Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Furguson Missouri And The Juvinalization Of The Culture

     One of the deeper issues illustrated by the reaction to the Furguson, Missouri riots precipitated by the police shooting of Michael Brown, is something I have not heard much about in any of the  coverage. It is the incessant, almost obsessive way in which the media and others keep referring to the dead man as a "teen," "student," or even in some cases as a "child." This selection of a noun used as an adjective is not random, but very carefully calculated by the Left in media and elsewhere to give the impression that Michael Brown was anything other than a violent thug.
     The attempted labeling of Mr. Brown as a teenager reaches even further than providing an excuse for rioters and looters in Furguson, it is a systematic effort to juvenilize the culture for the nefarious purpose of increasing dependence on government. It is why the Affordable Care Act essentially defines a "child" as someone 26 years of age or under. It is also why 18 year old 300 pound criminals are likewise described as "teens."
     This description of someone over 18 years old as a child would have been anathema to Americans of only a couple generations ago. In fact, many would have considered 16 and 17 year olds as adults, capable of adult decisions and responsibilities. Actor Audie Murphy was only 17 when he enlisted in the army during World War II, and by the time he was twenty had become the most decorated war hero in American history. Commodore Perry was only 27 years old when he lead his sailors to victory over the British in the Battle of Lake Erie during the War of 1812.
     Walter Reed, after whom the famed medical center is named, was only 17 years old when he received his medical degree from the University of Virginia, the youngest ever to do so. This young doctor served the poor in the slums of New York city for six years until he was commissioned as an army doctor at the age of 23. He traveled with the army to some of the most inhospitable places in the country and won over the Indian tribes with his medical skill. Later, he and his research team found cures for yellow fever and malaria by letting infected mosquitoes bite themselves.
     Teddy Roosevelt, at the age of 26, after having become the youngest person ever elected to the New York legislature, and after the death of his wife and mother on the same day, moved out west and became a rancher and cowboy. Teddy Roosevelt today would have been encouraged by the culture to become a burden on the system because of his sickly nature as a child. Instead he lived a full life as a soldier, politician, environmentalist, and author.
     I fear that our country has reached a very dark chapter in which our culture no longer produces exceptionalism in our youth, instead inculcating them with an entitlement for extended childhood. A nation of children can never truly be free as the Founders intended. There are many cause for the criminal activity in Furguson, all germinating from juvenile entitlement. Unrestrained juvenile entitlement leads to the dissolution of civilized society and leaves liberty standing in the rubble of Furguson, Missouri crying, "Where are the Audie Murphys, the Commodore Perrys, the Walter Reeds, and the Teddy Roosevelts?"
    

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

We Need More Hate Speech, Not Less

     One of the most despicable tactics employed by the Left is the suppression of free speech through the labeling of opposing views as "hate speech." The Left and the Democrat Party have used this strategy to avoid debating the merits of an issue by simply eliminating it as a topic of discussion. In the early days of Leftist venality they were able to strike certain words from the public lexicon by tagging them as "hateful." As the years have progressed along with the Lefts corrupt ideology, they have used the "hate speech" moniker to encompass ideas as well as words. Now the Left is able to discount in much of the publics' mind the entire conservative ideology.
     I am advocating for more hate speech, not less. We need more hate speech against the culture of dependence and entitlement that has robbed the sweat off the brow of hard working benefactors while at the same time robbing the beneficiaries of the incentive of the human spirit to succeed. Nothing is less compassionate and more hateful than to encourage dependence in whole populations of citizens for the political benefit of those in government.
     We need more hate speech against the truly evil in the world, whether it be religious zealots who oppress and terrorize, or whether it be domestic madmen who make it unsafe for citizens to walk in their own neighborhoods. The morally inverted Left spews hatred against those who expect women in America to pay for their own birth control, but are thunderously silent about the genital mutilation and general oppression of women in many parts of the world. There is little that is more hateful than to base one's support or concern for any group on the ability to syphon hard earned dollars from other groups.
     We need more hate speech against the race whores in this country who keep minorities eating from the hand of big government just to benefit a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds off the misery of their own. The race profiteers speak of justice as if it is their own creation to be patented, packaged, and sold into the slavery of their bigoted view of America. Nothing is more hateful than to use the hammer of oppressive ignorance to deconstruct the very nation founded on justice, liberty, and freedom.
     We need more hate speech against the idea of hate-free zones at universities that engender hate against anyone who strays in thought from the narrow field of Leftism. There is nothing more hateful than sentencing America's youth to the intellectual prisons called universities. The bigoted purveyors of hate against all thoughts and ideas that may crush the thin shell of their world view, use hate, not logic or reason, to keep their students in the shackles of ignorance.
     Properly directed hate can lead to improvement, in one's own life, or in the life of a nation. In a more religious sense, God wants us to hate evil and sin. We can love sinners, but never the sins they commit. If America is to survive as a free and moral nation, we must reject in the strongest terms possible those ideas that are antithetical to our founding principles. The strongest terms possible means we must motivate change with hatred for tyranny, oppression, and dependence. And we must renew, with vigor, the virtues of liberty, personal responsibility, and self-directed governance.
    
