On this date in 1787, the Constitutional Convention approved the final draft of the U.S. Constitution. For an excellent educational tool on the Constitution -- and it's the duty of every citizen, in my opinion, to know and understand this fundamental document -- I recommend The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
"We are steadily asked about the age at which to teach young people to shoot. The answer to this obviously depends upon the particular individual; not only his physical maturity but his desire.
"Apart from these considerations, however, I think it important to understand that it is the duty of the father to teach the son to shoot.
"Before the young man leaves home, there are certain things he should know and certain skills he should acquire, apart from any state-sponsored activity. Certainly the youngster should be taught to swim, strongly and safely, at distance. And young people of either sex should be taught to drive a motor vehicle, and if at all possible, how to fly a light airplane. I believe a youngster should be taught the rudiments of hand-to-hand combat, unarmed, together with basic survival skills.
"The list is long, but it is a parent's duty to make sure that the child does not go forth into the world helpless in the face of its perils.
"Shooting, of course, is our business, and shooting should not be left up to the state."
The other day I happened upon an essay entitled, "The Gun as a Weapon of Education," written by one Edward Cave and published in a 1918 edition of The Outlook.
The headline was intriguing, certainly, but the subhead hooked me:
"Lessons from the Long Trail that Goes 'Way Around Beyond the Bleak and Barren Mountains of Mere Marksmanship to the Happy Valley of Sportsmanship"
Knowing of the author's connection to Scouting, I scanned the piece for a mention. These lines jumped out at me:
"A couple of years before the Germans turned loose their war, for eight months I disturbed the pious and pacific calm of the National headquarters of the Boy Scouts with the rude idea that Baden-Powell, the British soldier who originated the Boy Scout idea, meant their slogan, 'Be Prepared,' to imply prepared to carry a gun, not a harp."
That, my friends, is absolutely priceless. Cave continued:
"Despite instructions, I drilled my troop of Boy Scouts, and drilled them hard. Since then I have had the satisfaction of vindication on both counts. In addition, I have had the satisfaction of helping a good many thousands of Boy Scouts and plain ordinary boys to learn how to shoot a .22 rifle properly. I joined the National Rifle Association of America and the United States Revolver Association, and recently induced the former to encourage boys to take up target-shooting outdoors with the .22 rifles."
Cave's assertion that he influenced "a good many thousands of Boy Scouts and plain ordinary boys" was no idle boast -- in 1915 he published Boy Scout Marksmanship, a seminal work on the subject and a valuable primer for boys within and beyond the uniformed ranks.
Later in the text, I chuckled at Cave's expressed intent to "square up some old accounts" -- that is, to needle certain types of people that he found particularly annoying. Specifically:
"Folks who are afraid of a gun, but otherwise all right.
"Folks who will not let a big-enough boy have a gun.
"Folks who are fond of roast chicken -- and, if necessary to get it, would chase a pet rooster till red in the face and chop his head off -- yet raise objection to all hunting, and are classified among wild life conservationists as sentimentalists.
"Pacifists -- the worst of the lot."
That passage is another keeper, for sure. Cave closed his engaging essay with this:
"Far away on the horizon you see what at first appears like a fog in some distant valley. It is the smoke pall above some city, and it reminds you, hunter that you are, of the vaporings of the city men you know who can never stand where you do, nor even rise above their droll little chimneys, yet presume to force upon their fellows their narrow conception of a world outlook.
"Poor little wall-warped and roof-stunted boys who were never allowed to have a gun!"
"The Gun as a Weapon of Education" is a fun read -- playful and unapologetic, relevant despite its advanced age. I recommend it.
Remington, as far as I know, didn't push a club of its own during those years. Its advertising took a different tack as well. "War Department Offers Rifle Shooting Medals to Boys," from a 1917 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, is an example of Remington's approach. It used the lure of government-sanctioned marksmanship awards, along with the credibility of the Boy Scouts and the NRA, essentially to soft-pedal the brand. An excerpt from the copy:
"Another thing -- you don't have to shoot any special make of rifle and ammunition to compete for these National Medals. You can use any make of .22 caliber rifle and .22 short cartridges.
"We hope, of course, that you will select Remington UMC. Certainly you will, if you ask advice from men who know."
