My Beauty Best Teacher

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes:
Prof. Ali Mazrui’s address at the 30th anniversary celebration of the Dakar, Senegal-based CODESRIA on the theme “Intellectuals, Nationalism and the Pan-African Ideal” reveals the growing talks, African-wide, about the implications of the African culture and the continent’s development process. The central theme of Mazrui, currently Chancellor of Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, address is twofold. Why African intellectuals are mediocre and why this informs their inability to appropriate Pan-Africanism ideals into Africa’s development process. I would prefer why African elites have not being able to appropriate African cultural values into Africa’s development process as other elites in other parts of the world have done in their development process.

Using the East African region as a continental reference, Mazrui, known globally as one of Africa’s leading thinkers, reveals how undemocratic political climates undermined Africa’s intellectual growth, and how, by extension, this impacted on the continent’s development process. Unlike other ex-colonies, such as Japan, of which Mazrui used greatly as an example to show how African elites failed to match their Western education with their African values in both their intellectual development and the continent’s progress, the trouble with African elites and the continent’s development process is that, the elites play with ideas are not informed by Africa’s innate, indigenous values or ideas by rather the Western ideas that they have had in formal schools.

Mazrui himself shows this contradicting and confusing state of the African elites in this statement: “Uganda had for Head of Government a person who had changed his name because of admiration of the author of the great English poem, Paradise Lost. Obote became Milton Obote out of admiration of John Milton.” While in the spirit of universal intellectuality Obote could admire Milton, his admiration for a non-African poet and the fact that he is a Head of State, may have let Ugandan and African youth to admire more non-African elites than indigenous Ugandan and African elites. The central issue here is role model, values, and inspiration in the development process. In this sense, Obote did not deeply help the growth of African values and her progress. If Obote had done so, and by implications of Mazrui’s own account of the mediocrity of African intellectuals, and greatly touted a non-African value not because he was educated in Western paradigms but, like most African elites, because either he did not understand African values deeply enough or was mesmerized by Western values or did not respect African values or was confused about African values in relations to the continent’s progress.

Still, Mazrui’s argument that “The capacity to be curious and fascinated by ideas has to start early in the educational process. The spirit of intellectualism has to be nourished from primary school onwards, but it can die at the university level if mediocrity prevails,” reveals that the problem of Africa’s intellectual growth is not only at the university level but also at the primary school level; where the values, images and examples which are heavily European-centred are formed. So, if the African primary education system is heavily Western structured, it flows and grows to the high school level, and then later to the university level; thus sowing a culture of mediocrity, in terms of African values not predominantly dictating the intellectual life of the African child early enough. It is in this sense, that Ghana’s Dr. Y.K. Amoako, the former UN Economic Commission for Africa executive secretary, has observed that Africa is the only region in the world where foreign development paradigms dominate her development process. Not only does this indicate that Africa’s development process is not “culturally close” to Africans, but also a revelation that African elites are mediocre in both their intellectualizing and their direction of the continent’s progress.

This has made the African elite mediocre in their own innate environment and in their development process struggles. The mediocrity has come about because Africa’s elites do not think deeply from within Africa’s values first and the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies second in the continent’s development process. Mazrui himself testify of the Japanese elites doing so in their country’s development process. “In this connection it is worth bearing in mind important differences between the westernization of Africa and the modernization of Japan after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Japan’s original modernization involved considerable selectivity on the part of the Japanese themselves (“Western Technique, Japanese Spirit”). The whole purpose of selective Japanese westernization was to protect Japan against the West, rather than merely to submit to western cultural attractions. The emphasis in Japan was therefore on the technical and technological techniques of the West, rather than on literary and verbal culture. The Japanese slogan of “western technique, Japanese spirit” at the time captured this ambition to borrow technology from the West while deliberately protecting a substantial part of Japanese culture. In a sense, Japan’s technological westernization was designed to reduce the danger of other forms of cultural dependency.”

This process should starts from childhood to adulthood based on a curriculum skillfully cast in African values first and any other borrowed ones second; more especially, in preparing African elites’ minds at an earlier stage: from primary and high schools levels. It is in this process that African elites, from their early formation to their university crystallization, will be “culturally close” to the African society, will be culturally close to the African’s progress in the continent’s development journey. By not being culturally close to the African society, African elites could not undertake the Japanese cultural selectivity in relations to their colonial legacies and the enabling aspects of the global culture, and, have, therefore, become both heavily technologically and culturally dependent upon the Western world despite their superb innate culture having huge technological and cultural values for progress. Writes Mazrui, “The nature of westernization in Africa has been very different. Far from emphasizing western productive technology and reducing western life-styles and verbal culture, Africa has reversed the Japanese order of emphasis. Among the factors which have facilitated this reversal has been the role of the African university as a vehicle of Western influence on African culture.”

The challenge for African elites today is how to overturn the contradiction they have caused in Africa’s progress by thinking first from within African values first, by matching African values with the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies and the global values, and by intellectually linking this “to the wider world of scholarship and science.”

An education without any values is of no value to our students, and today in public schools across the nation, students are being subjected to an education that is increasingly without values.

In one of my classes, the students are learning about ancient civilizations, and someone asked me how ancient civilizations passed down knowledge. I talked to them about stories around the campfire, stories that not only would convey the history of a people, but also would convey the values on which that society was based. Learning about the hero's and gods of the past would teach students of the future how to act and behave and how to live as a people.

After I was done explaining this, I asked the student if he remembered any good tales or stories from camping trips, fishing trips, or campfires that he had been to. He got a wistful look on his face and said 'no'- this boy had grown up to be a man without ever hearing any stories about the past or hearing any fables that convey values. And if he isn't hearing about the values of the past, there is no possibility that he is reading about them in his textbooks at school- the textbooks that are used in class around the nation are sucked dry of anything controversial, including any talk about values or meaning.

The books and lessons that students receive have no values to them and lack meaning. They are simply facts, dates, people, and events, separated from any larger context and severed from any sort of connection to reality. Great men are not examples to follow or avoid- they are simply dead people from the past. Turning points in history are not to be analyzed and judged, but rather studied and dissected like a bug. Inventions and discoveries are not to be marveled at and inspire, but rather to memorized and filed away. The education that students are receiving is devoid of inspiration, honor, horror, surprise, shock, sadness, love, bravery, marvel, courage, or other values- it is simply information.

A society with a valueless education system and a country raised on textbooks and lessons without meaning is not going to be a successful country in the future.

