GARFIELD ON THE OIL CRISIS
A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. ~~~
Well, there's a very simple answer. ~~~
Nobody bothered to check the oil. ~~~
We just didn't know we were getting low. ~~~
The reason for that is purely geographical. ~~~
Our OIL is located in: ~~~
ALASKA
~~~
California
~~~
Coastal Florida
~~~
Coastal Louisiana ~~~ Coastal Alabama ~~~~ Coastal Mississippi ~~~~
Coastal Texas ~~~
North Dakota
~~~
Wyoming
~~~
Colorado
~~~
Kansas
~~~~
Ohio
~~~
Oklahoma
~~~
Pennsylvania
~~~ And Texas~~~
Our dipsticks are located in DC
~~~Any Questions? NO?
A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. ~~~
Well, there's a very simple answer. ~~~
Nobody bothered to check the oil. ~~~
We just didn't know we were getting low. ~~~
The reason for that is purely geographical. ~~~
Our OIL is located in: ~~~
ALASKA
~~~
California
~~~
Coastal Florida
~~~
Coastal Louisiana ~~~ Coastal Alabama ~~~~ Coastal Mississippi ~~~~
Coastal Texas ~~~
North Dakota
~~~
Wyoming
~~~
Colorado
~~~
Kansas
~~~~
Ohio
~~~
Oklahoma
~~~
Pennsylvania
~~~ And Texas~~~
Our dipsticks are located in DC
~~~Any Questions? NO?
Didn't think So.
-------------------------------------------------
Carson speaks out and is learning that when you upset liberals and challenge them they can, and generally do, get nasty and personal because they cannot defend their empty ideas.
'Trash talkin' the Black Conservatives is something liberals love doing. Why? (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
If a married Jewish man is walking alone in a park and expresses an
opinion without anybody hearing him, is he still wrong?
opinion without anybody hearing him, is he still wrong?
---
Is a potentially crippling cyber attack about to hit Israel? (See 2 below.)
Does chemical weapon theft becomes a closer reality? (See 2a below.)
Assad and is chemical weapons. Has the red line been crossed? (See 2b below.)
---
A read on future Turkish-Israeli relations by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel, the former head of Israel's Counter Terrorism Bureau. (See 3 below.)
---
There's that education thing raising its head again. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------
1)Carson: White Liberals the Most Racist
By Cyrus Afzali
In an appearance on the Mark Levin radio show, Carson said he represents an existential threat to gay marriage proponents, which is why attacks on his stance against gay marriage have been so vicious.
“They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me, they can’t find anything else to delegitimize me, so they take my words, misinterpret them and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot,” he said.
After Levin asked him about white liberals, Carson, who is black, said, “They’re the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box. How could you dare come off the plantation?”
Carson, a professor in pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has become a darling of conservatives since speaking out at the National Prayer Breakfast in February where he attacked President Barack Obama’s policies in front of the president. He has even hinted at a possible presidential run in 2016.
Carson said last week that marriage “is a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”
NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
Initially he defended his comments, saying they were misunderstood and taken out of context.
However, the remarks prompted students to petition for his removal as this year’s commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins. Carson said he would not speak if students continued to object.
1a)Black conservatism seems so unappetizing
By Tony Norman
Two great tastes that taste great together." That's how Madison Avenue pitched the blending of "real milk chocolate" and "good old-fashioned peanut butter" in those classic Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ads decades ago.
Those ads appeared when anything that deviated too much from standard junk food fare was considered suspect and required a major sales job. As far as my pre-teen self was concerned, blending two "foreign" flavors like peanut butter and chocolate really was exotic -- until I took my first bite into a Reese's cup. I didn't need much convincing after that. Chocolate and peanut butter really did go great together.
Because my initial skepticism about peanut butter cups was rendered ridiculous by one bite in 1972, I tried to keep an open mind about other "innovations" over the years. Sometimes I would ask myself if something I was initially suspicious of could, upon closer review, be another example of "two great tastes that taste great together."
My initial flirtation with political conservatism occurred during my first year of college. After listening to a little too much conservative talk radio, I had developed into something of a noisy malcontent when it came to pointing out the political failures of prominent black leaders. I deeply resented the stranglehold the Democratic Party held over the black vote in Philly -- but not enough to actually vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
My sudden interest in religion, along with my friendship with some very conservative folks who saw the world strictly as an ongoing battle between good and evil, made me amazed that my drift toward the progressive end of the political spectrum didn't result in more hard feelings. Being black and being conservative in the 1980s -- two great tastes that taste great together? Not in my case.
