surgical strike: roe v. wade overturns self
By using past progressive tense, perhaps I am getting a bit ahead of the state of the art in artificial wombs. But then, if you doubt man-made wombs will be a reality in the not so distant future, you really need to read this story out of Popular Science.
There is a lot of grist for discussion in there.
If you have read Roe v. Wade, the implications of an artificial womb should be obvious. Science appears poised to send this jurisprudential non-sense the way of Plessy v. Ferguson.
The Curmudgeon’s Digest version is that Roe linked the government’s constitutional limits to the “viability” of the baby whose life a mother seeks to terminate. When the inevitable day comes that artificial wombs are a reality, Roe itself will no longer be viable on its own reasoning. Or at least not viable in the sense of “protecting” a women’s access to abortion.
So whether you want to limit abortion or make it freely accessible, it will all come back to the definition of life. Unfortunately, the abortion rights advocates do not embrace this essential discussion. Heck, based on my sampling here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, nobody really likes to talk about it but me.
Since talking to myself is an ordinary thing in my world, I shall not be dissuaded.
That failure is not an option will certainly not impede America’s avarice for ignoring difficult questions. Why should this issue be any different than education, budget deficits or illegal immigration? Why should I expect that Americans give it the same attention that we give steroids in baseball or Brad Pitt’s latest conquest?
If it is important, we simply do not deal with it.
But then I like to think that the readership here is well above average and willing to tackle hard questions. So there it is again: what is life? Or even a better question: what is a definition of life that will be a working solution for our pluralistic society. We don’t have to answer this. But if we don’t, we’ll have to take what the politicians give us.
And that possibility is frightens me more than even the Patriot Act.
78 Comments:
Yoshi,
So how are the bagels in Prague?
I’m not saying necessarily that I think our national consensus must settle on life beginning at conception-I think it should, but that was another post. What I am saying is that we are all just blowing smoke until we come to an agreement on a reasonable definition.
The attractive thing about the life begins at conception rule, as a legal matter, is that it is a bright line test. But as you say, any act that prevents implantation could be considered murder or homicide and I would not have that be the case.
I suppose this whole post is pretty lame: I am beating an old horse for sure. But it amazes me for all of people’s frothing on the subject of abortion, nobody seems to be willing to posit a legal test for life. The pro-life crowd, including myself, gets really worked up about the tragic loss of life, but notice that there is nobody tackling the question. The pro-choice crowd gets all worked up about women’s rights over her own body, but the only question that needs an answer, nobody touches.
And the reason is that people are clouded by politics. Politics often eviscerates the mind’s ability to deal honestly with questions of national policy. We get so wrapped up in the agendas, we have trouble stepping outside the boxes the politicians have built for us to think inside.
I get sick and tired of all the lame and stupid rhetoric about the issue being unsolvable. There is obvious middle ground and it is only politics that prevents us from achieving it. It is time to take the blinders off and see how we are being duped in this power game.
The people we keep electing for are the beneficiaries of our artificial adversarial condition. Real progress on the most important issues before us is impossible as long as we are so constrained. Nothing illustrates this better than this particular issue because of all things you can think of, it should be a very apolitical discussion. But you can see even here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon how corrupted we have become.
Of course all of you Democrats and Republicans can feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.
Yoshi: “The problem wïth the whole life begins at conception stuff is you could in theory put people on trial for manslaughter when a fertilized egg doesn't attach to a uterus.”
No, because that is an act outside of anyone’s control. However, actively going inside the uterus and cutting, vacuuming, piercing and evacuating the cell WITH THE PURPOSE of killing it is different. If your grandmother dies through no action of others at age 90, there is no manslaughter. Enter someone wielding a weapon and that changes.
Twenty years ago I researched abortion in depth. I was pro-abortion, after all I received my instruction from government school and the media like 60 Minutes , and I knew they were not biased. My pastor had the gall to preach on abortion. Being a liberal Methodist church he received major flak for taking a stand. When I heard the sermon, I thought “how dare he make some of the statements he did.” Since I did not have an answer to when life began, when should the fetus be protected, I went on an all out search for answers to satisfy myself and put my pastor in his place.
I consumed vast quantities of information and propaganda from both sides. I had no idea there were 9 different ways to kill a fetus. Probably more today. D&C, D&X, saline abortion, there is even a C-section abortion which doesn’t make sense. The baby is extracted alive, just like a normal C-section, only instead the baby is placed in a pale on the floor rather than the table for the nurses to tend to. I had pictures of all the abortion techniques. I’ve gutted deer, antelope, and elk, skinned squirrels, eviscerated (dressed) chickens, pheasant, dove, geese - non of this prepared me for the graphic photos of abortion. I went to retrieve them so that I could referrence the material for this note to you. Couldn’t find them. Just remember that I hid them when my children came along so that they wouldn’t stumble across them by accident. Too graphic. Unbelievable. And there are doctors that do it everyday.
The greatest proponents in the pro-life community today were once nurses and doctors in the abortion industry. The atmosphere of hiding the fetus’ baby-ness from the abortion seeker, the daily confrontation of being exposed to dead human bodies, little arms, legs, entrails, heads - it builds on them. The self-denial or self-deception can only span so far. The incredible profits of abortion can only justify so much. Then that God created conscious that we all have either goes completely and you could murder a person in cold blood and have no feeling, or it over comes them and they jump ship.
My research altered my position on abortion dramatically. I took no prisoners on letting others influence me. I made every point prove itself. When is viability, says who, and why does it matter? When does life begin, says who, and why does it matter? I’ll never be the same. I’m rabid pro-life at this point because I have seen both sides. One side is a side that is immersed in deception. They want to hide the ultrasound image of the baby from the abortion seeking patient. Once the baby is extracted, they want to hide the evacuated contents so that you wont see any human like parts. They want to hide the emotional results you should expect after having abortions (like you start wondering what day IT would have been born, would IT have been a boy or girl, what would you have named IT, anniversary issues of IT’s birthday, did IT go to heaven, Mother’s day and Christmas/holiday issues, am I a murderer...) They want to hide your actions from you parents if you are a minor under your parents care. An industry of deception.
The other side is for openness. Let the young women know that it is not a “pink blob,” but a developing fetus. Show illustrations of development or sonograms of the baby. Get parental notification. Don’t react on a whim or be forced by a boy friend, but wait and think about it a mere 24 hours before you do it. All about openness, being informed, not reacting on an emotional level. Yet the pro-aborts battle EVERY attempt to guarantee a minimal level of information being provided to the abortion seeking woman. Deception is their game. And boy is it profitable.
Do not fear the fertilized egg. Given that you can suck the brains out of an infant that looks exactly like any premie baby you’ve ever seen because it still has the last joint of its little toe still in the birth canal, there is no current danger of fertilized egg manslaughter. The pendulum of baby slaughter has swung so far to the left, that it has almost reached outside of the womb, and I have read of persons that think that it should. God help this generation.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Well said my friend.
Sorry Tony, the right question is this:
At what point in life should human rights be protected by the government?
Few seriously deny that "life" begins at conception, but is the zygote, blastocyst, embryo deserving of gov't protection?
Even more lacking -- what, exactly, should that protection consist of?
Great professor points; alludes to the above.
Requiring pictures to be taken, and saved in the clinic: and the woman to sign for the disposal of the remnants might be one way to reduce abortions.
More support for adoption, especially for mothers giving their children up, might be another.
"Child support" taxes on the father of aborted fetuses might be yet another -- one pro-choice women might even accept.
Tom,
Well, we will have to disagree. I do not agree that “[f]ew seriously deny that ‘life’ begins at conception.”
Now I think we could agree that most people are pretty confused about the question. Or if not confused, they just do not have an answer.
And while I understand your couching the question in terms of trying to define a legal question, I think that misses the mark. The legal question you describe has been settled by Roe, Quinlin and a few other cases. Obviously this legal answer has not worked for society as a whole: the possibility of overturning it is a big element in the political corruption of our judiciary.
My premise is then that if we as a society cannot come up with an answer that leaves everyone at least quasi-satisfied with the compromise, the legal solution will never work.
I think Yoshi is on the track I’m on…if its growing, its alive. But if you read that story I linked you can see what an important biological event that implantation in the womb is. I would tie protection to that event. That leaves wiggle room that I’m not entirely happy with in a moral and ethical sense, but I think it makes a lot of sense legally.
Whew. The silence of the abortion rights crowd is deafening. Though it is dangerous to make deductions based on the absence of something, I there is much to be learned from the silence. I’ve been broaching this on message boards for about ten years and it is always the same. Then if you prod them too hard, their answer is something like they just don’t want to discuss it with us zealot types.
At first, I was reluctant to draw conclusions from the silence. But ten years hence, there it is. I’m willing to share my speculation on conclusions, but I’d rather not color other opinions.
And BTW, while you would not know it from the amount of comments, this blog thread is one of the best read here in quite a while. People are checking in to see what others are saying…they just aren’t venturing out with their own statements.
Tony,
The picture at the Popular Science web site is interesting. A clear womb. I don’t know if that is wishful thinking, but this could be the window to the womb Pro-Lifers wished existed to prove to the Pro-Deathers that the baby doesn’t remain amoeba-like for 8 months and 29 days, then transform into a human like creature as it descends the birth canal. Not only legal arguments because of an artificial womb, but, with a clear womb, an open door into development.
Abortion discussion aside, this would introduce multitudes of questions that your previous post Chimerical Reactions alluded to. Who owns the womb? Who is responsible for operating the womb? Not being human, which needs nutrition itself, this womb would have to be baby sat either by machine or man, making sure a constant source of nutrition and oxygen were present. Would it be available for individual use? Let your Sci-Fi nightmares run wild. You could practically raise a crop of humans, which, given current examples, would be a royal waste of time.
Prof. Ricardo
PS Been reading that economic series. I’m halfway through with the one on law, Whatever Happened to Justice? Great book. I wish you could read it. It has given me insight into law and history and the desire to abandon all current political parties. A veritable Curmudgeon disciple. :-)
Common Good,
I think that is your most accurate and insightful comment to date.
It really all comes down to religion. If you believe life is a gift from god, then you logically could come to the conclusion that a human should have no say in defining when "rights begin" in our society. You also logically come to the conclusion that life is sacred... i.e. the sanctity of life claim. Take religion out of it, and you are left with humans making their society laws based on human decisions and compromise.
EXACTLY! With Common or natural law, a higher law, your “rights” are guaranteed regardless of how despotic or idiotic the current government or consensus of society. With civil or political law (made up law) you don’t have liberty, you have permission. Your permission to do anything continues until a law is passed that withdraws that permission. Thus the Bill of Rights becomes the Bill of Permissions, that remain until enlightened society alters, redefines, or changes the list of permissions.
We either codify religion into our laws, or we do not. I vote ... NOT.
Actually, laws descended from common religious morals. It is the current trend to divorce laws from any religious morals or natural law so that the current laws are arbitrary and not inherently just. That is why a ridiculous number of laws, law suits, and injustices are happening at all levels of government. If the Bureaucrats in Washington pass a law forbidding abortion, what is that to you? According to your professed respect for political law, a majority of elected officials passing laws for the betterment of society, such a law could only be respected by someone such as yourself. After all, their goal is your betterment. How could you argue with that?