Two values that are supported more by conservatives than liberals are traditional values and parent choice, and yet Republicans in Michigan keep forgetting these values that they were elected on. Seduced by the power of government and feeling empowered by their large majorities in the House and the Senate, Michigan Republicans recently supported President Obama's Race to the Top program which gives more control over education to Washingtion DC and even more recently have supported raiding the K-12 School Aid fund in violation with voters stated wishes on the subject.

And now I hear that Republicans are prepared to use the power of the state to tell parents when they think a child is ready or not to go to kindergarten, overturning over 100 years of established values on the subject.

It is understandable that liberals would push to overturn tradition and take away choice from parents on when they send their own children to school, since liberals thrive on power and control, but I would never have thought that the tea party and conservatives in our good state would have swept into power people who now are about to meddle in parent's choice and established values in the name of new-age science.

Feeling that every month in a child's life makes a big difference, that young kids lack the stamina for kindergarten, and that the youngest ones have a harder time integrating socially, emotionally, physically and academically, Michigan State Senator Darwin Booher (R-Evart) and Michigan State Representative Ray Franz (R-Onekama) are planning on introducing legislation that would move up the kindergarten cutoff date from December 1 (where it has been set for over 100 years) to September 1. This would act to prevent children who turn 5 from September to December from attending kindergarten, even if their own parents feel that they are ready.

If parents still want their children to go to school earlier than the government mandated cutoff date, they would be forced to sit down with a government committee which would judge them and issue a decree on whether or not their child was ready to go to school or whether they would have to pay thousands more in daycare for another year until the state deemed it now appropriate for them to send their child to kindergarten.

State Senator and Education Chair Phil Pavlov (R-St. Clair) also apparently supports this attempt to take away choice from parents and overturn tradition. It is unclear why the state has to get involved with setting arbitrary deadlines on when a parent is allowed to send their own child to school, and I suggest that in coming elections that conservative and tea partiers keep these thoughts in mind and work to knock off these corrupted-by-power Senators and Representatives.

Parental choice and tradition, dear state government- that's the way to go.

UPDATE: For those who asked...

• Representative Ray Franz- RayFranz@house.mi.gov
• Senator Darwin Booher-either darwinbooher@senate.mi.gov or dbooher@senate.mi.gov
• Senator Phil Pavlov- either phipavlov@senatoe.mi.gov or ppavlov@senate.mi.gov

UPDATE II: Thank you all for the comments- they support my original point that I'm pissed at Republicans running as conservatives and then not being conservative- so thank you for supporting my argument.

While many feel that children should be older before going to kindergarden, that's their choice. No offense intended, but I don't want anyone to have the power to control when my children start going to school- that's my call as a parent. I do not want any sort of government committee to telling me that if I (as the parent) choose to send my kid to school earlier, that the government will not allow it. That's not how our state has run in the past.

Tradition and parental choice- those are conservative values, and they are the values I support.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes about efforts to engage African traditional rulers in the continent's development process. The Asantehene "...is fast projecting the thinking of Africa's development process, an act whereby traditional values and the colonial legacies are balanced out in Africa's development process. The the development inbalances have occured since independence from the European colonialists who, in their infinite ignorance of Africa's values, imposed their development paradigms on Africa as one of their several ways of civilising the "primitive" African.Over the years, such erroneous development thinking has created not only distortions, damages, confusion and unwarrented crises but also wrong notions, especially among the so-called African elites who are educated in Eurocentric values, that Africa's values in her development process are inferior to the European ones. Confused for long, and either unable to extricate themselves from the imposed European development values so as to let African values drive their development practices or intellectually weak in mixing their African values with the European ones, as other ex-colonies such as South Korea, Singapore, Japan or Brazil has done in their develoment process...",GhanaWeb.

A lot of schools pride themselves on saying that they are create the right values in their students- it is in the mission statement of most schools and touted on their advertisements on TV. But these schools are lying- they don't pride themselves on creating the 'right values.' They pride themselves in teaching no values.

Schools teach moral relativism. They teach that students can decide for themselves which values they want to follow and that they can pick and choose morals from the ones they like and don’t like. Teachers never say “it is wrong to do this”- instead, teachers are are taught and encouraged to say “it can be ok to do this”. There is no right and wrong in a teachers world, and to even suggest that some things might be wrong is shocking, since in school, there is no right and wrong.

But, that's not quite true, because they do teach right and wrong. They teach that it is right to be late to class, that the correct answer is more important than the right answer, that disrespect to elders is ok, that everyone has to speak up and be counted, and that moral or spiritual arguments are never to be accepted. And they teach that it is wrong to believe in God, that it is wrong to promote personal responsibility, that it is wrong to try to use force to achieve good, that it is wrong to believe in individuals right.

So I guess schools don't teach moral relativism- they can indeed take pride, but not in creating the right values in their students, but in the left ones.

NaijaBlog writes about the "Replication of Values":

If one takes a glance around the Nigerian elite, one finds that it is populated solely by corporate types who work in banking or have senior management roles within large corporate organisations.There aren't any other types of elite at work (for instance, there isn't an intelligentsia elite or a bourgeoisie chattering class). The more difficult trick therefore is how to lure back Nigerians who actually might improve the society with a different set of values - interested in ideas, culture, research and challenging social norms with more contemporary attitudes. I suspect this is a general problem in developing countries - how to create ideological development and inject fresh thinking into conservative societies.
The trouble is, those who are in power tend to select as advisors and thinkers those who share their values. So, in Nigeria, we have 'gender experts' appointed senior advisory roles who believe firmly in the evangelically motivated doctrine that women should be subservient to their husbands; or we have economists who hold that the way forward for Nigeria is to create sweat shops across the country. In other words, conservative, purely economically-motivated values attract their own. In societies such as this, people with fresh ideas will always be treated as outcasts and alienated, while mediocre talents with outdated views get rewarded.

Listening to President Barack Hussein Obama talk on Memorial Day, I was moved.

"Why in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of narrowest self-interest have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others?" he said. "Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?"

"Whatever it is, they felt some tug. They answered a call. They said, 'I'll go.' That is why they are the best of America," Obama said. "That is what separates them from those who have not served in uniform, their extraordinary willingness to risk their lives for people they never met."

Of course, some of the power of the message is lost because Obama never served in the military, fought his hardest to resist any call to bear heavy burdens, and (before becoming President and acting this part) he generally spoke ill of the military and those who serve. Oh, and not to quibble, but many in the military I know are not fighting for someone they never met, but are fighting to keep our country of American values free for their parents, friends, and other people they have met- frequently soldiers talk about how it's more of a family value thing than a lawyer-lobbyist thing. And I also wonder why is 'this age' so different than those in the past- maybe Obama is once again showing that he feels he is the Messiah, the ender of ages and the beginning of a new age for man?

