I recieved a forwarded email titled, "HOW DID JEFFERSON KNOW?". The following quotes were in that message, and they are very applicable quotes to the current domestic political situation we find ourselves in today. But as for the question; "How did Jefferson know?!" Very simple; He studied history. Our current school system is controlled by the central planners in Washington. Central planners believe in government, so they teach history that praises government. There is nothing super secret, its not some dark plot, its just the nature of things. If you rely on a government education system to train your children, they will be taught the propoganda of government. It is not in the interest of a bureaucracy to train people to think; rather it is in the self-interest of government to train people to follow orders. The natural result is that we have generations of American's who have never learned to think on their own, to never question government involvement, and worst of all, to assume that the "good intentions" of government intervention compensate for the awful, sad, and devastating effects of government intervention. History teaches us one thing; people must always be on guard for their freedom. The people that stops proactively defending itself, from either internal or external threats, is soon lost to the pages of history.

At this very moment we, the people of the Unites States of America, are under attack from within and without. There are Islamic terrorists and tyrranical, dictatorial states that want to destroy our people, our country, and the ideas we represent to the world. There are countries that want to surpass us economically. There is nothing wrong with this economic competition, as that makes goods cheaper, better, and more easily available to all. However, that leads to the internal threats. We have groups of American's who limit our economic activities. We rely on oil imports for our fuel; not because we don't have enough oil, but because these groups thinks its not fair that we use our own resources. We handicap ourselves for no good reason. We have groups that want to change the moral makeup of this country through judicial fiat. That is not the role of government. We have groups that fight for those who have not earned to take from those who do earn. In short, our success as a nation has led to those who want to strangle growth and creativity, and bancrupt the nation. Its a natural progression, but it doesn't make it less frustrating.

There are American's who believe that the country should be destroyed because we have taken more than "our fair share" of the world's goods. This is economically ignorant, and morally backward. The US has the same resources, the same terrain, and the same brain power as many nations on Earth. The difference is the system. Our constitution protects the rights of the individual to succeed in life, and reap the benefit of personal hard work, and personal investment. That system has made this the most economically, militarily, technologically successful nation in all of human history. But that is the system that some are trying to destroy. They don't see the connection between the personal freedom, property rights, and personal responsibility and the astronomical success. Instead they want people to recieve the same financial rewards of a free people, while limiting freedom. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Think of how this country would be if the pioneers had not risked life and limb to cross the great plains and the rocky mountains to get to the west coast? Our ignorance is killing us.

How did Jefferson know? He studied history, not in school, but on his own. No school can teach you what you ought to learn on your own. School may give the tools to learn, but it will never replace the individual responsibility to study and learn from the past. In America, we don't like politics, but if we ignore politics, we fail to defend ourselves from the ever-present threat of tyrrany by those who don't like who we are and what we do. Liberty is scary. You have to be willing to accept people making bad choices. You can't make people eat healthy food, or drive economy cars, or buy modest clothes. You have to let them make choices that will eventually harm them or their families. You also have to let them be wildly successful; even if you don't like their politics, or their morality. Freedom is scary, its difficult to deal with, but the rewards of a free nation are everywhere around us. Study, friends.

Study the lessons of the past, and study the constitution that the founders wrote. Understand how "guilt" is being used against us to limit liberty and freedom. Understand how schools are used to promote government and propoganda. Understand how centrally planned economies are always less efficient than free markets. Understand that using the term "free market" does not make the markets free (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and GM, for example). Understand that corporations going out of business in a free market is a natural cycle, and helps improve the economy as a whole; while corporations going bancrupt under government involvement is tryrranical. Understand that government is never a solution to your problems; government is the problem.

Study, friends. Gain understanding, and see that this nation is merely at the beginning of greatness, but it is being strangled by those with good intentions who want to enslave the masses to the government coffers. Its an exhilirating, frightening time to be an American. But I'm convinced that although ignorant of history and economics, the American citizen is well versed in love of liberty and independent enough of mind to resist the bureaucratic and judicial take over of our great nation. Study, learn, act. The greatest experiment in freedom and liberty continues, and is once again at a crisis. Which way will we choose? Liberty, with all its ugliness, but overall good; or Tyranny, with its good looks, and evil results? I can't wait to find out!


___________________________________________________________
Quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'


Later.

Victor Hanson on Uncommon Knowledge.

Hanson discusses why he started studying war in university; his father and grandfather had been involved in the world wars, seen combat and been involved with destroying and killing other men, & he grew up on a farm, and understood the tragic, unfair condition of life, a life that is often hard, brutish, and short.

He also discusses the cultural divide in this country between those who believe in a utopian ideal of peaceful human co-existance, and the tragic view of life that America, while not perfect, represents the best of many bad alternatives. I agree, that is a major divide in our society.

Great interview with one of my favorite authors.

Iraq elections
Iraqi Army Peshmerga soldiers line up to vote at a polling station in a school in Baghdad. Opening three days early, it allowed the military to vote before Iraq’s national elections on Sunday, when they will be needed on duty

Gina has filed for divorce. She waited a year after I got out of the military so that she could get the most money possible on alimony. Now I know why she was so mad when I offered to move to Tampa for a job that made less money. She has been planning this for a long time, and manipulating everything to get this.

Its a very sad day for me. I realize now that she never wants me to be able to live with my kids again. Even if she hates me, that is a cruel thing to do to a father. She's judged me as worthless, and now taken it out on the kids. That hurts.

I chose my wife poorly; I thought I knew her. I only knew what she wanted me to know. I've been a fool, and now I have 3 children who will be hurt. God has given me a test, and its the most difficult trial I've ever suffered. My most trusted friend has been my worst enemy, and continues to hurt me at every turn.

Pray for me. I need courage and wisdom.

And a good lawyer.

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves, by James Tooley

Following are my rambling thoughts on what "public education" costs us in terms of ignorance, time, and lost opportunity for the young.




----------------------------
I've been rethinking public education lately. It started in Germany with Bismarck and his "progressive" programs, which caught on like wild-fire in Europe and the US. It also led to a pervasive "nationalism" due to unintentional and inevitable propoganda, which in turn led to the greatest killing spree's in human history: the "great" war and world war 2. Tragic.

Another problem with the public school system is that its government run. The economics of a bureacracy are such that any bureaucrat is compelled to make his department bigger in budget and workforce. In schools, this translates into longer and longer time frames for graduation, with less education along the way. Its not the fault of the individuals, its just the system.

In a free market education system, you get what you pay for. Independent schools would be pressed to teach more in less time. I believe a good private school could pump out fully qualified college graduates in the same time it takes for a typical high school graduate in a public school.

My sister is a teacher, and I enjoy arguing these points with her. Her defense inevitably boils down to the idea that "people are too stupid to train their own kids". (My words, not hers; she is much too tactful and sensitive to say something like that.) She believes that if there was not a public school people would not teach their kids. I completely disagree. Would some lazy parents not teach their kids? Sure. Would all of them? No! Most parents want their kids to do better than they have done, and will spend their time, money, and energy making that opportunity. The fact is that a private system would produce more bang for the buck in education (as well as in every other endeavor of a free people).

The real question is not "how much do we need to spend on public education", but "how much is public education costing us" in terms of lost opportunity, years stolen from the young, the cost of ignorance, etc., etc. The cost of a few "not teaching their own children" is more than offset by the gains in a smarter, younger, more independent population.



----------------------------
Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are great reads, and point out a lot of fallacies of "socialism". (I know many say they are not socialists, but social justice tendencies are really just "socialist" agenda wrapped in good feelings.) (And another aside, I think its interesting the the most vehement anti-communists were those who had very close interaction with communism. Orwell, who wrote the two great books Animal Farm and 1984, experienced the lie while in spain. Rand grew up under Soviet control, and got her degree at the Univ. of Petrograd.)

I think the main difference between "hard-hearted" conservatives and "caring" liberals is persepective. Conservatives are looking from way out in the macro-universe. Liberals are focusing in on the micro-verse. In minor terms, it's great that if you lose your job you can get a welfare check. Or when you retire you get a social security check. Or that you get a free "public education". In the macro view, all of those are awful, horrible things.

Greece incorporated that thinking into their country, and now they spend 25% of GDP on welfare and support of the elderly. The country is failing because its spending itself to death. The government realizes they are bankrupt, so they tried to enact extreme measures to stay solvent. What did the people do? They are rioting in the streets. The "generous", "kind", and "fair" policies of social justice result not in better, kinder, more refined human beings, but in lazy, mean, ignorant beasts. Its not the people, its the incentives. The insane assylum is burning down around them, and the inmates are trying to kill the wardens for opening the gates. They are going to stay until the fire consumes them all. Its crazy.

In the macro view, the economy of a nation is hindered by any social programs. In a macro view, the character of a people is made baser, in any measure, by government handouts. Public education creates propoganda reciters. Welfare creates nasty, violent, immoral homes. Social security programs create people that don't plan for the future. Without social programs people are required to become self-sufficient, or suffer the consequences of failure. This sounds mean. In physical terms, exercise is painful, but the benefits are a more functional and healthy body (and surprisingly, a more attractive body). If you did not allow people to fail in exercise (e.g. they could only do the weight they were comfortable with, or only run a distance they knew they could finish easily) there would be no good results. The gains come from dropping that heavy weight, for pushing yourself a little further on that run, from swimming a little faster on that lap. The gains come from struggle and pain and determination. Being overweight comes from sitting on the couch and eating fatty foods.

Social programs are the equivalent of fatty foods. Satisfying in the short term, giving great and immediate energy, but result in a fat, lazy people in the end. Struggle, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, independence, personal property and liberty. These are the bedrocks of a free people. The great success of this nation did not come from "social justice" but from a lack of government intervention. The people fought and struggled across the great plains and to the west coast. They wrestled in a living out of the ground, out of the rock, and out of business. These successes allowed for more success. They worked hard to eke out a living for their families. They struggled with all their might, utilizing to the greatest extent their hard won independence and liberty to think for themselves, and to reap the rewards of their labor for their own families. That struggle, that hard work, motivated by freedom and no limits to success, resulted in the most magnificently successful and powerful country in the world. (And we do the most good in the world as well.)

Now that we are wealthy we decide that we don't need that struggle anymore. That people can't handle the pressures on their own anymore. That is the same is a Mr. Olympian deciding he doesn't need to train anymore since he has won the title. The result will be a nasty looking ex-Mr. Olympian.

The struggle to get into great shape is ugly, the resulting form is good. The struggle of freedom is equally nasty, and ugly to watch, but the resulting form is good. Its much better for the people as a whole. In macro-terms, limiting social programs, and limiting government intervention into any area of life, is guaranteed to stimulate societal excellence. Its nasty, and some people get hurt (e.g. lose jobs) but the result is that even the poor are wealthy. The "poor" in the US live better than any king before the 1800's. Think about that, its amazing. We drive in cars that are more comfortable than any chariot of any king before the 1800's. We live in climate controlled homes. We watch movies on our laptops, and play music on our cell phones as ring tones! Those fabulous blessings came from the struggles of freedom. Winston Churchill defined "success as the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." If we "help" people after one failure, they will never learn to be successful. Is it sad to watch people fail? Yes. But that doesn't make it right to interfere.

A child has to fall before they can learn to walk. If a child is not allowed to fall, or is taught that falling is scary and should be avoided at all cost, then the child will never experience the thrill of chasing other kids. The "safety-net" constructed by the foolish parent out of a self-deluding "caring" attitude will cost the child many opportunities in life. Before the Army lets Soldiers jump out of planes they teach them how to fall properly. They practice on the ground. They practice jumping off a small wall. They practice jumping on a zip line. They practice jumping from a parachute tower. Finally, after hundreds of practice parachute landing falls, they jump out of an airplane. In order to train you child to walk you set conditions to keep them safe while they are learning. But you don't stop them from failing, that would be crazy. You only learn how to succeed from repeated failure. Its a basic principle of life.

Successful musicians make beautiful, haunting, inspiring music. They did not develop that ability from desire alone. We all desire to inspire peole that way, to perform that way, to control the emotions of the crowd the way a rock star does. What we don't see is the ugly struggle that took place before that. They spent childhoods alone in their rooms practicing. They mangled and bloodied their fingers trying to get the chords to sound right. They spent years and decades of their lives fighting to make good music. Gladwell says its takes 10,000 hours of experience and practice to become an expert in any field. When we see someone on stage we are really seeing decades of self-discipline paying off. When we look at business men making millions of dollars, we are seeing decades of hard work paying off. When we see a welfare recipient, we see someone who fell down once, and never bothered getting up. If the musician or business man never kept getting up after failure we would not have great music or great products. Taking away the opportunity to fail costs society as a whole in opportunities that are lost.

In the macro view, government interference and control cost us more than any benefit they supply. The only thing government is responsible for (according to the founders, and rightly so) is national security (e.g. a navy at all times, and an army when necessary), the right to private property, and order (i.e. you can't kill people just because you don't like them; we are free up to the point of causing physical harm to others), and taxes to support those efforts. The "social justice" of today consists of robbing the rich to pay the poor, with the thought that this will make everyone equal. It doesn't make anyone equal, it just makes people mean, nasty, and base. On one side you have those who have been robbed; on the other those who have stolen without shame. The government is taking property (30% taxes) from the people and giving it to others, claiming that they are preventing harm to the poor. The real harm is that they have prevented the poor from failing, and therefore prevent the poor from ever succeeding. They doom them to perpetual servitude and poverty. That is the real cost of social justice.



----------------------------
One issue I have not discussed above is what to do about those who are not taken care of by self-interest, or by caring parents (as pointed out by Dave). I do care about those children and families, and don't think its a bad thing for them to have programs that give them a fair chance at competing with kids from better families and better economic situations. However, I do not think that the government should provide those services.

Abolitionists weren't government supported. Groups that ship "care packages" to deployed and injured Soldiers aren't government supported. The most successful inner city school programs are not government supported. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of "NGO's" (non-government organizations) that are assisting the poor and neglected around the globe.

Government does not do anything well, why do people have faith that government will provide societal justice? The federal government has been failing at this for over a hundred years.

Our country is not great because of its government; it is great because of its people, and despite its government. That is the underlying point of contention between any conservative and liberal. No government will cure social in-justice, or social disparity, or social evil. Only people can fix those things. And they have been doing those things for generations.

The greatest good that our government can do for the citizens of this country, and the citizens of the world, is to get out of the way. Give people back their hard earned money, and let them fix things at the lowest level possible. It works everytime its tried.



----------------------------
Articles of interest on the subject of public vs. private education in India and other developing countries:

::James Tooley discusses how private schools compete and thrive in the poorest communities of India's inner cities. Parents would rather pay for a good education than recieve a worthless public education.

::Christopher Chantrill, quote: "For if James Tooley is right, and the poor are perfectly able to direct and fund the education of their children without supervision, then what is the point of government education, or even government health care, or the rest of the welfare state, except as a patronage system. The liberal one-size-fits-all solution to education is a stark contrast to the authentic approach preferred by the Third World poor. The liberal solution is long on jobs for liberals, long on expensive facilities and short on accountability. Third World education of the poor, by the poor, and for the poor is different. It is long on jobs for the poor, short on expensive facilities and long on accountability." In short, its the beauty of a free market at work. People aren't stupid (bureaucrats are).

::Another Tooley article from 2005. The poor want results, and they get that by paying (at affordable cost) for private school for their children. Conservative theory in practice, and thriving in a developing country. The proof is out there, when will we adapt the free market to education?