One common argument for the absolute pablum that passes for education today is that it has “benefits that cannot be quantified.” That is to say, if a very high proportion of what one learns in schools is ultimately not useful in “real life,” somehow this learning has unmeasurable benefit.

If these so-called “benefits” truly indeed cannot be “quantified,” how exactly does one know that they exist? Consider the tricky issue of measuring the value of life. As difficult a problem this is, there are ways of arranging and sorting life. One may accomplish this by categorizing in terms of size, genetic complexity, physical resemblance, or even social impact. Some of these ways may be more or less valuable (and, certainly, occupy many dimensions), but they are all methods of quantifying life.

Not only is it possible to quantify “life,” there are many ways of doing so. Surely, there must be at least one way to quantify the sorts of “non-useful” things that one must sit through in grade school.

Couple this with the student who is graduated through school and ends up with a diploma in his hands, yet lacks basic reading and arithmetic skills. Assuming that “unquantifiable benefits” even exist, how can they be considered beneficial for this poor slob? It sounds to me like that student just had 12 years of his life wasted while not learning anything of real substance. He hasn’t learned how to get by, nor will he unless he takes the initiative. The track record of such individuals is exceedingly poor.

As an aside, I don’t really think that there should even be grades, per se. There ought to be something more like a map of studies, with reading and arithmetic being the core (and perhaps one or two other subjects). In much the same way that college operates, there ought to be general areas of study. I think that a child, with parental consultation, ought to be able to make the decision based on what interests him as opposed to being forced into a box. If the child does not want to proceed beyond the core studies, then the child ought not to be forced to do so. The child may come around, in time, or he may not, but at least then he has the rudimentary skills to get by.

That said, I find it hard to believe that a child would not be interested in learning something at least for an hour or two a day, at first.

Ex-senator injured in mugging outside Chicago home

I heard this story on the radio, and I immediately rushed to the telephone to let all of my friends know, because it was such an important event that I felt that everybody needed to hear it.

Actually, no, I didn’t do that. I would have probably lost friends, as I heard about the story at around 6AM. Also, I was less than impressed by the headline: “Former US Senator blah blah blah.”

The first thought to my mind was, who the fuck cares? This was, of course, even before I heard the name of this very important person that has warranted news articles and radio air time (and probably television air time to boot): Carol Moseley Braun.

ZOMG! I remember her! She was the woman who courageously submitted the bill to impeach Bush–as a lame duck with about a month to go. Yeah, that’s courage and bravery.

I’m not going to downplay mugging and crime. Being victimized by somebody who wants nothing more than to rob you of your possessions is pretty frightening. But I’m not about to feel much sympathy for Braun, because that was her job as a US Senator! Only, she was doing it–along with her fellow senators and representatives–in the name of “the people,” “the greater good,” “the common good,” and so on.

Those phrases are bandied about, but they aren’t very meaningful, usually. Often, “the greater good” isn’t necessarily what’s best for the greatest number of people, but part of the thug’s–I mean, “elected representative’s”–vision for “society.” But most of the time, it isn’t even that–it’s about scratching your friends’ backs so they’ll scratch yours.

Of course, Braun will get a few more minutes in the spotlight but she doesn’t deserve them. Muggings happen all of the time. This one really isn’t special except for the delicious irony surrounding it.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=249

Convicted tax evaders due in court Tuesday

People like Ed Brown make it difficult to articulate my position with credibility. It’s not that he and I believe the same things–we don’t.

I suppose that it’s not so much of a problem, really. I don’t know why Ed Brown takes the position he does… I do have a sense that if he believed in a fully voluntary society, he would not take the position he currently holds. He might say, “molon labe,” after a fashion, but he would not necessarily be issuing writs to the court, ordering the case to be closed… he would not make pronouncements like, “I speak for her. You speak to the head. You don’t speak to the woman. That’s the way it was until the last decade or so.”

I know Ed’s been under a lot of stress lately, but the things he says are getting progressively nuttier. Not only that, but that last statement of his reflects a willingness to clobber his wife’s right to voluntary association… not to mention that wives of men have been “allowed” to speak to men that aren’t their husbands for a little longer than “about a decade” now.

My stance is that a society is based upon voluntary interaction. The society is primal. Anything that involves coercion is an aberration.

Due in large part to these thoughts, I’ve been considering rescinding my signature from the Free State Project’s Statement of Intent. Since I hold that, to paraphrase Gandhi, there is no wall of separation between the means and the end, I have significant problems with the modus operandi of the majority of the members of the FSP. They believe that one ought to use the system (a system of coercive power) against the system. But the means, in this case, is coercion! Coercion cannot induce voluntary action–it never has, and it never will. Coercion will actually depress voluntary action!

There are members of the FSP who do not kowtow to what is effectively the party line. But these, who are few in number, what do they accomplish? They throw themselves as a wrench into the gears. Have you ever seen a wrench that’s been tossed to the gears? It gets mangled. It quickly loses its effectiveness as a wrench.

Aside from all of this, the geographical limitations of the Free State Project are something of an absurdity. What about all of the individuals elsewhere that believe strongly in voluntaryism? Must they tear themselves away from their lives where they live, reducing their potential effectiveness as voluntary individuals in their communities, families, and social circles? Not only that, but the FSP is horribly limited in scope… and I’ll admit it: New Hampshire is cold. I like cold, moreso than hot, but it’s still cold.

I grew up in northern NJ, but this makes sense as my father’s parents came from western PA and my mother’s parents are Hungarian immigrants, with my mother being born in eastern Canada. So it makes some sense that I’m close, but not quite, northern NJ.

 

What American accent do you have?
Created by Xavier on Memegen.net

Mid-Atlantic. This is what everyone calls a Philadelphia accent although it’s also the accent of south Jersey, Baltimore, and Wilmington. Well, everyone that lives near there, that is. Outsiders can tell you talk differently from them even though they can’t tell what your accent is.

Southern. Love it or hate it, your accent says you’re probably from somewhere south of the Ohio River.

Northern. Whether you have the world famous Inland North accent of the Great Lakes area, or the radio-friendly sound of upstate NY and western New England, your accent is what used to set the standard for American English pronunciation (not much anymore now that the Inland North sounds like it does).

Take this quiz now – it’s easy!

We’re going to start with “cot” and “caught.” When you say those words do they sound the same or different?

Same, no wait I mean different, maybe, a little bit different… Different Same

I found myself selecting “neither” far more often than the standard “A or B” choices.

I could go into the assumptions behind each question, but I don’t have the time nor the interest to do so (and I’m not sure you have the time or interest to read my rantings on it, anyway), but I will give one example: “Prescription Drugs” is merely a term for government-approved drugs, so I don’t care if you get your “prescription drugs” from Canada or whatever–I think that the whole notion of “prescription drugs” ought to be delegitimized.

Since the questions were so skewed, I didn’t bother attempting to point out whether something was more or less important to me.

So I’ve pasted in my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (88%)
3. Ron Paul (81%)
4. Chuck Hagel (61%)
5. Newt Gingrich (54%)
6. Sam Brownback (53%)
7. Mitt Romney (48%)
8. Dennis Kucinich (46%)
9. Barack Obama (43%)
10. Tommy Thompson (38%)
11. Bill Richardson (37%)
12. Christopher Dodd (37%)
13. John McCain (37%)
14. Tom Tancredo (36%)
15. Elaine Brown (33%)
16. Al Gore (32%)
17. Fred Thompson (31%)
18. Duncan Hunter (30%)
19. Rudolph Giuliani (30%)
20. Mike Huckabee (27%)
21. Wesley Clark (26%)
22. John Edwards (25%)
23. Hillary Clinton (22%)
24. Jim Gilmore (21%)
25. Mike Gravel (21%)
26. Joseph Biden (18%)

I don’t really know who the majority of these people are… and honestly, I’m surprised to see that Newt Gingrich is considered to be in agreement with me on a simple majority of “the issues”… reading his “profile,” however, reassures me that he probably matched more of my “neither” votes; his actual positions are still quite far from mine.

The Libertarian guy comes closest, but there’s still the little detail of having to have a president at all that I disagree with on a fundamental level, so he doesn’t get my vote, either.

All of the “traditional” candidates are, predictably, not in agreement with me the vast majority of the time. This is of no surprise to me, however, as all of them are committed to stealing the resources of others to redistribute to their friends.

I do have a name for the “Theoretical Ideal Candidate,” however: “None of the Above.”

I think that the election for the president of the United States of America ought to be treated with all of the respect it deserves.

So let’s make fun of potential presidential candidate match-ups!

The first one that came to mind was: Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani. If they run against each other, it’ll be known as “The Subway Series.”

Let’s hear your ideas.