Prof. Ricardo
P.S. Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason agreed with the Greek philosopher Plutarch who said, “To follow God and obey reason is the same thing.”
CG,
First let me observe that you added zero to the discussion of what is life. I suppose that not having an opinion on one of the most pressing issues of our day comes with the territory of not having a worldview.
I do think the number of people who think that life begins at conception is anywhere close to 99% But rather than just speculate on my opinion, I decided to go find some data. Here are a couple of things I found and which support the notion of something around half of all people agree with the conception demarcation.
from a pro-life organization
from the usual polling suspects
You said, ”We don't all agree that life equates to human rights in our society.” With this statement, I totally agree. It is clear that we have very little respect for life in this country. It shows up in every aspect of our lives not the least of which is how we treat each other on the streets of our cities.
You continue, ”I'm not sure why you think the other side would be influenced by the definition of viability or the beginning of life?” Well, I don’t think people such as yourself that do not believe that human rights are intrinsic as a result of our humanness would be influenced by a nice clear definition of life. I actually think yours is a more reasonable position than most, however misguided and wrong headed I consider the moral foundation. It is totally consistent to say that rights are purely a product of our laws and we can fix the rules as we see fit for the exigencies of the moment.
In my view, with no data to support it, is that most people in America would in fact tie the notion of permissible abortion and what is life. But it is noteworthy that in one poll, 24% said that abortion should be allowed at any time and for any reason. I just do not think that most people would say, “this is a living human being, and it is OK for a parent to kill it on whatever their own reasoning might be”.
I find it most amusing that you continue to misapprehend my views on things and suggest, “It really all comes down to religion.”. Hey, if that is your view of my opinion, you are entitled to it. I for one am fully in command of my senses and quite capable of discerning my articles of faith and articles of material understanding. I sure it is of great comfort to many in the abortion rights camp to simply waive their hand and say, oh, that’s just the God Squad. Never mind them.
It probably is very disturbing to think that there is a legitimate rational argument that asserts that abortion is wrong.
Now after that, you made some very sweeping conclusions about what is logical to believe if you “take religion out of it”. I think that everything you said is a logical conclusion of that worldview. But I have also known a few atheists who came down every bit as strong on human rights as I do. I will not do it justice in a sentence, but it goes something like: if this world and life is all we have, then we have to make the most of it. I have from birth to death to be, and so I must make the most of it. Since this is all there is, life is precious in their view and deserving of protection above all else.
So your assertion that this is all about religion clearly doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Next you say, “Everyone under our current laws has the right to decide pregnancy issues for themselves. If some believe this condemns others to hell... that's their right.” Just to be clear, I do not believe abortion condemns people in any way. If an individual understands the nature and quality of the act, then at most this would be murder. Murders have full access to heaven through redemption in Jesus Christ. The abortionist is no more under condemnation for their actions than am I.
And while viability may have no impact on you, the interesting thing is that it is the law. So we know that at some uncertain date in the future, with no change in the law, abortion will again be fully within the government’s power to regulate.
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
Prof,
Indeed, I think the artificial womb opens up a ton of interesting bioethics questions. I purposely avoided comment on those earlier. The easy one to spot is the destruction of fetuses in the process of developing the artificial womb.
How about this one, you contract to have your baby grown in the artificial womb and you don’t have the money to make all the payments. Or what if the womb operator experiences an electrical outage and all the babies dies. What if the electrical outage was caused by poor workmanship or human error…how fall would manslaughter prosecution follow down the chain of error?
On doing away with parties.
I think that I’m really not so far off the mark with my view there. People love to beat me up over the point, and if that makes them feel better, then I’m happy to provide that service to humanity. But I think serious study reveals that there is no viewpoint that is truly served by what we have going on. Wherever you are on the spectrum of ideas, this process should offend you.
I can see pulling the party lever if you are an extremist on either side because at least you are voting for a good approximation of you stated policy ideas. But even the extremists are not served and end up getting mad when the party does nothing constructive for their causes.
I really enjoyed hearing James Dobson’s outrage on the radio a few weeks ago over being abandoned by Frist on the embryonic stem cell stuff. I enjoyed it only because I do like seeing people who jump on political bandwagons get shafted by their heroes. It is very comic in a society-is-doomed sense of the word comic.
The same people getting all lathered up about this stuff are the same ones who would tell you how unpatriotic and un-American I am for not participating in the mess. Ah well.
Saurav,
Hey, half of all fetuses are male.
That would be evacuation without representation.
Randy,
Awesome quote.
CG,
You fairly (and correctly in my view) admonish us to not confuse religion with morals. But I would ask you were morals come from? What is the standard that society should use to judge moral behavior?
Randy,
I was thinking about saying something about that. I think .xxx is a very good idea. Better to have a virtual red light district than to have the whole virtual city overran with crap.
Of course it would only be a limited help…from a marketing standpoint, they will still want to Spam and otherwise invade the rest of the net. But I do think it would be a positive step.
CG,
You might think I’m baiting you here, but I am not. Simply exploring your outlook.
You say we do not need a standard for morality and that all society needs is shared agreement which will be implemented as law. I think you and I would agree on how law should be developed in a free society.
But it strikes me that there are many things in this world that I think you (and I am speaking to you as an individual) would consider immoral that are not illegal. For instance, not providing for the faultless poor in our society. Clearly, it is legal for you and I to let a widow starve. I think it is equally clear that you and I would agree that this is immoral of us both as individuals and collectively as a society.
My question to you is what is the basis on which you would declare this immoral. Now I understand you would seek to impose a legal obligation to provide for the starving widow, but that isn’t what we as a society have agreed to.
You say you that your moral sense comes from various inputs, but do you never question those moral inputs? Of course you question them…I know you to be a thoughtful person no matter how you might appear here. So the question remains, what standard do you use to judge those inputs. If I knew your parents, I might be able to give an example. Hypothetically, lets say your parents were bigots and you reject that view as immoral. What is the basis on which you reject that? How do you pick and choose? Is it a utilitarian standard? You certainly seem to use utilitarian analysis a lot. And this isn’t baiting, but if you answer in utilitarian ways, I’ll probably try to hold you accountable for that…but then, I believe we have trod that path together before.
Let me say it a different way. You are very willing to call various viewpoints as immoral. I’m trying to understand how you tell the difference.
Tony,
C.G.: “I don't think there is a standard or a need for one. I make judgements with my mind and my conscience... i.e. my ability to reason and my personal definition of right and wrong.”
This, sadly, is the state we are in in this country. There is not the recognition of a systematic way of determining right or wrong.
“Law is just a compromise and agreement between us in society on issues/morals that we deem important enough to include in law.”
Law becomes arbitrary, random, unreliable because it can change at a whim or emotional response. A lynching is “right” because a majority of white hooded individuals voted to hang the black man. Majority rules. Majority decides rules, laws. The laws of the whim are not reasonable, just, or stable enough to build an economy, guarantee liberty, or plan your future around. People live for the present. People lash out in anger because of injustice, Laws based upon “personal definition of right and wrong” and not a standard of right and wrong all of us can agree on. People file lawsuits, not to seek justice, but to exact punishment on another. A general sense of injustice builds in a society built on this random political law. We end up building laws upon laws, upon laws, often contradicting themselves because they are not based on logic or reason but personal feelings and compromise, political goals and meddling, all enforceable with the strong arm of government.
There is one way to stop this massive stampede of imbecilic lobotomized lemmings storming toward the cliffs...and it’s with education. But those who wish to continue the statist, random law relativism, that leads to injustice and idiotic laws of every sort on the books, they have a firm grip on the education of the vast majority of our children. And we willingly hand over the young impressionable minds to the state to “educate.” And then we make the institution so sacred that the mention of stepping outside the “government must educate children” box is tantamount to patriotic heresy & apostasy or worse.
“The most important political question: Who teaches the children?” - Plato
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good,
If you were to poll all religions, non religious, all societies, and all times, you would find an agreement to the following two laws.
Do all you have agreed to do.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
Ans#1: Their constitution ought to create a weak government that cannot encroach upon their citizens. Their laws ought to extend from and respect these two main laws above. Liberty to pursue their own enjoyment not encroaching on others out to be a goal that will limit multitudes of unnecessary laws and guarantee the felicity of all three factions.
Ans#2: None. See Ans#1.
Ans#3: W/o specifics I can’t answer.
As a side note, a “compromise to make law” need not be relativism. The anti-gun crowd has accepted many incremental restrictions upon firearms even though they seek to ban all guns. That is not relativism. It is a strategy of incrementalism.
Relativism is not a compromise to achieve an end result. Relativism compromises the end result based upon (relative to) other factors. For instance: we say that human life is valuable and thou shalt not murder. Cool. Relativism says: What if its not quality life? Of if its inconvenient life? If so, trump value of life with “other factors.”
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good,
“thall shalt not kill.... just war. It would seem the standard has a bit of relativism in it.”
Tricky, but not too tricky for the astute. :-) I said “murder,” not “kill.” Murder has a definition, so does kill. They are not the same. But you knew that. Be that as it may, the unjust killing of others in war is tantamount to murder. Thus, there may be inconsistencies of logic or relativism in allowing that. Thus Mr. Good is astute as well. What a pair we make! :-)
“Question: are Christians who do not take scripture as literal "moral relativist"?”
Interesting question. They could be immature Christians. They could be so immersed in the worlds worldview of things that they haven’t, or won’t, take the Scriptures for the breathed words of God. Often there is a sin in ones life, delicious or addictive and entrenched though it may be, that one flattly refused to deal with or even denies. It is much easier to “alagorize” or in some way say God didn’t mean what he said. I don’t think this is per se “moral relativism.” With regard to scripture, moral relativism might be seen where one knows stealing is wrong, but since I lost my job, the kids are hungry, my employer was a @#$%, then that justifies a retaliation of taking the office laptop or some such deed. Its stealing. The circumstances didn’t change the definition.
“btw... maybe I should nail this down for sure. When Tony and Prof refers to an existing moral standard to measure against... I assumed you guys meant the bible. Correct or confirm please.”
Not necessarily, although that is my preference. If I walk up and slap you, unless you’re really strange, you won’t like that and will feel wronged? Why? So you think anyone in any time would think that permissible? Of course not. There is a common thread across time, geography, and religions, of what all persons recognize as just and acceptable activity. We recognize that life itself is not the gift of kings and governments. It is the gift of our Creator. Sometimes in society we forfeit it by murdering others, but it is sacred and reaches beyond Government. A system of laws respecting life, property, and rights to the betterment of man, securing his happiness and health, is a law based on these natural rights of man. The world is evidence to the fact that place where Natural Law is respected and guides men, people are happier, freer, healthier, and mor prosperous. People under political or civil law are much less free, prosperous, or healthy. It just so happens that my Christianity (TaDa!) Is very compatible with Natural Law.
Question: If people are so untrustworthy to be responsible for themselves, why then is it reasonable to put them into positions of responsibility over other’s lives given that power corrupts and government is nothing but a self serving entity that exercises power over others?
Prof. Ricardo
Well, I was trying to sit back and just listen to the discussion, but CG sucked me back in when he said, ”I think if you 1) throw around the charge of moral relativism .. and 2) your moral standard is the bible ... THEN you have to call Christians who don't take the scripture as literal as moral relativists.”
That statement doesn’t pass the smell test.
First, I don’t know if I am a literalist or not because I think that the idea of it is based on a faulty premise. Its just like the concept of “strict construction”: it doesn’t really exist except in small minds that are comforted by simple platitudes. Not that I’m calling people who claim the Bible as “literally true” to be small minded, but rather they don’t understand what they are saying.
My point is that there are many parts of the Bible that clearly are not meant to be literal. The easy ones are the parables of Jesus. Also pretty easy is to understand is God’s anthropomorphism in his self-description. Just because I do not believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree does not mean I do not believe the truth that the story carries.
But back to relativism. Relativism just means you have a standard that doesn’t change. CG seems to be suggesting that it means something more. The sixth commandment seems pretty clear to me. Hard to see any relativism in there.
CG,
Um, dude…there is a big difference between the 6th Amendment and the 6th Commandment.
CG,
My only absolute standard of morality is the Bible. When have I ever waffled on that?
A just war is what it is: just. It is self defense. Fundamentally different acts.
Randy,
I think that people who are literalists often have a problem with those who don’t care for the word literal because they are trying to avoid tough topics. There is this erroneous mindset that thinks that if you do not believe that God “spoke” creation into existence, then somehow you do not really believe the Bible and its Truth. Or that if you aren’t attached to Bishop Usser’s timeline, somehow you faith is deficient. I totally believe that God created the universe, I’m just not certain that I understand how an omnipotent God does that.
So let me ask you, when God spoke the world into existence, does that mean his vocal cords vibrated and moved air? If so, does that mean you believe that prior to creation there must have been at least an atmosphere of some kind in which God produced this physical phenomenon? Or perhaps you believe Heaven itself has an atmosphere…but then, does not the Bible also say that God created the Heavens?
Yoshi: “I like how God made the night and day, and THEN he made the sun.”
Revelation 22:5
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.
John 8:12
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world;...”
God didn’t NEED a light. His Word is quite consistent and rational. You just have to be familiar with it.
Welcome back.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
Ah, I clearly mistyped. I meant to say Absolutism means you have a standard that does not change.
Tony,
I’ve just finished reading my fifth book in the course study I have set aside for my son’s economics class. What an education I am getting. This happens to homeschool parents a lot. To educate you must learn. We now learn readily because we want to know the material. Learning is actually enjoyable when it is not forced upon you. Wouldn’t it be great if we learned like this the first time around? That’s the way it was prior to forced governmental controlled schooling.
Based upon the last two economics books I’ve read, I am now no longer a conservative. I abandon that position and label without reservation.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Yes, education in America is amazingly messed up. I have learned a few things lately that just amaze even this jaded old Curmudgeon.
At the root of all my constant griping about education is the fact that we have managed to squeeze all the fun out of it. And not just for the students, for the teachers as well. Teaching should be fun and satisfying for pupil and teacher. This is one of the significant reasons that public education as it is conceived today is doomed to fail.
A perfect example is history. How many people do you meet who think History is fun? It is because we have allowed it to be taught so poorly that we drain out all the good stuff in a poor exchange for a few names and dates. Put things in context and the subject is vibrant. My six year old loves history because the professionals have not corrupted the subject for him. It takes an eclectic approach, but it is amazing to behold.
No longer a conservative eh? Does this mean you are dumping Monetarism?
Tony: “No longer a conservative eh? Does this mean you are dumping Monetarism?”
Not at all. I’m still clinging to the Austrian economic models. What I am dumping is statism. Which coincidentally aligns me dangerously close to you on a few areas where we have differed. Quite disturbing actually. :-D
Congratulate me on 23 years of matrimony as of tomorrow.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
My hearty congratulations to you. I must also send condolences to Mrs. Professor. A stalwart women she must be!
My wife and I celebrated our 21st year of matrimonial bliss last week. Geeze, I don’t think either of us look that old in print. :-D
I would definitely concur that finding yourself aligning with an old Curmudgeon like me should be disturbing. But I have to ask, in what way did you consider yourself a Statist? I just don’t see that in your makeup at all…I must be missing something. Now the Austrian school seems very Prof-ish to me. I have a good deal of Hayek coursing through me.
CG,
Yeah, my neck is swelling up a bit. That is OK. It is still my favorite subject.
First, Prof is the all-private all-the-time guy…not me. I am for Federal Funding for privately run schools.
#1: There are lots of great teachers in the public schools. Those teachers would be in very high demand as you shifted to a more competitive environment. In my view, poor teachers is only a part of the problem. Teachers that are unmotivated and beaten down by the system is a bigger problem than poor quality up front.
#2: You keep trying to spin my position as somehow favoring the rich areas over the poor. Why you do that, I have no idea. I think you listen to too much Democratic spin. The truth is that Federally funded vouchers would be far more egalitarian than any other funding model I’ve ever heard described. The poor parts of town would be virtually flush with educational dollars like they never have been before. As I have repeatedly described, and as you have repeatedly ignored, this is one of the two primary reasons I support vouchers: giving poor kids a shot.
#3: I would make education federally funded and subject to federal standards.
#4: This is the other primary reason I support vouchers: enabling bold creativity in the area of learning. Actually creating an environment where the good ideas gain preference to the bad. Creating the possibility that certain niches can be served in creative ways that have never been tried or perhaps even envisioned in the crappy world we have today.
Programs such as charter schools have been enormously successful in spite of the fact that typically they have to operate on a shoe-string compared to traditional state funded schools. Listen not to me, but to what parents in poor areas are saying. They are craving change. The kids deserve change.
Here is where we desperately need to put the genius of the free market to work. Every kid deserves a chance to achieve their full potential. Every kid deserves a shot even if they came out bad in the parent draw. Every kid deserves the chance even if their Dad was injured in an industrial accident and Mom can’t afford the tuition payments for a quality special needs program. Or more typically, Mom and Dad can’t afford to live in the rich districts where decent special needs programs are available at the public schools.
The free market is unequaled at the process of iterative improvement because it unleashes creativity more thoroughly than central control ever will.
Yoshi,
Just do not lose track of the fact that we do not live in a purely capitalistic society. There are limits here on the entrepreneurial spirit. For instance, becoming a wholesaler of mushroom confections might run afoul of certain laws that you might not wish to run afoul of. :-D
Yoshi,
Yes, I have heard of the Black Market. Fortunately, that was outlawed at the end of our civil war.
And if you are going to make a fortune, please cut me in. You need my help I can tell because you are thinking about *small* fortunes…I’m a big thinker you see.
Common Good
Ans#1: Of course. Whatever the market decides. The teachers are not the problem. The are the #2 victim. Kids being #1.
Ans#2: It is that simple. As you know, we homeschool. We usually spend about $500/year max. For BOTH of our children. Many people do it cheaper. You can spend to your hearts content. With private schools the range is already wide. Pre-huge Federal government and even to this day private individuals, businesses, and organizations organized Free libraries, free schools, free food to the poor, free clothing and household goods. Many organizations are willing to subsidize, give scholarships - the sky is the limit. YOU could sponsor a childs education by requiring that his books and supplies backpack had your Common Good Inc. Logo on the back. Utterly limitless. Throw in reduced real estate and sales taxes and the average person could have his child educated privately, for less, and receive more.
Ans#3: Neither? Why empower government to corrupt the private sector and destroy its effectiveness? You have believed the predominant misunderstanding that the world will fall apart if bureaucrats were not holding it together. That if someone, as misguided as the rest of us in his privately life, were given the power that corrupts (a government position), he all of a sudden develops this compassion and wisdom and benevolence to care for the other misguided helpless human population not privileged enough to be a politician.
Ans#4:
Privately, yes. But you must understand, the goal of governmental school is not to educate the children. That was the original excuse for the government getting involved. It is the facade to stifle parental disappointment. It is not the real goal. Any government, governmental program or division implemented grants power and privilege to the governmental entity. Its number one goal once the door is open is survival of the entity. Its second goal is like it - expansion. Its third is to give the appearance of meeting its initial “stated” objectives so as not to endanger goals #1 & #2.
(T)he best possible global US school system would be federal,... AND become that creative experience Prof and Tony wants.
Nope. The physical world has characteristics that cannot be ignored. Gravity. Mass. Energy. Laws of nature we have to deal with. A law of nature is that power corrupts, government corrupts. I know you don’t want to hear that, but can any government in history stand as an example otherwise? Do not the politicians expose each others failings? Did not even conservative heros such as Reagon disappoint conservatives by having larger government, spending, and deficits at the end of their tenure? It corrupts. Some more than others, but necessarily all - EVEN if you have the best intentions for the common good when you go in there. The Fed. schools can have the best of intentions, but they will force a given number of children into one room. They are forced to teach at a given speed even though the bell shaped curve of learning abilities exists in that room. They are forced to teach from a perspective - somebodies perspective, and maybe not your perspective - your child history, literature, other language arts, biology, etc. They are forced to label your child “gifted,” average, or “learning disabled.” A label that may follow them and affect teachers views of them throughout their schooling experience. They are happy to tax the snot out of us whether we have children, whether they do a good job, even if I incur education expenses on my own homeschooling my children, I must foot the bill for others. What is your recourse if they teach from a perspective that to you is tantamount to brainwashing and an utter waste of time? Private schooling potentially solves everyone of those issues.
I really don't see how the best local-private-only product could match the best federal-standardized-constantly improving product.
#1 Its not currently improving, its going the other way. Every president is the “Education President” for a reason. Each one implements another waste like “no child left behind.”
#2 Universities & employers seek out privately educated individuals because they do not have to be taught remedial Math and English before beginning their normal college curriculum or job.
The Private only has financial incentive to get it right, do its best. The government has a captive audience, a pay-us-or-go-to-jail income stream, which is nearly no incentive to do better. AND its not the teachers fault. 99% of them consider this a ministry of helping children (and a great retirement plan). The administrators, hierarchy, school board, and other bureaucratic involvement restrict teachers from using any curriculum, methods, etc. other than what is “approved.” So wholeword/looksay reading and other abominations are the tools the teachers must endure. The product is not improving.
Show me a way that government will not corrupt. Show me a way that incentive to produce well educated children, responding to individual needs, where incremental improvements are implemented when monitored, discovered, and proven, can exists. Show me how it has incentive to economize, stretch a dollar, cut a cost. Any business out there will lower its cost given an opportunity. Government wont. Once it gets approval for a given tax hike, why go backwards? ZERO incentive not to waste YOUR education tax dollars. Private all the way.
Prof... 23 years... good run. :)
Thanks!
Prof. Ricardo
Tony, But I have to ask, in what way did you consider yourself a Statist? I just don’t see that in your makeup at all…I must be missing something.
