his motorcycle, jet ski and parachuting gear.

The winner will also get Ian's friends and job: He's promised to introduce the buyer to his friends (after that it's up to them) and his employer has agreed to give the buyer a chance at his job (two week trial period, followed by three months, then permanent if it all works out).

Seems Ian had a bad break-up with his wife of five years and his life is just full of bad memories. Not sure how those get sold on E-bay, but he's expecting to get around $390,000 for the package. He hopes to head out of his house with his wallet and passport and board the next plane with an available seat and head off into the sunset (or sunrise depending on the time of day and direction).

I've always promised my kids that my house could be a "city of refuge" for them, but this is tempting. I posted a while back that I had desires to go off and become a hermit, but this is even more dramatic. Looking back and my blog posts, I've even posted that desire twice, two years apart, so it's not a new desire. And Drew Peterson is convinced that's what happened to his wife and there are books that tell you how to do it. It seems to me that the e-Bay way is a good one.

I approved this message - Foreign affairs

I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.

But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.

My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)

I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).

I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.

Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.

It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.

I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.

Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.

Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.

South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.

That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.

Did Drew Peterson kill his wife?

All over the news, you'll see stories like this one about Drew Peterson in Illinois who is accused of killing his fourth wife. Her body hasn't been found, but they have exhumed his third wife's body and at least one investigator believes he killed her too (I found an interview with wife#2, but gave up finding anything on wife#1, the reports are just too sick). Mr. Peterson thinks wife#4 ran off with another man and just doesn't want to be found.

Now, teleport across the pond to merry old England where it's reported that John Darwin who has been gone over five years and presumed dead. The wreckage of his kayak washed on shore in March 2002 and a coroner pronounced him dead. His wife Anne, collected the life insurance money and recently moved to Panama. Now John has turned himself in claiming amnesia.

So what ties these two stories together? Is Anne Darwin's wife, Drew Peterson's next target? Or did Stacy Peterson, run off with John Darwin? No, nothing so sinister, no great conspiracy. I am just fascinated with the idea that people can run away and never be found. It turns out there are even books written about the idea: "Hide Your Assets & Disappear: A Step-By-Step Guide to Vanishing Without a Trace"

Let's see, didn't I say something a few days ago about moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit? (blog post here) If Santa wanted to bring me a book, maybe the above would be a good one...

Hermit

This time of the year is always difficult for me. I know it should be the happiest time of all. I get to see my family more than normal, everyone is in a good mood and I get to do things that please them.

I think it's tough because of the stress. I want to do things just right and they don't always work. Some family gets hurt or offended, someone else doesn't like what's going on. And they all bring their problems to me.

I get the urge to move up to the mountains and tell them that if they want to see me, come on, but leave their gripes and complaints at home.

If my comments these next few days seem a little snippy, I apologize in advance. Don't complain about it though, you'll only make it worse.

Texas Student Booted - Follow-up

Several days ago, I posted an entry titled Texas Student Booted from School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt. In the post, I said “the question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school?” I sided with the schools.

I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.

While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.

Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.

Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.

In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).

In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).

But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).

Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”

Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”

The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.

In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)

Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.

The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."

In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.

The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)

But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)

And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)

Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.

Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.

On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.

My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.

If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.

It’s possible to effect change within the system.

Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.

Eviscerate

This word has been on my mind a lot lately. I think I read it in the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge (a good book, by the way). The word literally means to remove the entrails. Picture a hunter who has caught his prey, he removes the entrials to prevent them from infecting the good meat. You gut a fish before you catch it. Same thing.

But my mind hasn't been on hunting. Instead it's been on a friend of mine who has been eviscerated. Those who know some scorned or vengeful women may have an image of how an man can be eviscerated. In this case, that image doesn't fit exactly, but leave that image in your mind.

The friend has been told by many of those around him that he's not a man. He grew up in an abusive home (I'm assuming "mild" physical abuse - if there is such a thing) with an alcoholic parent. His parents divorced and the alcoholic hasn't remarried. The other spouse remarried and ignored my friend. (I think the remarriage and ignorance happend after my friend became an adult - not while he was still a child).

Now, his marriage is on the rocks. He wants to be a good husband, he wants to be a good father. They've been to counseling, but it didn't help. Certainly some (most?) of the blame for the failure of their relationship falls on his shoulders. He admits this as fact. That doesn't make it any easier to resolve things.

When I look into my very cloudy crystal ball, I see them headed for more problems. I wish I knew an easy way to un-viscerate him and convince her that they can recover. There may already be too much water under the bridge.

Failure to plan on your part....

... does not constitute an emergency on my part.

My day today has been shot. I planned to go to Columbia, instead I'm headed north of Charlotte. I planned to work on several things this morning, instead I got an urgent call at 9:30. IF we order something, how long would it take to arrive? Oh, we've been sitting on it for weeks. We've known all the deadlines for months. We should have ordered it days ago. But we might get around to it and when we do, we want it RIGHT NOW. Just in time. No matter that the order has to be processed in Brazil, no matter that it has to be built to order in Mexico, no matter that it has to come through customs with more scrutiny than a pick-up load of illegals.

And that's just one of the fires I'm fighting while I spend 6 hours of my 10 hour day driving.

Hopefully, I'll have my follow-up and the school with John Edwards t-shirt problems tomorrow...
(Can you tell I'm frustrated?)

Is there always a purpose?

Yesterday was a good day at church, it set my mind to thinking in several areas. More on that later. But I had an interesting question.

The story was Daniel and the lion's den. Daniel was thrown in, the lions mulled around, Daniel got out, Daniels enemies became lion's lunch.

One of the points of the message was that there is always a purpose? While I believe that is true, and I believe the purpose was a good one, was the sole purpose of that event to be able to tell us the story some 2000+ years later?

If you had met Daniel a week after the event, what would he have said? "Yep, it was a good thing. I had to get rid of the pants I was wearing that day after that lion nuzzled up next to me, but I see what the plan was." If you talked to Daniel a year later, would he have said "I'm glad that it all happened. It worked out so much better than any other way. I can reach so many more people as a result of that experience and I would do it again if I could."

I suspect that Daniel never really understood the purpose. And I suspect that, given a choice, he would have tried to reach the purpose another way.

Life is a function

OK, this will be strange, but stick with me. I was a math major for 2 years in college, but this only involves high school math. A function is something like y = ax + bw + cz + d. It involves coefficients (a, b & c in my example), variables (x, w & z) and constants (d). The thing I liked best about functions was that when you plugged in the right coefficients, variables and constants, you always get the right answer.

It occurred to me yesterday that life is a function. You encounter decisions (variables) and some of these decisions are bigger than others (different coefficients) and you have some constants. The results you get are a function of the variables, coefficients and constants.

It would be nice if you could see this function ahead of time, then you'd be able to solve the function based on the variables and know how life would turn out. Unfortunately, you can't know all the variables and especially the coefficients (the importance of the decisions) at the time you're facing things.

But life is a function. The decisions we make lead directly to the life we live.

(Now why didn't Socrates or Plato or some other philosopher come up with that idea?)