Happy Give-Thanksing.
Apologies, Coffee drinkers, for failing to deliver two steaming cups in a row. You may boycott me if you wish.
Stupid is as Stupid Does:
I have said for years that if our nation falls, it will be because of one underlying cause from which all other problems will be derived: the lack and erosion of civil virtue. With civic virtue comes civic knowledge, and through that knowledge citizens can take not only an active part in our nation, but also a meaningful part. A citizenry that lacks civic virtue cannot have adequate civic knowledge, and thus, they can not make meaningful contributions. What contributions that they do make, will be poor, and perhaps even detrimental.
Let me be clear on one thing. We are losing our civic knowledge, which is a clear indicator that our civic virtue has long since began to erode. Want proof? Two-thousand five-hundred eight American adults, with education levels ranging from advanced degrees to no high school diplomas, were given 33 multiple choice questions on various subjects pertaining to "civil literacy," or American history and institutions, by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The results are appalling. The segment from Harvard, unsurprisingly, did the best with a 69.56. Fifty-six percent of the Americans who took part in this test could identify Paula Abdul correctly - as a judge on "American Idol." Easy, right? But only 21% recognized a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. Only 24% are aware that the establishment of an official religion is barred by the First Amendment. I'm sure they all know that it entitles them to all sorts of "free speech" though, since they all yammer about that even if they're cursing in a restaurant.
You are not inoculated to failure by getting a college degree, either. A bachelor's degree will net an average score of 57%, or failing. Tens of thousands of dollars spent on a bachelor's degree will translate into a score increase of 13 percentage points over those with "merely" a high school diploma. College EDUCATORS scored a 55.
What, you might ask, is scarier than a citizenry whose ignorance leaves them ripe for manipulation by politicians hell bent on subverting the Constitution? How about politicians who don't know what the Constitution says? The ISI's report says, "Elected officials score lower than the general public." Imagine that.
You can take ISI's quiz, HERE if you'd like. I scored an 84.8, which while far and away better than most, still saddens me.
I must say one thing, in full disclosure. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute traditionally has a conservative bent, so some of the economic-based questions probably have "ISI correct answers" that a liberal typically wouldn't agree with. I didn't like that aspect, even though I'm not even remotely an economist - and because I'm not, I didn't really "get" some of the answers. But while I can argue that those questions are biased, questions asking which speech a certain popular phrase came from are fair game, and Americans failed them as frequently as they did the biased questions.
But take a look at the summary page on the test results. Conservatives, who would agree with the ISI's assertions on the economic questions, fared worse than liberals. You can peruse other portions of the test, such as the major findings, additional findings, and the survey method. I think that after weighing all evidence, one can come away from this firmly convinced that we're in trouble.
"Office of the President-Elect?":
As you may have recently seen, Barack Obama has taken to giving press conferences in front of a podium labeled "The Office of the President Elect." This has sparked a great deal of discussion in the media, to include the so-called blogosphere. It is also preposterous. When this first came out, many bloggers and pundits, including a surprisingly high number of liberals, were somewhat taken aback by Obama's use of this term and podium adornment, feeling it was cheap showmanship. Then Obama's defenders brought to bear the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, interpreting that this act created such an Office. And then there was all sorts of apologizing and retractions, made reluctantly by most conservative bloggers, who in their apology just criticized something else.
But there was no need to apologize or retract anything. There is no Office of the President Elect. What the Presidential Transition Act does is give support to the President-elect and his staff in order to ease the transition. It gives office space, if the President-elect asks for it. Office space is not an Office (proper noun). It allows the President-elect and Vice-President-elect to use the mail in the performance of transition related duties. Free mail use does not an Office make. Let me repeat for those of you who are easily swayed by feeble arguments that office space equals and Office: The so-called Office of the President Elect, while used before Obama, exists not in reality, but in the minds of ego-maniacal politicians with a flair for showmanship. See, an Office (proper noun) must have powers associated with it, otherwise it's not an Office. Do you see the difference between the two? There is no Office of the President Elect. Obama has no power to do anything. There may be office space for the President-elect, but no Office of said person. Obama has even said as much, which makes his use of the "Office" even more absurd.
Further, Obama technically isn't the President-elect yet. That doesn't happen until the Electoral College convenes in December. Nevertheless, I have no problem calling him the President-elect. The Electoral College will elect him. But I do have a problem with these faux-Offices with no power invented solely to make someone appear more authoritative. You're going to be the President, buddy, stop with the theatrics. Especially when you've already been criticized before for such things.
Muhammad, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny:
Germany's first Professor of Islamic Theology, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, recently asked that someone kill him as soon as possible. Kalisch has concluded, through years of theological research, that the Prophet Muhammad probably never existed. But the man who converted to Islam at 15 insists that he's still a Muslim; he just wanted to subject Islam to the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism, noting that German scholars first questioned the accuracy of the Bible in the 19th century.
Kalisch was slow to come to his conclusion, however. When he first arrived at Munster University in 2004, he was criticized as being too conservative, defending sharia, adamantly. But he read books questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and felt that while he had dealt with Christianity and Judaism, he needed to deal with his own. So he did, obviously. He also questions the veracity of the Qu'ran, saying, "God doesn't write books." Not surprisingly, Kalisch has been declared an apostate, which in Islam means that he must be killed.
Kalisch has some guts, I'll give him that, even though I really don't care whether or not Muhammad was a real person. The fact doesn't make Islam's or Christianity's present day followers any less real.
This issue was first brought to my attention in the 15-16 November issue of "The Wall Street Jounal."
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. I'll try to Brew some more tomorrow. Enjoy the Coffee and the Turkey.
Word of the Day: Emollient (adjective): 1. Softening or soothing. (noun) 1. Something that softens or soothes.
On This Day in History: The Roman poet Horace died (8 BCE). Pope Urban II declares the First Crusade (1095). Alfred Nobel signs his last will and testament, effectively establishing the Nobel Prize (1896). The first Mac's Thanksgiving Day Parade is held (1924). Lyndon Johnson is told by the Pentagon that the number of troops in Vietnam must be increased from 120,000 to 400,000 if planned operations are to succeed (1965).
"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney.
2 comments:
Brewer, thanks for the excogitation. I took the test and scored the same as the master brewer. I concur with his point that a few economic questions reflected certain positions of libertarians or free market conservatives. The Brewer is quite correct however, in asserting the overall integrity of the text.
Has anyone noticed that no one has called for an end to the Electoral College this election cycle? Has anyone noticed that during previous such demands, there was no response from anyone on maintaining the College to preserve States rights? I seriously doubt many are aware of the underlying philosophy behind the College. When I learned my Constitution back in grade school, they never explained that the composition of the Electoral College reflected that of Congress to help ensure that larger States didn't have complete control of the country. In other words, it protected the minority from the tyranny of mob rule.
Consider this: If the original composition of the Electoral College provided for 66 Electors (13 States with 2 Electors as per Senate representation, and 40 Electors as per House of Reps representation [since there were 4M people and, if I recall correctly every 100,000 persons had an elector to represent them]), then representation was split like so - Even representation based on Statehood equaled 26 votes and uneven representation based on population represented 40 votes. 13 to 20 was the ratio of even to uneven represeentation per State. Over the last two centuries, with larger & larger populations and more States, there are now 538 Electors. While the vote based on Statehood increased from 26 to 100 with the addition of 37 new States, the uneven representation based on the growth of population increased from 40 to 438 votes. The effect of this is that the current composition of the Electoral College weighs far more heavily toward States with large populations than did the original.
Another way to look at it is that under the original setup, the Electoral College based 60% of its vote on population and 40% based on Statehood; the current composition reflects 80% based on population and 20% based on Statehood.
As populations continue to increase, States' representation based solely on Statehood will continue to dwindle. Put in the perspective of the great discussions between the Federalists and Antifederalists, it appears that States' rights will continue to dwindle. All hail New York, California, and Texas.
Conclusion: The failure of Congress through two centuries to balance the rights of States by modifying representation within the Electoral College has led to increased influence for States with large populations. As this influence increases with the population, the checks and balances provided through the College will become moot. The great national conversation on the merits of the Electoral College should not only include whether it should be replaced with a majority vote system, but also the opposite discussion point, i.e. whether the system needs to be strengthened to mitigate the impact of majority rule through the preservation of State rights.
I'm not optimistic that this point will ever be discussed. In an era that doesn't understand other elements of the Constitution and is religiously attached to the idea of democracy, listeners are almost certain to dismiss as reactionary any thoughts of checks and balances set up to preserve a Republican Federation of States.
Logician, thanks for your assessment of the ISI's test, first and foremost.
Secondly, yes, I agree with you that the Electoral College needs some work. And I'm as surprised as you that no one has brought it up at all. I have been thinking that we need to do something about it, but all I did was file it away with the rest of my ideas for political reform (term limits, relinquishing an office to run for another office, REALLY reforming campaign finance, etc). People seem less interested in fixing the College than they do with term limits. I've almost come to the point where I think that any sort of meaningful reform of any sort is impossible.
And I agree 100% with your final paragraph. What's worse though, is that people are religiously attached to "democracy" when it in fact isn't true democracy at all.
Post a Comment