I really never asked my parents why they thought that the USA is great. My Dad spent his entire career helping the USA and that was certainly the attitude I heard at home.
First of course was his volunteering for the USAF, and then later inventing the Infra Red telescope,  then laser beam communication between satellites. And of course the camera for the U-2.
 But an actual discussion about the greatness and importance of the USA never came up to my recollection. I guess it was just simply clear that the USA provided the best hope to have a just and decent society with a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Nowadays clearly they would be appalled, but what would they say? I am not sure since they were not talkers, but doers. Beyond the basics--be  a mensch [decent human being] and be self reliant, it is hard to know.
I myself was not able to come to any insight about this until I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's. I realized at that point the the USA was really a continuation of England and the Magna Carta. Still is it just the political system that makes a nation great? I would say with Hobhouse that what measures a nation's greatness is the ability of the families to sit around the fireplace and talk with each other.

[Any place that was once an English Colony now has success and prosperity. USA, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, Normandy, India. Extend that to places that were administered by the USA after WWII--Japan and Germany. Compared to places that were never subjected to English rule you generally find ruin and misery, South America, Africa, etc. But take away the institutions of the English as in Hong Kong and you get problems. So what is so special about the English? I have no idea. It is almost as if there is a permanent curse on anyone that was never subjected to English rule. No matter how hard they try, they just can not make it.]

home schooling

People would be better off with home schooling. Allan Bloom anyway thought the social studies and humanities departments have negative value, [in his Closing of the American Mind]. Why pay good money [or tax money] to have your kids brainwashed?

Nowadays it is looking like letting Japan have their empire in the Pacific and south east Asia would not have been so terrible. Was going to WWII to stop them really worth it? Of course after Pearl Harbor negotiations were off the table. Still you have to wonder.

A question. Rav Shach in the start of laws of marriage comes out that a type of kinyan sudar is kinyan money not barter. Later in section three , law one that kinyan of things worth money are because of barter. But then that would not help to marry. [This is not my question, but just an introduction to my question.]]

יש משהו קשה להבין ברב שך בין החוק הראשון בהלכות אישות פרק א לחוק הראשון של פרק 3. בחוק הראשון רב שך מסיק לתוספות הרי''ד שיש שני סוגים של חליפין. הסוג שהוא שווה בשווה עובד כמו כסף. הסוג האחר של חליפין הוא סודר וזה פועל להשגת עסקה סופית וזה לא בגלל הערך הכספי של הסודר. אז הסוג הראשון עובד כסוג של קניין כסף. אבל אם זה נכון, התבונן ברב שך בפרק השלישי. שם הוא דורש ששווה כסף הוא סוג של חליפין, כי אם זה היה בגלל קניין כסף זה היה עובד לפדות עבד עברי מגוי, אבל זה לא. רק כסף או פגיעה בפועל או מסמך ישחררו אותו או אותה. גם אם הבעל הגוי רוצה לקבל משהו ששווה כסף, זה לא משנה. עבד עברי נשאר עבד עד שיגאל בכסף בפועל. אבל אז עולה השאלה. כיצד קידושין יכולים להיות תקפים על ידי שווה כסף. כי רב שך ענה כי סוג הבעלות על אישה או עבד עברי בבעלות יהודי איננו בעלות פיזית על חפץ, אלא בעלות על התחייבויות כמו חוזה עם עובד. בכל מקרה, נראה שיש כאן סתירה.

אני מתכוון שאם חליפין הייתה עובדת להתחתן אם יש לזה ערך של פרוטה זה יהיה בסדר מבחינת משהו ששווה כסף גם כדי להתחתן בגלל קניין כסף. אבל אם משהו ששווה כסף זה בגלל כסף, לא חליפין הוא צריך לעבוד כדי לשחרר עבד עברי מגוי, שלמעשה זה לא.

עכשיו אתה יכול לשאול מדוע רב שך צריך שווה כסף כדי להיות קניין מסוג מסוים? כל עוד זה נלמד מעבד עברי, אז השאר אותו בזה. תשובה. הוא צריך שזה יהיה כמו קניין סודר כדי שזה יכול  לגרום  לקניין בדיוק כמו שהסביר שהעבד עברי או אשה אינם בבעלות פיזית, אלא שיעבודים הם בבעלות. עם זאת, אפילו אנו יכולים לענות על זה, עדיין השאלה היא אם קניין סודר שווה יותר מפרוטה וכך הופך לכסף האם הוא עדיין שומר על היכולת לגרום לקניין

We see  that "spilling seed in vain" is a sin in Genesis [with Er and Onan]. However Rav Nahman was certainly right about the importance of the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150] as a correction for this.  But how do we know that it is possible to correct? That comes from all the idea that repentance is always possible --but not always effective. That is one might repent in terms of not doing again what he or she has done. But that obviously does not take care of the effects of the sin.

The idea here is that sometimes one might do a sin. So how does one go about correcting it? In almost all books of Musar it is explained  by not doing it again is the main repentance. However they also add (2) regret and (3) confession.

You see this also in the Gemara Yoma. if one has transgressed a positive command then if he repents, then he is forgiven. If a Negative command then if he repents that protects from the pains and problems that result until Yom Kippur and then Yom Kippur finishes. If one has transgressed a negative command that has karet [cutting of from one's people] attached to it, then repentance and Yom Kippur help and troubles and problems that one goes through and accepts as repentance finish.
Desecrating the Divine Name is even more severe. For that repentance, Yom Kippur troubles help but only death  finishes if it is accepted as repentant. [It is not that anyone that dies gets their sins forgiven. Rather it is dying in a certain kind of way.]

[This "desecrating the Divine Name" is kind of what the religious people do. They make a show of how religious they are, and then act not nicely. That makes the name of Torah to lose  its grace and charm.]

There is something awkward in Rav Shach between the first law in laws of marriage  [chapter  one] and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out at least to the Tosphot Ri''d that there are two kinds of barter and the type that is  "this equals that" is works as money. The other type of barter is handkerchief  and that works  to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the handkerchief. So the first type works as a kind of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money].
But if that is the case then look at Rav Shach in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף [something worth money] to be a kind of barter, because if it would be because of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money] then it would work to redeem a Hebrew slave from  a gentile. [But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money that does not matter. The Hebrew slave remains a slave until redeemed with actual money.

But then the question comes up how can marriage become valid by שווה כסף [something worth money]. That Rav Shach answered showing that the type of ownership of  a wife or Hebrew slave [owned by an Israeli] is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if barter would work [to marry} if it has the worth of a penny that would be ok in terms of something worth money [also to marry] except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a Hebrew slave from a gentile--which in fact it does not.

Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a Hebrew slave then leave it at that. Answer, he needs it to be like a קניין סודר so that it can cause a קניין just like he is explaining that the Hebrew slave עבד עברי or the wife is not physically owned but rather obligations are owned. [That is the slave is obligated to work similar to the same kind or arrangement you have as an employee. The obligations are not monetary obligation. They are physical obligations of the body of the employee. He must work as he agreed to. But his body is not owned. He simply has obligation that he must fulfill.]


However even we could answer this, still the question is if the kinyan sudar is worth more than a penny and thus becomes money does it still retain teh ability cause a kinyan?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something awkward in רב שך between the first law in הלכות אישות  פרק א and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out to the תוספות הרי''ד that there are two kinds of חליפין.  The type that is  שווה בשווה  works as כסף. The other type of חליפין is סודר and that works  to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the סודר. So the first type works as a kind of קניין כסף. But if that is the case then look at רב שך in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף  to be a kind of חליפין, because if it would be because of קניין כסף  then it would work to redeem a עבד עברי from  a gentile. But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money, that does not matter. The עבד עברי remains a slave until redeemed with actual money. But then the question comes up. How can קידושין become valid by שווה כסף . That רב שך answered showing that the type of ownership of  a wife or עבד עברי owned by an יהודי is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case, there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if חליפין would work to marry if it has the worth of a פרוטה that would be OK in terms of something worth money also to marry except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a עבד עברי from a gentile, which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a עבד עברי, then leave it at that. Answer. He needs it to be like a קניין סודר handkerchief so that it can cause a קניין just like he  explained that the עבד עברי או a wife is not physically owned, but rather שיעבודים are owned. However even we could answer this, still the question is if the קניין סודר is worth more than a פרוטה and thus becomes money does it still retain ability cause a קניין?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

יש משהו קשה להבין ברב שך בין החוק הראשון בהלכות אישות פרק א לחוק הראשון של פרק 3. בחוק הראשון רב שך מסיק לתוספות הרי''ד שיש שני סוגים של חליפין. הסוג שהוא שווה בשווה עובד כמו כסף. הסוג האחר של חליפין הוא סודר וזה פועל להשגת עסקה סופית וזה לא בגלל הערך הכספי של הסודר. אז הסוג הראשון עובד כסוג של קניין כסף. אבל אם זה נכון, התבונן ברב שך בפרק השלישי. שם הוא דורש ששווה כסף הוא סוג של חליפין, כי אם זה היה בגלל קניין כסף זה היה עובד לפדות עבד עברי מגוי, אבל זה לא. רק כסף או פגיעה בפועל או מסמך ישחררו אותו או אותה. גם אם הבעל הגוי רוצה לקבל משהו ששווה כסף, זה לא משנה. עבד עברי נשאר עבד עד שיגאל בכסף בפועל. אבל אז עולה השאלה. כיצד קידושין יכולים להיות תקפים על ידי שווה כסף. כי רב שך ענה כי סוג הבעלות על אישה או עבד עברי בבעלות יהודי איננו בעלות פיזית על חפץ, אלא בעלות על התחייבויות כמו חוזה עם עובד. בכל מקרה, נראה שיש כאן סתירה.

אני מתכוון שאם חליפין הייתה עובדת להתחתן אם יש לזה ערך של פרוטה זה יהיה בסדר מבחינת משהו ששווה כסף גם כדי להתחתן בגלל קניין כסף. אבל אם משהו ששווה כסף זה בגלל כסף, לא חליפין הוא צריך לעבוד כדי לשחרר עבד עברי מגוי, שלמעשה זה לא.

עכשיו אתה יכול לשאול מדוע רב שך צריך שווה כסף כדי להיות קניין מסוג מסוים? כל עוד זה נלמד מעבד עברי, אז השאר אותו בזה. תשובה. הוא צריך שזה יהיה כמו קניין סודר כדי שזה יכול  לגרום  לקניין בדיוק כמו שהסביר שהעבד עברי או אשה אינם בבעלות פיזית, אלא שיעבודים הם בבעלות. עם זאת, אפילו אנו יכולים לענות על זה, עדיין השאלה היא אם קניין סודר שווה יותר מפרוטה וכך הופך לכסף האם הוא עדיין שומר על היכולת לגרום לקניין

PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL

I have not heard that term for a long time and even when I did, I was not sure what it meant.
 I think it means people that are good talkers, but do not really know what they are talking about. They know how to use the jargon and fancy sounding words.

Like when you are are at a cocktail party and you see everyone crowding around the guy at the fire place straining to hear him talk. It sounds like he really knows what he is talking about.
There is a difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who sound like they do. And the later are dangerous.