Professing To Be Wise...
Dec. 2, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Politics
...they look like fools.
Students at the Columbia University School of Journalism were caught cheating on an ETHICS exam.
You can't teach a class on ethics without right and wrong being defined at some point. But what did this professor base his ethics course on? Christians have chosen the Bible as our standard, believers of other religions have their book as well, but I never could grasp where unbelievers of any sort get their standard of right and wrong. Without an independent standard, it all becomes arbitrary and relative to the situation.
For example, if I asked you to tell me the length of my header you would tell me your guess, I would tell you mine. Then we would get a ruler and measure the distance to see who was correct. That's an independent standard. Without one, we would both go on believe our answer is correct.
So in a morally relative world, can somone please explain to me why students cheating on a test is wrong? (I'm assuming the professor did not use a religous book to teach his class on ethics.)
Students at the Columbia University School of Journalism were caught cheating on an ETHICS exam.
The course, which includes such issues as "Why be Ethical?" and "Tribal Loyalty vs. Journalistic Obligation," is taught by New York Times columnist Samuel G.Did they expect anything less from a New York Times columnist as their professor?
Freedman, who could not be reached yesterday.
You can't teach a class on ethics without right and wrong being defined at some point. But what did this professor base his ethics course on? Christians have chosen the Bible as our standard, believers of other religions have their book as well, but I never could grasp where unbelievers of any sort get their standard of right and wrong. Without an independent standard, it all becomes arbitrary and relative to the situation.
For example, if I asked you to tell me the length of my header you would tell me your guess, I would tell you mine. Then we would get a ruler and measure the distance to see who was correct. That's an independent standard. Without one, we would both go on believe our answer is correct.
So in a morally relative world, can somone please explain to me why students cheating on a test is wrong? (I'm assuming the professor did not use a religous book to teach his class on ethics.)
A farce or a tragedy?
Nov. 25, 2006 at 8:04 PM
Politics
In a segment focusing on marriage and the separation of church and state, Larry King and Dr. James Dobson had this exchange.
Larry King isn't alone. I've met a few too many school teachers who believe that the idea of separation of church and state is in the United States Constitution as well. If Larry King and many our school teachers don't know, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen? Unfortunately, it's the schools or the TV where most people get their information these days. And if there is a "wall of separation" it's between the citizen and his knowledge of the rights our great country affords him.
President James Madison said,
I'll help you out Larry, here's a link to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, you won't find it in either place. You might try here.KING: Why is [marriage] a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved? I'm not being...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBSON: Well, it's both. It is both. I mean, you can go...
KING: But we have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Beg your pardon?
KING: We have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution. That was...
KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
KING: I'm going to check my history.
Larry King isn't alone. I've met a few too many school teachers who believe that the idea of separation of church and state is in the United States Constitution as well. If Larry King and many our school teachers don't know, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen? Unfortunately, it's the schools or the TV where most people get their information these days. And if there is a "wall of separation" it's between the citizen and his knowledge of the rights our great country affords him.
President James Madison said,
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."So with the knowledge most are given today, would President Madison believe we are becoming a farce, a tragedy, or perhaps both? And if that's the case is there anything that can alter our course? I believe there is.
All Politics Is 'Not' Local
Oct. 26, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Politics
Scrappleface get's to the heart of the matter.
Scott Ott produced this ad in response to the kerfuffle over the Michael J. Fox ad being run in Missouri. I don't usually get too involved in other issues here, but this was just too well done not to pass on. Today's education related posts are below.
HT: Michelle Malkin
Scott Ott produced this ad in response to the kerfuffle over the Michael J. Fox ad being run in Missouri. I don't usually get too involved in other issues here, but this was just too well done not to pass on. Today's education related posts are below.
HT: Michelle Malkin
Family Values For All Of Us
Oct. 8, 2006 at 11:59 PM
Politics
E.J. Dionne wants to start a national dialogue on "family values" for all of us. As a liberal, he's concerned about the repugnant behavior of Republican Congressman, Mark Foley. He hopes to shake politicans out of their political posturing and start thinking as concerned parents.
The answer is obvious. Back then those were the issues of the "intolerant" moral majority seeking to push their archaic values on enlightened society. Amazingly, in the click of an instant message, the moral threshold of some previously "tolerant" liberals was suddenly violated and family values are in vogue.
Everyone has a threshold in which they will finally stand up and say, "This is wrong." It's nice to know that a few liberals have finally reached their moral limit on deviant behavior.
Most Christian conservatives reached their threshold long ago. To us, there are clear, immovable boundaries based on a Biblical standard. That isn't to say they are followed by all Christians every time, but the standard doesn't change because Christians fail to follow them. The Ten Commandments are still the same today, despite the fact that many Christians have committed murder or adultery. Sex outside of marriage is wrong no matter what the age difference. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Life begins at conception. There is only one God. Period.
So as a Christian conservative, it is easy to see why I find Mr. Foley's behavior repugnant. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I understand why liberal secularists do.
It's curious to me, that liberals find lewd virtual messages between a homosexual politician and a student absolutely intolerable, but a teacher in a video message teaching minor students how to put on a condom using a wooden "prop" and in-class talks on sexual preferences are considered responsible school policy. Why is a physician performing an abortion on a pregnant teen girl and instantly murdering a baby compassionate? But a politician's graphic virtual overtures with a page through instant messaging corrupt?
In a morally relative universe I suppose this makes perfect sense. Standards are arbitrary, based on popular opinion and personal convenience. Liberal secularists want to live and play by the rules until the rules infringe upon some new desire. Instead of changing their behavior, they change the rules and redefine right and wrong.
Marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman joined in a holy convenant, but any two (or more) consenting adults who commit to a partnership joined by a state contract. A baby is not human until they are "viable" before then they are a fetus easily discarded. By doing so, liberal secularists attempt to legitimize their behavior and rid themselves of the accompanying guilt. They also demand that others accept their behavior as normal and those who don't are "intolerant." Consequently, our nation's moral foundation suffers another crack and we move another step toward complete moral collapse.
Foley's behavior hopefully exposes the lie that we can just live by our own desires and make up the rules as we go along. Some liberal secularists have reached the end of their moral rope and cry, "Let's have a little restraint please!" Concerned liberal parents like E. J. Dionne, now see the wisdom of having boundaries and want to discuss "family values" with moral conservatives. His approach is predictably very liberal.
Mr. Dionne, I don't question your sincerity in helping parents or your apparent interest in "family values." I question your definitions and those of the members of Congress. I'm concerned about politicians and pundits who think that "family leave" is a "family value" worth supporting, but marriage between one man and one woman and parental notification in minor abortions are not.
So until society can agree on the definition of "family values," a public policy that encourages them will never be for all of us.
Related Tags: Mark Foley, E. J. Dionne, family values, Christianity, culture, family, parenting, education
I have to say, Dionne's right in one respect, it was surprising to watch politicians fret over how this will hurt them in November more than how this will hurt our society. His reminder to think as a parent first is a good one. But what I would like to ask Mr. Dionne is why now? Why is it acceptable to engage in a discussion of "family values" today as opposed to...oh say, in 1972 when Roe -vs- Wade was decided? Or the mid '80's when then Attorney General Meese held his Commission on Pornography? Why now and not then?We need to have a long talk about the meaning of "family values."
Like just about every parent I know, I was horrified by this episode because I couldn't believe that the politicians involved didn't themselves react first as parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles -- rather than as politicians -- when they learned about Foley's special interest in a page...
"Family values" is more than a political slogan to be pulled off the shelf at election time.
The answer is obvious. Back then those were the issues of the "intolerant" moral majority seeking to push their archaic values on enlightened society. Amazingly, in the click of an instant message, the moral threshold of some previously "tolerant" liberals was suddenly violated and family values are in vogue.
Everyone has a threshold in which they will finally stand up and say, "This is wrong." It's nice to know that a few liberals have finally reached their moral limit on deviant behavior.
Most Christian conservatives reached their threshold long ago. To us, there are clear, immovable boundaries based on a Biblical standard. That isn't to say they are followed by all Christians every time, but the standard doesn't change because Christians fail to follow them. The Ten Commandments are still the same today, despite the fact that many Christians have committed murder or adultery. Sex outside of marriage is wrong no matter what the age difference. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Life begins at conception. There is only one God. Period.
So as a Christian conservative, it is easy to see why I find Mr. Foley's behavior repugnant. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I understand why liberal secularists do.
It's curious to me, that liberals find lewd virtual messages between a homosexual politician and a student absolutely intolerable, but a teacher in a video message teaching minor students how to put on a condom using a wooden "prop" and in-class talks on sexual preferences are considered responsible school policy. Why is a physician performing an abortion on a pregnant teen girl and instantly murdering a baby compassionate? But a politician's graphic virtual overtures with a page through instant messaging corrupt?
In a morally relative universe I suppose this makes perfect sense. Standards are arbitrary, based on popular opinion and personal convenience. Liberal secularists want to live and play by the rules until the rules infringe upon some new desire. Instead of changing their behavior, they change the rules and redefine right and wrong.
Marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman joined in a holy convenant, but any two (or more) consenting adults who commit to a partnership joined by a state contract. A baby is not human until they are "viable" before then they are a fetus easily discarded. By doing so, liberal secularists attempt to legitimize their behavior and rid themselves of the accompanying guilt. They also demand that others accept their behavior as normal and those who don't are "intolerant." Consequently, our nation's moral foundation suffers another crack and we move another step toward complete moral collapse.
Foley's behavior hopefully exposes the lie that we can just live by our own desires and make up the rules as we go along. Some liberal secularists have reached the end of their moral rope and cry, "Let's have a little restraint please!" Concerned liberal parents like E. J. Dionne, now see the wisdom of having boundaries and want to discuss "family values" with moral conservatives. His approach is predictably very liberal.
And let economic liberals and moral conservatives come together to discuss how our society has made it more difficult for parents to do the job right. The family values issues that we can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits -- in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.Parenting is a difficult job, I agree. And the points Dionne raises about work and school schedules are all topics worthy of attention. But is that the best starting point for a dialogue on family values? Shouldn't we begin by defining our principles before we decide public policy? Let's begin by examining the phrase "family values." What is a family? And what do we value?
Mr. Dionne, I don't question your sincerity in helping parents or your apparent interest in "family values." I question your definitions and those of the members of Congress. I'm concerned about politicians and pundits who think that "family leave" is a "family value" worth supporting, but marriage between one man and one woman and parental notification in minor abortions are not.
So until society can agree on the definition of "family values," a public policy that encourages them will never be for all of us.
Related Tags: Mark Foley, E. J. Dionne, family values, Christianity, culture, family, parenting, education
The DeVos Blog
Sep. 30, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Politics
I really think Dick DeVos could make an excellent governor for Michigan, but there are certain things I'm seeing that are starting to make me wonder how he will lead if elected. I've emailed my questions and concerns to the DeVos campaign quite a few times over the last few weeks with no response. I did speak to an aide but she couldn't answer my questions. His wife was also unable to provide any substantive answers. With Secretary Spellings voicing her desire to track students in higher education, we are at a pivotal time in education policy. The federal government wants to do this in "partnership" with the states. Is Dick DeVos willing to give up our freedom for federal funds? I don't know.
So I decided to try his blog and ask my questions publically. I left quite a few comments on his blog over the past week. I know they were received. In order to leave them you have to register on the site and respond to an email before posting. I am now receiving constant updates about the campaign. However, the comments don't seem to be making it to onto the site. If you're going to have a blog that allows comments it's because you want to interact with your readers and hear their feedback, right? Otherwise, turn the comments off. But allowing comments and only letting certain ones make it on the blog seems a bit disengenuous to me. (Are the comments that actually do make it even legitimate?) My comments weren't mean spirited. They were also on topic and pertained to the post on education. So why were they not approved? An email asking why has also been unanswered. His wife said in her talk this week that the problem with most individuals involved in government is that they don't view the people as the "customer" and they should. Well, most companies that ignored the customer would quickly go out of business. (The absurdity of her claim that we are a customer of our government duly noted.)
If you're from Michigan, maybe you could offer a little customer feedback. Try leaving them a comment and see if you do any better than me. Let me know how it goes.
Interestingly, the campaign has called numerous times over the last few weeks asking us to volunteer to help get Mr. DeVos elected. I would love to help, but I first want to make sure this is a man I want to vote for. If Republican candidates think they can just assume my vote simply because I am a conservative Christian and the alternative would be worse, they are sadly mistaken. I'm beginning to wonder if there is much a difference between the two parties anymore. Does anyone have the courage to state their convictions and what they will do BEFORE they get elected? I wonder how future candidates with a blog trail will do. It's a cinch with all I've written here, my chances of getting elected are slim to none. Not that I ever planned on running for office anyway.
As a side note, my computer has crashed. I pray it gets fixed soon. I posted three times today but it may be while before I post again. So posts may come in spurts until it is fixed.
Related Tags: Dick DeVos, Amway, Michigan, homeschooling, homeschool, education, No Child Left Behind, NCLB
So I decided to try his blog and ask my questions publically. I left quite a few comments on his blog over the past week. I know they were received. In order to leave them you have to register on the site and respond to an email before posting. I am now receiving constant updates about the campaign. However, the comments don't seem to be making it to onto the site. If you're going to have a blog that allows comments it's because you want to interact with your readers and hear their feedback, right? Otherwise, turn the comments off. But allowing comments and only letting certain ones make it on the blog seems a bit disengenuous to me. (Are the comments that actually do make it even legitimate?) My comments weren't mean spirited. They were also on topic and pertained to the post on education. So why were they not approved? An email asking why has also been unanswered. His wife said in her talk this week that the problem with most individuals involved in government is that they don't view the people as the "customer" and they should. Well, most companies that ignored the customer would quickly go out of business. (The absurdity of her claim that we are a customer of our government duly noted.)
If you're from Michigan, maybe you could offer a little customer feedback. Try leaving them a comment and see if you do any better than me. Let me know how it goes.
Interestingly, the campaign has called numerous times over the last few weeks asking us to volunteer to help get Mr. DeVos elected. I would love to help, but I first want to make sure this is a man I want to vote for. If Republican candidates think they can just assume my vote simply because I am a conservative Christian and the alternative would be worse, they are sadly mistaken. I'm beginning to wonder if there is much a difference between the two parties anymore. Does anyone have the courage to state their convictions and what they will do BEFORE they get elected? I wonder how future candidates with a blog trail will do. It's a cinch with all I've written here, my chances of getting elected are slim to none. Not that I ever planned on running for office anyway.
As a side note, my computer has crashed. I pray it gets fixed soon. I posted three times today but it may be while before I post again. So posts may come in spurts until it is fixed.
Related Tags: Dick DeVos, Amway, Michigan, homeschooling, homeschool, education, No Child Left Behind, NCLB
Be Liberal But Multiply, Please!
Aug. 23, 2006 at 9:41 AM
Politics
That should become the mantra if liberals want to retain any voice in American politics. According to Arthur C. Brooks in the Wall Street Journal the "left" has has a fertility problem.
You know, for a bunch of people who don't believe in God, the People For the American Way sure fear those of us that do.
By the way, not all Christians who are involved in politics are reconstructionists. And neither are all Christian homeschoolers.
Related Tags: homeschooling, home education, reconsructionist, dominionist, People For the American Way, Ralph Neas, Wall Street Journal
That's assuming that conservatives can stand to live in California for another 14 years! And if the Republicans continue to act like Democrats this may all become a non-issue. We'll have enough babies to start our own party. And given that most of the large families are also Christians, maybe we'll even adopt the term used by the People for the American Way - Christocrats. That's what they call Christians involved in politics in their just released report, Patriot Pastors' Electoral War Against the 'Hordes of Hell.'Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.
You know, for a bunch of people who don't believe in God, the People For the American Way sure fear those of us that do.
By the way, not all Christians who are involved in politics are reconstructionists. And neither are all Christian homeschoolers.
Related Tags: homeschooling, home education, reconsructionist, dominionist, People For the American Way, Ralph Neas, Wall Street Journal
Knock, Knock
Jul. 21, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Politics
Who's there?
The State.
State Who?
State your name, age, height, weight, and blood type; and while we're here we may as well get your pulse, a hair sample, and just a little bit of your blood.
Unfortunately this is no joke and it's coming to the State of Washington. Notice the survey is not random, the state is choosing who to sample. My advice - skip the $45 gift card and tell them to get lost.
.The State.
State Who?
State your name, age, height, weight, and blood type; and while we're here we may as well get your pulse, a hair sample, and just a little bit of your blood.
Unfortunately this is no joke and it's coming to the State of Washington. Notice the survey is not random, the state is choosing who to sample. My advice - skip the $45 gift card and tell them to get lost.
Bad Law vs Bad Parenting
Jul. 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Politics
The state of California wants to fine parents who smoke in the car with small children.
(HT: Joanne Jacobs)
As much as I deplore cigarette smoke, I hate the thought of the government regulating the personal lives of its citizens even more. Bad parenting is not a good excuse to destroy our freedoms and the right to privacy.One day after the U.S. Surgeon General released the most ****ing study yet on secondhand smoke, a state Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday that would allow police to stop drivers guilty of puffing in the confines of their car when a child passenger is secured in a safety seat.
There's no excuse in today's society for any mother of any age, or any level of education, to do something which I consider akin to child abuse," said Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, chair of the Senate Health Committee, which approved the measure.
(HT: Joanne Jacobs)
