|
|
By Conn Carroll
When Linda O’Boyle was diagnosed with bowel cancer, her doctors told her she could boost her
chances of survival by adding the drug cetuximab to her regimen. But the rationing body for
Britain’s National Health Service, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE), had previously ruled that the drug was not cost-effective and therefore would not be
paid for by the government. So O’Boyle liquidated her savings and paid for the drug herself.
But this is not allowed under NHS rules. When government bureaucrats found out that O’Boyle
had purchased the drug with her own money, she was denied NHS treatment and died within months
.
Defenders of Britain’s health care rationing system may try to claim that this tragic death
is an outlier in an otherwise acceptable government run health care system. They are wrong.
It is the point of the system. As socialized medicine and infanticide advocate Peter Singer
has argued in The New York Times, the NICE bureaucrats must ration care or else free
government health care would bankrupt the British economy. “NICE had set a general limit
of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year,” Singer writes.
Following this logic, Singer supported NICE’s decision not to allow British citizens the
kidney
cancer fighting drug Sutent. As a result of this, and many other rationing
decisions Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world.
While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the
figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE’s
rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal
illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according
to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling
care in hospitals across Britain.
Most Americans would find this harrowing. But not President Barack Obama. Yesterday he bypassed
the Senate confirmation process and used a recess appointment to install Dr. Donald Berwick to
be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS is the agency that
runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs). Dr. Berwick said of Britain’s health care
system: “Cynics beware, I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” And his
love for Britain’s health care system is not in spite of its rationing, but because of it.
In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: “NICE is extremely effective and a
conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. … The decision is not whether or not we
will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
The fact that the White House chose to empower Dr. Berwick by recess appointment is
particularly audacious. The recess appointment power was intended to be used for occasions
when the Senate is out for months at a time. The Senate is currently out of session for
just 11 days. Worse, the Senate majority has never even scheduled a hearing so that
Dr. Berwick’s rationing views could be given an “open” forum. In fact, Dr. Berwick has not
even returned Senators’ written questionnaires.
The White House defends the move
by claiming “there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing.” But then why did the Obama
administration wait until April 2010, a full 15 months after President Obama was sworn
into office, to nominate Dr. Berwick? Is it because they did not want Dr. Berwick’s well known
and public support for rationing health care to affect the debate over Obamacare?
In a 2005 interview with Health Affairs, Dr. Berwick said: “(G)overnment is an
extraordinarily important player in the American health care scene, and it has inescapable
duties with respect to improvement of care, or we’re not going to get improved care. Government
remains a major purchaser. … So as CMS goes and as Medicaid goes, so goes the system.” And that
was before Obamacare gave far reaching new powers to government bureaucrats.
In June of 2009, President Obama told the American Medical Association that “identifying
what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided.” Moreover, the
president has assured the public time and again that the government will not get between
patients and their doctors. His nomination of Don Berwick for Director of CMS, however, tells
a different story [8].
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org – URL to article
Here are some amazingly simple home remedies that I’m sure you can
put to good use.
- Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone
else to hold them while you chop.
- Avoid arguments with the Mrs. about lifting the toilet seat by using
the sink.
- For high blood pressure sufferers: simply cut yourself and bleed for
a few minutes, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. Remember
to use a timer.
- A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you
from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze
button.
- If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives; then you’ll
be afraid to cough.
- You only need two tools in life – WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it
doesn’t move and should, use the WD -40. If it shouldn’t move and
does, use the duct tape.
- If you can’t fix it with a hammer, you’ve got an electrical problem.
Remember: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Daily Thought:
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES; NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Middle-class Americans — not the rich or the poor — pay the majority of annual tax revenues
taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a
negative average federal income tax rate.
According to the CBO:
- Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all
federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed).
- Households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.
- Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a
healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes.
- Households in the lower income brackets paid relatively little; those earning less than $34,300
paid only 5.2 percent of all federal taxes, and those earning less than $20,500 carried almost
none of the federal tax burden (just 0.8 percent of the total) in 2007.