Two years later the W.J.R.C. was on the scene. Remington adjusted its pitch accordingly. "News Indeed for the Young Man and his .22" popped up in a 1919 issue of Collier's. The ad's subhead -- "Individual Shooters Recognized by N.R.A. -- No need to join a Club" -- was an appeal to youthful independence and a shot across Winchester's bow. Later, this:
"Now don't hesitate to write us just because your rifle or ammunition is not Remington UMC. You don't even have to tell us what make you do shoot -- now. We'll take a chance that you will come to Remington UMC as your skill develops and you become more critical about your arms and ammunition."
And so the two companies exchanged volleys, vying for young shooters, their skirmish lasting nearly a decade. Which one prevailed?
Remington is still around -- it's the oldest company in the U.S. still making its original product, the oldest continuously operating manufacturer on the continent, the only American company that makes both guns and ammo here in the U.S. and the largest domestic manufacturer of long guns.
Winchester, which always struggled, sadly (or mercifully) is gone.
The W.J.R.C. had a successful nine-year run before it was absorbed by the NRA. Its descendant, the NRA Marksmanship Qualification Program, continues to thrive.
"['God Bless the U.S.A.'] is a country song. This is Brooklyn. This is not the country."
(Dina Rosado, president of the PTA for NYC P.S. 90, voicing her disapproval of the school's kindergarten class waving American flags and singing the Lee Greenwood classic near the school on Monday. A week earlier P.S. 90's principal, Gina Hawkins, barred the five-year-olds from performing the piece at their graduation ceremony, judging its lyrics "too adult" and offensive to "some people and cultures.")
Each time I re-read the faculty commencement address delivered on June 1st by English teacher David McCullough, Jr. to the Wellesley (Massachusetts) High School class of 2012, the more I realize that sharing it via KintlaLake Blog is the right thing to do.
Here it is, unabridged -- enjoy.
Dr. Wong, Dr. Keough, Mrs. Novogroski, Ms. Curran, members of the board of education, family and friends of the graduates, ladies and gentlemen of the Wellesley High School class of 2012, for the privilege of speaking to you this afternoon, I am honored and grateful. Thank you.
So here we are... commencement... life's great forward-looking ceremony. (And don't say, "What about weddings?" Weddings are one-sided and insufficiently effective. Weddings are bride-centric pageantry. Other than conceding to a list of unreasonable demands, the groom just stands there. No stately, hey-everybody-look-at-me procession. No being given away. No identity-changing pronouncement. And can you imagine a television show dedicated to watching guys try on tuxedos? Their fathers sitting there misty-eyed with joy and disbelief, their brothers lurking in the corner muttering with envy. Left to men, weddings would be, after limits-testing procrastination, spontaneous, almost inadvertent... during halftime... on the way to the refrigerator. And then there's the frequency of failure: statistics tell us half of you will get divorced. A winning percentage like that'll get you last place in the American League East. The Baltimore Orioles do better than weddings.)
But this ceremony... commencement... a commencement works every time. From this day forward... truly... in sickness and in health, through financial fiascos, through midlife crises and passably attractive sales reps at trade shows in Cincinnati, through diminishing tolerance for annoyingness, through every difference, irreconcilable and otherwise, you will stay forever graduated from high school, you and your diploma as one, 'til death do you part.
No, commencement is life's great ceremonial beginning, with its own attendant and highly appropriate symbolism. Fitting, for example, for this auspicious rite of passage, is where we find ourselves this afternoon, the venue. Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume... shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic X-Box assassin, each of you is dressed, you'll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma... but for your name, exactly the same.
All of this is as it should be, because none of you is special.
You are not special. You are not exceptional.
Contrary to what your u9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you... you're nothing special.
Yes, you've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You've been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You've been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we've been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you've even had your picture in the Townsman! And now you've conquered high school... and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building...
But do not get the idea you're anything special. Because you're not.
The empirical evidence is everywhere, numbers even an English teacher can't ignore. Newton, Natick, Nee... I am allowed to say Needham, yes? ... that has to be two thousand high school graduates right there, give or take, and that's just the neighborhood Ns. Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That's 37,000 valedictorians... 37,000 class presidents... 92,000 harmonizing altos... 340,000 swaggering jocks... 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school? After all, you're leaving it. So think about this: even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you. Imagine standing somewhere over there on Washington Street on Marathon Monday and watching sixty-eight hundred yous go running by. And consider for a moment the bigger picture: your planet, I'll remind you, is not the center of its solar system, your solar system is not the center of its galaxy, your galaxy is not the center of the universe. In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. Neither can Donald Trump... which someone should tell him... although that hair is quite a phenomenon.
"But, Dave," you cry, "Walt Whitman tells me I'm my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!" And I don't disagree. So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another–which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality -- we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. We have come to see them as the point -- and we're happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that's the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. No longer is it how you play the game, no longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it... Now it's "So what does this get me?" As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors, and building a Guatemalan medical clinic becomes more about the application to Bowdoin than the well-being of Guatemalans. It's an epidemic -- and in its way, not even dear old Wellesley High is immune... one of the best of the 37,000 nationwide, Wellesley High School... where good is no longer good enough, where a B is the new C, and the midlevel curriculum is called Advanced College Placement. And I hope you caught me when I said "one of the best." I said "one of the best" so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can bask in a little easy distinction, however vague and unverifiable, and count ourselves among the elite, whoever they might be, and enjoy a perceived leg up on the perceived competition. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You're it or you're not.
If you've learned anything in your years here I hope it's that education should be for, rather than material advantage, the exhilaration of learning. You've learned, too, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom is the chief element of happiness. (Second is ice cream... just an fyi) I also hope you've learned enough to recognize how little you know... how little you know now... at the moment... for today is just the beginning. It's where you go from here that matters.
As you commence, then, and before you scatter to the winds, I urge you to do whatever you do for no reason other than you love it and believe in its importance. Don't bother with work you don't believe in any more than you would a spouse you're not crazy about, lest you too find yourself on the wrong side of a Baltimore Orioles comparison. Resist the easy comforts of complacency, the specious glitter of materialism, the narcotic paralysis of self-satisfaction. Be worthy of your advantages. And read... read all the time... read as a matter of principle, as a matter of self-respect. Read as a nourishing staple of life. Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big. Work hard. Think for yourself. Love everything you love, everyone you love, with all your might. And do so, please, with a sense of urgency, for every tick of the clock subtracts from fewer and fewer; and as surely as there are commencements there are cessations, and you'll be in no condition to enjoy the ceremony attendant to that eventuality no matter how delightful the afternoon.
The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life, is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap because you're a nice person or mommy ordered it from the caterer. You'll note the founding fathers took pains to secure your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- quite an active verb, "pursuit" -- which leaves, I should think, little time for lying around watching parrots rollerskate on YouTube. The first President Roosevelt, the old rough rider, advocated the strenuous life. Mr. Thoreau wanted to drive life into a corner, to live deep and suck out all the marrow. The poet Mary Oliver tells us to row, row into the swirl and roil. Locally, someone... I forget who... from time to time encourages young scholars to carpe the heck out of the diem. The point is the same: get busy, have at it. Don't wait for inspiration or passion to find you. Get up, get out, explore, find it yourself, and grab hold with both hands. (Now, before you dash off and get your YOLO tattoo, let me point out the illogic of that trendy little expression -- because you can and should live not merely once, but every day of your life. Rather than You Only Live Once, it should be You Live Only Once... but because YLOO doesn't have the same ring, we shrug and decide it doesn't matter.)
None of this day-seizing, though, this YLOOing, should be interpreted as license for self-indulgence. Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It's what happens when you're thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion–and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you're not special.
Because everyone is.
Congratulations. Good luck. Make for yourselves, please, for your sake and for ours, extraordinary lives.
New York's insidious Sullivan Law, enacted in 1911 and discussed in yesterday's post, is still on the books. It was introduced and debated [sic] virtually unnoticed by the citizenry, thanks to a corrupt sponsor and sleepy legislators easily duped by "common good" rhetoric.
Once passed, the Sullivan Act had an immediate and obvious effect on law-abiding New Yorkers. Worse, it triggered a wave of similar bills in state legislatures nationwide.
Protests against such repressive and patently unconstitutional laws were mustered, for the most part, too late to stem legislative tide. The August 1912 issue of Field and Stream, for example, led its editorial page with "National Disarmament." A few excerpts:
"The so-called 'anti-pistol laws,' all of them modeled more or less upon the notorious Sullivan Law passed in New York State in 1911, have become a veritable epidemic, disarmament bills having been presented in forty-seven states, culminating in the drastic Simms bill introduced at Washington prohibiting the sale or use of firearms for any purpose or under any conditions whatever.
