Archives for category: Government

Do we really need to outlaw plagiarism?

Does copying someone else’s work without attribution pose a threat so grave that we must send armed forces to stamp it out?

I think not.

It truly is important to think through every law. We must stop and say, if my grandmother was engaging in this prohibited action, do I think it worth pointing a loaded gun at her to try to make her stop, and is it justifiable to pull the trigger if she refuses compliance?

If we review our laws that way, I think we will repeal most of them.

First, an aside, am I justified in calling all law to be so scrutinized? I don’t think justification is involved. That is what we do. If we pass a law, we are threatening to send aggressive, armed forces, law-enforcement, to coerce compliance. When we write a parking citation, we are counting on most people to simply comply and pay the fine, rather than challenge the authority, because when the sheriff shows up, we don’t want to risk the fact that the deputy will probably eventually pull the trigger and put us down permanently because the law backs the enforcer.

It isn’t an academic question. It is what we do. We enforce all law, tax law, civil law, criminal law, and environmental regulations, by putting a loaded gun to the head of violators, held by enforcers willing to pull the trigger if ultimately needed to enforce compliance. It is what we do. We have institutionalized coercive violence and prettied it up such that we can pretend it is a tame beast, but it is not. It, all of it, the institution and the violence and all that pertains, is a fearsome, destructive monster, always ready to pounce whenever unleashed, even in the smallest of instances.

Again, we pretend it is not so harsh because we count on individuals to comply before violence ensues, before the guns come out, but ultimately, if the individual (or the group, or mob) determines to be noncompliant, the bullets will eventually fly. Coercion is evil, but most of the time it is easy to pretend otherwise.

Back to plagiarism: How do we know what anyone wrote before Anne?

Mostly, we know who wrote what, and who originated ideas, because of the honor system. For the most part, replicators of ideas or writings wanted to attribute the origin because of credibility. It was more for personal honor and reputation than for honor of the originator. There was limited commercial value before the printing press. And, since ideas mattered, the surest way to have your ideas gain purchase was to attribute properly, especially to persons who already held the respect of their peers, especially if fame extended to the masses. Attributing your idea to Einstein just might get it accepted even if Einstein never thought of it; just provide a plausible story to make the connection.

It seems at least partly that copyright originated to protect the publishers, not the authors. Monopolies were extended, and that can never be counted good, even if at times it might be argued necessary.

It seems copyrights and intellectual property rights are primarily intended to protect those earning profits from it, not the originator who is the actual rights holder. Copyright and intellectual right, together, are simple; if I wrote it, if I originated the idea, I hold property right to it. I really see a huge disconnect between that simple idea and implementation and enforcement. Freedom and free-market interplay will work better. We need simple protection of the property right, not the profiteering rights.

I think those calling for liberty in intellectual property are on the right track. We really don’t need the guys with the guns to enforce honorable action in ideas, speech, writing, free thought, and all the related spread and influence of information.

We can let freedom ring.

Let’s work for freedom.

Sure, TANSTAFL, but it sure seems everything works out better the more freedom, and everything works out worse for more regulation and centralization.

 

 

We need not fear which administration holds sway, either right or left or in between.

We have only cause to fear the ever-growing government itself.

I was quite impressed by Reggie Hamm’s articles (reblogged previously), and I was sharing Scott Adams’ ( @ScottAdamsSays #ScottAdams ) blog post on Facebook, and I wrote more than I expected. I’m reproducing it here, since Facebook is so hard to find anything on. Read the rest of this entry »

~

Are you worried about WWIII? You should read this. Do you love history? You should read this. Do you wonder at Russia, especially the enigma of the old USSR? You should read this. Russia is not the USSR. Putin may be cold, but he is rational, and he is a patriot. Russia plays defense. It does not think offense. Even the unimaginable numbers asserted by the Soviet at the height of the Cold War, Russia thought of defense. Her offense was only intended, at least in the Russian heart, to ensure the battle lines were drawn far from Russia’s heartland.

Perhaps the grand communist experiment, the epic failure (which was and always will be inevitable), was able to happen largely due to the mindset of the Russian-related peoples. Perhaps they had lived in danger so long, that stable dread was tolerable. I hope it cannot happen again. Surely enough people know that communism, socialism, in all its forms, fails, moreover, it kills and destroys.

The article is long. Read it anyway. Grab a mug and learn, enjoy it all.

Mr. Hitchens mentions a movie, a documentary of the sorry conditions in the USSR.