    

Monday, August 18, 2014

Rick Perry Indictment Illustrates Democrats' Lack Of Moral Clarity

     The 2014 mid-term election is still months away, and the first targeted salvo against a Republican contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2016 has been launched. Last week Texas governor, Rick Perry, was indicted for supposedly misusing his veto of funding for the Texas Public Integrity Unit. The reason, they say, is that he was trying to coerce Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg into resigning after she pleaded guilty to a drunk driving charge. The Public Integrity Unit is run by Ms. Lehmberg's office. As the old saying goes, "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich."
     I am sure that Governor Perry's indictment has nothing to do with the fact that Rosemary Lehmberg is a Democrat. And I am equally sure that the timing of the indictment, coming on the heels of Governor Perry enforcing immigration laws to protect his state, thereby making President Obama look like BoBo the roller skating chimp, is not suspicious in the least. The Grand Jury indictment of effective Republicans by Democrats is a debauched political tactic that would make Saul Alinsky proud. It was only a few years ago Democrats plied this venality against former Speaker of the House, Tom Delay. Mr. Delay was eventually found not guilty, but Democrats did not care, they were able to force his resignation as a substitute for being able to effectively compete with him politically.
    Rick Perry's political capital has increased significantly in recent months, due not only to his leadership producing some of the best economic results in the country, but by taking action on illegal immigration he illustrated the strength of his conviction for protecting the public. Something that President Obama so glaringly has not only failed to do, but has actually encouraged just the opposite to happen with his blind eye towards the illegal immigration flood. There is an old saying that the best way to highlight a crooked stick is to place a straight stick next to it. The straight stick Rick Perry has illuminated just how crooked a stick Barack Obama is, not only on border policy, but in every way that is important to good leadership.
     President Obama, in a recent New York Times interview, burped up one the most frightening things, while at the same time one of the most ignorant things, I have ever heard uttered by a United States president. He said that the U.S. would not entangle itself in foreign conflicts unless there were "no victor and no vanquished." It is obvious from this childlike statement that President Obama views the real and dangerous world of international politics as nothing more than a new age baseball game where "nobody keeps score, and there are no winners and no losers."
     When Ronald Reagan was asked what his policy was for dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said, "We win, they lose." It is this kind of moral clarity that makes great leaders. It is the kind of moral clarity that appeals to the American spirit. It is the kind of moral clarity which leads men into battle and citizens into supporting the cause of liberty. It is the moral clarity that Rick Perry posses and our current President lacks that has facilitated the current indictment against the former. An indictment which is illustrative of just how morally bankrupt the Democrat Party has willingly become.
    

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Rand Paul The Pander Bear

     Recently, in a Newsweek article Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, stated that he thought the police department in Furguson Missouri, as well as police departments across the country, are too well-armed. Senator Paul also opined that the American justice system was used against blacks in disproportionate numbers, and that that fact proved that we still have a serious racial problem in this country. With this one article Mr. Paul has made himself the king of the Pander Bears, those politicians who will support what they think are populous positions in order to benefit themselves politically.
     While Senator Paul is fatuously calling for the demilitarization of the nation's police departments, I am calling for the de-congressionalization of Rand Paul. I have heard the Paulies suggest that Mr. Paul's foreign policy is aligned with that of Thomas Jefferson, but nothing is further from the truth. Mr. Jefferson brought to bear the force of the United States military against the Muslim pirates on the Barbary coast of Africa, and he also spent years overseas entangling the U.S. in foreign relations. Something that the Paulies seem to forget when quoting Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address when he spoke against "foreign entanglements."
     Thomas Jefferson's pragmatism would also lead one to believe that he would not be allied with Rand Paul if the former were alive today. Mr. Jefferson never would have suggested that his statement condemning foreign entanglements applied to an age after his own when missiles, nuclear weapons, airplanes, and a whole host of dangers existed that precluded American foreign policy from being limited by our borders. The view of Rand Paul and his devotees that all we need to do to ensure our security is to protect our borders is both childish and naive.
      The naiveté that instructs many followers of Rand Paul informs them that the United States has no enemies, save those that are created by our foreign policy. And we would just be safe and could ignore the rest of the world if we just would stay in our cocoon and not "interfere" with other countries. But this world view is not only dangerously naïve, but is not fair to the rest of the world. Freedom and prosperity has come to the rest of the world in quantities never before seen in history, precisely because the United States has taken responsibility for influencing world events.
     Mr. Paul sees a growing Libertarian movement in this country and is trying to capitalize on it politically by pandering to its misdirected tenets. But I think the Pander Bear is miscalculating the strength of this movement and will be politically disappointed with his results. I shudder to think of the dark and oppressive world that would exist today had the United States followed a foreign policy over the last hundred years like the one suggested by Rand Paul. And apparently from his recent statements, not only does he not believe in a muscular foreign policy, but he does not believe in a muscular domestic one either in order to protect citizen from rioters and looters.
    

Friday, August 15, 2014

Turning Dust Bunnies Into Monsters

     The city of Furguson, Missouri is burning and its storefronts and other buildings are suffering damage at the hands of criminal opportunists who wish to use the occasion of a black man being shot by police to steal and damage other people's property. The race industry sees every black man shot by police, deservedly or not, as a boon to their business. And that is why the larcenist, Al Sharpton has made his presence known, right along side of the community organizers known as the New Black Panther Party.
     As the riots rage and the police do their best to stem the violence and looting, Libertarians like John Stossel are concerned that police departments may be too well armed. I have seen this kind of conspiracy theory rhetoric on social media and elsewhere on the Internet, but their general paranoia seems to have spread to others in the "real" media. The paranoia that, while they support local police departments in keeping the peace, they nonetheless do not want those law enforcers to be too well armed against the bad guys.
     The theory by the paranoid goes that local police departments, like the one in Furguson, have been equipped with armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military-grade equipment because at some point these instruments of keeping the peace will be turned into instruments of oppression. That President Obama is sitting in the White House next to a big switch, which when he engages it, will signal all these military-style local police departments to begin oppressing the masses. And Andy and Barney will ride around in their armored vehicle and collect every gun in Maybury. Additionally these peace officers, beloved in their communities, will suddenly turn against their neighbors and friends as they become mindless tools of a tyrannical dictator.
     The fact that criminals have become better armed and more fearless of police does not occur to the tin-foil-hat crowd as a reason for better equipped police departments. The paranoid seem to think that equipment used to protect the citizens from bad guys abroad, somehow takes on a nefarious quality when it is used to protect those very same citizens from domestic bad guys. As if the threat to security posed by domestic gangs is somehow more acceptable than the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Middle East. And to the illogical mind of the paranoid, the military, which is under the command of the executive branch of government, is somehow less likely to turn on the citizens than police that are under the control of locally elected officials.
     The idea that we as freedom-loving Americans should fear well equipped local police departments probably has been circulating for decades. I am sure the first city to equip its police with motorized vehicles early in the 20th century was accused by the paranoid of the day of being a threat to liberty. Only back then there was no Internet to spread the contagion of paranoia so rapidly, and there were no high profile Libertarians like John Stossel shining a flashlight in every dark corner and turning dust bunnies into monsters.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Common Myths About Common Core

