So, the Navy shot the pirates holding Captain Phillips of the Maersk Alabama hostage. Yay. Crisis over. Now what? Other pirate groups have promised retribution, something that will probably not be pretty. Nor will it be pleasant for the next American crew that is taken hostage. Something needs to be done. Let us start with what is not the solution.
Firstly, we have large-scale negotiation. The argument against this is fairly evident. We ought not negotiate with pirates for the same reason the Europeans should never have negotiated with hijackers. It just encourages the behavior. We cannot afford to back down.
Secondly, we have a military campaign against Somalian pirate bases. This one is tempting, but we have to acknowledge, I think, that because the pirates are a commercial risk and not a national one (for the United States) the Somali bases are Somalia's problem. We should be open to offering advice, training, and maybe even help, but a unilateral campaign is probably inappropriate.
Thirdly, we have avoidance of the area. This would be substantially more expensive than current levels of piracy. Also, we can expect pirates to follow the money.
So, what are some solutions? I can think of a few that, if applied in concert, might dissuade pirates from ever targeting U.S. flag ships.
Step One: Arm the crew
There are a few arguments against this, of course. But if the insurance companies would ease up slightly and if we decided to ignore LOST (or modified the treaty) arming crews with light weapons and training them is a relatively-low cost option (a few thousand dollars per year per ship). A crew of twenty with P90s and shotguns and a few shoulder-fired LAW missiles or even RPG-7s could take out any boarding party they are likely to encounter, especially if the ship were equipped with armored defensible points around the railing and if the radar blind-spots were reduced. A well-placed round from a LAW would even destroy an enemy vessel (pirates tend to use small speedboats) before grapples or ladders can be deployed.
Insurance could be an issue here, but not an insurmountable one (particularly when pirates murder the next American crew they capture). Another argument is that the pirates would simply upgrade their own arsenal. There is some merit to this, but I have two counter-arguments. The pirates are already upgrading (more RPGs, better AK derivatives) and piracy will stop when it ceases to be cost-effective. A 70% chance of dying and a 100% chance of expending tens of thousands of dollars of weaponry per attempt does not equal cost-effective.
Step Two: Rigged ships
Ever heard of a cigarette load? This is a chemically-treated piece of wood inserted in the end of smoke. When it ignites is explodes with a rather pronounced bang, causing everyone in the vicinity to laugh maniacally and the smoker to wonder when his heart will resume beating. A similar concept applies to our shipping around Somalia. Allow any interested shipping company to take on board a company of grumpy Marines or Navy personnel with anti-ship weapons. Limit of a few dozen escorts per year. Even if normal crews are ill-suited to dealing with boarders, military personnel are. A standing chance of encountering one of these vessels would provide some deterrence from engaging any American ships.
Step Three: Hit the motherships
Pirates off Somalia use both land bases and "motherships" far off the coast. The land bases are Somalia's problem, but the motherships, ah, the motherships...A few Harpoon anti-shipping missiles would likely suffice, provided we can locate the ships. The U.S. simply puts out an ultimatum: the next attack on a U.S. vessel results in the destruction of one "mothership."
Piracy is a daunting problem, but one that is solvable given the careful application of the right kind of force. If we start treating pirates as terrorists we may be able to at least eliminate piracy against American vessels. We got lucky in the Capt. Phillips situation. Reliance on luck is not good policy.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Watching the doomsday clock via telescope
The North Korean government is beginning to annoy the international community. And that is about it. The UN is contemplating drafting a resolution to write a recommendation for a committee to issue a statement "strongly implying but with nice words" that North Korea's recent missile test is unacceptable.
In South Korea, people are marching in the streets and rioting.
Interesting, isn't it? How easy it is to talk about resolutions and policies and sanctions while you are sitting out of range? Russia has no population centers within North Korea's probable missile envelope. Neither does the the U.S. China has little or no quarrel with North Korea. Europe has other concerns, like, well, everything. That leaves Japan and South Korea. And Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul in a "lake of fire." I'd be worried, too. This situation is not annoying or distressing to the people of South Korea. It's analogous to Mexico developing nuclear weapons and declaring that it wants its workforce back.