Watching newly minted black conservative hero Ben Carson walk back his Santorum-like utterances on same-sex marriage last week was excruciating. Earlier, Dr. Carson said on Sean Hannity's talk show that marriage was "between a man and a woman" and that "no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are -- they don't get to change the definition."
Dr. Carson appeared genuinely taken aback by the backlash. In his social and religious circles, he's used to hearing gays lumped in with child molesters and people who have sex with animals. He may not have been directly equating them, but he was casually associating marriage equality with evil sexual practices by mentioning them in the same breath. He would have to be naive or stupid -- and he isn't stupid -- to think people wouldn't make the connection.
By all accounts Dr. Carson is a good guy, but his brilliance as a pediatric neurosurgeon doesn't translate into anything remotely resembling a political philosophy one should take seriously. There are lots of Republican doctors in Congress, but you'll be hard-pressed to find one who isn't a creationist or an espouser of bizarre theories. That's why I winced watching his apology on MSNBC -- "If anybody was offended, I apologize to you." Dr. Carson clearly has no idea how he's coming across to folks who won't defer to him just because he's a doctor.
At the same time that Dr. Carson was making his tepid apology, Southern Baptist Convention president Fred Luter, the first African-American elected to that post, made a bizarre connection between gay marriage and threats by North Korean dictator-in-training Kim Jong Un to nuke the West Coast.
"I would not be surprised that the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don't think it's just a coincidence that we have a madman in Asia who's saying some of the things that he's saying," Mr. Luter told an obscure right-wing radio host egging him on. Even after he admitted that prophecy wasn't his forte, it never occurred to Mr. Luter to simply shut up if he didn't know what he was talking about.
It is depressingly easy to goad black conservatives into saying something bigoted out loud, especially if it involves gays and lesbians. Give them a microphone and they'll find a way to fit the conservative narrative of what a "sensible" black leader is supposed to sound like. Somehow, they're always shocked when their sanctimony isn't enough to shield them from criticism.
Though every American would be better off in a system where both parties compete fiercely for every vote, conservatives overwhelmingly prefer mayonnaise and Wonder Bread to a peanut butter and chocolate world.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Israel braces for 'potentially crippling' cyberattack
Ilan Gattegno and Israel Hayom Staff
Israel is bracing for a “potentially crippling” cyberattack against the country's major companies and websites, Israel Hayom learned Tuesday. The attack is set to take place on April 7, which this year will be the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day.
The planned assault is part of hacktivist group Anonymous's ongoing #OpIsrael campaign, which was launched in March in a show of solidarity with the Palestinians. As part of the campaign, Anonymous — which has since been joined by several other hacktivist groups including Sector404 and RedHack — said that on April 7 that it would “launch a coordinated, massive cyberattack on Israeli targets with the intent of erasing Israel from the Internet.”
Last week, the three groups claimed they breached the Mossad's mainframe, accessed classified information and leaked the personal details of over 34,000 of the intelligence agency's officers and agents worldwide online. The Mossad did not comment on the matter.
According to Shai Blitzblau, CEO of Maglan Information Defense Technologies Research, the attack is likely to target government websites as well as major banks and credit cards companies.
Israel's financial system was targeted in a series of cyberattacks in early 2012: Two of Israel's major banks, Hapoalim and Leumi, as well as three major credit card companies — Isracard, Leumi Card and Visa Cal — were hacked, as was the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
Hackers are also constantly trying to target Israel's critical infrastructure, such as its power and water grids: In September 2012, Yiftach Ron-Tal, chairman of the Israel Electric Corporation's board of directors, revealed that IEC sees between 10,000 and 20,000 attempted cyberattacks a day. Ron-Tal was speaking at the annual cyber summit, hosted by the Israel Institute for National Security Studies.
“Cyberattacks worldwide are becoming more powerful every day, but the [coming] attack won't be substantially different from what we've seen before,” Blitzblau said. “The hackers are likely to target the top 100 Israeli websites and they will probably try introducing Trojan horses into their servers, to infect as many users as possible.”
The systems used by the majority of Israel's banks, credit card and telecommunication companies are susceptible to denial-of-service attacks that use the availability of virtual host-servers to create massive traffic backlogs, which eventually crash the websites using their services.
