None of the Above

Keeping tabs on the upcoming US elections, which will affect Canada and the rest of the world, it's hard to know who to root for. But I'm not alone - Mark Steyn also laments the lack of a conservative candidate.

As it is, the present field poses difficulties for almost every faction of the GOP base. Rudy Giuliani was a brilliant can-do executive who transformed the fortunes of what was supposedly one of the most ungovernable cities in the nation but on guns, abortion and almost every other social issue he's anathema to much of the party. Ron Huckabee is an impeccable social conservative but fiscally speaking favors big-government solutions with big-government price tags. Ron Paul has a long track record of sustained philosophically coherent support for small government but he's running as a neo-isolationist on war and foreign policy. John McCain believes in assertive American global leadership but he believes just as strongly in constitutional abominations like McCain-Feingold.

More at the New York Sun.

Departments of Uneducation

From Michelle Malkin, an investigation into Everyday Mathematics. This is a method of teaching math that deliberately avoids rote and repetition in teaching the basic skills of arithmetic. The knock on the traditional methods of education is that students learn methods but fail to understand the mathematical concepts behind them. For proponents, the means apparently justify the end; that end is the realization by many parents that their children are not grasping simple mathematical concepts and operations.

I have firsthand experience of this educational philosophy. During my studies for my B.Ed., I came across it time and time again. After our first class, one of my Teaching Math profs had the majority of prospective math teachers in the room in disbelief. It was not much better at the end of the course. What this educational theory is getting at is that direct instruction and repetition is bad. You have to create learning opportunities for students to discover learning. So, repeated testing of multiplication tables, for instance, has died out.

Guess what? Students are missing it. They can't tell in a split second what 7 x 9 is. The premise of the theory is that rote and repetition does not foster understanding. But are you better off knowing that 9 packs of gum at $7 apiece will cost you $63, or why the math works out that way? In the end, the goal is that the student knows both, but the point is we don't want students - or anyone - to have to think about the mathematical realities behind the gum purchase in order to make that calculation.

It is in subjects like math and (some) sciences that we notice the disconnect between the reality of simple, hard facts and this need to find a convoluted way to learn (or teach) them. But it's not just about math. This educational theory has invaded most subjects. For instance, the reluctance to promote memorization of reading, spelling and grammar skills has contributed to a generation of students who are barely literate.

At its basic, it is a war between practical reality and theoretical fantasy. I have been a student under the educational theory of constructivism, and it is no fun. Instead of the practical skills for mastery and proficiency in teaching, I received a large dose of theoretical ideas that helped me little in the classroom setting. And that is the problem - students are losing out. Instead of a proven method with the goal of excellency, Departments of Education have embraced a soft, fuzzy method. It is a vote for mediocrity.

A Musical Interlude

This had my mom and me laughing ourselves to tears yesterday. This is how music-making is supposed to feel - some parts of it require a lot of work, but the whole endeavour is a pile of fun. There's more at YouTube.

Isn't it ironic?

From Fox News (read Fox Sports), this non-news story: NFL, Giants Stadium in Hot Water for Breast-Baring Ritual Among Fans. Male fans have apparently made a ritual out of yelling at women to lift their shirts. In its comprehensive coverage, Fox News trots out an expert on who-knows-what for a statement:

Feminist writer Naomi Wolf lambasted the "Girls Gone Wild" types of stadium shenanigans as "barbaric" and "reprehensible," and said the practice could lead to sexual violence.

"This is a sign of the degradation of public morality in America," the "Beauty Myth" author fumed during a FOX News Channel panel discussion. "I don’t want my daughter to be exposed to this."

Wolf is fuming for good reason, and her observations hit the nail on the head. It's a "barbaric" and "reprehensible" practice, and "a sign of the degradation of public morality." But this is not some unexplainable phenomenon. Let's look at what these males and females have been told over and over by the feminist agenda as they were growing up.

Males, you're a bunch of dummies who can't be expected to keep your sexual urges in check.

Females, your sexuality is your power as a free woman - your body is yours to do what you want with.

This kind of behaviour is a result (at least in part) of the free sexuality preached by feminists. Wolf can not stomach the logical result of her own faith. Let's not even go into the irony of a feminist worrying about public morality.

Infidel: On Women

Hirsi Ali hates and fights against the oppression of women in Islam. Based on the Qur'an, a woman's life in Islamic society is owned and directed by her husband or, if she is unmarried, her father, brothers, or the next closest male relatives. Beatings have precedence in the Qur'an, so she may be subject to physical abuse. Contact with men from outside her family is not allowed. It is forbidden and dangerous to be in public without the escort of a male family member. Men and women are not considered to be equal in the eyes of Allah.

Ah, yes - equality. A word so twisted by people in order to shut down debate that it is misunderstood. The fact is that women and men are not equal, just like apples and oranges are not equal - they're different. That's not to say that there are no aspects of equality; Apples and oranges are equal with respect to their being fruit. The questions are: How different? Different In what ways? How equal? Equal in what ways?

With regard to creation and salvation, there is no difference between man and woman.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)

With respect to almost everything else, man and woman are unequal. This is not a surprise to anyone. In many ways, they're aliens to each other, from different planets - as the saying goes, Men are from Mars, women from Venus. Man and woman are physiologically, psychologically, and socially very different. The Bible also says that they were created with different roles:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

So one is a leader, the other a responder. This does not make one superior and the other inferior. There is no room in the Bible for a male superiority complex. How is a man to relate to his wife? The very next verse says:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Ephesians 5:25, 28)

The relationship is exemplified by Christ - "love your wives just as Christ loved the church" - and is characterized by sacrifice - "and gave himself up for her". Not domination, but sacrifice. A biblical burden is here placed on man - to follow the example of Christ, the leader of the church. And his relationship with the church is one of love, service, and sacrifice. There is no room for selfishness or abuse.

In addition, the Bible describes women as active in the home, the church, and in society. She is not hidden. Proverbs 31 describes "the wife of noble character". Among her many good attributes and actions is this:

She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. (Proverbs 31:16)

She is active in commerce as well. Of course, this is kept in balance with her other responsibilities:

She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls... She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. (Proverbs 31:15, 27)

And this is the rub for Hirsi Ali and others who subscribe to the feminist philosophy. They don't want to accept the biblical roles. Yet, this is the way God created it, and he saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). As Proverbs 31 shows, this arrangement is to the praise of God, to the benefit of man, woman, and children, and to the benefit of society.