LOL. Yeah, but at the rate we're going, I'm not sure we can afford to hire someone to do a new engraving for the die, or whatever that process is. I saw it on TV once and it's truly fascinating. Any suggestions for the dime? Wasn't Lady Liberty on there once holding the torch? If so, put her back.

"So-called states rights" is how a local college radio news program on KBCS 91.3 FM refers to the Constitution's 10th amendment. Instead of attending mass every Sunday, once in a while I listen to these Progressive yutes go on about things like "so-called states rights." And these Progressive yutes are still referring to Bush's supposedly illegal election. Most of the content on this "CounterSpin" program, which is its name, isn't as overtly stupid, but most of it has an undercurrent that suggests a religious belief. These are just not fact-based views. It's a regurgitation of a whole political and social mythology...and I would say has many existential underpinnings to it as well. If you are a "Progressive," you believe you're one of the sanctified and holy people. While others believe in greedy, exploitive capitalism, you believe in "equality" and making the rich "pay their fare share" despite the fact that (according so some 2007 stats) the top 10 percent of earners pay 68 percent of income taxes. When does "fair share" become simply a dishonest means to enact cancerous Marxism?

Well, we're already there. If these goofy full-of-themselves Progressive yutes are our future, we're in deep trouble. Rather than being for excellence and hard work, they are lazy ass bastards who hide their cowardice from actually DOING something (and expecting the same from others) under the guise of all the goofy and dishonest socialist monikers including the big one, "social justice." Rather than asking people to be all that they can be, they make it easy for everyone to claim being a victim. They are the cult of mediocrity dressed up with all kinds of pretty words. Their eschatology is that the rich (and the pursuit of profit) is the Original Sin of our culture. The free market is an exploiter and only the state has pure and good motives. As we see from these Progressive flakes, they can never ever defend themselves from the true bad guys in the world. They are rubes ripe for the picking. The strength they have now is gained by riding on the back of the riches that freedom and the free market has produced while then turning around and acting like a bunch of spoiled brats as they demonize that very thing.

Like I said, listening to this Progressive radio news program is like going to church. When Hitchens says that religion poisons everything, he really needs to rethink that premise to either include Progressives or to do a little more fine-tuning on what aspects of religion are harmful and which are benign. But the religion of Progressivism is hardly benign. It punishes those who work hard and rewards all the "victims' who come out of the woodwork to claim their share of the spoils as "the rich" are soaked. But they can't be soaked endlessly. The reason that economic times are tough in California, for example, is not because the rich haven't paid their fair share. It's because these goofy religious-like Progressives are running amok. They are doing so in Washington State as well.

Speaking of FDR and that is fascinating turn lady liberty was on the dime. FDR was canonized quickly after his death supplanting lady liberty with the face of Roosevelt.

I have posted this link in the past to a 1933 letter President Hoover wrote to then Republican Whip Senator Simeon Fess (R-OH). This letter is remarkably in content and tone to what the country has been going through the last 2 years. A true snap shot of history to President Hoover's thoughts that very much mirror the events and actions of the last 2 years.

In the letter President Hoover speaks to the fact that hopes for recovery were dashed as a reaction to the fear of the impeding legislation of FDR's new administration. This is exactly what we have witnessed with the election of President Hussein. Unemployment spikes in September 2008. Triggered by the credit meltdown conspicuously taking place 5 days after the Republican National Convention. The financial collapse assured the election of President Hussein. By November 2008 unemployment spikes even higher continuing to this day.

President Hoover is much maligned by all parties. Citizen Hoover is one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th Century. It is funny according to wiki the reason partly used to put FDR's face on the dime was his efforts founding the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis later renamed the "March of Dimes" for the practice of the foundation asking people to send them a dime.

I don't think there are many people dealing in the unvarnished truth quite to the extent that Mark Steyn does: It’s About Government, Not Health Care

The other one who's doing it, is Beck.

Did anyone see his indoctrination special on Friday? Very effective. And he's very Brad. Like you, he makes a convincing case for the impressionability of elementary school kids, and sort of sees them as caving immediately under the assault of progressivism.

As you know, I have a slightly different, more "personal responsibility" take on the matter, as in: I truly believe you can learn about evil from the devil himself. I also remember by about age 8, that feeling of knowing that my teachers, many of them, were full of shit.

To me--and I guess the whole upshot of Glenn's special reinforces this--it's really about PARENTS becoming involved in what their schools are teaching. They have to be the oversight, and make the simple point that he does, that he'd prefer just giving kids the facts, and letting them make up their own minds. It's not about teaching them WHAT to think, but HOW to think.

