Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
OWS
I have been following the Occupy Wall Street protests with quite of anxiety. It wasn't very long ago that we watched rioters in Britain "occupy" London, with no apparent aim but to damage and destroy. Here in the U.S.A., OWS-ers also seem clueless as to the reasons they are gathering.
There seems to be two sides to this group. First, there are the hidden organizers--many from various unions. The other half, though, seems to be made up of brainwashed young adults, who have swallowed every liberal, progressive, Marxist line that has been fed to them from grade school on up through college, with the help of a complicit media. Now, they are seeing the fruits of government entitlement programs, bailouts, wasteful spending, and, having never learned free market principles, are blaming the wealthy.
Minus the unruly behavior, these young OWS protesters have a few things in common with the Tea Party. Both groups are seeing that the country is moving towards the edge of a cliff, very quickly, and are understandably scared about the future. One group, my group, sees a way out through returning to the principles the country was founded on. The other group is concerned, but confused.
I read a quote once that said, "Confusion is the beginning of understanding." Perhaps there are some among the crowd who are searching for answers. If they will continue to ask the right questions, I think they will come to see that we are on the same side. Maybe there is hope.
There seems to be two sides to this group. First, there are the hidden organizers--many from various unions. The other half, though, seems to be made up of brainwashed young adults, who have swallowed every liberal, progressive, Marxist line that has been fed to them from grade school on up through college, with the help of a complicit media. Now, they are seeing the fruits of government entitlement programs, bailouts, wasteful spending, and, having never learned free market principles, are blaming the wealthy.
Minus the unruly behavior, these young OWS protesters have a few things in common with the Tea Party. Both groups are seeing that the country is moving towards the edge of a cliff, very quickly, and are understandably scared about the future. One group, my group, sees a way out through returning to the principles the country was founded on. The other group is concerned, but confused.
I read a quote once that said, "Confusion is the beginning of understanding." Perhaps there are some among the crowd who are searching for answers. If they will continue to ask the right questions, I think they will come to see that we are on the same side. Maybe there is hope.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Rule of Law
Here's a recent article in the WSJ which has reinforced my big-government paranoia. The subject is 'Mens Rea,' a term I had not known before, but it has to do with innocence because of ignorance. In the Doctrine and Covenants 131:6, it reads, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."
Apparently, this principle applies in courts of law, which is a scary thing because there are so many laws, that one statistic shows that the average person breaks three laws a day, not including traffic violations. Seems that our politicians pass a lot of new laws, without ever repealing old ones.
I have never worried about getting in trouble with the law, because I have never been aware of breaking any laws. But the examples in the articles were of men who weren't doing anything obviously bad--one freed a whale that was stuck in his net! I'm worried now.
There were two bits of practical advice left in the "comments" section. One was how to react when approached by a policeman, the other was something to consider if you're ever on a jury.
"The emasculation of the Mens Rea protections requires that when law enforcement asks you a question, with few exceptions, the only response you give is your name. After that you invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege.
One other question you might give respond to is if the officer asks whether you think answering his questions will incriminate you. The answer is "I do not know. There are so many laws that impose criminal sanctions for conduct the ordinary person does not know is unlawful that answering any question may incriminate."
Simlarly, if the officer asks "May I come in?" the answer is "no." You never know what they may see or may claim to have seen in your house that is, unknown to you, evidence of a crime.
In short, you do not and can not know whether you have anything to hide."
"Do you know how many laws are on the books? Not even the judges and lawyers know them all. They know the most common ones and they can look laws up to figure out what can be applied to a particular case, but there are so many and they are often written in legal jargon that the average person can not understand, that it is impossible to know if there is some law somewhere that you might be breaking. Many of the laws are also "rubber band" laws that can be stretched to fit the situation at the prosecutor's discretion. I have seen that happen. Many laws, such as the "honest services" law (now declared unconstitutionally vague and limited to certain circumstances) are so vague that even if you know about the law, you may not know to which acts it can be applied. It all depends on whether a prosecutor who wants another notch on his belt wants to try to stretch it and make it fit the case at hand.
This is why I have come to believe in jury nullification, whereby a juror who believes that a law is being used in an unjust manner, whether because the law was vague or obscure or being misapplied in some way, "nullifies" the law and votes "not guilty". The jurors have more power than most people know. It saddens me when I read of cases where the defendant was convicted and a juror says afterward that they "had" to vote guilty because that was what the law said (and the judge often instructs them that they have to follow the law - which is not true) though they thought it was unjust to do so. They did not have to vote guilty. I wish more people understood that principle."
