Recently at my school, many of the teachers have expressed a desire to change systems and other things because of a sense of burn-out and futility. For the first concern, it's been a pretty rough year for our school on a lot of different levels, so of course teachers are ready for a break
The second concern was that students didn't do very well on a set of testing we recently did. In fact, scores dropped drastically from the fall. I demonstrated that a variety of factors made most of the test results invalid in a recent meeting, especially when compared with two other forms of testing that we do at the school. Even so, a couple of the teachers said that changing lots of things is good because, "Change is good."
Now, I will be the first to advocate fixing things if they need to be fixed, but haphazardly changing things for the sake of changing things doesn't always help and can often times do more harm than good. For my students, what I'm doing right now is apparently helping because according to most tests that I've done, they've generally all made drastic improvements. While making changes on a school-wide basis may help, what if they don't? I would much rather leave well-enough alone.
This experience has led me to reflect on the state our country is in, and has been in for the last 130+ years. There is, and has been, a faction in the populous calling for nearly indiscriminate change. Granted, each person in the faction has generally had their own pet change they wished to see, but any change was good and they supported it. This can be seen in the many demands of the Populist Party, the grasping at whatever change the progressives could get in the turn of the last century , and the shotgun approach of the New Deal. We witnessed the same desire for any change again during the last election, as just over half of the electorate voted for "Hope and Change."
Now most of us are asking ourselves, "Is there any hope in change?" Change is good, when there is an isolated problem, stated goals, and definite ways to measure progress while minimizing collateral damage. We've had none of this in the "stimulus," "Obamacare," or any other change this administration has put forward.
I don't know if this was coherent. It was just something I had been reflecting on recently.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
On Fixing American Education
Over the last couple of years of teaching, I've noticed some things about the current educational paradigm that might be changed to improve overall outcomes. I am by no means an expert, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion, right?
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Alaska Senate Race: Miller v. Murkowski
I know that there's a Democrat in this race as well, but the chances of him winning aren't good, even if all of the Republican votes are split up between these two.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Faith v. Works
I've been thinking about the debate of what brings salvation, faith or works. While personally feeling it is a false dichotomy, I decided to do a little bit of looking into it. I found the following:
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Positive Effects of Climate Change?
As I have studied and listened to hysterics and skepticism over the climate change debate, I've realized that the debate boils down mostly to, "Uh, huh!," "Nu, uhh!" On one side, they are crying that the sky is falling and it's man's fault. On the other side, their saying either it's not falling or that it's not man's fault. My one critique of the debate is this: if the sky is falling, is it really going to be all that bad?
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Tea Parties: The Anti-Populist Movement
Populism, in layman's terms, has been defined as the belief that the government should have control over both financial and social aspects of people's lives. The populist movement in the US was this, although they only articulated those aspects that were financial.
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
All through school, whenever they would have us say the Pledge of Allegiance, I never had a problem. I always took it as something I could do to express my gratitude and pride in living in a truly exceptional country. I still believe that this country is exceptional and I am extremely grateful to live here. What other country gives so much of itself, both in fortune and blood, for the interests and welfare of so many living outside its borders? Additionally, most of our ancestors came to this land seeking the "American Dream." Most of us, the beneficiaries of these and other great sacrifices, enjoy a better lifestyle and more opportunities for personal progress than we would had our ancestors never come.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Progressives?
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Ronald Pestritto, the author of a book that aims to link the original progressives with modern-day progressives and liberals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435942829722602.html?KEYWORDS=glenn+beck+progressives
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Case Against Bowing
One of the jobs of our president is to represent the United States in all foreign relations. Obama has tried to improve US foreign relations that were strained over some foreign policies of past administrations. He has been trying his best to show respect to world leaders. His problem is that he has misunderstood the cultural significance placed on bowing in many cultures. There is a fine art to bowing, and how or when you do it has a lot of meaning in cultures that use it.