Liberalism believes in using the state to tax and control businesses, redistribution, restrict firearm usage, etc., but they demand freedom for social issues like abortion, sexual conduct, drugs. Conservative believe in the opposite - economic freedom, but for using the state for immorality or social concerns. Because we live in today, I am using today’s definition of each term. The people see a problem today and they immediately say: “there ought to be a law against that.” I have caught myself saying that on occasion. Each side, liberals and conservatives, want to use the force of government to rectify situations.
I have had the conservative ideology of using government in the “war on drugs,” prostitution, and possibly some others. I am moving to a position away from that and to juris naturalists. It’s the social issues I am abandoning the position of using government force on, because of my mistrust of government. I am not abandoning the morals behind those social issues, only the governments role in them. Therein lies my deviation from prior positisons.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, in that sense I was once a Statist as well. It sounds like you are coming along the Curmudgeon path nicely :-D
The truth is that most people do not believe in Freedom. Oh, they want to be free to do what they personally want to do, but they don’t want that same freedom for anyone whose ideas are substantially different to be free. The funny thing about it is that everybody says they believe in freedom but they don’t think it through. The best example I can think of is my buddy CG and his intransigence in seeing the intrusion on civil liberties which is our public education system. This blindness knows no ideological bounds. Its almost funny to watch when you get it figured out.
But like you, mistrust of government is what got me there. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was the Clinton era budget battles. The GOP totally abandoned their fiscal conservatism for pure partisan advantage. It was if the scales fell off my eyes. Of course I had already moved to a point where I was at odds with the GOP on civil liberties. I had collected information from the Republican Liberty Caucus and such. But then I saw what a crock it all was with clarity and may break was complete.
CG,
OK. I will never question your questioning of my motives again. :-D
I started to elaborate on what I meant by Federal standards before but since I had discussed that in the past, I opted to keep the post shorter. But what I mean is definitely not Federal command and control. I would be with Prof on that. It would be a mess.
What I do think we should have is standards that are enforced through testing. Conceptually, this is one of the few things Shrub has right. It would be enforced through funding: you couldn’t redeem the Federal vouchers unless you schools were meeting testing standards. This is the only control I would have whatsoever other than perhaps an open admissions policy for schools imposing academic standards for admission.
You asked, ” convince me how we can take on this complex task beyond adhoc do your own thing.” Frankly, I do not wish to do it. For whatever reason, you can not seem to think outside that centralization box.
For the record, I think centralization can work adequately for middle class kids who fit the traditional social model. But the reality is that our biggest problems are kids that are poor and in one parent families. Kids that do not value education. Kids that are lost for one reason or another. The problems of these kinds of kids are often very local in nature. The problems of the inner city black youth in Philadelphia are much different than the Hispanic child in South Dallas. It is in serving these diverse needs that adhoc creativity is essential.
But laying that aside and just looking at it philosophically, you have to realize that centralization inherently stifles creativity. The best ideas seldom survive the winnowing process. This is the genius of the market. Often the best idea doesn’t survive, but a good one does. And certainly ideas that would never see the light of day get a shot. I’m thinking eBay here: who would’ve thunk it? A central body making decisions would’ve never picked that one to try. It took a visionary with a new idea.
This is exactly what I’m saying we need in education.
If you want proof that the poor kids would not be left behind in a voucher system, you need to look no further than the Texas Charter schools. These schools are funded at levels well below the regular public schools on a dollars per pupil basis…probably even lower than a voucher program would fund them. With only one exception that I know of in the Dallas area, all of the charters are in the poor parts of town and cater to the economically disadvantaged. They are going gang-busters and the academic results are excellent thus far.
The cool thing about charters is that they are all different. They take radically different approaches to education and they are accountable through testing. They are having success with kids that would’ve fallen through the cracks otherwise. The tragedy is that well meaning people insist that expanding these opportunities for our neediest kids isn’t fair in their view. That is exactly what vouchers would do: make the diverse set of possibilities open to every child, not just those lucky enough to be pulled out of the hat in a lottery. And yes, that is how you get into charter schools today: you apply and are selected by lottery.
Regardless, the Texas charter schools prove that the poorest kids would not be left behind. The charter schools can locate where they want and yet they have chose to go into areas where the demand would be highest: poor neighborhoods. Similar creativity and hope would be unleashed in copious quantities if we would just collectively quit buying the crap that the politicians are peddling.
CG,
Well, I never said you have not given civil liberties and education thought. I said that your own though patterns kept you from seeing the imposition on civil rights. I know you don’t agree with my assessment, but I also know that other people reading here see my point clearly.
You said, ”How a person of your aptitude sitting at the 20+ year mark in software development doesn't recognize education as a similar complex enterprise requiring standards is a mystery.”
Perhaps it might be that after years of private tutoring and now a few years of being a parent, I can see more clearly than you what education is and is not? I don’t really know why I have such a different view. You seem bright enough most of the time.
The truth is that you can not standardize education at early grade levels. The equation is too complex to solve with a handful of answers. Every kid learns differently, albeit not entirely differently-there are distinct groups where generalization of possible. But there are emotional differences and social development differences that prevent one size fits all approaches. Particularly in elementary education, personality differences between students and teachers can have extraordinary impacts on the way kids learn and how well they learn.
But what I fail to understand of your position is how you are so insistent that introducing market forces into education will automatically lead to horribly left behind kids. Please spell that out because it borders on irrational in my view. From where I sit, it looks like the kid in South Dallas with a $6,000 voucher will be just as appealing a market as the one in Plano. You are actually positing that greedy capitalists aren’t going to want anything to do with the vouchers in the hands of poor kids. And this in spite of the evidence that the charter schools have chosen to go into exactly those kinds of areas.
Frankly, the concrete evidence points to the exact opposite. The rich kids already have pretty good schools. There are some very good public schools such as Plano. I think the demand for alternative education is far higher in the poorer communities and that interest will draw the greedy capitalists like communists are drawn to Birkenstocks. You stand common sense on its head and suggest that greedy capitalists are going fly away from a new market for reasons you don’t explain.
And of course there is the important side point that government vouchers are wealth redistribution…not exactly a pure market I’m advocating here to put it mildly.
CG,
It occurs to me that perhaps we are having semantics problems again. Exactly what do you mean by standardization?
But your post about Halliburton is the most troubling. Why would vouchers automatically lead to a monopoly? I certainly would be opposed to that. And I am certainly concerned in general about monopolistic and oligopolistic practices being on the increase in America. But truly education seems to be a very hard market to imagine consolidation as being inevitable. Unless of course you give the government a monopoly.
Honestly, I think you have given up on the market completely. And if you have zero confidence in the market on this subject, how can you have confidence in the market ever?
But let me go a step farther your direction for the purpose of discussion. I would not be fundamentally opposed to regulatory limits on private schools that except public vouchers along the lines of a single company only being allowed to operate a certain number of schools. Would that help you out any?
Yoshi,
Well the ongoing discussion is over how to fix things. Prof supports totally ending all public involvement. I’m for public funding with a full-blown Federal voucher program and testing performance standards. CG wants to Federalize things and develop teaching standards. Oh, and CG is also on the record saying he doesn’t think that the public schools are really that bad.
So where would the substitute teacher fall out on this?
CG,
Well, we have a lot of questions for each other don’t we?
You said, I think it is rather stupid to view the market as a fair arbiter for common good needs like education and healthcare. We ya know, I’ve never disagreed with you on this for education. What I’m suggesting is definitely not a pure market solution. There is a huge difference between putting vouchers into the hands of ALL kids, and just cutting everyone loose to fend for themselves. I also happen to understand that with any major overhaul there is going to be transition time.
You speak of “plugging in capitalism” but at the same time said that we are so far apart that it isn’t worth discussing. I want to put the power to choose schools into the hands of parents. Use competitive pressure to improve existing schools and more importantly, create new solutions quickly. It is also well documented that this is exactly what working poor parents want.
Clearly I do not want Prof’s vision because I understand that needy kids would not get an education in that world. I want the poor kids to have the same shot as my own.
The reason we have ended up with Haliburton is obvious: paid political favor. Could that happen in education? Of course it could. But there are other vested interests that can get in the way if the government runs it. You still have teachers and contractors that are committed to the status quo. You don’t think patronage is possible because it is public?
And as I said, we can wrap other limits around it so that no one player gets too large of a piece. I think we already have a monopoly which is the root of the problem: the public has government mandated protected market. They have no incentive to get better and guess what? They won’t.
And back to my point…barring government corruption leading to monopoly, education is inherently decentralized and not amenable to the economies of scale that lend to monopoly in commercial situations. I take it you must be assuming that government corruption will make monopoly inevitable? And if so, why should I trust the government with kids to begin with?
Yoshi,
As much as it pains me to say it, Shrub’s education ideas are not all bad. That said, it is all an illusion. Like every other issue, we are prisoners to politics. There have been some small improvements as a result of Shrub’s education initiative but it all seems like way too little, way too late. If we are to succeed as a society, we need radical fixes right now.
I agree that the problem is social and not schools. That said, it is hard to fix bad parents. The best we can do is to fix bad schools and try to offset. These rampant social problems are exactly what make the creativity so important.
The Professor received inconsistent signals from YOSHI when he said:
“I wouldn't send anyone I cared about to public school. It's purpose: Give parents and 8-hour break so that they can work....As for as education? I don't know how much of that goes on...”
AND...
“Well, I think ending ALL public involvement is a bad idea. No one would get educated.”
People can learn anywhere. At home, private school, government schools, even prisons and concentration camps. Learning does not happen when you connect a bottom to a desk, it happens when you engage your brain. I can open a book about car maintenance and show you theory, charts, graphs, and pretty pictures. OR we can go outside in the driveway and get dirty doing hands-on learning. Much of classroom is removed from reality, and many abstract ideas are necessarily taught in a classroom setting. Learning happens best when the learner (student) wants to know the information. The near concentration camp style government encampments around neighborhoods apparently did not impress you with their learning environment. Ask yourself why. Another question to ask yourself is: What do you really need to know in this artificial environment known as school? Do you think kindergartners won’t learn from home what a fireman and fire truck are? Do you really think they wont want to learn to count when they want to purchase something with their own money that they earned? Learning is a beautiful thing and I hope each of you are still reading and learning every day. But the most perverted way to learn is to, under threat of punishment, be herded into a room with age segregated persons, who must learn, not what is appealing, useful, and relevant, but what some educrate created as a scope & sequence allocation for your age. Then, if per chance the subject actually were interesting, rather than saturating yourself in the subject like you would in the voluntary real world, your interest is cut off by a bell. Each movement, each subject, each attention span, ruled by the bell. How natural.
There is a compromise in education when you gather many people into one room. But if you invited anyone to voluntarily participate, even pay for the privilege, each room would be full of eager learners. (Ex, college.) Make it mandatory and segregate on age alone and the compromises become great indeed.
I know you are trying to reconcile the desire to have public education work when you stated that w/o public education “No one would get educated.” However, much was learned in the world and particularly this country outside of the public school system. And even the first 50 years of that resembled any private school because the classroom was full of various age individuals and the teachers reported directly to the parents. Now the teachers report to the bureaucracy. In fact, given the quality (Ex. “mass stupids”) of public school education, one could argue that public education is the single most powerful force in this country restricting education.
However, to my amazement, the near worship of this cancerous institution defies all bounds of reason. I can only surmise a laziness of desire to truly investigate the institution and its destruction on education. And then those, for instance you and Tony, are willing to feed the cancerous growth rather than eradicate it. On such a cutting edge blog as this that tackles many intellectual topics, If I am the only one that sees the common component in all government school failures IS government, then I have little hope that any real change is forth coming in the next 20 years. BTW, I do not stand alone in my feeling that government is at fault. Whenever there is a failure, the NEA and Teachers blame lack of participation of parents.
“Unfortunately, most parents have to work.”
Oh great. Now I feel better. They didn’t learn anything because it really is K-12 daycare. Besides parents are way too busy to have to be bothered with children. Maybe they should have thought about that before having them. Fact is, with both parents working, one parent is supporting the family and one is supporting the government. Government is the proverbial “another mouth to feed at the table.” But hey, we like being entitled by our government with so many programs. Why not daycare up until we are willing to hand them an M16 to go fight a war?
“If we take Prof's idea, well, we ought to just give up and start learning Chinese and Hindi right now (Prof, is these languages in your home-school program?).”
Yoshi, Yoshi, Yoshi. It is “are these,” not “is these.” :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
I really don’t think your characterization of my view as my being “willing to feed the cancerous growth rather than eradicate it” to be entirely accurate.
First, if I have left the impression that eradication of public schools in their present form is not something I desire, then please forgive my poor communication skills. Of course I have a good excuse: I was educated in public schools myself. But I’m persevering and God willing I will overcome these linguistic deficiencies yet.
You and CG seem to make a similar error here, albeit in mirror images. CG thinks that if I don’t want the government running the schools, then somehow I want to abandon kids to naked market forces and let the chips fall where they may. You seem to feel like if there is any government funding involved, I am happy to let the kids languish in the public educational squalor that they are forced into today.
Listen, I do not want to feed the cancer at all. And if the argument is that the best thing that could happen to kids in the short run is to eliminate public schools entirely, I’ll entertain that thought. Public education is such a mess that I think it is a reasonable thing to discuss.
But what I *want* education to be is a different matter. What I want is for there to be quality education available for all kids whether they did well on the parent lotto or not. What this means is an inevitable wealth transfer. Indeed, it has always been so since public schools were created. Stories abound from earlier generations about the kind who was raised in a dysfunctional home, but through school and often church was able to turn the corner and crawl out of the bad circumstances of life.
So what I envision is public funding of private education. Not the CG Communist Utopia. Not the Prof Libertarian natural state. In my view, once the parents have a genuine voice in their kids education, things would begin to change in a hurry. I do not think the public schools would last very long and it is for this reason I would phase vouchers in, but it would be a fast phase-in over a couple of years. Time is of the essence but I think an adjustment phase would be unavoidable.
And lest I be accused of not addressing it, I also would support public funding of programs that support homeschool kids. I do not see a distinction if that is the course that a parent chooses to take.
A personal note that is somewhat relevant.
Since my Son’s education has been a topic of private correspondence between those of us here, I thought I would update you all on what is happening with him. I think it is relevant and it has reinforced my thinking about public education.
A quick background about Joshua for anyone unfamiliar with him. We have been blessed with a very bright boy who also had some early developmental issues. We have been through a lot with him trying to get him the very best help we can and he has done very well. But, he is still somewhat over active yet he is improving steadily and today is within the bounds of normal on the behavior front, though still socially very awkward.
The complication is that he is a very bright boy. He was reading at age 2, and at age six, he has started doing some basic algebra and has a science aptitude that is simply amazing. This weekend he was analyzing the relative strength of gravity and electromagnetism and doing so all on his own initiative while his Mom and I just sit there and listen in amazement. I say this not so much out of bragging-though like any good parent I love to brag-but because it is important for where we are with his schooling. The bottom line is that anyone who has been around him considers him very exceptional.
So finding a good classroom for him has been tough. We have been wrestling with home schooling as an option because it is the one way we can be sure he is academically challenged. The issue is that children with the type of social interaction skills that Joshua has really need the social setting to help them acquire social skills. Some great professionals who are very pro-homeschooling have advised us that it is a mistake for Joshua to not be in a classroom.
The problem is that even most private schools try to cram kids into behavior boxes that not all kids will fit in to. The few programs that we have found that would work for Joshua in the short run are way too expensive for us to afford. The programs that we can afford and provide the environment that Joshua needs are not sufficiently academically challenging. And while it sounds good that you can just supplement with work at home, the reality is that kids are like adults and only have so much energy to expend.
We had resigned ourselves to a private school which we could afford where he went to Kindergarten. Truthfully, we love the school except that we knew it would not challenge him. And with his issues, if he is not challenged, “good” behavior may difficult for him over time. Good is in quotes because there is an aspect to these kids that I just can’t get across in a short description, but the bottom line is that he really is trying to comply, it just gets very difficult. And Joshua isn’t alone-this is a pretty typical behavior profile seen in gifted children.
So, we had him tested for the gifted program at the public school. Now, the criteria they use is such that it is pretty obvious that Joshua is at the level they require. But public schools being what they are, they have to have “objective” data to support a gifted program admission. Well, he tested low and the tester said he had trouble attending to the test. They retested him, and the second time they said he did well enough except that his writing skills were not as advanced as his other skills, so they could not recommend him for the gifted program. (Duh, we never have taught him to write…though he can if prodded. And by the way, we started teaching him to write the next day and he is already writing brief stories independently.)
So, we send him to the private school as planned. But the very day he starts school, the gifted program gives me a call. By this time, I feel like I know the lady and she said that she felt like we were making a mistake because Joshua will get in the gifted program if we put him into the system. That she is confident that with further evaluation, they can get him into the program, but in order to have a shot at it, we have to drop him into a regular public school classroom. Otherwise, legally they can do nothing further.
Now this lady I am convinced is one of those truly awesome people in the public schools. She dripped with genuine concern and compassion over the situation. But she has a job and has to follow the rules. Mom and Dad were torn, but we feel like Joshua’s best shot of having a “normal” classroom situation is to get him into the gifted program because we can not afford the private schools that might work for him. We are going to give the public school a chance and if they don’t get him into the program quickly, we will jump ship and homeschool for a while until we can develop Plan C.
The frustrating part is that here is a professional that knows the right thing to do, parents that have been appropriate advocates for their kid, but everyone involved is fettered by socialist utopian notions of what kids need to be. If your kid doesn’t cram into this size box, you have issues. And if you have been reading the studies lately, there are an increasing number of kids that don’t cram into the box both on the gifted end and on the learning disability end.
Anyway, this was probably boring to you. None of it has really changed my view on things-only reinforced what was already painfully obvious to me. Vouchers or not, my Son will do very well. His parents will see to that. But how much better world would it be if it were only about the best interests of the kids and not about political agendas and social engineering?
Oh, and if you are curious, what lessons my Son in learning during his foray into the public classroom? Well, they are working on “B” words. God help us that we aren’t stunting him forever…
Wow. Where to begin?
CG,
You think I’m calling you a commie again. Really, I just think many of your ideas are more consistent with that view than what you claim to believe. Clearly there are all shades of ideology along the spectrum.
I don’t really think you are confused, but you sounded it when you said, ”I would never have said all kids fit in a box. I would have said MOST kids would fit into a well constructed flexible box, and that's the way it has to be.” Yes, that is the typical socialist kind of analysis. Screw everyone outside the first standard deviation. And let me be clear here, I think in academic terms, the ones above the first sd tend to do quite nicely because of their talents. They are mere screwed in a relative sense.
The ones that get it in the shorts the worst are the ones in the bottom. But there is another class that gets very little attention. That is the class of kids that massively underachieve because of the notion that in order for education to work, “most kids [need to] fit into a box”. This group may not even be a minority from my observation. We are learning much more about the brain in recent years and guess what, while there are broad classes of learning style, there is far more variation than what anyone imagined in an earlier age.
There are kids that need a lot of one-on-one attention and kids who do well in larger groups. There are kids who are abstract, and those who are concrete. There are kids that desperately need the confines of a desk, and others that need more liberty. Kids that need colorful vibrant classrooms, and those that need plain beige walls and quiet. The truth is that this same variation exists in adults, but adults have had 21+ years to adapt. Those that adapt tend to be doctors and lawyers, those that don’t are drug addicts and computer programmers.
The thing is there is a lot of knowledge out there and most kids can be more successful than the current system allows. But I have never seen a shred of evidence that more systematic approaches are the best and I say this without even broaching the complication of poverty and the unique and arguable more complex situations that presents.
But the gem of your post was when you said, ”I still don't think it's even close to a moral argument to shut down the public school system because I think a majority are satisfied with it. A minority railing against it is not a good enough reason to take it away from a majority.” An interesting comment from someone who has taken up the phrase “mass stupids” with such enthusiasm. I’m tempted to lay that out in detail, but I’ll just say you are being a bit inconsistent in not recognizing that stupid people might not realize that they are being underserved.
Doug,
Welcome to our world.
Lest I appear in sincere, let me point out that I am the one who coined the phrase “mass stupids” in earlier posts about education.
I have long been in favor of term limits for Federal offices of all kinds. More critical in the legislature than the judiciary in my view, but I’ll take term limits across the board. And you can see we totally agree on the organizing principal of leaving political questions to the legislature. Having judges set social policy is like hiring a straight guy to do interior decorating.
Yoshi,
Without radical change in our educational system we are doomed to lose our status in this world as it is. You are dangerously close to my argument in this regard, and agreeing with me should give anyone pause for reconsideration.
Yoshi: Somehow we have to make a kid "want to learn."
Kids, in fact everybody, already does want to learn. The school system bores and controls them into mediocrity. It is the control necessary for mass education that causes the damage. How many people do you know that loved to read or some other intellectual pursuit until a “teacher” or peers shamed them into hating the subject? Have you ever heard of blacks ostracizing other blacks for trying too hard in school and acting too “white?” The herd mentality, public school culture mentality, can often esteem worldly wisdom over intellectual improvement. Can you see that happening anywhere in society outside of Pub-Ed and prison?
If you have not done so, please read John Gatto’s essay The 7 Lesson Schoolteacher.
I'm willing to consider the idea of privatised school system. What's the worst that can happen? We'd just lose our superpower status, that's all.
Actually, we would probably regain it. We have already lost what made America great. We are riding the final ripples of a system too brilliant, too unfamiliar, for public educated children to understand. We are probably past the point of no return. We are like any other nation at this point having no discernment over what makes a nation great and what does not. We don’t even know what liberty is and how to secure it. We have taken the brilliant lessons learned and intellectual achievements of our founders, spit in their face, stomped on their work, and pursed the worlds ways that have enslaved people to despotic governments for millennium. Our freedom, our desirability as a nation, so that people would strap together anything that would float and launch into oceans against all odds to come here, was not achieved by promising entitlements, but by crippling the national and state governments so that they could not encroach on the individual.
Seriously, my only concern with privatisation is I know that the Chinese and Indians are teaching their kids much better, with public money, and I'm apprehensive about letting them pass us up. Otherwise, in a vacuum, an isolated world, I'm much more interested in privatisation ideas.
Read ANYTHING the founders of our nation wrote themselves. Impressive, deep, and tough to comprehend because we are relatively very shallow. Read anything our last three Presidents have written and you will see a remarkable difference in depth, understanding of history, men, governments, etc. The former was privately educated, the later in the atmosphere and culture of public education.
I wish you could benefit from the extensive research I have done on public education. Alas, I am too stupid to properly convey such great wisdom and works of all that I have read. Please read The 7 Lesson Schoolteacher and tell me what you think.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
Well, you did go to a better school than I. Or at least through High School. I did clearly miss what you were saying. My only excuse was that it was late at night and I was extremely tired. I was having trouble getting to sleep because of the stuff going on with Joshua. We are having to get a bunch of stuff together quickly in order to get him considered for the gifted program…they just sprang this on us. I decided to get up and do a little posting…guess that was a mistake.
OK…on to your question everyone is ignoring. I do not so much believe that better educations will lead to more jobs as I believe that continued poor educations will lead to lack of jobs. But fundamentally if you look at the history of Western civilization, it is the societies which have been the best educated that have been the ones that have applied technology most effectively. The application of technology is the cause of the rise in material wealth which we enjoy today.
But there are certainly other factors in economic success. Prosperity does not automatically follow education and we should be mindful of those factors as well. Ask yourself where the United States and Europe would be in relative terms without the migration of great European minds that happened during the Second World War. I’m not saying that is the sole reason for the rise of the US to its superpower status, but it was a factor for sure.
But looking at the period of time immediately after the war you can see what a role that the education of the masses played in our success. Have you ever spent serious time talking with someone educated in the 1920s and 30s? In spite of the one room schools they came out far more capable to manning the institutions of our incredible national growth than what we moderns might reasonably expect based on their circumstances. What existed was an relatively educated populace simultaneous with substantial personal freedom and a burst of intellectual enterprise like has seldom been seen.
Did education cause that? No…there were many factors. But it would have never happened without the education that happened in those myriad one-room school houses.
And Doug…he is a newcomer here. I am just getting to know him as are you. He is not an alter ego. If I had an alter ego that I let post here, he would be very rude and obnoxious. It does sound like Doug and I think alike on some things though. So be nice and don't run him off. :-D
Yoshi said, ” That's how it has been since the first man walked the earth (he had to find some creative way to feed himself).”
And after five thousand years of civilization and the accumulation of generations of human culinary creativity, behold man’s highest achievement: the Ding Dong.
Common Good: Yeah, I have a hard time comprehending that slaves count 3/5th of a person.
In a country where slaves were imported, purchased, and used, they were obviously human “persons” but without freedom, the right to vote, etc. Some of the 13 colonies had a significant population of slaves. The question was a matter of representation in this new Federal government. Obviously, the states possessing many slaves wanted as much representation for their state as possible. In a most interesting turn of events, those having the most slaves had the greatest incentive to have the personage of slaves recognized. Those state possessing few slaves had the greatest incentive to NOT recognize the personage of slaves, with respect to their representation in the new government.
I wonder what YOU would have done in their place, in their time, in their culture with this problem of recognizing a legally owned slave. Care to elaborate?
I would probably understand that better if I was just privately schooled.
Of that I have no doubt. You see, we don’t have to tow the politically correct government point of view. We can study, not just text books, but the original writtings and documents of the era, so as to get the information direct rather than filtered through someone else’s POV.
I bet we could find some great writings from Jefferson about go black and you will never go back.
If you do not have Jefferson’s June 22, 1786, Observations on the Article Etats-Unis Prepared for the Encyclopedie from Observations on Déneunier’s Manuscript, let me know. I wish to send it to you or post it here. In this time many white people were becoming “indented servants” to afford passage to this country. “They were at liberty therefore to make an agreement with any person they chose to serve him such a length of time as they agreed on...” THIS is the culture they were in, and even this voluntary servitude bothered them.
I bet even the founders wrote some shallow stuff...
For certain personal items, maybe even trivial items, but I have seen no evidence of shallow or vulgar topics like someone our generation would entertain. I’m not saying you can’t find any sloths from their period of time, but we manufacture them by the classroom full these days.
Prof. Ricardo
I have a book on the Adams and Jefferson letters I haven't got to yet... I will look for outhouse humor.
If you want Jefferson’s quote on buggery, let me know.
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
–Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
ESSAYS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1872
Prof,
The seven lessons was intriguing if even somewhat cynical by my standards. Not that I really disagree with the substance as much as I do the tone. My favorite part was where it said, ”Professional teaching tends to another serious error: It makes things that are inherently easy to learn, like reading, writing, and arithmetic, seem difficult by insisting they be taught through pedagogical procedures.“
After having taught these basic skills to my Son I completely concur that basic skills are very easy to teach if you make the effort to teach it in a way the individual child is going to grasp. Flash cards and multiplication tables did not work with my Son. Probably the most difficult thing to teach has been writing, but frankly we haven’t worked as hard to make that interesting to him as other things. And once my wife started some approaches that are geared to appeal to what he loves, he has started picking it up very quickly. The key, as you pointed out, is creating the motivation and in young kids motivating factors are extremely diverse.
Tony:
The key to learning many things is to have a reason to learn it. How many times has an Algebra student said, “Where am I ever going to use this?” Not that I and my clan have a grip on teaching writing, but if your child has a reason to write, an incentive to write, then they become receptive.
A homeschool father relayed that his son was extremely bright, about age 14 or 15, was deep into programing, and had made a computer program that became quite popular. When the British government sought to purchase multiple copies, the boy went to his father and said he needed to learn how to respond (spelling, grammar, style) in a way that would not make him seem like he was ignorant or young, like he was. He had incentive.
Writing thank you’s to grandparents and birthday parts hosts and the like can be a great exercise. Writers, particularly historians and those who have “journaled,” teach the following generations and shape their perspective. My wife’s great (x 3 or 4) grandfather was a Captain in the War of Norther Aggression. He wrote many letters to his wife Penelope. We have those published in a hard back book. Excerpts of these letters are displayed along a historical walking trail in Virginia. One man’s letters have reached now well over 140 years into the future of his descendants, and provides a picture of the battles and daily life of a Confederate soldier. Hundreds of thousands of men fought. Only those surviving letters of those who wrote give us the eyewitness accounts to history.
Let your son see you write. He already thinks you’re Superman. In trying to be like Daddy, he will copy your love of writing.
http://www.mottmedia.com/spencer.html
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Thanks for the link. Spencer looks promising.
Now if by writing, you are suggesting that I let my child see my penmanship, I have to tell you that I hope he follows a better example. Now if you mean that I let him read Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, I think you are on target. Frankly, while it is important that he learn penmanship in the short run, I think I will choose to emphasize typing an language mastery. My wife got a Ph.D. and only prints in all capitals. That said, he has to get over the initial hump and I see no reason not to do one’s best at that while they are at it.
In point of fact, Joshua and I have started initial discussion for his own website. He wants to do a website on codes and how to make and decode them. I’ve told him that when he can write it out on paper, I will help him put up a website. It appears to be an incredible motivator because they boy is total ham like his father.
I’m teaching him algebra through his interest in science. He loves space stuff so I took him to fly a model rocket. That leads to ballistic trajectories and parabolas. He can now plot graphs of the form y=mx^2 + b. Amazing what they can absorb once the interest is peeked. We may not be following your homeschool example, but we certainly are the principals. But then as I’ve said, it isn’t so much that I disagree with you on homeschooling as I do genuine believe that in the short run, he has other needs that are more important than the academic ones.
Thanks for being someone who is actually interested in this subject. Usually when education comes up whether it has been on message boards or in private conversation, it pretty much kills the conversation. Seems most Americans think things are just fine and that I am a whacko.
Tony:
Actually I am suggesting that your son see you handwriting and typing now. But don’t rush him on his penmanship. His coordination and precision will improve with just a couple of short years.
The web site is a fantastic idea.
He wants to do a website on codes and how to make and decode them.
If you can present it in an acceptable manner, read Edgar Allen Poe’s The Gold Bug to him. It has some interesting decoding.
I’m teaching him algebra through his interest in science. He loves space stuff so I took him to fly a model rocket. That leads to ballistic trajectories and parabolas. He can now plot graphs of the form y=mx^2 + b. Amazing what they can absorb once the interest is peeked.
You have a brilliant child. Most children are capable of so much. That is my anger with public school. They stifle the geniuses of the world. We have seen a bumper sticker that says: “Every home is a school. What does yours teach?” Learning doesn’t have to stop when the child comes home. You can supplement whatever the school is doing.
...(I)t isn’t so much that I disagree with you on homeschooling as I do genuine believe that in the short run, he has other needs that are more important than the academic ones.
You’re the Dad. You know and will do what is best for your child.
Thanks for being someone who is actually interested in this subject.
It boggles my mind that people take little interest in their children till there is a problem later on like this:
65 out of 490 girls at school pregnant
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good,
Since you and I are miles apart in our perspectives on the use of the state (any level of gov’t.), may I use this arena to quiz you for my edification?
I fear the encroachment of the state into my life and the lives of my family and countrymen. I know you feel this way on social issues (ie., gov’t keep out of the bedroom, abortion clinic, etc.).
So that I do not put words into your mouth I will start from scratch:
1) Do you fear any encroachment from government?
- a) In what areas?
- b) How bad can it get?
- c) Why could it happen?
- d) How can you prevent it?
2) When you hear of past atrocities of government:
- a) Do you immediately attribute it to the individuals in charge or the system?
- b) Do you recognize different systems (Socialism, democracy, republics, etc.) as, by design, permitting encroachment and abuses?
- c) Do you recognize different philosophies (higher law than man [right to life is not given by gov’t] vs. man’s law [gov’t gives all rights & can take them away])?
3) When you hear me speak of “voluntary exchange” or free enterprise, or the invisible hand of Adam Smith, Do you intuitively place that into a box labeled “economic only decisions” or do you permit that concept to extend into non-economic areas of life like: what color car you want, shall I have an abortion, what state can I live in, etc.?
I don’t want to overwhelm you, but this is a good start.
Thanks. Take your time and ponder.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Not to be too negative on my Son’s penmanship, but if you say his Mom and Dad’s penmanship, you would understand why my expectations there aren’t as high as other areas.
But, your point is well taken. We have been letting him “dictate” stories to us for at least two years. He truly does get the connection with expressing himself. I’ve also been showing him how fast typing is. I’d call him intrigued at this point, but not enough to ask to learn.
Coolest thing happened last night. I worked late and our schedule got messed up. Usually I read to him at bed time, but his Mom and I were eating a late dinner so I suggested he watch a video till he fell asleep. I made some suggestions (he likes us to suggest things) and he said, “No Daddy. I want something that will make me smarter.”
Hard to know whether to laugh or leap for joy on that one. He ended up watching a Magic School Bus video. Then when I was putting it in, he told me that he scored “expert” on the Magic School Bus website quiz on space. Which is pretty stunning because he found it on his own and Mom and I didn’t help. We have only had an internet connection for a month…kids are just amazing.
While I agree that it is a shame that schools stifle the best and brightest, but I don’t think that is the greatest tragedy. The schools stifle just about everyone to some extent. They stifle people so thoroughly that they don’t even realize it. I’ve described before how my tutoring experiences in High School woke me up to this. It was just amazing how the obviously intelligent kids I worked with had never been taught the rudiments of how to think. And worse than that, they uniformly had absorbed the lesson, “I’m not good at [subject x]”. And to a student, they would all verbalize that belief.
One of the girls I worked with had a learning disability, but parents who cared a lot. In spite of her challenges, I was tutoring her in Algebra. Now she did not learn in a manor that any of us would call normal. I could tell her something and within a minute, she would have no recollection of what we had discussed. But I was patient and she was persistent. She got a B in Algebra. And I was told she graduated from High School with a decent position in her class. I have no doubt that though she was never a high achiever on book stuff, she far exceeded what she would’ve done had she languished at the hands of professional educators.
The point is, the system is producing underachieving at all levels of education. It is just most obvious in the cases of those that fall outside a couple of standard deviations. What we need is to push the entire bell curve higher. I am convinced that there would be a revolution that would exceed that of 1776-or any other the world has ever seen. We have the tools to do this today. That we do not, is inexcusable.
Common,
As editor I get to choose when to start quoting. :-) From the book Homosexuality And The Natural Law, by Harry V. Jaffa. Only Jefferson quotes are in bold.
------------
We find it incredible that the Student Deans Committee of the Claremont Colleges, which sees nothing repugnant in anal intercourse, nonetheless finds "disgusting" a protesting poster by dissenting students-a copy of which we attach. This poster only mirrored "Gay and Lesbian Awareness Days" by calling for "Bestiality and Incest Awareness Days." It may interest the Trustees to know that under the common law-as cited by Thomas Jefferson:
Buggery is twofold. (1) With mankind, (2) with beasts. Buggery is the genus, of which sodomy and bestiality are the species.
Why then, if sodomy and bestiality are but two species of the same genus, is it disgusting to increase "awareness" of the one but not of the other? That certainly was one of the points made by the poster. Jefferson, moreover, observed that of the two, bestiality is the less offensive, because "[b]estiality can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree. . . ."
What of incest? Homosexuality and incest have ever been condemned by civilized mankind, not only as sexually perverse, but as striking directly at the dignity and the integrity of the family. As such, they strike not only at sexual morality, but at all morality, because the family is the most fundamental of all human institutions in the moral instruction of mankind....
CG,
Freedom is defined in relation to protecting one’s individual sovereignty. In other words, if you voluntarily consent to give up a portion of your human rights in exchange for social benefits, I don’t view that as being legally less free. Though in absolute terms you may be constrained in your immediate actions, this was a willing bargain and a fair deal.
Now our human rights have been substantially abrogated illegally. I view this as being legally less free because when one’s rights are seized and the individual has not consented to the bargain. Just to be clear, I’ll state the obvious: when I speak of individual consent, consent is implied from the consent that is passed down through prior generations. I.e., the Constitutional ratification two hundred years ago is good consent for us today.
Or to turn this discussion around, if We the People consent to wire taps, then I do not think we are less legally free. But of course, the government has seized that power on its own accord. This illegal seizure makes us less free in both legal and absolute terms.
CG,
That is about the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. I can tell you this, if I had a kid headed to College and read that, Colgate would be off my list faster than you can say Cavity.
Sounds like to me that they want to charge big bucks but not be accountable to those folks paying a rather steep price tag. I’m betting a lot of businesses would be happy to get by with telling there customers to shut up and let us do our jobs.
Poor parenting and stupid consumers is just a part of the world. Sounds like some folks at Colgate need to grow up.
Common,
The residents of N’Orleans have been gambling for two hundred years. They just lost their shirt. There are consequences to actions and this was a near worse-case scenario. To live a risky life - tight rope walking w/o a net, promiscuity, living below the sea level next to the sea - one must take some personal responsibility. That being said, all individuals so compelled, and government relief organizations already created, should respond appropriately.
Prof. Ricardo
Re: New Orleans
That is a town with lots of character. I have a few memories of past vacations there. About half not good. Of course on the sight seeing tour we saw lots of historic “unique” places, but we also smelled poverty and uncleanness. One particular trip we stayed in a hotel a stone’s throw from Bourbon St. Forget sleep. That place was noisy into the late morning hours. Then there was the “mugging.” Actually, it was a fee for services rendered. I paid them not to beat the crap out of me and my wife. We were dressed in our finest, her in an evening dress and me in my best suit heading to Antones. I still wonder if my wife and I could have whooped ‘em. After all, we met in a karate class in college. Although not black belts, I had competition experience and my wife was still teaching karate. I’ve played that one over in my head. Yup, have some memories. Never been during Mardi Gras. Don’t like crowds that much. Crowds have too many people in them. :-) The news video of the devastation there is unbelievable. Neighborhoods are gone. A lot of businesses will have to start from scratch. Probably a few historic places are gone too. And they are still searching for survivors. It feels too much like our own Tsunami has hit. It will be years before I go back and I am sure it will look quite different.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
I quote thee quoting me: "must take some personal responsibility”
You don’t exactly come out and say you disagree with that statement, but your whole message points in that direction. Are we to assume that you take the position that people who “live a risky life” must NOT “take some personal responsibility” in their geographic choices? If I live in the arctic and I freeze my tail off, is that not a consequence of my decision?
My position that people should take SOME responsibility for their decisions should be reflected in attitude. Although I have been burning the midnight oil lately, when I do get home I can’t keep from watching the devastation on TV. And in doing so I see people angrily demanding that the government do something and do something NOW! They aren’t asking. They aren’t seeking compassion. The are demanding a RIGHT, an entitlement, if you will, to a rescue of Biblical proportions. [No matter how many rehearsals, they weren’t prepared for this.]
This attitude of entitlement is what justifies the looting in the looters mind. Looting is just further down the scale from the “entitlement of rescue” mentality. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME, I am not saying that they should not be rescued, helped, housed, fed, adopted into new areas, etc. I think the whole of the country should rush to their aid. But this FDR socialism entitlement and evolutionist “Ain’t my fault no how” attitude is showing its ugly head in the midst of this horrible disaster. People have acted with dignity before in the face of overwhelming destruction. The pathetic trash attitude of the looting thugs in New Orleans and their entitlement demanding brethren are making a horrible event worse. This entitlement mentality is where you fail to take some responsibility in your future.
Just heard this morning, in fact my wife called me on my drive to work to tell me, that idiots on the ground were shooting at the rescue helicopters trying to evacuate the stadium full of 20,000 people. Why? What idiocy drives that? An idiocy of entitlement that is not humble, not thankful, but asks “What took you so long?” An idiocy of a sense of injustice brought about by always looking to others for fault and responsibility, ie, not taking some responsibility for their decisions.
I am not saying that even most of the people in New Orleans are that way, but there is enough of them to severely taint their reputation in my mind, because it has been pervasive in nearly all of the interviewed individuals (and possibly infected resident bloggers? Nooooooo.). The survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attack were near heros, but tainted some became when they felt “entitled” to the welfare gift of $1.7 million avg. compensation for the death of their loved one. Post 10 years Oklahoma City bombing, these folks have had nothing but compassion from the nation. We stood in “solidarity” with them. After the 9/11 victim’s families received their welfare gift of millions, some of the OKC $urvivor$ $tarted $eeing what their NYC fellow victim$ received and they felt, (What class?) E.N.T.I.T.L.E.D. Did that make you feel better about the people in OKC, or did it somewhat taint their heroic status in your mind?
So Yoshi, clarify thy self. Dost thou thinkest that ZERO, ZIP, NADA responsibility exists for a person in his decision to locate in a known vulnerable, high risk area? Or wilt thou retract thy remarks about my statement that people ought to take SOME responsibility for their decisions?
Trial lawyers who want you to have “free money” after your accident await your response.
Prof. Ricardo
Common: Some of those looters were taking water, food and shoes... for them or for their families. You would be ok with that type of looting... wouldn't you?
Actually I was wanting that to be a topic of discussion, but was not the exact topic of my reponse to Yoshi.
Yoshi really has highlighted your EXTREME personal responsibility position.
And clarified his position to be more in agreement with me on personal reponsibility.
applying that to where you live in the US and natural and terrorists disasters is just too extreme.
I am not talking Karma. Don’t read into it what I did not say.
... the federal government has to be obligated to serve this need.
America has lost the clarity to define what need can’t be satisfied by it. Don’t even consult the Constitution.
btw... FDR can't be blamed for Katrina. :)
Unlike the left on blaming Bush for everything, I do not blame FDR for Katrina. I blame that FDR mentality on the selfishness of entitlement that has lowered mankind to stepping over dead bodies to take home TV’s, ipods, and other free no-tax day specials currently going on in New orleans.
Prof . Ricardo
PS....I’ll be killing little bird the rest of the day. Y’all enjoy.
Common,
To their core, this adminstration and the bulk of their party believe in minimum government.
It’s a con game. Like Clinton who promissed a middle class tax cut and then gave us the first retroactive tax increase, politicians change when they get in office. They have this power and they want to use it. For ill or good, they feel compelled to do something. It corrupts. It is addictive. Why else do none of them want to quit after one or two terms. However, as a true governmental minimalist myself, G. W. Bush has been a disappointment. He’s vetoed how many spending bills? None you say. The man has never met a situation that he was not willing to spend YOUR money on. True politician.
They believe even huricanes should be covered by private charity and state control.
No, you’re confusing him with me. He wants to spend your money on it and let you know he did. Trust me on this.
Here's the interesting part: they are smart enough to know they can't come out and say that.
All politicians walk a less radical walk when campaigning. See above ref. to middle class tax cut.
That's the problem with some ideologies. When you have to describe them out loud and in public... they may just stink.
Promissing free money always works better. That’s why our founding fathers wished not to get into wealth distribution. Once somebody could be paid, they could be bought, their vote that is. Then the politician spending other peoples money could secure his political life at the expense of others. Something apparently some on this blog fail to see.
Prof... let's discuss people stealing water and food.
Lets.
Prof. Ricardo
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As a lover of a black & white world, I hate gray. Hence I have relativism. However, changing conditions also change what responses are appropriate.
In a world where private property rights are respected and protected, people can operate their lives in a steady dependable direction with planning and forecasting as their friends. In this hurricane there are a multitude of victims. There are the obvious lives and homes lost. There is the destruction to infrastructure and, just as importantly, the destruction of businesses. Were the business still standing, these folks could live a distance away and comeback and earn a living to have money with which to rebuild their lives. But the survivors have no jobs. The businesses are defunct. Gone. Most of those people probably rented. If you are landlord and survived, you are probably bankrupt. If you had insurance, it will go to payoff the loan. You may or may not have anything to show for your hard work. If you are a lumber company, you probably have some good inventory left. Maybe. If you were a florist, you’re toast. Furniture and electronic sales, probably toast. Service industry - forget it. Nobody, no money. In merchandising, even if your inventory survived, there is no one locally to sell it to. You probably bought it on credit. Your debt didn’t get blown away even if your building did. Toast. People want to know if they have anything left. Can I salvage anything?
Looting is stealing brought about by some event where otherwise people not partnered with another, yet join together in act of wanton stealing and/or vandalism.
With water, sanitation, food, household goods etc. destroyed and no way out, I see little prohibition to permitting necessary items from being carried off by those whose lives and health are at risk if they do not take it. However, in a destroyed city where electricity and other utilities are off and evacuation is underway, the theft of electronics, atm machine and building destruction including purposefully set fires crosses the line. Necessities for survival might require desperate measures. Looting water and rescue tools (ropes, floatation devices, medical) only on day one would be tolerated. Food and diapers by day two. Few items more than that thereafter. I cant imagine the desperation, particularly if you have infant children. However, to remain on the moral high ground a decent respect of the owners property is required, and for the most part, missing in what appears to be 95% of the cases.
I’m interested in where you draw the line and why.
Prof. Ricardo
Have you heard the great worry of getting the New Orleans children back in school? Are these people insane? Do they not know the children will not wither if they are not under the watchful tutelage of government? As you know we homeschool. When I called home about 8:45 AM on September 11, 2001 and ask my wife to turn on the TV and pop a tape in the VCR, my family watched that tragedy on TV live. My son, then twelve, said “aren’t we going to have school today?” My wife said “This is school son. You’re watching history in the making.”
These children are watching “history in the making.” They are standing waste deep in it. What better time to learn about everything than having to go through it. Yet, some, I would say most, believe that learning happens at a desk with a text book. How brainwashed we have become. We now think the artificial environment of age segregated, abstract learning is all there is. What a pitiful lesson to teach the next generation. So little faith in the incredible learning abilities of the children.
These children are learning science. The physics of water, gravity, and force. Of biology: the need for food, water, a place to dispose of waste, disease, crowding, and, a rarity in the human realm, migration. They are learning of weather, politics, and the social aspects of man under harsh circumstances: panic, looting, and self sacrificing rescue and mercy. A veritable university of learning is before them. More is caught than taught, as is evidenced by some children participating in the looting.
But no, we need to whisk them away to an artificial environment that is government controlled, disconnected, and sterile. Just another one of the “extraordinary popular delusions” of man, IMO.
Prof. Ricardo
Get scientific for me here a moment. Define “gouging.” I know it means overcharging. What I am asking is how do you know if $4.21/gallon for regular gasoline is very high and $4.22 is considered gouging. What and who define it? Does it include TV & movie stars, sports stars, and other entertainers wages? Could it be for corporate officer’s salaries? Or does it not attach to the service industry and only applies to merchandise? If so why? My health insurance just went up again (double digits). Does that count? How do we differentiate a true complaint from whining? How much should an item go up in disaster situations? Do we suspend the laws of supply and demand because it just doesn’t seem fair? And if it’s not worth it, why are you trading your hard earned dollars for it if you feel you wont be better off? If you hadn’t received a drink of water in two days, and none is to be found anywhere else, how much is a gallon of good clean water worth? If somebody actually charged that amount, is that gouging?
Just some food for thought. Definitions welcome.
Prof. Ricardo
CORRECTION: previously stated “Hence I have relativism.” Have should have been hate.
Tony,
Why don’t you open up a new blog topic on New Orleans. It appears to be the topic of discussion. You always know how to frame the topic well. We’re just unreasonable when it comes to staying on topic. :-)
Speaking of the New Orleans, I’ve been wondering what we use that is usually imported through New Orleans. The prices are going to spike soon. Coffee and spices come to mind.
Brain storm for me boys, what do you use that’s imported and the price might go up? I’m the quintessential tightwad and want to avoid those unpleasant market forces that I speak so highly of. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
I would imagine most of Asian goods are coming in San Diego, Los Angeles, & Seattle. But South American goods, oil, Mexico?!? If I find out anything worth sharing, I’ll post it.
Prof. Ricardo
...and sugar & chocolate.
Whenever I have an epiphany, it is good to have it confirmed by another source. Read the confirmation:
An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
“(I)f you want something done right, you have to do it yourself."
This was the basis of my previous rant about personal responsibility. It is not the governments job to evacuate us before the hurricane against our will. People must be permitted to make decisions including stupid ones. It is not a doctors job to make you take medicine. Once prescribed you have the responsibility to determine the health risks of the medicine just prescribed, and whether you will take it or not. You hired him for his opinion. Now its time to take ownership of your own decision and not blame others. There are people who know they might have a condition and if left untreated could be devastating. But since they have gotten into this “medical insurance has to pay for it attitude”, they will avoid going even if it is life and death. Ludicrous. Pay for it out of pocket. Borrow from your retirement or a bank. Heck, even Common Good will let you loot it if the need is great enough. :-) The point is people have the means to help themselves, but because they have been trained to wait on insurance, wait on government, trust in the experts, and not trust their own wisdom and knowledge, they are at the mercy of people who don’t have a vested interest in their well being.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
I may take your suggestion. I have some things floating around in my brain on all of this disaster chat.
LOUISIANA
Our church is feeding 112 evacuees in Fort Worth twice. Our little struggling church raised $4000+ for the relief effort. I was shocked.
The church where our children do physical education is taking on 125 that will be housed on site in the Sunday school rooms.
A Christian camp where my son volunteers once a week ( helps with chores, horses, etc.) is taking on 120 in their bunk houses.
Yesterday my wife & children met with a mother and her three children to discuss integrating into this area. They evacuated Saturday before the hurricane and the Metroplex was the closest place that had rooms available. Her husband is a police officer. She said, "when can we come back." He said there is nothing to come back to. She needed to talk so bad. They visited for 3.5 hours. A church has temporarily lent them a two bedroom home in west Fort Worth.
Although people want to find out why different levels of government didn’t perform to expectation. I must say, after being saturated with depressing news, these last several days of hearing of private efforts in my sphere of association have been quite encouraging.
Yoshi,
The time table as best I see it:
Monday, hurricane landfall.
Monday night/Tues. early AM, levees break.
Tuesday daytime, water rises dramatically, 1st indication bullet was not dodged. FEMA level of response visible, but details not worked out.
Wednesday, amassing rescue crews, national guard, military, & associated supplies and triage of evacuees.
From what I understand, the stadium was to be used for no more than 24 hours as a temporary storm refuge. Therefore, no level of food and worse-case sanitation, long-term stay was planned for.
The City and state had the responsibility and disaster plans in case this happened. They did not follow their own disaster plan book, from what I have heard so far.
Plans that include using the local police force may not include the emotional trauma they are under. How do you save and police and assist others if your own family is in peril. One of the suicide police officers returned to his own home to find his wife deceased. He ended it there. You can only plan for so much. Throwing stones at politicians at this point in the game is premature judgment. Let’s kick back with our popcorn and watch the Bush/FEMA/Gov./Mayor bashing take place and enjoy it for the redneck entertainment that it is, rather than the stimulating intellectual discourse it could be if partisan forces did not play such a significant part in it.
Prof. Ricardo
John Edwards two Americas that he hates:
One America is where you are, the other is where you can be. A land of hope.
This has been the dream of all immigrants who have come here.
John Edwards dream for America: One America, where you are is where you will stay. No hope for improvement, because that would bring about two Americas. An America without hope, an America of equals. Equal rewards for differing effort. A land where ingenuity, risk, and hard work are not rewarded. A socialist hell hole that immigrants have been escaping to America to avoid.
I’ll stick with the “two Americas”.
Prof. Ricardo
“Prof... the system is rigged and our economic winners have an unjustified sense of entitlement.”
100 years ago there were 4,047 American millionaires. According to a study back then 84% were first generation millionaires, “were nouveau riche, having reached the top without benefit of inherited wealth.” Today, that figure is 80%. May I recommend that you pick up the book The Millionaire Next Door, by Thomas Stanley and William Danko. It will give you information about the wealthy directly from a survey of them. What they buy, what they drive, how they save, budget, spend, work, give, etc. If you are seeking to better yourself, or market your product, this is a very insightful book.
“btw... good for the Prof family for helping out those poor folks.”
Thanks. My wife got a call 2 hours ago about a need at the camp that is taking on evacuees. Thank God we homeschool. All three just headed off with another family and a significant percentage of our clothing, sheets, and a few personal items + bottled water. The need is great. I know we can help them in the short term, but they have to find jobs and a permanent place to live. THAT is the next crisis we will have to deal with.
Prof. Ricardo
TexaCon,
Hey, I’m really enjoying this. Thanks for coming back.
I have to point out that my criticism of this administration on the issue of Homeland Defense is not new or simply hindsight. I’ve been carping on the woefully inadequate response since at least late 2001. I have in fact had a couple of “introductory” posts that have been very critical on this very point.
And lest you think I blame only Shrub for this mess, I have been publicly criticizing this country for its myopia since the Bush the Elder administration and privately before that. You should’ve seen the glaze-overs I got back in the early 80s for advocating a need for national disaster planning. I was treated as a total nut case. Granted, perhaps I am a nutcase, but this was not evidence of it.
I totally agree that the local governments utterly failed their obligations in disaster planning. But it was the President and his minions who placed “homeland security” at the forefront of what they claim is their essential priorities. I am simply pointing to their failure to achieve their own stated objectives. This is a separate discussion from much of what has been going on here, to wit, what is the appropriate role of government in National Disasters.
And yes, I am not apologetic for looking for opportunities to hold this administration accountable for its own acts and rhetoric. I do so at every turn because I believe, in the words of a famous GOP apologist, that words mean things. I have heard it all. You can “ditto“comments/criticisms from about eight years ago when I was holding the Clinton administration accountable for its words and acts. Just change the venomous attacks to substitute Shrub for Clinton and weapons of mass destruction for blowjobs, and pretty much, the arguments are the same. It boils down to whose political ox is getting gored.
I certainly think that your criticism of my suggestion that we can do a little better is fair. I should have never left that impression. I think we must do far better on matter of national security. This is my entire point. I wish I could dismiss things as simply a failure of local authorities. But the fact is that belatedly we have been woken up to the fact that serious threats such as terrorism are no longer small matters. In fact, that is what the I’m-more-patriotic-than-you-you-freedom-loving-weirdo crowd has been telling folks like me for some time.
The fact remains from my initial post: there is no substantive difference between Hurricane Katrina and a dirty bomb. In spite of four years and billions of dollars, we are no more prepared now than we were on September 10, 2001. Shrub rode a second election to victory claiming otherwise. Please explain to me where I am wrong. I hope I am because my families future depends on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home