Update (9/28): Just saw this article about a couple in Idaho. More of the same!
Apparently, this principle applies in courts of law, which is a scary thing because there are so many laws, that one statistic shows that the average person breaks three laws a day, not including traffic violations. Seems that our politicians pass a lot of new laws, without ever repealing old ones.
I have never worried about getting in trouble with the law, because I have never been aware of breaking any laws. But the examples in the articles were of men who weren't doing anything obviously bad--one freed a whale that was stuck in his net! I'm worried now.
There were two bits of practical advice left in the "comments" section. One was how to react when approached by a policeman, the other was something to consider if you're ever on a jury.
"The emasculation of the Mens Rea protections requires that when law enforcement asks you a question, with few exceptions, the only response you give is your name. After that you invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege.
One other question you might give respond to is if the officer asks whether you think answering his questions will incriminate you. The answer is "I do not know. There are so many laws that impose criminal sanctions for conduct the ordinary person does not know is unlawful that answering any question may incriminate."
Simlarly, if the officer asks "May I come in?" the answer is "no." You never know what they may see or may claim to have seen in your house that is, unknown to you, evidence of a crime.
In short, you do not and can not know whether you have anything to hide."
"Do you know how many laws are on the books? Not even the judges and lawyers know them all. They know the most common ones and they can look laws up to figure out what can be applied to a particular case, but there are so many and they are often written in legal jargon that the average person can not understand, that it is impossible to know if there is some law somewhere that you might be breaking. Many of the laws are also "rubber band" laws that can be stretched to fit the situation at the prosecutor's discretion. I have seen that happen. Many laws, such as the "honest services" law (now declared unconstitutionally vague and limited to certain circumstances) are so vague that even if you know about the law, you may not know to which acts it can be applied. It all depends on whether a prosecutor who wants another notch on his belt wants to try to stretch it and make it fit the case at hand.
This is why I have come to believe in jury nullification, whereby a juror who believes that a law is being used in an unjust manner, whether because the law was vague or obscure or being misapplied in some way, "nullifies" the law and votes "not guilty". The jurors have more power than most people know. It saddens me when I read of cases where the defendant was convicted and a juror says afterward that they "had" to vote guilty because that was what the law said (and the judge often instructs them that they have to follow the law - which is not true) though they thought it was unjust to do so. They did not have to vote guilty. I wish more people understood that principle."
Update (9/28): Just saw this article about a couple in Idaho. More of the same!
Monday, September 19, 2011
Geometry, Kites, String, and John Dewey
During the early 20th century, major changes in education were being introduced by John Dewey, and implemented across the country. The old method was rigid--one in which children sat in seats bolted to the floor, and learned from their teachers through repetition and rote memorization. The new one was flexible, it conformed to the interests of the child. "Sid, the Science Kid" is an idealistic view of Dewey's educational philosophy: Sid comes to school every day with a question, and it just so happens that his teacher has an entire lesson prepared on that very subject.
It seems like such a good idea. I would agree that people tend to learn more when they are interested in a subject. But now that most schools have adopted so many of John Dewey's methods (incidentally, he was sympathetic to communism, until he learned of the execution of millions at the hands of Communist leaders, though he continued to espouse Marxist ideals after that), why are our children still failing in school?
In reading my grandfather's life story, I learned that he, too, graduated from college enthused by the teachings of Dewey. But when he entered the teaching field, he learned quickly that Dewey's methods did not work. He discovered that without discipline, most kids never learn enough to gain an interest in anything to begin with. If I had had to wait until I was interested in Geometry, or any mathematical subject, I'd never have learned math.
Fortunately, I learned enough math to do fairly well at it--getting A's in math throughout high school, although I stopped taking math classes as soon as I was allowed to. The reason I did well enough in math classes that I did take was simply because I sat down and did my homework. And I prayed a lot!
However, there is one assignment that I remember vividly. Our young teacher, no doubt a Dewey disciple, thought that we would understand some concept of geometry better if we had to make a kite.
I hated the assignment the moment it was given. When did I have time to make a kite? Too young for a driver's license, how was I supposed to obtain the materials for a kite without my parent's help? My mom taught violin lessons into the evening, and my dad was away selling paper products--time and money were tight.
I had once seen a box kite, and so I found the simplest pattern I could find. Because my dad worked for a paper company, we had some really sturdy garbage sacks I could use. All we needed were dowels, plastic connector thingy's and kite string.
When I went to school with my kite, I was ashamed of my kite when I saw the fancy, colorful, and no doubt expensive, kites my friends had made. No plastic garbage sack box kites in sight, but mine!
The poor grade I was going to receive on presentation could only be raised if my kite would fly. Before I could fly it, however, the teacher insisted that I change the way the string was attached. I had tied the string to a corner of the kite in a secure knot. It didn't look very geometrical, so the teacher had me tie some string around two corners, and then attach another piece of string to make a triangle shape. It was windy, but my kite didn't fly. I failed.
When I went home, I reattached the string to the corner as it had been to begin with, and almost immediately, the kite lifted off the ground, and soared in the air effortlessly.
So, my question is, what was I supposed to have learned? I'm sure that there are some geometrical principles associated with kites, but to this day, I don't know what they are. I did learn that geometrical principles in and of themselves don't necessarily matter when it comes to function--at least it didn't matter to my poor little kite.
I have not been able to let that memory rest, and it is only now that I think I am coming to terms with what went wrong. In spite of whatever I was supposed to learn then, this is what I think now: That rote repetition and prayer helped me pass 10th grade geometry, and that making a kite did not. I'm not saying that it wasn't interesting for the kids who were more inclined to hands-on creativity, because people do learn in different ways. (I do still suspect that the kids who made brilliant kites had loads of help from their parents, and I doubt they learned any more geometry than I did for it.) But for me, it confirms my hunch that education needs to go back to basics, and that we need to re-evaluate modern teaching methods.
It seems like such a good idea. I would agree that people tend to learn more when they are interested in a subject. But now that most schools have adopted so many of John Dewey's methods (incidentally, he was sympathetic to communism, until he learned of the execution of millions at the hands of Communist leaders, though he continued to espouse Marxist ideals after that), why are our children still failing in school?
In reading my grandfather's life story, I learned that he, too, graduated from college enthused by the teachings of Dewey. But when he entered the teaching field, he learned quickly that Dewey's methods did not work. He discovered that without discipline, most kids never learn enough to gain an interest in anything to begin with. If I had had to wait until I was interested in Geometry, or any mathematical subject, I'd never have learned math.
Fortunately, I learned enough math to do fairly well at it--getting A's in math throughout high school, although I stopped taking math classes as soon as I was allowed to. The reason I did well enough in math classes that I did take was simply because I sat down and did my homework. And I prayed a lot!
However, there is one assignment that I remember vividly. Our young teacher, no doubt a Dewey disciple, thought that we would understand some concept of geometry better if we had to make a kite.
I hated the assignment the moment it was given. When did I have time to make a kite? Too young for a driver's license, how was I supposed to obtain the materials for a kite without my parent's help? My mom taught violin lessons into the evening, and my dad was away selling paper products--time and money were tight.
I had once seen a box kite, and so I found the simplest pattern I could find. Because my dad worked for a paper company, we had some really sturdy garbage sacks I could use. All we needed were dowels, plastic connector thingy's and kite string.
When I went to school with my kite, I was ashamed of my kite when I saw the fancy, colorful, and no doubt expensive, kites my friends had made. No plastic garbage sack box kites in sight, but mine!
The poor grade I was going to receive on presentation could only be raised if my kite would fly. Before I could fly it, however, the teacher insisted that I change the way the string was attached. I had tied the string to a corner of the kite in a secure knot. It didn't look very geometrical, so the teacher had me tie some string around two corners, and then attach another piece of string to make a triangle shape. It was windy, but my kite didn't fly. I failed.
When I went home, I reattached the string to the corner as it had been to begin with, and almost immediately, the kite lifted off the ground, and soared in the air effortlessly.
So, my question is, what was I supposed to have learned? I'm sure that there are some geometrical principles associated with kites, but to this day, I don't know what they are. I did learn that geometrical principles in and of themselves don't necessarily matter when it comes to function--at least it didn't matter to my poor little kite.
I have not been able to let that memory rest, and it is only now that I think I am coming to terms with what went wrong. In spite of whatever I was supposed to learn then, this is what I think now: That rote repetition and prayer helped me pass 10th grade geometry, and that making a kite did not. I'm not saying that it wasn't interesting for the kids who were more inclined to hands-on creativity, because people do learn in different ways. (I do still suspect that the kids who made brilliant kites had loads of help from their parents, and I doubt they learned any more geometry than I did for it.) But for me, it confirms my hunch that education needs to go back to basics, and that we need to re-evaluate modern teaching methods.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Avoiding the real issue
Studies show that more girl babies are aborted than boy babies, so in order to combat discrimination, a European law is in the works that prevents parents from finding out the gender of their child.
What kind of world do we live in, wherein "discrimination" is considered worse than abortion?
What kind of world do we live in, wherein "discrimination" is considered worse than abortion?
Monday, August 29, 2011
Waivers
Obama apparently now granting waivers from "No Child Left Behind."
Does anyone else agree that anytime the President is allowed to offer waivers for a federal law, such as Obamacare, that it demonstrates 1: that the law is NOT a good one, and should be repealed, and 2: that as the article above says, that it allows the President to treat citizens unequally?
Gun control laws are another good example of the unequal treatment of citizens in a nation built on the concept that "all men are created equal." Advocates for gun control laws are often surrounded by their own gun-toting bodyguards.
Education, health care, and gun control. Just three examples of political discrimination. I'm sure that the list is longer.
That reminds me...The Federal raiding of the Gibson guitar company. The Martin Guitar company, however, is doing business as usual. Maybe it's because Martin contributes to Dems, while Gibson contributes to the GOP, or maybe it's for some other reason. But one is targeted, while the other is not.
Does anyone else agree that anytime the President is allowed to offer waivers for a federal law, such as Obamacare, that it demonstrates 1: that the law is NOT a good one, and should be repealed, and 2: that as the article above says, that it allows the President to treat citizens unequally?
Gun control laws are another good example of the unequal treatment of citizens in a nation built on the concept that "all men are created equal." Advocates for gun control laws are often surrounded by their own gun-toting bodyguards.
Education, health care, and gun control. Just three examples of political discrimination. I'm sure that the list is longer.
That reminds me...The Federal raiding of the Gibson guitar company. The Martin Guitar company, however, is doing business as usual. Maybe it's because Martin contributes to Dems, while Gibson contributes to the GOP, or maybe it's for some other reason. But one is targeted, while the other is not.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Bill Gates and Education
An interview with Bill Gates appeared in the WSJ a couple of days ago.
What I find surprising is how an innovator like Bill Gates is apparently blinded by his own political convictions. Either that, or he's made a deal to keep Microsoft out of trouble.
You'll see in the interview how he hedges on his answers--how he comes close to admitting how unions interfere with improvements in education, but stops short.
I'd like to ask Gates where he sent his own children to school. I'm willing to bet that he ensured that they got the best possible education, and I'd bet that it wasn't through public schools. In my opinion, Gates could have avoided funding numerous studies simply by looking at what he has done as a parent for his children. What if he tried to help other students get the education his own children got, rather than throwing it away in the public education system? Has he considered starting his own private school system? It would be in his own self-interest to help train his future workforce.
What I find surprising is how an innovator like Bill Gates is apparently blinded by his own political convictions. Either that, or he's made a deal to keep Microsoft out of trouble.
You'll see in the interview how he hedges on his answers--how he comes close to admitting how unions interfere with improvements in education, but stops short.
I'd like to ask Gates where he sent his own children to school. I'm willing to bet that he ensured that they got the best possible education, and I'd bet that it wasn't through public schools. In my opinion, Gates could have avoided funding numerous studies simply by looking at what he has done as a parent for his children. What if he tried to help other students get the education his own children got, rather than throwing it away in the public education system? Has he considered starting his own private school system? It would be in his own self-interest to help train his future workforce.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
seriously?
Michele Bachmann's candidacy is being grilled over...headaches?
Take a look at the ailments of former presidents at this link.
Incidentally, though I'm a big fan of Bachmann, I don't have a favorite candidate yet. (Well, I do, but she hasn't entered the race yet.) But this "scandal" is ridiculous.
Take a look at the ailments of former presidents at this link.
Incidentally, though I'm a big fan of Bachmann, I don't have a favorite candidate yet. (Well, I do, but she hasn't entered the race yet.) But this "scandal" is ridiculous.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Teen Lit
First, read this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357622592697038.html
Then, read this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304314404576411581289319732.html
And then, some comments: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576418213590713904.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket
I was an avid reader growing up, and I think I lived during the transition from no teen lit to the now very-popular YA fiction genre. Judy Blume was popular, and I remember seeing "Outsiders" on the shelves at school, but I wasn't really interested in those kinds of books. Instead, I read Agatha Christie mysteries, the "Anne of Green Gables" series, and a ton of other books that were pretty tame. I do remember one book about a girl who becomes a drug user, which was pretty graphic, and I can't say I was the better for having read it.
In high school, I would collect "Recommended Reading" lists that were made up mostly of classics, and I made it a goal to read as many as I could. I remember being surprised that "Pride and Prejudice" was a comedy, rather than a book about poverty and racism, and I remember discovering that "Frankenstein" was a beautifully written book--to my relief, not quite as scary as I had anticipated. I fell in love with Gilbert Blythe, Mr. Darcy and Mr. Rochester, and strove to emulate Anne Shirley, Elizabeth Bennett, and Jane Eyre.
My life has truly been enriched by wonderful literature, and I feel bad that there are such low expectations of today's youth--that there is this assumption that if it's not edgy, they won't read. One of the comments above talks about a mother-daughter book club, and I want to keep that idea tucked away in my brain until my daughters are older. I'm in a great book group at the moment with some great friends. I hope I can participate in a similar experience with my children, their friends, and my friends.
Then, read this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304314404576411581289319732.html
And then, some comments: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576418213590713904.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket
I was an avid reader growing up, and I think I lived during the transition from no teen lit to the now very-popular YA fiction genre. Judy Blume was popular, and I remember seeing "Outsiders" on the shelves at school, but I wasn't really interested in those kinds of books. Instead, I read Agatha Christie mysteries, the "Anne of Green Gables" series, and a ton of other books that were pretty tame. I do remember one book about a girl who becomes a drug user, which was pretty graphic, and I can't say I was the better for having read it.
In high school, I would collect "Recommended Reading" lists that were made up mostly of classics, and I made it a goal to read as many as I could. I remember being surprised that "Pride and Prejudice" was a comedy, rather than a book about poverty and racism, and I remember discovering that "Frankenstein" was a beautifully written book--to my relief, not quite as scary as I had anticipated. I fell in love with Gilbert Blythe, Mr. Darcy and Mr. Rochester, and strove to emulate Anne Shirley, Elizabeth Bennett, and Jane Eyre.
My life has truly been enriched by wonderful literature, and I feel bad that there are such low expectations of today's youth--that there is this assumption that if it's not edgy, they won't read. One of the comments above talks about a mother-daughter book club, and I want to keep that idea tucked away in my brain until my daughters are older. I'm in a great book group at the moment with some great friends. I hope I can participate in a similar experience with my children, their friends, and my friends.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Great Minds...
Here's an interesting article that goes into quite a lot of detail about education spending, and unions. He makes some interesting points about current efforts to curb collective bargaining won't strike at the heart of the matter. At the end of the article, he makes a proposal--one that, were I running, I would make a central issue in my campaign: tax incentives for people who educate their own children. He goes one step further, and proposes tax breaks for people who provide scholarships for families who can't afford to leave the public school system.
Ultimately, I don't believe government should be involved in education at all. It is a conflict of interest, and the government can't do anything efficiently. However, I don't see this changing because it is too sacred a cow for politicians to touch. Too few are afraid to think outside the box in answering the question, "How do we provide the best education for our children?" But the above ideas--tax breaks--would point us in the right direction.
Ultimately, I don't believe government should be involved in education at all. It is a conflict of interest, and the government can't do anything efficiently. However, I don't see this changing because it is too sacred a cow for politicians to touch. Too few are afraid to think outside the box in answering the question, "How do we provide the best education for our children?" But the above ideas--tax breaks--would point us in the right direction.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Getting to Know Michele Bachmann
The WSJ featured this interview about Michele Bachmann. This is the best article I've read in which I feel like I can understand exactly what this possible candidate represents.
I hope to see similar interviews with the rest of the prospective field.
I hope to see similar interviews with the rest of the prospective field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)