We don't want people with critical thinking skills . . .

We don't want people with critical thinking skills in corporations, now do we? Texas corporations want compliant Boy Scouts with personality  like Rick Perry.

Anti-intellectualism has become rampantg in the GOP particularly with the rise of the Tea Party. One of the major talking heads of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, failed every course he took in college, even ballroom dancing!

Here's the passage from page 12 of their Texas GOP party platform manual:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a re-labeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.


source: http://www.farleftside.com/2012/6-29-12-critical-thinking.html


Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA




Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Good advice from TJ to Simple Rick

That is close to what TJ would say. TJ was a Deist:  TJ believed in God, but not organized religion.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Steve Kangas FAQ on liberalism: Democracy vs. Constitutionalism

Summary

Perhaps no better defense of democracy exists than Thomas Jefferson's. It was his belief that majority rule is not perfect, but it is the best form of government. The only other alternatives are rule by the minority (which is worse) or rule by one person (which is even worse).

Requiring unanimous consent to pass laws is not practical, since universal agreement on an issue is extremely rare, and government would become paralyzed on controversial issues.

Many conservatives and libertarians try to get around this by advocating constitutionalism, or the protection of every individual's rights by a constitution. But this only delays by one step the dilemma that Jefferson spoke of. How is such a constitution to be written, interpreted and enforced? By a majority? A minority? Or a single person?

Argument

Jefferson's arguments on majority rule are brilliant and virtually unanswerable; it is difficult to imagine alternatives to the system he described. The following quotes highlight his philosophy on democracy:

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" -- Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." -- Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

"Is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and I am sure...we both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." -- Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Wendover, 1815.

"Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society." -- Thomas Jefferson to J. Dickinson, 1801.

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson to J. Breckenridge, 1800.

"If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." -- Thomas Jefferson to W. Duane, 1811.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Jefferson's philosophy was that majority rule is not perfect, but it is the only form of government that reduces tyranny to the smallest degree possible. And, indeed, it is difficult to imagine alternatives which would be improvements.

Not only does majority rule ensure that the least number of people are going to be dissatisfied, but the constitution further protects the rights of the minority, telling the majority what it cannot do to tyrannize the minority.

Even so, our constitution is not drawn up by dictators, or small bands of dictators. It is ultimately approved by the majority of the people, through their elected representatives. All forms of our government ultimately boil down to majority rule.

Even so, some utopians claim it is possible to create a political system of perfect individual rights, where even the will of the minority is respected and enacted. These utopians usually call for individual rights to be protected by a much stronger constitution, and are therefore called constitutionalists.

CONSTITUTIONALISM

According to this school of thought, democracy often violates the rights of the minority. For example, under democracy, the majority can vote to tax 90 percent of what the rich make, and the rich must surrender what they have rightfully earned. (There is a question of whether the rich have really earned all their income "rightfully" or through exploitation, but let this controversial point pass.) To correct this perceived injustice, they call for a constitution that better protects the freedom, rights and property of individuals.

According to most constitutionalists, individuals have a right to keep everything they earn, a right to spend their money however they want, and a right to make contracts and associations of their own free will. No one can force them to do anything for anyone else; everything they do is by their own choice. The only exception to their freedom is that they cannot violate the rights of others. Libertarians have a popular saying: "The right to swing your fist stops at my nose."

These are perfectly laudable goals, but constitutionalists are usually vague on how they can be reached, and often ignore direct questions about what such a system would look like. What few blueprints have been offered quickly reveal their unworkability. The problems constitutionalists face are these:

* It's one thing to say that individual rights should be protected; it's quite another to identify and judge the literally millions of instances where there is a question of rights violations.

Society is filled with countless human transactions, each one different, each one changing in the face of new technology, science or social mores. And each one offers a new way for a right to be violated.

This is why the Supreme Court has such a heavy workload, and why they grapple with problems of almost unsolvable complexity. This is also why Congress is so busy passing laws; they are protecting individual rights under changing and extensive circumstances.

The constitution is only meant to state general principles of governing; it is up to Congress and the courts to apply those principles in the seemingly infinite number of specific cases where individual rights can or are violated. Which begs the question: who legislates the laws and judges the cases? A majority? A minority? Or an individual?

* Individual rights are difficult to define and protect because they are not absolute. A classic example is the right to free speech vs. the right not to be harmed by free speech.

Contrary to what the First Amendment says, many forms of speech are outlawed in this country, and rightfully so. Examples include slander, libel, perjury, insider-trading, malicious deceptions, impersonating an officer, revealing classified information, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, making bomb jokes in an airport, etc.

Clearly many qualifications exist to the right to free speech, but who should make the judgment calls in determining these countless qualifications? A majority? A minority? Or an individual?

Constitutionalists severely underestimate the complexity of defining and defending individual rights. Few people agree on what a "right" is, let alone how it can be violated in any specific case, let alone how it should be defended.

The diversity of opinion on the subject points up the value of democracy in resolving these issues. Constitutionalists may try to get around this by calling for scholars to work out a blueprint of a rights-based government using the strictest rules of logic and the best empirical evidence.

But our nation's scholars are already trying to do that, and still there is a broad diversity of opinion spanning the entire political spectrum. In fact, even within the Libertarian Party there is conflict among its scholars over the definition and defense of rights, and one would presume that they -- of all people -- would have a consensus by now.

The fact that not even Libertarians agree among themselves clearly proves the byzantine complexity of defining and defending rights.

The upshot is that until humans acquire perfect knowledge and perfect logic -- thereby reaching unanimous agreement -- there is no hope of knowing how a constitution should be written to achieve a utopia of perfect individual rights. Lacking this omniscience, the people do best by determining their laws and constitutions by majority rule.

Some constitutionalists go too far in the other direction: they try to escape any analysis of rights at all. To these constitutionalists, rights are natural, self-evident and God-given; they are received truths, handed down from the Founders of the Republic like Moses from the Mount.

Typically, the Founders are treated as secular saints, with a wisdom more than human, and to question their revelations is to question sacred dogma. It is not difficult to imagine how such true believers would handle the question of rights when and if they could ever come to power.

Just as their interpretation of rights depends on a dogmatic, authoritarian source, so would their law-giver and law-defender be a dogmatic, authoritarian source. It could not be otherwise. (Try imagining so!)

The bottom line is that constitutionalism is too utopian, and simplistically utopian at that. As citizens, we cannot be asked to try a system that its adherents cannot even describe.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumthree.htm

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/blogspot/Onjs

Steve Kangas FAQ on liberlaism: Should the Founders should be revered as secular saints?

Myth: The Founders should be revered as secular saints.

Fact: The Founders were human.



Summary

The Founders, although brilliant, were also corrupt, inept, scandalous, prejudiced and slave-owners. To deify them is unwarranted.



Argument

There can be no doubt that the Founding Fathers were among the elite of the young nation, and were exceptional intellects by any standard. Thomas Jefferson was considered so brilliant that when John F. Kennedy invited all the Nobel Prize winners to dine at the White House, he told them: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined here alone."

However brilliant they were, the Founders do not deserve to be historically recast as secular saints. They were not gods -- they were quite fallible human beings. They owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, committed atrocities against Native Americans, and made clearly anti-Semitic statements. The government they created was not really of the people; it was of rich, white, male landowners. Although they created a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual freedoms, this document was not seriously enforced for 130 years afterwards. For example, the press was frequently censored for "seditious" material, and it was not until the early 20th century that the Supreme Court actually heard its first case on free speech!

The Founders first attempt to build a nation -- the Confederation of States -- was a dismal failure. Even our current constitution passed by sheer luck. The federalists were in the minority, but the anti-federalist majority was divided, overconfident and badly organized. Had they not been, our nation would look very different today. Furthermore, judicial review -- the process by which the Supreme Court reviews federal laws for their constitutionality -- wasn't even included in the constitution. Its authors simply trusted Congress to pass laws that obeyed it.

Not surprisingly, the Founders' personal lives were filled with all the same foibles that plague our current politicians -- and then some. Vice President Aaron Burr, for example, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Even our first president is more remembered by his mythology than his actual life. Every American school child learns the legend of young George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and then admitting to his father, "I cannot tell a lie." The story itself is a lie, but what is true is that Washington bought his first election. Historian George Thayer writes:

"When [George Washington] ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses from Fairfax County in 1757, he provided his friends with the 'customary means of winning votes'; namely, 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 2 gallons of cider royal. Even in those days this was considered a large campaign expenditure, because there were only 391 voters in his district, for an average outlay of more than a quart and half per person." (1)

Should we praise the Founders for their revolutionary new approach to democratic government? Of course. But to turn them into secular saints, incapable of error, atrocity, immorality or faulty judgment, is clearly unwarranted.

Note: For a progressive view of the Founding Fathers read the article on historian Charles A. Beard. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Beard

source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-reverence.htm

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/blogspot/Onjs

Proud to be a Card Carrying Democrat

The late Ron Brown, former Chairman of the Democratic Party, once said, "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren."

The Democratic Party is the oldest of the US political parties, but hardly the most conservative. It is a very big tent that contains loyal Yellow dog Democrats, conservative Blue Dog Democrats progressives and moderates. It politics are based upon pragmatism, not ideology. It's focus is the Middle Class and wants to give every American the opportunity to achieve the American dream regardless of race, creed. color or cultural heritage.

Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms.

Democrats are still fighting against elites and other elements in our society that would prefer that America function as an oligarchy rather than as a democracy. You have probably run into some of these folks. They will tell you America is a republic, not a democracy. Actually the US is an indirect constitutional democracy. Our country elects Representatives and Senators to represent us in Washington DC.

When the US is in crises, the Democratic party is called upon. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president of the 20th Century. Wilson led the country through World War I, fought for the League of Nations, and established the Federal Reserve Board. He also passed the first labor and child welfare laws. The Democratic Party also supported women's suffrage. culminating in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in getting the 19th Amendment through the House and Senate.

A generation later, Franklin Roosevelt was elected president running on the promise of a New Deal. Roosevelt pulled America out of the Depression by looking beyond the Democratic base and energizing citizens around the belief that their government could actively assist them in times of need. Roosevelt's New Deal brought water to California's Central Valley, electrified Appalachia and saved farms across the Midwest.

The Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA and Social Security all brought Americans into the system, freeing us from fear and making the nation stronger. Franklin also brought black Americans into the Democratic Party during the Great Depression.

With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender. Truman integrated the military and oversaw the reconstruction of Europe by establishing the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Truman's leadership paved the way for civil rights leaders who followed.

Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy's lead and worked to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Kennedy and Johnson worked together to end the practice of segregation in many southern states. Following Kennedy's assassination, Johnson declared a War on Poverty and formed a series of Great Society programs, including the creation of Medicare — ensuring that older Americans would receive quality health care.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton's policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and ended perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton's last budget was more than $200 billion in surplus.

The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation.

After eight years of dismal Republican failure, America elected a brilliant man as President. It was personally rewarding for me to have worked on his presidential campaign. Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States. His story is the American story: values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family, hard work and education as the means of getting ahead, and the conviction that a life so blessed should be lived in service to others.

In his first five months in office, he worked with the House and Senate to pass 11 major laws including HR1: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. President Obama is a young dynamic man who will lead this country into the 21st century. He is a diplomat who has improved international relations in a very short time.

America is on the road to recovery. You can count on it. There are many people like myself who now see a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Get ready for the ride of your life, America!

The cavalry arrived on November 5 when the Democrats stormed the presidency, the House, the Senate, the governor's mansions and the state houses across America. The party has stated.

Get on the Democratic train or get out of the way! We're moving On.

Sources:

www.democrats.org/a/party/history.htmlwww.whitehouse.gov

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Michelle Bachmann wants the Treaty of Tripoli abrogated with the Barbary States

In a recent address to Congress, Bachmann spent five minutes whining about how Barack Obama asked for religious symbols to be covered when he spoke about the economy at Georgetown because the US is a secular nation.

She also indicated Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were God fearing presidents unlike Obama. Of course, Lincoln is one of Obama's favorite presidents, too. Bachman also wondered what the United States would be without Jesus.

Would anyone be surprised to learn that Obama demanding the religious symbols be covered up for his Georgetown speech wasn't true? He just asked to have a simple backdrop that covered everything behind him. Amazingly, the story was reported in the Washington Times. Bachmann said “It was reported, so it must be true.”

Well, it was reported. but wasn't true. She had clearly not fact-checked the story.

Rightardia (RI) asked Michelle Bachman (MB) about her recent comments in an interview.

RI: You have said the US is a Christian nation. Why do you believe that?

MB: All of the Funding Fathers were Christian and liked their churches. They said nice things about Christians.

RI: Have you seen Bill Mayer's movie, Religulous?

MB; Oh, Good Lord, no! That is a secular movie that was directed by a Godless atheist.

RI: Did you know that John Adams said, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

MB: Oh, that must be taken out of context.

RI: Franklin also said, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."

MB: Well, Franklin was a scientist and very secular.

RI: Thomas Jefferson said, “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”

MB: Well, he was a liberal, wasn't he. He even committed heresy and even worse wrote his own Bible.

RI: Yes. the Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects and misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

MB: I am an evangelical so Jefferson had to be wrong.

RI: You think a Founding Father was wrong?

MB: He had to be.

RI: In your biography, you attempted to make children learn the 12 principles of Christianity in a charter school in Minnesota. These principles were a lot like the 10 Commandments.

MB: What is wrong with that?

RI: Are you aware of the First Amendment and the legal doctrine that has arisen form it?

MB: What are you talking about. The US is Christian nation.

RI: Actually, there is a legal doctrine on the Separation of Church and State. It is based on nearly 50 district and Supreme Court cases.

MB: What is this, gotcha journalism?

RI: This is what Jefferson about the clergy. ."The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."

MB: That is why the US is a Christian nation.

RI: Well, Jefferson believed this is why a firewall was needed between church and state. This is why there are no “official religions” in the US.

MB: Well, you'll have to prove that to me (laughing)!

RI: Have you heard about the Treaty or Tripoli?

MB: Is that the treaty Obama wants with Moammar Qaddafi?

RI: No, it was signed in 1797 by John Adams and approved by the everyone in the US Senate.

MB: So what?

RI: Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli states: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
RI: Obama mentioned this treaty when he went to Egypt and pointed out in his speech that Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States as a country.

MB: Oh my God! I will have to talk to my colleagues in the Senate to get this treaty abrogated.
RI: The Barbary States were made up of parts of Tripolitania, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco and no longer are countries. Tripoltania is now the Western part of Libya.
MB: We still need to get this treaty off of the books. Now you know why Republican hate treaties.

Michele Bachmann stood up and ran out the room. It looked like her hair was on fire.

Source:

www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli