Don't bother with the video, just listen to the music. I think this is my favorite contemporary Christmas song.
Friday, October 30, 2009
New Shipmate
"Not you. We named the monkey Jack."
Yep, that's right, The Booty and I are going to be having a little monkey. We found out about a month ago. Needless to say things are rather exciting around here right now. At the moment we're in the market for a new vessel. It's a good market, but there's a lot of other captains hoping to commandeer a worthy ship. Wish us luck!
Yep, that's right, The Booty and I are going to be having a little monkey. We found out about a month ago. Needless to say things are rather exciting around here right now. At the moment we're in the market for a new vessel. It's a good market, but there's a lot of other captains hoping to commandeer a worthy ship. Wish us luck!
Friday, October 24, 2008
What Do They Teach Them In These Schools?
I got to thinking today, and we all know how dangerous that is. The following is just some thoughts on modern education, sparked by a discussion about history, which I happen to have some opinions about.
So last night Ensign was studying for her American History class, and she mentioned that she was very confused because, while studying the American Revolution, her professor had maintained that the revolution had little or nothing to do with taxation because the American colonies paid relatively low taxes as compared to the rest of the British Empire. Her book on the other hand, claimed that taxation was a primary motivator behind the American independence movement.
Unfortunately for her, both the text and her professor are correct, though to varying degrees. The professor is correct when he says that the American colonies paid lower taxes than the rest of the Empire, however, the text is correct in claiming that the additional taxes following the Seven Year's War (or French and Indian War here in America) was one of the top concerns of the Continental Congressional Conventions.
The problem becomes compounded when the issue of representation is introduced. There is much debate on whether the colonists' objections to the new taxes were primarily financial or philosophical. While recent scholarship tends to imply (if not outright state) that the leaders of the colonies were motivated by greed and financial gain, the evidence is stacked pretty strongly in favor of ideological differences. For example, the majority of colonial leaders were financially devastated by British political and military maneuvering. Nor were they so foolish as not to forsee this. Benjamin Franklin famously summed up the danger they all knew was in store saying, "If we do not hang together, we shall certainly all hang separately". The colonial leaders, at least, understood the question of independence to be not a matter of money, but of principle.
However, it is likely that the average colonist was far more concerned about his wallet than any grand philosophical ideas of society or rights. Not that they would have disagreed with he Lockean ideals of the revolution had they been aware of them, but for the most part they probably had no idea who this Locke fellow was. It is hard to believe that the sort of mob actions which characterized the early years of rebellion could have stemmed from well developed philosophical principles. Such events as the "Boston Massacre" and the "Boston Tea Party" are more likely the result of an inflamed mob than a reasoned strategy, and mob rule is scarcely motivated by reason. With this in mind, it seems likely that the majority of American colonists were motivated by financial concerns, and it cannot be denied that without the support of the people the revolution could never have succeeded. Therefore, the actual dollar amount of the new taxes was a primary motivator of the rebellion.
While Ensign's class is only a basic American History course, it is unfortunate that her professor cares so little about truly educating his pupils, and seems only intent on overturning their presuppositions in order to keep their attention. This man has a wonderful opportunity to truly educate young adults in the rich heritage and history of this nation, afforded him by an educational system which mandates such education for all who would desire to be called "educated" Instead of recognizing his responsibility to his students, to the educational system and ultimately to his nation, he marginalizes his subject by reducing it to a series of sensational "reinterpretations" of established history calculated rather to entertain that the educate.
A striking example of the dismal failture in American historical education can be found in another part of the same discussion which initiated my thoughts on this subject. At another point during her studying, Ensign turned to me and asked whether there was a war which Britain had just recently gotten finished with just before the American rebellion began. I have a habit of making people discover the answers to their questions on their own, and so, thinking that any high-school grad should have learned this, asked her what George Washington had done before leading the Continental Army. She was unable to answer the question. Due to her high level of intelligence, her dilligent and studious habits, and her near-perfect high-school grades, I can only assume that she was never taught about the critical role which the French and Indian War played in training most of the Continental Army's leading officers.
Sadly this is not an isolated situation. The American educational system, in its earnest desire to offer a quality education to all, has merely proven that only those who seek shall find, and only unto those who knock shall the door be opened. Such programs as standardized testing, No Child Left Behind and a myriad of others have created a system which empathizes with the (dare I say it!?) stupid, rewards the mediocre and restrains the excellent. Only by returning to the unentitled and earned-rewards mentality of those who founded this great nation of ours can we hope to carry on the legacy forged by our national forebears.
So last night Ensign was studying for her American History class, and she mentioned that she was very confused because, while studying the American Revolution, her professor had maintained that the revolution had little or nothing to do with taxation because the American colonies paid relatively low taxes as compared to the rest of the British Empire. Her book on the other hand, claimed that taxation was a primary motivator behind the American independence movement.
Unfortunately for her, both the text and her professor are correct, though to varying degrees. The professor is correct when he says that the American colonies paid lower taxes than the rest of the Empire, however, the text is correct in claiming that the additional taxes following the Seven Year's War (or French and Indian War here in America) was one of the top concerns of the Continental Congressional Conventions.
The problem becomes compounded when the issue of representation is introduced. There is much debate on whether the colonists' objections to the new taxes were primarily financial or philosophical. While recent scholarship tends to imply (if not outright state) that the leaders of the colonies were motivated by greed and financial gain, the evidence is stacked pretty strongly in favor of ideological differences. For example, the majority of colonial leaders were financially devastated by British political and military maneuvering. Nor were they so foolish as not to forsee this. Benjamin Franklin famously summed up the danger they all knew was in store saying, "If we do not hang together, we shall certainly all hang separately". The colonial leaders, at least, understood the question of independence to be not a matter of money, but of principle.
However, it is likely that the average colonist was far more concerned about his wallet than any grand philosophical ideas of society or rights. Not that they would have disagreed with he Lockean ideals of the revolution had they been aware of them, but for the most part they probably had no idea who this Locke fellow was. It is hard to believe that the sort of mob actions which characterized the early years of rebellion could have stemmed from well developed philosophical principles. Such events as the "Boston Massacre" and the "Boston Tea Party" are more likely the result of an inflamed mob than a reasoned strategy, and mob rule is scarcely motivated by reason. With this in mind, it seems likely that the majority of American colonists were motivated by financial concerns, and it cannot be denied that without the support of the people the revolution could never have succeeded. Therefore, the actual dollar amount of the new taxes was a primary motivator of the rebellion.
While Ensign's class is only a basic American History course, it is unfortunate that her professor cares so little about truly educating his pupils, and seems only intent on overturning their presuppositions in order to keep their attention. This man has a wonderful opportunity to truly educate young adults in the rich heritage and history of this nation, afforded him by an educational system which mandates such education for all who would desire to be called "educated" Instead of recognizing his responsibility to his students, to the educational system and ultimately to his nation, he marginalizes his subject by reducing it to a series of sensational "reinterpretations" of established history calculated rather to entertain that the educate.
A striking example of the dismal failture in American historical education can be found in another part of the same discussion which initiated my thoughts on this subject. At another point during her studying, Ensign turned to me and asked whether there was a war which Britain had just recently gotten finished with just before the American rebellion began. I have a habit of making people discover the answers to their questions on their own, and so, thinking that any high-school grad should have learned this, asked her what George Washington had done before leading the Continental Army. She was unable to answer the question. Due to her high level of intelligence, her dilligent and studious habits, and her near-perfect high-school grades, I can only assume that she was never taught about the critical role which the French and Indian War played in training most of the Continental Army's leading officers.
Sadly this is not an isolated situation. The American educational system, in its earnest desire to offer a quality education to all, has merely proven that only those who seek shall find, and only unto those who knock shall the door be opened. Such programs as standardized testing, No Child Left Behind and a myriad of others have created a system which empathizes with the (dare I say it!?) stupid, rewards the mediocre and restrains the excellent. Only by returning to the unentitled and earned-rewards mentality of those who founded this great nation of ours can we hope to carry on the legacy forged by our national forebears.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Damn the Torpedoes, I'll Smoke if I Want To!
So I promised a little something about tobacco, government and other such things, but I've realized that instead of doing this myself and doing it poorly, I should just refer you to an article that's actually worth your time to read. Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State by Joe Jackson.
However, I do have something to say on the subject of personal freedom, and this extends beyond the issue of tobacco to all areas of life.
(Edit: For any non-US readers, I apologize for my US centered language. I do not intend any offense or disrespect to other nationalities. It's just easier to use "our" or "us" than to say "the Americans'" or "the Americans".)
Government sucks, we all know this. It always has sucked, it does suck, and it always will suck. As an institution of authority, government is constantly seeking to intrude itself into the lives of its subjects, since only by the steady increase of intrusion can it maintain its relevance and therefore its authority. However, as history teaches us, anarchy sucks even worse than government (see the French Revolution). So the problem is to temper the extremes of anarchy, without intruding into the lives of the citizenry of the government. (Hmm, that was probably too many prepositional phrases all together there) But this is just the dilemma that the Founding Father solved (or at least so they thought) when they drafted the Constitution. As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution restricts the powers of the government in order to keep it from intruding and trampling on the natural rights of its citizens. It is important to remember that in its original form, the Constitution had no say over the citizens. Many people forget that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the Constitution is the contract by which the consenting governed bestow powers upon the government. The idea was that citizens should be allowed to do as they please within the voluntary bounds of the contract they, acting as a social unit, formed with their government. Coming directly from Locke and Hobbes, these ideas retain ultimate authority in the hands of the citizenry, not as a democratic mob, but as individual members of a single societal structure. As such, the chaotic struggle for survival envisioned by Hobbes is regulated by the imposition of such regulations as will prevent any individual from violating the freedoms and rights of any other individual. In theory, these regulations should be as unobtrusive as possible while still achieving their end. However, history has shown us that those in power will invariably seek to increase their power, and the eventual abolition of the inherent rights of Man is inevitable. To prevent this oppression, the Founders, drawing on their British heritage, drafted the Constitution as a barrier to governmental expansion and repression of natural rights. With this in mind, I ask you to contemplate our present governance. Does it appropriately wield its power with a view to protecting personal liberties? Does it, in all its proceedings, hold as its highest aim the advancement of the society to which it owes its very existence? Do those who, having been chosen by the citizens to represent them in discussion of political policy, bear in mind the weighty responsibility which their office bestows upon them to always strive for maximal liberty in exercising one's natural rights? The Founding Fathers, whatever their faults may have been, at least understood that no man who is denied the freedom to exercise his natural rights can be truly a citizen, but only a slave. I, for one, will never be enslaved. In the words of that great orator of American independence, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
However, I do have something to say on the subject of personal freedom, and this extends beyond the issue of tobacco to all areas of life.
(Edit: For any non-US readers, I apologize for my US centered language. I do not intend any offense or disrespect to other nationalities. It's just easier to use "our" or "us" than to say "the Americans'" or "the Americans".)
Government sucks, we all know this. It always has sucked, it does suck, and it always will suck. As an institution of authority, government is constantly seeking to intrude itself into the lives of its subjects, since only by the steady increase of intrusion can it maintain its relevance and therefore its authority. However, as history teaches us, anarchy sucks even worse than government (see the French Revolution). So the problem is to temper the extremes of anarchy, without intruding into the lives of the citizenry of the government. (Hmm, that was probably too many prepositional phrases all together there) But this is just the dilemma that the Founding Father solved (or at least so they thought) when they drafted the Constitution. As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution restricts the powers of the government in order to keep it from intruding and trampling on the natural rights of its citizens. It is important to remember that in its original form, the Constitution had no say over the citizens. Many people forget that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the Constitution is the contract by which the consenting governed bestow powers upon the government. The idea was that citizens should be allowed to do as they please within the voluntary bounds of the contract they, acting as a social unit, formed with their government. Coming directly from Locke and Hobbes, these ideas retain ultimate authority in the hands of the citizenry, not as a democratic mob, but as individual members of a single societal structure. As such, the chaotic struggle for survival envisioned by Hobbes is regulated by the imposition of such regulations as will prevent any individual from violating the freedoms and rights of any other individual. In theory, these regulations should be as unobtrusive as possible while still achieving their end. However, history has shown us that those in power will invariably seek to increase their power, and the eventual abolition of the inherent rights of Man is inevitable. To prevent this oppression, the Founders, drawing on their British heritage, drafted the Constitution as a barrier to governmental expansion and repression of natural rights. With this in mind, I ask you to contemplate our present governance. Does it appropriately wield its power with a view to protecting personal liberties? Does it, in all its proceedings, hold as its highest aim the advancement of the society to which it owes its very existence? Do those who, having been chosen by the citizens to represent them in discussion of political policy, bear in mind the weighty responsibility which their office bestows upon them to always strive for maximal liberty in exercising one's natural rights? The Founding Fathers, whatever their faults may have been, at least understood that no man who is denied the freedom to exercise his natural rights can be truly a citizen, but only a slave. I, for one, will never be enslaved. In the words of that great orator of American independence, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Milestone
Just thought I'd share: my blog now has enough posts to need a second page. Yep, I'm moving up into the big leagues. Or something.
On another note, I've got a semi treatise in the works about tobacco, government, privacy and things of that sort, so keep your eyes out for that. Not the usual entertainment around here, but something I'm passionate about and something I've been thinking about lately.
On another note, I've got a semi treatise in the works about tobacco, government, privacy and things of that sort, so keep your eyes out for that. Not the usual entertainment around here, but something I'm passionate about and something I've been thinking about lately.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Bottlecaps of Valor
By the powers vested in me by the State of Imagination and Make Believe, I hereby bestow upon Swab the esteemed rank of Ensign, in recognition of her courage and bravery in the face of adversity and an annoying blog commenter. For the full story, click here.
As a further point of order, be it noted that Booty will hereafter refer to my wife, for the double reason that she has a very nice one, and that Ensign and I, after the manner of all good privateer types, needed to commandeer some booty. So we commandeered Booty. And then I commandeered her booty. Don't try too hard to understand.
Also, if you don't know what Bottlecaps of Valor are, then you are an illiterate twit, and ergo not reading this blog. However, in case you can read and have just been saved after 30 years of shipwreck on a desert island, go read Calvin and Hobbes. It will explain much in life which is unexplained. Like Bottlecaps of Valor.
As a further point of order, be it noted that Booty will hereafter refer to my wife, for the double reason that she has a very nice one, and that Ensign and I, after the manner of all good privateer types, needed to commandeer some booty. So we commandeered Booty. And then I commandeered her booty. Don't try too hard to understand.
Also, if you don't know what Bottlecaps of Valor are, then you are an illiterate twit, and ergo not reading this blog. However, in case you can read and have just been saved after 30 years of shipwreck on a desert island, go read Calvin and Hobbes. It will explain much in life which is unexplained. Like Bottlecaps of Valor.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Almost as cool a the yo-yo man
So tonight's installment will be a double feature. Kinda like the grind house films, but without all the crazy sex and gore. Tonight Booty and I were driving to the apartment, and suddenly something appeared in the road which I had to swerve to miss. It turned out to be a bunch of balloons, which is pretty weird to find in the middle of the road. I believe my exact words were "f-ing 'A' balloons". Yes, I said the F-word in full but maintained the shortened "A" because it's naughty. Or something. So Booty and I were laughing about it, and wondering why these crazy things always happen to us. And here's where the yo-yo man comes in. See, a while back Booty, Ensign and I were into yo-yo's for a couple weeks, and so we would carry our yo-yo's with us and practice tricks and joke about having a yo-yo gang. Well, Booty and I were driving through E- and we saw this old hippie dude crossing the street in front of us. We didn't think much of it until he suddenly snapped his wrist and a yo-yo popped out of his hand, danced around on the pavement and disappeared back into his hand. Easily one of the top five coolest experiences of my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
