"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Don’t ask why this bubbled to the surface. Just don’t.
Whatever you do, don’t let word of Johnathan Swift’s modest proposal spread to the God damned abortionists.** They have no sense of humor and would probably consider it seriously. And in fact, in the Netherlands, I expect to see it put into effect within my lifetime…
**That was NOT swearing or cursing. It was a theological evaluation of a class of persons who consider murder of innocent babies to be a moral good.
Apparently it’s sweeps week in the blogosphere, as the “2004 Weblog Awards” event winds on down to December 12, the last day of voting.
Best example of sweeps week blogging so far? Over at INDCJournal, we have a “blogochiropterologist” examining the loony left barking-nihilistic-poo-eating moonbats in their natural habitat…
Just so you know, INDCJournal is not entered in the humor category.
[BTW, you should be able to quickly deduce why I used “chiropterologist” instead of “chiroptologist” from the lead-in to the INDCJournal post linked above. Oh, and here (meaning also, there), as well, of course… ]
Oh, have I made it perfectly clear that you are now wasting time here instead of going to INDCJournal and reading the post I link here?
In his Wednesday “View” this week, Jerry Pournelle comments briefly (for him 🙂 on the topic of public education. In the middle of this disquisition is this couple of paragraphs:
“The trouble with democracy is that it tends to pull everyone to a common level: great men cannot rise to their proper level. This was known by Cicero and once known to almost every intellectual in Western Civilization. Now we don’t have a Western Civilization, and to the extent that we do our intellectuals are mostly ashamed of it; and while the last thing our Enlightened class wants is real equality, the notion of “equal treatment” is now pervasive. Why would it not be? The official view of man as taught in almost every classroom in the nation is Jacobinism, Rousseau, “Man is born free yet he is everywhere in chains,” and the rest of it. Why are we then surprised when a great many people act as if they believe that?
The Framers knew better. The Founders knew better. The notion that within most human hearts beats a burning desire to take his neighbors goods and possess his wife was prevalent. As Chesterton observed, one needs only to read the newspapers to confirm the doctrine of Original Sin. One need not be religious to come to the view that to secure rights governments must be instituted among men. But when the notion of rights, and I’m as good as you and I got to have my rights same as anyone becomes the pervasive public doctrine, there are bound to be consequences.”
Disquieting thoughts. But then, truths are always harder than lies… “No Child Left Behind” has nothing whatever to do with excellence in education and everything to do with mediocrity, and for that dedication to mediocrity, we get less than that somewhat less than lofty goal.
We have indeed “sown the wind”.
Consider the introduction to the 1983 National Commission on Education report:
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world…. the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and as a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur- others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves…. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
And the whole philosphy behind such abortions as “No Child Left Behind” continues that act of “unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
Consider, if you will, that the world of Harrison Bergeron is the least worst of the outcomes we (or our children) might face from such a philosphy of equal—lowest common denominator— outcomes. (Just click the link. Read the tale.)
Frank J. (at IMAO) demonstrates once again why he got my vote for Best Humor Blog this year (although I am not sure he’s kidding here). Commenting on the apparent poisoning of Yuschenko (Ukraine presidential candidate), he comments,
“I suggest that, in the future, we have Jimmy Carter as an election monitor with his job to try the food and drink of each candidate to make sure it isn’t poisoned. When Carter finds a legitimate case of a candidate trying to poison another, he can then be replaced by Bill Clinton.”
Now that I ponder this a bit more, I think perhaps he’s serious. At any rate, it’s certainly a good idea. Well worth a try. And Jean Fraud sKerry could step up to support democracy should Clintoon discover a case of one candidate trying to poison another. I think Frank’s onto something, here!
Robert Bruce Thompson, computer guru of the highest order and sometime curmudgeonly commenter on things societal offers this tidbit in an essay asserting that the U.S. ought to tax, well, essentially everyone else [heh]:
“I have it on good authority that the IRS hires as auditors only people who were rejected by the Marine Corps for being too aggressive.”
I just changed my mind about the draft. If the above is true, I’m all for drafting all IRS auditors and sending them to Iraq. Then Iran, No. Korea, France (one, only; wouldn’t want to scare Chirac to death, would we? We would? OK.), Germany… the usual suspects.
Oh, and while we’re at it, send a couple to “audit” Canada.
