A while back, I wrote a series of script adaptations of economic concepts for a policy organization in the State of Washington. The idea is to start, simply at first, undoing the damage the left has done with years of inculcation and dulling of people's understanding of basic concepts of economics and governance.
These videos are now being released. Here is number 2 in the series:
While the Obamas have been vacationing, the Oval Office has had a make-over, including a new Presidential Seal rug with quotations running along its border.
One of those quotations:
"THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE IS LONG, BUT IT BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE" - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Slight problem: It's not a King quote.
The words belong to a long-gone Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.
For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you're fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War.
On another interesting note, from the same article:
The familiar quote from Lincoln woven into Obama's rug is "government of the people, by the people and for the people," the well-known utterance from the close of his Gettysburg Address in 1863.
Funny that in 1850, Parker wrote, "A democracy -- that is a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people."
Below is a short excerpt from the best analysis of Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally that I've come across so far. Please read the whole thing (link below).
"The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.
Why?
He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.
Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.
Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.
Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics.
Someone who asks what the rally has to do with the 2010 election is missing the point."
And we're going to rebuild, and we're going to be stronger than we were before ... I want the people of New York to be an example to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, that terrorism can't stop us. Rudy Giuliani, 2001
Why has the Ground Zero mosque caused so much emotional opposition? Is everything a flashpoint today? Do we automatically face-off across every scrimmage line, grunting obscenities at the opposition?
Let’s imagine a different reality. Suppose that on September 11, 2006, second-term mayor Michael Bloomberg cut the ribbon on a newly rebuilt World Trade Center. In his speech, he glossed over the fact that it took longer to resurrect the center than it took us to win WW II. Everybody was in a celebratory mood, and no one wanted to spoil the event by reminding people that political bickering had delayed construction for nearly a year. No, this was a proud day. This architecturally graceful complex was a grand testament to American can-do spirit. It showed that we refused to allow terrorists to defeat or demoralize us. This new World Trade Center was more than spanking-new office buildings. The focal point was a tasteful memorial to the victims and heroes of that unforgettable day. A small white Greek Orthodox Church sat close by the exit footpath so visitors could stop and pray for the victims and their families.
Let’s further suppose that four years later, in the summer of 2010, a devout Imam proposed a $100 million mosque on the edge of a now vibrant World Trade Center. Suppose further that this Imam condemns violence, and terrorist organizations like Hamas. The planned 15 story mosque would dedicate two co-ed floors for all faiths, and the center would team with New York University on comparative religion classes, both onsite and at the university. To further act as a bridge between Islam and the rest of the community, the center would plan multi-religious social, cultural, and educational events throughout the year. Oh, and one more thing, the source of the $100 million funding was open and above-board.
Does anyone doubt that in this alternative reality, the mosque would be supported by the community, the 9-11 families, and the nation?
But this is not our reality.
On 9-11, the United States of America was brutally attacked. Innocent Americans, including women and children, were taken hostage, and then physically hurled at Americans icons. The enemy had simultaneously attacked lower Manhattan to cause financial havoc, the Pentagon to cripple the nation’s defense nerve center, and the Capitol to destroy our seat of government. Only the last attack was thwarted by brave regular folks who answered the call to heroic duty.
It was soon discovered that militant Muslims were behind these attacks. Over the course of nearly three decades, there had been a series of escalating attacks, but this one was so humongous, that it couldn’t be brushed aside as a mere crime. On 9-11, we finally acknowledged that militant Muslims had declared war on the United States. In the immediate aftermath, we were a cohesive, committed nation. But it didn’t last long. Despite continued, but relatively feeble attacks, we lapsed into lethargy and infighting.
Now the elite think that if they pander to presumed moderate Muslim voices, it will appease the militant Muslims. They are dangerously wrong. Militant Muslims may be few, but those few will be inspired by this trophy mosque to ratchet up the next attack.
The whole thing doesn’t make sense to regular folks. They’re asking how this mosque gained such massive support from the powers-that-be, and why the elite so viciously attack those who raised objections. If half of this political power had been put behind rebuilding the World Trade Center, we would be living the alternate reality—and that was the reality we wanted and deserved as a nation.
Our leaders failed us. Their incompetence and egoism is beyond the pale. They won’t listen to the people, and they won’t consider changing course. It’s disheartening … and enraging. There is only one solution. On November 2nd, we need to hand pink slips to as many of these hopeless marionettes as possible.
James D. Best is the author of Tempest at Dawn, a novel about the 1787 Constitutional Convention. http://www.jamesdbest.com/
I know, "How could I?" I'm still asking myself the same thing. You go through life thinking something is bad, but you really don't grasp the concept fully until you experience it on a personal level. Public school is a perfect example. I spent the first couple of years in school sitting in the hall because I talked too much. My teachers couldn't figure out that I was bored. Once I learned to sit still and wait for the rest of the class to finish their work, things got a little better. By third grade, I was doing extra book reports to occupy myself and things got even better... at least until Trig and Analytical Geometry when I got a teacher who didn't feel like teaching anymore and told us to figure it out on our own.
Before I had my son, I heard a teacher say once, " I don't care what my students learn, I just need them to pass the tests". I vowed to never send a child of mine to public school. Then we had our son, we enrolled him in Montessori and everything was going fine... until the economy tanked, I had to go back to work, and I couldn't find a job. This summer, we made the difficult decision to send our son to public school. Never mind that it wouldn't be an issue if we weren't paying for a public school system through confiscatory taxes, that we had never used - or cared to. No use crying over spilt milk. So I signed up to volunteer and joined the PTA hoping it would be okay if I got involved.
That delusion lasted three days, until my son came home complaining that they don't teach at this school. It turns out, the kids aren't allowed to talk except during recess. So, when he asked for clarification on his worksheets, my son was told to "Just sit down and fill them out". He complained to me that the work was stupid and boring. I thought maybe it was just an issue of learning a new way of working. When his work came home the first Friday, I saw what he meant. The work he was being given in his first grade class was preschool level. I had taken a child who was learning to do fractions and multiplication and put him in a class where he was being asked to do simple addition and to 'circle the fourth dolphin in the group'. No wonder he was upset.
So, long story short, I sent the teacher an email asking how I could help. I wondered if it would be possible to send him home school materials to supplement the class work when he was finished and waiting for the next worksheet. ( I know you're asking why I didn't home school. It's because he's an only child and I want him to interact with other children. Plus, having to go back to work makes it nearly impossible.) I was informed that he was unable to do the work. I'll be the first to admit that my son is stubborn and didn't want to do the preschool work because it was 'boring'. However, the teacher's assesment was simply that he was unable to do the work. A student in her class couldn't possibly be bored.
Why, do you ask, am I being so hard on her? The answer is simple. She lacked any observational skills, which ought to be a prerequisite for teaching. And, you're going to love this, every piece of correspondence she sent me contained a spelling or grammatical error. I guess she couldn't even be bothered to use the spell check on her email program.
The problems with public school are many and simple to assess. The main issue is the lesson plan. The problem isn't with the plan itself, so much as the necessity to adhere to it rigidly in order to ensure equality of outcome. There is no room for children to excel in one subject and simultaneously receive help where they need it. They are all expected to do the same work, in the same way, at the same rate. Moving up a grade is frowned upon. The concept of the individual is frowned upon. Supplies are now considered communal property and are turned in to the teacher for distribution to the class as a whole during assignments only. This is done under the pretense of helping the teacher eliminate distractions and ensure that everyone has supplies. My son, however, made sure I knew that they were not allowing him to be responsible for himself. A child is perfectly capable of keeping track of a pencil, a glue stick and a pair of scissors. The real message here is that you should look to the government for the things you need so we can all be equal.
Needless to say, I finally found a job, I am volunteering at the Montessoru school in exchange for tuition reduction and my son is back where he belongs. The difference between public and private schools is simple. Private school teachers actually care about the students and what they are learning. There are exceptions on both sides, to be sure. However, we all know public education is less about education than it is about moulding good citizens.
Things you should read in case you think I am not being objective:
Barack Obama, the great healer, is proving to be the most divisive president since Richard Nixon.
Behind the anger over the Arizona immigration mess, the Ground Zero mosque, the economy, and the new directions in foreign policy are some recurring general themes that reverberate in each particular new controversy. In sum, they explain everything from the tea parties to the wholly negative perception of Congress to the slide in presidential popularity.
1. Two sets of rules. The public senses there are two standards in America — one for elite overseers, quite another for the supposedly not-to-be-trusted public. The anger over this hypocrisy surfaces over matters from the trivial to the profound. Sometimes the pique arises because the spread-the-wealth, we-all-have-skin-in-shared-sacrifice presidential sermons don’t apply to those who do the preaching, as in the president’s serial polo-shirted golf excursions or Michelle’s movable feast from Marbella to Martha’s Vineyard.
More profoundly, an Al Gore, a Timothy Geithner, a John Kerry, a John Edwards, a Charles Rangel — the luminaries who call for bigger government, higher taxes, and more green coercion — now appear to the public as . . . read on
It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.
It's 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health-care reform -- lie in ruins.
Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer.
The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties . . . with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.
Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.
And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. . . . And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."
Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically . . . read the whole thing
And we're going to rebuild, and we're going to be stronger than we were before ... I want the people of New York to be an example to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, that terrorism can't stop us. Rudy Giuliani, 2001
.jpg)