Classroom Socialism

I "borrowed" from a post I saw on FaceBook and thought it too interesting not to pass on here.  Just when you thought there was no hope for liberal academia.

I have no idea who the source of this item is, so no copyright infringement in intended.

CLASSROOM SOCIALISM


Is this man truly a genius?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride
too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

Another Reason to Dislike NPR

On Monday, October 8, 2012 I heard an interesting (disturbing) interview on NPR news (yes, I was bored, and that was the only radio station I could pick up).

The interviewer was talking to Professor Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, and others.  The gist of the interview concerned the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man into sin.  Professor Harlow maintained that the story of Adam and Eve was not important to Christianity, and probably not accurate.  One of his statements to back up his position was this:

Again, I want to emphasize, if Adam and Eve and the serpent were so central to biblical teaching, why did Jesus and the apostles not teach about it?

Are you serious?!?  That's your argument?  It amazes me how liberal thinkers go from A to Z, making up their own alphabet in between.

Look at it this way: when you take your car to a mechanic for repairs, is it necessary for him to give you the history of how the car was invented?  Is that background needed for him to fix your car?

Jesus came to Earth to fix a problem (started by Adam and Eve). Did He really need to teach the Jewish people a story that they all knew all too well?  Doesn't it make sense that He and the apostles taught how to fix the problem, not how it all started?

The whole interview was a reminder of why I don't like listening to the 'free thinkers' that NPR seems to attract.

"Entitlement" outrage

A few days ago Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was heard making the following comment:

"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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what . . . he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. . . . I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Liberals everywhere were almost immediately up in arms, claiming that Romney clearly doesn't care anything about the American people.  The sad part is, there were a significant number of conservatives mirroring their opinion.

 Come on people!  Where did you ever get the idea that you were entitled to health care, food, and housing?  And who told you that the US government was responsible for providing these things?

Heads up folks: you are NOT entitled to health care, housing, and food.  All of these things are benefits, they are the result of your work.  The bottom line is, when you work, you eat.  You either pay for insurance, or find a job where a generous employer pays for it, or makes it available to you. You spend your money for rent or mortgage so that you have a roof over your head.  

Where did we get such a skewed view of what our government is responsible for?  Ask your grandparents how they ate 50 years ago.  Ask them what they did when someone needed a doctor, or how they provided a home for your parents.  I'll bet they all say the same thing:  "we worked for it."

By the way, this is not a new concept!  This is God's principle.  Yep, it's even in the Bible.  2 Thessalonians 3:10 states is pretty clearly:  "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  I don't know of any higher authority than that.

 

New Republican Ad

This video was forwarded to me titled "New Republican Ad". Whether it's official or not, I have no idea, but I thought I'd post it here anyway because of the message. Enjoy.

It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This

OK, this post is a huge departure from my normal rantings. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Conservatism, or my Republican views.

The picture in this post is purely for enjoyment!

Nothing like a Weber charcoal grill loaded down with the good stuff!

Forget the Mosque

Understandably there is great controversy over the building of a mosque at "ground zero" in New York City.

But what surprises me is that there's no more heard, or being discussed over the sale of 84 F15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, for $30 billion.

Granted they're being sold with no long-range weaponry installed. But isn't that like selling someone a gun and never thinking they'll find bullets for it?

I realize that that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, but are we not even considering what the official national religion of Saudi Arabia is? That's right, Islam.

We (the U.S.) has been at war for nearly 10 years now, not with other governments, or countries, but with Islamic terrorists/extremists. Islam is not at peace with the United States, despite some liberal views, but would love to dominate the world, especially the west.

I can't imagine how/why anyone thought this was a good idea, and why isn't the entire nation in an uproar over this? If you give a bad dog enough rope, he'll eventually be close enough to bite. It's a shame to think that the next attack against the U.S. could conceivably be made with our own weapons.

$30 billion is a lot of money. But when you really think about it, given the unbelievably huge national debt, will that even be felt? Where will that money go? Do we need the money so badly that we're willing to jeopardize our own security?

Maybe the mosque at ground zero, as offensive as it is, is really just a ruse to take our attention off of the real threat.

Politically Correct Warfare

On Thursday, April 29, 2010, the Associated Press news service ran a story with the following headline:

"Legal Questions Raised Over Drone Strikes"

The gist of the article was that the CIA's use of drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen may be a case of "illegal assassination" as opposed to being considered legitimate self-defense.

The program has apparently come under fire by several "legal scholars" who argue that the attacks may violate international law and put intelligence officers at risk of prosecution for murder in foreign countries.

The obvious question here is (in response to the article): So?!?

Isn't this country currently at war against terrorists, wherever they may be found? I'm fairly certain that was the idea following the attacks on US soil on September 11.

If you follow the logic of these "scholars" it's okay for us to be at war with terrorists, just don't kill any of them. We're so worried about being politically correct in this country that is has even spilled over into the way warfare is conducted.

Come on! If we're not going to actually be allowed to kill those that we're engaged in war with, by whatever means we have available, then we may as well pack up all of our toys and go home.