No teacher should be fired for being a commie or a progressive. Those things aren't illegal in the United States of America. But LYING about political agendas and deploying tried-and-true left (or far right) wing indoctrination tactics shouldn't be allowed.

The problem there is, the PC culture and the PC media puts its seal of approval on both things, rather than emphasizing the troublesome "free nation" thing like I do.

I have no trouble learning communism from a commie. Or about the hippy movement from a hippy. Or how not to become a junkie by an ex-junkie. However, I draw the line at things like a drug dealer, teaching kids to take drugs, in order to have ready-made customers for his drug business. Or a pedophile teaching kids that sex with adults is OK, because THEY want to have sex with their students. And that's similar to the kind of agenda many progressives have. They have a stake in yutes becoming like them. It's political. It's an attempt to create a generational voting bloc. And that's wrong. If their intent is to turn out little robots, fuck 'em, then you can fire them.

But we can't fire teachers for their political or religious views in the United States. Being a radical leftist is not illegal if you don't commit a crime in the name of your political beliefs.

Schools these days, in my view, are TYRANNICAL. PC tyranny has taken over. And it actually squelches free speech and free expression. Which is patently unamerican. Now I'm not advocating lack of discipline or respect for the teacher, I also don't agree with draconian measures in education.

But Beck has it exactly right, you can explain away all the discipline problems in school nowadays by the simple axiom that when you GIVE something to people, they cease to value it.

Every kid ENDURES school, they don't value it. You know who valued school? Kids who spent years cooped up in one-room schoolhouses with no fancy educational materials other than a slate and chalk, or a pad and pencil, maybe one or two textbooks if they were lucky... And who went of their own free will, because they wanted to learn something, and have a chance at a life other than working the land all day. Not that there was anything wrong with that, but education bypasses that kind of written-for-you feudal destiny in agrarian cultures. Knowledge really is power.

It's the same now. Get a GOOD education, and the world is an oyster for many kids. Coast and punt, and be all entitlementy about it, and you can EASILY end up a fuckup slacker.

Obama's answer: give away MORE education. Nah-ah. Doesn't work that way. Educational opportunities are nothing, unless they are valued by students.

Going to college now, is nothing more than a social event. Freedom from parental supervision. A place to drink, take drugs, and have sex. Those things are terrific, and you actually do learn things... but secondary education is, er secondary to social and cultural acceptance. Learning and knowledge and academics are barely there. UNLESS a student has a moment of epiphany, and friggin' up and decides (on their own) that they actually have a purpose... that there is stuff they WANT to learn.

For me it was art. For other kids it was music, theater. Some discover literature, math, science, even business. But until they do, the educational systems of this country can't really help them achieve squat academically. Their hands are totally tied. You can give all the opportunity in the world, but until the student him or herself reaches a certain level of maturity, forget it, you're spinning your wheels. And pissing opportunity down a black hole manhole cover is expensive. For the taxpayer and the culture. Make opportunity harder to get, and it's the law of supply and demand.

I am going to make this one required Geek Patriot Academy reading. 4 course credits. Quiz to follow. (The sole quiz question will be, “In regards to this article, what is it about Nancy Pelosi that most makes her a c-word?”)

How to Read the Constitution: Self-Government and the Jurisprudence of Originalism
by Keith E. Whittington

Okay, assuming you’ve read at last a few paragraphs of that, here’s the pop-quiz question, although there’s not a heck of a lot of pop in it if you already know the question. And I’ll make it multiple choice as well:

Q: In regards to this article, what is it about Nancy Pelosi that most makes her a c-word?”

1) Because she is one just on general principles
2) No other word in the English language does her justice
3) Because in response to this question from a reporter “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” the c-word Speaker of the House said “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

While Googling to find that quote I found out that the Progressives out there refer to any who see the 10th Amendment as standing in the way of the Federal expansion of powers as “tenthers.” Ouch. Goodness. People, we are in some serious trouble if there are enough people out there like that who are absolutely giddy and gleeful about the idea of ignoring the Constitution. I know how sick these people are and what they are capable of. You don’t want to give them unrestrained power.

These same idiots are interpreting Congress’ Constitutional power to “regulate commerce” as basically creating commerce. That's hugely different from regulating the commerce as commerce was originally understood at the time. Only a dick-head could imagine the Founders envisioned "commerce" to mean whatever the government took over forcibly from the private sector and ran as an industry. But that's how these liberal socialist fascist (I'll throw in "bastards" just for good measure) are justifying to themselves and others their attempted socialist take-over of America by Congress. Again, you do not want this mindset in charge. Arbitrary power like this that is unprincipled and unrestrained is the very definition of tyranny.