"It is high time that the sportsmen's magazines, revolver, rifle and shotgun clubs, and all to whom either the grooved-bore or the smooth-bore is a means of sport and recreation, got together in a campaign which would show the nation the real sentiment of the people with regard to these disarmament measures, and make it unsafe, politically, for any demagogue or cheap politician with a black-mailing scheme up his sleeve to introduce such bills into our State and national legislatures."
"The actual result of the Sullivan Law so far has been an unprecedented wave of crime in the big cities; bank messengers were robbed in automobiles with impunity as the burglars knew they were not armed; the number of murders have increased over the preceding year and at the same time respectable citizens, no matter whether citizens of New York State or not, were unable even so much as to transport a revolver across New York City without becoming a felon and liable to fine and imprisonment."
Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that an outdoor-recreation magazine would criticize Sullivan Law, but Field and Stream wasn't alone in objecting. In its May 24, 1913 edition, The New York Times ran "A Change in the Pistol Law." From the Times editorial:
"That the concealed weapon law has not worked as well as was expected, or at any rate hoped, by those of us who commended it in principle, if not in all its details, is a fact too obvious for denial.
"Criminals are as well armed as ever, in spite of the sternness with which the law has been applied to a few of them, while there has been a rather general impression among honest men, mistaken but none the less real, that they were wrongly deprived, if not of the means, at least of the right to have the means, for defending themselves and their property. And if the dealers in firearms are keeping the required record of their sales -- which seems doubtful -- we are not hearing of the promised good effects, and perhaps the worst consequence of the law is that many good citizens, as well as all bad ones, have defied or ignored it without suffering much from their consciences."
"...The rightness of having or carrying a pistol is not at all a matter of money, but wholly one of character and avowable need. Something very much like a natural instinct tells the honest householder that to make him ask anybody's permission to have a revolver in his bureau drawer, or even under his pillow, is a hardship, tinged with absurdity."
Both of those editorials were right on the facts and righteous in their intent, and yet Sullivan Law remains in force today. What's more, literally thousands of similar measures (and worse) have been enacted over the last century -- at the federal, state and local levels. Why?
We, like Americans a hundred years ago, don't understand what it means to be vigilant. We continue to elect our representatives based on affinity and identity, pandering and promises of pork, instead of demanding unequivocal defense of constitutional principles.
And when we do earn a victory, we spike the ball -- meanwhile, the enemies of Liberty draw up new plays to exploit our overconfidence.
The threats to our Second Amendment right never vanish, never diminish. Considering what's at stake, we can't relax, ever. Just ask a New Yorker what the price is for failing to be vigilant: Sullivan Law, 100 years and counting.
Guns magazine, which I've brought into KintlaLake Blog many times, produced its first issue in 1955. I find its evolution interesting, in part because it's been around almost exactly as long as I have. Guns was marking its second year (and I my second month) when it published "Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" by William B. Edwards. This is how the piece was previewed in the editors' up-front column:
"'Why Not Have A Pro-Gun Law,' is possibly the longest article we have ever published. It may well be also the most important article we have ever published. The 'call to arms' which ends the story, urging all firearms enthusiasts to write to the Director of the [BATFE], to protest new revised federal regulations in the gun law field is a little like Paul Revere's 'one if by land, two if by sea.' Only now it isn't the 'British are coming,' it is the bureaucrats."
Nothing about that dates it to 55 years ago. Like other articles I've shared here -- notably Horace Kephart's "Arms for Defense of Honest Citizens" and "The Right to Bear Arms" three decades earlier -- it reminds us that today's Liberty-loving Americans aren't the first to battle those who seek to dismantle our constitutional rights.
Here's how "Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" begins:
"The anti-gun lawmakers are having a brisk season for 1957. With the practical nature of Andrew Volsteads and the subtlety of Carrie Nations they have attacked the root of all evil and the ills of mankind by the simple expedient of trying to take away all guns. Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such as these are forging weapons, not into ploughshares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state. Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse 'these laws are thought up by well-meaning, innocent do-gooders.' Certainly a few anti-gun advocates may seem to be well-intentioned, but let's look at 'well meaning' legislators in the forefront of anti-gun legislation.
"Take a good look at genial, charming, personable 'Big Tim' Sullivan, who disarmed the citizens of crime-ridden New York in 1911 with the grandaddy of anti-gun laws, then went mad the following year and was confined. Says the biographical dictionary, 'Vice and crime were carefully organized in his territory and paid graft to his machine, as did many lines of legitimate business, including push-cart peddlers.... When charged with grafting, or partnership with crime and vice, he could rise in the [New York state] Assembly or on a campaign rostrum and, by telling the story of his tenement boyhood and the sacrifices of his mother, reduce even hardened political opponents to tears...."
"Big Tim was of the cloth of Adolph Hitler and the spellbinders of the ages. Election fights which stimulated the public pulse in those days hampered Big Tim's grasp on politics. So he pushed through a law requiring everyone in New York state to get a police permit to buy or possess a pistol or revolver. Sullivan knew he could control the police. This meant that when Sullivan's boys went on their ballot-box stuffing sprees, they could be reasonably sure of having no opposition. Big Tim was not a 'well-meaning legislator' in his pistol law ideas. The Sullivan law weakened the opposition, sweetened the Tammany kitty. Anti-gun bills are a popular stepping stone to political fame, and many in the anti-gun ranks share Big Tim's motives."
Notice that by the second paragraph the Guns article brings up New York State Senator Timothy "Big Tim" Sullivan and the Sullivan Act. There's a reason for that -- author Edwards knew that becoming familiar with the Sullivan Act was essential to readers' understanding of the insidious nature of gun control.
And it still is. A century after being enacted, Sullivan Law remains in force, oppressing citizens of (and visitors to) New York. As Michael A. Walsh wrote in the New York Post earlier this year:
"...Savor the irony of an edict written by a corrupt politician to save his bad guys from the electric chair’s now being used against law-abiding citizens from other states."
If we're to preserve our Second Amendment right, we must get acquainted with the history of threats against it. When we invoke the truism, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," we should be able to cite Big Tim Sullivan -- a crime boss who manipulated soft-headed fellow legislators into disarming law-abiding citizens, thus ensuring that his street gangs would have the upper hand.
"Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" would be a good place to start our history lessons. For a pdf version of the September 1957 issue of Guns magazine, click here. The lengthy article begins on page 22.
I hate to keep kicking this steaming pile, really I do, but the news is teeming with rancid rhetoric worth passing along.
Now, if we can agree once again that it's Liberty (not the Big Gulp) that's under attack, we can go straight to the idiocy of Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast. Here's what he said on Saturday:
"There's only one way to say something like this, and it's loud and proud and without apology: I wholeheartedly support Mike Bloomberg's war on sugar. It's unassailable as policy. Refined sugar is without question the worst foodstuff in the world for human health, and high-fructose corn syrup is little better. We are a fat country getting fatter and fatter, and these mountains of refined sugar that people ingest are a big part of the reason. The costs to the health-care system are enormous, so the public interest here is ridiculously obvious. Obesity is a killer. Are we to do nothing, in the name of the 'liberty' that entitles millions of people to kill themselves however they please, whatever their diabetes treatments costs their insurers?
"We have this 'liberty' business completely backward in this country, and if Bloomberg can start rebalancing individual freedom and the public good, God bless him, I say."
"It's a policy designed to guide people toward a certain kind of behavior. This talk of 'freedom' is absurd."
That, my friends, is nothing short of breathtaking contempt for personal responsibility. Tomasky makes it clear that he's afraid to meet life's opportunities and risks on his own, preferring to be swaddled in a blanket of government regulations.
His bald presumption that "we have this 'liberty' business completely backward in this country" is so false as to be laughable -- truth is, as a nation we're moving away from Liberty. His wish that government engage in "rebalancing individual freedom and the public good" ignores the fact that our individual liberties aren't merely eroding -- they're on the verge of collapse.
In other words, Tomasky and his anti-libertarian cronies rest their case on irresponsibility and lies.
This is the same ideology that routinely disarms law-abiding citizens, infringes constitutional rights and outsources personal defense to government authorities. It stifles excellence by promoting equal outcome and calling it "equal opportunity."
It "confuses the distinction between government and society," holding that each of us is entitled to government-approved and taxpayer-funded nourishment, housing, education, employment, healthcare and financial security, from cradle to grave.
Michael Tomasky, following his idol HRH Michael Bloomberg, carries the standard for those who would see this great country, which owes its very existence to courageous Founders who stood for Liberty, once and for all destroyed.
