It's 10:00 p.m. Do you know where your 401K is?

Image via Wikipedia

I seem to remember that I used to hear regularly the line:  "It's 10 p.m.  Do you know where your children are?"  I found a site that says it originated in 1969.  Wikipedia states that it was used 1960's to 1980's.  

I was reminded of this phrase because the motivation behind it was to encourage parents to fulfill their parental role by maintaining an awareness of the location and activity of their children.  This is a good thing; parents taking responsibility for providing their children with supervision to ensure that they are safe.  Then, you have the government jump into the mix and you get a lot of unintended consequences.  Reason magazine has an interesting article regarding a city governments imposed curfew on teens.  Was it a good thing?  Were there unintended consequences?  I think there were. I think parents supervising their children is a better way to go.

Now let's use another example of government jumping in where it does not belong; Lifetime Income Options for Retirement Plans.  I just love the names the government elite give to these things.  It sounds so innocent.  It sounds like they are trying to take care of us from cradle to grave, even though that is not within their Constitutional role.  After all, they handled Social Security so well, they should take charge of everyone's retirement resources, right?  Wrong!

Let us consider the history of Social Security.  I also suggest reading, New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom, Jr.  At the "social security" link above you will some history on the creation of this system.  One of the statements that I'd like to highlight is:  "So, also, security was attained in the earlier days through interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other.  The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security.  Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it." That sounds so nice, but it is not what our federal government is supposed to get involved in.  We can apply, I believe, principles numbers 6, 7 and 9 in the 9-12 concept of my earlier post.

You can also find some great resources for information on Social Security, including the option of privatizing social security, at the Cato Institute.  There are other sites that discuss the pros and cons of privatization, but I think we need to keep one thing in mind:  the social security system is in trouble.  It is now in the red.  Our national debt is growing and our unfunded liabilities are staggering.  Taking your hard earned money that you have saved for retirement is outrageous.  Just looking at the state of the Social Security Trust fund tells you where this would end up.

The overall concern in all that I present here is that we need to return to the principles this country was founded on.  We also need to return to those values that have been eroded by a Progressive world view.  I think that takes us right back to restoring honor.  That means we strive to begin again to take care of those in need.  That means we take personal responsibility for our actions and suffer the consequences for bad decisions.  That means we hold each other to a standard that reflects our values and principles.  It doesn't mean we will always succeed, but I believe we would be better off.

It is NOT the government's job to "take care of us" contrary to the propaganda video seen by many of our children,  The Story of Stuff. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Why Social Security is Your Best Investment (money.usnews.com)
• Raising the Retirement Age Will Help Save Social Security (politics.usnews.com)
• The End of Social Security as We Know It (wallstreetpit.com)

Textbooks, Truth & World View

Image via Wikipedia

There have been quite a few stories recently regarding concerns about what our children are learning in our public schools.  The revision and/or presentation of history in a manner that leaves out important pieces of information has been a concern for some time.  Recently the concerns have been about how Islam and Christianity are being presented. Salon.com has a response presented from the other side of the argument.  Fox News airs a special report today "Do you know what textbooks your children are really reading?"

I've also come across an interesting article on Chinese textbooks and their approach to teaching about the Korean War that is worth reading.  In fact, this gentleman has quite a few articles worth reading.  In one of them, "Victims: History, Perception, and the East West Divide" he shares the following from a Chinese blogger:  "...this sense of being bullied from the west is rooted in the control of public opinion in China, the obstruction of the free flow if ideas, and students who from a young age are instilled with the notion of 'Westerners bullying Chinese people."  It seems this is not just an American problem.

The title link takes you to an article discussing the International Baccalaureate Program in some of our High Schools.  If you read the linked article above and visit their website you can get a range of opinions on the program.  When looking into this program I did a search and found that the world view at the core of this program is not one that I agree with....but I had to look closely because it "sounds so wonderful."

Before you jump to the conclusion that I just want to teach our schoolchildren another biased view of history please stay in your seat.  I have to be honest, I always had a sense of uneasiness with the concept of Manifest Destiny even when I first heard about it in school.  As I said in an earlier post, I believe we should learn the good, the bad and even the ugly to truly learn from history. 

Why does any of this matter?
Because those who possess much of the power and control over how and what our children learn seem to have a particular  world view, a Progressive world view.



If you take a quick tour of Progressive influences on our education system, I would suggest beginning with John Dewey.  In How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson presents:  "Dewey rejected the traditional belief that an idea is an insight into an objective reality, to be judged by whether it is true or false.  Instead, he argued that ideas are merely hypotheses about what will get the results we want and their validity depends on whether they work." (page 93)  (Note:  I have a note I wrote on this page that says: Darwinists believe there is no transcendent truth, yet they believe that Darwinism is objectively true?")

Next consider the 1930's George S. Counts, who "called upon teachers to begin controlling the evolution of society.  He urged them to redeem society, to stop being merely transmitters of the culture and become creators of social values...reach deliberately for power to build a new social order." (Colson, page 335) His "Dare the School Build a New Social Order?" can give you further details on his views.  His new social order involves our economic system "evolving into a collectivist pattern." 

Then you come to B.F. Skinner's Walden Two and behaviorism.  Skinner argues that "because the reality of consciousness or mental states cannot be observed, they cannot be described scientifically; therefore, they are not real.  Only observable, external behavior is real." (How Now Shall We Live, page 177)  This utopian thinking shifted education from the classical aim at the search for truth and training moral character to a new aim: "if human nature was nothing more than a reactive mechanism, then it could be manipulated and shaped by the laws science discovered.  Education became a means of conditioning, with the child treated as essentially passive rather than an active moral agent."(also page 177.) 

Then, consider Mary Calderone, former Executive Director of Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS.)  In a 1968 article she said: "the real question facing sex educators is this: 'what kind of person do we want to produce to take the place of human nature as we know it today, and how do we design the production line to create this advanced creature?"  and "..the best thing we can do for our children is to prepare them to view all notions of right and wrong as tentative, changing, and relative (emphasis mine).  Then, loosed from the old values, they can be inculcated with the values of a scientifically trained elite (consisting of professionals like herself, of course) who know what makes a human being truly healthy." (Colson, page 241 & 242)  This is interesting information in light of the recent Sex Ed controversy in Montana. 

Why does one's world view matter?  One more quote from How Now Shall We Live sums up my response to this:

"We easily forget that every private decision contributes to the moral and cultural climate in which we live, rippling out in ever widening circles--first in our personal lives, and then in the broader society.....every decision we make reflects our world view.  Every choice, every action, either expresses a false world view and thus contributes to a disordered and broken world, or expresses God's truth and helps build a world that reflects his created order."  (page 294)

Whether you believe in a supreme being or not, truth does exist.  A transcendent truth that is consistent with what we experience in the real world.  To re-phrase something C.S. Lewis said:  The theist, who believes in a transcendent source of truth and the materialist (Progressive for this discussion),who believes everything is relative,  hold different beliefs about the universe.  They cannot both be right.  The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe.

Finally, to all of this we add in the concept of the "useful lie" sometimes used by Progressives and the Muslim concept of "taquia"(or lying for the faith) and you have great difficulty "fact checking" and finding  the information that will lead you to truth.  I have faith, though, that we will get there with vigilance, perseverance and determination.  There is always hope. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Texas school board concerned that textbooks are too nice to Muslims (salon.com)
• State ed board tackles alleged pro-Islamic bias in textbooks (chron.com)
• Rule on Islam's portrayl in textbooks to be considered (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)

9-12 Project Guide to Voting

Image via Wikipedia

You may or may not have heard about the 9-12 groups and/or projects.  It refers to a set of 9 principles and 12 values, most of which I think many of us can agree with.  I've been thinking how easy it is to agree with one of the principles that says:  " I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday" as opposed to actually making this a principle you live by each and every day of your life.  This is only one of the nine principles.   There are eight more.  Click on the link above to see a complete list of the nine principles and the 12 values.  

I suppose I've been thinking about these values and principles because of the recent primary races in various states.  Listening to each candidate talk about the opposing candidate can lead you to believe none of them has made the 9 principles and 12 values the centerpieces of their lives.  However, I believe one needs to take a close look at what each candidate says in reference to each of the principles and values.  Then, take a close look at how their actions reflect their stated core beliefs.  You are probably not going to be happy with some of what you find, however, that does not mean that you won't find things you do like.

As I stated in a previous post, we tend to want our information in "four minutes or less" and we want to make judgments about who we will vote for with minimal effort.  We've become dependent upon "trusted sources" and do little or no fact checking ourselves.  I completely understand that it is really difficult to find the "facts" and the "truth" that we need, but I believe it is becoming clear that we must do this. 

I've also discussed "Saul Alinsky" tactics in previous posts.  One of them used with skill is the idea of "making people live up to their own standards."  This makes taking a stand and stating clearly and frequently that one agrees with the principles and values outlined by 9-12 groups dangerous.  Being flawed human beings we will all act in ways that contradict our stated beliefs.  This then gives the opening for each of us to "destroy the opponent." 

I read an article in a local paper within the last year that commented on the tactics used by one political party in order to win elections.  It involved making accusations against the opponent that were sure to elicit emotional responses from voters and steer them to voting for their candidate.  The most heinous part of the plan was that it did not matter if it was true or based in fact or not.  (The Journolist scandal comes to mind.)  By the time the air cleared their candidate would be safely in the state or nation's capital.  I do not name the party because both major parties have probably been guilty of these tactics.  I point it out to demonstrate how disastrous this can be for our country.  We are encouraged to look for and only vote for "perfect" candidates.  If that's the case why even bother, because they do not exist.

So where does this leave us?  It leads us back to the unchanging principles and values our country was built upon.  Our founders were not perfect.  We are not perfect.  However, the concept of our Constitutional Republic took that into consideration.  We select people to represent us who will make important decisions for us and our country.  If they fail to represent us in a way that supports the founding principles then we need to see that they are replaced by someone who will. This is clearly stated in principle number 9:  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  That means, for example, that if I ask my representatives why they voted a certain way that goes against what their constituents want, AND oversteps their authority, I expect an answer.  A clearly stated answer that gives me the information that I need to evaluate their actions.  The statement, "we have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in the bill" does NOT qualify.  The response that "the government can do almost anything in this country" does not qualify.  Mocking people who are asking hard questions does not qualify. "I don't worry about the Constitution" does not qualify either.  

Our Constitution created a separation of powers and outlined the powers that each branch of government were to exercise; each branch serving  the role of providing checks and balances on the other branches.  Our freedom of the press was there to ensure that there was an additional source of checks in place.  Do you believe the integrity of our Constitution is in danger?  Do you believe that we are jeopardizing that system of government that we cherish?  I do.  So, what do we do?  The first step might be what is presented on The Essential Liberty Projects website, Essential Education.  This is then followed by Essential Affirmation.  This, of course is only one source.  Another source is Constituting America.  Knowing exactly what it is that you are defending and affirming is a great place to start. 

Now, back to principles and values :-)

I joked recently that I was going to change the name of my blog to:  "Looking for a Reason to NOT be Scared!"  That's because I am searching for evidence that our founding principles are still at the core of what guides our elected representatives.  I'm finding more reasons to be scared and less reassurance than I bargained on.

So, I humbly submit a guide inspired by the 9-12 concept for you to consider:
Principles:

1.  America is good.   This means America is founded on principles that include the rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  America offers opportunities to all and strives to provide equal justice.  America is a country that provides aid to other countries and seeks to defend freedom and liberty when called upon to do so.  America is not perfect.  The people of America have, at times, made mistakes.  Our elected officials need to reflect the belief that America is good while taking into consideration past mistakes so that we do not repeat them again.  When expressing regrets over past errors they do not condemn the whole country and they strive to also emphasize the good that this country has done and will continue to do.  It is also important to know if they believe in our system of government and are willing to protect and defend it.  Taking an oath and making that statement is not enough.  Their words and actions need to reflect these beliefs.

2.  I believe in God and He is the center of my life.  This simply means that you possess a transcendent source of "right and wrong." All religions have some basic "rules" that serve to guide how we live our lives.  Even if you do not believe in any one god or don't believe in any supreme being, but you still have a firm belief in what is right and what is wrong, that qualifies.  Our elected officials do not have to be of any particular religious persuasion, but they do need to demonstrate through their actions and statements that their core beliefs serve to guide them every day.  That includes making known to the voters just what those core beliefs are.

3.  I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.  That means that you strive to eliminate all lies in your life, you deal fairly and honestly with others, and, if you make a mistake you admit it.  Our elected officials do not need to be without blemish, but they do need to demonstrate the strength of character to tell the truth even when it is difficult to do so.  And, when they are confronted with the fact that they have failed they take responsibility and strive to correct the error.  I might also add what I usually ask my children at times like that: "What have you learned from this?" and "How will you avoid this in the future?"  An answer to questions like that from a politician would be a breath of fresh air, don't you think?

4.  The family is sacred.  My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.  The strength of our families, which provides a place to instill values and core beliefs and raise children to become people who will better our world is a key to many things.  The government does not raise my child, my husband and I do that.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that they believe that strong families benefit us all.  They need to support things that will make families stronger, not things that will weaken them and/or tear them apart.

5.  If you break the law you pay the penalty.  Justice is blind and no one is above it.  That's pretty clear.  People, individuals act as independent moral agents.  Providing the conditions or reasons for the offense may be valuable in the sense that it helps "explain" what lead up to the criminal act.  It does not provide an excuse.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that no one is above the law, even when it is a difficult thing to do.  They also need to hold everyone to the same standards.

6.  I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.  God given rights, not government given rights.  Having been blessed with these rights we also have personal responsibility to exercise those rights in a manner that conforms to certain values and principles.  Our elected representatives need to state clearly their understanding of this principle.  This needs to be done by opposing actions that could limit these freedoms and supporting actions that infringe on these rights as little as possible.  Overall, they should be able to discuss their actions and votes on issues in the context of the powers given to them via the U.S. Constitution.


7.  I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want.  Government cannot force me to be charitable.  This comes down to the concept of private property.  Our elected officials need to clearly state that they support the concept of private property, mostly through their decisions, actions, and voting record.  The concept of "redistribution of wealth" is not compatible with our system of government.  The value of charity (more on that later) is part of being good stewards of what we are blessed with.  Demanding that we act in a charitable manner is not a value, it's a use of force.  Of interest is the incident regarding Glenn Beck's comments regarding comments made by Jim Wallis, a spiritual adviser to President Obama, in regard to the redistribution of wealth.  There is an article on Media Matters that claims that Glenn's comments are a "distortion" of what Jim Wallis actually said.  You decide.  My Opinion is best represented in an article by Dan Calabrese.  In it he states:
   The fact is that the needs of the poor can only be addressed as Christ intended    by freely acting individuals within an economic system that produces prosperity, thus giving people the means to give freely."
I say amen to that!

8.  It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.  The first amendment pretty succinctly outlines our rights in this country.  Our system functions best if debate is encouraged and facilitated.  Our system and the freedoms it ensures is sometimes "messy" and "frustrating" but it is the only kind of environment that ensures that we retain the liberty we cherish.  "Gridlock" in Washington is bemoaned as a curse, however, it serves a vital role in slowing us down so that we can be sure we have considered the consequences, intended as well as unintended, in order to do what is best for our country and our society.  This, of course, does not include situations that are truly emergencies.  I say 'truly" because the methodology often used is to define anything and everything as an emergency just to win the argument.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate their willingness to listen to all sides of an issue and resist the urge to resort to name-calling, insults, and other attacks.  I, for one, would like to hear a candidate talk about what it is about him/her that I can support in specific terms.  I don't want the candidate to tell me who is opponent is I want them to tell me who THEY are.  You really can  disagree without being disagreeable.  Our representatives also need to have the courage to take a stand for their principles and values even when it may jeopardize their political career.  They should also be willing to answer those hard questions from their constituents in a manner that is truthful and straightforward. That seems to be a tall order, but one we need to seriously consider. 

9.  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  I have shared above some examples of comments made by our representatives that demonstrate how far we've drifted from understanding that our representatives work for us, We The People.  Our representatives need to demonstrate their understanding of this principle by treating their constituents with respect and addressing them as intelligent people.  They need to also resist the urge to point fingers in the "blame game" that has been so prevalent in our political process.  This will increase their awareness of their need to take responsibility for their actions and decisions.  That does not mean that they never disagree with those with differing views.  They need to point out the flaws they perceive in opposing views without making it a personal attack. By the way:  saying that you will stop blaming someone else for present problems when "all the problems go away" does not demonstrate to me a willingness to take responsibility for one's actions.  That's just my opinion.  

Well, that takes care of the nine principles.  I will tackle the values list in a future post.  Thank you for coming on this journey with me.  As always comments and alternate sources of information are welcome as long as they are respectful and constructive. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ronald J. Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me (online.wsj.com)
• With or Without Federal Permission (lewrockwell.com)
• The GOP is abandoning the fight for family values (thehill.com)

On This 9th Anniversary of 9/11/01

I believe that love is the answer.....and that love will find a way. There are many YouTube videos that remember and honor those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.  This link takes you to just one of them.

As we remain in God's hands,
LB

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nine Septembers later, Americans stop to remember (cnn.com)
• Sept. 10, 2001 (lens.blogs.nytimes.com)
• 9/11 anniversary: New York remembers twin towers attacks with minute's silence (telegraph.co.uk)
• Tribute to the Canine Heroes of 9/11 (animals.change.org)

Black Activists Speak out on SB 1070 and 8/28

Image via Wikipedia

When Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law it was denounced as racist by protesters and many in the media.  The above link takes you to a Youtube video of a number of black activists who support Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070.  There is also a discussion of the video and some interesting comments at a site called Digger's Realm.  I wondered why we have not seen these views on the news?  I also wondered why these activists were not part of the narrative at the Reclaim the Dream rally headed up by Rev. Al Sharpton.  A representative of La Raza was there and Rev. Sharpton has encouraged joining forces instead of fighting each other, so I guess that would be the reason these activists had no voice there.  However, I don't believe that there is a "coming together."  I believe there are various factions which define themselves as oppressed joining forces to achieve "social justice."  If you are not familiar with the concept of social justice I would encourage you to develop a deeper understanding of what this means.  Once again, on the surface, it appears to be something we all would want.  However, there are facets of this concept that many would disagree with if they knew exactly what proponents of "social justice" believe needs to be done in order to achieve this goal. 

Black residents reactions to Mexican police patrolling Staten Island in NY in order to protect its nationals is also of interest.  You may also find an article about how the Arizona law's roots might be connected to the border turmoil in California in the 80's and 90's interesting.  I would also recommend an article by Hector Tobar in the LA Times asking a great question:  Where's the outrage over immigrant slayings in Mexico?  (Warning: article includes a picture of the slain immigrants.) Consistency would demand that immigrant advocacy groups express outrage directed at Mexico for this heinous crime, especially since this is not an isolated incident.

The purpose in sharing these articles is question the labeling of the issue solely in terms of race.  The issues are broader than "angry white people" who hate "anyone with brown skin."  The issues are also more complex than people coming to this country illegally in search of a better life.  Taking a hard look at this issue includes considerations of national security, employers and politicians taking advantage of people's illegal status, issues of crime (in particular kidnapping and ransom demands), issues of gang violence, and issues of illegal drugs.  Reducing the issue of illegal immigration to the color of one's skin takes the focus off what we really need to consider in order to solve the problem.

Black conservatives also spoke out on 8/28.  The YouTube video at this link shows a woman bringing up some good points and questions.  She attended the Restoring Honor rally and she was addressing members of Reclaiming the Dream rally.  In a few minutes she presents issues that deserve discussion.  Unfortunately no one stayed to debate her. 

I would like to see us resist the urge to make everything we disagree on all about the color of our skin (note: did you know there are also many Irish illegal immigrants?) and focus more on real world consequences of our policy decisions.  Restoring honor seems to me to be a good place to start. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• You: Sharpton's 'Reclaim the Dream' (voices.washingtonpost.com)

Everything You Need to Know in Four Minutes or Less!

Image via Wikipedia

The above link will take you to an article that will take the average person about four minutes or less to read.  It's addresses "fairness" and the free market.  It states, in summary, that: "the free market ideology teaches not only that businesses can maximize profits by any legal means, but that they have a moral imperative to maximize profits by any legal means, including generating profits by imposing equivalent losses on their counterparties."  It concludes with the "aha" statement:  "Econ 101 (free market ideology) is diametrically opposed to human beings intuitive sense of fairness" and asks the question, " public policy follows the dictates of Econ 101; is that a good thing?"

I would reply with the question:  "Would public policy following the dictates of Marxism as handed down to the masses by the elite be a good thing?"

Did you know that many Little Leagues no longer "keep score" during their seasons and their games?  I'm not talking about the pee wee group, I'm talking 12-year-old little leaguers and beyond.  And, of course there is that "everyone gets a trophy" attitude that follows.  Competition becomes a bad word and no one learns anything, especially how to lose.  A mythical world is created in which there are no winners and no losers.  Everyone is happy, right?  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.  Also, if you extrapolate to the major leagues and even the Olympics you would say that this is ridiculous or, at least, I think you would say that this is ridiculous.  I believe, however, that this is a result of the world view that basically says, "life's not fair so we have to MAKE it fair."  Not, "let's try encourage each other to be honorable and compassionate human beings" but "WE will decide what is fair and YOU will cooperate." 

The free market is not structured on "fairness" nor does it seek to influence human behavior in desirable directions.  Individuals do that.  Individuals, acting as active moral agents and who have a transcendent source of what is right and what is wrong do that.  You cannot divorce the individuals acting within a system from the system and make statements condemning or supporting that same system and stay in what I call the "real world."

This brings me back to the main theme of this post.  We cannot expect to get all the information we need to make important decisions in "four minutes or less."  We need to seek more information, but, even more importantly, we need to seek insight into the sources of our information and the "facts" presented therein.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds good on the first reading, but if you seek insight into what this actually means in the real world you might have a different opinion. 

There are a few articles below that may be of interest.  You won't be able to read them in four minutes or less, but I believe it may turn out to be time well spent in your search for insight.  

Related articles by Zemanta

• Do Free Markets Lead to Fairer Wages? (reason.com)
• Mutualism versus Marxism (jockcoats.me)
• Where is the anti-capitalist ideology? | Antony Lerman (guardian.co.uk)