Give yourself at least 2 course credits for reading this far.

quote:

I also remember by about age 8, that feeling of knowing that my teachers, many of them, were full of shit.

LOL. Well, being smarter than the rest doesn’t mean that yutes can’t be indoctrinated. And, damn, I’ve really got to stay up later and watch Glenn Beck. I think I’m becoming his #2 apologist.

quote:

No teacher should be fired for being a commie or a progressive. Those things aren't illegal in the United States of America. But LYING about political agendas and deploying tried-and-true left (or far right) wing indoctrination tactics shouldn't be allowed.

The difficulty in talking about curriculums, is that the curriculum of John Adams is completely different than one devised by Saul Alinsky. One is meant to give an appreciation of our Constitution, of civic responsibility, of the necessities and value of freedom, of the virtues of integrity and hard work, and show the need (and provide the ability) to get a good education in the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, logic, geography, science, and the arts. Alinsky, on the other hand, is for the very destruction of the kind of society that Adams would create and maintain.

Indeed, no teacher should be fired for being a Progressive, and there should be a lot of latitude (and especially local control) over the curriculum. I’m for – wait for it – true diversity rather than a monolith of crap coming either from the state or Federal government. And yet we need to recognize the distinct difference between the type and aims of an Adams-style education as opposed to an Alinsky one. I would have no problem changing an Ayers or Alinksy curriculum to one approved by Sowell, Newt, Adams, and/or Kirby Wilbur. (Kirby is a local guy who is involved in pools of home-schooling kids that he teaches history to. He’s also credited on Newt’s “Rendezvous with Destiny” DVD about Reagan that I just watched.)

Unless we recognize the rot and put pressure on it to change from Alinsky to Adams with things such as parental involvement, we will continue down this road of being ruled by our would-be betters. That’s what they’re trying to instill. As Matthew Spalding says in The Way Out of 'Soft Despotism' [2 credits for reading that, by the way, 4 if you can add a few points of your own] where he bullet-points a few things we need to do:

quote:

Revive self-government. In the 20th century, government assumed more and more tasks in more and more areas outside its responsibilities, greatly damaging American self-rule. When it fuels an entitlement mentality and dependency rather than promote self-reliance and independence, government encourages a character that is incompatible with self-rule.

The left would create compliant useful-idiot clones, not self-actualizing people. A John Adams education doesn’t know what the finished product will be. That’s quite a bit up to the talents and drive of the individual. He or she might even fail once or twice and have to start all over. A William Ayers education will produce (or try to produce) assembly-line standardized useful idiots, dullards, drones, and people who become strangers to the idea of individual rights and freedoms and who instead become homogonized mediocrity as the cry of "equality" (equality of outcome) trumps all.

quote:

Or a pedophile teaching kids that sex with adults is OK, because THEY want to have sex with their students. And that's similar to the kind of agenda many progressives have. They have a stake in yutes becoming like them. It's political. It's an attempt to create a generational voting bloc. And that's wrong.

I think that’s a great description of the relationship of Big Government Progressives to the kids they indoctrinate with their bullshit in schools. We need a new word. I’m sure you can improve on this one: Fedophiles.

Good points about valuing education.

quote:

Not that there was anything wrong with that, but education bypasses that kind of written-for-you feudal destiny in agrarian cultures. Knowledge really is power.

Another good point. And me thinks there will be a lot of remedial self-educating that people will do when it dawns on them that their Progressive teachers have taught them little more than shit in many instances. Certainly many should find their thirst for knowledge unquenched. Many will have at least a vague idea that they are missing something crucial. After having had a truly memorable and splendid old-fashioned, pedantic, and hardcore English teacher in the 7th grade, I knew the fraud that my college English teacher was. Don’t even get me to talking about the history teacher in college. I spent one hour in his class (I still remember this) and that was all for me. I could tell long before I had ever heard the word “Progressive” that he was full of nothing but shit. All I say is thank god for books and The History Channel.

I’d like to see vouchers as a means to break up the monopoly of public education. It might do as you and Beck suggest and put more perceived value into education. If the parents are specifically choosing where to apply that money (and perhaps the kids, at some point, might get a say too), that could help. It’s not a cure-all, but I can’t help but think that competition and choice would improve things dramatically.