In Russian, of course. No English text. So, learn your Russian or guess.

A note of one who was looking for the movie in 2015. https://www.reddit.com/r/russia/comments/2uhv7b/trying_to_find_a_movie/

From the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100738/

 


The misreading of Russia’s geopolitical situation is especially sad because for the first time in . . . .

Source: The Cold War Is Over by Peter Hitchens | Articles | First Things

Happy Veterans’ Day.

I am thankful for all who have served, even those who never managed to fit the legal definition, like myself. Those who sign, all, pledge their lives. When I signed, I knew I was likely to never have a dangerous assignment. I knew I would likely never point a lethal weapon at another human being with the intent to kill. However, I knew I might, and I knew I was ready. I would have. I could have.

Remember that when you honor a veteran. That person promised a lot, whether called on your not. That person might have delivered on those promises, perhaps is incomprehensible ways.

I am thankful that HDR will not be Commander in Chief over my son and the rest who serve. Each would have continued to fulfill the oath. Yet, I am glad we will never know the darkness that might have fallen had HDR been Commander in Chief of the most deadly fighting force the earth has ever known.

Again, I am thankful this Veterans’ Day.

Presumptive Democratic nominee for Governor of Oklahoma, Representative Scott Inman, posted to his Facebook page an article about the 2005 conversation of Donald Trump, the recording of the crude comments. Of course, Trump had replied that Bill Clinton has said far worse to him directly while playing on the golf course; a statement that cannot be doubted.

As bad as Trump’s comments may be, the presumptive Oklahoma nominee claims to presently represent me as my representative to the State House of Oklahoma. He doesn’t think it a problem to make fun of the majority of Oklahomans who support Trump. There may be a majority of people in this house-district that don’t support Trump, but Oklahoma will probably be the reddest of red states once again on 08 November. Obviously, Scott doesn’t think it is a problem in his run for Governor. I think that is sad, because for the last ten years, I have felt that Scott tells me one thing (because I am libertarian, and somewhat conservative, and outspokenly against progressivism in all its soul-killing forms), and he does another.

Scott has often angered me with public comments that grab headlines that contradict my express views and his polite replies. He claims to be my representative, but he has often taken aggressively opposed stances to all I stand for. He is, obviously, a Democrat. He is a party man, first and last. I understand that, but he offers me platitudes face to face, and takes opposing stances publicly. Worse, he privately scolds me, calling me hateful and angry.

Mr. Inman captioned his Facebook post, “Faith. Family. Forget it.” Nothing else but a link to the Washington Post news article.

His post caused a firestorm of comments, but Mr. Inman has yet to comment further. I posted, “I recall our Lord allowing him without sin to cast the first stone. I also remember it was the elders who left first.” (Mr. Inman’s uncle queried about my point. I chose not to pick up the gauntlet.)

I don’t understand why a politician, especially a normally cordial, polite, and politically minded one, will post jibes at opponents and those of other parties. Scott hopes to get the majority of Oklahomans to vote for him in two years, but he makes fun of their Presidential candidate. He recently ridiculed Rush Limbaugh. Sure, Rush is an obvious target for all leftists, but to make fun and then not bother to explain just seems wrong to me. I see only potential for harm for all involved.

That is the main thing that worries me. I don’t understand why Scott takes the shot then doesn’t elaborate. What kind of a leader is that? How is it helpful to throw jabs and then let the pieces fall where they may?

I’ll repeat that I won’t be voting for Trump. I cannot condone him nor the GOP. Far worse is HDR and the Democratic Party. (A comment from Winston Churchill comes to mind.) I will soon change my voting registration. I cannot stay in the GOP. I do not support the GOP. I’m debating whether to just be independent, or perhaps I can support the Libertarian Party, but they need to be a bit more serious. While I appreciate his sense of humor, and Gary Johnson is a man I can admire, I cannot support him for President. I cannot put my vote of approval on him (regardless the lack of weight and value in a vote nowadays). Johnson has significant flawed views, and he is still progovernment. I cannot support anyone who proposes more of the same when government has become so clearly the primary factor in most all our problems.

Trump has admitted the mistake and apologized. Seems ancient history to me.

HDR continues to lie and deceive. She has shown no signs of honesty, nor of even learning. She only goes on always stepping on anyone and everyone available to advance herself.

It looks to me that my representative is planning to spend his last two years as House Minority Leader running for Governor. He has always touted his Del City roots. Good. I don’t doubt his devotion, but I do question his commitments. I see only signs of political ambition, not commitment to people. I’m sure he will think I’m being hateful and angry, but I only see it as practical. I’ve been watching Scott, talking to him, and writing him, for a dozen years. He sure is a nice guy, but his political ambitions and commitment to the Democratic Party seem to be his core. He has shown me over and over that he is committed to leftist, progressivist values. He has no commitment to individual freedom and individual responsibility. He has shown me over and over his commitment to statism and bigger government with  more spending.

That is my honest view and assessment. If that makes me angry and hateful, well, point out how I should improve, and I will try to implement.

Mostly, I’m hoping that Scott goes home after his term limits force him out of the State House, and I hope he takes care of his young family and stays active working for the people of East Oklahoma County in his occupation and associations.

Quoting:

Pluralism holds the key to the vitality of American religiousness as well as to the development of religious civility. One might think that economists long ago would have pointed this out to their colleagues in sociology who were so enamored of the strength of monopolies, since Adam Smith had laid out the whole analysis with such clarity long ago. Trouble is that until very recently, economists were so little interested in religion that the entire chapter on these matters in Smith’s classic The Wealth of Nations was (and is) omitted from most editions. It was not until I began working out the stimulating effects of pluralism on my own that someone suggested I read Smith–and I found this puzzling because initially I could find nothing on the topic in the readily available editions. Today, colleagues in economics find my emphasis on pluralism and competition fairly obvious, while many sociologists of religion continue to believe that I am obviously wrong–that competition harms religion and that I have been misled by inappropriate analogies with capitalism. Of course, the great majority of social scientists pay no attention to such peripheral matters, being secure in their knowledge that religion is doomed and soon must vanish.

Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity, 2011, HarperOne, HarperCollins paperback edition 2012, page 367.

Here is an online source for Smith’s Wealth of Nations:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html#V.1.195

It seems to me, Islam is quite capable of working itself out and peacefully meeting the needs of its adherents without conflict against other faiths. However, governments (Kings and tyrants in some cases) meddle. Governments in Islamic communities are pushing and skewing, and even funding and enabling radicals who support the preferred views.

Our nation, our government, needs to get out and leave the people alone.

If our nation can work with the rest of the world to free religion from government completely, at all levels, I’m confident all faiths can fulfill the need we have.

Fundamentally, government is the problem. Ronaldus Maximus was correct.

We need to address the correct problem.

The civil authority and the religious authority need to be completely separate, and the civil authority needs to be limited, strictly limited.

Militant German atheist Karl T. Griesinger complained in 1852 that the separation of church and state in America fueled religious efforts: “Clergymen in America [are] like other businessmen; they must meet competition build up a trade…. Now it is clear…why attendance is more common here than anywhere else in the world.”

That, of course, is Rodney Stark in The Triumph of Christianity.

You want better schools? Separation of school and state!

Write your representatives and request adding “and education” to the first amendment of the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Petition your government to get out of schools altogether, especially the federal government. We need our states to reduce dependence on federal money and gradually outlaw federal involvement in any aspect of education within the state.

Our churches, as a whole, inclusive of the plurality, are the best and most successful in the world. Religion is one of our fundamental needs, and we are very successful with it precisely because the government is totally hands off. Education will be likewise if we get the government out of it.

Don’t most of us think our neighbor, our coworker, our friend needs a bit more, a bit deeper religion, a bit more lofty goals? Isn’t, “Aim a little higher,” some of the best advice each of us has received from someone we respect when we stooped a bit low; when we chose to be less than our best?

Of course.

How do we help that neighbor, that coworker, that friend? We don’t run to the government, that is for sure.

We do our best, we live our best in the areas where government is least involved.

Let’s get the government out of our schools.

Mr. Gornoski has hit it.

I add my agreement. I add CS Lewis:

“When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you’ll not talk about the joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

Faces. We all have one, and only one, even if we try to present more than one. The gods, our God, only knows the one face. Each of us must present our truest face as truly as we are able, and we must each consider the face of our neighbor, be it black, or any other color. Be it gay, addicted, prostituted, abused, rich, powerful, humble or proud, we must face each other openly and equally.

We must speak in truth. We must try to understand. Sure, we need tolerance to ensure we only bounce, that we don’t break, but we need so much more. We must try to understand, and we must walk in love in the understanding.

——————————

Who among you will carry out the next act of violence against your nonviolent neighbor? We cannot hide behind the veil of the voting or jury booth. Face to face, we must make our choice.

Source: Law Has Become the Anonymous Violence of the Crowd | Foundation for Economic Education

My comments on Rodney Stark’s Triumph of Christianity are what strikes me, and not an effort to be thorough.

Constantine’s combining of Church authority with State power was a mistake. It has hurt society and humanity.

Constantine was tolerant and cooperative with the pagans and other religions, yet he was intolerant of dissent within Christianity from Christian orthodoxy. His objection to dissent, and his application of state power against it was probably mostly trying to keep a strong unity, probably largely motivated by political ambition and avoidance of schism, which tends to lead to strife. (I don’t think Constantine was power-mad. I think he was sincere, but perhaps suffering from some noble-cause-corruption.)

I suppose Constantine was generally traditional.

That would mean that he expected people to honor their traditions whether they were different from his or not. It seems the Roman distaste for Christianity from the beginning was rooted in an expectation of following tradition and honoring the beliefs and gods of one’s family and heritage. Conversion to Christianity thwarted that. Conversion to Christianity abandoned one’s religious heritage. Traditionalists are likely to be incensed by such a change. Gradual change over generations was one thing. The dramatic conversion to Christ alone was seen as extreme, extremist, and antisocial.

For Constantine, with his Christian mother, Helena, he probably did not see his own conversion as abandoning his heritage and tradition. However, he probably respected such traditionalism among the pagans and other religions. He probably also tended to judge individuals by the content of their character, their abilities, and their political loyalty. He apparently continued always to honor and promote people around him without regard for their religious beliefs. He probably only considered whether or not they were reliable, and consistent behavior with regard to one’s beliefs, whether Christian or other, was evidence of conviction and reliability.

Regarding Constantine’s conversion, I suspect he was raised consistent with general Roman pagan tradition and beliefs. He probably had significant influence from his mother with regard to Christianity, but as a likely ruler of Rome, Roman religious practice was probably his own before conversion.

If one runs the numbers, given reasonable and plausible mathematical models (as Stark does in the book), one realizes that the Christians, who had been feared as potentially adverse political opponents, were at least a large minority, and probably already a majority, especially in the aristocracy. Constantine probably was mostly an opportunist. He saw the trend of increasing Christian unity and population proportion, and he decided it was time to embrace his mother’s faith. I think he was sincere, but I am nearly certain he saw only advantages for himself politically. Emperors were often assassinated by troops or guards. Applying Christian ethics in his administration and military leadership was very likely to improve his chances of staying in good graces with his subordinates and bodyguards.

I close this comment by reiterating that I consider the use of state power with any regard to religion a mistake and inherently wrong.

I received a flyer from Ms. Mena Samara for Oklahoma County Clerk.

There are no primary races for the Democratic or Libertarian primaries this summer.

The Republicans have two besides Ms. Samara. Ms. Linda Amick Dodson, and Mr. Rick Warren.

Two of those names were just voted on a couple of months ago. The clerk position came open, and we had a special election. Ms. Dodson is in the Oklahoma County Clerk’s office, and she ran a good race. Mr. Warren edged her out though, and then he won the general (special) election for the abbreviated term. So, he is up again, and he has the two challengers.

To be clear, I enthusiastically support the right to ignore the voting booth. If you don’t want to vote, okay. If you want to go and leave a given block blank, I support you. That is our right just as much as to cast the ballot. Either way, we are free. Frankly, in the system as it is now, not voting is probably more important than voting. Either way, I hope you have looked into it and made an informed decision. I encourage all to evaluate the choices available and decide, then act. I hope you don’t just muddle through and find yourself in the ballot booth with no idea what you are looking at, or waking up Wednesday morning realizing you just hadn’t bothered. Life in general, and voting in particular, is worth some effort. Think it through and decide and act.

Mr. Warren has the following description of the Clerk office on his page.

The Oklahoma County Court Clerk presides over the largest, and busiest, Court Clerk’s office in the state. Approximately 120,000 new court cases are filed in Oklahoma County annually, more than any other state, local or federal court in Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma County Court Clerk’s primary duty is to record and maintain court records filed in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. From the inception of the office until 2002, records were maintained almost entirely in paper form. That year, the first ever document imaging process began, with approximately one-third of the county’s case files being electronically recorded. The large majority of records kept by the Court Clerk are open for public inspection.

