Saturday, September 20, 2008

Another Reason To Homeschool

One of the most motivating factors in my decision to teach our children at home was my own experience in government schools. That experience began in 1965 in a rural Georgia school along with 17 other unsuspecting Gennie pigs that made up my first grade class. Unbeknownst to me or my blue collar parents, 17 years earlier The New Yorker published a short story by Shirley Jackson (above) called "The Lottery". This resulted in an avalanche of complaints to the magazine along with hundreds of subscription cancellations. I suppose the sixties took its toll on America's conscious because by the time I reached the sixth grade the short story had been made into a twenty minute movie and was being shown by the government to those entrusted to its care. Judging from the You Tube comments it seems it is still being shown and read today.

I can still remember my own disturbed feeling after watching the film. Now, looking back, I realize that as a child I wasn't capable of articulating the violence it had done to my innocence, nor did I realize that I should have said something. The teachers held the trust of my parents, and by extension they also held my parents authority. It was a time when parents were perhaps naive about what the schools were up to. Today parents should realize that their children are easy targets for those who want to recreate them in their own image. Having no regard for the interests of the parents, they are going about the business of changing the world though changing the children.

Below is the movie in two parts; in its entirety I think . It should take about 18 minutes to view them both. If you were not subjected to it as a child, I recommend watching it, if for no other reason, to see what they're capable of in that old school house down the street. While you're at it, I also recommend reading the comments from the other You Tube viewers as well. They say as much as the movie I think, which is nothing less than cleverly packaged propaganda meant to characaturize older generations as wanting to hold onto old superstitions no matter how insane. To understand the target of this propaganda you must realize that the people shown, including their demeanor, were typical of those found in any local church on any given Sunday in the late sixties when it was filmed.

Please, I'd love to hear your story and thoughts if it was shown to you in school.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Thorazine for the Liberal Mind

As a very amateur writer I love to find well written blogs. I appreciate writing as an art form, and as such enjoy finding writers who are talented at expressing themselves; a talent I very much envy. I study their writing to see if I can glean anything from their style and presentation. I recently stumbled across THIS BLOG by Kenny Kemp, and discovered that though the articles were long, they were informative and well enough written to hold my attention. In fact, I ended up reading every one of his post. With his permission I have copied and pasted his latest post below. Enjoy.

Proposal: Thorazine for the Liberal Mind

I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENS. I don't know why it happens. I only know that it happens, but only to about half of the people. The other half seem immune from the disease. But those who are afflicted, who have apparently forgotten everything they were taught as children (and have even taught their own children), now see the world in a way that is, simply . . . crazy.

I'm talking about, of course, the shift from conservative to liberal. Make no mistake, we all start out conservative. As children, we hoard memories and marbles with equal zeal. We count the peas left on the plate that we must eat before Mom will let us up from the table. We count the minutes until our favorite TV program comes on. We count the pennies, nickels, and dimes in our piggy banks. We keep track of who cuts in front of us in line. We mow the lawn so we can borrow the car Friday night. We work for good grades so we can get into college. We do our best to romance the object of our affection. And when we have children, we teach them the same.

What I've just described is a conservative, someone who conserves time, money, relationships, grades, careers, homes, families, forests, nations, and the planet. A conservative simply applies time-honored principles to his own life. Most people never stray from these principles. They balance their checkbook, knowing that if they don't, they will not be able to buy the things they want and need.

What's amazing is that about half the population, while scrupulously balancing their own checkbooks, believes that government shouldn't have to balance theirs. They insure their own car, but aren't sure if others should be required to do so. They bring an I.D. with them to vote, but think it's racist to require others to do so. They conserve water by running the sprinklers at night; mow the grass to conserve its health; trim the tree branches to conserve the neighbor's roof. In short, they are conservatives . . . when it comes to their own yard.

Yet half of them vote liberal in elections. How can this be, when their own success results directly from conservative principles? If I balance my checkbook, why would I vote for someone who won't balance the federal budget? If I teach my children that they get their allowance after they've done their chores, why would I give money to a panhandler? If I lock my doors at night, why would I vote for anyone who would oppose a border fence? If I'm faithful to my spouse, why would I think anyone who is not faithful to theirs is honest?

In short, everything that works in the private sphere works in the public one. If we go to the gym, eat a good diet, and get enough sleep, we will generally be healthy. Sometimes bad things happen, but a conservative knows that the smoker dying of lung cancer is less worthy of his compassion (and limited resources) than someone born with cerebral palsy. A conservative (and a successful liberal) knows that you pay the mortgage first, put food in the fridge, and if there's money left over, maybe we'll have cable TV.

But liberals are nutty. They disconnect their own experience from the world they live in. While they balance their own checkbook, it's OK to let government spending spin out of control if it's for a "good" cause. Yet they don't give their mortgage money to panhandlers. Instead, they give a dollar and pretend they are both helping the beggar and being generous. They are Scrooges when it comes to their own kids' allowance because they know that teaching a child the value of money is one of the most important things they can do to insure that child's success later in life.

Conservative principles work on the macro level as well. We step in when bullies are beating up a defenseless child, but we also teach that child to defend himself in the future. The U.S. protected the defenseless a generation ago and we rebuilt the economies of our former enemies so that today they are our allies. This decade, we freed 40 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing them from bullies and are now teaching them how to live as free people. They will learn to balance budgets, govern themselves without corruption, and have peaceful relations with their neighbors. If we are successful, they will, like many of the former Soviet Union satellites, have conservative governments.

So why would anyone believe that the bedrock principles that made their own life successful (thrift, hard work, honesty, and fidelity) be any less indispensable to the success of any other person or country?

There is only one answer: Such a demented person thinks you are stupid and need their help. This is the unspoken, core truth of the looney left. And yet it was conservative principles that placed them in a position to "help" you. Why are they, notwithstanding their "superior" intellect, unable to recall their own conservative roots? Because they are no longer balancing their own checkbook. The checks they are writing, the ones with all the zeros, come from your checkbook.

It's human nature, I guess. Studies have shown that people use much more TP in public restrooms than they do at home. Someone else is paying for the TP, right? At home, we turn off the lights because we're paying for the electricity. But when people get into government, conservative principles often go out the window. Conservatives are not immune. They hear the siren song of "helping" the "helpless" and start throwing good money after bad, but their own moniker eventually reminds them of their folly. Liberals, on the other hand, not only think they are smarter than you, they also believe their compassion trumps your right to manage your own checkbook.

The result is a nation with a bloated, unbalanced budget, out-of-control spending, broken fences with our neighbors, and a populus, nearly half of which apparently doesn't know the difference between giving a child an allowance for helping around the house and tossing a quarter to a bum.

The drafters of the Constitution envisioned "citizen legislators" and a system of checks and balances (an apt economic metaphor) to constrain each branch of government to stay within reasonable bounds. Each branch naturally wants to extend its power. Adherents to the philosophy of a "living" Constitution currently hold sway in the judicial arena, often overriding legislation they deem to be insufficiently progressive. The legislature is too timid to make hard decisions (Roe v. Wade is one classic example of the judiciary stepping in when the legislative branch refused to act), and the President winds up doing the legislature's job via executive orders. And the fourth branch of government--you and me--seems more interested in American Idol than America, so we fail to hold any branch responsible. It's like we left an 8 year-old in charge of the baby while we went out to a movie. In a conservative world, such dereliction of parental duties would result in dire consequences.

Why we do not demand proportional punishment for those who ignore timeless conservative principles in the public square is beyond me. The liberals must be, simply . . . crazy.
May I suggest a Thorazine drip?

Thursday, September 4, 2008

John Who?

For a while there, with the media's coverage of Obam in Europe, it seemed as if he was the president. If that wasn't weird enough, this week with all the charges by the media about Palin's experience, it seems as if it is she who is running for president. I'm convinced that this week, had a person just awoken from a coma, they would swear the historic news this week was that the governor of Alaska had challenged the incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency. I suppose such is the case in the altered reality in which the media lives. But I think that one of the problems the media has had with McCain is that he is a person that they have hated to love; but Palin is a person they love to hate. The latter is much more motivating for meaness, as we have seen.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Compassion Democrat Style

If anyone ever thought that Katrina was anything but a political cash cow for Democrats to exploit ad nauseam, these two videos should dispel all remaining doubts. Where is the compassion? Real people endure these storms, and real people loose their lives and property. But for the Democrats, tragedies are nothing more than opportunities for political gain. This just goes to show that for Democrats, everything is political and nothing is not political. It might be your house being destroyed, your job lost, your retirement account decimated; but for the rich Democrat these are passed off with a chuckle and attributed to God helping Obama.

We can expect the apologies to fly if they haven't already, but what else should we expect from those for whom politics is the axis upon which their world turns. What we should not expect to see is contrition. Nor should we expect to see outrage at the insinuation that God caused this in response to evil, that evil being the Republicans having a convention.

This is Moore with the Liberal Keith Oberman. It's obvious that Moore realizes what an asinine thing he has just said and begins to backtrack by saying he hopes no one gets hurt and then begins to bash Dobson. I'm not sure Oberman realizes what occurred and continues to be his usual buffoonish self.

The Second Battle of Bull Katrina

The date was July 21st, 1861; the location, a creek called Bull Run near Manassas; a small town in Virgina about 20 miles south of Washington . The Union Army of Northeastern Virgina went out to engage the Confederate Army of the Potomac and would meet them at this location. Due to it's proximity to Washington and the predictable time and where-abouts they would meet, spectators, including members of the media and representatives from Washington and their wives dressed in their Sunday best, showed up to watch the coming bloodbath. Both armies were inexperienced, but both still put up a good fight that day with the outcome not for certain until the end of the battle when the Confederates routed the Union Army.

In the midst of the battle was a little house where an 85 year old invalid lady lay unable to leave. She was mortally wounded when her house came under attack from a battery of cannon.

The media and spectators were swept up in the Union route, and even though most Union soldiers performed heroically that day, for the most part the eye-witness accounts came from those journalist caught up in the chaos that ensued during the retreat. The reports that followed in the newspapers were devastating for Lincoln politically, and the cause he represented.

I can't help but see some similarities in mindset between Gustav and Bull Run. The known point of impact; the expectations of those involved, and the use of it to undermine an administration. The wild eyed anti-war, -Bush, -capitalism, -religion,
-America -whatever protesters of today and their friends in the media could not have conceived in their wildest dreams the event that was Katrina. Even the environmentalist got their pound of flesh in the logic-less debate that rages between the emotion based religion of climate change and reason. Though it would be too foolish even for the media to proclaim it, (Journalist still hold to a grain of self respect) it was certainly implied that had Bush signed the Kyoto Treaty, Katrina would not have happened; such is the landscape in which we operate during this current "information" age.

In a more sane time one might notice the problems with making something god that isn't, then giving it god like attributes. When the state becomes a people's god, it only stands to reason that that state ought to be able to control hurricanes. And if it can't, why it ought to at least be able to swoop down and pluck you off your roof. If it can't, there must be some evil hindering the state god. Enter George W. Bush.

Finding their new nuclear cannon of emotion, one can almost hear the hyperventilation of the media anytime there is even a hint of some swirling winds out in the Atlantic. This being the case, Gustav might seem kinda like the second battle of Bull Run. In bated breath the media gathered in mass in New Orleans this past weekend so as to give the world an even closer look at how much Bush hates blacks and the poor. The government this time, in an attempt to actually live up to it's god like expectations also amassed. I am convinced that Bush, seeing that his last opportunity to destroy New Orleans and his Democrat enimeis that live there would again fail, at the last moment diverted the storm to a barren stretch of coastline.