"Under the pretext of 'equalizing burdens' and preventing 'salary discrimination,' Obamacare mandates that insurance premiums must be based on the policyholder's income level — forget the objective value of the services covered or the health liability of the individual insured," reports Richard Ralston, executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. "But since the actuarial nature of insurance and the realities of long-term cost management cannot be ignored, the effect is that those with above-average incomes will be subjected to inflated premiums relative to costs."
The hysterics and hyperbole over what supposedly will happen if we do not raise the federal debt ceiling are becoming absolutely absurd. If you were to believe Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee and other Administration spokesmen, you would think we are about to face financial Armageddon.
For decades, those on the left have clashed swords with those on the right over the issue of “legislating morality.” The latter believes, not only that it is appropriate for law makers to “legislate morality,” but that it is impossible to avoid doing so. The former, in contrast, rejects both contentions.
If it weren’t so tragic, there really would be something amusing about “progressivism.” New York just legalized the curiosity that many call by an oxymoronic euphemism but that I, in my up-the-down-staircase effort to control the language, more rightly call faux marriage. And the tragically amusing part is this: We effect our much vaunted social change progressively, a smidgeon here, a tad there, a dollop elsewhere – until it is everywhere. But why waste all this time? Just cut to the chase and allow people to civilly unionize, marriage-pretend, tie the nuttiness – or whatever you want to dub it – with … well, whomever. It’s where we’re headed, anyway. And opposite sex or not, sentient or otherwise, animate or room temperature; what’s the difference? We all believe in freedom and choice, right? Everybody is a human being entitled to human rights, right? Let slip the horndogs of culture war.
Ron Paul’s fellow Republicans haven’t simply castigated him for his foreign policy positions; they have routinely and resoundingly mocked him. What has the Texas Congressman said that is so rationally and morally indefensible? When we move beyond the universe of sound bites that is our contemporary politics and look at Paul’s actual arguments for the views he holds, the answer to this question hits us like a ton of bricks: nothing.
What do Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg all have in common? They all dropped out of college and pursued their interest in computer technology so that today they are among the richest men in the world. They proved that a college degree is not necessary for success in our high-tech capitalist economy. But what they did have was ambition, intelligence, inventiveness, perseverance, and a total commitment to what it was they wanted to do. These facts should be of interest to homeschoolers who have reached that point in their education where they must decide whether or not to go on to college or a university.
As of late, Ron Paul has once again been the subject of relentless criticism courtesy of Republican Party pundits.
It is his positions on marriage, “recreational” drugs, and current American foreign policy that invite, not just his detractors’ objections, but their ridicule and even their wrath. In all fairness, it is Paul’s statements in the Republican presidential primary debates — a venue, it must be admitted, that is not readily accommodating of the impassioned Texas congressman’s rather unorthodox beliefs — to which his critics speak. However, given that Paul has authored several reader-friendly books in which he elaborates on his views, if the GOP talking heads were really interested in what he thought, it is reasonable to expect that they would turn to these works.
Have you ever wondered why it was that for a couple of hundred years before the Founding of the United States, and for nearly two hundred years after the Founding of the United States the Bible was permitted, even encouraged to be taught in America’s schools?
The 1850 edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary defines "rote" as: "To fix in memory by means of frequent repetition." That certainly is the essence of what we mean by rote memorization. My 1988 dictionary, however, defines "rote" as: "A fixed, mechanical way of doing something." That definition misses the mark of what memorization is all about. The true purpose of rote memorization in education is to create automaticity, so that, for example, when a child sees a letter or group of letters he or she automatically says the sounds. The child does not have to think about it. The response is automatic.
The idea that there is little or nothing to be learned from "Old Dead Guys" is a pretty ridiculous notion. In the first place, everything we have today was built on their shoulders. They labored and toiled, they investigated and invented, they suffered and died. There is so much we can learn by studying their lives, because they experienced it all: from birth to adulthood to old age to the final journey into eternity.
The U.S. Department of Education has created the largest computerized database of personal information on American students ever gathered by any government in history. The exact personal and intimate facts in this database are outlined in the Student Data Handbook for Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education (NCES 94-303), released in 1994. Comprised of 228 pages plus about 100 pages of appendices, this handbook can be obtained from the U.S. Dept. of Education. Send for your own copy and prepare to be appalled. Or just read this article and find out what to do.