Posted by Tina
Is a college education worth it today? A number of people have been asking that question as the cost of higher education soars and the quality of higher education has been characterized as less than stellar. We may find some answers from a new study that came about under unusual circumstances. It all began with a dispute over the content of a conversation that occurred during a golf game between the President of Bowdoin College and a potential investor. The conflict between these two men eventually resulted in an investigation into the academic and diversity practices of Bowdoin College. The study was funded by the philanthropist in the dispute, Mr. Thomas Klingenstein.
The results of this study are in no way intended by me to characterize all colleges and universities across the nation as exactly the same. Not all have gone off course to become little more than indoctrination centers for the left agenda. I offer the reports findings as a cautionary to parents with college aged students and to spark curiosity and interest into another reason that higher education in America today is so often characterized as no bargain for those attending and/or paying the bills.
The Wall Street Journal has this most interesting story (link above), “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World, by David Feith, which includes his reading of the findings of the study:
Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.
The school’s ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the dedication to “sustainability,” or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to “global citizenship,” or loving all countries except one’s own.
The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.
One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens” (which “examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces”), “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.”
Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.
Parents and students have power to alter how higher education is priced and taught through their academic and financial choices. Armed with information they are free to turn away from overpriced propaganda schools and to eschew courses that scream racial/gender activism. Turns out investors also have some power to expose and perhaps withhold funding to certain institutions.
Awareness and smart choices can help to restore our institutions of higher learning to become once again affordable houses of academic excellence…choose wisely America.
The only thing surprising about this study is the university’s president being surprised at the results. As the CEO I would have expected him to know what courses were being offered, the content of the curriculum and the major/degree requirements. He either knew or actually believed his liberal thinking world standard was the norm and applied to everyone.
Believe me this reaches down to community colleges too where courses are taught to keep certain instructors employed by requiring their courses to obtain a vocational or transfer AS/AA degree. The curriculum, in part, is not taught to prepare the students for future employment. Courses are developed with a core curriculum mandate where a writing component is included. This writing component is coordinated to reach EVERY division/department including math, science and vocational courses.
Core curriculum requirements became very popular back in the early 1990s and by the time I retired in 2003 was fully implemented. My last 20+ years was spent working with faculty and deans to develop the course curriculum, degree requirements and to obtain state approvals out of Sacramento. Once again it’s a top-down mandate from the federal Dept. of Education to the states, to the colleges and universities and even to the pre-K-12. Accreditation Standards are set at the very top and full compliance is required or Accreditation is lost. This rarely if ever happens.
Weren’t you just complaining about agenda-driven, politically motivated studies? I guess they’re OK when they match your own agenda and politics.
This “study” is fairly useless as a representation of American colleges, by the way. Bowdoin is a small private college that only serves about 1,700 students. So what if they want to focus on liberal issues? They make that pretty clear to any prospective students and faculty. There are many private conservative colleges as well, but I don’t complain about them, because I don’t have to go there.
If you want a study that answers the questions you posit at the beginning of this article, then look at the state universities, the UCs, the community colleges. Not some small private liberal arts college in Maine that no one can afford. And find a study that wasn’t written to prove someone’s side of an argument in a golf game.
Chris thanks for sharing. If I were in your class I suppose I would have to actually do your assignment. Thankfully I am not in your class so I can post as I wish.
Is my expectation that history be taught in college history classes a political agenda driven position? Is it political to expect that colleges find ways to lower tuition…perhaps by eliminating classes that do not have much to do with preparing students for a career? In my opinion I am expressing concerns that many parents and citizens across the nation have since they are actually paying for the crap that now passes for higher education.
I think this study represents a problem in our universities and colleges, whether this small liberal college or any other college.
It is about choice. Information assists people in making inquiries and choices.
It is also about exposing a problem that has gone on for too long in many American colleges.
IMHO colleges that don’t teach American history but do feature classes in gender studies, black studies, and women’s studies aren’t getting the job done and they are doing it for one hell of a fat price.
When I attended Chico State 20 years ago tuition was around $500 a semester, and minimum wage was $4.25 an hour.
Now I believe it is around $3500 a semester, and minimum wage is is $8.00 an hour.
It used to be possible to go to a state college and work to pay tuition. Now you have to get loans. There are fewer tenured professors and many more administrators.
There is no reason to justify the increased expense, especially when the top paid administrators with their long list of perks are so terrible at their jobs.
Princess You’re right!
I just heard another comparison on FOX Business that fits right in with what you are saying:
Going back to 1980 for the comparison, we would be paying $15.00 for a gallon of milk today if the price of milk had risen at the same rate as college tuition. Who profits? The government (from college loans) and colleges, including so-called nonprofit state sponsored colleges.
Where is the howling about all of the ugly selfish greed! There is none from the usual howlers for a very simple reason…they are in cahoots with their enablers…they give piles of money to elect Democrats!
How many of those scraping huge profits into their own pockets in this scam are the same greedy b-tards that teach students the following:
* Corporations/banks are greedy scum that only care about profits
* Doctors should practice for free; single payer healthcare will be less expensive
* 6% profit made by oil companies is excessive; kill the oil companies!
* Small business should be forced (and able) to pay minimum wage at $25.00 and the cost to consumers will be minimal.
And while they pass themselves off as the smartest people in the room pushing such garbage, and the most caring and concerned people on all of the ginned up issues and causes they are actually ripping off students, parents, and taxpayers!
Another costly and foolish bit of college spending is in taxpayer money for Pell Grants. (Chris prepare to pat yourself on the back)
The basic idea was good, giving poor kids an opportunity they would not otherwise have, but as with many government programs, it has been expanded and used to the point of waste both in terms of money and higher education:
More here:
College is a cash cow for the colleges and for big Democrat/big government!
“Chris thanks for sharing. If I were in your class I suppose I would have to actually do your assignment. Thankfully I am not in your class so I can post as I wish.”
But you failed at even meeting your own standards, which you set in the title. One study of a small private liberals arts college that only serves 1,700 students is not “evidence” that “U.S. universities and colleges” are “unworthy of support.” It may be evidence that Bowdoin College is unworthy of support, but it provides no evidence that most U.S. universities are unworthy of support. So yet again, your title is sensationalist at best, and dishonest at worst.
Also, this is a private college, so it doesn’t even help your argument that education funding should be cut.
“IMHO colleges that don’t teach American history but do feature classes in gender studies, black studies, and women’s studies aren’t getting the job done and they are doing it for one hell of a fat price.”
I agree with this, but the percentage of colleges you’re talking about is extremely small. There is no state college or university system that I know of in the U.S. that doesn’t teach American history.
“Where is the howling about all of the ugly selfish greed! There is none from the usual howlers for a very simple reason…they are in cahoots with their enablers…they give piles of money to elect Democrats!”
Right, because liberal college professors never protest about rising tuition costs and huge administrator salaries…oh wait, they do, all the time.
Where have you been the last few years? Not on a college campus, that’s where. You speak with such authority about topics you know nothing about.
Given David Horowitz’s long experience with American colleges and universities I think it is fairly safe to say that a vast majority of public and private academic institutions are unbalanced, leftist-liberal bastions.
No wonder Chris objects, anything that supports this fact is not welcome in progressive circles. The truth getting out about their political and cultural hegemony makes progressives very uncomfortable. Since Chris is a volunteer product of that monoculture what else would we expect from him?
Required Reading —
Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign For An Academic Bill Of Rights by David Horowitz
Don’t bother to read it Chris, it is not a book for pseudo-intellectuals and above your comprehension level.
Mr. Horowitz’s book can be purchased on Amazon.
I forgot to mention in the above post another book from David Horowitz — One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.
This is also required reading but Chris is, of course, excused. Far be it for me to disturb his indoctrination and comfort level with something that might encourage him to think for himself.
It is also available on Amazon.
College students are caught in a vicious cycle. Since the Feds have taken over the student loan program, colleges have raised tuition & fees astronomically.
The college fees go up, the students have to borrow more and the college hikes the fees again with no real controls. Especially when the majority of tuition goes toward administrators and not the classroom. And a college education doesn’t guarantee a good job anymore.
And students share the blame when they choose majors that aren’t realistic. Don’t see a solution here until the parents, students AND the colleges admit there’s a problem and try to fix it WITHOUT the Feds sticking their noses in.
I’d also like to recommend “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, which I’m reading now. I’m amazed at how many lines in the book could and do appear in the news today. This book should be required reading of every college student.
Avalable at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145
From Wikipedia:
“The book explores a dystopian United States where many of society’s most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and disappear, shutting down their vital industries. The disappearances evoke the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the disappearances as “stopping the motor of the world” by withdrawing the minds that drive society’s growth and productivity. In their efforts, these people “of the mind” hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create and profit is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, sees society collapse around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry.
The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is “the role of man’s mind in existence”. The book explores a number of philosophical themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism.[7][8] It advocates the core tenets of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. In doing so, it expresses many facets of Rand’s philosophy, such as the advocacy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and the failures of government coercion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
Applause, applause J. Soden!
David Horowitz is an Islamophobic fascist who has said that all members of the Muslim Student Association should convert to Judaism and Christianity, compared Muslims to Nazis, and given money to radical racist Dutch politician Geert Wilders. He also doesn’t believe in evolution.
His opinion on education is pretty much worthless.
Peggy, no rational person could look at the world today and see a “destruction of the profit motive.” Corporate profits are at record historical highs. Corporate taxation is at a record historical low. Most of the economic gains our country has seen over the past few decades have gone to the wealthy. Those are basic, undeniable facts. There remains a huge incentive to create, innovate and profit. The “Atlases” of the world are doing fine.
I would also add that I don’t believe it’s possible to simultaneously follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand. Don’t take my word for it; Ayn Rand said this herself. Here is an interview with Mike Wallace in which she explicitly rejects Christianity and explains how her philosophy of selfishness is superior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y&feature=related
Some excerpts:
Rand: You love only those who deserve it.
Wallace: And then if a man is weak or a woman is weak he is or she is beyond love?
Rand: He certainly does not deserve it. He certainly is beyond it . . . he cannot expect the unearned, neither in love or in money, in matter or in spirit.
Wallace: There are very few of us in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.
Rand: Unfortunately yes, very few.
Wallace: What’s wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in history has taught us that we should love one another. Why, then is this love in your mind immoral?
Rand: It is immoral if it is placed above love of oneself. It is more than immoral, it is impossible.
Rand: According to the Christian mythology, [Christ] died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the non-ideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.
Rand: If you take Jesus Christ as the example of the ideal human being, and that is properly the view of Christians, what do you do with your ideal human being? You put him on the cross. You torture him and murder him for the sake of those who are less virtuous . . . I think that is a monstrous idea.
Rand: I am the creator of a new code of morality, which so far has been believed impossible, a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason.
Rand: [Faith] is a sign of a psychological weakness. . . I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows. That’s what you’re doing with the idea of God.
Rand: If I had to choose between faith and reason, I wouldn’t consider the choice even conceivable. As a human being, one chooses reason.
Rand: I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I am challenging the moral code of altruism, the precept that man’s moral duty is to live for others, that man must sacrifice to others . . . since I’m challenging the base, I’m necessarily challenging the institutions that are the base of that morality.
Rand: I have no faith at all, just convictions.
MIKE WALLACE: Christ, every important moral leader in man’s history has taught us that we should love one another. Why, then, is this kind of love, in your mind, immoral?
AYN RAND: It is immoral if it is a love placed above one’s self.
__________________________________________________
Now of course anyone familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ knows that all of this goes directly against his messages. Jesus believed in showing love to all. He gave special attention to the poor and the weak, and showed them love and compassion. And he was very clear about promoting a love placed above one’s self, which Rand calls “immoral.”
Republicans today who claim to admire Rand try to whitewash her philosophy by claiming that she is not against charity of compassion, but that she is simply against requiring them by government coercion. The above quotes should put that lie to rest. She isn’t simply against government using taxpayer money to help the poor. She was against helping the poor *in principle.* She is very clear that she believes altruism to be immoral, and rational self-interest as the highest good.
The central problem with the Republican Party today is your attempts to reconcile the philosophies of Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand. This simply cannot be done, so you’re left with total cognitive dissonance. You cannot proclaim Ayn Rand your hero and then get mad when your critics call you selfish and greedy. Ayn Rand promoted selfishness and greed, and she was completely unashamed to do so, even using those words and claiming that they were positive values.
Many Christian and Catholic leaders have criticized the Republican budget for following the values of Ayn Rand rather than Jesus Christ. Even Paul Ryan has tried to distance himself from Rand’s philosophy after previously endorsing it.
What’s funny is how hypocritical Rand was. In her later years, she took advantage of Medicare and Social Security. Here is her ludicrous defense:
“The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.”
So as long as you oppose Medicare, it’s OK to use it. Just like if you oppose drugs, it’s OK to use them, and if you oppose abortion, it’s OK to get one. This is clearly nonsensical. One could accuse Rand of not living by her own principles, were it not for the fact that her most cherished principle was selfishness. Taking Medicare and Social Security for oneself while advocating that it be eliminated for the less well-off–you know, people who hadn’t made buckets of money from writing books about how much everyone else in the world sucks–is nothing if not extremely selfish.
The Republican Party has a choice to make: Ayn Rand or Jesus. You can’t have both. I don’t consider myself religious anymore, but to me the philosophy of Jesus Christ is far superior.
I fail to see how Mr. Klingenstein’s objections to the Bowdoin curricula reflects poorly on all of the nation’s institutions of higher learning.
Send yer kid to George Mason.
Chris: “His opinion on education is pretty much worthless.”
You are neither educated enough nor experienced enough to evaluate the brilliant and thoughtful David Horowitz.
Remain ensconced in that safe PC box and you will never be!
“…no rational person could look at the world today and see a “destruction of the profit motive.” Corporate profits are at record historical highs.”
A. Peggy was referring to “motivation” being destroyed. The desire to seek profits through creativity and industry is definitely being blunted and punished.
B. Profits are at an all time high for several reasons: 1. The fed pumping money into the system and all of it going to Wall Street, 2. Emerging markets and overseas sales, 3. Tight management in a lousy economic atmosphere.
This is nothing to crow about! It indicates survival tactics in the business world rather than creative innovation and vibrancy. No worries it is just the engine that makes possible all jobs, investment and savings, charity, government spending…just about everything people do!
Ayn Rand was an atheist…so what!
Her point, even from a Christian perspective, is still valid.
It is impossible for most people to live in the world without acting on self-interest, acting in their own best self-interest. It is vital for survival and production. Self-interest does not preclude caring for or loving others.
The Bible encourages work and self support…even for women. Proverbs 31: 13-
The passage goes on to address charity and acts of giving.
Gotta go…later
Chris: “But you failed at even meeting your own standards, which you set in the title. One study of a small private liberals arts college that only serves 1,700 students is not “evidence” that “U.S. universities and colleges” are “unworthy of support.”
Okay…good point…except…
A PowerLine blog post points to more opinion that this college represents a broader problem that is taught in colleges but has permeated our society…follow the links:
“Diversity: The Invention of a Concept”:
Eliana Johnson, National Review:
An excellent article on choosing a college from Dr. Sowell is very informative about some of the pitfalls in modern higher education. A sample:
Brilliant and thoughtful? An apologist for McCarthy?
Tina … in your dreams.
Chris, Ayn Rand describes a world where the government has taken total control of everyone’s lives and left them stripped of any meaning. People’s life-long dreams are shattered, their businesses stolen from them all for the “share the wealth” mandated controls dictated by the government. What a person worked for and built up to not only make their lives better, but to improve the lives of everyone is not allowed, because they are seen as being selfish. Men and women with great talents and minds no longer strive to utilize their talents to contribute to make the world better. Instead of writing great books they end up in a diner cooking hamburgers because they’ve given up. Even a dog beaten enough times when his food dish is put down will eventually die from hunger.
You may not like to accept the facts that what she describes in her book is reflective of what is happening now, but it is. “Share the wealth” is printed on just about every page along with out of control regulations and executive order legislation being passed in secret by a small group of powerful elites. ALL for the purpose to make sure no one succeeds or has more than anyone else. Tell me a newspaper or website these words are not appear on every day. I’ll bet they doesn’t exist.
I won’t address Rand’s religious views or beliefs at the time she wrote Atlas Shrugged or in her later years, because I have not looked into them. But, I also won’t accept your opinion of her either for the same reason. I do my own research, thank you.
As for what Christ and the Bible says I will address even though I’m not an expert, just a believer. The Bible is filled with battles of men fighting for what they believe God gave them. God gave the Israelites “The Promised Land” and they are still fighting to keep what is theirs to this day. Are they selfish or just trying to keep what is theirs and was promised to them? Should they just give up their homeland because someone else wants it again, or do they not have a right to it since they were the original inhabitants.
Christ taught us to love each other as He does us. To help and to give to those in need. He never said to give to those in want. Giving shoes to a child who doesn’t have any is what He tells us is the right thing to do. Giving someone a couple of hundred dollars so they can go buy the latest pair of in style red high-tops worn by a current super star is not what He expects of us. Nor would he approve of having the government tax us to provide “free” cell phones, cars, and other things they’ve decided are worthy of our giving instead of allowing us to decided where and how we choose to give. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Chris, I want to give from my heart, because I believe that is what Christ wants us to do. I don’t want the government making that decision for us. People have stopped giving to charities and churches because the government is taking more than Caesars share leaving very little to give to God.
I found this on-line and think it does pretty good at explaining God’s blessings vs. greed of possessions.
Worldly Prosperity or Godly Charity?:
Charity and Unity
“Considering the way prosperity is emphasized by its proponents, a phrase can be coined something like this, “By this, all men will know that you are Christ’s disciples, if you prosper in this world.” In contrast to such notion, heed what Christ said to His disciples, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (Jn. 13:34-35).
How does the world know that we are the true disciples of Christ?
Although God prospered certain people, nowhere in the Scripture does it claim that prosperity is the evidence of recognition by the world as being Christ’s disciples. The old English word for love is “charity”. And Christ said that it is through charity, through love for one another, that the whole world will know that we are His disciples.
The greatest tragedy in Christianity today is not lack of prosperity but lack of charity.
The greatest curse upon this world is not poverty of money but poverty of love.
The world has to witness how we Christians love each other, how we encourage each other, how we forgive each other, how we help each other, how we honor each other, how we pray for each other and how we live together for the glory of our Lord.”
Chris, This sure reads like a story out of “Atlas Shrugged.”
Beretta Leaves Maryland Because Of Stricter Gun Laws:
New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.
Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.
Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”
He added that Beretta paid approximately $31 million in taxes, employs 400 people, and had invested $73 million in the business over the past several decades. Despite being such a prominent player in the local economy, Beretta was unable to prevent legislators from passing tighter gun control laws. Ironically, Beretta manufactures some firearms that are now banned in Maryland.
Republican state Delegate Anthony J. O’Donnell lamented: “Losing [Beretta] would be a big disappointment. Maryland has a reputation for having a horrible business climate, and this would be one more nail in the coffin.”
Legislators had ample warning. Back in the ‘90s, when Maryland beefed up gun control laws, Beretta moved one of its warehouses a short drive away to Virginia.
Beretta’s bold move is regrettable but understandable. Reh told reporters, “Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?”
All of Beretta’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Even as Reh lamented Beretta’s looming departure and emphasized the company’s centrality in the local economy during the hearing, Maryland legislators grilled Reh on self-defense.
One legislator stated: “Other than target shooting, the only other reason [for a semi-automic firearm] would be for self-defense… [Why would you need a] rifle that accommodates 20 rounds semi-automatic for deer hunting? … It’s only very infrequently that someone commits a crime with an assault weapon – why do you need one for self-defense?”
from http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/beretta-leaves-maryland-following-stricter-gun-laws
Chris, And here is another and possibly more real business/es example of those fictional ones in Rand’s book.
Gun Manufacturer Will Leave Connecticut Over Gun Control Legislation: ‘A Call to All Involved in Our Industry to Leave This State’:
“A Connecticut gun-maker has announced Wednesday it intends to leave the state following the passage of gun control legislation it says tramples on the rights of citizens and does not show enough consideration for the industry.”
More from Business Insider:
Larry Keane, the senior vice president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation, the powerful gun lobby located in Newtown, Conn., warned that the new laws could entice additional gun manufacturers to move out of the state. He also hinted that there could be a legal challenge to the laws.
Connecticut is home to a large number of gun and ammunition companies, including the iconic Colt Manufacturing Co.
Keane told Business Insider that the CEO of at least one other gun company besides PTR had expressed a desire to move. He thinks that more manufacturers are looking to get out of what many perceive as an increasingly hostile environment to gun owners, noting comments made by Malloy last weekend comparing NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre to “one of the clowns at the circus.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/10/gun-manufacturer-will-leave-connecticut-over-gun-control-legislation-a-call-to-all-involved-in-our-industry-to-leave-this-state/
Tina: “Ayn Rand was an atheist…so what!”
You really didn’t read any of that interview, did you? It wasn’t that she was an atheist. It was that she was committed to the total destruction of religion, which she viewed as “evil.” She was an extreme atheist who put down the religious as simple-minded and irrational. I’m an agnostic and I find her comments about religion offensive. I don’t like pushy atheists any more than pushy Christians.
“Her point, even from a Christian perspective, is still valid.”
Which point? Her point that the weak do not deserve love? That few are worthy of love? That it is immoral and “impossible” to love another above oneself? That self-sacrifice is immoral?
These points are the very antithesis of Christianity. She does not have a valid point from a Christian perspective at all.
Chris” “It wasn’t that she was an atheist. It was that she was committed to the total destruction of religion, which she viewed as “evil.”
But since I don’t view her as a religious figure I ignore her opinion on religion.
Her opinion on industry and government is worth considering since the government polices she abhors destroy industry, creativity and economic success for (most) everyone. (The elitists at the top of the commune always do very well)
“I don’t like pushy atheists any more than pushy Christians.”
Pushy agnostics can be a pain in the butt too!
“Which point? Her point that the weak do not deserve love? ”
Love? Love? “What’s love got to do with it,” (Tina Turner)!
In order to understand (not endorse) her position you have to be willing to admit that human beings are selfish by nature. We are born helpless and needy. We have to learn to share (watch any two-three year old), we have to learn to both give and receive love. If you don’t get that you are probably deluding your self.
The position describes a basic reality of life. Self interest, the need to feed oneself, cloth oneself, provide for a family, presses people to overcome their circumstances and fears to achieve and succeed. Using (God given IMHO) talents and abilities people naturally pursue those things that compel or interest them. The fact that this is basic in humans does not mean that other qualities don’t also exist. It doesn’t mean a person doesn’t also have (developed) a capacity for great compassion, love and giving.
You don’t seem to believe self interest exists yet I doubt you have pursued your chosen field to please or feed others. I doubt you drag yourself out of bed because it makes your neighbor happy or puts another hour of learning in his resume. Even if you see yourself as being uniquely loving and giving you still always have your own interests in mind. (You would be of use to no one if you didn’t)
Her point is valid, Chris. Her major position, best known from her famous work, “Atlas Shrugged” is about the way overpowering and intrusive government blunts, impedes, and eventually destroys human urge, creativity, industry, and accomplishment.
As a progressive you probably hate this message. You have some nutty belief that giving all of our personal power over to a collective, self sacrificing, would somehow make life easier for the less fortunate. Nations around the world under this type of government result in less opportunity for the poor and greater shared misery with a few elitists tyrants living in luxury!
Free nations with limited government become opportunity machines for anyone who bothers to take the initiative on his own behalf to better his own circumstances through work, learning, saving, and advancement. As it turns out that people living in these conditions also become generous, giving, charitable human beings.
If you could just let go of the social justice position for a time you might learn something new and valuable and if you really do care about uplifting the poor, giving them more opportunity to move up, you will listen, absorb and learn.
“She does not have a valid point from a Christian perspective at all.”
And an agnostics cares because?
More evidence of higher education failure…
Meloanie Sturm, Think Again
Tina, it’s really amazing that you can take an innoccuous statement like “Children belong to their communities” and see it as evil, but you can look at a woman who flat-out says that the weak don’t deserve love and try and make it sound inoccuous. Your judgment and reading comprehension are completely clouded by your political bias.
“But since I don’t view her as a religious figure I ignore her opinion on religion.”
But her opinion on religion, specifically Christ’s message, overlaps with her main philosophical message. She was asked about Christ in the context of her overall message that altruism is evil and self-interest is the highest good. You’re trying to pretend that her anti-religious views were simply a side issue, easily seperable from her larger economic and philosophical views. But that’s simply not the case.
“Pushy agnostics can be a pain in the butt too!”
People who are pushy about their agnosticism are pretty rare. I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head who fits that description. If you are talking about me, then please provide an example of me trying to push agnosticism on anyone. I have made passionate arguments here about the separation of church and state, but I’ve never tried to impose my agnostic views on anyone.
“In order to understand (not endorse) her position you have to be willing to admit that human beings are selfish by nature.”
I do understand and admit that humans are selfish by nature, and her position is still repugnant. She’s not just saying it’s natural to be selfish, she is saying that it’s the highest good, and that altruism is the root of immorality.
“We have to learn to share (watch any two-three year old), we have to learn to both give and receive love. If you don’t get that you are probably deluding your self.”
But Ayn Rand didn’t advocate learning to give and receive love. She believes that the poor and the weak are undeserving of love. Again, this is the total opposite of Christ’s message. And it’s not just a religious issue, it’s a major philosophical one. As you can see in the interview, Rand fancied herself as someone who rejected all traditional forms of philosophy and morality, and believed she was creating a more sophisticated moral framework than anyone who had come before. (Pretty arogant of her.)
“Self interest, the need to feed oneself, cloth oneself, provide for a family, presses people to overcome their circumstances and fears to achieve and succeed. Using (God given IMHO) talents and abilities people naturally pursue those things that compel or interest them. The fact that this is basic in humans does not mean that other qualities don’t also exist. It doesn’t mean a person doesn’t also have (developed) a capacity for great compassion, love and giving.”
I agree with this entirely, Tina, but the problem is that you are not accurately describing Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and I have little doubt that if she were here today, she would say as much.
Ayn Rand argued that it was sometimes morally acceptable to show compassion and giving to people who you loved, but she did not view this as altruistic. She believed it was NEVER acceptable to value another person’s life over one’s own. (Again, total opposite of Christ.)
“You don’t seem to believe self interest exists…”
This is a complete strawman argument, and you know it.
“Her major position, best known from her famous work, “Atlas Shrugged” is about the way overpowering and intrusive government blunts, impedes, and eventually destroys human urge, creativity, industry, and accomplishment.”
No, that is not her “major position.” Her position on government is part of her larger ideology that selfishness is the highest virture, and altruism the root of immorality.
“As a progressive you probably hate this message. You have some nutty belief that giving all of our personal power over to a collective, self sacrificing, would somehow make life easier for the less fortunate.”
This is an extreme misinterpretation of my beliefs. I have never argued that all of our personal power should be turned over to a collective. I have always argued for a balance of rights and responsibilities. I have spoken passionately here about human rights and have agreed with you at times about certain instances of government overreach. Please do not misrepresent my beliefs in this way again.
“Nations around the world under this type of government result in less opportunity for the poor and greater shared misery with a few elitists tyrants living in luxury!”
What nations are you talking about? Most European nations are more socialized than the U.S., and most of them have greater social mobility than the U.S. That means that in those nations today, there is actually more opportunity for the poor to achieve. The numbers don’t lie.
“And an agnostics cares because?”
I care because I am sick of so many Republicans parroting Ayn Rand out of one side of their mouth, and claiming that we should be a Christian nation out of the other. You cannot have both. I care because I believe Christ’s message of being compassionate to the poor is powerful, and I do not see it at all reflected in current Republican policy. Not just because Republicans don’t believe in using the government to redistribute money, but because the things they say about the poor, in public and in private, are reprehensible and reveal a total lack of personal compassion.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” -Mitt Romney
“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. . . .They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of “I do this and you give me cash” unless it’s illegal.” –Newt Gingrich
“There’s another place if none of these options work to find food; there’s always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August.” –Rush Limbaugh
Can you imagine any of these words coming out of Jesus Christ’s mouth? I can’t. But I can sure see them coming out of Ayn Rand’s.
Libby: “Brilliant and thoughtful? An apologist for McCarthy?”
You guys on the left are going to have to drop this “apologist” line. Pointing out that McCarthy was right hardly makes one an apologist. Most who point out the facts about communists working to undermine America also point out that McCarthy’s method was flawed. And besides, one look at the progressive influence in our colleges, government, legal system, entertainment, and even industry since the sixties is more than enough evidence that his warning was something that American’s should have taken more seriously!
David Horowitz has an insiders perspective on the communist influence since his parents were communist and he was an activist himself. Read his book, “Radical Son” for an eye popping account of his activism and later transformation.
Yes Libby he is thoughtful, brilliant, and obviously more willing to consider another position than his brainwashed detractors are willing to consider his!
Chris: “it’s really amazing that you can take an innoccuous statement like “Children belong to their communities” and see it as evil…”
Evil? I don’t recall writing that what she said was evil. But if that was your impression it isn’t surprising that you don’t understand the point I am making.
“…but you can look at a woman who flat-out says that the weak don’t deserve love and try and make it sound inoccuous.”
How about irrelevant to the subject at hand? Her religious views have nothing to do with the point that tyrannical government oppresses personal creativity, innovation, and industry which was the point of Peggy’s comment:
it seems to me your response was a knee-jerk reaction based on your own distaste for Rands personal religious and moral outlook rather than the point Peggy was making.
“You’re trying to pretend that her anti-religious views were simply a side issue, easily seperable from her larger economic and philosophical views.”
I’m not pretending anything! I don’t have to become an Ayn Rand clone to appreciate her thoughts on the destructive nature of overreaching and oppressive governments. It’s possible to agree without adopting every nuance in her thinking. If people didn’t have this capability we would just be cookie cutter people. I know progressives thrive on agreement with each other but stepping outside the box can be very thrilling and enlightening. You might want to try it.
“People who are pushy about their agnosticism are pretty rare.”
That doesn’t mean they aren’t “pushy” or a pain in the butt 😉
“She’s not just saying it’s natural to be selfish, she is saying that it’s the highest good, and that altruism is the root of immorality.”
And if we were discussing religion and morality, rather than government involvement and control in our lives, the point would be worth discussing; we were not. Since we were not I will let your long “lesson” stand on its own as a distraction.
“I believe Christ’s message of being compassionate to the poor is powerful, and I do not see it at all reflected in current Republican policy.”
You do not see a lot Chris, and much of what you think you know is flat out wrong.
Republicans, conservatives, believe that government is incapable of real compassion. They believe that compassion, love, and charity are personal responsibilities. We also believe that a hand out is a poor excuse for real opportunity and personal hands on charity.
Chris if government charity and compassion is so good why, after nearly fifty years and trillions of dollars have we failed to move more people out of poverty. Government programs perpetuate poverty. As I have often said the money would have been better spent on training programs and better schools in poor neighborhoods. The effect that welfare had on the family has been very destructive. Private giving at least attempts to move people from being dependent and needy to being productive and capable. Government cannot, does not, do that.
I have to leave so I can’t respond to everything you have written point by point. If there is time this weekend I will look at this again.
Tina: “How about irrelevant to the subject at hand? Her religious views have nothing to do with the point…”
As I’ve already explained, her belief that the weak are not worthy of love is not a “religious” one. It is a philosophical one.
I see the point you are making now about how you can appreciate Rand’s view of government without accepting her larger philosophy…but that is something that I don’t see acknowledged often by conservatives who praise Rand. If you can acknowledge that her larger philosophy was problematic while still believing in her ideas about government, than I can respect that. However, I still disagree. Her view of government comes directly from her “every man for himself” worldview. It’s a socially isolationist view that denies our responsibilities to our fellow man. In the Mike Wallace interview, Ayn Rand said, “Nobody has ever given a reason why man should be his brothers’ keeper…” I believe Jesus’ message, that we are our brothers’ keepers, is far more beautiful and humane, and I believe this message promotes greater freedom, not less.
Rand was also quite more radical than you, Tina, when it came to the notion of free markets, as you can see in this quote:
“Mike Wallace: And you believe there should be no right by the government to tax, you believe that there should be no such thing as welfare legislation, unemployment compensation, regulation during times of stress, certain kinds of rent controls, and things like that.
Ayn Rand: That’s right. I’m opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy. Let me put it briefly, I’m for the separation of state and economics. Just as we had separation of state and church, which led to peaceful co-existence among different religions, after a period of religious wars, so the same applies to economics. If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men.”
Tina, you’ve gotten angry with me before for saying that you favor an “unregulated free market,” and you’ve replied by saying that you believe there should be sensible regulations and some kind of safety net.
But Ayn Rand was totally opposed to any kinds of regulations, and any kinds of safety net. So when conservatives heap praise on Ayn Rand, and say our government should be modeled after her ideals…I have to be honest with you: it scares me. Her vision was radical in a way that I don’t think even most conservatives would appreciate if they gave it enough scrutiny.
Chris: “If you can acknowledge that her larger philosophy was problematic while still believing in her ideas about government, than I can respect that. However, I still disagree. Her view of government comes directly from her “every man for himself” worldview. It’s a socially isolationist view that denies our responsibilities to our fellow man.”
No it doesn’t. It’s your interpretation of what she believed and since you aren’t in her head you have no idea what she thought any more than the rest of us. I think she MAY have been saying we have to take care of ourselves FIRST so we can take care of each other. If I’m physically fit I can care of those who aren’t. If I’m financially stable I can give to support those who aren’t. But, if someone breaks my legs and picks my pocket I can’t do either.
Is it not possible Chris that was Rand’s thinking, since it’s also what I think she may have been trying to convey in her book? Are you willing to accept that others do and will believe differently and have the right to do so?
Chris you absolutely amaze me and break my heart with your constant demands that those of us who believe differently than you must admit we are wrong and convert to your way of thinking. You remind me of a man I knew who believed ONLY Baptist would get in heaven and everyone else was going to hell. Trying to reason with this man was a waste of time. I hope and pray you will some day accept people for who they are and celebrate their differences. Stop telling people to admit they are wrong and you are right all of the time, because you’re not. Your my way or the highway attacks will never work because just like driving from point A to point B where there are a dozen different ways of getting there people too will travel down different paths. You can’t force everyone to take your route nor do you have the right to force them.
I used to call myself a Republican, now I call myself a Constitutional/Fiscal Conservative and am leaning more towards the Libertarian point of view with their hands off, “don’t pick my pocket or break my leg” style of governance. Defining or labeling oneself these days is difficult because the world around me is changing so fast, while my core beliefs stay the same.
There should be a very interesting show today at 2pm and repeated at 6pm & 9pm when Glenn Beck a Mormon has Penn Gillette, an atheist and a libertarian, along with Rabbi Lapin on his show. Three individuals with such differing beliefs sitting down to have a civil exchange of ideas sounds like a great way to spend an hour.
Gillette was also on Beck’s show yesterday for a kind of preview to today’s show. A Mormon and an Atheist who are friends and respect each other. Amazing!
Here is a portion of the show, if you’re interested.
Penn Jillette Talks Guns, Islam, Entitlements….:
“Despite what seems a grim state of affairs, Jillette somehow remains optimistic. After reviewing a series of past events from decades past, the “God, No!” author made the conclusion that, at least, we are no worse off today.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/11/penn-jillette-talks-guns-islam-entitlements-and-magic-on-theblaze-tv/
Also noticed this took place last night at UC Davis. Wonder how it turned out.
Ayn Rand Group Preps for Islamic Showdown at UC Davis:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/11/ayn-rand-group-preps-for-islamic-showdown-at-uc-davis/
“No it doesn’t. It’s your interpretation of what she believed and since you aren’t in her head you have no idea what she thought any more than the rest of us.”
Peggy, I gave you direct quotes where Rand says the weak don’t deserve love, self-sacrifice is always immoral, and Christ’s philosophy was immoral. I am not drawing any “interpretation” other than what she actually said. There is no more proof I can offer you. If you want to believe in a white-washed, sanitized view of Rand’s philosophy than that is your prerogative, but don’t pretend she didn’t say exactly what she said. Philosophical disagreements are fine, but you seem to conflate fact and opinion sometimes, and I am very uncomfortable with that.
Chris: “Peggy, I gave you direct quotes where Rand says the weak don’t deserve love, self-sacrifice is always immoral, and Christ’s philosophy was immoral. I am not drawing any “interpretation” other than what she actually said. There is no more proof I can offer you. If you want to believe in a white-washed, sanitized view of Rand’s philosophy than that is your prerogative, but don’t pretend she didn’t say exactly what she said. Philosophical disagreements are fine, but you seem to conflate fact and opinion sometimes, and I am very uncomfortable with that.”
Chris, Once again I WILL offer you proof that you are wrong. You ARE presenting your interpretation as an argument to justify your beliefs and not Ms. Rand’s.
I went looking to find when Ms. Rand made the selfish love quote to see if she made it when she was very young and had changed her views when she aged. Instead I found great articles addressing this issue, and long lists of quotes to choose from. It became difficult to stop selecting the quotes for fear of creating a book on this blog. And the article was so interesting I ended up copying most of it too.
Read them if you like Chris and learn another’s point of view or remain entrenched in your own locked mine demanding the world revolve around you. I really don’t care any more what you do. Like Ms. Rand I accept I can’t help someone who doesn’t want to help himself.
Ayn Rand’s True concept of ‘Selfishness’:
Ayn Rand is thought of as opposing charity, friendship or good will, while encouraging selfishness.
But what was her Real concept of selfishness? What did she stand for and what was she against?
Certainly NOT what today’s thick headed idiots think she did.
I am referring to persons such as Hitchens [Link] or this dude [Link] which says the following about her views:
“She thought that all the government programs, Medicare, social security etc’ were for the weak, and that being selfish was the best thing you could do. Being altruistic and helping others she thought was evil”.
Right, Ayn Rand; the exterminator of the weak.
Dude, what the hell is the matter with you? Are you really that stupid, too lazy to try to study someone’ actual views or just finding it easier to attack a straw man? Yeah. Freakin’ Liar. Aren’t you tired of these?
Ayn Rand was not against friendship, family, love, gift-giving, providing help or charity to someone or doing something to make someone else’s life better. She was not against taking out the garbage on your wife’s turn when she is having a bad day and is tired. Ayn Rand had a very romantic view of love. She saw it as one of the highest experiences a man can have and she would certainly be motivated to give a lot of herself to those she loved.
Regarding charity: In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, the main character, Dagny Taggart offers a free meal and a ride to a homeless man that has boarded the train illegally. The reason she did is because the man appeared to have been a hard working man one time and she offered him charity out of respect for that.
So this may come as a shock to some idiots out there, but Ayn Rand was not fighting for the extermination of the weak and the prevalence of value-less sociopath gold diggers. She was also opposed to the type we consider “selfish” today, who has no moral values and would sell their own mother to slavery to make an extra penny.
Her concept of selfishness takes some attention to grasp and a moment of concentration and thinking. Something a lot of people are apparently incapable of doing nowadays. So listen up, jagheads, because I am about to explain what she really meant.
In her words;
“The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”
She does not approve of altruism either. Ayn Rand supported Rational Selfishness. This means a way of living in which a man takes the time to think about what is good for him or bad for him, both for the short term and the long term and chooses his values by thinking. It is a system in which his values are rational and required for human life, instead of values which are destructive, against the requirements of human life or are just senseless.
She does NOT mean the commonly understood concept of selfishness, and that is the source of the confusion.
Ayn Rand thought that humans beings are a social creature, with love and friendship being a very important value. Her heroes were men of integrity who produced and traded for their existence, not robbed and deceived to get their hands on a pile of money. Like, hello? The guys that did do that were the villains. Didn’t you read the book?
John Galt quit his job as an engineer to start a war again the world to provide a better world for the woman he loved. How many men do you know today who would take this course of action? They preach ‘altruism’ but no love is possible when one is being made to feel guilty for everything and when one is expected to deliver “love” as if they were a cow at a dairy farm.
Ayn Rand thought that one gives love, friendship and sometimes charity when one judges the receiving individual to be deserving of it. She considered it a selfish delight to give something and invest in those one loves and love itself, is a very selfish value.
She recognized that peaceful cooperation and trade among men was the only way to prosperity and therefore she considered a thief immoral.
She thought that to be selfish meant to think hard of one’s decisions, not to blindly chase every random desire. She one should live their life passionately, while making choices based on thinking.
The secrete to understand her concept is that charity does not have to be a product of altruism. Caring for someone enough to help them, can be a selfish act. It is selfish because other people are of spiritual value to us, as well as material. By valuing ourselves we also value others with similar virtues and it is natural to express that value in one’s behavior, in a way that works with one’s specific context of life.
Anyway I hope I helped you understand what Ayn Rand’s “Selfishness” is all about. It is not an easy concept to grasp since it is so different from today’s concept of “selfishness”.
I suspect a lot of people would come to this point without a feeling of new understanding, but rather something like: “well, she says that Ayn Rand thought friendship and love were good, and that Ayn Rand is not entirely opposed to giving, so that means that…. I know! It must mean that Ayn Rand was part altruistic, despite the evil things she preached for!” Well, no, chuckle head. That was not my point. My point was that she would give to others and consider it SELFISH. Yes, giving to others can be selfish. So in those times she gave of herself, she was following her principles to a tee.
That, my friend, is the whole point. Selfishness does not equal sociopath, certainly no in Ayn Rand’s view. Her concept of a selfish man was a producer, an inventor, an industrialist, a hard working man happily doing his job well and making good friends, an artist, a family person hoping to raise his children well. All those are selfish actions according to her. They cease to be selfish when one does them out of duty – in THAT case they are altruism and she was against that.
http://ifat-glassman.blogspot.com/2012/08/ayn-rands-true-concept-of-selfishness.html
Ayn Rand Quotes:
“Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that’s a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they’d never understand what I meant. It’s a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do — then, I know they don’t believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God — whatever anyone chooses to call God — is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own.”
“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it require. You damned men, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom – while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? – by what standard?”
“…the person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him.”
“Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.”
“To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I.’“
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
“Honest people are never touchy about the matter of being trusted.”
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
“The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.”
http://www.quotesby.net/Ayn-Rand
Chris: “I would also add that I don’t believe it’s possible to simultaneously follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand.”
Being that it’s Sunday I got to thinking how the Bible is filled with examples of God being a loving God, but also being a very stern and demanding one too.
Moses wandered the desert for 40 years, but his life ends in the months at the end of the 40 years in the desert, his own disobedience having lost him the right to enter the promised land. The people suffered too during those 40 years and when they tested God with their old ways and idol worshiping he punished them.
God was both just and merciful when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah while saving Lot and his daughters. Lot’s wife chose to disobey Him and suffered the consequences.
This is what I think Ms. Rand may have also believed. “He calls the sin, or the actions, of the people evil. God did not hate the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, …”
“Does God call the sin or the people exceedingly evil? He calls the sin, or the actions, of the people evil. God did not hate the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but they hated God by sinning against him, sinning against themselves, and sinning against other people. Eventually their sin was so great that it cried out for justice. Just as the evil in Noah’s time caused a great flood. And just as the rebellion at the Tower of Babel caused God to separate men. God will punish evil deeds done by unrepentant men. But he will also save the righteous, even if there are just a few.”
http://sundayschoolsources.com/lessons/OT/Genesis/SodomGomorrah.htm
I think you’ve gotten the idea by now and I don’t need to go into Noah and the ark and why God chose him to help save the world. Nor should I need to explain why Christ destroyed the money-changer’s tables at the temple entrance. Did Rand’s beliefs really differ so much from what the Bible teaches us about God’s and Christ’s laws and teachings or was she simply a non church going believer who walked a similar walk.
Wayne Root, classmate of Barack Obama at Columbia in the early eighties, expresses some thoughts about the leftist radicals at Columbia in an article for Human Events. Here’s an excerpt:
A plan to destroy America hatched at an American institution of higher learning.
Now, think about this. This plan is the same plan that the extremists of Islam have had in mind for America and for all of the free nations on the earth. Whether these forces are aligned or at odds or somewhere in between really doesn’t matter; their stated purpose is to destroy the underpinning values and ideals that have made America a free and prosperous nation.
Americans who love freedom and capitalism should at the very least make the nation’s institutions of higher learning aware that we will not tolerate indoctrination…or plots designed to destroy our country.
Another great article on education in general from the folks at The American Thinker features the lessons to be learned from fables. The author concludes:
Interesting. Yardley spends a whole article ranting about how progressives allegedly hate Aesop, then doesn’t bother to provide even one shred of evidence to support his premise. Not a single quote from anyone in education arguing that Aesop shouldn’t be taught. And your response is “great article?”
He’s also ill-informed about the Common Core. It doesn’t limit the amount of literature that our kids are supposed to read, but rather spreads reading across the curriculum so that kids are exposed to more informational texts. It places a high value on literature, and makes Shakespeare required reading.
There is a large growing concern about Core Curriculum and CSCOPE which is being used by schools without the approval of some school boards because it is not considered curriculum and is only available on-line. By contract teachers are not allowed to share the course work content with parents.
Besides the questionable content issues the mission of these programs appears to be a tracking means for children’s educational program plans. Note also Obama’s budget includes funds for pre-K component.
‘Do Not Pick Up the Pencil’: New York Parents Coach Kids to Refuse Common Core Tests:
Common Core, the controversial set of educational standards aimed at firming up students’ grasp of math and language, has already attracted criticism from sources both left and right. On the one hand, privacy advocates fret over the program’s data mining on students. On the other, teachers complain that the standards are overly rigid and won’t lead to a better education system. And now, parents angry over their students being tested on subjects they haven’t had time to learn are striking back as well — by giving their children a truly hands’ on lesson in civil disobedience.
WHEC Rochester reports:
Some parents are really fired up over this. News10NBC talked with parents outside School No. 33 including city school board member Willa Powell. The New York State Education Department says students are obligated to take the state tests, just like any other test and cannot opt out. But parents say they have the ultimate authority when it comes to their kids. They’re going to tell their kids to not pick up the pencil and tell the teacher they don’t have to take the state test.
Willa Powell, City School Board Member, said, “Guide your child to tell them how they go about refusing. How they go about refusing is simply do not pick up the pencil. Do not put their name on the page and say I don’t have to take this test. It’s that simple.”
Beth Laidlaw, City School Parent, said, “My child would not take a test whose score is not reported to the classroom teacher so it can’t help the classroom teacher do her job better. The scores are not included in the report card grade so it can’t hurt the child not to take it. As a parent, as a U.S. citizen, it is wonderful that I am able to coach my child to refuse these tests.”
Video:
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2996579.shtml?cat=566
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/14/do-not-pick-up-the-pencil-new-york-parents-coach-kids-to-refuse-common-core-tests/
States Laws to Resist Common Core Standards Implementation:
Six states put forward legislation to remove its obligations from Common Core standards implementation. A majority of states are in the process of phasing in the new national K-12 curriculum. However, the curriculum overhaul geared towards a modern world is facing resistance from states rights advocates.
State lawmakers in South Dakota‘s House want to “require the Board of Education to obtain legislative approval before adopting any further Common Core standards.” House Bill 1204 passed with a 36-32 vote, but was recently rejected by the state’s Senate Education Committee
http://ivn.us/progress-report/2013/04/09/states-laws-to-resist-common-core-standards-implementation/
Despite city’s reassurance, Common Core exams cause concern:
http://gothamschools.org/2013/04/08/despite-citys-reassurance-common-core-exams-cause-concern/
Want to See What CSCOPE and Common Core (Even Homeschooling) Lessons Look Like?:
“They make kids watch a video that makes capitalism look bad and Communist China look good. It’s absolutely unbelievable.”
The China Rises website provides preview clips and information on the content featured in the program. Notably, the “Party Games” and “Getting Rich” sections, Card explained, are of particular interest as they “address the changing politics and economy of China.”
Card notes that the video preview made available under the “Getting Rich” sub-section of the site talks about capitalism’s “cruelties” as it shows a man whose lost his hand in a machine. The section appears at the 1.12 mark.
When asked how long questionable lessons like China Rises have been on his son’s roster of studies, Card said he first noticed curriculum changing roughly a year or two ago when a religious studies lesson favored the Muslim faith over Christianity.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/02/want-to-see-what-cscope-and-common-core-even-homeschooling-lessons-look-like-these-parents-opened-up-to-theblaze/
There are pages and pages of similar links available on line.
Thank you Peggy. A code with a provision that attempts to lock teachers, parents and local school boards out is highly suspect in my opinion.
If it’s true they “make kids watch a video that makes capitalism look bad and Communist China look good” this is propaganda.
Sam Blumenfeld at the New American went in search of the originators of CCSS and expressed several concerns:
These folks want nothing to do with fables because they don’t further the notions of the collective. These are not educators, they are leftist indoctrination activists.
Jim Yardley of the American Thinker is spot on in his analysis of what these left education bureaucrats are aiming to accomplish. The lessons to be learned from the study of fables don’t fit the narrative because they suggest that industry in an individual are more rewarding and moral than is dependency on the collective.
Is it any wonder people are opting out of the public school system whenever possible?
Like I said in an earlier post I personally know this common core curriculum movement has been taking place since the late 1980s. The president of our community college wanted all of our degree graduation requirements changed to comply with the selected courses and also to add the writing across the curriculum component Chris also mentioned. He must have gotten this from one or more of the administrative state and national level organizations he belonged to and conferences he attended.
As I’ve also mentioned in the past one of our vice president of instruction is now serving as an administrator in the Dept. of Ed in DC. She had to have the same mind-set as this administration to get the position.
I see two concerns. The first being with this mandated core curriculum and its course content. It’s easier to control the content of a small group of courses over a large one. The second being with CSCOPE and it tracking students through its test and data collection. I see this a way to measure a student’s abilities and to place them on educational tracks designed to place them on vocational or university level ed. Plans. Why else would students be required to take tests that didn’t affect their grades and the results were not provided to the teacher or parents? It’s tracking, plan and simple, which was done away with decades ago when students used to be grouped by abilities. High learners in one class and slow learners in another.
Did you all catch Obama’s budget has the pre-K funding in it as one of those increases he’s willing to take away from the Soc. Sec. reductions? Does that not send up a red flag as to just how important this is? He’s willing to take on his own party who have a hands off on entitlements for this.