Social Responsibility

Recently I received an email from a friend. This friend is a teacher of teachers, that is, this person travels from district to district and teaches other teachers how to teach students. As a high level educator my friend has a finger on the pulse of the public education system as much as anyone could. So you have to understand my concern when I received a link from this friend with a message attached begging that I get this information out to the public.

Our founders told us that we needed two separate systems of education, “one to teach us to make a living and another to teach us how to live.” The intent was for our families, churches, and social groups would teach us the latter and they would create a public education system for the former. This separation between moral and intellectual training was considered vital to social cohesion. Even now most public administrators want to keep religion out of school.

All of this being the case, how is that our public educators are taking it upon themselves to decide, define and provide the morality to our children? It never has been, nor is it now the job of the crappy public school system to teach morality or “social responsibility” to our kids. Frankly, I don’t see that our school system holds the moral equity to pass on their flawed ideology to my children.

Having looked over the link that my friend sent (http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/may09/vol66/num08/toc.aspx) I must say that I was rattled, to say the least. It seems innocent enough when you read “Shouldn't we also expose economics students to the humane, religious, and ethical ways of thinking about economics? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a moral issue, are silent about economic and social justice, fail to even mention charitable giving, say nothing about work as a calling, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on the environment (Nord & Haynes, 1998)”, but read it again.

If you are a liberal then please consider the same written like this.. “Shouldn’t we also expose economics students to the vast rewards of the capitalist system while teaching them to live as children of Jesus Christ? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a personal responsibility, are silent about the basic truth that there is no such thing as economic or social justice, fail to mention that poverty comes from either laziness or a series of bad decisions and that churches and families are the sources of charity, say nothing about work as a decision, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on improving the environment.”

How does that make you feel? You would consider it propaganda right? Well it is, and it’s all true, but it has no more place in our education system then your socialist propaganda does. It is only because you think you have some kind of moral and ethical high ground. The fact is that the public education system is a shining example of how government can screw up anything. You teachers feel smart because you went to college and received a document that says that you have been taught enough to teach children. This does not make you smart, in fact, chances are, you chose to teach because you had no marketable skills, talents or knowledge to help you succeed in “the real world”. So you went back to school, the only place you had ever been. You now have a sense of intellectual superiority (because your peers are children) and a job for which you are required to show no merit to succeed.

Yes, I realize that there are some teachers out there who are actually doing it for the right reasons but then, you’re not the one’s pushing this socialist agenda. You see, public education is a socialist environment. Teachers are paid to show up! If they keep showing up, year after year, they keep getting raises regardless of their “productivity” (or lack thereof). They receive benefits of the highest order, they get tons of holidays and they qualify for tenure (meaning they cannot be fired without an act of congress). I know, I know.. Why EARN a living wage when you can just vote for it.

It’s easy to see why these people support socialism, after all, the money for schools is handed to them by the almighty government and nobody has to actually sell anything. The public is forced to buy their product by law while truancy officers force customers through their doors. What they do not understand is that the same system cannot work if all receive and there is no one to give. But then, most teachers only know what they were taught and their teachers were never taught to teach them that stuff.

Again, I encourage you to look over the site linked above and if you see nothing wrong with it then please.. Smear some environmentally friendly, non petroleum, Government Issue, union supported, high viscosity lubricant around the pointed top of your long haired, pot stinking, Stalin loving melon and cram it up your free market hating, MSNBC watching, Obama worshiping rectum.

Joining the rest of the Modern World?

I’ve brought it up before but I feel I must briefly visit the topic again. I keep hearing leftist idiots say that we are “finally joining the rest of the modern world” by installing socialized medicine. I decided to do the research and I was kind of surprised. I always knew that the majority of medical breakthroughs owed their existence but I didn’t realize just how right I was.

If you look up a list of the top 5, 10 or even 100 medical breakthroughs of all time you will find… wait.. Instead of telling you, I want you to figure it out for yourself. This way you can’t just call me a liar.

I will give you a hint. Every single one is the direct result of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. I dare you to prove me wrong. If you consider Aspirin, a German invention which would (according to their own historical account) have never reached widespread availability had they not procured a US patent. In 1919 the Sterling Products company of West Virginia (that is in America for you liberals) risked $3 million on the development of Bayer’s Aspirin. This risk would be illegal under the new health care law.

Penicillin was discovered in Europe but the economy of the socialist European nations was prohibitive for the production of the necessary quantities for clinical trials. They “turned to the United States for help” and through private contributions Howard Florey and Norman Heatly were able to develop the life saving antibiotics that we rely on today. Again, the private funding would not have existed under the new Democratic health care bill.

I would argue that; if the progressives had forced this bill in the beginning of the American experiment then we would not have Aspirin, Antibiotics, anesthesia, artificial hearts, and most other advantages that modern medicine has brought us.

So, with this undeniable evidence to support my case then we must consider the next logical thought. What new breakthroughs will be restricted by our joining the rest of the modern world in adopting socialized medicine. What cures? What advancements? What treatments? What is the real cost of the destruction of the free market. What is the cost to your life and that of your children in the name of “punishing” successful companies for having a better idea and wanting to be paid for it?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again… If you don’t like America then leave it, don’t change it

Enimy at the Gate

Today we sit and wait for the verdict. Are we going to remain a nation of free people or have the majority figured out that they can vote away their freedom for a paycheck. As you leftists sit and cheer for this legislation, there are a few things you should consider.

First of all, the government has no power to produce! This means that it can only consume. Let me explain.. For the government to give something to someone they must first take it from someone else. As the government takes from one it divides what it takes, keeping its share and distributing the rest. Like any engine which is doing well to convert 60% of the energy it consumes to forward motion and losing the rest to heat, a government is perpetually inefficient.

Secondly; the harder you try to make all people equal the more you highlight their inequalities. The only way to provide universal equality is to ensure that all are equally without, that is, to strip everyone of everything. The movie "Enemy at the Gate" provides a subtle yet powerful example of this fact. The Soviet Union struggled with this paradox as it tried to create a universal utopia.

In a socialist society there is one constant and we are beginning to see it now. Each time an action or idea proves to be successful that success is equally divided throughout society. In financial terms, if the average income for 1000 people is 100 dollars a week and someone figures out how to double his money, that extra 100 is divided out 1000 ways. If you can't do the math then turn off your computer and go watch American Idol. With that incrimental increase resulting from doubled effort, why would anyone ever double their effort. And thus... equality through governmental interdiction.

Each time a socialist gets ahead there is a new law written to keep that from happening again. This is undeniable, look at the laws that govern your precious European nations. If this is the life you want then just hop on British Airways or build yourself a shotty raft and head to some other country. Please stop trying to destroy this great nation.

We are on the edge of a total loss of everything our soldiers have sacrificed for throughout time. I, for one, will not let this happen. We will fight this socialist takeover on a political level for as long as we have the means to do so. If, at some point in time, we lose the freedom to battle in the arena of ideas then we will take this fight to our death and defend the American way, by all means necessary.

I'm not suggesting we turn to violence in this battle, but rest assured... If you socialists think you can tread on us you are sadly mistaken!

Fundamental Right?

While listening to the Schnitt Show, this afternoon, I heard another moron call healthcare a fundamental right. Please... let me vent!

Nothing that must be provided by one human being is a right for another human being. We, as humans, have a hand full of rights that are fundamental but can be taken from us. Let me give you the short list.

1. You have the right to life. You may live as long as you are capable of keeping yourself alive and no other person has the right to take your life.

2. You have the right to liberty. You can make your own decisions as long as you aren't stepping on the liberty of another, regardless of whether the decisions help or harm you.

3. You have the right to pursue happiness. You can offer up the product of your labor in trade for the product of someone Else's and the price is between the buyer and the seller, not society and the government (minimum wage?).

4. You have the right to think, feel or say anything you want about another person. If some idiot wants to run around calling everyone a "nigger" then let him. Just don't listen to him whine when he loses all of his friends.

There are a few others I'm sure, but the point is... If every doctor or medical professional in the world decided to quit their jobs one day then who would provide this, so called, "fundamental right"? You see, that's what makes it more of a responsibility then a right.

We cannot force responsibility through government. If we did, it would resemble slavery and we don't want to go back there. I personally think that anyone who thinks healthcare is a right should be forced to give up the product of their labor for the common good. This might change their mind, or we might find that those who think that way are the ones who produce nothing to contribute.

Our Education System

After reading posts on my school discussion board I am a bit shaken. What is happening to our society? When asked how to solve a drug problem in our society it seems most of the youth in my area think the solution is in regulation of corporate entities. That is, they think that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the Meth problem.

Seriously? That's tant amount to blaming metal companies for gun violence. The Idea that some kind of government intervention on the supply of medicine would prevent people from distorting the intended use of that medicine is absurd. Frankly it frightens me that people are more ready to blame "greedy capitalists" then greedy consumers. Where do people get the idea that capitalism is bad?

Think about it, if not for capitalism then we would still be living in the eighteenth century. We would have no medical system to speak of, we would be confined to small areas and we would be ruled by tyrants. Is this really the solution to our little problems today?

Is it not evident that it was the introduction of governmental politics that ruined the free market? How can someone say that it was the philosophy that one gets what he earns rather than having to share what he earns with one who only wants is really going to work out?

I'm hoping that some of my classmates are willing to move an improperly placed political debate to this forum and continue unrestrained for the benefit of enlightenment. I am willing and eager to engage in a debate between Americanism and progressivism with anyone who is willing to accept the challenge.