Charles, and Whoever,
I just finished reading Ann Work's piece about the Work Force Task Force, your blog entry on Ms. Work's reporting, your amazement over the article, and your stated goal of giving facts, not opinion. I also acknowledge that you too, have an active and inquiring mind. My impression of Ann's article was that she in fact reported the facts of the meeting and provided the readers of the Times Record News a factual and objective summary of that meeting. You listed many reasons why the meeting was off base, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

Now, of course, one may or may not like some of the reported 'content' of whatevermeeting, and surely it is a basic right protected by our Constitution. One might even object to how an account is reported. You seemed to have taken umbrage over the fact that some study, or statistics were not cited as part of the meeting. Ms. Work's report did not cite such, which may have occurred, but the general reading public would yawn at. You also cited many of your particular concerns. And you made several claims to fact, over opinion. Since most newspaper stories are written at about a 5 th grade level, none of this should be surprising.

Charles, you stated that you would respond with facts, and not opinion. I found this piece, by you, to be largely a recitation of your opinions, rather than facts. You, seemingly, castigated Ms. Work for not including studies, or statistics aboutsome of the topics discussedand reported on in her story, yet you do not cite any study, or statistics regarding your 'facts.'

I think most folks sometimes struggle with the difference between fact and opinion. For, example, if a fella believes something or other strongly enough, those opinions can largely be taken as fact, when in fact, they are simple opinion. Philosophically speaking, most folks probably do not give this a second thought. They simply assume that such strongly held beliefs are in fact, fact.

Hispanics now are the majority population of Texas, and any sort of discussion, from a civil, educational, social, economic, cultural, or religious level, if it is to be informed at all, must take this fact into existence. In fact, in case you are not aware of this fact, originally, what is now known, as Texas was Mexican. Those of us somewhat informed about Texas history find this as no surprise, since Tejano's (Mexicans born and raised on this part of earth's real estate) , and folks from down south of the Rio Grande, have always made up a very large part of Texas demographics. This does make Texas unique among states, more or less. The histories of New Mexico, Arizona, and California share similar histories. Our 'histories' are largely an Anglo-driven enterprise. If you need a fact or two about this assertion, then I will challenge you to see if Word Perfect, or just about any English dictionary in common use cite the term, 'Tejano.' They do not. Tejano's, of course is an old, historical term, and has fallen out of everyday use by the dominant, Anglo culture. After the successful revolutions in Mexico over Spain, and the subsequent Texas revolution for complete independence, the term 'Tejano' seemed to quickly drop out of the Anglo lexicon. The question may be 'why'? Even during the time right after Texas Independence, 'Tejano's' still comprised the majority of the population of the Republic of Texas. With the tidal wave of Anglo immigration into the Republic of Texas, and a Protestant, Anglo, social-political ideology, 'history' and 'fact' were rather thrown to the holy winds. Texas history was re-written to conform to an Anglo, Protestant, Christian, American ideal. But, I regress, and am off the point of your blog entry, and what inspired my response.

Back to your blog entry now... I will address some of the things I jotted down as I read, and re-read your piece.

First, I agree with you that a fully developed conversation, and investigation of facts of modern life should be met with strong statistical support. I think it necessary to state that any start to any conversation about real life matters, must start somewhere. One should not fault folks with trying to BEGIN to get a handle on 'reality" when they truly desire to solve a basic problem. Of course, during those initial conversations among citizens, there are many things, after more time, information and thought could be easily jettisoned. Some of the early 'ideas', as time goes along, and more and more thought is given to the issues, are found to be straw men, or mistaken, or not to the answer the basic question asked. In the meantime, conversation about reality must start somewhere, somehow, and it should continue unabated. In the meantime, those folks interested, are surely given a chance to contribute their thoughts to the matter at hand, and surely now, especially with the advent of the Internet, just about anyone with a desire, can do so.

Thirdly, I am for any of our citizens who wish a so-called 'higher education.' For some, this study is very difficult. It was for me. Each hour of this objective came at a pretty high price. Some folks have the benefit of having their folks pay for their college education, and many, maybe most don't. Ok. Those are facts. I will fault no person who goes to college on daddy's tab. I will fault them if they waste that. Still then, it is not really my concern, and I give it hardly a second's thought. I am responsible for my own life, not to make judgments about any other student.

Fourthly, your blog entry found fault with Ms. Work's article because it did not cite statistics about domestic violence, teen pregnancy, teen STD's, proportional ethnic drop out rates, alcoholism, and drug addiction. Ok, fair enough, but if those sorts of statistics were not part of the meeting, why find objection with Ms. Work, if her reporting did not cite them?

Fifthly, You seemed to take issue with Ms. Work's use of the words, "social niceties." Ok. You stated your objections about that, rather forcefully. Though you started out with the idea that you would state only facts, you posted, "...it's called manners and morals, character." You further stated, "...are not being taught for fear of offending someone." The context of these statements was that of what happens within the public school system.

If in fact you cite the alleged deterioration of American culture to the demise of the Christian ethic, the Christian family, godliness etc., then, it would seem to me that the view is met with several objections.

Firstly, It seems to me, that this objection follows a couple of misconceptions. The first might be stated that 'if' it is surely the responsibility of the family to impart basic social skills, then the religious, American family is first to blame. If in fact, most of America believes in God, and such a belief is the foundation of any society, then it should be clear that the major failure to impart basis, social, moral, ethical positions, is left with the God believing family and church, or religious structures. It is not the place of the public schools to teach kids morals, religion, or ethics, from a theistic, religious point of view. Our public schools are saddled with enough, to teach reading, writing, basic science (that is another topic really), history, literature, political science, civics, etc... without taking over the place of the family, or church in the impartation of 'religious' values or propositions.