Meanwhile, the military is also gearing for an increase in cyberattacks: In mid-February, the Israel Defense Forces set up an official cyber war room, meant to improve the IDF's ability to thwart what military sources called “the constant attempts” to hack into the IDF's computer systems.
The IDF officially defined cyber warfare as the fifth arena of warfare, alongside land, sea, air and space, in 2012.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2a)Israel’s Def Min inspects Golan position. Al Qaeda nears Syrian chemical depot
In fierce battles with Syrian troops, Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front is spearheading the rebels’ advance on the Syrian army’s biggest chemical weapons depot at the Al-Safira military and air defense base near Aleppo in the north. By Tuesday, April 2, the assault force had come within 1.5 kilometers of its target.
This prompted an urgent visit by Israel’s top security officials to the Golan border for a close assessment of the situation.
The group surveying the situation from the IDF position at Tel Hazaka was led by Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and OC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Yair Golan.
On his first visit to the Golan border, the defense minister said that Israel had in the past and would in the future prevent the proliferation of weapons that could “threaten us.”
Yaalon was the first leading Israeli figure to state clearly that Israel would act to prevent the proliferation of Syria’s chemical weapons – whether to the al Qaeda or Hizballah terrorist organizations.
His words came after the rebels Monday seized from the Syrian army the town of al-Safira from which they continued to push forward toward the sprawling air, air-defense and artillery base itself.
As Syrian defenses weakened, the troops fighting there and in the Damascus region were issued with anti-contamination suits and gas masks.
Military and intelligence sources add that the possible fall of the strategic al-Safira base into rebel hands, especially the Islamist militias, was one of the highest items on the agenda of US President Barack Obama’s talks with Israeli and Jordanian leaders in Jerusalem and Amman in the third week of March.
He supervised plans for coordinated US-Israeli-Jordanian-Turkish action in Syria in the event of a direct threat of chemical warfare.
The minister and the generals spent time on the Golan border with Syria on final checks to make sure that the IDF units were well prepared for possible action to prevent al Qaeda procuring chemical weapons of mass destruction.
Did Syria use chemical weapons to help Iran?
The investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria could
have an interesting turn.
By JAMES ZUMWALT
The investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria could
have an interesting turn.
By JAMES ZUMWALT
Take an unpopular dictator of an Arab country with chemical/biological weapons in his arsenal and there is one certainty:
He will implement every possible safety factor to ensure no one gains access to employ them against him.
While these leaders revere the use of such weapons against their foes, they absolutely fear deployment by their foes against the leaders.
The late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a perfect example. High-level security was constant at his arsenals. When used -- as he brutally did against both the Kurds and Iranians -- the deadly rounds were transported by trusted members of his own tribe to the battlefield -- each escort providing a full accounting.
Allegations were made that on March 19, chemical weapons were used in northern Syria, near Aleppo, claiming 26 lives and injuring 86 other people. Unsurprisingly -- since once chemical agents are released on the battlefield they become subject to weather and wind conditions -- victims fell on both
sides.
sides.
The Assad regime blames the rebels; the rebels blame Assad. Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi claims the rocket involved contained "poisonous gases" and the attack was "the first act" of the new Syrian opposition interim government. Rebel forces claim casualties could have been greater had the Syrian round not been defective.Both sides call for an official U.N. investigation into the incident.U.N. investigators should make three determinations: (1) was a chemical weapon used; (2) who fired it; and (3) whether Assad's arsenal adequately
secure.
Despite Syria possessing one of the largest chemical weapon arsenals in the world, mass victims don't necessarily a chemical attack make. The deaths and injuries could have involved a different agent.
Alex Thomson, writing for Britain's Channel 4, interviewed sources who indicated "a pattern of victims suffering a variety of respiratory complaints from mild breathing difficulty, through fainting and vomiting to loss of consciousness and death. In most cases there were no signs of any conventional blast injuries in terms of external lacerations, burns or fractures."
Such evidence could support a nerve agent theory.
However, a U.S. official viewing a video of victims treated at the hospital noted, "The actions in the video don't match up to a chemical weapons response."
He qualified this with the possibility hospitals lacked the right supplies and equipment for such treatment.
Thomson reported blood and soil samples as well as rocket debris were sent to the United Nations for testing. The debris will help determine if delivery was by SCUD missile -- strongly supporting government involvement -- or artillery shell -- strongly confusing the issue, absolving neither side.