I know I'm going to sound like a total radical, but I think the second you stop funding public education with tax dollars, and privatize it, children will instantly learn more. Even if they have to learn from computers, TV, or their parents. We're not getting what we pay for with education. It's a money pit for teachers' unions. It has nothing to do with educating yutes.

It's a PC mill, leftist run for a century or more. And the results speak for themselves. When a child could do better by totally cutting loose the public school system, you know something is wrong.

I say we go back to private tutors. Who either make house calls, or set up shop in school auditoriums, while we let every classroom become abandoned.

Or the school system can be just about rental of facilities, for sports or art class, or music class... science labs. But let parents gang together and evolve their own curriculum, hire teachers by the term, and monitor the test results.

The hard truth is, once a kid can read and do simple math, maybe a FOURTH grade education... they're better off teaching themselves through reading.

quote:

I know I'm going to sound like a total radical, but I think the second you stop funding public education with tax dollars, and privatize it, children will instantly learn more. Even if they have to learn from computers, TV, or their parents. We're not getting what we pay for with education. It's a money pit for teachers' unions. It has nothing to do with educating yutes.

I was talking on Facebook with some people about school choice. And I guess it occurred to me, "Hey, who do these kids belong to, anyway?" You could say they belong to themselves and are in the custody and care of their parents. But they sure as hell don't belong to the state. But the state acts like they do.

I can't remember what book I was reading, but I've commented on this before. One of the "innovations" of the aftermath of the French Revolution, when they were busily and zealously trying to create the "New Man" that utopians are always striving for, was basically the invention of the modern public school system. At the time, the French Revolutionaries were sacking the Churches, killing priests, and overall just trying to diminish the Church's influence as an ideological competitor to their Perfectly Unified Society. Up until that time it was the Church that functioned as the education system, what there was of it. It may have been the Jesuit order that was doing the actual teaching, but I forget.

The long and the short of it is that EVERYONE and there brother wants to impress their stuff on the yutes. The Church certainly had it's self-interesting in wanting to do that. And then the Revolutionary French State decided it wanted to be in charge of molding minds. In this case (like all the excesses of the French Revolution) they were hoping to shape the perfect Rational mind.

Fast-forward to today where it's a basic fact that our brand of civilization depends on having an educated populace…however they get there, by hook or by crook, as long as they acquire the basic skills. Self-government and our style of free market economy depend on this. If it is a religious education, there is bound to be an element of indoctrinating people into one's religion because that supports the institution of the church, its power, its wealth, its influence, etc. This is human nature. I know there are liberal rubes out there who think that if government is the functionary that they are therefore beyond all such motivations, but the Founding Fathers were well aware of human nature even if the useful idiots, c-words, and other ass-wipes of the left are not. So…if the state is raising your children, you can be damned sure it will sneak in there all kinds of propaganda that is self-serving to the state. (Now I remember where I read most of this. It was in Brother Sowell's "Inside American Education".)

That is where we are now. I've heard and read far too many reliable horror stories about the creepy Progressive state brainwashing our kids for it not to be true. It's not true everywhere, but it's true in enough places to be very troublesome for the prospect of remaining a free people. So, that's where I say bring on the competition. Bring on the choice. Bring on the diversity. Bring on the multiplicity of factions that, in true Madisonian fashion, will provide a balance so that any ONE faction does not gain dominance (church, state, or whoever is doing the teaching). And let the market decide. Provide an objective test that all must meet, but let the market decide. Let people choose their own schools and methods. (This would even lead to schools that can adapt themselves to certain styles. It seems to be a well-known fact now that we all have different innate abilities regarding how we best learn. Some do better with hands-on. Some are better with books. Etc.)

Most people will likely prefer that their kids get a good education if they have the choice. And when choice is in their hands, you can expect innovation to follow. This could possibly do huge damage to the Democrat's stranglehold on minorities, but surveys show that most black parents want school choice. They don't like being stuck with crappy and dangerous schools. Why the hell they keep voting for Democrats who want nothing more than to keep them on their ideological plantation is beyond me, but once school choice opens up, all bets may be off. Education is the point, but that would be a very good side-effect for many Americans.

One thing to note is that the home-schoolers are getting very well organized and quite sophisticated. We might not be far where we get to the point where homeschoolers have access (perhaps via the internet) to Newt Gingrich teaching the Constitution, Thomas Sowell teaching economics (the preference from one home-schooler was Walter Williams, and I could certainly live with that), thalo the masterbaiter teaching art history, and Clarence Thomas teaching the basics of the law. Books are basically the pooled extension of great minds (at least those classroom textbooks that haven't been turned into garbage) and certainly you could go to those great minds themselves, live or on video. You can innovate in ways that the teacher's unions would never allow. Hell, I'm getting excited just talking about it. I'd go to a school like that.

I keep going back to the simple "works/doesn't work" scenario. If you apply that to public education, what do you get? I contend, what you get is a RESOUNDING "doesn't work"... test scores show it. What you have, is little pockets of excellence that grow up in various school systems, around what are obviously GREAT teachers. But they are in such an utter minority, that you have to give the SYSTEM a "doesn't work."

What surprises me, is that these 'social justice progressives' never say things like: why don't we have these great teachers for ALL students? That'd be justice. Instead, they protect unions and dumb down education so it's decidedly NOT excellent for everyone.

Social justice it seem, only works on the low end. It's a lowest-common-denominator process. But if you press these fucktards on it, they'd WANT an excellent education for all students.

I always want to say, well, OK, if you want an excellent education for all students, would you be willing to provide that by simply ABANDONING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? They'd never do it. The end justifies the means people would never, ever, do what it took, if the result meant the best possible education for everyone. Instead, they want to give the TROPHY to everyone, but not have it represent excellence or quality in education or performance.

Which, using logic, is more proof that the talk about social justice is more important to them than truly solving real problems. They won't do hard shit, only easy shit. And being all talk is the easiest shit of all.

quote:

I keep going back to the simple "works/doesn't work" scenario. If you apply that to public education, what do you get? I contend, what you get is a RESOUNDING "doesn't work"... test scores show it. What you have, is little pockets of excellence that grow up in various school systems, around what are obviously GREAT teachers. But they are in such an utter minority, that you have to give the SYSTEM a "doesn't work."

But if one's goal is to create mindless little socialists, it might indeed be working. That's the battle right there. What is the GOAL of education? Is it the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of a Karl Marx-like "social justice"? Those are the battle lines.

quote:

That'd be justice. Instead, they protect unions and dumb down education so it's decidedly NOT excellent for everyone.

There are at least four groups who are beyond criticism: fire fighters, illegal Mexican aliens, polar bears, and teachers. But all of them are bash-worthy, except perhaps for the polar bears who are not the ones shaping their PC PR image. But teachers unions and teachers have extremely narrow and selfish interests. Thomas Sowell and others, for example, have pointed out how the whole "small class size" push is all about getting more teachers hired. There is no good evidence that smaller class sizes do any good. That's another scam. And every time I see some school levy trying to raise taxes "for the children" I want to puke. Teacher's unions and others are using children like you'd use a prostitute. They're prostituting the image of the children to ram through reckless spending. And this spending just keeps wallpapering over the real problem. And the real problems are the various ways education is being dumbed down. And Brother Sowell blatantly says that this isn't all necessarily about political correctness, Progressivism, environment wackoism, and Marxism (although he does say much of it is). He says that (and this is very un-PC) in the teaching profession, because of various reasons, you're not generally getting rocket surgeons. The entire curriculum and accreditation system beginning in college is a joke, according to Sowell. It's where the dumbing-down of education starts because the two areas where the standards are lowest is journalism and the public education profession, and we can see the results of both. And because these teachers are not rocket surgeons, and because teachers just get bored doing the hard (but necessary) work of teaching the basics that kids need to know, they get their pretty little heads turned by novelty. They get attracted to tons of hair-brained schemes just to do something different.

Well, that doesn't explain the whole problem since innovation and trying new things could equally be a strength if in the right hands. But the teachers are the problem to a large extent.

quote:

Social justice it seem, only works on the low end. It's a lowest-common-denominator process. But if you press these fucktards on it, they'd WANT an excellent education for all students.

A very naive and misplaced sense of compassion is driving this push to mediocrity. In short (and this is complete Thomas Sowell schtick), the point of social justice and all that gunk is to best nature. It's to overcome the harsh, hard, and "unfair" reality of existence which is that some people have more talent, more luck, and/or try harder than others. This produces quite unequal results.

Okay, I can see that none of you here are surprised by that or are crying a river over that. But these socialist idiots with a naive and misplaced sense of compassion are gullibly moved by this. And rather than this soft-peddle attitude being compassionate, it produces great harm. It's not particularly compassionate to try to play god and to countermand the realities of life by holding little Johnny back so that little Bobby doesn't feel bad. What little Bobby needs most of all is the inspiration of little Johnny's example and (gasp...sacrilege!) needs to let his natural competitive instincts kick in to try to keep up with Johnny. But the cancerous socialist "social justice" instinct is to ignore the fact that people are different and to instead try to enforce uniformity (aka "mediocrity") so that no one's feelings are hurt. This also, of course, helps to wallpaper over the real reasons some groups of kids aren't doing as well as others. Again, it's not a genetic thing. It's a cultural thing. Asian parents, for example, tend to value education and make their kids work harder. But there are some sub-cultures (who shall remain nameless) where getting an education is considered "acting white." So, instead of facing this fact, we instead just dumb everything down. Instead of putting the spotlight on the under-achiever, we demonize the achievers. That's the very mindset of a socialist. If anyone out there wonders whether or not they are a socialist, re-read this paragraph.

Yes, to have excellence, or fulling one's potential, as a goal will inevitably produce some people who do way better than others. And this points the spotlight on the fact that some people (for various reasons, most of which are no one's fault) aren't doing as well. The religious-like myth of the left is that where there are unequal results, there is prejudice and discrimination. But this just ain't necessarily so, and almost always isn't the case. But even if sometimes it is the case, well, life is never completely fair and people need to learn that it's quite normal to have to overcome obstacles. The liberal "social justice" compassion isn't compassion at all. We may not all grow up to be rich business tycoons, but we can be the best that we can be. The alternative is to demonize achievement in order to protect the supposedly uber-fragile psyches of those who aren't as talented or motivated. But by doing so, you protect nothing. All you do is create a class of entitlement-minded people who pull the rest of society down while harming themselves in the process by making mediocrity and blame-shifting their idols. That's compassion?

Bling. Boom. Bam. I've just been Wicker-Manned in a bonfire and burnt to ashes by the lunatic left. I've punched a hole in every flattering and self-serving idea they have about themselves. But who will stand up like Joe Wilson and say "You lie!" to these people who think they are god's next St. Francis to the world? Very few so far. But did you hear Beck this morning talking about that Democratic Congressman from New York who was giving the Obama administration hell for being thugs and liars? Wow.

Hey, I'm all for gaming nature. We humans live according to a decidedly relaxed "law of the jungle." We can choose to, or not to face the hard truths of the eat-or-be-eaten reality of life on this planet.

At the same time, we circumvent many of those truths all the time. Such as, I shouldn't be here right now. I was born premature, health problems... nature says oh well, try again with more sperm, dad.

We care for our sick, elderly, poor... we value human life. Er, well, sometimes. Unless they piss us off.

The problem happens when we try to raise up those that fall behind, to a point based on some abstract level of success or fairness. We'd love little Timmy in the Wheelchair to play in the World Series, and hit a home run... but that's not rational. The best we can do, is give him a false experience of that. We could HIRE the World series to LET little Timmy bat, then game all the other players to commit errors and not tag him out as he rounds the bases in the wheelchair. In the park homer. Yay Timmy. But what did we just do there. Did we help Timmy to become an excellent ballplayer, or person? Nah-ah, we simply threw a pity-party, and made him the guest of honor.

The only problem with that is, while everyone has the warm fuzzy feelings of being nice to the cripple, what you did was communicate to your fellow human being that all they are WORTHY of, is your pity. And that they are so flipped out by your disability, that they have to go to extraordinary lengths to make themselves feel better about gaming society and culture. Because you see, Timmy, it ain't about you. It's about those FEELINGS that people have a tough time dealing with.

It's about jonesing after the warm fuzzies, not TRULY helping you realize any goals you might have.

I can prove in a court of law that this is what happens. Do a thought experiment. If Timmy was a billionaire best-selling author, would you still let him hit a home run at the world series for free? Or would you make HIM pay for the charade?

Now look at it from a social justice perspective. If you do something like that for Timmy, basically provide him with an expensive mini-vacation from the difficulties of his life, if you're a social-justice kind of person, how do you justify NOT doing that for every crippled baseball fan on the planet? It's not fair to do it just for Timmy. What about Jimmy or Sue?

Providing that warm fuzzy suddenly gets more expensive than anyone wanted. Lefties want little Timmy to have the experience, but they don't want to pay for it. They want the rich to do it. And keep doing it. And eventually you get to the point where there aren't enough rich people, and rather than forcing them all to let crippled kids hit home runs in the world series, what you end up with, is giving them all a friggin' HAT that says they did.

quote:

Hey, I'm all for gaming nature. We humans live according to a decidedly relaxed "law of the jungle." We can choose to, or not to face the hard truths of the eat-or-be-eaten reality of life on this planet.

Absolutely. And one of the natures that the left-leaning crowd never sees as a part of ugly reality, or ugly human nature, that needs transcending or besting is the nature to control people via a rigid all-powerful better-than-thou hierarchy of elitists. Kings and serfs. Free market capitalism is a stake in the heart of those who see inherent upper classes and lower classes, predators and victims, Karl Rove and Al Gore. Our freedom-based all-men-are-created-equal system runs counter to those who see some as being born with the right to rule over others, whether talking about blue-blood kings or ivory-tower Progressives. It runs counter to the age-old form of society that was typically organized under various religions, ethnicities, or tribes. Free-market capitalism is a thumb in the eye to all of that old nature. But in doing so, it does not deny human nature. It makes the most productive use of human nature that mankind has ever seen. It allows people, instead of being serfs, to own their own destiny via, first and foremost, being able to own private property and own the fruits of their labor. And it does this by saying that life isn't about upholding some other person's narrow idea of the meaning of life. It's about allowing people to decide that for themselves within a limited structure of necessary government. This is just huge. This runs quite counter to the human instinct to want to make all other people look like yourself in order to feel safe, right, and to have a feeling of purpose. It avoids the smothering "society as my raison d'être" mode and measure of living. But look at the amazing society that freedom actually creates. It far surpasses any centrally-planned society and one-size-fits-all meaning of civic life that Progressives love trying to shove down our throats. Salt Lake City may not be a clone of New York, but arguably we're the better for having the freedom to have both of them.

Free-market individual-oriented, constitutionally-protected Western ideals are a laying off of past superstitions about some people being inherently worth more than others. Worth is instead considered something that we all have equally just by being human beings. This is huge and runs counter not only to most of history, but to the mindset of Progressives who see society divided into the expert class (themselves) and everyone else. (Apparently George Will had a zinger this weekend in response to Robert Reich about just this attitude.) And a Christian, moderate humanist, or other modern American-like philosophy sees life and living as something more than just a radically material thing. That is why we take care of the elderly and poor instead of doing what the Spartans did and kill imperfect babies, or doing what the Nazis did and kill the mentally ill. (Again, Progressives in this country were actually ahead of Hitler when it came to eugenics.) But the principle of taking care of the poor can quickly be gamed by those who either are gullible in their ideas of compassion or who really have more serf-like designs on us as they try to put us in our proper place by taking "care" of us and thus putting our lives under their purview and discretion. Do I need to say eff-that, or is that implied? Those concerned with true justice and truth must always keep in mind the near infinite capacity of the human mind to deceive itself about its motives. This whole health care "reform" legislation, for example, isn't about reforming anything other than the idea of American liberty.

quote:

The problem happens when we try to raise up those that fall behind, to a point based on some abstract level of success or fairness. We'd love little Timmy in the Wheelchair to play in the World Series, and hit a home run... but that's not rational. The best we can do, is give him a false experience of that. We could HIRE the World series to LET little Timmy bat, then game all the other players to commit errors and not tag him out as he rounds the bases in the wheelchair. In the park homer. Yay Timmy. But what did we just do there. Did we help Timmy to become an excellent ballplayer, or person? Nah-ah, we simply threw a pity-party, and made him the guest of honor.

Tim-MAY. Tim-MAY. But I do think compassion towards the Tim-mays of the world is a mark of our humanity. But I say far less than true compassion, and thus a true constructive help, comes when that compassion comes from guilt, misinformation, or compassion paid for by the other guy through enforced taxation. Such compassion-via-state-coercion can very easily become little more than a superstition. It can be a way to relieve guilt. It can be like little more than the buying of an Indulgence. But does it really help or does it just help to give one a cheap and easy peace of mind?

True compassion is not just saying "yes" to every easy-pleasey scheme that someone proposes. Strangely enough, it really does matter if one is helping other people in a way that can be measured....and measured in the total scheme of things, not just by the usual Democratic method of running up one specially-chosen sob story on the stage. It really does matter if one is honest about the true costs. Merely taking money and resources from others, syphoning off 50% or more through bureaucratic red tape, distributing it to others and than shouting "What a good boy am I" is not true compassion, especially when it is often true that so many other lives are made worse behind the scenes. That's quackery. That's charlatanism.

quote:

The only problem with that is, while everyone has the warm fuzzy feelings of being nice to the cripple, what you did was communicate to your fellow human being that all they are WORTHY of, is your pity.

Bingo. Some of the programs I've heard about (private, government, or both) are those programs that don't assume that someone with a physical or mental handicap is worthless. With the right (and sometimes expensive) devices, these people can work. And apparently a surprising amount of them want to. Please, let my tax money go to these deserving people. But what these filthy-dishonest politicians do is make everyone out to be a poor Tim-may in need of my money and your money. But the truth is, it is not handouts that the vast majority of people need but the opportunities that are provided by a good education and a vibrant free market. Period. To make up all kinds of excuses for why things are not this simple is to undermine people while propping up a political (or social activist) career that makes one little better than a societal parasite. And that most certainly is not compassionate.

quote:

And eventually you get to the point where there aren't enough rich people, and rather than forcing them all to let crippled kids hit home runs in the world series, what you end up with, is giving them all a friggin' HAT that says they did.

LMAO.

The direction of the educational system in the United States right now is in control of the ideological mindset found in the 2006 speech terrorist Bill Ayers gave in Caracas Venezuela. There was already a left grip on the system to begin with now that reach is far far left.

It is the same as the healthcare debate the Democratic-Socialist party controlled by neo-marxist's know that just getting the proper hooks in assures down the road the net can be used to take even more control. Healthcare is just front and center. What they are doing within other departments of the Federal government is mostly unknown.

Nobody even batted an eye with the revelations of the slew of characters that are part of the Hussein White House Czar appointments. Van Jones has publicly acknowledged that the White House was fully aware of his radical communist ideologies by his own admissions to them. Van Jones received appointment to Green Jobs Czar apparently as a result of the Hussein White House finding common ground with Van Jones progressive thinking.

There is a House member from New York state Democratic-Socialist Rep Eric Massa. He is being run out of office by his own party. The account by Massa is beyond creepy. This is what the neo-marxist's are doing to their own. Any dissent is being crushed.

quote:

It is the same as the healthcare debate the Democratic-Socialist party controlled by neo-marxist's know that just getting the proper hooks in assures down the road the net can be used to take even more control. Healthcare is just front and center. What they are doing within other departments of the Federal government is mostly unknown.

In short, they would like us to forget our own history....except for those selected parts that are not flattering. Imagine doing that in reverse to Marxism. It would be like looking at the island prison of Cuba and commenting "But they all get free health care." And there are quite a few useful idiots in our nations (including Democratic Congressmen) who do just that. Amazing.

Okay, another viral email, but I got a chuckle out of this one:

JESUS AND THE DEMOCRAT

A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and
asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the
restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus sitting over there?"

The waitress nodded "yes," so the Republican requested that she give
Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.

The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He
shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a
cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, "Is that
Jesus, over there?"

The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of
hot tea, "My treat."

The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches.
He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, "Hey there honey! How's
about gettin' me a cold mug of Miller Light?" He too looked across the
restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there?

The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold
beer. "On my bill," he said loudly.

As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him
and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Republican felt the
strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.

Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, "For your
kindness, you are healed." The Libertarian felt his back straightening up
and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips
out the door.

Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.

The Democrat jumped up and yelled, "Don't touch me ... I'm collecting disability."

I am listening to the Joe Scarborough show. He has on some nitwit from the Huffington Post. They are gushing how wonderful President Hussein was yesterday speaking about healthcare. What? That speech was incoherent he gave yesterday. President Hussein was just making up fantasy stories to scare the public. Scarborough just said conservatives are really not concerned with the price tag of the healthcare destruction bill huh? Scarborough is delusional. This show has become unlistenable. Morning Joe is a total shill for the Democratic-Socialist agenda. Scarborough=fraud.

I heard a bit of that speech yesterday, Rico. He is sounding more and more scarily authoritarian. Not that he wasn't always. But the mask is slipping off more and more.

Some good fundamental economic sense from Thomas Sowell: Stimulus or Sedative?

Rejecting Principles in the Name of Progress
by Matthew Spalding

quote:

To flourish in the 21st century, America doesn't need to redefine or remake itself by rejecting its core principles and in favor of more stylish beliefs. Rather what's needed is a great renewal of the foundational principles that are the true roots of American greatness.

We must look to the principles of the American founding. They provide our philosophical grounding, practical wisdom and limitless spirit of self-government and independence.

This isn't merely a matter of historical curiosity. In a world of moral confusion, of arbitrary and unlimited government, the founding is our best access to permanent truths. It's our best ground from which to repulse the whole progressive project to remake America.

I might print that out and put in on the refrigerator. Lately I was trying to think about how to sum up the overall goal of things. I think the above is a pretty good broad outline.