The best example for this can be seen in the following picture:
Here, he is bowing to the Emperor of Japan. Obama, as the leader of a country, is socially on the same level as the Emperor. In Japan, these levels are EXTREMELY important in understanding how you should behave. In this international situation, it is important that Obama pay attention to what the other does, being a guest in that culture. IF the Emperor were to bow, Obama would be expected to bow. If he didn't, then ANY bow would be deferential and a sign not of respect but of the other's superior position. This is the same in most cultures that customarily bow.
The depth of the bow has meaning, as well. If the Emperor were to bow, he would have dipped only slightly. In the picture, Obama has bowed down about as far as one should culturally while the Emperor has opted not to bow, giving the clear signal that the Emperor is in a far superior social position.
How does this translate in the world of politics? Obama has been parading around the world apologizing for every act the US has ever done or been accused of doing. If you add the bowing, this sends the clear signal that under the current administration, the US is willing to kowtow to any and every nation in the world. He is sending the message that we are weak, ashamed of who we are, and at the mercy of other countries. Has the US made mistakes? Yes, as has every other nation. Should we apologize? Maybe, but more importantly we should try to make things right. Should we be ashamed of who we are? Absolutely not! The US has done more to bring economic and political freedom to more people in the world than any other country in history.
P.S. From what I've been able to find, Obama's now bowed down to the Saudi King, the Japanese Emperor, two Chinese officials on separate occasions, the King of Norway, and likely others.
The best example for this can be seen in the following picture:
Here, he is bowing to the Emperor of Japan. Obama, as the leader of a country, is socially on the same level as the Emperor. In Japan, these levels are EXTREMELY important in understanding how you should behave. In this international situation, it is important that Obama pay attention to what the other does, being a guest in that culture. IF the Emperor were to bow, Obama would be expected to bow. If he didn't, then ANY bow would be deferential and a sign not of respect but of the other's superior position. This is the same in most cultures that customarily bow.
The depth of the bow has meaning, as well. If the Emperor were to bow, he would have dipped only slightly. In the picture, Obama has bowed down about as far as one should culturally while the Emperor has opted not to bow, giving the clear signal that the Emperor is in a far superior social position.
How does this translate in the world of politics? Obama has been parading around the world apologizing for every act the US has ever done or been accused of doing. If you add the bowing, this sends the clear signal that under the current administration, the US is willing to kowtow to any and every nation in the world. He is sending the message that we are weak, ashamed of who we are, and at the mercy of other countries. Has the US made mistakes? Yes, as has every other nation. Should we apologize? Maybe, but more importantly we should try to make things right. Should we be ashamed of who we are? Absolutely not! The US has done more to bring economic and political freedom to more people in the world than any other country in history.
P.S. From what I've been able to find, Obama's now bowed down to the Saudi King, the Japanese Emperor, two Chinese officials on separate occasions, the King of Norway, and likely others.
Monday, March 22, 2010
John Locke is Dead(?)
It doesn't matter really what side of the healthcare debate you fell on, the recent passage of the monstrous Obamacare bill was bad for you and all of America. This is, by the way, more than the substance of the bill, which I don't think there's a person alive that knows everything in it's expansive 2,000+ pages. I speak mainly on the manner in which it was passed. Although our president, by his own admission in a recent interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, doesn't pay mind too much about the process used, the processes set up by our Constitution are there to ensure the protection and reflection of the will of the people. Our Founding Fathers all believed in this overarching principle: government is only legitimate inasmuch as their citizenry cede them the power and authority to rule over them. This was the entire basis behind the Declaration of Independence, the original founding document of our country:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
This is a principle of John Locke, an enlightenment philosopher whose ideas our Founding Fathers borrowed extensively. Our Congress and President have decided that what they think and what they believe is more important than what the majority of Americans think and believe. In their eyes, all of their actions are legitimate because they were elected. While they are correct in that we live in a republic and we gave them legitimacy and authority by electing them, they are also incorrect in that they subverted the legislative process in order to pass a law that a majority of Americans didn't like. In essence, they have said to the American people that "consent of the governed" is an outdated principle. I won't begin to pretend, either, that this is a partisan or recent issue. Both parties have been guilty for a while of "jamming through" legislation that was unpopular, but not necessarily at such a fiscal liability or in such a partisan way. How much longer will the "governed" consent to this?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
This is a principle of John Locke, an enlightenment philosopher whose ideas our Founding Fathers borrowed extensively. Our Congress and President have decided that what they think and what they believe is more important than what the majority of Americans think and believe. In their eyes, all of their actions are legitimate because they were elected. While they are correct in that we live in a republic and we gave them legitimacy and authority by electing them, they are also incorrect in that they subverted the legislative process in order to pass a law that a majority of Americans didn't like. In essence, they have said to the American people that "consent of the governed" is an outdated principle. I won't begin to pretend, either, that this is a partisan or recent issue. Both parties have been guilty for a while of "jamming through" legislation that was unpopular, but not necessarily at such a fiscal liability or in such a partisan way. How much longer will the "governed" consent to this?
Friday, March 12, 2010
American Education
I've been thinking about the education system in the US and why it has been turning out students that are less prepared for college compared to their foreign counterparts. There are of course those structural arguments that the way we set up our education system is completely different than the way they do in most countries. We try to educate everyone, even those who will have no hope of living independently and holding down a job. However, I've been concerned lately with cultural factors more lately.
I may be teaching in a school that represents the extreme for this, but it seems that students in the US don't take their educations seriously. Going to school is something they have to do, for most of them. If they weren't forced to be there, they wouldn't be. Contrast that with some other countries, where students take their educations very seriously, going early, coming home late, and going to a tutor in between. By the time they get to college, they have spent more time on scholastic achievement than the average American college graduate. It's no wonder there are far more students overseas that are interested in math and science, because they have lived and breathed it for the previous 12 years.
I heard the results of a troubling study recently. The study said that the rising generation will likely be the first generation in US history that is less educated, less successful, and poorer than the previous generation. I don't think this has much to do with the teachers being trained, but more with the students' willingness to learn.
I may be teaching in a school that represents the extreme for this, but it seems that students in the US don't take their educations seriously. Going to school is something they have to do, for most of them. If they weren't forced to be there, they wouldn't be. Contrast that with some other countries, where students take their educations very seriously, going early, coming home late, and going to a tutor in between. By the time they get to college, they have spent more time on scholastic achievement than the average American college graduate. It's no wonder there are far more students overseas that are interested in math and science, because they have lived and breathed it for the previous 12 years.
I heard the results of a troubling study recently. The study said that the rising generation will likely be the first generation in US history that is less educated, less successful, and poorer than the previous generation. I don't think this has much to do with the teachers being trained, but more with the students' willingness to learn.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Superfluous Agencies
I was reading the newspaper yesterday, and it talked about how the Obama administration wanted to start a spending freeze for parts of the budget for this next year to get the government's finances under control. It also talked about how he wanted to appoint a commission to investigate congressional spending. That got me thinking, "Isn't the House of Representatives our 'commission' on spending? Isn't that a part of their job. And for that matter, isn't there also the CBO and a myriad of committees that bills pass through in order to make sure they are sound?" I guess we've gotten to a point where elected officials are too busy doing things they weren't elected for that they don't have time to do their jobs the way they should.
For that matter, isn't one of the Presidency's major responsibilities homeland security? Why is it then that we need a whole new agency to deal with that? The list of redundant and unnecessary programs and agencies goes on and on. Why can't we streamline government just like you would a business to cut down on cost and waste? Oh, it's because the only thing some of these guys are good at is spending other people's money.
For that matter, isn't one of the Presidency's major responsibilities homeland security? Why is it then that we need a whole new agency to deal with that? The list of redundant and unnecessary programs and agencies goes on and on. Why can't we streamline government just like you would a business to cut down on cost and waste? Oh, it's because the only thing some of these guys are good at is spending other people's money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)