Visitors to hospitals where victims were taken report "a strong smell of chlorine." This has caused some analysts to suspect no (banned) chemical agent involvement but, instead, a deliberate exposure to chlorine. Others reject this as a small rocket couldn't have claimed so many victims. Use of chlorine isn't banned by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.
As far as identifying the perpetrator, investigators have their work cut out for them.
While early reports noted the government has been moving chemical weapons, the rocket involved was fired from an area controlled by the radical Islamist group al-Nusra Front. An obvious question arises then about its possible involvement.
However, none of the rebel groups had their own chemical weapons. Thus, any such weapon most likely would have come from the government's arsenal. Any rebel group capturing such a weapon would have caused the regime immediately to report it, bringing any future use into question. Damascus never issued such a report.
Sixteen of the 26 deaths were Syrian soldiers. This doesn't absolve regime nvolvement as such loss of life of its own soldiers wouldn't have necessarily deterred Damascus from conducting such an attack Autopsies of victims would be helpful but there is no indication they will be performed. Islam considers autopsies taboo. It is interesting to note, however, Iran proved willing to violate this religious taboo during the
Iran-Iraq war, making bodies of some of its troops available for autopsy to prove Iraq had used such weapons against them.
Should the United Nations find that chemical weapons activity by Assad occurred, it would constitute Syria's crossing a "red line" U.S. President Barack Obama forewarned would then trigger a U.S. response.In the aftermath of the March 19 incident, the White House noted Obama had made this point clear to the regime and "if Assad and those under his command make the mistake of using chemical weapons or fail to meet their obligations to secure them, then there will be consequences and they will be
held accountable."
Undoubtedly, the United Nations will take great care, therefore, to issue only those findings heavily supported by evidence the investigation uncovers.
One other possibility concerning this attack exists, however. In using an agent not banned by treaty, Damascus -- at Tehran's urging -- may have sought to explore how seriously is Obama's commitment to act in the event the red line is crossed -- able to halt any pending U.S. response with a last minute show banned chemical agents weren't involved.
It is a commitment Tehran needs to assess as Obama's red line to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons fast approaches.As Iran previously persuaded Syria to secretly build a nuclear facility on its behalf -- destroyed in 2007 by Israel -- such a scenario isn't implausible.
If a non-banned chemical agent was used by Damascus in the battlefield incident, still left unanswered for both Syria and Iran is whether Obama is as good as his word concerning the red lines imposed upon them.
--
(James G. Zumwalt, a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and
infantry officer, served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and
the first Persian Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron
Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," "Living the
Juche Lie: North Korea's Kim Dynasty" and "Doomsday: Iran--The Clock is
Ticking." He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.)
infantry officer, served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and
the first Persian Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron
Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," "Living the
Juche Lie: North Korea's Kim Dynasty" and "Doomsday: Iran--The Clock is
Ticking." He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)No chance for full reconciliation so long as Erdogan remains PM
By Nitzan Nuriel
Many words have been written already about the
“reconciliation” and the Israeli apology, and I cannot add so much as a
single word to that. A writer takes considerable risk when attempting to
write about the future… trying to assess what will come to pass, and also
judge the present in light of that. However, when it comes to the
Israeli-Turkish issue, it is possible to lightly rely on the past, in order
to dare and assess the future.
single word to that. A writer takes considerable risk when attempting to
write about the future… trying to assess what will come to pass, and also
judge the present in light of that. However, when it comes to the
Israeli-Turkish issue, it is possible to lightly rely on the past, in order
to dare and assess the future.
Let us assume that the security reality in the Gaza Strip will once again
generate a conflagration during which the IDF will open fire - as precise as
is possible, even if taking Goldstone and other things into account - yet
uninvolved persons will nevertheless be hurt. How do you think Erdogan will
react?
generate a conflagration during which the IDF will open fire - as precise as
is possible, even if taking Goldstone and other things into account - yet
uninvolved persons will nevertheless be hurt. How do you think Erdogan will
react?
Let us also assume (since it also happened in the past) that the Israeli
Counterterrorism Bureau - acting on its authority and based on intelligence
(as is commonly done) - will issue a travel advisory for Israeli citizens,
warning them of traveling to Turkey. What do you think will be Erdogan’s
reaction?
Counterterrorism Bureau - acting on its authority and based on intelligence
(as is commonly done) - will issue a travel advisory for Israeli citizens,
warning them of traveling to Turkey. What do you think will be Erdogan’s
reaction?