"If a bake sale is going on, it's reported to [Montgomery County Public Schools] administration and it's taken care of. You can't sell Girl Scout cookies, candy, cakes, any of that stuff."
(Marla Caplon of Montgomery County, Maryland's Food & Nutrition Services Department, explaining the strict enforcement of the state's ban on bake sales in public schools. Similar rules are imposed on school fundraisers in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Texas.)
"If we didn't have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go. But this is a major public health problem and these kids deserve a chance at a good, long, healthy life."
(Massachusetts State Sen. Susan Fargo, chair of the Joint Committee on Public Health, explaining why the state will ban fundraisers selling "non-nutritious" food in public schools beginning August 1st. Under the new regs, Massachusetts schoolkids won't even be allowed to give cookies or other "unhealthy" treats to classmates on their birthdays.)
Presented with a cold and rainy Saturday, yesterday Mrs. KintlaLake and I spent a half-dozen hours visiting local garage sales and second-hand shops in search of treasures and odd bargains.
Her prize was a whimsical electric chandelier destined to hang over our patio. I was rewarded with a tattered-but-intact copy of the 1948 Boy Scout Handbook.
The cover price of this edition of Handbook for Boys was 65¢ (equivalent to $5.58 today). I fished it out of a pile of books at the Olde Shoe Factory Antique Mall in Lancaster and paid four bucks for it.
This particular copy is from the 1948 edition's sixth printing in 1953. A handwritten inscription on the first page records that a Scout leader presented it to the young owner in November of 1953 -- that's fifteen years before I earned the rank of Tenderfoot myself. Thumbing through the Handbook's 570 pages transports me back to my own days in Scouting. All the elements of Scoutcraft are there -- it's chock-full of primers on essential skills.
In the back of the Handbook, among pages devoted to "Books to Read" and the Index, are advertisements aimed at boys of Scouting age. To me, these are just as interesting (and perhaps more significant, culturally) as the rest of the book.
There are ads for woodcraft tools, naturally, from Marble's and Plumb, along with a page promoting Eveready flashlights and batteries. Other ads pitch shoes (Keds, Buster Brown), bicycles (Schwinn, Raleigh), photography (Kodak, Sylvania) and sports equipment (Spalding, Louisville Slugger, Bike jockstraps).
A few of the others: Lionel Trains, Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors, Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix, Coca-Cola, Baby Ruth and Tootsie Roll.
During these post-World War II years, mastering marksmanship (with actual firearms, I mean) still was considered Scoutcraft. That's why this printing included ads for Winchester, Marlin and Iver Johnson rifles. Remington went so far as to invest in a two-page spread, the only such ad in this Handbook.
Air guns do make one appearance in the Handbook's advertising section. According to the Crosman ad, a "bolt-action, single shot, gas-powered pellet rifle" -- complete with refillable CO2 cylinder -- could be had for $21.95.
That's $188.58 in today's dollars. At the time, an honest-to-goodness Winchester Model 69 cost just $28.65 (or $244.32 now).
It's part of our duty as citizens, in my opinion, to educate ourselves about the Constitution of the United States -- in fact, we should know it through-and-through. Just today I discovered an excellent tool for the task: The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Guide presents the complete text of the Constitution, of course, hot-linked to explanatory notes and illuminating essays. I especially like the Teacher's Companion to the Guide, each section of which can be saved as a pdf.
It's fair to point out that the The Heritage Foundation, which publishes the Guide, is a think tank devoted to formulating and promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
I'll get right to the point -- the New York City Department of Education has published a list of more than 50 words and topics to be avoided on standardized tests. Why?
Because they "could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students."
(Oh, c'mon now -- seriously?)
"The intent," say school officials, "is to avoid giving offense or disadvantage any test takers by privileging prior knowledge."
(Whatever the hell that means. I guess even the Word Police can't explain the inexplicable in plain English.)
"We're not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests."
I urge readers of KintlaLake Blog to take 15 minutes to watch this video, "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore." I find it wonderfully touching, inarguably deserving of the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film it won last night.
[Ask yourself, please, if this is what we want from our government. It had better be, because it's what we're begging for.]
Preschooler's Homemade Lunch
Replaced with Cafeteria 'Nuggets' State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead Sara Burrows, Associate Editor Carolina Journal
RAEFORD -- A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs -- including in-home day care centers -- to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl's mother -- who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation -- said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a "healthy lunch" would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
"I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home," the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.