Even so, I was moved. Why do some choose to bear burdens? Why do some people feel a call to serve, to hold fast to unpopular ideas, and to make the hard and tough decisions in life? Why do some continue to bear the burden of holding to morals and values, when this world and the Democratic Party push for a nihilistic approach of doing whatever you feel like is okay? Why do some feel the need to talk about our Founding values, to hold firm to life, liberty, and freedom, and to push for good responsible government?

It is a lot easier to just throw money at our problems, especially when that money is was earned by someone else. It is a lot easier to preach 'compassion' for criminals, especially when it isn't your son or daughter that was raped or murdered. It is a lot easier to 'relate' than it is to make a tough decision and say 'someone broke the law and needs to be punished.' It is a lot easier to say 'give up your values and agree with us and be a moderate' than it is to stick to your values or to say abortion is wrong and gay marriage is wrong and gun ownership is good. Is is easy to get on a soapbox and say 'don't label people all you mean conservatives and evil Republicans', but much harder to say 'don't label people.' It is a hard burden that some choose to bear, and I too wonder why some feel the calling to do so.

Case in point. When asked "Would Jennifer Granholm make a good Supreme Court justice?", according to a Detroit News/WXYZ poll most Michigan residents say "yes!". Why would they say that? She has zero qualifications, and compared with Supreme Court judges now (both liberal and conservative) and in the past, her qualifications to be judge are severely lacking. Why would anyone even think she would qualified for judge, much less 'make a good one'?

Poll participant Sue Barber, an unemployed non-taxpayer sucking down social security, gives us some insight into how easy it is to say 'sure, whoever wants to be Supreme Court judge can if they want.' "She's very bright, well-educated, and an attorney" she said- why not make her a judge- it's really tough to tell a child 'no', and a lot easier to just go with the flow. Sue went on to add that she is impressed by the fact that Granholm pretends to be an impartial decision-maker ("a genuine capacity to look at all sides of an issue") but likes the fact that after all this charade, she always goes with a pure liberal philosophy ("evaluate fairly"). "She's not just a doctrinaire like some of the other justices on the court"- as if having no moral and ethical base were something to admire- and it's not true anyways, because she is liberal to the core (although perhaps liberal is the same as no moral or ethical base).

Another case in point. Look at the lack of discipline in this newspaper editorial written by a Democratic hack pretending to be a news story:

The Grand Old Party is on wobbly legs these days in Michigan as voters drift away and those left behind are locked in an ideological debate about the path to reverse its sagging fortunes. Increasingly, the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is pitting social and religious conservatives who unflinchingly tout an anti-abortion, anti-gay, family platform at the expense of most everything else, against the traditional fiscal conservatives and moderates who would rather focus on a smaller, less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs.

This author likes the fact that 'voters drift away'- drifting in the currents of liberalism is a freeing experience- you can be a child again and indulge in your every want and desire. Sadly, those voters that 'drift away' and vote Democrat are now seeing the results of that- a country and society that is getting less and less every day. It is much harder to stand up in the water and say 'I am not going to drown, I am going to fight, I am going to bear whatever burden to make this nation better.'

It is really tough to be unflinching in the face of evil. History has shown this to be the case- most of times, when faced with difficult decisions and a hostile and aggressive foe, the natural impulse of man is to run. That is what the Democrats do- they run and hide and pretend that it is okay to poke a hole in a 8 month old baby's brain and call it 'choice.' They flinch back from making a tough decision and saying 'get a job and work.' Rather than saying 'you committed a crime and must go to jail,' they jerk back, fearful and afraid, and cower to the criminal and say 'compassion'.

This author tries to pretend the battle is within the Republican party- but reveals that what the battle really is is between the Republican party and the Democratic party- the author says moderates want a "less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs"- in other words, according to him moderate Republicans are willing to pay 40% in taxes, give up most of their freedoms, and support a government that spends taxpayer money on government boondoggles. Those aren't moderate Republicans- those are Democrats.

Don't give in to this garbage. Don't drift away. Be strong. Get a backbone. Stand up. Bear the burden. Our Founding Fathers were not the most popular bunch, especially with the established interests and the international community. Take heart in that. Others out there show us the way- show us that burdens can be born, that courage can fight down the impulse to flinch back from evil, and that if you truly want to change the world and have hope for the future, you need to unflinchingly vote conservative Republican in every election.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes:

Africa has seen all kinds of development paradigms that have never fully factored in her rich values and experiences, unlike places like Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. Why should Africa be made to go through all these non-African-created development paradigms? Because the Western world thought that Africans are not developed, or more appropriately, not "civilized," and that they could replicate their values and experiences in Africa in their self-imposed "civilizing mission." They did this without factoring in Africa's values and experiences because they wanted to play God by re-creating Africans in their development image...Still, in terms of Africa's development progress, almost all the foreign development paradigms are not bad. The problems have been how to mix Africa's environment with these development paradigms so as to facilitate a better sustainable development, as advocates of the modernization theory say. This inability of African elites to creatively mix their values and experiences with their colonial legacies and the enabling aspects of the global development values, have not only seen Western governments continue largely with the modernization theory but also international development agencies' programs that come in the form of foreign development aid.

When our Founding Fathers designed the two house of Congress, the branch that was supposed to be closest to the people and the most powerful in our system, they designed one house to be filled with elite men and women of reason who looked long-term and focused on issues of national importance- the Senate. And the other house that our Founding Fathers designed was to be filled with the common men and women of passion who looked to short-term interests of their constituents and fought to make sure that their district's views were represented at the national level- the House of Representatives. These common men who filled the House were your neighbor, your local shopkeeper, the guy or girl down the street- people who you knew and people who knew you. They were not Senators, who argued about major issues of the day, which is indeed an important thing to argue about, but they were Representatives, who argued about the smaller issues of the day, which also are important things to argue about, because if you don't look after the smaller and personal interests of a district, the larger national stuff just isn't going to be solved either. It was a bicameral system that embraced the best of everything, and like most of the great systems that our Founding Fathers designed and built, over the years we've messed it up and perhaps ruined it.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I wrote that "At one time, I thought the 1930's were at the root of all that is wrong about America, and compiled a list of all of the laws and taxes and liberal decisions passed during that time." That post contained a list of all of those bad laws that came out of that time of fascism and communism and war and depression and collapsing social values. But one law that I left off that list was the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which established a permanent method for apportioning a now constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census, essentially capping the number of Representatives at 435.