The next question, then, is what the United States should do about it. What are our obligations to our allies and what are our tools?
With regard to the first question, the short answer is that I don't know. Japan and South Korea are both important to our country economically, and our political ties are similarly close for obvious reasons. Here's my personal opinion: we should be open to selling, at reasonable rates, Patriot missile defenses and similar weapons to South Korea, and perhaps politically support a first strike against nuclear of missile sites in the North. Japan is a more interesting case. After all, we sort of hamstrung their military ourselves, what with the conditions of the 1945 surrender. Japan has a "self-defense force" but not much offensive power with which to counter an attack from North Korea. I'd say we should seriously giving Japan access to non-nuclear second strike ability. For example, a few dozen Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads probably would not be out of place. Government leaders are usually less inclined to commence wars of aggression when they know that twenty minutes later every building they've occupied in the last six months will become a crater.
This is just not enough, though, as you have probably deduced. These means might, might, discourage North Korea from an attack or even further buildup, but "might" is insufficient and turning over more technology to a known human rights violator (Japan) or committing more resources to South Korea are both unattractive prospects. Kim Jong Il is not wholly rational, I'd guess. The last thing we want is a war in the region at all, because China might get dragged into it. So, what can the United States do directly?
For now, nothing. I know it is aggravating, but until North Korea demonstrates that is has the ability to be a threat to Juneau I see no justification for flattening Pyongyang or assassinating Kim Jong Il.
Once it does, well, that's different. Sabre-rattling is unacceptable when the sabre is long enough to reach American shores and broad enough to destroy cities. The most cost-effective solution, should North Korea develop power to match its threats, would be a devastating, though probably not nuclear, series of airstrikes against known missile and nuclear-related facilities, coupled with a campaign against North Korean high officials implicit in the threats. I've written on this policy before ("Putting Jason Bourne's kids through college"). Populations don't start wars. Politicians do. Politicians should pay the consequences. Enforcement would be tricky, but certainly not impossible. North Korea launches a missile that travels far enough to put Alaska inside its range, we start taking out military facilities until someone says "Uncle."
The conditions I've put forth as justification for a U.S. attack have already been met in South Korea. The Israelis hit Iraq''s first nuclear reactor. I wonder if South Korea would not be justified in taking similar action. The real question is one of how the North would respond. All Iraq could do was whine. We've let North Korea develop further, and it shares a border with the other nation in question.
No easy solution is evident, but I guarantee you this: we can either deal with the situation now or let it grow out of hand to ever greater degrees. For the people of Seoul, the question is not academic. We watch from the stands. They wait to take to first blow. During the Cold War the "Doomsday Clock" maintained by a group of scientists peaked at 2 minutes to midnight in 1953. For the South Koreans, the minute hand is invading the hour hand's personal space. And the distant rest of the world is watching with binoculars or, worse, a telescope.
In South Korea, people are marching in the streets and rioting.
Interesting, isn't it? How easy it is to talk about resolutions and policies and sanctions while you are sitting out of range? Russia has no population centers within North Korea's probable missile envelope. Neither does the the U.S. China has little or no quarrel with North Korea. Europe has other concerns, like, well, everything. That leaves Japan and South Korea. And Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul in a "lake of fire." I'd be worried, too. This situation is not annoying or distressing to the people of South Korea. It's analogous to Mexico developing nuclear weapons and declaring that it wants its workforce back.
The next question, then, is what the United States should do about it. What are our obligations to our allies and what are our tools?
With regard to the first question, the short answer is that I don't know. Japan and South Korea are both important to our country economically, and our political ties are similarly close for obvious reasons. Here's my personal opinion: we should be open to selling, at reasonable rates, Patriot missile defenses and similar weapons to South Korea, and perhaps politically support a first strike against nuclear of missile sites in the North. Japan is a more interesting case. After all, we sort of hamstrung their military ourselves, what with the conditions of the 1945 surrender. Japan has a "self-defense force" but not much offensive power with which to counter an attack from North Korea. I'd say we should seriously giving Japan access to non-nuclear second strike ability. For example, a few dozen Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads probably would not be out of place. Government leaders are usually less inclined to commence wars of aggression when they know that twenty minutes later every building they've occupied in the last six months will become a crater.
This is just not enough, though, as you have probably deduced. These means might, might, discourage North Korea from an attack or even further buildup, but "might" is insufficient and turning over more technology to a known human rights violator (Japan) or committing more resources to South Korea are both unattractive prospects. Kim Jong Il is not wholly rational, I'd guess. The last thing we want is a war in the region at all, because China might get dragged into it. So, what can the United States do directly?
For now, nothing. I know it is aggravating, but until North Korea demonstrates that is has the ability to be a threat to Juneau I see no justification for flattening Pyongyang or assassinating Kim Jong Il.
Once it does, well, that's different. Sabre-rattling is unacceptable when the sabre is long enough to reach American shores and broad enough to destroy cities. The most cost-effective solution, should North Korea develop power to match its threats, would be a devastating, though probably not nuclear, series of airstrikes against known missile and nuclear-related facilities, coupled with a campaign against North Korean high officials implicit in the threats. I've written on this policy before ("Putting Jason Bourne's kids through college"). Populations don't start wars. Politicians do. Politicians should pay the consequences. Enforcement would be tricky, but certainly not impossible. North Korea launches a missile that travels far enough to put Alaska inside its range, we start taking out military facilities until someone says "Uncle."
The conditions I've put forth as justification for a U.S. attack have already been met in South Korea. The Israelis hit Iraq''s first nuclear reactor. I wonder if South Korea would not be justified in taking similar action. The real question is one of how the North would respond. All Iraq could do was whine. We've let North Korea develop further, and it shares a border with the other nation in question.
No easy solution is evident, but I guarantee you this: we can either deal with the situation now or let it grow out of hand to ever greater degrees. For the people of Seoul, the question is not academic. We watch from the stands. They wait to take to first blow. During the Cold War the "Doomsday Clock" maintained by a group of scientists peaked at 2 minutes to midnight in 1953. For the South Koreans, the minute hand is invading the hour hand's personal space. And the distant rest of the world is watching with binoculars or, worse, a telescope.
Friday, April 10, 2009
There must be a more merciful way...
I just saw a news article on how Barack Obama's bow to the king of Saudi Arabia constitutes the end of all life on earth. Not so, only the end of some reporters' careers, but this close call with eternal doom has got me thinking once again about the end of the world. My list of doomsday scenarios continues with:
12. American Idol. This hit television show will result in the downfall of western civilization. How? Well, ninety percent of the population watches the show and persists in voting for contestants using cellphones. This is why, on the night of the season finale, cell phone providers will suddenly increase texting rates to as much as twenty cents a message. The ensuing phone bill--perhaps in excess of 14 quadrillion (yes, 15 zeros, count 'em) dollars--will upset the rotation of the earth.
13. Modern dance. Modern dance is perceived as a quirky or strange but harmless form of "artistic expression." What no one but a few elite medical professionals (by which I mean myself and my sister's pet rabbit) has realized is that "modern dance" is actually a highly contagious neurological disorder cause by a deadly virus. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, resulting in disconnected and jarring body motions, often accompanied by voting Democrat and crying for no reason. I should point out that not all cases of modern dance are caused by this plague, but all the ones caught on film probably are. When the disease spreads it will reduce earth to a realm of artsy flouncers. Our only hope is to revive the jig and Celtic music worldwide. The virus is highly susceptible to the sound of bagpipes at short range. The vibrations cause it to simply disintegrate. I wish that bagpiping had the same effect on:
14. Build-a-Bear Workshops. Build-a-Bear is a store where, for a mere twenty-five or so smackers, you can put the teddy bear together yourself. You can also purchase clothing, hats, shoes, and other simpering accessories for your ursine friend. What consumers fail to realize is that the warning not to expose your Build-a-Bear to the light of the full moon should be taken seriously. In order to succeed, the founders of Build-a-Bear struck a Faustian bargain with evil forces: they would enjoy unparalleled economic success and consumer gullibility, but the bears would animate when exposed to moonlight during months containing a, e, i, o, or u. Why is this a problem, you ask? Surely these creatures are cuddly and lovable? Normally, you'd be right. But there is no way of identifying gender on a Build-a-Bear. Which means half of them have been forced to wear gender-inappropriate clothing and perhaps even named "George" when "Clarice" would have been more fitting. I know I'd be ticked off when finally freed from my paralysis. The bear is in the home of his/her tormentors with access to power tools and maybe even old Beatles albums. Guess how many million Build-a-Bears have been sold?
15. Badgersbadgersbadgers.com. This website features endlessly dancing badgers you can watch for free! Forever! Workplace productivity has fallen 1.2 percent per month ever since this website went operational. Do the math. Our economy is doomed even if Barack Obama wakes up and smells the Marxism.
The good news, I suppose, is that there will still be cockroaches no matter what happens...
12. American Idol. This hit television show will result in the downfall of western civilization. How? Well, ninety percent of the population watches the show and persists in voting for contestants using cellphones. This is why, on the night of the season finale, cell phone providers will suddenly increase texting rates to as much as twenty cents a message. The ensuing phone bill--perhaps in excess of 14 quadrillion (yes, 15 zeros, count 'em) dollars--will upset the rotation of the earth.
13. Modern dance. Modern dance is perceived as a quirky or strange but harmless form of "artistic expression." What no one but a few elite medical professionals (by which I mean myself and my sister's pet rabbit) has realized is that "modern dance" is actually a highly contagious neurological disorder cause by a deadly virus. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, resulting in disconnected and jarring body motions, often accompanied by voting Democrat and crying for no reason. I should point out that not all cases of modern dance are caused by this plague, but all the ones caught on film probably are. When the disease spreads it will reduce earth to a realm of artsy flouncers. Our only hope is to revive the jig and Celtic music worldwide. The virus is highly susceptible to the sound of bagpipes at short range. The vibrations cause it to simply disintegrate. I wish that bagpiping had the same effect on:
14. Build-a-Bear Workshops. Build-a-Bear is a store where, for a mere twenty-five or so smackers, you can put the teddy bear together yourself. You can also purchase clothing, hats, shoes, and other simpering accessories for your ursine friend. What consumers fail to realize is that the warning not to expose your Build-a-Bear to the light of the full moon should be taken seriously. In order to succeed, the founders of Build-a-Bear struck a Faustian bargain with evil forces: they would enjoy unparalleled economic success and consumer gullibility, but the bears would animate when exposed to moonlight during months containing a, e, i, o, or u. Why is this a problem, you ask? Surely these creatures are cuddly and lovable? Normally, you'd be right. But there is no way of identifying gender on a Build-a-Bear. Which means half of them have been forced to wear gender-inappropriate clothing and perhaps even named "George" when "Clarice" would have been more fitting. I know I'd be ticked off when finally freed from my paralysis. The bear is in the home of his/her tormentors with access to power tools and maybe even old Beatles albums. Guess how many million Build-a-Bears have been sold?
15. Badgersbadgersbadgers.com. This website features endlessly dancing badgers you can watch for free! Forever! Workplace productivity has fallen 1.2 percent per month ever since this website went operational. Do the math. Our economy is doomed even if Barack Obama wakes up and smells the Marxism.
The good news, I suppose, is that there will still be cockroaches no matter what happens...
Thursday, April 9, 2009
When is treatment lethal?
The new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has an interesting idea. He recently suggested having schools "be open" six or even seven days a week for as many as eleven months a year. The rationale is that the U.S. needs to be able to compete with other nations that are currently vaporizing us on the education front (think Japan and Finland). While I applaud Secretary Duncan's acknowledgement that a problem exists, I must question his methodology. Firstly, though, we must evaluate the problems he intends to solve and contrast them against the problems that actually exist.
Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:
Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.
Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.
I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:
1. Students
I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.
2. Parents
I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.
3. Dewey
Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.
Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?
What do you think, reader?
What do you think, Mr. Duncan?
Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:
Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.
Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.
I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:
1. Students
I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.
2. Parents
I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.
3. Dewey
Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.
Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?
What do you think, reader?
What do you think, Mr. Duncan?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
For whom the Bell tolls
I...dislike Rob Bell's theology for a few reasons, but the one that chafes the most, I'd say, is an overly optimistic view of humanity. I'll just focus on one example for this post.
In his book Velvet Elvis, Bell asserts that we (Christians) are already holy and that holy means flawless. In other words, we are rendered perfect at salvation and all we must do is "live in that reality." Bell is somewhat ambiguous as to the meaning of this phrase, but I'll let that one slide. Bell commits two errors here.
The first is a misuse of Scripture. In support of his claim, Bell quotes Paul in a passage that refers to Christians as God's dearly loved and holy people. Bell states that "holy" means flawless. Not a good translation. Holy more precisely means "set apart." Something can be set apart and still imperfect. Christians are set apart from the world, but we are still in need of reshaping and reforming. Moreover, Paul is saying that as God's people we should be doing something. Paul's letters are, in general, written to churches in trouble, full of Christians still undergoing sanctification.
The second is a breach in logic. Bell makes two apparently contradictory assertions. First is that people are perfect and simply need to embrace our perfect nature. Second is that we are not embracing this nature already. If we are truly perfect, why do we need to do anything? This contradiction renders and entire section of the book moot. Bell seeks to simultaneously assert that we shouldn't try to lead better lives and yet...we should.
Most annoying is the fact that you need to actually read every word in the book to catch stuff like this, which is hard when he
does
cute
stuff
with the stupid
line
breaks, evidently in an attempt to be "hip." This book is toxic, folks. And the packaging only serves to disguise its nature.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Engaging auto-destruct in 5...4...3...
These are some of the worst things anyone can say in a round of debate. The TP topic deals with policy toward India. LD is idealism (affirmative) versus pragmatism (negative). Let's break it down, shall we?
Team Policy
Affirmative
"Our plan works in theory."
"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."
"Death is only a problem in some instances."
"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"
"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."
Negative
"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."
"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."
"We don't actually have any evidence."
"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"
"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."
Lincoln-Douglas
Affirmative
"Hitler was an idealist."
"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."
"I don't understand what the negative just said."
"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."
"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."
Negative
"Hitler was a pragmatist."
"Human rights don't matter that much."
"Progress is the highest value."
"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."
"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."
General Debate Potpourri
"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"
"Ignore the arguments for a minute."
"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."
"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."
“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”
“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”
“My source is a professor of botany.”
“My partner is wrong.”
“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”
“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”
“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”
“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”
(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”
“Wait. I’m on which side?”
(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”
“I plead the Fifth.”
“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”
“According to the following blog…”
“Can we try a different case?”
“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”
“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”
“There are worse things than nuclear war.”
(On CX) “What’s topicality?”
“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”
“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”
“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’
“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”
“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”
“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”
"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."
Team Policy
Affirmative
"Our plan works in theory."
"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."
"Death is only a problem in some instances."
"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"
"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."
Negative
"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."
"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."
"We don't actually have any evidence."
"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"
"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."
Lincoln-Douglas
Affirmative
"Hitler was an idealist."
"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."
"I don't understand what the negative just said."
"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."
"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."
Negative
"Hitler was a pragmatist."
"Human rights don't matter that much."
"Progress is the highest value."
"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."
"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."
General Debate Potpourri
"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"
"Ignore the arguments for a minute."
"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."
"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."
“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”
“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”
“My source is a professor of botany.”
“My partner is wrong.”
“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”
“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”
“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”
“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”
(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”
“Wait. I’m on which side?”
(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”
“I plead the Fifth.”
“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”
“According to the following blog…”
“Can we try a different case?”
“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”
“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”
“There are worse things than nuclear war.”
(On CX) “What’s topicality?”
“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”
“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”
“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’
“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”
“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”
“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”
"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