Other findings:
- The average overall federal tax rate (including income, Social Security, Medicare, excise and
other taxes) for all American households was 20.4 percent in 2007.
But the average rate rose dramatically as household income rose.
- Households earning less than $34,300 paid an average overall federal tax rate of 10.6 percent,
while households earning more than $74,700 paid an average overall federal tax rate of almost
two and a half times that much — 25.1 percent.
- The average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $34,300 was -0.4 percent
in 2007, and the average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $20,500 was
6.8 percent.
Over the past three decades, according to the CBO data, taxation has been getting more
progressive, as the tax burden has lightened on lower income households while increasing on
higher income households. During those three decades, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W.
Bush signed laws cutting the top marginal income tax rates, but Presidents George H.W. Bush
and Bill Clinton signed laws increasing the rates.
The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts
(quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the
second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile,
$50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above. The share of overall federal
taxes paid by each of the first four quintiles decreased from 1979 to 2007, while the share
of overall federal taxes paid by the highest-income quintile increased, meaning the overall
tax burden was shifting away from that class of Americans making less than $74,700 per year
in 2007 toward those earning more.
Visit The Source.
If your not aware of it, there are plans to build a huge Mosque at ground zero.
Take a look at the videos below for an eye-opening disertation.
No mosque at Ground Zero – A must see video about Islam in America.
Of Mosques and Men – Reflections on the Ground Zero AND MUSLIM IDIOLOGY
Draw your own conclusions.
By Vince Haley
Last night — 57 days after an oil-rig explosion triggered an uncontrolled deep-water oil
gusher in the Gulf of Mexico — President Obama spoke to the nation about his administration’s
efforts to address the crisis. After offering two short paragraphs to explain what is being
done to stop the leak, Obama devoted most of his speech to explaining why now is the time to
dramatically and permanently raise the cost of gasoline, diesel, and electricity for every
American.
Jay Leno gave voice to the widespread puzzlement over this misplaced focus: “President Obama
said today he is going to use the Gulf disaster to immediately push a new energy bill through
Congress. I got an idea. . . . How about first using the Gulf disaster to fix the Gulf
disaster?”
President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said at the start of the Obama presidency
that “you never let a crisis go to waste.” We now know that this means the Obama team never
lets a crisis go without more borrowing, more taxing, and more spending on their political
allies. We saw this with the $862 billion stimulus law that didn’t create jobs, the Obamacare
law that won’t bend the health cost curve down, and now with an energy proposal that won’t
lower costs and won’t increase supply.
The proposal, which Obama is urging upon the Senate, is for cap-and-trade energy taxes. It has
nothing to do with plugging the hole, but Obama and his liberal allies in Congress want the
power to spend billions in new tax revenues on a massive redistribution of wealth to
green-energy-company shareholders.
The Senate is reportedly going to take up cap-and-trade shortly after it returns from recess
on July 12. If the legislation is passed there, the House will vote on and approve it in a
lame-duck session after the November elections. Our opportunity to stop this new energy tax
is now, and the next two months will be absolutely critical.
Obama’s plan will inflict higher gas and electricity costs on everyone. It will kill hundreds
of thousands of jobs and prevent small-business growth. It is especially foolish to contemplate
a massive new tax in the midst of a recession, but President Obama’s central purpose is less
economic than ideological: the redistribution of wealth, come what may. Slicing a shrinking
pie is easy enough when you’re wielding the knife; it’s the rest of us who will have to fast.
Meanwhile, the oil continues to gush under the Gulf waters. Like Jay Leno, Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, a California Democrat, gave a pithy summary of Obama’s baffling priorities:
“The climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak. . . . The first thing you have to do
is stop the oil leak.” The president should listen to his friend in the Senate. It’s time
to plug holes, not raise taxes.
Vince Haley is the vice president of policy at American Solutions, where he is leading the
Stop the Energy Tax campaign. This piece was originally published on The Corner.
Inside the House chamber in Washington D.C., the upper wall is surrounded by the cameos of all the world’s great lawgivers. Moses, as the greatest lawgiver, is the only one with a full face. The others are all side views. The only Americans included are Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, and, ironically, neither signed the Constitution. Mason was actually one of three men who stayed for the entire Constitutional Convention and then refused his assent to the finished product.
When I taught high school, I insisted my kids know why Mason refused to sign. He objected to the document because it did not contain a Bill of Rights. I always hoped, in vain, that some bright student would ask the more pertinent question. The better question would have been not why Mason refused to sign, but why such patriots as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, Wilson, etc., objected to Mason’s request?
While George Mason insisted on a written list of prohibited practices (a Bill of Rights) to protect citizens, the rest of the Constitutional Convention chose the structural concept of federalism and separation of powers as the means to ensure citizens’ liberty was protected.
“The U.S. style of federalism and balance of power were two complementary strands of power separation—one horizontal and one vertical.”
The U.S. style of federalism and balance of power were two complementary strands of power separation—one horizontal and one vertical. The purpose of both horizontal and vertical power balance was to protect individual liberty, the goal the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. They believed the only way to preserve individual liberty was to check government power. Each branch would check the other branch of the new national government. However, since a national government might not check itself, the national government must also be checked by the states. The 50 states were to be a counterbalance to the national government.
Federalism/separation of powers was the vehicle designed to protect people. Madison, in Federalist
45, envisioned how the vertical separation of powers (federalism) was to operate. He wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution …are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite….The Powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which…concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…”
“While largely a new political concept, American-style federalism had roots in the Old Testament. Moses developed the concept of federalism in Exodus 18:13-26.”
While largely a new political concept, American-style federalism had roots in the Old Testament. Moses developed the concept of federalism in Exodus 18:13-26. As Moses worked to exhaustion dealing with all the issues brought by the children of Israel, his father-in-law insisted he delegate authority to captains over groups of thousands, hundreds and tens. Only the most unusual issues were to be brought before Moses. This new system of administration divided authority among manageable units. It allowed problems to be solved on the level where the problem originated—in other words, government closest to the people governed best. That was essentially federalism.
The vertical balance of power between the national government and state governments was the critical component of our constitutional system of government. Over time, however, Congress and the courts slowly chipped away at the vertical separation of powers. Beginning with the Progressive Era, the American system changed and the principle safeguards of federalism were weakened. Today, most people are unfamiliar with the meaning of federalism, or of its foundational role in our system of governance. Sadly, this benign neglect includes many of our national leaders.
Our country is at a crossroads. Americans are fed up. They’re frightened by an exploding debt and frustrated with an unresponsive federal government. They’re tired of a sagging economy and unelected bureaucrats who believe Washington always knows what’s best. A recent poll found that four out of five Americans don’t trust Washington. Another poll found that eighty-six percent of Americans think the federal government is “broken.”
Americans are ready for change—real change that gives them, not Washington, greater control over their own lives. They don’t want new leaders in Washington running a slightly less intrusive government. Instead, Americans of all political stripes want more choice, greater accountability, and a more flexible and responsive government. That is precisely what federalism can deliver.
I am convinced the best way to demonstrate commitment to real change is by embracing federalism. Only by pursuing a federalist agenda can we disperse power from Washington, promote liberty and limited government, provide greater choice and deliver a more effective and responsive governance to the people.
Leaders in Washington need to show the American people that we have a comprehensive plan that doesn’t impose a certain ideology or party platform on them. Instead, we need to tell them that decisions should be made locally, by individuals living in their communities, not by politicians in Washington.
“Federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left. It is not a Republican or a Democrat idea. Both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival.”
Federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left. It is not a Republican or a Democrat idea. Both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival. We may disagree with some of the decisions some states ultimately make, but we must stand firm to the belief that the Constitution was designed in such a way that gives the people the power to make those choices.
Many advocates of national solutions do not believe federalism can work today. They believe that today’s complex modern society can only function properly when the national government establishes the rules. They’re wrong. As LaVarr Webb of Utah Policy Daily has said:
“Most breakthroughs in governance are already coming from the states. Could such innovation, creativity and energy ever be spawned by the top-down, mainframe dinosaur that is Washington? Federalism can actually perform better in the age of Google and Facebook than it did 200 years ago.””
“It is precisely the Information Age, the Internet Age, that could enable a new, golden age of federalism. Today, states and local governments can operate in an intelligent network, collaborating, cooperating, adopting “best practices,” creating an upward spiral in competency, improved management and delivery of services. They can adopt standards and pass model legislation to provide needed consistency for multistate businesses. With the amazing power of networking and advanced tools of technology, states can fulfill Justice Louis Brandeis’s vision as laboratories of democracy. Most breakthroughs in governance are already coming from the states. Could such innovation, creativity and energy ever be spawned by the top-down, mainframe dinosaur that is Washington? Federalism can actually perform better in the age of Google and Facebook than it did 200 years ago.”
We are a nation of creativity, of diversity, of freedom. We need innovators and a new generation of ideas. Let us learn from the successes and the failures of one another. This nation is too great, too broad, and too diverse for one set of ideas to rule from sea to sea. California is not Kansas. Alabama is not Alaska. And Massachusetts is not Utah.
Federalism is the answer. Federalism gives people choice and options. Federalism keeps government within the reach of the individual, and keeps government in its place. Today, the people have no control over the vast federal bureaucracies. Federalism is the mechanism by which power can be returned to the people.
I am convinced that now is the time for a federalist agenda because federalism is simply the best, and the constitutionally based bastion for limited government, choice, and individual liberty.
Congressman Rob Bishop has represented Utah since 2003, and is the co-founder of the
Congressional 10th Amendment Task Force.
View The Source.
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers
are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve
this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now,
but pay later.
Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers’ loans).
Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result,
increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume
for any bar in Detroit .
By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance
when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most
consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts
constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason
for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions,
and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities
are then bundled and traded on international security markets.
Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured
bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously
climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading
brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local
bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at
Heidi’s bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they
cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is
forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset
value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit
and economic activity in the community.The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous
payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the various BOND securities.
They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of
the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on
a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a
competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved
and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies
in Government.. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed,
middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi’s bar.
Now, that wasn’t hard to understand was it?
by Cal Thomas
Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent
administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi);
and the myth of “global warming,” or climate change.
The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than
melting icebergs, if they were melting, which many believe they are not.
After spending years promoting “global warming,” the media are beginning to turn in the face of
growing evidence that they have been wrong. The London Times recently reported: “Britain’s
premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after
a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.”
It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than
30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age — and more recently has been drinking
the global warming Kool-Aid — headlined a story, “Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive,
Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public’s Trust.” Newsweek does its best to cling to its
increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to
the public’s disbelief.
In Canada, the polar bear — which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly
face on the issue — is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that
the polar bear’s designation as a “species of special concern” has been suspended “while the
government reviews the polar bear’s status and decides whether to renew the classification or
change it.”
The New York Times recently lamented “global warmism’s loss of credibility” in a story about
hundreds of environmental activists who met to ponder this question: “if the scientific
consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the
idea that human activity is warming the planet?” The “consensus” never was a consensus. Most
of us may not have gotten an “A” in science, but we can sense when we are being bamboozled.
The German online news magazine “Focus” recently carried a story, “Warm Times Will Soon Be
Over!” Commenting on the “new NASA high temperature record,” which may be set, the magazine
blames it on El Nino. Meteorologists, like Joe D’Aleo of The Weather Channel, are publicly
distancing themselves from the false doctrine of global warming. D’Aleo says, “We’ll have La
Nina conditions before the summer is over, and it will intensify further through the fall and
winter. Thus we’ll have cooler temperatures for the next couple of years.”
Remember the scare ignited in 2007 by supposed melting Arctic ice caps? The Star Canada says
a new analysis shows that the apparent change was the result of “shifting winds,” while an
expedition last year to the North Pole discovered the ice “100 percent thicker than expected.”
Much of this information — and more — is available at the useful Website www.climatedepot.com.
It is a given that America needs new sources of energy. Environmentalists have inhibited
efforts at exploration by supporting policies that have forced some domestic exploration too
far offshore (thus increasing chances of an ecological disaster as is occurring in the Gulf
of Mexico).
Instead of trying to sell us a dubious doctrine at an estimated cost of $100 billion a year
worldwide (so far), environmentalists would have done themselves and the world more good had
they chosen a different strategy, such as not sending oil money to countries that want to
destroy us. This would have increased our patriotic spirit and had the additional benefit of
not only diversifying our energy supply, but also depriving our enemies of money they use to
underwrite terrorism.
Watch for the hardcore “global warming” cultists to continue clinging to their beliefs; but
also watch increasing numbers of scientists and eventually politicians to abandon this once
“certain” faith and to look for other ways to control our lives. In that pursuit, the left
never quits. Rather than acknowledge their error, they will go on to make new mistakes, knowing
they will never be held accountable.
Visit the source.
American voters say 48-31 percent they want their state to pass an immigration law similar
to Arizona’s and by an overwhelming 76-12 percent they say that plans by those opposed to the
law to boycott Arizona are a bad idea, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Quinnipiac University poll also indicates that voters approve 51-31
percent immigration reform to move in the direction of stricter enforcement rather than
integrating immigrants into American society.
The L.A. Times yesterday reported, “Overall, 50% of registered voters surveyed said they
support the law, the law applies only to people whom police have stopped for another reason,
while 43% oppose it. That level of support is lower than polls have indicated nationwide”.
Yet the L.A. County Supervisors, in all it’s arrogance and with the majority hoping to
garner the Latino votes, have voted to boycott Arizona.
The Arizona law nearly mirrors California penal code 834B, yet, neither the L.A. City Clowncil nor
the L.A. County Stupidvisors have yet to take steps to boycott California.
It’s amazing to me that we keep electing the same air-heads time after time. They
don’t seem to understand that these boycotts will put the very people they are supposedly
trying to aid, out of work.
Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents
stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well,
check this out. Could any of US have passed the 8th grade
in 1895?
Following is the 8th grade exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas.
It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey
Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, and reprinted
by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam
Grammer (Time 1 Hour)
- Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
- Name the parts of speech and define those that have modifications.
- Define verse, stanza and paragraph.
- What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principle parts of “lie”, “play”, and “run”.
- Define case: Illustrate each case.
- What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctation.
- Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time: 1.25 hours)
- Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
- A wagon box is 2 feet deep, 10 feet long and 3 feet wide.
How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
- If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at
50 cents a bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for tare?
- District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per
month, and have $104 for incidentals?
- Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. coal at $6 per ton?
- Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at
7 percent.
- What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 feet
long at $20 per meter?
- Find the bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at
10 percent.
- What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the
distance of which is 640 rods?
- Write a bank check, a promissory note, and a receipt.
U. S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
- Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
- Give an account of the discovery of America By Columbus.
- Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
- Show the territorial growth of the United States.
- Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
- Describe three of the most prominent battles of the
rebellion.
- Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell,
Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
- Name events connected with the following dates: 1607,
1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
- What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic,
orthography, etymology, syllabication.
- What are elementary sounds? How classified?
- What are the following, and give examples of each:
Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals.
- Give four substitutes for caret ‘u’.
- Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e’. Name
two exceptions under each rule.
- Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
- Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a
word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
- Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following,
and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy,
sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
- Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
- Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
- What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
- How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
- Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
- Describe the mountains of North America.
- Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandes, Aspinwall
and Orinoco.
- Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
- Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
- Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
- Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns
to the sources of rivers.
- Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination
of the earth.
Did you notice that the exam took six hours to complete?
Gives the saying “he only had an 8th grade education” a whole
new meaning, doesn’t it?
Since the dumbing down of our educational system it’s doubtful that
even a present day high school graduate wouldn’t pass this test.
|
|
