K12 Online Review - Government Cheese

As a young kid I was homeschooled and didn’t know about the terrible ways students bullied and teased each other in public school.  So I or my brothers were given an education after school hours with our neighborhood playmates.  One thing we learned about was “government cheese” which I think is what they called the government supplied lunch to the poor children.  It was implied that it was cheese that the private industry (rich) had forsaken and given to the poor.  It was spoiled.

I am not here to bully anyone, but let us look at K12 and what type of education that is actually giving your child, you will come to understand K12 is essentially taking Government Cheese and eating it at home.  It is still the same education, but at home.  This is tied to two ideas.  The first is it is cheaper for the government to get people to do the public school program at home.  So it is money driven.  The second thought is that class size has a large impact on education and that the child will be able to get 1 on 1 attention at home. 

The financial factor has nothing to do with the individual’s education, but with the budget of the state.  The class room size, is a big factor for a student, but if you are following the government schedule it is essentially having a chef prepare the government cheese for your child.  Sure it may look better and taste better, but it is still government cheese.

The good thing about K12 is it exposes the parent to what good food is and those who can teach them how to prepare it.  K12 is a stepping stone out of the government education system.  Those families are exposed to actual homeschoolers and those education programs that provide a banquet for the student.  It exposes those who have grown numb to the taste of modern state run education the exposure to the wonderful food available for those who leave the system.

"You didn't build that" Obama on the entrprenuer

The business owner, at least at start up, is often working 12-16 hour days without pay, in hope of future gains. This is what is called the entrepreneur spirit. When president Obama said “you didn’t build that” it was a slap in the face to every American. Every good entrepreneur knows that his employees and friends and family helped them in some way. Sometimes it is encouragement, sometimes it is showing up to work on time, sometimes it is bringing them a hot meal on a long day and sometimes it is a loan. A loan, while monetary, is a way of joining in the entrepreneur spirit without the physical pain. It is no longer a lone person, but multiple people working to build a business. They are a single unit, striving to provide a good or service at a better rate than others who are already established. You isn’t just a singular noun, it can also be plural. If you have ever worked for an entrepreneur, were friends with an entrepreneur, or helpped an entrepreneur that president was signaling you out as well.

What Ought I to Love?

On a family trip to Michigan, I had the pleasure of reading an advance copy of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. It is a thought-provoking testimony of a leading LGBT university professor’s conversion to Christianity. Due to the nature of her sin, it gives insight into how the Church treats the LGBT community. It also shows how one pastor and his family’s consideration and time led her to belief and through her struggle with her own transformation by Jesus Christ. I really enjoyed the book and believe Christians would benefit from reading it and thinking about the questions she poses. She also sprinkles in good life lessons and takeaways for those who are walking with the Lord through adversity. Now to go off on a tangent that ties in with the book but is not its focus: discussing praise music on page 92, her words struck me: “The Psalms are the word of God. While hymns and praise and worship music take up themes of Christian life, we are told very clearly here that we are sanctified by the word and by the word alone.” This thought wasn’t brand new to me; I know there are churches that sing only the Psalms, and that the churches I’ve been a part of have song both Psalms and modern music. I must confess, however, that I typically gravitate to the new music, although I have an appreciation for Psalms and hymns. The reason I am still thinking about this subject is my attendance at the Society for Classical Learning’s conference last week, where I had the pleasure of listening to authors Ken Myers and James K.A. Smith discuss music and its proper place. Christians focus on praise and find meaning in the words themselves, without identifying themes or form of that praise and the meaning within that form. Modern culture has disordered music. Disordered music that is so prevalent we now find it in many worship services. Many will argue that people like modern music and we should give them what they like because God will use it. Ken Myers aptly responds that while God will use defective things, that doesn’t make the thing worthy nor something we should seek to use. Modernism rejects the idea that good education should train you to like what is good and beautiful. C.S. Lewis argues that the whole point of a classical Christian education was to train you to love what is lovely. Ken Myers went on to argue that music is rooted in morality has been rejected and objectivity rules in modern culture. I would argue that is why we have a culture of “I was born this way” so aptly sung by Lady Gaga. I am not arguing that only Psalms should be sung—I’ve not done enough research into the matter—but I do think that we should start to think about what we are exposing ourselves to and how that may affect our worldview and thought life. If our children can sing the newest Gaga song, but don’t know the Apostles Creed or the pledge of Allegiance, then we may need to rethink how we are training our children up to love what they ought. You can purchase the book here: http://www.crownandcovenant.com/product_p/mis85.htm Ken Myers and Mars Hill Audio: http://www.marshillaudio.org/

Should we have a president intent on Gambling away our future?

President Obama has a new marketing strategy “Betting on America” and it is one that explains his first four years of policy. He bet on Solyndra, and on many other companies which have failed. He bet you would like what is in the Health Care bill and all we found was one of the largest tax increases in history. He bet you would forget he was going to close our torture facility next to Cuba. In fact the ACLU has recently come out against gambling because it exploits the poor. Obama bet that people won’t hold him accountable for 4 years of high unemployment, and overseeing an economy that saw the divide between the rich and poor rise. Although I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney, and am still holding out slight hope Dr. Paul will win in Tampa, at least Romney is not a gambling man. He is a business man. “Betting on America” at best gives us a 50/50 shot. I think America has a lot better shot than that, I’m not going to bet on America, I’m going to stand with Americans. Romney is a business man, and he knows that you don’t bet on projects like Solyndra, you don’t rush ready-made projects (how many of those have been started?). To get out of recession you need to build wealth, not squander it. Obama has gambles with our future for 4 years and what have we got to show for it? 15 Trillion or so in debt, 8+% unemployment and close to 20% underemployment. I don’t want a president who is going to bet on America. I want a president who is going to have a plan for America and that plan be let the people keep their money and do with it as they see fit. That is a plan that can renew American greatness.