Furthermore, let us assume that Israel will not remove the naval blockade
imposed on the Gaza Strip - which is likely to happen since the risk is too
great. Since this is part of Erdogan’s demands, then he will have been
"given" a reason not to uphold his part in the reconciliation.
imposed on the Gaza Strip - which is likely to happen since the risk is too
great. Since this is part of Erdogan’s demands, then he will have been
"given" a reason not to uphold his part in the reconciliation.
The purpose of this assembly of possibilities is to put the ‘reconciliation’
process into proportions.
process into proportions.
So long as Erdogan remains Prime Minister of Turkey, there is no chance for
genuine, full reconciliation between the countries. In the past, the Turkish
military was a balancing factor, which could have softened harsh words with
soft actions. Until a few years ago, the defensive cooperation between
Israel and Turkey was excellent. However, in a series of measures (allegedly
in the name of the wish to meet the EU's terms for accepting Turkey into the
union), Erdogan has weakened the military, to the point of placing the
military senior echelon on trial for subversion and overthrow attempts. This
has brought the military to a point where it has lost its strength and its
ability to preserve the secularism – a legacy of Ataturk, the founder of the
modern Turkish nation.
genuine, full reconciliation between the countries. In the past, the Turkish
military was a balancing factor, which could have softened harsh words with
soft actions. Until a few years ago, the defensive cooperation between
Israel and Turkey was excellent. However, in a series of measures (allegedly
in the name of the wish to meet the EU's terms for accepting Turkey into the
union), Erdogan has weakened the military, to the point of placing the
military senior echelon on trial for subversion and overthrow attempts. This
has brought the military to a point where it has lost its strength and its
ability to preserve the secularism – a legacy of Ataturk, the founder of the
modern Turkish nation.
Therefore, without touching on the supposed ideological argument pertaining
to the depth of the support given by the top defense echelon to the IDF
fighters for activities onboard the Marmara, it is important to face reality
and state that the "reconciliation” is, at best, the fulfillment of a US
request dating back three years. I’ve heard the Americans tell us more than
once, “we have a request – close this matter with Turkey”. At worst, it’s a
very temporary reconciliation, until the next point of friction.
to the depth of the support given by the top defense echelon to the IDF
fighters for activities onboard the Marmara, it is important to face reality
and state that the "reconciliation” is, at best, the fulfillment of a US
request dating back three years. I’ve heard the Americans tell us more than
once, “we have a request – close this matter with Turkey”. At worst, it’s a
very temporary reconciliation, until the next point of friction.
Erdogan has not, and does not accept Israel’s activities – he has acted
defiantly in the past, and his stance with regards to the
defiantly in the past, and his stance with regards to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict are known and determined, so there is no chance
that he will be able to ‘count to ten’ before issuing disdainful statements.
that he will be able to ‘count to ten’ before issuing disdainful statements.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is not good for Israel to be in a state of
high intensity friction with Turkey (with or without any connection to the
situation in Syria or Iran). Therefore, measures that are intended to reduce
the friction are correct, but we must not be tempted to believe that this
step will fundamentally change Erdogan's opinions towards Israel.
high intensity friction with Turkey (with or without any connection to the
situation in Syria or Iran). Therefore, measures that are intended to reduce
the friction are correct, but we must not be tempted to believe that this
step will fundamentally change Erdogan's opinions towards Israel.
Sadly, I believe that we will continue to face difficulties, not to mention
slanderous statements and insults, until we will be able to count on the
Turkish administration to view the situation in a balanced manner, at the
least.
slanderous statements and insults, until we will be able to count on the
Turkish administration to view the situation in a balanced manner, at the
least.
As for the Turkish population, it was never the problem. I have no doubt
that the people of Turkey will be pleased to see Israeli tourism return, but
so far, there is no cause for celebration.
that the people of Turkey will be pleased to see Israeli tourism return, but
so far, there is no cause for celebration.
**
Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel is the former head of Israel's Counter
Terrorism Bureau. Nuriel was in the IDF for nearly 30 years, during which he
served as military attaché in Washington and as the head of the Foreign
Relations Division in the IDF’s Operations Branch, among other roles.
Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel is the former head of Israel's Counter
Terrorism Bureau. Nuriel was in the IDF for nearly 30 years, during which he
served as military attaché in Washington and as the head of the Foreign
Relations Division in the IDF’s Operations Branch, among other roles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Facing the Hardest Truth on Public Education
By Daren Jonescu
There are several major obstacles to overcome if there is to be any hope of saving civilization from the grip of the authoritarian pre-education camps we call "public schools." The most stubborn obstacle of all, however, is perhaps the one embedded in our own hearts, namely the all too human instinct to comfort ourselves with the thought that the soul-deforming corruptions of public education began in earnest only after our own school days, and hence that we ourselves escaped the harm we so easily recognize in others.
This instinct forms the rationale for the many objections I get to my calls for the complete abolition of public schooling, from people who claim that if the schools just got back to the methods of the good old days, all would be well. In other words, these people are unwilling to see the problem as anything deeper than the superimposition of some bad textbooks or teaching methods on an essentially noble system, because to admit that the problem is more fundamental than this is to admit that one's own education was harmful, which is to concede that one was indeed harmed -- that you are less than you might have been.
A few days ago, preparing a class of Korean undergraduates for a reading of Plato's Apology, I asked them to think back over all their years of schooling, and to tell me what percentage of their teachers did not deserve their pay. At first, the students just smiled -- Korea's Confucian heritage demands unreflective respect for all teachers. Finally, one young woman bravely volunteered that perhaps thirty percent of her teachers had not deserved their pay -- a much higher number than I had expected from a Korean student. This opened the floodgates: almost all the students in the room subsequently condemned a significant portion of their educators -- one as high as sixty percent -- as unworthy of being paid given what they had actually provided for their students.
Next, I asked them whether their own education had been worth all the money that had been spent on it over the years. With only one exception, everyone said unequivocally that his or her own schooling had been worth every penny (or won, in this case). When I noted that this question was, in a sense, just a variation on my previous question about the teachers, a few students grinned sheepishly, and then a few more, as they gradually got the point: they were perfectly willing to declare that much of their education had been ineffectual or counterproductive -- but unwilling to accept the logical result of this, namely that their own development had been slowed or stunted.
These were students currently in school, which is why the contradiction in their answers was so apparent, and pitiable. For those of us who have long since finished our formal education, this natural tendency to self-protection is greatly exacerbated. We easily see the damage done to today's young people, but draw the line at admitting that we too are damaged goods. To defend our egos, we must deny that our own education was compromised. And this is the major obstacle of which I spoke, for this denial implicitly detaches the current evils of public education from the institution itself. We hesitate to condemn the institution outright, because this would mean questioning the conditions and success of our own intellectual and moral development. We thereby vindicate the most powerful means to permanent tyranny, in order to protect our tender pride.
Were public schools better twenty, forty, or sixty years ago? Of course they were. But it no more follows from this that public education is not such a bad idea than it follows from the fact that the welfare state of sixty years ago had not yet incorporated socialized medicine that socialism is not such a bad idea. Today's extensions of progressive control over an ever-increasing range of our lives did not arise from nowhere; they were made possible by earlier, gradual insinuations of the concepts and moral perspectives of tyranny into the modern West's soul.
Likewise with education. John Dewey did not get the progressive, individualism-crushing system he wanted all at once. But the slow encroachment of his theories into the educational establishments of the world, beginning more than a century ago, has allowed his intellectual heirs to achieve a level of socialist indoctrination and anti-West moral degradation that, in many ways, have surpassed Dewey's most depraved hopes. So while it may have been easier in the distant past for people to come out of public school with some of their reasoning and moral character intact, it is invalid to conclude that this relative superiority indicates anything other than that an old cancer has worsened.
Public schools from the supposed good old days were the precondition for public schools of today. Once the premise was established that modern society's interest in a broadly educated population could best be satisfied by direct government provision and oversight of schooling, it was a very short step to the conclusion that such schooling ought to be compulsory. And from here, it was an even shorter step to the argument that everyone ought to be provided the same education, in the same way, in the name of universality and fairness. Thus, increasing centralization and standardization are natural (even if unintended) developments of the initial impulse to use the coercive power of government to provide something called "education" for all children. Such a metastasizing government beneficence is all too susceptible to internal corruption by "big thinkers," central planners, and bureaucratic mother hens. The result, all but inevitable given the initial premises, is what you see: an entire civilization undone, intellectually, spiritually and morally, in the name of "making sure every child gets a good education," or "preparing our children for today's economy."
Some, comparing their own pasts to mankind's present impasse, are tempted to object here that public schools in the old style were, after all, responsible for the most prosperous and powerful society in history. On the contrary: Public schools in the old style were responsible for the gradual undermining and destruction of the most prosperous and powerful society in history.
