The following is roughly the text of my comments at the Valley Forge Tea Party this morning. I was asked to speak on the theme: A Constitution In Crisis.
__________________________________________________
The flyer that was circulated prior to this event makes the observation that the Constitution is being violated by the very public officials who are sworn to uphold it. It goes on to pose three questions: 1st, what are some of these abuses or violations? 2nd, how should we, as citizens, respond if we are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? And 3rd, how can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?
I don’t believe the answers are hard to come by, but acting on those answers will be difficult. First, though, there is another question to answer; why should we care? The world has changed radically in the two-and-a-quarter centuries since the Constitution was designed. Everything is different now – or so we’re told. Why should our public servants in the 21st century be limited by a musty old document written with a quill pen? Why should we expect a two-hundred-and-twenty year old law to have any meaningful application to the political questions of our day?
There’s no doubt many, if not most, Americans really do question the importance of the Constitution. The reason, I believe, is that we’ve become too busy, too complacent – dare I say too apathetic – to be bothered with the abstract concepts of government and economics. We don’t want to think about it. We would rather handle our votes and our influence as citizens the same way we handle our tax returns. We want an expert to tell us what to do, or in this case how to think. This laziness is the reason Americans have been so easily sold on the concept of “problem-solving, issues-driven” politics. That wonderful sounding phrase is a euphemism for unlimited, centralized legislative authority – the antithesis of our Constitutional form of government.
But really, what’s wrong with that? Why should we care? Isn’t solving problems a legitimate purpose of legislation?
The answer, fellow Americans, is no. Under this benign, seemingly reasonable proposition lie assumptions that are deadly to our American values of liberty, justice and equality. If the purpose of the law is simply to solve problems, then who is to decide what problems need to be solved? The foundational assumption at the center of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics is that you, as an individual, are neither competent to nor capable of solving your own problems or working with those around you to solve problems which affect us all; and that the lawmaker, merely by virtue of his position, is somehow miraculously endowed with all the wisdom, incentive and ability that the rest of you lack. That assumption, my friends, is nonsense; it is also incompatible with freedom.
The only legitimate purpose of the law is to establish justice. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century economist, puts it thus:
“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place… [Law] is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense… It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”
But why can’t the law establish justice and solve other problems at the same time? Quite simply, because law is not charity or philanthropy, it is brute force; it does not counsel or advise, it coerces. To extend this force beyond the limits of justice is to commit injustice; to destroy the legitimate goal of law in the pursuit of an illegitimate goal. Moreover, contrary to the “problem-solver’s” assumptions, the lawmaker (a) is as selfish as the rest of us, (b) has his own problems and (c) doesn’t have the foggiest idea about yours or mine. Consequently, when the law is allowed to go beyond the limits of justice, the temptation is generally irresistible to solve problems in a way that will benefit the lawmaker, not society. Every government that has ever existed on the face of the earth has shown this tendency.
OK, enough theory. What does the Constitution have to do with all this? Well, the Constitution is unique in the sense that, unlike statutory law, it doesn’t limit the actions of private citizens. It puts you, as an American citizen, under no legal obligation. The legal force of the Constitution is directed toward government, not you. The purpose of the Constitution was to say what your federal government may, and may not, do. It was intended as a limiting framework for the operation of the United States government. It does this in three ways.
First, the Constitution says what the federal government may do. The founders’ clearly stated intent was that if the constitution didn’t specifically delegate a power to the federal government, then the federal government did not have that power. Secondly, the Constitution prohibits or further restricts the exercise of some powers that might otherwise be implied. And thirdly, it divides these powers in such a way as to minimize the incentive for their abuse by any one branch of government.
The Constitution matters, ladies and gentlemen, because unlimited government always destroys individual freedom, and government is not easily limited. Remember, law is force. It can only be kept within proper limits by an opposing force. The founders understood this. We’re gathered at Valley Forge - why is Valley Forge significant? Because our forefathers fought a long, bloody and destructive war to restore the law to its proper functions. They didn’t want us to go through that horror again. So they sought to establish a form of government that would pit the force of government against itself through a system of checks and balances; one that would use the tendency of each branch of government to consolidate its own power to prevent the abuse of that power.
And it has worked. There is a reason America has been the most prosperous, and one of the longest lived, popular governments in the history of the world. Its failure to work today is not due to being outdated – human nature hasn’t changed – but rather to the fact that Americans don’t understand how their government is supposed to work – or how any good government should work, for that matter.
So now, to answer the three questions we started with:1st - What are some examples of the Constitution being violated today?
Kim asked me last week about the AIG bonus tax bill that passed the house. Was that unconstitutional? I think so. It didn’t merely go beyond constitutional limits; it would have violated at least two clear prohibitory clauses of Article 1, sec. 9. As a punitive tax targeting specific individuals, it was the equivalent of a bill of attainder, and as a retroactive tax on compensation already paid and received, it was an ex post facto law. Any lawmaker who cared knew that. Those who would plead ignorance didn’t care.
Another example would be the McCain/Feingold so-called “campaign finance reform laws.” The only constitutional authority the federal government has over the electoral process applies to the times, places and manner of holding elections. They have no delegated authority to regulate fundraising or political advertising. Moreover, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits such interference where private citizens are concerned.
McCain/Feingold is an interesting example because many legislators who voted for it admitted that they thought it was unconstitutional – and voted for it anyway. President Bush admitted that it was probably unconstitutional – and signed it anyway! Their justification was that constitutionality is a question for the Supreme Court. Actually, it’s a question for all of us, particularly those of us who take an oath to uphold and defend it. This is a quote from Justice Kennedy, in an unrelated case: “The usual presumption is that Members of Congress, in accord with their oath of office, considered the constitutional issue and determined the … statute to be a lawful one; and the Judiciary, in light of that determination, proceeds to its own independent judgment on the constitutional question when required to do so in a proper case.” In other words, the Court assumes that if Congress passes a law, they believe it to be constitutional. To legislate with abandon and leave questions of constitutionality to the Court is a violation of the lawmaker’s oath of office.
The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, and so is the issuance of legal tender paper money. That may seem like a bold statement, but the intent of the founders on this point is not a subject of doubt.
Other specific examples could include the National Animal Identification System; the myriad of federal laws restricting the free exercise of religion; federal regulations that prevent airlines from arming their pilots; bail-outs of irresponsible firms from hedge funds to auto-makers. To be honest, I’d be hard-pressed to name any bill that has passed Congress in the last several years that hasn’t been unconstitutional in some way. We aren’t just seeing violations of the Constitution on the level of individual laws; entire aspects of society that are entirely outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction are now regulated minutely by federal law. Things like healthcare, job creation, and agriculture – the proper role of government, both morally and constitutionally speaking, is simply to protect the free enterprise system as it applies to those areas of the economy. It has no constitutional authority to regulate the actions of private individuals in those areas unless they are directly engaging in interstate commerce.
2nd - How do we respond when citizens are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution obligates your public servants, not you. Our responsibility as private citizens isn’t so much to follow the Constitution ourselves, rather to see to it that they do. This brings us to the last question:
3rd - How can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?
First, we need to know the constitution. Start by reading it. The entire document was hand-written on two sheets of parchment – it isn’t long. Learning the Constitution is an absolutely essential first step, and it will make you better qualified to run this country than most of your leaders, because they haven’t read it.
Secondly, pay attention to what your leaders are doing. Do NOT, do not assume that the leaders of your party care about your values – they do not. Put pressure on them. Let them know that you stand opposed to all expansions of government, regardless of whether they tend toward the “right” or the “left” of our meaningless political spectrum. Remember those checks and balances? They only work if voters are paying attention. They aren’t working now because while you’re celebrating the Phillies’ World Series title all the branches of government are cooperating to steal you blind.
My brother and I met with Delaware County Sheriff Joe McGinn a few weeks ago. We confronted him about an apparently illegal arrest and search his deputies had been involved in. To his credit, he had a reasonable explanation for the incident. But he seemed puzzled by our concern when I told him we didn’t know the suspect who had been arrested. He told us that in his entire law enforcement career, it was the first time he had been challenged by a citizen who wasn’t personally connected to the case in question.
Shame on us. Joe McGinn is a good guy. I really believe that. But how can we expect him to stand up to the pressure from within government if we as voters don’t provide the counter-pressure which is our responsibility? Why should he limit his authority according to the constitution when he doesn’t expect it to make the slightest impact on his reelection? We need to pay attention and hold elected officials accountable.
And finally, each one of us needs to exercise self government. Society needs government. Unrestrained human nature isn’t pretty. If we as individuals desire to be free, to remain free, we must govern ourselves; because if we don’t, the vacuum will be filled by others, and the end result will be a totalitarian government. God knows there are enough of those in this world.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Monday, April 23, 2007
Compassionate Atheism ... ?
Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times printed a special op-ed by Sam Harris, atheist know-it-all and author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.” Harris praised California Democrat Pete Stark for being the first openly atheistic U.S. Congressman, and he called on Americans to break “the spell” of religion and dig a fresh grave for the “God of the Bible and the Quran.” Besides his condescension and arrogance (the usual pre-requisites for atheist writers when dealing with subject matter beyond their comprehension), Harris’ style is positively bursting with a surprising level of confidence, far surpassing anything an accidental, mutant product of primordial soup should be permitted to display. “There is not a person on earth,” he announces, ”who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead… Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources. … Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.”
Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.
It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.
Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.
But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”
This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?
A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.
Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?
Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.
Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.
It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.
Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.
But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”
This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?
A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.
Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?
Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
What aren't we thinking?
In the last post I mentioned that last August, Virginia Tech student Bradford B. Wiles called on the University to allow students licensed to carry in VA to do so on campus. Last night I received a link to an article that appeared in the Roanoke Times on Jan. 31, 2006, regarding a bill in the VA legislature (HB 1572) that would have nullified "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun" on public university campuses. The article quoted Virginia Tech spokesperson Larry Hincker as saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The article continued: "Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus. In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities."
I hope this incident results in drastically lower enrollment for Virginia Tech. They deserve all the bad publicity they receive and more for their irresponsible policy of dependence on the state for basic security while preventing students from lawfully defending themselves.
Having demonstrated that restrictive gun laws encourage violent crime as long as criminals can find a way to obtain guns themselves, it may be instructive to inquire whether any other societal changes over the past fifty years show a similar correlation to violent crime rates. I would suggest three more shifts in our society's thinking that I believe contribute to the chilling frequency of brutal criminal acts as compared to a half-century ago.
The first: education. Children are spoiled as infants, tolerated as young children, and abandoned as soon as possible to the care of "professionals." From these all-powerful experts they learn that they are simply animals at the top of the food chain. They are stripped of any faith in a Higher Being and encouraged to consult their own feelings above every other consideration except the mandates of the state. These are held up to their reverence in almost a superstitious manner, as the modern substitute for the primitive moral ideas of their grandparents. But in spite of the distinct lack of any effort to develop their critical thinking skills, most young people manage to discern the emptiness of the state's claim to moral authority. This realization is presumably encouraged by the palpable hypocrisy apparent in the disconnect between the commands of the state and its actions.
This paradigm shift is directly related to the next: self-worship, or the shift from Christian moral standards to a self-oriented mentality. By this I do not mean that there are necessarily fewer Christians now than in the 1950's, but that American society as a whole has accepted the idea that the moral standards found in the Ten Commandments are not absolute. While humanists are quick to argue that their ethical codes have equal merit with God's law, their argument falls apart when one inquires into the consequences for violation of such codes. The flimsy argument that "our understanding of ethics has evolved to the point where we believe X to be the proper action in this situation," obviously has no inherent value to one who believes that his own pleasure is the highest law.
The third shift has the dubious distinction of being both the most obvious and the most hotly denied culprit: entertainment. The amount of violence and brutality absorbed by Americans today through visual entertainment would likely give Nero himself nightmares. Our society is so thoroughly sick that torture and raw violence are "enjoyed" by tens of millions of Americans every day. Hollywood producers vie with one another to push the limits of human blood-thirst further than any post-deluvian society has ever done, making even African cannibalism or Aztec rituals seem tame in comparison. The scenes that sent hundreds of shell-shocked young men reeling from the trenches in WWI and WWII seem like child's play compared to the daily diet of today's fantasy-obsessed video gamester. Even young children scampering through the toy store now find such stimulating and educational material as the Mad Scientist dissecting aliens or HE-MAN fighting the evil SKELETOR.
Combine such a vicious visual diet with many of today's musical lyrics and it cannot fail to be obvious to any thinking person where the modern killer cuts his teeth. And yet - even when the Columbine shooters flaunt death metal T-shirts as they gun down their fellow students; even when Cho Seung-Hui slaughters young and old indiscriminately while decked out like an action figure - Americans clamor for their Big Brother to save them from the bad guys via more control and micro-management of their daily lives while tenaciously embracing the very violence that is the inevitable judgement of God on their nation.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The article continued: "Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus. In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities."
I hope this incident results in drastically lower enrollment for Virginia Tech. They deserve all the bad publicity they receive and more for their irresponsible policy of dependence on the state for basic security while preventing students from lawfully defending themselves.
Having demonstrated that restrictive gun laws encourage violent crime as long as criminals can find a way to obtain guns themselves, it may be instructive to inquire whether any other societal changes over the past fifty years show a similar correlation to violent crime rates. I would suggest three more shifts in our society's thinking that I believe contribute to the chilling frequency of brutal criminal acts as compared to a half-century ago.
The first: education. Children are spoiled as infants, tolerated as young children, and abandoned as soon as possible to the care of "professionals." From these all-powerful experts they learn that they are simply animals at the top of the food chain. They are stripped of any faith in a Higher Being and encouraged to consult their own feelings above every other consideration except the mandates of the state. These are held up to their reverence in almost a superstitious manner, as the modern substitute for the primitive moral ideas of their grandparents. But in spite of the distinct lack of any effort to develop their critical thinking skills, most young people manage to discern the emptiness of the state's claim to moral authority. This realization is presumably encouraged by the palpable hypocrisy apparent in the disconnect between the commands of the state and its actions.
This paradigm shift is directly related to the next: self-worship, or the shift from Christian moral standards to a self-oriented mentality. By this I do not mean that there are necessarily fewer Christians now than in the 1950's, but that American society as a whole has accepted the idea that the moral standards found in the Ten Commandments are not absolute. While humanists are quick to argue that their ethical codes have equal merit with God's law, their argument falls apart when one inquires into the consequences for violation of such codes. The flimsy argument that "our understanding of ethics has evolved to the point where we believe X to be the proper action in this situation," obviously has no inherent value to one who believes that his own pleasure is the highest law.
The third shift has the dubious distinction of being both the most obvious and the most hotly denied culprit: entertainment. The amount of violence and brutality absorbed by Americans today through visual entertainment would likely give Nero himself nightmares. Our society is so thoroughly sick that torture and raw violence are "enjoyed" by tens of millions of Americans every day. Hollywood producers vie with one another to push the limits of human blood-thirst further than any post-deluvian society has ever done, making even African cannibalism or Aztec rituals seem tame in comparison. The scenes that sent hundreds of shell-shocked young men reeling from the trenches in WWI and WWII seem like child's play compared to the daily diet of today's fantasy-obsessed video gamester. Even young children scampering through the toy store now find such stimulating and educational material as the Mad Scientist dissecting aliens or HE-MAN fighting the evil SKELETOR.
Combine such a vicious visual diet with many of today's musical lyrics and it cannot fail to be obvious to any thinking person where the modern killer cuts his teeth. And yet - even when the Columbine shooters flaunt death metal T-shirts as they gun down their fellow students; even when Cho Seung-Hui slaughters young and old indiscriminately while decked out like an action figure - Americans clamor for their Big Brother to save them from the bad guys via more control and micro-management of their daily lives while tenaciously embracing the very violence that is the inevitable judgement of God on their nation.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
New Math?
I just received this via email, and I actually think it's worth repeating.
1. Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )
6. Teaching Math In 2006
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80 Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
1. Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )
6. Teaching Math In 2006
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80 Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
State Of The Union
Since I have far too many issues on my mind than I could possibly devote individual posts to, I thought perhaps a State of the Union post would serve the purpose. I will no doubt be accused of taking a cynical approach; be that as it may, here are a few thoughts, in no particular order, on the currently prevailing political, social, economic and mental conditions in this great nation of ours.
Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.
The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm
Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.
Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html
Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?
On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.
But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?
So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?
Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).
We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.
When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.
And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.
On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.
It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.
And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf
Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.
Echoooooooooooooes
Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.
The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm
Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.
Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html
Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?
On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.
But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?
So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?
Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).
We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.
When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.
And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.
On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.
It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.
And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf
Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.
Echoooooooooooooes
Monday, November 07, 2005
Intelligent Design? Duh!
Well, intelligent design is a hot topic right now. I have to laugh when I hear the silly arguments going on right now over this one. I don't have much time, so I'll just say this: origins are not a scientific subject, they are a religious and historical subject. Evolution is nothing more than the humanist religion's creation story. There is NO scientific, testable, observable evidence for evolution. It is a religious view.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a theory or story of how we came into existence. It is merely the acknowledgement that according to all known scientific and logical rules, we are not, and indeed could not be, an accident. What on earth could be wrong with that?
The answer is that our public education system has become merely a seminary system for the humanist religion. That much ought to be obvious to any observant person. Much as we would expect a conservative Christian bible college to balk at a requirement to teach evolution, (or the Hindu creation story, for that matter,) we should also expect the blind faith of the humanists to resist any requirement that they allow for the possibility of another answer to the question of origins.
SF
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a theory or story of how we came into existence. It is merely the acknowledgement that according to all known scientific and logical rules, we are not, and indeed could not be, an accident. What on earth could be wrong with that?
The answer is that our public education system has become merely a seminary system for the humanist religion. That much ought to be obvious to any observant person. Much as we would expect a conservative Christian bible college to balk at a requirement to teach evolution, (or the Hindu creation story, for that matter,) we should also expect the blind faith of the humanists to resist any requirement that they allow for the possibility of another answer to the question of origins.
SF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)