The girl's grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.
"What got me so mad is, number one, don't tell my kid I'm not packing her lunch box properly," the girl's mother told CJ. "I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables."
When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.
"She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her," her mother said. "You're telling a 4-year-old. 'oh. your lunch isn't right,' and she's thinking there's something wrong with her food."
While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.
"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all of the standard." The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.
There are no clear restrictions about what additional items -- like potato chips -- can be included in preschoolers' lunch boxes.
"If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child," Kozlowski said.
Ultimately, the child care provider can't take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she "would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child."
It is unclear whether the school was allowed to charge for the cafeteria lunches they gave to every preschooler in the class that day.
The state regulation reads:
"Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.
"When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements."
Still, Kozlowski said, the parents shouldn't have been charged.
"The school may have interpreted [the rule] to mean they felt like the lunch wasn't meeting the nutritional requirements and so they wanted the child to have the school lunch and then charged the parent," she said. "It sounds like maybe a technical assistance need for that school."
The school principal, Jackie Samuels, said he didn't "know anything about" parents being charged for the meals that day. "I know they eat in the cafeteria. Whether they pay or not, they eat in the cafeteria."
My indictment of talk radio for its lack of independent critical thought is a recurring theme here on KintlaLake Blog. Each and every day, crackling AM frequencies serve up a toxic brew of fear mongering and disinformation to support positions that don't require that kind of nonsense, credible conservative positions that stand on their own. It annoys the hell out of me. Then, every once in a while, I hear something that annoys me even more. That happened on Friday when "Adam," a high-schooler from Illinois, called Rush Limbaugh asking for advice. I've edited the transcript a bit here for brevity's sake, but I believe I've preserved its essence. Here's how the exchange began:
ADAM:"I have an economics teacher, Mr. McCoy. He's a screaming liberal, and I challenge him in his class, so he plans his lesson around me, and he tries to set little traps for me. Is there anything you can help me say just to shut him up and put him in his place?"
"He says, 'Like Adam, all conservatives hate public good. They want the lower class to suffer because they don't have enough money.'"
"He actually is a really good teacher and I do learn things from him, but his classes --" LIMBAUGH:"Okay, wait a minute, now, why is he a good teacher, then?" ADAM:"I've learned things in his class."
If you're even the least bit familiar with Limbaugh's modus operandi, you think you know what's coming next -- but read on:
LIMBAUGH:"You know, it sounds to me like you're doing pretty well in this class, because what's happening here -- I know you've called me and asked for assistance, and I know millions would like to get that from me, but you're out there, you're thinking that whatever this guy is doing, whatever he's teaching he's still inspiring you to think critically and that's the most important thing.
Excuse me?
LIMBAUGH:"I don't care what else you get out of school with, whatever grades you get in classes and so forth, but if you get out of there with the ability to think critically and challenge things that don't make sense to you off the top, that's good. Critical thinking is what is not taught anymore."
Ok, now that just pisses me off. Limbaugh is pompous, self-absorbed and (arguably) megalomaniacal, ideologically hamstrung and shamefully dismissive of facts. He cranks out bogeys faster than Hershey churns out chocolate bars. And yet, in this case, he's absolutely correct. So what's my problem? If caller "Adam" takes Limbaugh's counsel -- and again, on its own it's excellent advice -- he'll learn to think critically about everything he encounters. Naturally, that'd include what he hears on conservative talk radio, which probably isn't what the host had in mind. Case-in-point, the "Four Corners of Deceit." Limbaugh warns his listeners that government, academia, the media and science are in the business of lying to the People, hopelessly co-opted by liberal ideology. Anything attributed to these sources should be presumed false (at best) or sinister (at worst) until proven otherwise. That's reactionary cynicism, not critical thought. It's anchored in political ideology, an approach which makes independent critical thought quite impossible. If Rush Limbaugh truly subscribed to independent critical thought, Dittohead Nation would cease to exist. He'd never again utter the words, "Don't doubt me!" So what makes me cranky, ultimately, is that he encouraged "Adam" to "think critically and challenge things that don't make sense" -- that is, as long as it's not applied to him.
"No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true. "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don’t be trapped by dogma -- which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary." (from the address delivered by Steve Jobs at Stanford University's 114th Commencement on June 12, 2005)
Starry-eyed college students, especially politically active ones, are known for their ignorant idealism. The Berkeley College Republicans, however, just might be onto something. These GOP Kids plan to hold a bake sale on campus this Tuesday, with "tiered pricing" meant to protest pending legislation that'd allow California's public universities and colleges to consider an applicant's race in admissions. Predictably, reaction to the bake sale has been negative. Charges of racism and sexism (natch) are being tossed around like a tipsy sorority sister at a blanket party. In a liberal enclave like Berkeley, you'll have that. But think about it: If a different group held a sale with similar pricing aimed at illustrating, say, economic inequity corresponding to race and gender, wouldn't left-wingers surely support it? Of course they would. First Amendment rights, dontcha know. Yeah, some of the satire used by the Berkeley College Republicans is over-the-top, and sure, true discrimination based on race or gender should be wholly unacceptable in our society. Still, in my opinion, what this group is doing makes a valid point and makes it well. See, it's neither racist nor is it sexist, necessarily, to point out that a white male applying to college may need a higher GPA and a better score on his entrance exam to have the same chance at admission as do applicants that are neither white nor male. It's not hateful to run a gauntlet of political correctness to expose this dirty little secret: a federal mandate designed to aid diversity also has diminished the value of achievement and merit. What's more, I contend that dismissing the casualties of affirmative action is irresponsible, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Again, true discrimination is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable in our society -- but the Berkeley College Republicans' aren't advocating discrimination. They've simply taken a mighty swing at a sacred cow. Judging by the hue and cry from liberal ideologues, the punch landed.
"Before we get started, let's all say 'Happy Birthday' to Elvis Presley today!
"Happy Birthday!
"We played you a little bit of 'Promised Land' when we pulled up. You can't do better than Elvis Presley, and we thought we would celebrate his birthday as we get started celebrating taking our country back to work!" (Rep. Michele Bachmann, candidate for President of the United States, at a rally today in Spartanburg, South Carolina -- on the 34th anniversary of Elvis Presley's death. This, fellow citizens, is the gaffe machine that won last weekend's Iowa Republican straw poll.)
"Apart from these considerations, however, I think it important to understand that it is the duty of the father to teach the son to shoot.
Dr. Wong, Dr. Keough, Mrs. Novogroski, Ms. Curran, members of the board of education, family and friends of the graduates, ladies and gentlemen of the Wellesley High School class of 2012, for the privilege of speaking to you this afternoon, I am honored and grateful. Thank you."It is high time that the sportsmen's magazines, revolver, rifle and shotgun clubs, and all to whom either the grooved-bore or the smooth-bore is a means of sport and recreation, got together in a campaign which would show the nation the real sentiment of the people with regard to these disarmament measures, and make it unsafe, politically, for any demagogue or cheap politician with a black-mailing scheme up his sleeve to introduce such bills into our State and national legislatures."
"Criminals are as well armed as ever, in spite of the sternness with which the law has been applied to a few of them, while there has been a rather general impression among honest men, mistaken but none the less real, that they were wrongly deprived, if not of the means, at least of the right to have the means, for defending themselves and their property. And if the dealers in firearms are keeping the required record of their sales -- which seems doubtful -- we are not hearing of the promised good effects, and perhaps the worst consequence of the law is that many good citizens, as well as all bad ones, have defied or ignored it without suffering much from their consciences."
Her prize was a whimsical electric chandelier destined to hang over our patio. I was rewarded with a tattered-but-intact copy of the 1948 Boy Scout Handbook.
In the back of the Handbook, among pages devoted to "Books to Read" and the Index, are advertisements aimed at boys of Scouting age. To me, these are just as interesting (and perhaps more significant, culturally) as the rest of the book.
A few of the others: Lionel Trains, Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors, Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix, Coca-Cola, Baby Ruth and Tootsie Roll.
Case-in-point, the "Four Corners of Deceit." Limbaugh warns his listeners that government, academia, the media and science are in the business of lying to the People, hopelessly co-opted by liberal ideology. Anything attributed to these sources should be presumed false (at best) or sinister (at worst) until proven otherwise.
These GOP Kids plan to hold a bake sale on campus this Tuesday, with "tiered pricing" meant to protest pending legislation that'd allow California's public universities and colleges to consider an applicant's race in admissions.
"Before we get started, let's all say 'Happy Birthday' to Elvis Presley today!