So ever since 1911 (which was when the number 435 was first reached), rather than the House expanding in numbers to represent the interests of an expanding population, the number of Representatives remains at 435. Each year as the population of our nation grows, your Representative represents you a little bit less.

One way of thinking like it is this- in 1911, the population was 92 million and there were 435 Representatives, so a citizen had 1/211494th claim on a Representative- not a large claim to be sure, but at least the Representative was someone you might know, someone down the street from you, someone who had a business that you might have visited, someone who married your second cousin's sister or something. This person cared about your interests, cared about your district, and represented your concerns in Congress- they voted for issues that you wanted them to believe in because they were out of your neighborhood or area and so shared your interests, views, background, and values.

Today, our nation has a population of 308 million, and yet we still only have 435 Representatives in the United States House. Now, each citizen has a 1/708045th claim on a Representative- a claim so small that your Representative today is likely to not be someone that you know, not be someone that your aunt or sister or cousin knows, not be someone whose business you have frequented, and not be someone who represents you. Now, the districts are so large for Representatives that many different neighborhoods and areas are in them, areas that have differing views, interests, backgrounds, and values, and Representatives pander and play games to different groups within the district to get elected, rather than represent the views and interests within a more homogeneous area. This leads to many not be represented at all in our political system, their views and values and beliefs being drowned out by others, and to them having less stake in our political system, meaning that our elected officials have less just power to rule over us and less legitimacy in speaking for us. The system breaks down and tyranny increases.

Jeff Jacoby writing in the Boston Globe recently put it this way:

For most of American history, the size of the House was adjusted upward every 10 years. The initial 65-member House prescribed in the Constitution was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, to 142 members after the 1800 Census, and so on through the 19th century. Following the 13th census, in 1910, Congress enlarged the House to 435 members — and there it has remained, even as the number of Americans has more than tripled, from 92 million to 308 million. Ever since, the apportionment process has been able to allot new House seats to the fastest-growing states only by taking them away from states growing more slowly. One result is that many states have more voters, but fewer US representatives.

The larger districts grow, the less representative lawmakers become. Since 1910, the average number of constituents per House member has climbed from 210,000 to more than 710,000. Over the same span, members of Congress have grown more remote, more undefeatable, more beholden to special interests, and less capable of reflecting the diversity of their districts’ values and views. Smaller, more numerous districts, would be far more democratic, more accessible to new blood and new ideas, and more difficult to gerrymander.

Congress worked better when the size of the House was elastic. The Framers reckoned congressional districts should contain about 30,000 constituents; districts comprising nearly three-quarters of a million would have struck them as ludicrous.

A 435-member House was fine for 1910. It’s time we traded up to something bigger.

This idea also occurred to Matthew Cossolotto, writing in the Hill back in 2001. Then he wrote:

Through some legislative sleight-of-hand following the 1920 census, the House decided, contrary to established practice, not to increase its size. The House did by statute what should arguably require a constitutional amendment — capping its membership at 435.

As a result, after every decennial census we go through an agonizing process of zero-sum reapportionment. Based on the latest census data, we determine which states will lose and which states will gain seats in the artificially capped 435-member House.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of a zero-sum game pitting state against state, reapportionment could be a much fairer, win-win process if the House would only lift its self-imposed, cartel-like ceiling on the supply of representation in America. Call it “supply-side” representation...

...The House prides itself on being “the People’s House.” But the reality is a far cry from that ideal. The country has effectively outgrown our old 435-member House. It’s like a starter home for a young couple. Once the kids arrive, it’s time to get a bigger house. In the past 90 years the American family has added lots and lots of kids. So it’s time to enlarge the House to give our growing and diverse population greater access to the representation they deserve — the level of representation envisioned in the Constitution.

If the House of Representatives refuses to raise its OPEC-style, self-imposed and self-serving ceiling of 435 members, the representation-starved American people should raise the roof!

Congress needs to grow again and once more represent the people our nation- write your Congressman or Congresswomen today and ask that they reconsider the failed old policies of the recent past and return the successful new policies of our Founding Fathers. Ask that they consider increasing again the size of the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: Just saw an editorial in the New York Times called Build a Bigger House. Here are some of the best parts from it:

The result is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members — or 5,000 if we match the ratio the founders awarded themselves.

This disparity increases the influence of lobbyists and special interests: the more constituents one has, the easier it is for money to outshine individual voices. And it means that representatives have a harder time connecting with the people back in their districts.

What’s needed, then, is a significant increase in the size of the House by expanding the number, and shrinking the size, of districts. Doing so would make campaigns cheaper, the political value of donations lower and the importance of local mobilizing much greater.

Smaller districts would also end the two-party deadlock. Orange County, Calif., might elect a Libertarian, while Cambridge, Mass., might pick a candidate from the Green Party.

Moreover, with additional House members we’d likely see more citizen-legislators and fewer lifers. In places like New York or Chicago, we would cross at least one Congressional district just walking a few blocks to the grocery store. Our representatives would be our neighbors, people who better understood the lives and concerns of average Americans.

More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them equitably, especially in low-population states. Today the lone Wyoming representative covers about 500,000 people, while her lone counterpart in Delaware reports to 900,000.

The increase would also mean more elected officials working on the country’s business, reducing the reliance on unaccountable staffers. Most of the House’s work is through committees, overseeing and checking government agencies. With more people in Congress, House committee members could see to this critical business themselves — and therefore be more influential, since a phone call from an actual member is a lot more effective than a request from the committee staff.

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates. But Internet technology already provides effective low-cost management solutions, from Google Documents to streaming interactive video to online voting.

One of my middle kids is perfecting the art of going to the bathroom in the bathroom, and when he does we're using standard Pavlovian techniques of rewarding him with a gummy bear for each success. Another of my younger kids saw the gummy bears and wanted one, and I told him nope, and then explained to all the kids that you only get what you earn in life and nothing more. It is a rough lesson in this 'everyone gets a prize' world, but it is an important lesson if I want my children to be a positive for society. Sometimes I think I'm going a little too far with the raising of my kids, talking to them like that and reading them the Bible weekly and stuff, but then over at Pundit & Pundette I read a similar account from Timothy McSweeney. I suggest you read the whole post, but here are my favorite parts:

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him. The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna's reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn't given the ball simply because she'd demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden's pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn't anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we'd be undermining her appreciation of one of life's most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

Look, imagine what would happen if we were to enact some sort of potty training Equalization of Opportunity Act in which we regularized the distribution all of Johanna's and Aiden's potty chart stickers. Suddenly it would seem as if Aiden had earned the right to wear big-boy underpants, and within minutes you'd have a Taggart Tunnel-esque catastrophe on your hands, if you follow me.

Johanna shouldn't be burdened with supplying playthings for every bed-wetting moocher she happens to meet. If you saw Johanna, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold aloft the collective weight of an entire Tot Lot's worth of Elmo balls with the last of her strength, what would you tell her to do?

UPDATE: Some people are saying that the above story is a joke. As in 'it's funny to even imagine someone trying to teach their children any values other than liberalism/socialism.' As in 'for someone to do this is hilarious, but for every day in schools around the nation to indoctrinate every child with liberal values and beliefs is totally okay.' Sad, how some in our society are okay with indoctrination and messing with people's minds and values (largely against the wishes of the parents), while they are totally unaccepting of parents teaching children different values and beliefs. Your opinion of the above post only proves whether you are a joker or not.

UPDATE II: You leftist morons who continue to link to this post to mock me are still missing the point. This particular story from McSweeney may have been a satire, but what makes the satire so funny and interesting is how close to the truth it strikes. Look through the archives of my blog and you can find dozens of true experiences documenting further attempts by the left that I've personally seen and wrote about- that's the point of this blog, that liberals have used the school systems to pollute the minds of children and indoctrinate them to become liberals. It is scary that I'm a radical conservative maverick in my school because I teach kids to love liberty and freedom, to respect property rights and law, and to love and enjoy life- and it is scary that many liberals want me to not teach children any more because of those values.

In two recent separate posts, Scott and John of PowerLine highlight the hypocrisy of the left in our nation. To refresh your memory, I wrote this on the subject of the left's hypocrisy in my post Rand Paul to Obama Officials: You are pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?:

One word that he brings up several times and which I believe increasingly characterizes the liberal leftists who have seized control of the modern Democratic Party is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches- perhaps one advocates or preaches certain virtues but is unable to obtain those due to lack of self-control or strength or temperament- but rather, hypocrisy is play-acting or pretending to be something which you are not.

Let us be clear- a conservative cheating on his wife while preaching conservative values is wrong but is not a hypocrite, provided he recognized that he is weak and lacked strength or self-control. But a conservative who cheats on his wife but really doesn't think that it was wrong and yet then preaches conservative values, knowing that they are incompatible with his views, is a hypocrite.

Although the right and conservatives are not immune from hypocrisy, I believe it is found more so on the left and in liberals because increasingly they are the ones who are denying the truths of the situation and are employing double-speak to advocate for their political values. A good old-fashioned communist really believed in wealth-redistribution and the evils of capitalist pigs; a modern day liberal talks about 'spreading the wealth' and 'enhancing revenue on top earners'. A modern day liberal speaks of being pro-choice, but does not allow the baby to choose and doesn't support letting people choose their light-bulbs, toilets, or energy sources. A modern day liberal talks about and preaches being environmentally friendly, yet video after video demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that when liberals gather together, they trash the environment with their 'green concerts' or 'pro-union rallies'. Liberals tell us to do as they say but not as they do- but they see no problem in this because they truly do not believe in what they are saying so have no guilt or remorse about telling us to do things which they do not do. A liberal can give a press conference about how he has expanded energy production, all the time knowing that he has not and is actually working to lower energy production, because he believes that lying is okay because there is no real truths in the world. Of course examples can be found of conservatives being hypocrites, but the Democratic party today is increasingly a party filled with unbelievable hypocrisy.

Over at Powerlineblog, Scott wrote in his post Vindication:

In a biting column he titles "The first-person presidency," Victor Davis Hanson conveniently summarizes the national security positions asserted by then Senator Obama, with relevant quotations, and contrasts them with the positions he has taken as president. He then provides this convenient summary:

"Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts -- before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation -- this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama's radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away...."

John's post at Powerlingblog makes the connection between modern liberals and hypocrisy even more clear in his post Time to Celebrate?

No doubt, very few of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 anticipated that the high point of his administration would be the extra-judicial killing of a terrorist leader by a team of Navy SEALs. This, as our involvement in Iraq winds down on the Bush administration's timetable, the war in Afghanistan has been stepped up, and a third conflict in Libya has been commenced. But for the Democrats, any port in a storm: they are happy to celebrate victories wherever they can find them....

...One is, nevertheless, struck by the rapturous manner in which the liberal press has applauded Obama's role in the mission...

...All of this praise is due to the fact that Obama approved, rather than nixing, the killing of bin Laden. A good decision, to be sure. But is there a single person, anywhere, who doubts that George W. Bush would have made the same call? Or John McCain, if he had won in 2008? Of course not. The Democrats' jubilation results from the fact that their guy didn't wilt under pressure, but rather lived up to the standard that George W. Bush and John McCain easily met. For this, he is called "courageous" and "gutsy."

One wonders: if killing bin Laden was a courageous, gutsy decision by Barack Obama, where were the liberals when President Bush approved the killing of Zarqawi? Do you remember any of them praising that decision as courageous and "game changing?" No, neither do I. Or how about the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? How many congratulations did that skillfully-executed operation draw from the Left? And how about Bush's decision to topple, and then capture, Saddam Hussein, one of America's bitterest enemies, whose forces tried to shoot down American airplanes and who attempted to assassinate a former American President? Was that a courageous and gutsy decision? We all know the answer to that question.

What we are currently witnessing is the strange spectacle of liberals trying to grab, for their guy, a mantle neither he nor they ever sought: cold-blooded assassin of anti-American terrorists. This has nothing to do with their true values and priorities, and everything to do with the fact that Obama's economic policies have put him in a deep hole as he seeks re-election next year...

America is a principled nation, founded on principles and inhabited by many with principles. And yet one of our major parties, the Democratic Party, has essentially abandoned any pretense of principles under the leadership of President Obama. The party is now about one thing- power, and maintaining power, by playing games with the American people, notably games of race and class division, all while still pretending to actually have real principles. Look, I know some of my readers are Democrats, and I increasingly wonder how they can defend this guy and support his presidency when it is increasingly becoming clear that he is above all else a hypocrite.

Obama is a deceiver who cares nothing for the values and beliefs of our nation but pretends to do so in order to get what he craves more than anything else- power and control over others.

• Will 'National Opt Out Day' Spark a Testing Backlash? - Education - GOOD

  Be aware. here comes national Opt out day where students and their parents choose to opt out of tests. It is shocking that superintendent John Kuhn from Texas says that students spend 45 out of 180 school days administering standardized tests. At my school it is 3 days of 2-3 hours each per class. That is it. Perhaps that is why our test scores are so good - we actually have time to teach.
  
  A new grass roots movement is underfoot.

  tags: news education

• Mozilla seeks designers to supercharge learning in digital badges competition « o p e n m a t t

  Graphic designers, web designers, and educational technologies are invited to design badges for Mozilla's Open badge project. This is going to be an exciting program.

  tags: education oer mozilla openlearning competition news

• Newport Beach, California Students Caught Cheating On Exam, Bought Answers From Amazon

  OK, time to blog Amazon. (not really) Students are buying test banks from them. Honestly, if a student really wants to find a test bank, they will be able to in this day and age. They're able to get alcohol and cigarettes, what makes us think they can't get the test if it is available for purchase online? We have to be better than just giving a test that is in a test bank. Even if I start with a test bank, I always customize it and make sure that the knowledge that students have to share can't be condensed to multiple choice. 
  
  About 10 sophomores at Corona del Mar high school in Newport Beach, Calif. purchased test banks, which provide chapter-by-chapter answers for the exam -- designed to help teachers write tests that properly measure student learning, the Daily Pilot reports. A total of 180 students took the exam.

  tags: education assessment news

• Seth's Blog: I was wrong

  It is so hard to admit you are wrong. There are those who never admit it and I steer clear of them. Then, there are those who do. Others just blame everyone else. Seth says it well:
  
  "Two elements of successful leadership: a willingness to be wrong and an eagerness to admit it."
  
  Eagerness would be hard for most people because it means we screw up and we're afraid others will point it out more often, but it is something we must be willing to do. 

  tags: education inspiration news leadership

• Do school librarians have "enduring values?" - Home - Doug Johnson's Blue Skunk Blog

  Doug Johnson writes about the values of librarians by starting with Michael Gorman's ALA enduring core values that he shared with the association in 2000 but added to by Doug's 10 values of his own. At the heart of what Doug believes beats the pulse of a true democratic society. A great read and discussion post for librarians.

  tags: education news librarian libraries

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes::

The heavy criticism of the African elite in relation to Africa’s progress is that they are the frontline directors of progress and, as intellectuals, are the main players of development ideas for progress. They should be questioned about Africa’s development troubles. Whether they are playing with ideas or directing development, the elites should be informed by African values first. Because of their education system or their own inability to think within their values first, especially in policy-making, African elites have projected “debilitating intellectual incoherence” in tackling the continent’s development. They are skewed, more or less, towards talking Western values or thinking of Western values when tackling Africa’s progress.

The great Thomas Sowell recently penned this article- here are the best parts-

First of all, the day-to-day life of most Americans in these times is nowhere near as dire as that of the band of cold, ragged and hungry men who gathered around George Washington in the winter at Valley Forge, to which they had been driven by defeat after defeat. Only the most reckless gambler would have bet on them to win. Only an optimist would have expected them to survive.

In another sense, however, looming ahead of us-- and our children and their children-- are dangers that can utterly destroy American society. Worse yet, there are moral corrosion's within ourselves that weaken our ability to face the challenges ahead.

It took only two nuclear bombs to get Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese of that era were far tougher than most Americans today. Just one bomb-- dropped on New York, Chicago or Los Angeles-- might be enough to get us to surrender. If we are still made of sterner stuff than it looks like, then it might take two or maybe even three or four nuclear bombs, but we will surrender.

It doesn't matter if we retaliate and kill millions of innocent Iranian civilians-- at least it will not matter to the fanatics in charge of Iran or the fanatics in charge of the international terrorist organizations that Iran supplies. Ultimately, it all comes down to who is willing to die and who is not.

How did we get to this point? It was no single thing. The dumbing down of our education, the undermining of moral values with the fad of "non-judgmental" affectations, the denigration of our nation through poisonous propaganda from the movies to the universities. The list goes on and on.

The trajectory of our course leads to a fate that would fully justify despair. The only saving grace is that even the trajectory of a bullet can be changed by the wind. Over the years, we have had our share of miraculous deliverance's. But that our fate today depends on yet another miracle is what can turn pessimism to despair.

In a more practical sense, I would say that our fate today depends on more than just hope and change- we've tried that charlatan's approach, and it is making our country worse. Rather, our fate today depends on rediscovering the past- the political values, the moral values, and the religious values that our founding fathers built our nation on and that helped it rise to its glory and prosperity today.

Our fate today depends on us electing conservatives and libertarians, who are found almost exclusively within the Republican Party, and so our fate today depends on us voting for the right Republicans in the primary elections and supporting the broader party in the general elections.

And our fate comes on changing our educational system- the KGB or Communists long ago decided the best way to destroy America was through "cultural warfare" and have been quite successful in their aims (although I'm not sure if it is purposeful today- do socialists really want to destroy America or are they just on a robotic Terminator auto-pilot and are the too dumb to see the effects?). You need to put pressure on your school boards, put pressure on your elected representatives, and put pressure on your school administration and teachers to teach your children the correct material. Read the history books of your children, read their child's environmental textbooks, and talk to and listen to your children when they tell you about their teachers and education. We need to change the educational establishment, or else all else fails.

I gave a presentation at school today about tech in the classroom, and I gave a stack of handouts to the teachers who came. In that stack was a list of other websites they might find useful in their classroom, and that list included Rubistar. I confidently told the teachers at the presentation that all links listed on their handouts would appear on my teacher blog. ...Then, when I visited my blog to make a new post a few minutes ago, I happened to notice that I had yet to create a post over one of my most-used resources: Rubistar. 

If you are a rubric-user at all, you really should join the Rubistar bandwagon!

What is a Rubric?
A rubric is, above all, a fair and easy way to grade otherwise subjective projects, activities, and/or assignments. A rubric looks like a large grid of boxes with words in it. Running across the top, you'll have the point values. Running across the left-hand side will be the categories. In the middle, you'll see descriptions of each category, in varying stages of completion. The top half might look like this:


This particular rubric happens to be for a speech (and it's incomplete), but you can make rubrics for virtually anything that has some "gray area" to it.

I say the rubric you see above is incomplete because I still see some ambiguous descriptions in those middle boxes. For instance, what is "appropriate clothing"? And what is that, vs. the "mostly appropriate clothing"? Before I would hand this one out, I would definitely edit these boxes to make sure they're as clear as possible. There can't be any doubt left in my students' minds as to what I expect. If I were to edit this for student-use, I'd put numerical values to the descriptions in the middle boxes. For instance, I might say "appropriate clothing: dressed 'business casually,' with no holes, wrinkles, or dirt. Hair and face are well-groomed, and students appears clean." or something like that. I'd be as specific as possible. For the body posture descriptions, I might use percentages. For instance, "student maintained correct body posture (standing up straight with no slouching, slumping, or curving of the shoulders) 100% of the time" might be in the 10 point description box. (See what I mean about being specific? That's sometimes the hard part: nailing down EXACTLY what it is I want students to do.)

What's in a Rubric?
Keep in mind that this entire thing is completely customizable. No only can you change the title, categories, and middle-box descriptions, but you can also change the point values. I've seen some teachers grade on a "1, 2, 3, 4" scale, and others grade on a "10, 20, 30, 40" scale. It's really up to you. In the end, all my assignments are worth 100%, anyway; it's just a matter of deciding how much of a "point gap" you want between levels.

Why Use Rubrics?

I use rubrics for all my projects because I feel it's the most fair way to grade. Right up front, the students know a) what elements I'm looking for, b) what I consider "worth 5 points" vs what I consider "worth 10 points," and c) EXACTLY what they should do to get an "A."

I give rubrics to my students at the beginning of projects and ask that they not only keep up with these until the end of the project, but they must review them, as well. Early in the year, I taught my students how to skim the rubric's highest point-value column, looking for specifics as to what would get them a perfect grade on the assignment. I also taught them how to read the different levels. For instance, we made a board game over Romeo and Juliet. In this board game, students had to include at least 15 questions and answers about the play, the Elizabethan times, and/or Shakespeare himself. On that rubric, in the "quantity of questions and answers" category, I made sure to stair-step the point values (all 15 Q&A's earns 9 points. 10-14 Q&A's earns 6 points. 5-9 Q&A's earns 3 points. 0-4 Q&A's earns 0 points). So, when I was talking about time-management with my students, and about how to get the best "bang for your buck," I was trying to reason with them... If you're OK with only getting 6 points on your question and answer quantity section, and you have a very limited amount of time (because you've procrastinated), then how about only doing 10 Q&A's, since you'll earn the same amount of points, whether you do 10 of them or 14? It was examples like that that, I think, really nailed the point of the rubric home. Most of my students have actually expressed that they enjoy and appreciate the rubrics because it sets clear boundaries for them.

This also keeps me fair when I grade creative projects. Otherwise, how would I be able to distinguish between a 90% and an 80%? I can't trust my judgment to be fair and consistent every time (particularly if I'm in a bad mood when I'm grading! Yikes!). This allows me to be very stable with my grading. More than once, I've been in the middle of grading and wanted to dock points for something that I felt was sub-par, compared to others, but when I looked at the rubric, I had no choice but to NOT dock points. So I guess you could say that the rubric has helped some of my kids' grades! :)

Another thing I really like about the rubric is something that really just has to do with me. I feel like I'm a better teacher after I've made a rubric. In order to make one, you have to know EXACTLY what criteria you're looking for in the project, and you have to be able to communicate that very well in a short amount of space on paper. I feel that creating rubrics has made me a more clear and concise speaker, and that I am better at communicating objectives when I use rubrics.

Back to Rubistar

OK, now that all THAT is said and done, let's move back to Rubistar. Rubistar is a free, online rubric maker, designed especially for teachers. (By the way, 4teachers.org has tons of other useful teacher-websites, too, if you wanna check it out!) You can either choose one of the [many] free ones that Rubistar has already made for you, OR you can create your own. You can edit one of the [many] templates, or you can start from scratch. It's really up to you. Once you have a Rubistar account, you can save your rubrics until a certain time, or you can save them indefinitely. (I always save mine indefinitely.)

One you're finished, you have the option to print directly from the Rubistar website, but I usually copy and paste it all onto a Word document, just so I can add a few more features. I add a header (usually the name of the project and/or the class) and adjust the spacing of the boxes and words. I sometimes add a "student comments" section, where students can explain themselves in a few sentences before they turn the project in. I always add a "points earned" and "total grade" section at the very end; this way, students know EXACTLY what his or her grade is when they get the paper back. (To grade on a rubric, just make lines in or circle the boxes that describe the student's performance in each category.)

-----

Students may be a little confused about rubrics at first, but I know they'll love 'em once the year is over, and so will you! Grading goes a lot more smoothly and quickly, and everyone is on "the same page" as to what you're actually expecting on an assignment. Check it out!!

Via theblogprof I found this video of Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) questioning the Department of Energy's commitment to protecting consumer choice during consideration of Appliance/Light Bulb Energy-Efficiency Legislation. One word that he brings up several times and which I believe increasingly characterizes the liberal leftists who have seized control of the modern Democratic Party is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches- perhaps one advocates or preaches certain virtues but is unable to obtain those due to lack of self-control or strength or temperament- but rather, hypocrisy is play-acting or pretending to be something which you are not.

Let us be clear- a conservative cheating on his wife while preaching conservative values is wrong but is not a hypocrite, provided he recognized that he is weak and lacked strength or self-control. But a conservative who cheats on his wife but really doesn't think that it was wrong and yet then preaches conservative values, knowing that they are incompatible with his views, is a hypocrite.

Although the right and conservatives are not immune from hypocrisy, I believe it is found more so on the left and in liberals because increasingly they are the ones who are denying the truths of the situation and are employing double-speak to advocate for their political values. A good old-fashioned communist really believed in wealth-redistribution and the evils of capitalist pigs; a modern day liberal talks about 'spreading the wealth' and 'enhancing revenue on top earners'. A modern day liberal speaks of being pro-choice, but does not allow the baby to choose and doesn't support letting people choose their light-bulbs, toilets, or energy sources. A modern day liberal talks about and preaches being environmentally friendly, yet video after video demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that when liberals gather together, they trash the environment with their 'green concerts' or 'pro-union rallies'. Liberals tell us to do as they say but not as they do- but they see no problem in this because they truly do not believe in what they are saying so have no guilt or remorse about telling us to do things which they do not do. A liberal can give a press conference about how he has expanded energy production, all the time knowing that he has not and is actually working to lower energy production, because he believes that lying is okay because there is no real truths in the world. Of course examples can be found of conservatives being hypocrites, but the Democratic party today is increasingly a party filled with unbelievable hypocrisy.

Here is the video of Senator Paul exposing the hypocrisy of one of Obama's officials...

From Kwame Anthony Appiah's soliloquy on honor to Zehd A's discourse on the loss of shame. In Nigerian Curiosity:

According to cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, shame differs from guilt in that it is a violation of social and cultural values rather than personal values. Shame is an important tool for socialization as it is often used to regulate behavior, and is an important pillar of punishment in most societies. A shameless society therefore, implies a complete breakdown of social values that compel individuals of that society to exercise some degree of responsibility towards each other. How does one appeal to the conscience of a man who is impervious to disgrace? This is a trait that characterizes not just our political class, but even average citizens. Shamelessness is the disease that has permeated every aspect of our consciousness, from our schools to our churches to our institutions of government. It is everywhere and it is destroying us as a people.

More here

Rich Colours in Oil Painting Rachel Shirley

The following problem areas are usually at fault when faced with colour mixing with oil paints for the first time.

Working too closely to the painting often leads the artist to believe that small marks have more significant when viewed from afar. Using a fine brush when working over a large painting will also lead to a painting filled with small and insignificant brush marks that cannot be discerned from a distance.

Painting straight onto a white surface will make even the palest colour appear dark and deep by comparison. Working under a bright light will exacerbate the effect as the light bounces off the white surface of primed canvas, for example, making any colour, however pale, seem to have great significance and misleading the artist on its true tonal value.

Painting a white object such as snow, a snowy-haired pet or clouds may often send a subconscious message to the artist that the object is white, getting in the way of viewing the object honestly. The result is the automatic reaction of using lots of white paint.

Tonal Values in Colours

Capturing objects in a painting not only entails observing its colour, but also its tonal value. However, painting bright coloured objects such as tomatoes may lead the artist to forget about tones. Some colours are also presumed to have a darker tone than others, such as blues being darker than yellow. In fact, any colour can be darker or paler than another. Yellow can indeed be darker than blue; purple can be paler than orange.

How to Paint Rich Colours in Oils

To overcome wishy-washy colour mixes, try painting onto a tinted surface rather than white. An imprimatura is a thin wash of paint that kills the whiteness of the painting surface. I use acrylic, although oils will do. Acrylic dries water-soluble and quickly. Grey, neutral or earth colour is ideal for gauging the true tonal value of a particular oil pigment when it is applied on top.

Applying a pale colour onto a tinted surface will look pale rather than dark. Working from dark to light will also force the artist to examine the true value of pale colours. This entails painting onto a black surface. Applying mid-tones before the pales is a good practice for artists learning about tonal values.

You can also make an oil painting shimmer by painting onto an imprimatura of a contrasting colour to the painting itself, such as painting a picture of a green meadow onto a red imprimatura.

Rich Colour Mixes in Oil Paintings

The following tips on producing vibrant oil paintings may help the artist take chromatic risks and get out of the trap of mixing insipid colours.

• Try to include all tonal values in the painting, from white to very dark.
• Half close the eyes in order to see a colour’s tonal value. Darken it with the colour’s opposing colour rather than black. In the case of blue, this will be orange.
• Stand back from the painting to gauge the true significance of each brush mark. Using a wider brush than one thinks necessary may force the artist to use bold brush marks and take risks.
• Produce a small study on a scrap piece of card featuring a bright colour. Neat cadmium red for instance for an apple or yellow for a banana. Use the colour’s complimentary colour for shadows and darks. In the case of the banana, this will be violet

Tonal Keys in Painting

click to buy from Amazon

• Primary colours in art
• How to mix colours
• Glazing technque with oil paint
• Demonstration on painting dark to light

Recently I read The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (Penguin Classics), by G.K. Chesterton. I've heard a lot about Chesterton, and have always wanted to read some of his stuff, and I would still suggest reading something he has written, but probably not this book to start. Although it is good, the longer the book goes, the less good it gets, and the ending to me felt like I had to read it 10 times just to say 'oh, I get it now, clever'- not the kind of ending that will stand out in your mind. That being said, it was a good book, and had some good parts to it.

The book takes place in 1900 London, and focuses on a policeman who is fighting anarchists. He manages to get himself elected to the anarchists council, where each person is called by a day of the week. Our hero is called Thursday, and he schemes to stop and expose the other anarchists, including the man bad guy, Saturday. Through this surreal plot and the nutty characters, Chesterton comments on moral relativism and nihilism, and this is the best stuff in the book.

The main character, Gabriel Syme, is a guy who I sort of understand. He grew up in a home where 'change' was the mantra of the day, where his parents were beholden to progressive ideas, and where the whole family attempted to portray sophistication and rebellion. And as time went on Syme began to see how revolting this behavior was, how demented and sad these people were, and so he himself revolted to sanity. He ran from change and progressivism to common sense, to law, to gentle and courteous behavior.

I understand Syme- as our society embraces 'change' and values are lost, MTV grows more lewd, Micheal Jackson is a 'hero', not eating meat and smoking drugs is embraced, and our culture becomes more progressive, I personally am increasingly revolted. When I was younger, I was less conservative, I was more moderate- but this revolting behavior of our society is causing me to revolt against it, and to embrace traditional values, to have more common sense, and to be a better person, much like Syme was.

Chesterton, like other great authors like Orwell, understood the way the world works and understood how tyranny and oppression develops. Remember 1984 and Animal Farm- the dangerous characters, those that were bad and evil, were not the uneducated country boys who believed in private ownership and conservative values. The dangerous, evil, and bad characters were the educated, sophisticated, moral relativistic, and value free ones.

So it goes with Chesterton. As Syme talks with a policeman in Chapter 4, the policeman says:

(The anti-anarchist police) deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher.

Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men. They accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.

The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed- say a wealthy uncle- he is then prepared to accept the universe and praise God. He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them.

Yes, the modern world has retained all of those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church.

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it a punishment. They do not believe that the crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime. These people talk about 'a happy time coming,' 'the paradise of the future,' 'mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,' and so on.

And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

I realize that is a long passage, but it was one of the most meaningful in the book, because it conveys that the enemy is indeed a terrible thing, and not because they wear a black mask or have a golden gun, but because of what they themselves believe. As you read that passage, perhaps you understand why Chesterton is so highly regarded- did you get a sense that he was describing someone in our political system?

Chesterton might have called them anarchists or philosophers, and later they might go by other names like fascist or communist, but to me, their ideas about economic suicide for no reason, their dislike of labeling things right and wrong, and their views on life and mark them as the modern Democratic Party. And at the center of the inner circle there is a man who speaks to applauding crowds and says pleasing phrases, but he is under no illusions, and his actions have terrible consequences for our great nation.

Buy the book here and learn more about the left-wing movements...