Category: Society & Politics

Government schooling trains for subservience

People don’t seem to realize this very often: allowing the government to control education is inconsistent with living in an individualistic and free society.

Case in point: A Judge rules that school administrators can take punitive actions against students for things they write outside of school.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz denied Avery Doninger’s request for a temporary injunction to overturn her high school election results Friday, but the Burlington teenager isn’t giving up her fight.

Doninger alleges Lewis S. Mills High School Principal Karissa Niehoff and Region 10 Superintendent Paula Schwartz violated her First Amendment right to free speech when they banned her from running for Class of 2008 secretary after she posted an offensive reference to school officials on a blog site from her home computer.

If public schools are a function of the government, what does punishing students for things they say against it, on personal blogs, teach about free speech?

Is it any wonder that each American generation seems more willing to give up responsibilities to the government?  Why not?  They are trained to sit down, shut up, and do as they’re told.  And if they speak out against the agents overseeing their daily training, there will be consequences.

Global Warming Bureaucrats and Politicians

The majority of global warming research is funded by government grants.

These government grants provide excellent job security for researchers. And since they come from the government, an entity not subject to the natural forces of the private sector, results are not particularly important.

Global warming scare mongering gives government agents (politicians and bureaucrats) another foundation on which to seize power. (Any time politicians preempt the private sector and take away personal freedoms, they are transferring power from the individual to the collective.)

Global warming scare mongers and the government that funds them are in perfect symbiosis and are worthy of the utmost suspicion.

So what happens when this research is scrutinized?

From the American Thinker:

“Last week, Hansen, NASA’s lead scientist on global warming, penned a rather strange ad hominem attack against critics that questioned the validity of his work in the wake of corrections prompted by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org/…”

Good news goes under-reported

Presumptive presidential candidate Fred Thompson writes:

“Since the spring of 2003, the economy has had average growth of over 3%, 8.2 million jobs have been created, and the inflation rate has stayed low.  The current unemployment rate, 4.6%, is a full percentage point below what it averaged during the 1990s, and there have been 47 consecutive months (almost four years) of job growth.  In the last three years, workers’ salaries have risen by $1.2 trillion, or $8,000 per worker, and consumer confidence recently reached its highest level in almost six years.”

Since the mainstream media supports Democrat politicians, good economic news is generally ignored when the credit goes to Bush’s economic policies. Left-wing politicians only have two things they can run on right now:

  1. “Soak the rich” class warfare. The economy is doing very well, people are keeping more of their own money because of lower federal taxes, and of course, the rich are getting richer. So the left-wing politician promises to punish those who are creating the most wealth in the economy. To wit: even though the government makes more money in taxes on every gallon of gas than the oil companies do, they’ve recently passed even more taxes on oil companies. Despite the fact that only customers pay corporate taxes (duh!), this works well with the populists who like to see the “rich” getting a sticking to.  Never mind that most Americans own stock in oil companies in their retirement plans — you don’t have to explain that to people.
  2. The war in Iraq. Americans don’t like losing wars and would generally rather leave than stay if they perceive a cause to be lost. So the mainstream media is doing its best to under-report recent accomplishments in Iraq in order to help their preferred candidates. But this is beginning to fail.

Still, despite a roaring economy and the fact that we are actually starting to achieve success in Iraq, the whole “get me mine” thing is tough to beat. Even though the Democrat politicians in Washington have bet the farm on US defeat overseas and may end up eating crow, it’s tough to see how this will make any difference when envy-pandering is so powerful (in the form of universal health care, higher taxes “for the rich,” etc.) I hope I’m wrong.

It’s All About Entitlements

Robert Samuelson writes in Newsweek:

“The aging of America is not just a population change or, as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves a profound transformation of the nature of government: commitments to the older population are slowly overwhelming other public goals; the national government is becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from younger workers to older retirees.

“Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.”

Samuelson is pointing out a problem that we’ve known about for a long time now. FDR’s creation of the massive Social Security entitlement and ponzi scheme set this in motion and made it inevitable. However, Samuelson’s proposal is, to say the least, overly optimistic:

“As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: “Facing Up to an Aging America.” Six leading think tanks would be invited to participate: three liberal—the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Urban Institute—and three conservative—the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.”

I’ve seen no evidence that good books are capable of getting a significant number of people to face up to reality. The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are both good think tanks, but most people just couldn’t be bothered.

The fundamental problem is that solving the looming entitlement crisis is going to require people to take on more personal responsibility. Too many people just aren’t interested in having to worry about their retirement, health care, and other things that are “tough choices.”

Christians, the Bible, and Guns: is Self-Defense Vengeance?

We’ve all heard the cries of hypocrisy: You can’t be Christian and against gun control; you can’t be pro-life and pro-gun ownership; vengeance is God’s, so why do you need a gun?, etc.

Let us examine, in particular, the charge that being prepared for self-defense is vengeance.

Continue reading Christians, the Bible, and Guns: is Self-Defense Vengeance?