Political Confluence: the vision of the future

The political parties are of one mind; a confluence of ideologies that flows as one water down the stream of state control. The land of the free and the home of the brave is no more. Instead, we have become the nation that was the dream of Prussia's Otto von Bismarck, a nation that worships the state as both a paternal figure (providing supposed safety and security) and a maternal one (nurturing and raising children and caring for the elderly, and providing for the needs of everyone else in between).

We are no longer the brave individuals who stood against the world's most powerful king. No, we are now a nation that sits mesmerized while watching the scripted political power-play that is Fox and CNN; a soma-induced haze that has replaced the individual with the collective.

Oh, sure, you hear folks complain, but in the end, they line up on election day and dutifully pull the lever for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Then, it's back to the mindless chatter and bickering that is the mainstream media.

For the most part, the Founding Fathers of this nation recognized government as an evil; an evil whose powers must be circumscribed, limited by our God-given rights. And, "[t]hat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But that's not what children are taught at public schools. Of course, how could it be otherwise? How could government instruct the next generation that government is only to be tolerated when it does not attempt to limit Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

So, government grows, generation by generation. The Fabian Society won the historical battle of ideologies and change. Gramsci was right all along, the path to socialism is through a slow decay of the institutions of society, the replacement of the family and church for the state.

As it turns out, Marx and his dialectical materialism were correct, except that it wasn't capitalism that housed the contradiction. Instead, it is democracy that contains a self-destroying contradiction: the power of the vote to expand the state beyond the ideal of Liberty.

There was never a need for the workers of the world to rise up and unite as government and time slowly rob Liberty, institutionalizing envy and leading a nation to believe that only government provides good.

Those of us who are Christians look to the state to sanctify our actions. When is someone married according to the Church? When they hold a marriage license issued by the state. The same holds for divorce. The state decides who is single, married and divorced.

We allow the state to license clergy, and we allow the state to decide what constitutes a church. What's worse, without such licenses and state recognition, fellow Christians hold the individual in contempt. You say you are married, but where's your marriage license?

Churches refuse to speak lest the feds remove their nonprofit status, in essence removing recognition of the entity as a body corporate; a corporation beholden to the state.

As the evangelical church moves toward the emergent church and embraces the state as an equal partner in social justice, the end will be the same as was experienced during the Progressive Era. The state will subsume more aspects of the church and God's Church will lose relevancy.

Oh, sure, the remnant will remain. But the host of saved will dwindle as more and more folks seek the manna from DC and Columbus and bow before the idols of government.

It's time for another Awakening; a movement from government back to God and the ideals that founded this nation. Otherwise, a brave new world awaits our children. A sad inheritance indeed.

Fichte, Philosophy, and Faith

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was a German philosopher of the late 1700's and early 1800's. He was a intellectual father of Hegel and Marx. In his "Outlines of the Doctrine of Knowledge (1810)," Fichte attacks the existence of God by creating god as an ideal type and then arguing that man is in essence god.

It's a neat little trick, and it's very effective. But Fichte's god is not the God of the Bible -- it's a mental construct that is his alone. Yet many today employ a similar process when discussing God. And by doing so, they fall into the philosophic trap of arguing against their own mental construct. So, instead of learning more about God, they simply debate nonsense.

Since Fichte, Hegel, Marx, and many others saw no need for God, they went about creating sophisms that stand against God. As a point of truth, they never succeeded; as a point of obfuscation, they achieved brilliant success. And the results of their mental games are the evils of our day.

Be careful that when you seek God, you seek Him through the Bible and not through your own abstraction.

note: Thanks to the folks over at Marxists.org -- the Marxist Internet Archive -- for exposing 8 gigabytes of Marxist writings and other media. It's an extensive resource of nonsense. That said, I hope that the curators see the light before it's too late.

Julie Feasel Follies (7) -- It's official: the levy was not needed

Originally posted on 12/16/08. -- Jim


Sure, the OFK bobbleheads will shake off this reality, but the truth is the truth.

The district's latest Five-Year Financial Forecast shows that there was no need for a levy last May -- the district and its minions knew it all along. Furthermore, there was no need for a levy NEXT year either.

Keep that in mind as you survey the current financial landscape of the US, Ohio and your neighborhood.

And, don't forget, your bill for this unneeded levy hits early next year. That plus your escrow catch up -- a double bill in a time of financial uncertainly.

Or, should I say, the uncertainty applies only to those not employed by OLSD. Meider and Feasel are leading the board in this little sing-song:

We are so happy, happy, happy,
we are smilin' to a tear;
'cause we're getting an expensive superintendent,
wrapped under our tree this year.

As you tighten your belt this Christmas, the district will loosen its. We've fattened them with our money.

Ouch! That hurts!

Jesús Huerta de Soto writes the truth with this quote from Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism over at Mises.org:

Not even the most respectable churches and religious denominations have reached an accurate diagnosis of the problem: that today statolatry poses the main threat to free, moral, and responsible human beings; that the state is an enormously powerful false idol which is worshipped by all and which will not countenance anyone's freeing himself from its control nor having moral or religious loyalties outside its own sphere of dominance.

Politicians are all the same

After returning from exercising outside, I happened upon Val Scheibeck's campaign flyer. Scheibeck (running for Orange Township trustee) is going to reduce wasteful spending by ... get this ... adding more wasteful spending. Only this time the spending will directly benefit Scheibeck and her friends.

If I want to run, ride, or skate, I head out my front door. If I want to workout with weights, etc., I head downstairs. In both instances, I pay for all my exercise costs. I do not ask my neighbor to contribute to the cost of my workout, and he doesn't ask for me to contribute to his. That's only fair.

Scheibeck has a similar goal in that she wants to workout in her local area. The difference is this: she wants us all to pay a portion of her costs. According to Scheibeck (from her flyer):

I envision a community where we do not need to go to neighboring communities to take classes, work out or watch fireworks.

That holds true today -- as I just noted. But Scheibeck wants more, and she wants us all to pay for it.

Wouldn't life be better if Scheibeck paid for her workouts, just like I pay for mine. That way, we all keep our own money to spend as WE see fit. Not as Scheibeck and her ilk see fit.

Note: The same holds for classes and fireworks. In fact, my neighbors have better fireworks displays than most townships.

FFF and Frederick Douglass

From a recent edition of the Email Update from the Future of Freedom Foundation:

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.
— Frederick Douglass, Speech at Civil Rights Mass Meeting,Washington D.C. [October 22, 1823]

Of course, they are the government's schools

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Of course, they are the government's schools

Jim Fedako

"The U.S. Census Bureau has created a Census in Schools program called 2010 Census: It's About Us. The program will provide educators with resources to teach the nation's students about the importance of the census so children can help deliver this message to their families." U.S. Census Bureau

Little Johnny sits attentively in his seat. Being in first grade, Johnny is very impressionable. And he really wants to please his teacher. So he gladly listens and repeats everything she says, taking it to heart as well as any young child can.

For her part, Ms. Jones believes in education. She hasn't engaged in the debate over the role of government in schools. She just wants to help her students succeed as best she knows how.

So when she receives a package of lesson plans from the U.S. Census Bureau, Ms. Jones doesn't even think to read between the lines. Instead, she decides to integrate the census into her social studies curriculum. It's topical and her students seem interested.

Ms. Jones reads the first lesson plan and follows the instructions:

1. Write the words good neighbor, law, and responsibility on the board. Ask: What do these words mean?
2. Ask: Are you a good neighbor? What laws do you know about? What does it mean to be responsible? Encourage a classroom discussion that reinforces the concepts of being a good neighbor and civic responsibility. Make a list on the board of different laws with which students are familiar (e.g., wear a seat belt, children must go to school, drivers must stop at red lights, etc.). (emphasis in original)

She then continues with the lesson. At the end, Ms. Jones transitions into the wrap-up:

9. Write the sentence, "It's about us" on the board. Discuss how it relates to the concept of being a good neighbor (if everyone is a good neighbor, our country will be a better place).
10. Have students create "good neighbor" badges. Distribute a sheet of colored paper to each student. Ask students to trace around their right hands to make a handprint.
11. Ask students to decorate their handprint badges with drawings that show how they are good neighbors. Use tape to attach the handprint badges to students' shirts.

Little Johnny wants to please Ms. Jones, so he decorates his badge with a drawing of him helping his dad fill out a census form. He whispers to himself that he will try to be a good neighbor. And he will always remember her words, "A good neighbor is a person who does useful things for his or her neighborhood, town, and country."

Next year, Johnny will nag his parents to complete the census form. And just like Sinatra's character in The Manchurian Candidate, Johnny will react as instructed whenever he hears the phrase, "good neighbor."

As an adult, Johnny (now going by John) will reflexively vote for local school issues, etc. He will support government in every way possible. Because to be a bad neighbor would disappoint Ms. Jones.

What's going on in Orange Township

The Mole seems to know. Visit Orange Township Mole for more info.

Stumpin' for the incumbent (and that other admin stooge)

Ol' Wade-O must love the current board president. Why else would he commit tax dollars to the new newsletter that hit mailboxes this weekend -- one week before the election?

COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER FEATURES ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
Olentangy Local Schools November Community Newsletter will be delivered to most homes in the district on Sunday, October 25.

How does Springer account for this expense? Feasel's campaign? Hmmm.

Remember, money spent on friends is not an expense. Especially when it is someone else's money.

Olentangy School Board proves Gammon's Law

"I have long been impressed by the operation of Gammon's law in the U.S. schooling system: Input, however measured, has been going up for decades, and output, whether measured by number of students, number of schools, or even more clearly, quality, has been going down."
-- Milton Friedman (Gammon's Law Points to Health-Care Solution)

Despite known budget shortfalls (huge shortfalls), the Olentangy district is pursuing larger administrative raises. And we are only 12 months away from discussions of (what is looking to be) a 10 to 15 mill levy. Amazing. -- Jim

Note: Folks, please do not construe this post to mean that Archana Springer would not be supportive of increased salaries -- or, for that matter, the upcoming 10 to 15 mill levy. I would hate to see her ostracized by her friends in the tax and spend crowd.

Homeland Security Hucksters

It's all about public safety and homeland security (and that was sarcasm). -- Jim


From today's edition of OSBA's Facts in a Flash:

House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee

The committee heard sponsor testimony on HB 80, sponsored by Rep. John Domenick (D-Smithfield), requiring that all new school buses be equipped with a single white strobe light to be activated at all times when the bus is transporting passengers.

FFF and Bastiat

From a recent edition of the Email Update from the Future of Freedom Foundation:

Thursday, August 20, 2009
Good Lord! What a lot of trouble to prove in political economy that two and two make four; and if you succeed in doing so, people cry, "It is so clear that it is boring." Then they vote as if you had never proved anything at all.
— Frédéric Bastiat, “"What Is Seen and Is Not Seen” [1850]

I Love My Country (by Cowboy Clyde)

This would be funny if it wasn't true.

The right to bear arms

From Freedom Watch

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams

From the Future of Freedom Foundation

Friday, October 16, 2009

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.
- Cockrum v. State [1859]

$1200 of debt in a day

I added the US Debt widget on this blog a month or so ago. Since then, I've been keeping an eye on our ever-increasing public debt. The number had been going up at about the same rate each day. Then, on Friday, the debt increased $46 billion in one day. $46 billion. That's real money -- and real theft, $1200 from my family alone.

To monitor the debt better, I check-pointed the amount on the image to the right. Keep an eye as our representatives continue to destroy this nation, billion by billion.

Note: The numbers are as of 11:01 pm on October 17, 2009

The wind and wave theory of property

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

The wind and wave theory of property

Jim Fedako

There is nothing like a week at the beach to relax and refocus. The water, the waves, and the fun are a vacationer's dream, creating the perfect place to drift between musing and being amused.

I really enjoy observing individuals interacting, using scarce means to obtain very personal ends. Many times, these observations lead to greater understanding, reinforcing or challenging beliefs and ideas.

For me, our family trip to the beach this summer provided such an opportunity - it provided an opportunity to study the process acting man uses to establish property rights absent government interventions.

Consider the beach in the early morning sun. The sand is rippled but devoid of form, with evidence of yesterday's labor wiped clean by the nightly action of the wind and wave.

As individuals, families and groups begin migrating to the empty expanse on the edge of the surf, the first arrivers homestead, what is for them, the very best spot. They stake out a claim by planting umbrellas, unfolding chairs, and spreading blankets and towels. And as pails are emptied of plastic shovels and tools, adults and children begin mixing labor with sand and water to form castles, trenches, and other structures and designs.

Subsequent arrivals naturally note the delineated property lines established by those who arrived beforehand. As these folks begin staking out their own claims, volleyball nets appear and Frisbees take flight.

All of these activities further define and refine property boundaries as acting man and women homestead in a peaceful and orderly process, without the need for interventions from the state, nonetheless.

None of what follows is theory or law; it is simply observations of human action. But, if what are sometimes referred to as natural laws are truly natural, they should be found guiding the natural course of human action. And they do.

No one owns his view

This is easy to observe. The early homesteader sets up his chair some distance from the water, but in full view of the pounding surf. As latecomers stake out their claims, both early and late arrivals understand that a view cannot be homesteaded. A latecomer can set up anywhere between the early-occupier and the surf, as long as existing property boundaries are respected.

Furthermore, all beachgoers understand that if someone wants a continuous, open view of the water, he had better place his chair at the edge of the surf and make ready to move with the tide - that is if he can relocate to a space not already homesteaded.

Finally, anyone has the right to stop and stand in front of your chair - though outside your borders - for any length of time, for any reason.

You can homestead more than your physical property

While it is true that the early-established volleyball court is defined by it boundaries (either physical boundaries furrowed in the sand, or assumed boundaries created by the footsteps of players), the owner of the volleyball court also homesteads the right to have his ball bounce in then-unoccupied areas. Latecomers therefore have to accept the occasional errant bounce, but earlier homesteaders have a right to complain.

The same holds for the tossed Frisbee, etc. Homesteaded property rights include more than just visible boundaries.

Mixing your labor defines your property

If you want to secure rights to an area of sand, build a castle or other physical structure. On the beach, such structures provide secure property rights, until they are abandoned or the wind and waves once again erase them from view.

Usufruct rules

While you can homestead areas of sand, you cannot enforce secure borders. In other words, you cannot stop folks from entering your property as they move about the beach. This does not provide for aggression or destruction, just the free movement within your borders. Of course, your physical structures are secure from intrusion; no one can step into your castle grounds unless invited.

Abandoned property is subject to homesteading

If you physically leave the beach area, you have abandoned your property and your property rights. This opens up your area to homesteading by anyone. The same holds when the incoming tide has destroyed your castle. Once the tide recedes, the area is again open to homesteading by all.

It all just conventions

What I have described are not laws, they are self-enforcing conventions. And I have seen them in actions on every beach I have visited, in many different countries of the world.

Just as important, while sitting on the sand, I have never seen someone appeal to the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion to settle a property dispute.

Of course, observations on a beach do not define and justify an ethical system of property rights (such as that proposed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe). But neither do those observations disprove the existence of an ethical system of property rights. They simply show that, absent interventions by the state, acting man, left to his selfish ends, tends to organize his means in a way that agrees with the concept of property.

In this, we should not be surprised.

All in the family

John Cassady -- Orange Township trustee and candidate, and Republican Central Committee hack -- held a campaign fundraiser this evening. And guess who arrived in support of John, the so-called fiscal conservative? Dave King, Olentangy school board candidate and registered Democrat. Hmmm.

These folks simply want to grow government and spend your tax dollars. Party affiliation means nothing. They are simply the sorts who love the thrill of power, prestige and money -- the essence of government.

Anyone who thinks there is still a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties needs to take a closer look. Cassady or King. Feasel or Galloway. They are all the same in the end -- interchangeable parts of the same machine.

Karl Marx was right: There are two classes. His error was in misidentifying them. The classes are not worker and capitalist; they are taxpayer and tax consumer. And I saw a sounder¹ of tax consumers this evening.

Note: A sounder is a herd of wild boars -- sorry boars.

Finances and Faith: a personal story of the times

Steve Scott over at From the Pew is one of my favorite bloggers. Like many throughout the US, Steve has fallen on hard times. To his benefits, and ours, Steve has chosen to share his trials with us through his blog. I suggest that you click over and read a thoughtful reflection on finances and faith. And keep Steve and his family in your prayers.

note: Read the comment from his wife to see the fruits of a Christ-centered marriage.

More sleepless nights

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

More sleepless nights

Jim Fedako

I just finished repairing grout in my master bathroom. As a home repair hack, I typically remove excess caulk and sealant with my bare fingers -- it's messy, but quick and easy.

OK. So far, so good.

Then, while washing my hands, I read this warning on the back label, "This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer."

Seeing the capital "S," I decided that state does not refer to everyday residents of California, but instead refers to the occupying apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

Such a realization means a lot to me. You see, I don't like to be out of it, the last to learn what everyone else knows. A small matter of pride. But there it is.

So I relaxed a bit.

Yet that cancer thing got me thinking and doubting once more.

Am I OK? Especially considering that my state, the State of Ohio, has not seen fit to warn its hapless residents.

I have to assume that agents of the State of Ohio can read labels and are aware that the unspecified chemical is known to the State of California as a cancer risk. So is the cancer concern a function of geography, and I am OK out here on Ohio? Or is my state keeping something from me?

I'll be tossing and turning for the next three nights, until Tuesday morning when Ohio's health department reopens its doors to the masses. Only then will I know my fate - that is, of course, if they'll even tell me the truth.

Oh, well ...

When worse is better

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

When worse is better

Jim Fedako

Last week, my family went camping down in the wilds of southeastern Ohio. In addition to wonderful hikes and cookouts, each afternoon I set out on a scenic bike ride. One day, while peddling through the hills and hollows, I ventured along a state route that bisects a tiny hamlet.

Just on the edge of civilization, right before homes once again give way to pine trees, I passed a tavern and caught (what has become for me) the smell of liberty: cigarettes and fried grease.

As a cyclist, that mixture of smells is enough to send my stomach spinning. But as a libertarian, that very same fragrance is a sign of rebellion -- a sign that liberty still has a place in the hearts of some men.

Now everyone in the area (including politicians, bureaucrats, and petty officials) must know the tavern allows smoking, in spite of state laws against it. Yet folks are silent, and smoking continues. Why?

Before I provide my reason, let me contrast this experience with one that occurred not too far from my home in suburban, central Ohio.

One weekend, my family camped at a local campground that has a party house serving burgers, beer, etc. The establishment also has a couple of pool tables and requisite television screens. Instead of eating the Dinty Moore meal we had prepared (heated) for our kids, my wife and I decided to drop in for a burger and pop. We entered, ordered, and waited for our takeout meal.

While waiting, we noticed a few burly men playing a rather loud game of pool. Just as we were paying for our meal, two of the men left to go outside. On our way out, we passed them smoking underneath the outside canopy. Sensing that moral outrage must be near, we stopped and asked them their thoughts on the then-new state anti-smoking laws.

Where we expected outrage, we heard indifference. One of the guys even stated that the law was good since it limited the amount of cigarettes he was able to smoke in a day. Wow, I thought, the nannies have reprogrammed the minds of those who were once free.

I attribute the very different reactions to the interventions of the state into the lives of the citizens of Ohio to one source: public education.

You see, the schools in my area outperform those of the wilds -- outperform them on state-mandated tests of state-mandated curriculum.

In a very real sense, the state, through its schools and curriculum, has succeeded in squashing public dissent of the continued loss of liberties.

So while my locals champion a state that intervenes in their lives, those who attended supposedly poor-performing schools still hold onto remnants of liberty. And these folks have held the state at bay, with their local apparatchiks and nomenclatura too afraid to stop open rebellion -- to enforce the state's anti-smoking laws.

For those who think that government schools are about the threes R's, I suggest asking any recent graduate of a so-called high-performing government high school some pointed questions on the rights of property -- liberty. You will quickly learn that the three R's are simply the diversion used to inculcate future generations.

Politicians and bureaucrats always react the same

Here's a funny spoof of the likely scene deep in the government bunker out in Larimer County. (HT: LewRockwell.com)

More info on the ROC

For district information that is not a product of the administration and board, turn to the ROC.

There ain't no third way

Dear Editor:

My parents recently returned from a trip that included a stop in Moscow. While there, as good tourists, they visited Lenin's tomb and reported back that more than a few Russians still worship Lenin and his vision of a worker's paradise.

It might seem odd that folks still desire the totalitarian state.Yet, according to the view of Greg Wourms ("Big government is necessary to keep big business in check," Dispatch, Sept. 19, 2009), we should all want for the warmth of big government -- the bigger, the better, of course.

Either you advocate for liberty -- a founding principle of this nation, or you advocate for the totalitarian state.

As economist Ludwig von Mises long ago noted, there is no such thing as the third way. Society either moves toward liberty or it moves toward complete state control -- there is no mythical resting point in the middle ground.

Wourms may fear liberty so much that he is willing to accept state control. But such a notion turns this nation on its head.

A nation born in liberty wanting the king's return. Where is Jefferson when you need him?

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

Time to talk cost

For those who have a hard time understanding my assertion that the district spends $1 million on PR each year (and the true value is likely much higher), here is a real world example to help explain the difference between cost and expenditure.

I just received my September electric bill. At first I was shocked by the high amount, especially considering that September was not a warm month. But then I remembered my wife is pregnant.

You see, when she is pregnant, my wife likes to set the temperature low in order to compensate for her elevated metabolism. So while she sleeps with a light blanket, I spend summer nights wrapped and clothed as if it were the middle of winter.

It is true that my general fund expenditure for electricity is high, but some of the cost is correctly attributed to her pregnancy -- likely half of my expenditure on electricity in September was due to the September weather, with the other half due to wife's pregnancy.

If I didn't attribute costs as closely to their source as possible, I would not have a clear understanding of the true cost of pregnancy versus the true cost of AC.

The same holds for all entities: costs need to be attributed to their source in order to understand the drivers of those costs.

Olentangy recently hired Wade Lucas. Initially, Wade agreed to the salary set by the board. After receiving an offer, Wade then renegotiated a much better contract.

Yes, Wade snookered Dimon McFerson -- the supposed great negotiator -- and ended up being the winner of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.

Why did the board agree to the new, more expensive contract? The answer is simple: Since the board had been burned in its previous closed-door superintendent search, it believed that it had to save face and accept whatever Wade demanded.

The expenditure for Wade's new contract came out of the general fund and is reported as an administrative expense. Yet the true cost of his new contract should be attributed to a PR stunt to cover up the foolishness of McFerson and the super majority of the board.

The expenditure is not a function of the administration of the district, it is a function of PR in order to save an inept board from more embarrassment.

There are many examples where the district expends money simply to look good before the public. All of these dollars are correctly attributed to PR. To pin those dollars on any other cost center incorrectly attributes costs.

Asserting utopia as the solution

Paul from the Save the Hilliard Schools blog buys the government versus anarchy false dilemma. Paul's comment is below. But first I have posted an exchange between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Friedman thoroughly destroys the assertion that Paul's benevolent government is anything other than a utopian dream.

Note: I am more and more amazed when folks who know politicians and the political process (including the true inner workings of government) continue to assert a benevolent government as the solution. Such a proposition is one too many rainbows from reality.

The following is from recent Marc Farber's article over at LewRockwell.com:

Phil Donohue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. When you see so few haves and so many have-nots. When you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism? And whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Milton Friedman: Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that.

So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Phil Donohue: Seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

Milton Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think… American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.

Here is Paul's comment left on this post of mine:

My initial comment said that I believe there is a role for a benevolent government in such matters.

We can observe that throughout the ages it has been demonstrated that mankind will readily choose what is good/easy/cheap in the short term with little if any regard for sustainability.

Native American cultures are romanticized for their supposed love of the land. Yet you can go to a place in the Dakotas where the Lakotas repeatedly stampeded whole herds of buffalo off a cliff because it was the most efficient way to kill large numbers of them. The only difference between this act, and grinding a mountain down for the coal is the size and sophistication of the technology available - the motivation is the same.

The rights afforded a landowner cannot be infinite. After all, the landowner has title to property only because the government says he does, and the power of the government can be engaged to enforce those rights granted under law.

We could choose to have a lawless county, where one must individually protect land rights, presumably by force if necessary. There are places in the world where this is true today, like Somalia. If someone wants to take over your house in Mogadishu, there is no government to complain to - you have to fight to keep it, or walk away.

And so I don't really understand those who argue against government, yet demand the protections that if affords.

I certainly fear a government that ceases to be responsive to the people, and our American government is becoming less and less so every hour.

And I am concerned that the way we find our way back to minimal government isn't by unwinding the scale of the government we have now, but rather a revolution that breaks out as a result of our government becoming intolerably intrusive.

Sadly, I see nothing in the natural world that suggests that natural systems self-regulate very well. There is always something gradually drifting out of whack, and the ultimate 'correction' is abrupt and severe.

Here they go again!

While those of us in the private sector confront the realities of scarcity, the district continues to spend like there is no tomorrow.

Read these expenses and then read the funding cries emanating from the administrative offices. Could it be that the post-retreat happy hour is affecting judgements?

District check registers (from a reader):

• 88607 Lakes, Golf & CC DUESC-Admin Retreat 08/31/09 $ 5,367.65
• 88607 Lakes, Golf & CC DUESC-Admin Retreat 08/31/09 $ 2,727.65
• 88689 Avakian Consulting Superintendent outreach 08/31/09 $ 10,000.00
  

And, by the way, every check to Avakian and similar ilk is all for PR (just neighbor helping neighbor -- literally -- for the good of district propaganda).

Note: OFK, you all worked so hard this ... and it's all for the kids.

Tiberi and fascism

Dear Editor:

Are there two Pat Tiberi's ("Tiberi: Cut spending first", ThisWeek)?

As I see it, there is the Tiberi who wrote the guest column, speaking as someone who advocates for less government. Then there is the Tiberi who represents this district in DC, advocating a big government agenda right out of 1920's Italy.

And in a true sense of political doublespeak, the graph above Tiberi's column proved that he served during a period of excessive government spending and deficits. So while Tiberi bemoans our current financial situation, he neglects to mention that he voted for the spending bills that created this very mess.

Talk about spin. Talk about arrogance.

But I'll let Tiberi speak, "(W)e should be leaving the country in better shape for our children. They deserve it."

Sorry, Pat, your rhetoric is too little, too late. You should have defended future generations when you had the chance. Instead, you shackled them with debt.

Jim Fedako

A Public School Agenda? Of Course!

An article of mine over on LewRockwell.com -- the best-read libertarian website in the world:

A Public School Agenda? Of Course!
Jim Fedako

Let me be honest and forthright: I have an agenda – I always do.

You can be certain that I am typing with a purpose in mind. I am typing in order to satisfy a much sought-after end. My end – my reason – is the hope that this article will influence a few, turning them toward the path of liberty.

Are you shocked or offended that I have an agenda? Is it wrong – no, is it necessarily evil when a man has an agenda; when a man has a given end for which he will use some means to obtain? Certainly not. We all have agendas that guide our actions. And we accept the presence of our own personal agendas without question or concern.

When discussing the evils of government-run education, many folks say that I have a personal agenda. Well, no kidding. If I wake in the morning, I have an agenda. The rhetorical use of the word agenda in a pejorative sense implies that others do not have agendas – this being a false assertion. Those folks have at least one agenda that gets them out of bed in the morning: to continue forcing me to pay for their government school nonsense.

So why it is that many – nay, most Americans – take offense to the idea that public schools have an agenda? Why is it that folks who recognize their own agendas cannot recognize that the individuals running the school system have agendas too? Why can’t these folks accept that those who fought some 150 years ago for the adoption of government-run schools had an evil agenda? Or that many today use government schools for vile intentions? Why not? Yes, why not, indeed?

The reason is twofold: The first is that the prime end of government-run education is graduates who support the system. This is not some hidden agenda – it is right out in the open. This publicly lauded end is termed citizenship – and a good citizen always supports the so-called public good of government education. When the schools say that our goal is to educate citizens, you can be certain that they do not mean citizens who question the state or its bureaucracies and unions.

Good citizens believe that teachers and administrators, as government employees, know best. Even if the material is enough to raise hairs, the good citizen trusts the schools. And, should a parent begin to question the schools, the group – the collective consisting of neighbors, friends, etc. – applies increasing pressure to bring the recalcitrant back in line – back to being a good citizen.

The second reason is that anyone seeking to manipulate and indoctrinate the youth can find no better means than a system of mandatory education. This is true whether the purpose is to extend and enhance the coercive power of government or to pollute young minds with perverse nonsense. It is also true for any other goal, no matter how nefarious or seemingly benign. The schools are the agent of change.

Therefore, it is no wonder that the majority supports government schools.

Moreover, if your goal is to create citizens who support the collective, and you are not willing to take up arms, you adopt a Gramscian approach and slowly destroy the institutions of free association – of liberty and freedom. You attack the family, the church, etc., in a roundabout way. You employ the strategy of the indirect approach – you indoctrinate the youth. By doing so, you break the bond of parent and child without resorting to loud confrontations and street fighting.

You simply use the classroom to define the state and its minions as maternal and paternal figures. Then, you sit back and allow subsequent generations – educated by the state – to chip away at the bedrock institutions over time. Sure, you have the occasional pitched fight, but these only serve as feints covering your flanking maneuvers. Your war is not one of attrition; it is one of subversion and time.

The conservative claims a liberal bias in education; they claim a liberal agenda. They are right. However, the conservatives only propose to force their bias on the liberals. The conservatives also have an agenda. Both groups seek to use government, and both are winning and losing at the same time.

The issue is no longer individual versus the collective. The issue is now who has the power to educate and indoctrinate. Despite their rhetoric, most conservatives no longer stand for individual rights. In fact, these conservatives quickly drop the individual and champion the collective every time someone questions their cherished history. An evening listening to AM talk radio will prove that point: Liberals are teaching our children that Lincoln wasn’t an American hero! That he didn’t stand for liberty! Those folks are un-American!

The conservative solution is for the government schools to force-feed conservative mythology to every parent’s child, all in the name of liberty.

Of course, the essence of the current liberal worldview is also the collective – the collective of Prussia and Bismarck, along with that of Marx, etc. It is a vision that easily melds with the state and its schools. And it is a vision that is not all that different from the conservatives'.

While their respective messages are not the same, both groups subscribe to the state as the means and the collective as the ends.

I asked this question above: Is it wrong – no, is it necessarily evil when a man has an agenda; when a man has a given end for which he will use some means to obtain? I answered in the negative. However, I need to return to that response once more. A man can employ any means that does not violate the property rights of others. Therefore, he cannot invade your property to state his message. In addition, he cannot use force to make you pay for his message either. Other than those two rules, everything else is fair game.

Nevertheless, the so-called public schools violate both of those rules. Government has first claim to your children – this being true even if you home school – and will invade your property to deliver its message in the form of state-mandated curriculum and exams.

Additionally, government and its schools have first claim to your income – your property. Their means is one of evil, as it is a means backed by government – the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion (Mises).

Yes, I have an agenda, and so does government, its schools, and associated minions. Mine – no, ours is an agenda of liberty and peace while theirs is one of violence and control. Since we do not seek the violence of government to win the day, we have to educate to see our agenda through. We have much work left, but at the very least, we have the follies of government to use as our fool.

September 23, 2008

Jim Fedako is a homeschooling father of six who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Recycling: What a Waste!

Mise.org article: http://www.mises.org/story/1911

Recycling: What a Waste!

by Jim Fedako
[Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005] [Subscribe at email services and tell others]

This Fall, school kids across the country will again be taught a chief doctrine in the civic religion: recycle, not only because you fear the police but also because you love the planet. They come home well prepared to be the enforcers of the creed against parents who might inadvertently let a foil ball into the glass bin or overlook a plastic wrapper in the aluminum bin.

Oh, I used to believe in recycling, and I still believe in the other two Rs: reducing and reusing. But recycling? It's a waste of time, money, and ever scarce resources. What John Tierney wrote in the New York Times nearly 10 years ago is still true: "Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America."

Reduce and reuse makes sense. With no investment in resources I can place the plastic grocery bag in the bathroom garbage can and save a penny or so for some more pressing need. Reducing and reusing are free market activities that are an absolute profitable investment of time and labor.

Any astute entrepreneur will see the benefit of conserving factors of production. Houses are built today with much, much less wood than homes built just 20 years ago; and they are built sturdier, for the most part anyway. The decision to reduce wood in houses was not prompted by a green's love for trees; it was a reaction to the increasing cost for wood products.

Using less wood makes financial sense and any entrepreneur worth his profit will change his recipe to conserve wood through better design or by substituting less dear materials for wood products.

A recent Mises article, Ethanol and the Calculation Issue, discussed the inability to calculate the true cost of producing Ethanol. No one can calculate the cost of all the factors of production in the direction from the highest order labor and land down to the lowest order. Ethanol at the pump, though the Chicago School, Keynesians, etc., would certainly give the calculation the old college try. Absent government supports, the cost of Ethanol at the pump reveals the true economic cost of producing that fuel.

The same applies to recycling. What is the true cost of all factors involved in the recycling activity? I haven't a clue. Though using Misesian logic I know that the costs of recycling exceed the benefits. This is the simple result of the observation that recycling doesn't return a financial profit.

I used to recycle. It paid. As a child living in the Pittsburgh area, I would clean used glass containers. After collecting a sufficient amount of glass, my father would drive the three or so miles to the local glass factory where the owner gladly exchanged cleaned waste glass for dollars. It this instance I was an entrepreneur investing factors of production in order to turn dirty waste glass into capital. The value of the exchange exceeded my preference for time, elbow grease, and my parents' soap, water, and auto fuel. (Of course all of my exchanges against my parents' resources were high on my preference list, but that's another issue altogether).

What's wrong with recycling? The answer is simple; it doesn't pay. And since it doesn't pay it is an inefficient use of the time, money, and scarce resources. That's right, as Mises would have argued: let prices be your guide. Prices are essential to evaluate actions ex post. If the accounting of a near past event reveals a financial loss, the activity was a waste of both the entrepreneur's and society's scarce resources.

I'm supposed to believe that I need to invest resources into cleaning and sorting all sorts of recyclable materials for no compensation. And this is considered economically efficient? In some local communities--many thousands of which have recycling progreams--residents have to pay extra so that a company will recycle their paper, plastic, and glass. The recycling bins come with a per-month fee.

In other areas, such as my township, the garbage company profits at the mercy of the political class. The trustees in my township specified that in order to win the waste removal contract, the winning company has to provide recycling bins. Further, they have to send a special truck around to empty those neatly packed bins and deliver them to companies that have no pressing need for these unraw materials. The recycling bins are ostensibly free, but in reality their cost is bundled into my monthly waste removal bill.

Since there is no market for recyclable materials, at least no market sufficient to at least return my investment in soap and water, not to mention time and labor, I conclude that there is no pressing need for recycling. If landfills were truly in short supply then the cost of dumping waste would quickly rise. I would then see the financial benefit to reducing my waste volume, and since the recycling bin does not count toward waste volume, the more in the recycling bin, the less in the increasingly expensive garbage cans. Prices drive entrepreneurial calculations and, hence, human action. Recycling is no different.

Come on now, there can't be any benefit to even the neoclassical society if you actually have to pay someone to remove recyclables.

That recycling doesn't pay signifies that resources devoted to recycling activities would be better utilized in other modes of production. Instead of wasting resources on recycling, it would be more prudent to invest that money so that new recipes could be created to better conserve scarce materials in the production process.

Human action guides resources toward the activities that meet the most pressing needs. This movement of resources means that those activities that don't meet pressing needs are relatively expensive. Why? Those activities have to bid for factors of production along with the profitable activities — activities that are meeting the most pressing needs. The profitable activities will drive the cost of those scarce factors upward leading to financial ruin for those activities that don't satisfy the most pressing needs. Forced recycling is such a failed activity.

The concept of lost materials is fraught with errors. Glass headed to the landfills will sit quietly awaiting someone to desire its value. The glass is not going anywhere, and should glass become as dear as gold or even something less dear, you can bet that entrepreneurs would begin mining landfills for all those junked glass bottles, not to mention plastic, aluminum, etc.

The only caveat to this train of thought is what Rothbard wrote about when he discussed psychic profit: the perceived benefit one gets from performing an action, even if that action leads to an economic loss.

Who reaps the real psychic reward from recycling? The statist do-gooder and the obsessed conservationist. Since recycling is now a statist goal, the do-gooders and greens force the cost of recycling on the unsuspecting masses by selling recycling as a pseudo-spiritual activity. In addition to these beneficiaries, there are those who have not considered the full costs of recycling, but their psychic benefit is more ephemeral than real. The other winners are the companies that do the collecting and process the materials, an industry that is sustained by mandates at the local level.

If recycling at a financial loss leads you to greater psychic profit, then recycle, recycle, recycle. Let your personal preferences guide your actions, but don't force your preference schedule on others who have a different preference rank for their own actions. And, do not delude yourself into thinking that you are economizing anything; you are simply increasing your psychic profit at the expense of a more rational investment. But, hey, your actions are your business; just don't force your preferences to be my business.

Oh, and don't tell my children half the recycling story. Remember Hazlitt and turn over the second and third stone before drawing an economic conclusion.

____________
Jim Fedako is a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH. jfedako@aol.com. Comment on the blog.
You can receive the Mises Daily Article in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Springer defends the district (no surprise here)

Dear Editor:

Archana Springer challenged my estimate regarding the total cost of PR in the Olentangy school district (Olentangy Valley News, Sept. 23).

Using district-supplied figures, Springer claimed that district PR only cost taxpayers $71,765 in fiscal year 2008. Got that? $71,765. That's an amazing claim considering the district has a communications department headed by a highly-paid director.

In all likelihood, the figure that Springer quoted is only half of the total cost of employment for the department director alone. Throw in all other costs associated with district PR (including the questionable use of consultants, etc) and it is obvious that Springer likes to understate district expenses, to say the very least.

It's one thing to accept district figures at face value. It's another thing altogether to claim such nonsense as fact.

It is important to note that Springer never addressed the central point of my letter: Why is the district buying up Internet domain names in order to game its taxpayers? Hmmm.

In the end, keep in mind that Springer responded in defense of current board president and candidate Julie Feasel. Both Springer and Feasel are looking for things to remain business as usual in the district.

I say rock the boat by rocking the board this November.

Jim Fedako

District hides the truth ... again!

Dear Editor:

In Hilliard and Worthington, community members have banded together to question expenses in their respective school districts. These folks started websites with similar names: EducateHilliard.org and EducateWorthington.org.

Both of these organization have been active and are respected within their districts. Worthington officials meet with EducateWorthington.org to understand the issues and EducateHilliard.org even endorsed a slate of board candidates.

Now, back to Olentangy. In a move to stifle dissent, the Olentangy district purchased EducateOlentangy.org and linked that site back to the district's own website. Can you imagine that? Our tax dollars were used to directly deceive us -- the taxpayers, nonetheless.

Did board president Julie Feasel push this move in order to stop a possible Olentangy group from endorsing a slate of candidates that does not include her name? Or did superintendent Wade Lucas suggest the purchase in order to keep residents from questioning how he spends local tax dollars?

District PR consumes close to $1 million of our tax money -- and look what we get in return.

In November, the community gets to decide if these murky practices remain business as usual.

Jim Fedako

Trolling for Morons, and the Bobbleheads Are Biting

An older article of mine. -- Jim

Trolling for Morons, and the Bobbleheads Are Biting
by Jim Fedako

"Is not the State an idol? Is it not like any graven image into which men have read supernatural powers and superhuman capacities? The State can feed us when we are hungry, heal us when we are ill; it can raise wages and lower prices, even at the same time; it can educate our children without cost; it can provide us against the contingencies of old age and amuse us when we are
bored; it can give us electricity by passing laws and improve the game of baseball by regulation. What cannot the State do for us if only we have faith in it? And we have faith. No creed in the history of the world ever captured the hearts and minds of men as has the modern creed of Statism." ~ Frank Chodorov (from The Need of a Golden Calf

It's that season once again: the presidential campaign. And the candidates are casting about for every possible vote. Sure, the candidates claim that it's all about issues and an educated electorate, but it’s really just a seemingly endless Dr Phil show.

You know what I'm talking about, the politician, playing the good doctor, intently listens to the each pathetic whine and then contemplates the situation. Finally, the healing begins as, yes, government can ease that ill also. A costless solution at that. This scene repeats as long as the moderator allows questions to be asked by the audience.

Questions? Huh! They’re always softballs even when thrown overhand. The candidate feels the pain and effortlessly spins the question back to a government solution. Never, never, does the questioner ask something as simple as, "But, Senator Clinton, who is going to pay for your solution?" No, just like the Dr. Phil guest, the questioner just wants to be heard, to be healed. That the senator added this new cause to her ever-growing litany of programs is enough. It’s all about hurting and healing, and government of course.

And, like a town meeting that goes on too long, the questions become more personal, and more demanding of government as the evening progresses. It's as if Tocqueville's image of America was a dream, and a utopian dream at that. If you want a raise, Obama will guarantee you one. If you want to sue someone, for anything, Edwards is ready for you. If you want to fight foreign wars and extend the empire, Giuliani and Romney will strike up the band and grab the largest flag to be found; let the marching begin.

It gets even better than that. The candidates are ready to take up the Wilsonian vision of America the Great. Because, in candidate-speak, "The world wants the US to lead the charge to end wars, epidemics, and the common cold."

Forgotten is any mention of economics – the scarcity of means relative to ends. Human wants always overshoot resources. That's the human condition. Yet, Hillary, Barak, Rudy, Mitt, and company, will throw reality aside and provide a solution. These folks are so prepared – so ready to lead – that they can propose new solution off the cuff. They are leaders who do not need talking points. They simply take a moment, and the new program is proposed. No, it's promised, guaranteed.

Watching the audience react leads me to divide the typical voter into one of two classes: the moron, and the bobblehead.

The moron is the one who thinks life is a kindergarten class in any public school. He truly believes that nothing has changed since he turned five. Problems such as Billy chewing gum and not having enough for everyone are solved by confiscation and greater poverty. The teacher forces Billy to spit his gum into the wastebasket as the rest of the class nods in approval. How dare someone have more than the rest? Starving but equal is the motto of the day.

And, there is more. The kindergarten class recycles unwanted stuff – paper, plastic, etc. – at a loss to the taxpayer. But that’s OK since the affective emotions for the environment, etc., are encouraged and soon trump any alternate activity for resources wasted in the recycling process. The affective emotions trump common sense. Starving, but at least you feel good.

What about the bobblehead? They sit in awe of both the candidate and peer pressure. It's always easier to hug the tree than to chop it down. You can forget the real needs waiting for factors of production to be released to the economy by the ax; what is unseen is of little value. To be caught chopping when the PC winds say preserve is a certain way to be lopped from the in-crowd. And, the bobblehead cannot have that.

As the moron jumps onboard the candidate’s latest problem and solution, the bobblehead nods in approval. The bobblehead has rational beliefs, but the mob is forming, and things are getting ugly. Once again, better to join than to make a stand.

Therefore, when Clinton says taxes might have to go up to heal the nation, improve its infrastructure, and provide healthcare to rational citizens who chose not to purchase it, the bobbleheads don't even feign disapproval. They sit as the Soviet apparatchik before Stalin; never once giving any sign that the speaker is muddling through nonsense. No, they stay silent, and even cheer when appropriate.

See, the bobblehead knows the role of the citizen in the collective. Remember the kindergarten class, the bobblehead acquiesced to the collective good; a goal of any government-run education system. Standing outside the group is a sign of a troubled youth, and Nurse-Ratched-as-teacher is ready to break the spirit of any individual who does not conform to the mission of the state; lobotomized into the bobble doll that always nods – from only the slightest nudge – in approval of the state and its agents.

Against this stand the lovers of Freedom. They go by many different names, and wear many different hats, yet they simply want to be left alone to produce goods desired by their neighbors, whether across the street or across the ocean. Their light-in-the-darkness is Ron Paul.

Paul does not look for the morons in the crowd when proposing solutions, waiting for the bobbles to bobble. No, he attacks the problems at their source: government. That means he is challenging everything drummed into our heads while we sat, barely awake, through 12 years of government indoctrination.

That many have not yet come around to his candidacy is understandable. It took me almost 20 years to shed public school’s false teachings and golden calves.

Let’s continue to rally behind Paul so that our children, and their children, will live in the land of the free and brave, not the land of the moron and bobblehead.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Historical revision coming to a school near you

Note that TCI was approved by the Ohio Department of Education as a textbook publisher for 2009. That means Ohio government schools can buy the book below. Is it in your schools? -- Jim

Declaration of Independence gets PC revision for kidsText tells 5th graders: 'All people are created equal'
Posted: September 22, 2009
9:09 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

"History Alive! America's Past"

A textbook publisher known for painting a sunny, non-violent picture of Islamic jihad in its history books has rewritten part of the Declaration of Independence.

The Lone Star Report revealed that a fifth grader in Ector County Independent School District in Odessa, Texas, was told to memorize the Declaration of Independence as printed in "History Alive! America's Past," published by the Teachers' Curriculum Institute, or TCI.

But there was one hitch – an essential word had been altered.

The true text of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, as written by principal author Thomas Jefferson, states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[Emphasis added]

However, a fifth-grade student reading one of the cover pages of "History Alive! America's Past," will see the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [Emphasis added]

The text contained no visible disclaimer or brackets indicating that the wording had been changed.

According to the Lone Star Report, State Board of Education member Terri Leo blasted the publisher for altering the Declaration of Independence at a Sept. 17 committee meeting.

"Instead of saying 'all men are created equal,' it says 'all people are created equal,'" Leo noted. "Are we going to tell kids what the actual document says or are we going to change words in those documents to be politically correct ... How can you change a historical document and not present it to students as written?"

Texas law dictates that the Texas Board of Education can reject books based only on "factual errors," and publishers can be fined for uncorrected mistakes in textbooks purchased by the state.

The Texas Education Agency has a page on its website that allows parents and students to report errors found in textbooks.

Leo said she believes the publisher should face a penalty for altering the wording.

"I think that's a factual error," she said. "That's not what the Declaration of Independence says, and I think [the publisher] should be fined."

TCI representative Natasha Martin told the Lone Star Report that the authentic version of paragraph two in the Declaration of Independence – containing the word "men" rather than "people" – appears in the appendix and the rest of the text.

Martin also said that the new version – published after Texas' adoption – does not use the page with the altered text anymore.

"The parts that are really the instructional materials, the chapter the kids are reading, the appendix where we refer the kids to read the full Declaration, it is verbatim," Martin told the Lone Star Report.

WND reported earlier when "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond," also published by the Teachers Curriculum Institute, totally omitted any mention of the violence in a lesson on Islamic jihad.

"Jihad is defined as a struggle within each individual to overcome difficulties and strive to please god. Sometimes it may be a physical struggle for protection against enemies," the book states. It notes that Islam requires "that Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil."

Walter Block and the economics of health

Professor Block demolishes arguments for socialized health care at the Mises University (listen here).

"I do not accept your phraseology"

Harry Reid speaks for the political class (both sides of the aisle). And the bobbleheads -- the sheeple -- from both sides nod their approval.

Having two people rule over one is no better than one ruling over two (Lysander Spooner). Yet, because we have bought the concept of democracy unbounded by a constitution, principles and values, we have allowed a republic to be turned into a totalitarian state rules by the majority.

In spite of what your teachers in government schools taught you about democracy, it is -- when without bounds -- a very unethical and immoral system, to say the least.

Michael Cloud and Teachers Unions

For year, Michael Cloud has been working to reduce taxes in Massachusetts. And who do you is fighting him? The teachers unions, of course -- the government leviathans with their tentacles in our wallets and in our children's minds. -- Jim

From Cloud in Small Government News:

Massachusetts Teachers Unions: Enemy of Taxpayers
by Michael Cloud
(My short essay below is about the Massachusetts Teachers Unions, not individual teachers. Nor is this about the teaching performance of public school teachers. This is exclusively about the actions of the Unions.)

Why am I calling the Massachusetts Teachers Unions the enemy of taxpayers?

Because 30 years of indisputable evidence says so.

In 1980, the Massachusetts Teachers Unions aggressively campaigned against Proposition 2 1/2 - and the movement to roll back and limit property taxes.

In the last 30 years - from 1980 through 2009 - which statewide tax cut ballot initiatives did the Massachusetts Teachers Unions campaign against?

All of them.

Property Tax Cut initiative? Against.

Income Tax Cut Initiatives? Against.

Sales Tax Cut Initiative? Against.

Against all of them.

Against every tax cut ballot initiative for the last 30 years.

PLUS Massachusetts Teachers Unions have spent millions of dollars lobbying the state legislature against tax cuts, against spending cuts - for raising taxes, and for raising spending. Successfully lobbying legislators to increase spending on public schools by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Look at local tax votes. T

here are 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts. Since 1981 - when Proposition 2 ½ went into effect - despite the fact that all of these local governments get an automatic 2 ½% revenue increase every year, they put over 4,551 referendums on city and town ballots to increase Property taxes even more.

How many of these 4,551+ ballot referendums to raise property taxes on homes did the Teachers Unions campaign against? Zero. None. Nada.

State taxes and local taxes. Income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes.

Massachusetts Teachers Unions consistently campaigned against tax relief - and campaigned for tax hikes. For the last 30 years.

Want to see the smoking gun the Teachers Unions use against taxpayers?

The Massachusetts Teachers Union Website offers Union Members a manual to raising property taxes on our homes. It's called: "Roadmap to Overriding"

Where's the Massachusetts Teachers Union Manual for cutting property taxes on the homes in your city or town?

There isn't one.

The evidence is clear, consistent, and compelling. Massachusetts Teachers Unions are the Enemy of Taxpayers.

Request to readers: If you have information about any income tax cut, sales tax cut, or property tax cut that the Massachusetts Teachers Unions campaigned FOR, please reply to this email with the link or evidence.

Thank you. - Michael Cloud