Another important duty of the Oklahoma County Court Clerk is to collect and account for all funds deposited in connection with court proceedings. The Oklahoma County Court Clerk’s office annually receives more than $60 million in criminal fines, court costs, bond forfeitures, child support and other such payments. Fiscal oversight of Court Clerk funds is provided by the Supreme Court, the State Treasurer, the State Auditor, the County Treasurer, by internal audit staff and the dozens of government entities to which the Court Clerk transmits funding.

Other services provided by the Oklahoma County Court Clerk’s office include passport processing; marriage licenses; and licensing of private process servers and low point beer providers.

It is a significant public position.

I’m glad we seem to have three well qualified candidates.

Mr. Warren gives some sound files worth hearing. He’s only been in office long enough to get started, but I can’t find complaints. So far, so good.

Ms. Dodson certainly has the experience, and she seems to have the mindset and attention to detail that would keep her successful in the position.

Interesting news note on Ms. Samara’s current occupation at the link.

My hope for the county, our courts and all the county offices, is that we simplify.

From the 120,000 cases per year information above, that is 10,000 per month, which works out at over 460 cases per day (work days). That is practically a case a minute. Really?

Do we need to have so much going in our county that legally requires government involvement?

That doesn’t even count the city or the fed. It is all such a waste.

At least we can pretend we are free when we consider voting, right?

We need less government. We need fewer laws. We need much less regulation.

I wonder if I can get one or more of these candidates to commit to such reductions?

The wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oklahoma is brief, but it includes details that should lower the heads of all Oklahomans. We aren’t like that in most regards, but we didn’t always do so well.

One key fact is the state was run by democrats since the beginning. The leaders of Scott Inman’s party ran this state, and they buggered it up pretty bad in over a century. Scott Inman is minority leader in the Oklahoma state house, and he is term-limited after this next election. Public records indicate he has in the neighborhood of a quarter-million in his war chest. Jason Sansone filed to run against Inman, but his funds available will probably be a tenth of Inman’s. Money is unlikely to be a deciding factor, but if it comes to it, I’m sure the state Democrat party would back their leader.

Inman is nearly certain to fill the 12-year max, and he will probably run for statewide office in 2018. His name is being dropped already as the likely Democratic nominee for Governor. Radio hosts even talk that way when interviewing Joe Dorman, last round’s governor candidate, and Dorman has expressed his intention to run again.

I’m not sure what I think of Dorman, overall, but he shoots straight. He is also in favor of drug legalization, but you might have noticed I’ve concluded the war on drugs failed; it was mostly racist anyway, more a war on the poor than anything else. So, I favor drug legalization too. The system is broke. There are no viable alternatives to a fix other than legalizing it and working the new problems from that. Those new problems can’t be worse than the mess we have now.

Inman is a solid guy. Not much negative can be said about him, except that he is a politician, and his party seems to come before anything else in his public presentation. The only real complaint I have of him is he is one of them. One of the politicians that thinks politics can fix things, and if you only give him and his party the power to do it, they will fix everything.

Of course, there is that truism that power corrupts.

Sadly, nearly all politicians are like that. They think they just need a little more power, one more law, a little more revenue to spend, and everything will get better.

Of course, it won’t.

It so happens that the government and politics cannot fix the problem because the government and politics are the problem. Power and authority, authoritarianism, cause nearly all the problems that most of us deal with throughout our lives, at least all those problems we can’t actually do something about on our own.

My main point in my writing here is that Scott Inman keeps saying the problem is those Rs. He keeps saying if the Ds were in charge everything would be better. I see a lot of comments on his Facebook page that indicate many people agree with him.

I point out that the Ds had well over a century to set things wrong in Oklahoma, and they set them wrong in a lot of ways. The Rs have had scarcely 10% of that time to try to set things right. Sadly, they have made a poor show of it, but one can hardly pass judgement so soon.

Still, a good way to gain headlines is to blame the opposition and loudly spin anything and everything they are doing wrong. Representative Inman has been very good at that a few times, so much so that I was embarrassed to admit I live in House District 94. (Not because of the failings of the Rs, but because of the lack of responsibility in the words of my representative.)

I’m sure he will pivot to positive in just about two years, but for now, negative gets headlines.

I almost supported him for a while, several months ago. The Rs were making quite a mess of things, and it just seemed reasonable to support the opposition. I reached out, especially when he seemed offended at some of my comments in social-media. I was hoping for some push for compromise and reason. All I got was finger pointing. It has only gotten worse.

I have no plans regarding writing more about politics. Maybe more, maybe not. I’ll probably write if I do much digging and come to any conclusions. I mostly write to see what I think. I have no illusions of persuading anyone to my views. Life just isn’t like that. Emotionalism, rhetoric, polemic, sensationalism, and the like can push mobs and sway crowds, but sound reason never wins the day. Sound reason is rarely even accepted as such, must less accepted as persuasive.

I’ve become disillusioned and cynical with regard to politics and government on the whole. Such are the past, and the past is dead. Sadly, before the powers that be actually expire, there will be suffering and death. The Gods of the copybook headings, with terror and slaughter return!

I do pray that it will be less severe than the global conflagrations of war of the twentieth century. Perhaps the pains will birth a new sense of brotherhood and respect for the person, each individual. Perhaps we will begin to see that each is invaluable beyond our mortal concerns.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/10/james-coleman-leonard-sax-and-age-segregation

Anybody else noticed this article since October? Anybody heard of the Coleman Report, low these five decades?

No, well most research that can be called sound shows at least as bad. Doing school the way we do it is bad. It is counterproductive to civil society. It isn’t politics, it is our rearing of children via state-run institution in segregated, isolated groups. Such groups are certainly not safe, but it is from internal danger, not the dangers foisted on us by the whole of nature.

It is said you can’t fix stupid. Yes, you can. The key is limiting shelter from consequences. The system of schools shelters children from external danger and intensifies the internals. It is truly dangerous.

It is inexcusable once we consider government control, authoritarianism, and coercion. We must stop it. Stop schooling the way we do it. It is bad for us all.

Government schools and coercion to participate are the root of our education and societal problems. Outlaw truancy laws. That is the start. While we force children into schools at gunpoint, we cannot hope to fix any of it. It is a certain path to societal suicide.

Add this:

https://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/Issues/E/HeadStart_Feb_3_2010.asp

The research is out there. Formal academics before about 8 years old harms many kids. Sure, structured play and organized activities can have benefits, when applied in moderation, but that is not the objective of the reformers.

Mostly, they want more money and more control.

Mostly, they have delivered failure after failure.

When will we recognize that nearly everything the left leaning education establishment and institutions have tried to do for several decades now has been recycled and disguised implementations of all the same. When will we recognize that it is a failure?

First, get rid of all truancy laws. I favor adding “and education” to the First Amendment, right next to “religion”. Would to God our schools were doing only as well as our religious institutions and houses of worship.

We cannot hope to improve education; we cannot hope to improve the foundation of society, until we stop coercing everyone into the same scholastic mold. If we stop that, then we need to back off the offerings, and especially back off the funding.

Money is not a significant part of the problems we have in education. Freedom is, specifically the lack there of. Standards are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Commonality, mimicry, lack of innovation, and conformity are all parts of the problem. Testing is part of the problem, especially when it is coerced.

Coercion is evil. Stop the coercion, and we can begin to rectify the problems of education.

Of course, parents are the key, as Dr. Bauerlein points out in the link at the top.

I recently saw a quote, and now I cannot find to attribute. So, I acknowledge an outside source for the inspiration, but it seems clear to me that where parenting fails, no other effort, especially no government institution, can make up for it. Parents, you are responsible. Take your responsibility and give it full good-faith effort. You know you love your children; just remember to show it.

Voddie Baucham reminds us that we are silly when we send our children to Caesar and expect them to be something more than debauched Romans.

The best and the worst of our legislators are all Caesar. All of them. We cannot trust them with any aspect of our children, especially education.

For the sake of redundancy, it is not about the money!

Terry Scott Taylor panegyrized the stark harshness of our times when, with Daniel Amos, he had a father explain that for some of us, our lot in life is steel rain.

Larry Norman pointed out years before that life was filled with guns and war, and everyone got trampled on the floor.

He went on to point out:

the politicians all make speeches
while the news men all take note
and they exaggerate the issues
as they shove them down our throats
is it really up to them
whether this country sinks or floats
well i wonder who would lead us
if none of us would vote

and your money says in God we trust
but it’s against the law to pray in school
you say we beat the russians to the moon
and i say you starved your children to do it
you say all men are equal all men are brothers
then why are the rich more equal than others
don’t ask me for the answer i’ve only got one
that a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son

Government is the greatest threat we still face.

%d bloggers like this: