I have been reading “A Patriot’s History of the United States” which was written by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen (prior to that, I read most of “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn). This reading has led me to the Federalist Papers, and in particular I found #10, written by James Madison, to be quite relevant to today.

Basically, Madison argues, under the pseudonym “Publius,” that political parties are necessary. Schweikart and Allen state on p. 122:

“Modern Americans are assaulted with misguided calls for ‘bipartisanship,’ a code word for one side cedint its ideas to the party favored by the media. In fact, however, Madison detested compromise that involved abandoning principles, and in any event, though that the Republic was best served when factions presented extreme differences to the voters, rather than shading their positions toward the middle.”

Indeed, you can read Federalist Paper #10 here.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The whole thing is quite an interesting read.

George Washington, on the other hand, in his famous farewell speech in 1796, had the opposite to say.

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Danny Carlton is launching a new service on Wednesday called BlogAdSwap. Myopic Zeal has been participating in the pre-launch pilot for a few days now and all is working great! Keep your eye on it over the next few days.

Jeanie Hurley at the Literacy Trust website confirms what I’ve thought for a while now.

Traditional building blocks and Play-Doh are far better for children’s learning than high-tech educational toys and videos, experts have revealed. Psychologists are warning that many expensive games might actually restrict children’s progress by stifling their creativity and hindering their social skills. American child development expert Professor Kathy Hirsh-Pasek believes youngsters spend too long in front of television 2 and computer screens 2 when they could be playing with basic toys. In a new book titled Einstein Never Used Flash Cards 2, she claims that so-called ’smart’ toys fail to teach children to play imaginatively. In contrast, wooden blocks, crayons, costumes, paints and balls help them develop crucial lifelong skills such as problem-solving and perseverance. They also make it easier for parents to join in, which is vital for boosting children’s learning.

And from Toddlers Today comes this:

There are also questions like, “Do I want my child to form a meaningful relationship with a miniature android?” and, “Do ’smart toys’ 2 actually make smarter kids?”

Some child psychologists suggest that electronic toys minimize the variety of stimulus children receive, and reduce their play to a simplistic set of push-button responses. Others believe that it is important to help kids orient themselves to life in the electronic age.

Dr. Erik Strommen, head of R&D in Microsoft’s Interactive Toy Group, argues that “Children’s lives are now highly mediated by electronics. For kids to feel confident in the modern high-tech world, their toys need to reflect the complexity of that world. Really, kids want to be active, and technology is an active thing.”

One thing that most experts seem to agree on is that while electronic toys 2 can help provide fun educational play, the important thing is that parents are involved in their child’s playtime.

So go get some blocks, Play-Doh, Super Marbleworks, or Flip Flop Faces, put down the LeapPad 2, and go play with your kids!

H/T: Teach With Toys.

Robert Novak recounts a disturbing exchange between Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Dr. Jerry Vlasak.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak of North American Animal Liberation was quoted as saying at an animal rights convention: “I don’t think you’d have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives.”

More of the transcript here and here.

Senator Lautenberg. But you’re willing to take lives. That’s the anomaly here. You are willing to say that somebody you don’t know, somebody’s kid, somebody’s parent, somebody’s brother, somebody’s sister, take that life, that’s okay.

Dr. Vlasak. These are not innocent lives.

Captain Ed has more on this truly disturbing discussion:

These are not innocent lives. Where have we heard that before? It has all the echoes of Ward Churchill and his assertion that 9/11 victims at the WTC were “little Eichmanns” who had death coming to them. The ecoterrorists have the same mindset as the antiabortion lunatics who thought themselves justified in assassinating doctors who disagreed with them and performed abortions. In those cases, the lunatics at least thought they were protecting human life, although murdering to support a pro-life position sounds almost as dumb and deranged as one person can possibly get. Vlasak manages to provide the one position more deranged than that.

HomeschoolBlogger.com is nearing their 3,000th blogger! If you’re interested in homeschooling, go check some of them out!

This link shows the last 100 blog entries by HomeschoolBloggers.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a ruling (pdf) that every parent who cares about their rights needs to consider. I’ll snip a few key points here, but take the time to read the whole ruling (including some of the questions asked, which you can also read at WND’s site).

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

…

It further concluded that the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of one’s children does not encompass the right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.”

Writing Right has this to add:

Let me tell you this, as a person who works with children and parents in the counseling field, if I had a client who was a child who was 5-8 years old who knew the answers to these questions, I would seriously consider they had been sexually abused by some pervert who can’t control his evil sexual desires. Children who are subjected to these questions have in my not so humble opinion, just been sexually abused by the idiots who gave them these questions to answer in the first place.

Spunky Homeschool notes:

It’s not suprising that our schools are taking on more and more parental responsibility what’s so sad is that more and more parents are just letting it happen.

Pardon My English is similarly outraged, and summarizes this way:

“Hey little girl, do you think about sex a lot?”

How would you like an adult posing this question to your child? To be sure, any adult who asked this question to a seven-year-old would be, at the least a pervert and likely a sex offender: If having a strange adult ask a seven-year-old about whether or not they think about sex isn’t a sex offense, it sure as hell should be. Now, how would you like it if this adult were a teacher of administrator? Well these are exactly the type of questions school administrators and teachers in the Palmdale, California school district are allowing to be asked of seven-year-olds on paper and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seems to think this is just fine.

Focus on the Family called Wednesday’s ruling “one of the most abhorrent examples of judicial tyranny in American history.”

Maybe the idea of creating a 12th Circuit Court of Appeals, splitting up these judges whose rulings fly in the face of common sense and mixing them in with some newly appointed Constitution-respecting judges, isn’t such a bad one.

A Republican proposal to split the liberal, San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made its way into a must-pass House budget reconciliation bill, much to Democrats’ dismay.

The Ninth Circuit covers nine states and is the largest of all U.S. circuit courts. Nicknamed the “Ninth Circus” by conservative critics, it is the same court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because of the phrase “under God.”

The justification for doing this?

The Ninth Circuit, which covers nine states, is considered the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts. It is larger than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , and 11th Circuits combined. The Ninth Circuit contains the fastest growing states in the U.S.

According to the Census Bureau, by 2010, the population of the states the Ninth Circuit covers will grow to over 63 million.

The court’s increasing caseload negatively impacts the judges’ ability to stay on top of legal developments, Murkowski said. It handles more cases than any other Circuit. Last year alone, 14,272 cases were filed.

The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit in which all judges do not review panel decisions, and it allows the court to be comprised of 11 members compared to the full 28 members. Every other Circuit requires a review by its full panel, thus resulting in the need for only six members of the 28 to have a majority opinion, Murkowski added.

As it stands now, the average time to get a final disposition of an appellate case in the Ninth Circuit is about five months longer than the national average.

Bill Brewer reacts this way:

In the absence of those countervailing institutions, the “right to choose” in the U.S. is now grounded in the same concept of “compelling state interest” that forces abortion in other countries. Such interests are superficially antithetical, but fundamentally identical in their denial of family sovereignty.

Barbara: “While it’s indoctrinating the students unfairly, if they pray in school, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, the school has the right to teach the children about sex. How times have changed!”

Quincy has an observation, which underscores the importance of the current Supreme Court vacancy being filled with an originalist judge.

With multiple Constitutional questions still unanswered, the dismissal of this case is an irresponsible move by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is another victory for the rights of the state over the rights of individual parents, and yet another reason to keep children away from the public school system. I sincerely hope that this is not the final word on the case.

Billy Dickson rants:

Now this court seem to be saying parents give up their rights when their children enter the school house. Perhaps that court was reading the laws of Cuba not America. Don’t children belong to their parents not the state in America

Mark Rose excerpts the Focus on the Family CitizenLink release.

In a shocking act of judicial tyranny, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco today stripped away all parental oversight concerning what their children are taught in public school sex-education classes.

And Mark provides further analysis here.

Monroe, however, defends the ruling.

However, the court was trying to decide if the actions were in violation to the substantive due process protections of the 14th Amendment. It is important to note that many conservatives, including Robert Bork in his book The Tempting of America, are critical of the whole notion of substantive due process. Thus, the school district’s actions were objectionable, but were arguably not actionable under the U.S. Constitution.

Sofyst:

Let us tell our five-year old about penises and orgasms but never think of mentioning that horrid three letter word, ‘God’. LORD forbid the child be taught something moral…what he really needs is a porno.

Others taking note: Woody’s Blog, Rhett Smith, Two-Sheds Gomer and Danny Carlton.

UPDATE: Taking a Sunday Drive. And hanging out with the Political Teen. And Kevin’s Carnival. And Mudville.

UPDATE: Kevin McCullough elaborates a bit on his WND column.

Besides the fact that I may want to keep my first grader somewhat innocent and protected from such sexual material, and as a parent I don’t believe a court has any business putting such thoughts into the heads of first graders. It is also important to point out - that this is now the law of the land and can not be stopped unless or until an appeal is eventually heard either by the full 9th Circuit Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court.

…

Anyone think we need to speed up the demand on our Senators to approve Judge Alito?

UPDATE 11/18/2005: The House wants the 9th Circuit to reconsider (via Stop the ACLU and Right on the Right, by way of Preston).

As we have noted before, the Marbleworks Deluxe Set from Discovery Toys is absolutely the coolest Christmas gift you can get for your child who is between the ages of 6 and 15.

The traditional Super Marbleworks Raceway Construction set, and the accessory set of extra parts, have been discontinued and replaced with some exciting new sets!

Marbleworks Start Set ($29.99) is similar to the original set with 46 pieces.

The two brand new accessory sets are the Marbleworks Crank-It Up Accessory ($12.99) and the Marbleworks Wild Ride Accessory Set ($14.99).

There is also the Marbleworks Deluxe Set, which is a combination of the other three, and sells for $49.99 (savings of $7.98 versus buying the sets individually!)

You can purchase this excellent product here. And there’s still plenty of time for holiday shopping!

The Times looks at the science of cow tipping (Via the Indiana Homeschool Blog)

Ms Boechler, now a trainee forensics analyst for the Royal Canadian Mounted Corps, concluded in her initial report that a cow standing with its legs straight would require five people to exert the required force to bowl it over.

A cow of 1.45 metres in height pushed at an angle of 23.4 degrees relative to the ground would require 2,910 Newtons of force, equivalent to 4.43 people, she wrote.

and…

“Biology also complicates the issue here because the faster the [human] muscles have to contract, the lower the force they can produce. But I suspect that even if a dynamic physics model suggests cow tipping is possible, the biology ultimately gets in the way: a cow is simply not a rigid, unresponding body.”

Joining Cao’s Sunday Trackback party.