Thursday, November 23, 2017

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

[New York, 3 October 1789] 
 
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us, and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord

1789.

Go: Washington


https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

Monday, November 20, 2017

To Avoid Debacles Like Roy Moore, Repeal The 17th Amendment

 By

With less than a month to go before Alabama’s special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Republican candidate Roy Moore refuses to quit the race amid fallout over credible allegations of sexual assault dating from the 1970s, including that he initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl when he was 32.

Some polls still show Moore leading his Democratic opponent Doug Jones, while a poll conducted by the National Republican Senate Committee earlier this week shows Moore trailing Jones by 12 points.

Senate Republicans are calling on Moore to withdraw from the race, saying he’s “unfit to serve” and threatening not to seat him if he’s elected, but Moore isn’t backing down. His campaign has called the allegations a politically motivated “witch hunt” and Moore has vowed to stay in the race, which means there’s still a chance the people of Alabama might elect him to the U.S. Senate.

All of this could have been avoided if we’d just repealed the Seventeenth Amendment.

Good Reasons for Allowing States to Elect Senators

The Seventeenth Amendment says U.S. senators must be elected by popular vote, instead of by state legislatures. Adopted in 1913 during the height of the Progressive Era, the amendment supersedes the provisions in the Constitution that required senators to be elected by state legislatures.

The idea that state legislatures would elect senators might seem odd nowadays, but creating some distance between the popular vote and the election of senators was crucial to the Founders’ grand design for the republic. The original idea, spelled out in The Federalist Papers, was that the people would be represented in the House of Representatives and the states would be represented in the Senate. Seats in the House were therefore apportioned according to population while every state, no matter how large its populace, got two seats in the Senate.

The larger concept behind this difference was that Congress needed to be both national and federal in order to reflect not just the sovereignty of the people but also the sovereignty of the states against the federal government. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison explained that Congress shouldn’t pass laws “without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states.”

Besides tempering the passions of the electorate, empowering state legislatures to elect senators was meant to protect the states from the encroachments of the federal government. The tension was (and still is) between the dual sovereignty of the national government and the states. Writing in Federalist No. 39, Madison explains that while the House of Representatives is national because it “will derive its powers from the people of America,” the Senate “will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies.” We’ve lost much of this today, but the jurisdiction of the federal government, wrote Madison, “extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

Read more here:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/16/avoid-debacles-like-roy-moore-repeal-17th-amendment/#.WhC5wRl4V2J.facebook

Saturday, November 18, 2017

The Real Problem with American Education? | Intellectual Takeout

Daniel Lattier | October 25, 2016


Since its beginnings, America has directed most of its educational energies toward creating average students.
Already in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his classic Democracy in America,
“I do not believe that there is a country in the world where, in proportion to the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same time so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any… Their education ends at the age when [Europeans’] begins.”
The goal of Horace Mann (1796-1859)—sometimes called the “Father” of American education—was not to increase the number of exceptional students, but to increase the number of people with enough basic learning skills to participate in self-government. As education historian Lawrence Cremin writes,
“Throughout [Mann] was concerned with the greatest general proficiency of average students. Thus it was never the remarkable progress of a few which captured his attention but, rather, the more general progress of all.”
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, states passed laws making high school education compulsory. But this did not necessarily increase the quality of education; it simply increased the length of schooling. In fact, I might argue that it made high school education worse, in the same way that college standards have declined with the massive influx of students over the past 30-40 years.

On the local level, we in Minnesota know that the recent focus of our state’s education system is not on helping students excel, but on closing graduation and proficiency "gaps" between different races and income levels. The system’s success is thus being measured based on how many more average students it can produce.

On the national level, American students’ latest scores on the PISA (Programme of International Student Assessment)—the international test taken by 15 year-olds around the world—demonstrate the fruits of focusing on mediocrity. Depending on the subject, American students are average or slightly below average compared to their international peers:



These results are in part a reflection of the fact that, unlike many other countries, students of varying abilities are tested in America. However, a breakdown of the numbers also shows that America’s best performing students are being outperformed by many of the other countries’ best performing students. In other words, our best students are being brought down by the current system.

So, what is to be done? Is American education destined to forever remain focused on creating average students?

If things are to change, I think America is going to have to revisit the more simplistic understanding of equality on which our education system is based.

The current system still associates equality with sameness. It is designed in such a way that it fails to effectively take into account differences in academic capabilities and talents. Its stated goal is to make all students “college-ready,” and it increasingly wishes to subject all students to a common curriculum through high school. (Of course, all of this is quite ironic for a system that so frequently preaches about “diversity.”)

However, at the secondary level (where the complexity of concepts increases), when you throw students of diverse abilities and desires in the same school together, for the same amount of time, with the expectation that all of them should become proficient in the same material, you’re going to have to lower the difficulty of that material. You’re going to end up with a mediocre curriculum and education.

Most other countries don’t operate with this same simplistic understanding of equality. They provide all students with opportunities, but recognize that different abilities and desires require different kinds of opportunities. Many of the top scoring countries on the PISA exam—China, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, to name a few—have separate tracks for students when they reach high school age. Some students go on to a traditional academic track; others go on to a vocational track (with some classes in traditional subjects) that more swiftly prepares them for employment.

Maybe it is time for the American education system to look at expanding vocational opportunities in high school? It would make the academic track more rigorous, since it would be populated with students who have the necessary skills, knowledge base, and desire to be there. A separate vocational track would offer more alternatives to those students whose desires and talents lie elsewhere than the traditional academic path. In the end, I think it would better allow all students to flourish.

All men and women are created equal in dignity, but not all have the same abilities and desires when it comes to education. Only when the American education system recognizes this will it become better than average.

Source:
The Real Problem with American Education? | Intellectual Takeout

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Hump Day Hunnies

Been under the weather for the past few days so I have not posted since last Friday. Enjoy this weeks hunnies and I'll try and do better.