By Crissy Brown & Matt Patterson:

Homer didn’t tweet.

A facile observation, to be sure — Twitter did not exist in Homer’s time and place, wherever and whenever that might have been. (Most scholars put him in late eighth century B.C. in Ionia, but no one knows for sure.)

If Twitter had existed in Homer’s day, though, would he have tweeted? If his time had been so occupied, would he still have been able to compose his twin masterpieces, the Iliad and the Odyssey — the foundation texts of Western civilization? More important, if a person existed today with the cognitive and linguistic capacities of a Homer, would Twitter (and the like) be liable to stoke or squelch his potential?

To ask such questions is to brush up against the eternal entwinement of thought and language. No one debates whether or not digital tools such as Twitter debase the language; in a way, that is their very purpose. The question is: Does it matter?

It does. In fact, future archaeologists looking back on our early-21st-century imperial decay surely will note that the erosion of the ability to write — and therefore, think — went hand in hand with a degradation of our politics and culture. As George Orwell put it seven decades ago, “It is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic cause but an effect can become a cause.”

The latest evidence of our literary decline is a new school study program called the Common Core (adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia), which will make it mandatory that 70 percent of books taught in the classroom through grade 12 be nonfiction by 2014. Partially funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the new standard is backed by both the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Requiring public schools to trade timeless fiction for “informational texts” in their curricula may mean setting aside the wicked wit of Oscar Wilde for the starched structure of imaginatively void writings like “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” by the General Services Administration (GSA). The motivation behind the new emphasis: Education administrators increasingly feel that imaginative prose and verse do not adequately prepare students for the workforce. David Coleman, who led the effort to write the new standard, explained, “Forgive me for saying this so bluntly. The only problem with a [personal narrative] writing is, as you grow up in this world, you realize people really don’t give [expletive] about what you feel or what you think.”

How fortunate that Sappho and Mark Twain did not share Mr. Coleman’s views on these matters.

Many teachers, of course, dispute the notion that literature doesn’t prepare students for the world. “There is no research base for the claim that informational reading will lead to college preparedness better than complex literary study,” said University of Arkansas professor Sandra Stotsky, the author of Massachusetts’ standards for pre-kindergarten through grade 12, widely considered among the best in the nation.

To be sure, nonfiction and informational texts are important components of a well-rounded education. If we fail to expose children to our great imaginative writing, however, lost to them will be training in intuitive thought, reflection and creativity, invaluable skills whose usefulness transcends any workplace. Great literary works — from Ovid to Dante to Joyce — do more than entertain. They wire the brain for big ideas and prepare the heart for the large and luxurious loves of which it is capable. As Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote in “A Defense of Poetry”: “Words are instinct with spirit; each is as a spark, a burning atom of inextinguishable thought; and many yet lie covered in the ashes of their birth and pregnant with a lightning which has yet found no conductor.”

One day, perhaps, thanks to digital tools like Twitter and a loss of nerve among our educational elite, we will no longer be capable of conducting the great music still sounding somewhere in our collective soul.

We lost our literary heritage once — when Rome fell and the world descended into the barbarity of the Dark Ages. The great works of antiquity really were lost in this period, physically lost. How sad that after our medieval ancestors took such pains to recover and preserve that heritage, we are starting again to lose it. Yet the books are no longer lost.

We are.

Originally Posted on Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/losing-our-literary-legacy-in-the-twitter-era/
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/losing-our-literary-legacy-in-the-twitter-era/#ixzz2T7MBzpmI
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

By Paul Bousquet:

Let us travel back to 1st grade for a moment, that magical time where girls had cooties and everything was simple. It is time for math. There is a problem on the board that reads, “You have $5. You gave $4 away to Suzie. How much money do you have now?” Using that new thing the teacher talked about yesterday called subtraction; you solve the problem and determine that the correct answer is 1 dollar. The teacher calls on you to answer, which you do. Immediately following that, a classmate, Barrack, stands up and says, “But teacher, I think the answer is nine.” Another student, Ben B., chimed in and said, “Actually I think the answer is fifteen.” Pretty soon Joe, Nancy, Harry, Piers, and others are shouting out answers which are quite different from yours. Now you are confused because it is unfathomable how you could spend money but end up with more than you had originally.

Back to the present. Congratulations. You have just learned the basic principles of Keynesian Economics. I hope you are happy to hear that our president and many members of congress believe in economic solutions to problems like the one that was just presented.

We currently have a big problem in our government, well in reality a lot more than one, but one of the main issues is definitely spending. Our government spends way more than it should, and as a result our economy suffers and we find ourselves approaching 17 Trillion Dollars in debt. One of the main problems is that so many people in our government believe in economic theories like Keynesian Economics. People believe that spending money will somehow spur economic growth or “jump start the economy”. Based on what I like to call common sense, this theory miserably fails. If you want proof, look at the Credit Industry. The credit industry takes advantage of unaware consumers by giving them the fake guarantee that they can spend as much as they like with no consequences. Little do they know that sometime they will have to pay off all that money they spent on that new Cadillac, and as a result many members of the middle and lowers class find themselves knee-deep in debt. And like people who tend to live outside their means, America also finds itself knee deep in debt.

One of the main components of our spending problem is bailouts. A bailout is money that the government gives to a bank in a time of need. The majority of banks who receive bailouts either pay the money back, but then require a second bailout or they don’t pay it back at all. In Obama’s first term, the federal government spent a total of 11 Trillion dollars on bailouts. Obama’s economic plan obviously has not worked. What we need to do is significantly reduce the amount of money we spend on bailouts.

One part of Obama’s economic plan is major support for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve or ‘The Fed’ is a government institution which basically acts as a giant government bank. The sad thing is not many people know what The Fed is. The Federal Reserve spent over half of the total money on bailouts at 6 Trillion dollars. The bad part is The Fed does not even need congressional or executive consent to spent money. The Federal Reserve can just spend and print whatever amount it wants. Printing and spending money simply does not work. The Wiemar Republic (what Germany had before the Nazi Regime) attempted to print an excessive amount of money to pay of its World War I debt and as a result their inflation rate was the highest the world has ever seen. Also Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, two of our nation’s most esteemed presidents, opposed similar institutions to The Fed (the 1st and 2nd National Banks respectively). They also did not trust these institutions at all. Andrew Jackson even stooped as low as calling the members of the 2nd National Bank “A den of Vipers and Thieves”.

Another aspect of his budget Obama is really pushing for is to raise the debt ceiling. The Debt Ceiling is basically the amount of money the government can spend in a year, and raising the debt ceiling increases the amount of money the government can spend. Again, economic tactics such as these do not work. The founding fathers did not want the government to pick winners and losers. When you spend money frivolously, you do not get money back. What we need to do is balance our budget, not make it imbalanced. Even more unreasonable, many people including Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi are advising the president to use an executive order to raise the debt ceiling. Nice Nancy, ruin or economy and shred our Constitution in one simple action.

It appears some of the people in our government need to retake 1st grade math. We do not need to take risks investing in greedy corporations in banks. We do not need the Federal Reserve printing 85 Billion dollars a month and buying 40 Billion a month in mortgage securities. We need to cut spending, balance the budget, and end almost all of the bailouts. If we do this, we will transfer into a period of economic recovery. If not, I am not sure I want to see the effects.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

By Eddie Kamber:

The key to the next election for the Republican Party is pushing fiscal issues and putting a significantly lower emphasis on the social issues. The GOP must remind the average voter what should be obvious – that the Republican Party is far more serious about solving our fiscal crisis than the Democrats.  The consequences for the country are too great for the Republican’s to be perceived as putting social issues ahead of building a “Reagan” consensus to make our federal government leaner and more efficient. America is in desperate need of GOP influence to lower our rate of spending and take fiscal responsibility. In order for this to happen in today’s era of modern politics where “winning” and “losing” is key in getting the voice of the party heard, it is crucial that the GOP tone it down on the social issues and push for fiscal responsibility.  There is the opportunity to again build a consensus that our government should be one of limited powers and what it has the power to do, it must do well.

Everyone in the GOP, from the Romney-style moderates who push for fiscal responsibility to the Santorum-style social conservatives, understands the importance the 2016 election will have.  At this point the question has probably come up in your head “Which side is best for the future of the GOP?” As previously stated in the article the key to the next election will be trumping fiscal issues over social issues.

According to an article published by Kenneth Walsh of US News in February of this year Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express believes: “If the establishment’s large donors want to see a complete electoral catastrophe, then all they need to do is push Tea Party conservatives into supporting alternative third candidates. … The secret ingredient to a winning      formula is conservative principles. [Ronald] Reagan’s victories in the 1980s, [Rep.] Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolution of 1994, and the Tea Party’s historic wins in 2010 were all made possible because the Republican Party and its candidates stood strongly and proudly for pro-growth fiscal conservative policies.”

Based on this analysis, which I happen to agree with, it is clear the future of the GOP relies heavily on pushing for fiscally conservative policies rather than pushing heavily on socially conservative policies. The problem with pushing for a socially conservative politician is a majority of Americans have become progressively more socially liberal or libertarian over recent years. Evidence that supports this was the heavy of public support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Although to some in the conservative movement this may not seem like the “moral” thing to do, you have to ask yourself  “Is pushing the social issues worth jeopardizing the fiscal future of the next generation by pushing social issues.” The GOP has a choice, it can win a rollback of Obamacare and other constitutionally questionable exercises of federal power or it can continue waging losing efforts like DOMA and be seen as trying to have government imposed morality.  America needs the GOP to choose to fight for fiscally responsible limited government and not dilute its message. In the modern day Republic of the United States of America pushing the fiscal issues is key to winning the next election.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

By Dan Lipka

China is currently the largest foreign holder of American debt and the source of suspicion by many Americans. Governor Romney and Donald Trump both stated that if elected president, would assertively attempt to coerce China to shaping up its monetary and labor policies. Yet, we all need China because no American wants to assemble and iPhone for less than one dollar per hour. Still, many Americans are intimidated by China’s consistent growth in GDP. Since it is debatable how real China’s growth is, for the sake of this essay, I will assume it is at least mostly real. China’s growth could have many benefits to the United States with the negatives.

Negatives

Energy Consumption: Like any economy, with more production, China will demand more energy. The simplest rules of economics tell us that with a higher demand and constant supply, the price of energy will go up all over the world. This is especially true with oil, an issue many people are extremely concerned about.

America’s Global Dominance: The justification for the United States as a superpower is largely tied into the fact that the USA has the largest GDP, and the largest defense budget. It also funds the largest portion of the United Nations and NATO. If China’s living standards go up, it will be able to challenge American influence all over the world.

Positives

Movement of Labor: The largest reason for outsourcing is that China is a very desirable environment from a financial standpoint for American companies. China has an export oriented economy with labor prices kept incredibly low. While their method of achieving the weakness of their currency is morally reprehensible, the United States has not and likely will not confront it in the near future. With growth in China, the price of labor will necessarily increase. If that happens, the jobs in China lose their edge over American jobs, and we may see many jobs “come home.” In spite of movement to other poor Asian and Latin American countries, some of the jobs will return to the United States.

Chinese Consumption: This is by far the most significant reason for an American edge coming with China’s economic growth. The Chinese government has taken huge amounts of credit in order to develop itself internally. Currently, the United States sells more goods in Germany and Japan than it does in China despite China’s 1.3 billion people. By 2020, citizens of China are expected to see their average income triple. It is important to note that this will greatly expand the ability of the Chinese to afford expensive American goods that have previously been unaffordable. In addition, American goods will go down in price relatively because the Yuan will not be as weak.

If you are an environmentalist or a nationalist or both (which most people are), you have every reason to be wary of China’s economic growth. However, I ask you to also note the positives that will come with this growth. The U.S. economy will be boosted and outsourcing will be curtailed.