Quotes from M. Stanton Evans

"Tax cuts are like sex; when they are good, they are very, very good. And when they are bad, they are still pretty good."[39]


Evans’ Law: “Whenever ‘one of our people’ reaches a position of power where he can do us some good, he ceases to be ‘one of our people.’”[40]

Evans’ law of inadequate paranoia: “[N]o matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse."[41]

"Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's compulsory."[42]

"I've always felt that anyone who has his head screwed on right should be conservative when he is young and, as he gets older, become more and more conservative."[43]

"One of the things that happens to you when you get old, really two bad things, one of them is that you lose your hearing, and I forget what the other one is."[44]

"We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I'm very proud to be a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that's both evil and stupid. That's called bipartisanship."[45]

"We all know that Mrs. Clinton has complained about the vast right-wing conspiracy, and of course, she is correct about that, and we are all part of it, but when I was starting out, it was only half vast."[46]

"The National Council of Churches adopted a resolution condemning the Reverend Jerry Falwell for mixing religion and politics. It's a mistake that the National Council itself does not make, of course: It has nothing to do with religion."[47]

"It was really hard for us young conservatives to recover from the Goldwater defeat; it was all the worse because in those days we had no grief counselors."[48]

"I never liked Nixon until Watergate."[49]

WiKi

C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - Copy to Clipboard


-- C.S. Lewis

Education for Vocational Purposes Only?

 The education conferene this past Friday continues to "brew" in my mind. What is education really for? Is education only for preparing for a vocation? Is an education also for developing the person, or the "self"? Aren't parents the main influence on a child's life in educational edndeavors and how education is percieved? America has come to not value education for the most part, because of America's entertainment mind-set. And, I think this is a downfall to our culture as a whole. But, if education is to be a value, the question is how is education to be paid for and what would be the "end" of education, then?

Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?

The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.

Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.

The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?

Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.

But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.

So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?

The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.

America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".

Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".

A Conference on Education

The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)?  And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.

This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's  future well-being.

The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.

The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".

University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?

On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".

Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.

Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.

The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.

Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?

I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".

The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.

Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '

I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!

I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.

Political Correctness and Free Speech

"Political correctness" is not just a recent phenomenon. And not just one political or social structure has been guilty of it. The problem is not with social structures themselves, but when the social structures obtain the political power to abuse the individual with "political correctness". The individual, not the social structure OR the group, however that is defined, that is most important.

In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.

In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.

Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience"  or "God", when it comes to religion.

On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.

Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.

Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?

The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!

Questions On the "Human"

I have many questions on the "human". And wonder if scientists 'see" or understand the "human" as more than...

Are "humans" more than the "sum of their parts"? Or are 'humans" just a product of their culmulative "memory"? Are they only geared toward "group think"?

Do "humans' have a "human nature", as a unique individual? Or do "humans" have a "Human Nature", a universal type of 'human nature"? How is this to be understood? How can scientists, who themselves are human, be objective about their own humanity when "observing" the "other human"? Does the very experiment, of objectifying or observing the 'human", create a distance that de-humanizes "the other", the one studied?

Are "humans" different from animals? Is so, how? And, how do we know? Are human only different because of their social structures? Or is the human "mind" something that makes the "human" distinct?

And what is the "human mind"? Can we understand how the brain and mind "connect" when various individuals will respond differently? And how can one have a "control group", when there are so many various memories and personalities that would inhibit creating a "Human Person"?

What is the "common denominator"? Our common denominator is our brain. But, the physical aspects of man are not the determining factor to the "human", only a part.

Review of "The Final Cut"

"The Final Cut" was an interesting sci-fi type film, which had implications to society, the greater good, and privacy.

The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".

As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.

At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow.  Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved,  and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.

Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving  bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.

The other situation was when a woman found her "memories"  before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.

The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information  from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.

I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of  extremist views.

But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.

The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image",  at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.

Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.

In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.

In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.

So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.