     Let me begin this post by saying I do not believe that the federal government should have any role in education. I think it is clear that since education was nationalized in the United States in 1978 with  President Carter's creation of the Department of Education, the education system in this country has failed miserably. I think nationalized education only leads to localized ignorance. Education has been transformed from a system that prepares children for successful adulthood, to a system designed to gain benefits for teachers and their unions.
     The preceding being said and understood, I think there have been many misconceptions, and much ignorance, about Common Core. The idea of Common Core was created by some individual states Governors who wanted to ensure that all students were receiving a minimal standard of instruction in math and reading. The idea germinated in the early 2000s became the metrics for the Obama administration's Race To The Top initiative as part of the 2009 stimulus package. While the Common Core standards are not a panacea for fixing what is wrong with education in the United States, neither are they a pariah to that system.
     Common Core is a set of recommended goals that students at different grade levels are required to reach. They do not include a curriculum, recommended methods, or materials for reaching those goals. Common Core provides no oversight to textbook publishers, therefore the latter are able to stamp their materials with the Common Core label. Local school districts then tell concerned, and sometimes upset, parents that the materials are part of Common Core. The implementation of the Common Core standards are left to the states and local school districts.
     The Common Core standards are what we use to expect from our students and teachers decades ago before teaching became a union function. The problem that Common Core espouses to address is the fact that according to American universities, forty percent of all incoming college freshmen do not have the skills to succeed in college level courses. And this sad state of public education in this country is a direct result of its nationalization, and its main emphasis being transferred from the child to the teacher.
     So while Common Core is not the nefarious plot that some are making it out to be, it also is not the remedy to what ails our education system. For that we need more competition and privatization. The more localized the control over education, the better the results. That is why homeschooling has the best results; one can not get more localized than educating in the home. Vouchers for charter schools have been shown to improve education greatly, the competition for education dollars being a great incentive for the schools to provide a better result that is student-centered. In the final analysis, I do not think the Common Core standards will do much to help, neither do I think they will do much to harm. Concerned parents would do well to address education problems in their local schools and not expend energy fighting federal standards whose effect are neutral at best.

    

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Robin Williams: Product Of The Overly Examined Life

     I did not know much about the personal life of the late comedian, Robin Williams. I did not think much of his comedy, and his acting was competent only when he worked with a director that could mitigate Mr. Williams' personality. I know, some readers may be saying that I should not talk ill of the dead. Well the intent of this post is not to speak ill of the deceased Mr. Williams, but to understand and define what lead to his desperate final act.
     Having not known Robin Williams personally, I can still draw some accurate conclusions about him, not from the way he lived, but from the way in which he died. I know, for example, that he was not only a self-absorbed individual, as most addicts are, but an ungrateful one as well. Anyone who would allow depression to guide them into suicide can not be thankful or grateful for the good things in one's life. And from all appearances, Mr. Williams had much to be grateful for, a loving family, a successful career, and the ardor of millions of fans.
     I think those who have lionized him after his death from extreme selfishness have made the mistake of confusing celebrity with importance. They have confused the commodity of comedy with a substantive contribution to mankind. They have confused a pampered self-centered star with a person of substance and rectitude. While thousands of Christians throughout the world are having the Islamist's sword put to their throats for refusing to abandon their faith, Robin Williams voluntarily put a rope around his because he had no faith.
     He had no faith in his family to occupy a more important place in his life than his addictions. He had no faith in God who blessed his life in so many ways, all of which Mr. Williams threw back at Him with his final act. He had no faith in himself to be stronger than any demons that may have haunted him. Worst of all, Mr. Williams had no faith in life itself to meander into happiness and to take up residence in contentment for those who seek it.
     The lesson to be gleaned from the selfish death of Robin Williams is that life must always be lived outside the individual. Those who intensely focus on self to the exclusion of gratefulness and thanksgiving will invariably be left alone with the demons that reside in all of us. And those demons feed on selfish thoughts and acts, like depression and drug addiction. The affliction of inward thinking can lead one to feel very alone in the world. Socrates stated that, "The unexamined life is not worth living." But the overly-examined life leaves no room for living. And the overly-examined life feeds the demons of addiction and depression that grow in the garden of discontent. Robin Williams, unfortunately for his family and friends, was a product of the overly-examined life.