If good, sincere, Christian families, and churches, or other theistic beliefs are not capable of imparting the basics of their deeply held faiths, and value systems to their own children, it is surely not the responsibility of the public at large, via the public schools, and our tax structure, to do so. Either figure out a way to solve Christian child rearing problems on your own, or leave the population at large alone. Why should ALL of the American populace be taxed, and tax money spent to support such private agendas? Since there are more then 40 million non-Christian, or other types of non-theists in this county, why should all those folks be taxed to provide cash to promote any particular religious belief system? If religion can stand on it's own two feet, and train up their children in the ways they should go, then they should, in fact proceed to finally do so. Those beliefs systems should step up to the plate, and either do so, or take a few swings, and let all of those children make up their own minds as rational beings competing in the realm of ideas. Either the ideas float or they do not. Either the rationality of such beliefs hold water, or they do not. In the meantime, keep these sorts of personal, religious struggles at home and at church, it is not the obligation of the American public at large to support it in any way, either through laws, or though our tax system, nor through our 'public school system.'

A second misconception could be cited as follows: If it is statistics you long for, then a few, obvious statistics should hold some water. As part of your objections, you have cited things like domestic violence, teen pregnancy, teen STD's, proportional drop out rates, alcoholism, and drug additions. I would add to that list of societal dysfunctions, the statistics of the U.S. prison population provided by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Pretty much any of large pollsters tell Americans that Christian belief is in the upper 80, or 90 percentiles. However, agnostic, and or atheistic belief is accounted for only ½ of 1 percent of the population. The same polls show that the non-Christian, non-theistic populations are at about 40 million folk. Seemingly, if we are for reducing our American prison population, then we should be encouraging folks to be non-theist, if in fact we are looking for reduced prison populations.

For the first set of societal problems, I'd simply assert, based on statistical fact that societal dysfunction of the items you named are found to have the highest percentages within the American populace. Thanks to computers, and better tallies of these sorts of societal things, we do know that certain statistics of crime, and the other items of your concerns, find the highest occurrence rates within the allegedly Christian American to be the highest among any modern democracy. In fact, the more secular the democracy, statistically speaking, the less of those sorts of problems you cite as that which is to be abhorred from just about any moral perspective. Why would the most 'godless, secular' democracy show, statistically, much, much lower rates of the things, which we are supposed to be, from a Christian, theistic perspective, all American humanity are to be wringing our hands over?

Now, presumably, all Americans are to think that it is only a Christian, or some other theistic basis upon which any human society is to formed. If we listen closely to Christian pulpits, AM Talk Radio, and the Evangelical and Catholic Christian media, it is only this Christian, or God-believing viewpoint, which is the workable basis upon which societal cohesion is to be found. Why do we Americans, the most religious, the most Christian, to be found with the highest percentages of societal dysfunction, and the more secular democracies have nothing of such by comparison? In fact, the more highly, purposefully secular, and scientific, find far, far, fewer of any of the problems or issues as stated by the Republican, Religious Right. Why would that be, the devil, or some other form of invisible evil beings? Is one really left with citing invisible beings in order to make sense out of any of our modern problems?

I for one, like most folks, would find a reason to doubt the idea that invisible beings are the 'reason' for any human problem. The Christian dogmas of sin and death, the 'reality' of evil, invisible beings, do not seem to pass muster. On each of those occasions, mental illness, very documented, human, genetic driven, addictive propensities, and just about any other typical human problem are not met with such ephemeral, Bronze Age categories of thought.

When we were kids we were probably told that Santa Claus was coming therefore, we should be good. We were told that the Easter Bunny would come and hide colored eggs in secret places. We were also, commonly told, that the Tooth Fairy would come in the night, secretively, and exchange our newly missing teeth with some coin, or coins, or maybe, if we were lucky, a dollar or two.

Charles, you made another assertion that I have left for last. Though you claimed to be posting only facts, this particular statement seemed to me, to only just a raw opinion. You stated that, "... over educated liberal teachers quite possible are the fastest growing criminal element in America today considering all the "Teacher/Student Sexual Exploits." Is this really that statistical fact? Really? Perhaps you can cite the study that addresses this? On the other hand, it seems to this reader that you do hold some problems with so-called 'higher education.' You cited that you had to quit your college education due to financial debt. Alrighty, some folks do, some folks press on and complete that goal.

I would think it a good idea that any exposure to college academia would be composed of many, and various points of view. Such a thing surely helps in one understanding what critical thought is all about. You seem to be under the impression that only 'liberal' college professors are those involved in sexual liaisons, which do not meet your moral approval. Ok, are we to suppose that 'conservative' professor, or high school teachers are not in that pool of folks? Though I do not know the 'religious' values of those who find themselves in the news about such things, I'd bet you $10 to a dime, each of those would probably posit some Protestant, or Catholic allegiance. Perhaps you have those statistics at hand. How about the very conservative, Roman Catholic Church and the myriad of Protestant young camps? Seems those Protestant sexual perversions do not get any press at all. Why not? In either case, the facts of the case are to be given a pass, when it is a religious person, or coming out of a religious organization? Why? As everyone knows, and many have experienced, the Roman Catholics have had a near cottage industry in the systematic rape and abuse of children, and are now near broke paying out billions of dollars in attempts to settle those 'damage claims' arising out of unmitigated lust.

Perhaps you will allow me, and other some benefit of a doubt arising out of the moral superiority born in a Christian ethic. Under no consideration, should the average, tax paying, American be expected to support such private, personal, family and church matters. We have a country to run, and what is necessary for Americans it to take care of their own business, and any dime spent for the public good, should be those general Constitutional requirements.