GraniteGrok

This was first published (by me) on the John Stark Review blog a little while ago....being reminded of it, I decided that you folks may find it interesting.  In the time that this was first posted, Mr. Newdow has tried again to have "Under God" removed, and was rebuffed by the courts.....

A self-avowed atheist, Michael Newdow achieved notoriety a while ago by bringing suit to ave the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The Ninth Circuit District Court agreed with him, but was overturned by the US Supreme Court. The Supremes ruled that Mr. Newdow was unable to bring suit due to “lack of standing” - a legal term that says “you have to have a dog in this fight”. Since he did not have custody of his daughter, he could not sue in her name. Sounds like a valid reason to me: one cannot come through the door unless you have the key to the lock.
 

He again has brought suit, using a group of families to do so and persuaded a Federal judge to agree. While many have crowed that “under God” has been ruled unconstitutional, the debate has not yet ended - it has been appealed to the Ninth District Court again and is expected to go to the US Supreme Court.

Frankly, I believe this is another case of “tyranny of the minority” where a tiny number of people want the rest of society to bend to their needs and wishes. After all, we are the “ME” generation, right?

It is said that shared traditions, history, civility, and language bind a society together, holding separate peoples together. These elements form a common bond and a sense of unity between citizens. Remove them, however, and you end up with a fractured Balkanized society, aimless and unattached. Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum - from one, many - and not “many, to isolation”. Yet, that is where I believe we are heading.

Like the pegs from a timber framed house removed one by one, I see the underpinnings of our society being slowly removed and not always for the best of reasons. It seems that at every turn, another group is pulling at yet another pin just because something offends them. Yet, the damage is not done all at once, nor recognized at any given time.

In the beginning, the removal of one or two pins generally will not cause a house fall down; the structure is sufficiently robust to withstand this attack for some time. Yet, over time, if pins continue to be removed, the structure will become compromised. Sooner or later, the point of no return is reached and the house will collapse. Our society is robust, but how long can the attacks on those binding elements continue before it fails?

It is my contention that we may reach that point of no return sooner than many realize.

Removal of “under God” is just one more step in the attempt to remove religion completely from the public arena, a removal of yet another cultural pin. As with a trampoline that finally has enough springs removed, society is becoming less resilient and may soon cease to operate properly.

Yet, this is a nation that was founded on a Judeao-Christian foundation. Our Founding Fathers gave honor to God in their letters and the Declaration of Independence. Even today, God is mentioned as part of this nation; prayers at the beginning of Congress and the Supreme Court sessions, and “In God We Trust” on our coinage has been ruled constitutional. Our Founders correctly knew that our cherished rights are given to us by God. If given by God, who is man to take them away? And the Constitution forbade our government from establishing a state religion similar that to the Church of England; it does NOT prohibit the practice thereof but there seems to be a demonization of public displays of religion in many places in our nation.

Over and over again, we hear that phrase of “separation of church and state”. I agree that I do not wish the State to create and enforce obedience to any given religion. However, I do see that this is exactly what is happening - government and court decisions are slowly enforcing, depending on your viewpoint, either a religion of secularism or an environment of no religion at all (hardly what the Founders wished for at all). God IS being pushed out of the public arena, much to my dismay and my belief, to the detriment of our nation. Thus, with only moral relativism as a compass, there is nothing that is not possible or allowed.

If God is removed from public society, what does that leave? Without God, only the State remains. What remains is solely human judgement, subject to the whims of the day, swaying from one end of the pendulum to another. And as we have seen from history, a State can enforce and decree what it wishes when what it wishes relies solely upon what men desire.

While many are honorable, we have all seen what happens when men behave in a not so honorable manner. They are willing to define and redefine whatever needs be to reach their aims.

Several phrases have survived from the 60's and have become codified in society:

"Question authority", "Do what ever you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone", and "Who are you to judge me?".

These latter two phrases - I believe that those that wish to rid society of God may be doing so in order to rationalize their behavior. Without an absolute sense of right and wrong, there can be no judgement except that set by man. Result? Anything is permissible, and if not just yet, perhaps soon. After all, if there are no absolute right and wrongs, if there are no God’s laws, who are you to tell me I am wrong? Thus, eliminate God from the public arena, and the stage is set. Removing this governor from society will result in a society that runs faster and faster to the bottom.

After all, the only governor on society that would be left would be - yes, government.There is a problem when leaving only government in charge. A government that is large and sufficiently powerful to rule in and of itself can enforce what is right is also a government large enough to enforce what is wrong. And take away what it wishes. In setting its own rules, the quaint notion of “absolute right and wrong” will be irrelevant.

Tied into this debate, those of faith have been castigated in the public arena with such phrases as “religious fanatics who hate America”, “the religious right”, and “right wing worthies”; an ad hominum attacks all (when you can’t win with logic, smear!). I also find it almost amusing that some will quote Jesus while attempting to censor the use of the word God.

While I am a conservative in my societal and political outlook as an American, I am also an evangelical Christian. I believe in God and His plan for me, that He loved us so much that He gave his Son as a sacrificial offering for our failings. My morality is based on that fact and my attempting to follow His teaching in the Bible (“attempting” is used, as I certainly do not always live up to the standard therein). Yet, I am forgiven by grace.

I can no sooner remove this God-given morality from my persona than I could step out of my skin. Yet, this is a good thing, as it acts as a built in governor - my faith lets me know when I am about to move out of bounds. And I would hope and pray that this assists me when in the public arena. So why should I not be able to discuss this? Why remove this from the public arena? I am not advocating that others be forced to believe what I do; I do ask that my expression of such be not abridged. I do not believe that keeping “under God” in the pledge, or mentions of God anywhere in the public realm forces any one to accept any religion at all, but why attack me for mine? Like what many may have thought upon reading his screed, “no one is forcing you to say it, so don’t!” By removing mine, you enforce yours on me.

Again, the tyranny of the minority seems to bent on removing many things that most of us cherish as part of society of a whole and replacing them with things that are abhorrent (e.g., Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that live s*x act shows are protected as freedom of expression, yet, a creche cannot be on public property at Christmas?).

At some point, the majority must say “enough” or find that we have given up our rights to the minority. One should not willy nilly discard that which one holds in little esteem - it may end up being the last pin pulled out from society.

Posted by Skip at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Nashua man is facing two felony charges for allegedly using secret video cameras to tape police who had come to his home to investigate his son’s possible role in a robbery.

Nashua Police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., on Tuesday and charged him with two felony counts of interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oral communications. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

According to court filings, Gannon and his wife, Janet, had videocameras set up at both the front and rear entrances of their home. During an interview with police, Janet Gannon told investigators that the couple bought the cameras from Wal-Mart because there had been some criminal mischief in the parking lot in front of their home.

Nashua Police Sgt. Detective Jeff Maher said that although the cameras were not hidden and police officers were on Gannon’s property when the recording allegedly occurred, Gannon never told the police officers that he was recording their actions and conversations. That makes it a crime, he said.

“Just the fact this recording occurred, a crime was committed,” Maher said.

My friend Tom, who gets the hat-tip for sending me this article asks the following question: "Why can't a homeowner tape record what takes place on his property?" Good question, Tom. I would say this instance represents just one more piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that the notion of private-property rights is fast disappearing in this country.

Oh, and if you were wondering why this particular instance was singled out, perhaps it was what the tape revealed:

Michael Gannon came to the police station Tuesday with a videotape that he said showed the officers being “discourteous.” The tape included a recording of a conversation Gannon had with officers and a second conversation the police had when they were alone.

An additional point to ponder: Would it have been OK if it was a tape of white cops beating a black man?

Posted by Doug at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The current state of affairs in Israel demonstrates what the future might hold for us if we don’t completely eradicate the Islamo-fascist threat: a world of constant terror attacks or the unseen threat thereof. Recent events in that embattled country demonstrate several maxims. Appeasement only strengthens an enemy and ultimately, the only way to deal with a barbarous enemy is strength and force. Consider their response in the recent abduction by Palestinian (Islamic) terrorists tied to the Palestinian thugs that make up their so-called government.

A June 27th BBC report notes Prime Minister

“Olmert has put the army on standby for an extensive military operation against Palestinian militants to free Cpl Shalit and Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles have been assembling on the Gaza border. ‘The question of freeing [Palestinian] prisoners is in no way on the Israeli government agenda,’ Mr Olmert said during a speech in Jerusalem. ‘There will be no negotiations, no bargaining, no agreements.’ Mr Olmert said that Israel would not allow itself to become the victim of ‘Hamas-terrorist blackmail’, warning that ‘a large-scale military operation is approaching...The time is approaching for a comprehensive, sharp and severe Israeli operation. We will not wait forever,’ Mr Olmert said. Cpl Shalit is believed to have been taken captive by militants who tunneled out of Gaza to attack the army post at Kerem Shalom.”

How does this demonstrate appeasement doesn’t work? Consider that the terrorists “tunneled out of Gaza” to perpetrate their deed. It wasn’t very long ago that the Israeli government withdrew from this area, handing it over to their sworn enemies. Not satisfied with any compromise save one that eliminates Israel, the terrorists now go for another piece of the pie. The only way to stop them is to kill them.

 

Posted by Doug at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sherman begins from the November 10^th 2005 column: “Let the spending begin!” After a slight pause, the pet boy continues to read aloud:

“‘But Doug didn’t the folks of Laconia pass a tax cap? Won’t the expenditures be restrained now? They’re limited to some inflation index thingy that says how much they can increase spending and taxes.’ Ah yes- the voters passed a tax cap... but then they turned around and elected nearly the entire slate of candidates expressing vehement opposition to the tax cap while openly espousing their desire to continue conducting business as usual in their management of the city. With several out of control city department heads stating in no uncertain terms that they cannot work within the confines of a tax cap, and the power to override any of its provisions with four votes, does anybody really believe that the winners of Tuesday’s vote will adhere to the voter’s supposed desire to slow the pace of spending in Laconia? I don’t.”

The boy stopped and looked to his dog master, who was resetting the WABAC machine to another date.

December 15^th, 2005. Again Mr. Peabody instructs his pet boy to read from Lambert’s “Exercising the First” column in that day’s Daily Sun discussing (Broken Arrow) Laconia Mayor-elect Matt Lahey’s appearance on a local public access channel program, Today in Focus:

“When [host] St. Clair asked Lahey if he thought the tax cap would be overridden, he replied, ‘it may very well be that the voters recognize that the operating budgets must be within the cap, but a major capital project would require an override.’ But, Lahey was quick to add that ‘I don’t see it being overridden regularly.’”

Boy Sherman again stopped reading and looked at Mr. Peabody who was starting to grin. “You see, my dear boy- I told you Doug was very perceptive. Let’s go back to the present in the WABAC and I’ll show you.” Upon arriving, they found this past Tuesday’s Daily Sun. “See,” said Peabody to his pet. “Look at the headline and what’s written just below. Read it, boy.” Sherman obeyed his Master. “It says ‘City will have to bust cap for new school’ and that city manager ‘Cabanel projects School District will be $646k over tax cap for 2007- 2008, without new construction.’ Gee whiz! Mr. Peabody- this guy Doug Lambert was right all along! Those people had no intention of abiding by the tax cap.” Peabody replied, “Precisely my dear boy... precisely!”

 

 

Posted by Doug at 6:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Liberal once wrote a piece that was obviously against the war.  In it, the writer asked three questions:

Where in our constitution does it say that the purpose of our military is to invade sovereign nations for the purpose of deposing their leaders and changing their political system?

Truthfully, would you have supported this invasion if you had been told back in 2002 that the mission was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, even though we had not been invited to do so?

Finally, if you believe in this mission, whatever it really is, are you willing to die or send your children to die for it?

Good questions; very thoughtful questions as they get to the heart of how one feels about their political system and especially about the mission and purpose of this country and how it applies to someone at the personal level.  I was compelled to think when I read it (although, to be sure, some of it was a bit in anger given how the questions were phrased) and in formulating my answers.

 

The way I responded was....

 

Where in our constitution does it say that the purpose of our military is to invade sovereign nations for the purpose of deposing their leaders and changing their political system?

Yes, to protect Americans.

The purpose of a military, in the end and under civilian control, is to break things and kill people. It is raw, unabated, naked force unleashed. It is not pretty and that makes many people squeamish and wish to quickly move onto other topics.

Fortunately, the intended use of our military is as a last resort to dissuade those that would do us harm. Failing that dissuasion, it is their mission to protect us by killing those that have harmed us and stop others from emulating them. In the Global War on Terror, they are hunting down those that have done us harm over some number of years now (e.g., the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, the killing of our diplomats, the bombing of the USS Cole, the TWO attacks on the Twin Towers - I can supply more examples) due to their philosophy.

Who are "they"? "They" are the Islamic jihadists whose bent is establishing a single world rule under Islam, a caliphate, where Islam controls every action of everyone's life. I prefer my freedom - the same freedom that allows Liberals to denigrate our current policies to maintain that freedom.

Truthfully, would you have supported this invasion if you had been told back in 2002 that the mission was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, even though we had not been invited to do so?

Yes, I would. Democracy is the panacea.

This is a much different war than what we have ever fought before. There is no single State or uniformed military. We fight against an embodied philosophy of "our way, or death"; if you do not convert or cower, then die (Proof: Google Bin Laden’s manifesto). Example: life as imposed by the Taliban (remember the video of the a woman shot in the head on the soccer field?). Also, recall recent stories from Iraq that illustrate where Zarqawi’s thugs showed the same type of brutish rule; beating men simply because of Western dress and women killed just for walking unescorted. Where the Left complains about our treatment of prisoners; I continue to see pictures in my mind of the bodies of those that jumped to their death rather than dying in the fires of the Twin Towers. Yes, Democracy is the panacea.

If one reads the entire Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (October 2, 2002), you can plainly see the support for Democracy in going to war, passed by both liberals and conservatives: "...Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime..." Can it be clearer?

I'll even add a follow on question: Do I care how the U.S. is viewed in the World because of the actions to keep us safer? Yes, but only to a point. We have our national interests; they have theirs. Frankly, ours are more important to me than theirs. I am NOT a citizen of the world at large; in terms of this world, I am an American.

Finally, if you believe in this mission, whatever it really is, are you willing to die or send your children to die for it?

For me, the “Big Three” are my faith, my family, and the ideals and security of my country. Yes, I would be willing to go to ensure that my family and friends would not. I have never served in the military nor come from a military family. But I know that our freedom, at times, needs to be repurchased with blood and sacrifice.

Many Liberals seem to forget one thing. We are SO blessed in SO many ways that many Liberals believe that they only have to discuss a topic (sometimes to an illogical end) to resolve conflict with anyone. This is unlike what many in other parts of the world know - debate works only with reasonable, thoughtful people. As long as there are those that wish to dominate others (from petty purse snatchers to murderous tyrants), there will be times when the only answer is FORCE; one cannot debate them to convince them to renounce their actions - the only answer and way to stop them isFORCE.

The second (and false) premise contained in this question is that adult parents deliberately send their children to die. No one sends their children to die – that is a foolish statement to make. I marvel at the example of the Greatest Generation - they were not sent, they just went. They stopped the Nazi fascism that was as deadly as Islamofascism is today. They intuitively understood what was at stake; none of this ruinous chatter that we are the problem, we don't understand the enemy, why do they hate us, our government is always bad, and many other empty platitudes. They believed in the promise of the American way, they were proud of their country, and they were willing to sacrifice for it.

So no, my son is not "sent" by me. He just went - he went to Iraq in the good company of other U.S. Marines, did his duty, and (thankfully) returned (and yes, my heart goes out to those parents and families whose loved ones gave the ultimate sacrifice). Not sent - went!

I have now answered these questions.  Now I ask Liberals to please answer mine.  I am attacking that straw man that the Left often throws up: I AM questioning your patriotism as for I have seen no evidence of it. Ms / Mr. Liberal, for what ideal or cause are you willing to die for?

My question to the Reader - how would you answer either the Three or the One?

 

Posted by Skip at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What goes around, comes around.  When President Bush first started to talk about reforming Social Security, his ideas included the personal savings component (like many Federal employees already have) and the indexing of COLAs from the wage price inflation rate to the consumer price index.  As expected, there was a lot of blowback.  The opposition came from two different groups.  From the Left was the hysterical outpouring of angst over people not being able to figure out how to invest their  personal savings accounts, the role of the private market, and (I feel) the loss of power of not being in charge of all that money.

The other came from those who were either already on Social Security or about to partake of its benefits.  In the local paper, I saw numerous articles and Letters to the Editor complaining about "cutting benefits", that people paid their money and demanded to get it back in benefits, and that Social Security was needed to "live a normal retirement".

Well, I've seen a few peices again over the last few months yet again on Social Security.  Although it has been in reference to the new Senate bill extending Social Security benefits to illegal aliens (at terms better than I can get!!), I figured it was time to say something once again about a couple of the basic issues.
 

Far be it for me to clue those that want all the money they paid in over the years is long gone; there are no Trust Fund accounts with their names on to now draw against.  While they worked, they paid for Mr. & Mrs. Johns' Social Security checks; now my taxes help to fund the current seasoned citizens' monthly S.S. check and benefits.  In the private sector, Social Security is known by another name - a Ponzi scheme.  Illegal by others; legalized for and only for government purposes.  They may "demand" anything they wants, but the simple truth is that they did not pay earlier for what they now receive.  

The role of Social Security was never intended to provide anyone with a complete retirement fund.  Rather, it was created as a "floor" to guard against the poverty of senior citizens; it was never supposed to supply a sufficient income to supply a comfortable retirement.  It is not the general public's fault, nor is it our responsibility, to pay for anyone's retirement in full.  I am sorry that many do not realize this fact and fail to adequately plan to provide for themselves in retirement.  I may feel bad, but that's their fault, not ours, and I and others should not have to pay for their mistake.  We should help, but only to a point.  There is no promise in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights to give anyone the right of a reasonably comfortable retirement.  No one should expect one as an entitlement.  This brief anomaly of the general population able to enjoy a retirement may over; we all may need to work during our "retirement years".  Older folks got lucky, we didn't.  Get over it.

Next - no one's Social Security check will be cut, and it is doubtful that it ever will (has federal government spending ever gone down?).  Some of those against changing the indexing process believe that their  benefits are going to be cut Real Soon Now, which is not true.  While it may sound "nuanced"; there are no cuts being talked about.  It is the rate of increase that will SLOW (not cut) if the Social Security increase rate changes from wage inflation to a more moderate inflation rate. Their checks will continue to grow over time but they will just get larger at a slower pace.   

Please note: somebody always has to pay for Social Security check to get larger. Government can only pay benefits by using money taken from other people who pay taxes.  Thus, for anyone's check to get larger, the next generation that is now paying for that check gets to keep less from their hard work for themselves.

There is a saying "Good, Quick, or Cheap; pick two and call me later".  Think about it; any two choices excludes the third.  The equivalent in the Social Security arena is "Benefits, Taxes, and Demographics".  Benefits have risen as politicians have used it as a way to win votes. Taxes have already gone up since Social Security's onset - from 2% to 12.4%.  And taxes will have to go even higher without changes made. Way higher.

Why?  The third item, Demographics.

The "joke" is that this overrides the other two.  The problem is not just having higher taxes or lower benefits.  The real problem is accounting for demographics - less workers in the labor force and retirees living longer.  At the time Social Security started there were 30 workers for every retiree and the life expectancy was 63 - benefits didn't kick in until age 65.  By the time I retire as a late boomer, there may be only two workers to support me and I hope to live to my eighties.  This is the driving force behind requiring changes and we can't change that due to the "bulge in the snake" of the retiring boomer generation and better medical services, so something has to give.  This is an tsunami of a problem if there aren't serious changes WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.  Should I be required to pay more into the system than what I will receive back?  Should I require those to workers to pay most of their hard earned wages in taxes so I can receive my "fair share"?  Should I expect to receive the same as my parents did?  

The problem is that I won't, unless structural changes to Social Security happen, including the re-indexing.  The Social Security system was not built to endure long with fewer workers and longer lifespans. To maintain Social Security, we will have to pick either much lowered benefits, much higher taxes or both. And honesty compels us, after all the rhetoric is said and argued, that neither will be enough.  The only thing that can save the system is serious changes to that system.  Not all changes will create joy in all people.  

Given the choice, I can easily accept the pegging to a slower rate of growth as a starter.  I also would welcome the personal account feature (again, a choice which federal employees have had for a while) being bandied about.  And there may be many other changes needed as well (think of a retirement age commiserate with our longer lifespans).  Get used to it.  

It all comes down to TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.   

Posted by Skip at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a war raging all around us.  It is a global war.  It is a war that the United States cannot afford to lose.  No one has died in this war, and no one is likely to.  But there are casualties.  Their injuries are not physical; they are mental.  And the suffering is life-long.  I’m not referring to the Global War on Terror or the War on Drugs.  I’m talking about the Math War.

While the United States is, militarily, the world’s only superpower, we are, mathematically, merely a second-rate power, and losing ground every year.  In the Math War, the superpowers are Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Belgium.  In assessment after assessment, those countries prove that their weapons – in this case, mathematically-competent 4^th, 8^th, and 12^th graders – are more accurate and advanced than our own.  Their strategies are more focused.  Their national resolve is stronger.

The debate in this country about mathematics education and curricula has been termed the “Math War” but it is really a generally civil, though passionate,  disagreement.  Passionate for good reason:  The outcome may well determine whether America can remain the world's leading economic power.  

There are two distinct sides in the debate which for simplicities sake I’ll label as the “Reformists” and the “Traditionalists.”  Because I subscribe to the “BLUF” principle – Bottom Line Up Front – I’ll tell you now that I side with the Traditionalists.  Call me a neo-Traditionalist. 

I can’t possibly present in this forum all the relevant information necessary for you to make an informed decision on this issue.  Instead, my goal is to pique your interest in the subject so that you will want to become better informed, will want to take a stand.  Why?  Because good jobs will be created in those countries that take seriously advanced mathematics education and student ability.  And right now, America is falling behind.  As in World Cup Soccer, our math team is not a contender.  And math whizzes in other countries are not going to grow up to become tax-paying supporters of the American baby-boomer’s social safety net.  Only American math whizzes can be counted on to do that.   We need to grow our own.

A bit of context is important.  The Reformists, representing the education establishment, believe that “process” is more important than memorizing core knowledge, and self-discovery more important than getting the right answer.   For them it’s the journey, not the destination.   

“Traditionalists,” consisting of parent groups and mathematicians, insist on teaching the traditional algorithms.  They advocate clear, concrete standards based on actually solving math problems.  The destination – getting the right answer – is important to Traditionalists.

Two examples will help to make the difference clear. 

•   One of the broad standards in an actual Reformist curriculum states that students should "use computational tools and strategies fluently and estimate appropriately."  A similar statement in a Traditional standards document states “The student will add and subtract with decimals through thousandths.”  The standard is fuzzy on the one side, clear and concise on the other. 
  

• One of the math projects in a reformist math program  - the program used in my school district - is called My Special Number.  Sixth graders are told that “Many people have a number they find interesting. Choose a whole number between 10 and 100 that you especially like.  In your journal:
  
•   record your number
•   explain why you chose that number
•  list three or four mathematical things about your number
•  list three or four connections you can make between your number and your world."

At the end of the unit, the teacher is directed to ask students to find an interesting way to report to the class about their special number.  Sixth graders are given a month to complete this project.

To traditionalists, tools and context are important – in that order.  Master the tools, then put them in context.  Reformists provide context, then attempt to guide the students to discover the tools.  This is cart-before-the-horse thinking.  The reformers' approach is to have students devise their own methods for achieving a mathematical goal, rather than have them learn the traditional algorithms.  To quote again from a Reformist math standard:

"By talking about problems in context, students can develop meaningful computational algorithms."

The problem is that this is not true. If by "meaningful computational algorithms" we mean “simple, accurate, repeatable” - things like the traditional addition algorithm, or long division, the fact is that the average student will never develop such an algorithm.  Universal mathematical algorithms were developed by the likes of Archimedes, Euclid, Descartes, and Pascal.  There are not many budding Pascals in our local school districts.  

I said that I was a “neo-Traditionalist,” which simply means that I believe that the traditional methods of teaching mathematics have proved their worth, and while they could be tweaked, they should not be discarded.  Reformist curricula might make for an interesting PhD dissertation, but they don’t hold up well when ivory tower meets brick-and-mortar.  In math education, our children used to compete quite well against their foreign peers.  But today our students’ mathematical performance earns them a place in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, and middle of the pack status when less-developed nations are added to the mix. 

What has changed over the past couple of decades?  The teaching philosophy has changed.  The Reformists of the education establishment – Big Ed – have taken over.  Billions have been spent to achieve this outcome, which should spark outrage among parents and taxpayers.  It should, as well, be cause for concern for anyone counting on today’s students to create or get good jobs and pay taxes to support our social safety net.         

In my opinion, students should be taught, and made to master, the traditional algorithms.  The best way to advance students' conceptual thinking about mathematics is to have them learn and take advantage of the existing core body of mathematical knowledge.  This is the traditional approach.  With such tools, and with the guidance of good teachers, a student can grasp and integrate in twelve years a body of mathematics that took hundreds of geniuses thousands of years to devise.

Now cross posted over at www.GilfordGrok.com!

Posted by Ken at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

 

Here is the gist from the Saturday piece (The Citizen requires a free registration for access to some of its stories):

 

Next week, Fire Department officials will be submitting a proposal to the Board of Selectmen for a new fire engine to replace Engine 1...The problem arose when the truck was sent to a shop for routine maintenance repairs that were anticipated to cost the department roughly $1,600. Upon closer examination the engine was found to have "other vehicle issues." The required repairs that would be needed for inspection purposes would have cost upwards of $16,000...The need of a quick replacement is not because Gilford is lacking in fire prevention coverage, but because federal EPA standards change with regard to engine emissions in 2007. This means that if the town was to purchase a post-2007 vehicle, the engine model would be completely new.
"It's not that we are trying to circumvent federal EPA standards. We are simply trying to avoid a first-year-model engine in order to prevent new model glitches, which could end up costing the town even more money," explains Fire Engineer Bill Akerley.

 

The way things are supposed to work in our town, a budget is prepared and then voted upon by the people at town meeting. What we see here are the early seeds of the procedure that will be used to circumvent the normal process of debate and approval (or not) by the voters. They will probably seek to lease this piece of equipment using funds “found” in this year’s approved budget. Next year, the voters will have to approve the payments. “Otherwise,” the town leaders will tell us, “that money we ‘invested’ last year will be lost.”

 

Now cross posted over at www.GilfordGrok.com! 

Posted by Doug at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Most Estemed Wife:

 

Can I have one of these, PLEASE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or if that is too expensive, how about one of these instead?

 

For more info, go over to Ron Patrick's site 

Posted by Skip at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The illegal immigration issue became one of my pet peeves quite some time ago.  On Dec. 18, 2003 (a search did not find the article), the local paper, The Citizen (registration may be required)  ran an editorial by Ricardo Pimentel lamenting the treatment of illegal immigrants by the Social Security system.

Gee, read your own article - can you not see the cause and effect here?  Or does logic play any role in your life at all???? 

Friday, December 26, 2003

Dear Sirs,

I read with concern the "Fleecing 'illegals' of Social Security" column posted in the Citizen today (and in the Arizona Republic on December 18 as "Social Security is robbing the undocumented") by Ricardo Pimentel. Then, reread it again while wondering why such a piece of deliberate intellectual dishonesty is seen as serious journalism. And not having to wonder why the newspaper world wonders why fewer and fewer are partaking of their product.

The thrust of the article by Mr. Pimentel is that we are stealing from undocumented workers. And that the United States Government is stealing their money by denying them what they have contributed in taxes. And that we should have a policy that we provide reciprocity between Mexico and the U.S. concerning who pays what where. And that we are not prosecuting companies that hire undocumented workers. So we should just legalize them in some fashion.

After reviewing a few more of his articles online, I believe that it would be well stated that Mr. Pimental is of a more liberal persuasion than myself. However, I will defend his right to continue to hold and put forth those arguments. In fact, allow me to add a few more of the arguments that I have heard concerning this issue: They are already here, and we have do deal with them now. Iif we didn't have low wage workers, everything would cost more. Produce and other food products would cost twice as much. The hotel and restaurant businesses would be devastated through lack of workers. American workers won't do the work. They have to come here, as there are no jobs in their homeland. We are all immigrants when you get right down to it. It is a violation of human rights not to let them come. And the litany goes on and on.

Each one may sound good. Each, taken on its own at the surface, may appear to be logical. But each fails when more logical reasoning (versus simplistic emotional appeals to the heart strings) is applied. However, that is not why I write this rebuttal.

Spin is everything, always trying to put one's viewpoint in the best possible light. The political discord is increasing more divisive and full of rancor, growing more and more coarse. However, it should surprise no one that there is also a deliberate effort to modify our common language, to change the meanings of well known words, by which our national and local politics agendas are posed and discussed. And I see that as a very damaging aspect of society today as it allows for disguising the truth. A rare commodity these days when dealing with partisan politics (and politicians) and to-the-max advocates of one issue or another. For if one is willing to concede truth in arguing, then anything is possible. Anything can be justified, and many work to make that so.

No, I am not a journalist or a columnist; simple a plain old engineer who has to deal in facts all day long. Because something either works or it doesn't. No amount of spin will make something work that won't. Nor will obfuscating an issue by casting it into multiple shades of gray when just black and white would suffice.

Take Mr. Pimental's phrase "undocumented workers". It has the connotation of industrious workers who just happen to have forgotten some paperwork; a slant to the positive. He paints the Social Security system as evil, taking these folks (e.g., "...expect to be robbed...") hard earned money. And also paints these monies as deferred compensation, which is far from the truth (it is to pay current recipients and not stored in some "lockbox" for later payments). He uses the word "thieving" in describing employers that employee the undocumented. He describes how easy and cheap it is to obtain a fake Social Security card, and proceeds to move his argument onward from there. All of these shadings to further his particular argument.

Most of the arguments, however, vanish when the truthful phrase of "illegal" is put in for "undocumented". An act that is against the law. Someone trying to do something for himself no matter that our society at large has decided is wrong. And wrong it is. And no amount of spin can make it right (it may sound right, but logically it cannot). Nor will that spin make any of the resulting actions or results right either. An act for which responsibility should be taken and resulting in punitive repercussions

Yet Mr. Pimentel paints these illegal workers as victims of "the system" and complains about the results of their illegal action in coming here. That everything wrong that happens to them is not their fault.

When something is not right, something breaks. Often if in a complicated device or system, Part A may break down or not work right, but it doesn't show up until you get to Part M (or "down stream"). Engineer would call Part A the "root cause" of why Part M is not working right.

Much of our political problems, in my opinion, can be traced to politicians or partisans ignoring this fundamental truth. Or running from it in order to push their agenda.

Posted by Skip at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If anybody happens to read the “about Doug” link on this blog, they will note several references to “rock ‘n roll” in my bio. That’s right- in addition to being a political commentator (junkie, really), my other love (besides God, family, and country, which come first, of course) is music. Not playing it, mind you- just buying and listening to it. After a half-hearted attempt at mastering the guitar, I decided that all the good tunes have already been played (or yet to be played) by others and I am best suited to fan status. This short piece is the kickoff to what I hope will be a regular weekly posting on this topic...

 

With 25 gigs of music on the multiple computers and drives in my life, I often think about what a truly great time it is to be an audiophile. Growing up first stacking albums on the turntable and then later turning many into homemade cassettes (8-tracks NEVER did the job for me)- using the latest “Dolby” cleaning techniques, of course- has left me fully appreciative and cognizant of the awesome music technology of today.

 

 

 

In addition to the technology and equipment changes, the means of searching for and purchasing music has evolved as well. Back in the seventies, there was a record store in Woonsocket R.I. (the “big city” adjacent to the town where I lived) called “The Music Box.” Mom would drive me and some friends there because it was a store that would actually ORDER titles per customer requests. I remember spending hours perusing the fat yellow book of music for albums not found normally found on the store shelves. Pay the four bucks and wait for the phone call from the store. Sometimes it took 3 or 4 weeks to receive the order. Today, I link to Amazon.com and, besides being able to search and find anything within mere seconds; I can have it OVERNIGHT if I wish, or IMMEDIATELY if I take a download. Wow!

 

In addition to recorded music, I love to attend concerts. Luckily, I live in Gilford, NH where there is this fantastic concert venue known as Meadowbrook Farm. I will write often, I’m sure, about the shows I have seen, and will see at this great facility. Last week during their first annual “Bike Bash,” I saw John Kay and Steppenwolf on Wednesday, Quiet Riot and Skid Row on Friday, and Foghat and Blue Oyster Cult on Saturday.

 

Playing Now: "Slash's Snakepit- Ain't Life Grand"

 

Posted by Doug at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We are lucky in that in the Lakes Region, we have two daily papers for the Lakes Region and one weekly specifically for our town. It has given me ample opportunity to write, as there are quite few Liberals that write in with ideas that they wish to champion. Like the old days in bowling when there were real humans resetting the pins, they set 'em up and I knock them down. Even though some of the Letters may be old, the topics are still relevant almost all the time.

As in this case way back in 2002, the idea of an income tax here in New Hampshire was again being flogged. The background is that we have no sales or income tax here and the race for the next Governor has already already begun. Thus, it is also time for the years old argument for and against implementing an income tax.

This Liberal, however, put a REAL different spin on it, using the word GIVE.....

Liberal Writer:

I am amazed and sorry that we have so many folks in this state who seem to focus on one thing, and one thing only, when voting, and that is income tax. It seems that while voting the majority of folks only had one thing on their mind, to avoid income tax. So there was a landslide for candidates who don't support such a need.

An income tax would have been a much fairer way to handle the state's various needs as that would take a percentage of each person's earning. Those those make more would give more and those who make less would give less. Rather, we are going to see property taxes rise to the point that only the wealthy can afford to stay in their houses. At the same time the price for rentals will also go up and folks will have to leave the state since they can't afford to live here. And for the icing on the cake, you can forget about help for the homeless, the elderly, and the handicapped, etc. and education will depend on whether your town can afford it.

I have never seen the use of the word “give” EVER used in this context. One doesn't GIVE money voluntarily as taxes, they are TAKEN. In fact, I have suggested multiple times that people who wish to raise taxes for others should consider donating their own monies to the level of government that they wish to support. With the clamor about raising taxes, one would expect to see those accounts to be much fuller – leading by example! Sadly, history has shown that accounts set up for this purpose never receive any kind of meaningful receipts from anyone. It just seems so easy for some to offer to take someone else's property to give to someone else....

Thankfully, those that were espousing on implementing an income tax were foiled at the ballot box. My response was:

Anyways, the thrust of [this] letter is that [the writer] is "amazed" at the fact that "so many people" disagree that an income tax is a "much fairer way"; those that earn more should give more. And if that doesn't happen, the elderly will be thrown out of their homes, and woe to the homeless, the handicapped, and anyone else that needs assistance. And the usual about education being left in the hands of the local towns.

Rubbish.

Given the political outcomes, an outright majority of NH citizens already feel they are overtaxed - adding another tax seems silly. I do a lot of business traveling to other states and most folks are incredulous that we have no sales or income tax. They all wish their states would adopt our (formerly?) frugal principles. They all have property taxes. And a sales tax, an income tax, and a whole host of other taxes that we don't. All adding up to financial burdens much higher than ours. Have all those ways of taking money from their citizens solved their financial and education problems? Hardly; most states' budget deficits are far larger than ours on both a percentage and an absolute dollar amount basis.

If the campaign rhetoric is to believed, state spending doubled in the space of six years [1996 to 2002 -Skip] Taking out a fudge factor (due to that rhetoric) still tells me that a similar amount was also raised in revenue [NH has to have a balanced budget – Skip]. Thus, we don't have a revenue problem, but a prioritization and spending project to be managed.

[The Letter writer] sees an income tax as being inherently fairer than a property tax. Additionally, many who wish an income tax believe it fairer still to have one that increases the percentage taken from other citizens as their income goes up is fairer still. I still have yet to discover the logical reasoning behind this; I have NEVER understood the fairness of discriminating against those in the population whose only negative criteria is that they have succeeded in life (gee, wasn't that the American dream at one time; study hard, work hard, have a little luck, get rewarded?). WHY do we wish to continue to penalize success? Is it envy or revenge on the part of those that haven't succeeded?

[SNIP]

Instead of adding another tax, I sometimes have this fantasy of deleting ALL taxes (and loopholes) except for one tax with which to fund government (alright, I'll allow one for each level of government). Everyone pays it with A MANUALLY WRITTEN check on a regular basis so that all citizens have to see how much their government really costs them. And more importantly, EVERYONE pays something. This way, everyone has an incentive to pay attention to governmental affairs and to better appreciate what the services are provided (as opposed to what seems to be the pervasive attitude of many recipients that these services are entitled and owed to them). In this suggestion, everyone who benefits from government pays for it. What could be fairer?

 

Posted by Skip at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s interesting that British jihadis came to Queens to recruit Americans — and no doubt some of them, fully trained in slaughter, have returned to these shores — but the important thing is the mosque. Because there’s always a mosque, as my Italian friend Magdi Allam has been repeating for several years. Not all mosques are jihadi, but all jihadis come from a mosque.

Look at the 9/11 terrorists, look at the killer of Daniel Pearl, and you will find well-off, educated men who became radicalized in a mosque. And I’ll bet you a good-sized farm that if we ever get to the bottom of 9/11 we’ll discover that mosques were central in maintaining contact with and discipline over the terrorists.

So mosques can be very dangerous places when the local imam preaches jihadism, as is done in the thousands of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi mosques all over the world, including the United States.

Posted by Doug at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug's posting about the mosque in Manchester, in and of itself, may not be too worrisome...BUT (and there is always a BUT) combined with this bit of news by Licia Corbella of the  Calgary Sun

Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar recently attended Calgary's largest mosque for a funeral.

At one point in the proceedings, a man Kanwar has known for more than three decades led the prayers.

"He was saying in Urdu (the official language of Pakistan): 'Oh, God, protect us from the infidels, who pollute us with their vile ways,'" recalls Kanwar, a professor of sociology at Mount Royal College in Calgary.

"I stood up and grabbed him by the lapels, which was shocking even to me because I have never done anything like that in my life and I said: 'How dare you attack my country.' And then I addressed the crowd and said: 'I have known this man for more than 30 years and he has been on welfare for almost all of those years.' "

For more, look here 

Posted by Skip at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the classic ancient Chinese text of military strategy, The Art of Warfare, Sun-Tzu advises an attacking force:

“Revise your strategy according to the changing posture of the enemy to determine the course and outcome of the battle... At first be like a modest maiden, and the enemy will open his door; Afterward be as swift as a scurrying rabbit, and the enemy will be too late to resist you.”

 

Over the past weekend, the “New Hampshire Sunday News” printed an article written by Shawne K. Wickham entitled A call to build. The news contained within left me both perplexed and angry. When reading that

“Members of the Greater Manchester Interfaith Council are hoping that area churchgoers will pitch in to help build New Hampshire’s first mosque,”

I nearly fell off my chair. Why would they do such a thing?

Time after time, each occurrence of successful or thwarted terror strikes here in the West have had a common ingredient: a mosque or Islamic “center” with radicalized members being “mentored” by “imams” and other so-called “holy” men. Knowing this, why would we want something like this here in NH? It is no secret that, at such places, dangerous and hate-filled propaganda is often repeated and disseminated by radical speakers and “preachers” during religious “services.” Additionally, we’ve all heard the numerous stories noting that many mosques and shrines have been used throughout the Moslem world as ammo dumps and hideouts for murderous thugs.  

The enemy in the new world war that we find ourselves fighting is based upon the spread of a radical fascist ideology, much like Nazism- only worse. The Germans found their wellspring of support generated from hyper-nationalism and racism, fueled by a charismatic leader. Today’s enemy, the so-called “Islamo- fascists,” have added another extremely potent feature to the totalitarian mix: religious fervor. Now, I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but I can make a case that most terrorists are Muslims.

 

Until we come up with foolproof methods of detection and eradication of the lethal threat to our country, I think it’s best to take extra-ordinary precautions. Each new mosque built in America represents a potential enemy outpost and launching pad for new attacks. The propaganda dispensed therein enables our enemies to reach into our homeland and create their army- without actually sending anyone here. The result, as most recently demonstrated by the disrupted terror cell in Canada,  is the creation of “homegrown” combatants- making it ever more hard to differentiate friend from foe.   Try to imagine German-Americans looking to create a Hitler Youth Summer camp somewhere in Manchester circa 1943- 44- and asking for Jewish donations to pay for it. Do you think that it would have been possible?

 

The “New Hampshire Sunday News” piece quotes a local Muslim as hoping that the Interfaith Council’s help in constructing the mosque will “open up the minds of the others that don’t know anything of our religion and that have this idea of relating Muslims to terrorists.” Gee, I wonder where such a silly notion like that came from? How dare they have some “idea” of associating terrorism with Muslims! Don’t they know it’s the “religion of peace?” Why, they’re really no more harmless than a “modest maiden!”

 

As for the Interfaith Council, they should consider as their next project constructing a Church for Christians and a Synagogue for Jews, with Muslim help, of course, somewhere in the heart of the Islamic world. You know, so that people of THOSE faiths can have a place to worship in over there in THAT part of the world. One suggestion I offer to the Interfaith Council should they pursue my idea is that they make sure to include good, washable tiles in their construction plans in order to make cleanup after the beheadings quick and easy…

 

Once on enemy territory, Sun Tzu writes that

“the wise commander does his best to feed his army from enemy soil. To consume one measure of the enemy’s provision is equal to twenty of our own; to use up one bale of the enemy’s fodder is equal to twenty of our own.”

In other words, use the enemy’s own money and materiel against him, while saving your own for some future time. An excellent example of this is Islamic terrorists, trained to fly at American flight schools stealing American planes and flying them into American buildings in order to kill Americans.

 

I sure hope that as a practicing Churchgoer here in NH, none of MY money is making its way to this potentially dangerous project. Given the events on and since September 11^th, 2001, I don’t believe we can be too cautious, or too suspicious. To worry about offending certain groups of persons to the detriment of the entire citizenry at large is a risk too great to take. The aforementioned news story further tells us that they (local NH Muslims)

“try to speak out against Islamic extremists within their own communities.”

Really? How can they “try” to speak against something they continually tell us does not exist?

Posted by Doug at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)