The perceptual inversion made by apologists for the good old days results from imagining the relationship between public education and modernity as a still photograph, rather than observing the historical trajectory of the relationship in motion. The mechanisms of liberty, free markets, individualism and self-reliance were set in motion centuries before public education was generally available, let alone universal and compulsory. The generations that produced the ideas and art which gave modern liberty its mind and character, as well as the generations that produced the statesmen and warriors who brought modernity's promise to practical realization, were generations without public education. The accumulated spiritual and economic momentum of liberty was able to withstand the first frictions of progressive authoritarianism, allowing civilization and its economies to grow even while the tyrannical urge was beginning its ugly lurch into modern life. But nowhere was this progressive infection more destructive, and more brilliantly conceived, than in government schools, which can nip in the bud the natural impulse to learn and excel, and which were explicitly intended from early on to produce competent but submissive workers for the benefit of the ruling class. The subsequent broadening of the progressive schools' agenda to include the deliberate undermining of the family, the short-circuiting of Eros in favor of permanent puberty, and socialist revisionism regarding the Western intellectual and historical heritage, was not a radical shift in education policy, but a "natural" devolution made possible by the success of earlier stages of corruption. (This descent also defines the devolution of the teaching profession itself.)
The Jesuits said "give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man." Lenin boasted that he needed only the first four years to mould a child to the unshakable form that communism required. It is no accident that John Dewey was primarily focused on early childhood education as early as the 1880s. Or that Bill Ayers is today. Yes, public education continues to deteriorate. But that is the point: the deterioration is a continuation of something begun generations ago. None of us who have been through any version of public schooling should fool ourselves about what this means, including and especially for our own souls. This is no time for foolish pride; it is time for righteous anger, and the will to put a stop to more than a century of forced intellectual and moral decline.
Universal public education is modernity's monster, the fatal mistake of a prosperous civilization imagining that it can take over where freed human nature left off, and even outdo freedom and nature, by mass producing, through government micromanagement, the kind of men who make liberty and civil society possible. This description of public education's foundations is the generous version, which I offer only as a concession to those who object to my arguments against this monster by noting that even some good men have favored state control of childhood education.
It is true: some good men have favored this. It is also true that the best and most nobly motivated of these men -- from Aristotle to James Madison -- were not publicly educated themselves, and never lived in a community in which state-controlled education was the norm. We cannot know, but may guess, how their views on the subject might be different were they among us today, witnessing the practical reality of a civilization in ruins, thanks in large measure to the multi-generational effects of compulsory government-regulated schooling on a society's practical intelligence, moral character, and the habits of mind that make liberal education in the proper sense possible.
The blind spot of these men of exalted spirit, such as Aristotle and Madison, is their noble-minded presumption that in a good and just society, good and just motives will prevail. From less hopeful, but equally great, men, such as Plato and Tocqueville, we learn three harsh truths that in combination are all the answer we need offer to the virtuous hopes of Aristotle, Madison, or today's wishful thinkers regarding state-regulated schooling: (1) no society is so pure or so just as to be immune to the corruptive effects of human weakness or malice; (2) societal success and prosperity actually pave the way for corruption by weakening the resolve and vigilance of a populace grown over-confident in its strength and security; and, (3) the levers of monopolistic state authority are a natural magnet to those whose desire for power and wealth outstrips their desire for virtue and the common good.
In sum, state control of education -- as of most things -- is an invitation to ignoble men to insinuate themselves and their immoral motives into the system, seeking their own perceived advantage at the expense of fellow men who fall under the jurisdiction of their legislative influence. And since, in this case, it is the soul of the future -- the children -- into which evil may be insinuated, it would seem that education, far from being an exception to the rule of limited government, ought to be an especially emphatic marker of the proper limits of legitimate government involvement in men's affairs.
The risk is too great. The proof of this is in the poison pudding of today's public schools, not merely in one or two nations, but worldwide. Indeed, the universality of compulsory government schooling, considered a radical outrage when Marx proposed it just a century and a half ago, is itself evidence of the way corruption breeds further corruption.
Leave your ego to one side, for the sake of mankind's future. If you were publicly educated, your soul's growth was stunted to a significant degree, at the very least through the emotional bruising engendered by your spiritual resistance.
Be not proud. Be angry. And resolve to end this authoritarian abomination, before it ends us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment