In today's Wall Street Journal a couple of Danish newspaper editors describe their attempt to interview Al Gore while he is in Denmark promoting his ridiculous agenda. Global warming is a good thing; if not for global warming 10,000 years ago there wouldn't be much of a discussion today.
The Journal article points out, from an expert point of view, the weakness of Gore's argument: to whit it is basically a lie. So much is made of scientific consensus, something that is not science only theory, upon which the world is to base its social and economic decisions. During the recent past, say the 14th century, the consensus among scientists was that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. It is well to reflect on the impact of consensus as reality when considering one's own opinion.
Al Gore is a phony as is the liberal arguments about global warning; even the hated UN agrees with that last assertion. Liberal environmental arguments have devastated the African continent where since the banning of DDT deaths from malaria exceed 2 million people a year.
Tuberculosis is rampant as is AIDS; which may a viral mutation of some other species yet unknown.
Americans are easily stampeded because the gene that promotes critical thinking seems to be spread rather thinly throughout the population. Why else would liberals be elected on a platform of nothing and then claim a mandate for something while the electorate looks on bemused?
Global warming is a good thing and not a threat; read the editorial and other skeptics and decide for yourself.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Hey Genius its rapist not raper
I had an ill thought out correction from a loyal reader concerning the use of language today. I'm not certain which post the corrector was correcting but I do know that his/her correction was uncertain. Apparently I had made some reference to the recent abduction of the boys in Missouri and used the term child raper. The reader preferred the term rapist. To me it's a distinction without a difference. The next statement was a question about where I had been educated "...where did you go public school?" the unfortunate answer is no. I spent 12 years of confinement in the Catholic School System where, even with a superior IQ, I did poorly.
I love comments from readers no matter what the content: we all like to think we are smarter than everyone else. In fact, in most cases, nothing could be further from the truth. All this not withstanding, thanks for reading and thanks for commenting.
I love comments from readers no matter what the content: we all like to think we are smarter than everyone else. In fact, in most cases, nothing could be further from the truth. All this not withstanding, thanks for reading and thanks for commenting.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
An Unusual Usual Tactic: Blame The Victim
In these pages there has been a great deal of discussion about the abysmal level of the American education "system" in that it has systematically failed its clients. In today's Wall Street Journal Mr. Charles Murray opined that it is not the system's fault but rather that the clients are too stupid to learn in the first place. Is this a surprise?
In the United States the liberal, or so-called progressive mentality is to blame the victim and champion the offender. Beyond the failure of the public education system is the most recent example. Why didn't the kidnapped eleven year old boy, Sean Hornbeck, attempt to escape as he grew older? In Vermont last week a child molester was given the minimum sentence, this is the same state that gave a child raper 60 days in jail because the system didn't know how to rehabilitate the criminal.
In today's article Mr. Murray puts forth the idea that most of the children are too stupid to learn therefore it cannot be the faulty teaching and money grubbing administrators to blame. He goes further and says that the supposed success of the stern discipline and academic achievement of the years prior to 1970 were a myth. This is a sop to the idea that standards had to be lowered to admit minority students. Therein lies the true myth.
Today's children are lucky if they can read at the fourth grade level by the time they leave high school. Many college "graduates" are functionally illiterate. Is is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of American children are retarded? Tempting, yes, reasonable no; Mr Murray goes on to destroy his own argument. During the Great Leap Forward in American education universities began to drop the ABCDF grading system in favor of pass/fail. Some schools had no failures. The idea that IQ could even be a measurement was considered laughable because it was racially biased in favor of white students.
How then do we account for the large numbers of pre-boomer students still living who are more literate, more articulate, more educated than today's education system victims? Even with segregated school systems the demands of families and teachers for excellence produced citizens that could think critically and are still doing so. The NEA has failed the children and the nation. No longer are good teachers and leaders promoted to supervisory or administrative positions. Most come to these jobs from college doctoral of education programs which place emphasis on the business of education and not on education itself.
A nation that does not educate its children is suicidal. A nation that does not demand excellence from both sides of the blackboard is irresponsible. For a union apologist to blame the lack of native intelligence as the basis for academic failure on such a monumental scale is absurd. Absurd but typical of liberal thinking that promotes the idea that the system can never be at fault.
In the United States the liberal, or so-called progressive mentality is to blame the victim and champion the offender. Beyond the failure of the public education system is the most recent example. Why didn't the kidnapped eleven year old boy, Sean Hornbeck, attempt to escape as he grew older? In Vermont last week a child molester was given the minimum sentence, this is the same state that gave a child raper 60 days in jail because the system didn't know how to rehabilitate the criminal.
In today's article Mr. Murray puts forth the idea that most of the children are too stupid to learn therefore it cannot be the faulty teaching and money grubbing administrators to blame. He goes further and says that the supposed success of the stern discipline and academic achievement of the years prior to 1970 were a myth. This is a sop to the idea that standards had to be lowered to admit minority students. Therein lies the true myth.
Today's children are lucky if they can read at the fourth grade level by the time they leave high school. Many college "graduates" are functionally illiterate. Is is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of American children are retarded? Tempting, yes, reasonable no; Mr Murray goes on to destroy his own argument. During the Great Leap Forward in American education universities began to drop the ABCDF grading system in favor of pass/fail. Some schools had no failures. The idea that IQ could even be a measurement was considered laughable because it was racially biased in favor of white students.
How then do we account for the large numbers of pre-boomer students still living who are more literate, more articulate, more educated than today's education system victims? Even with segregated school systems the demands of families and teachers for excellence produced citizens that could think critically and are still doing so. The NEA has failed the children and the nation. No longer are good teachers and leaders promoted to supervisory or administrative positions. Most come to these jobs from college doctoral of education programs which place emphasis on the business of education and not on education itself.
A nation that does not educate its children is suicidal. A nation that does not demand excellence from both sides of the blackboard is irresponsible. For a union apologist to blame the lack of native intelligence as the basis for academic failure on such a monumental scale is absurd. Absurd but typical of liberal thinking that promotes the idea that the system can never be at fault.
California: It's Time For A Woman Governor
With all the liberal ecstasy over the ascendance of Nancy Pelosi to the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives it is a good time to pause and think about what it really means. Of course the American public allowed itself to be duped by the Democrat Party with regard to its political goals and ambitions, but it is hardly surprising when the herd follows its instinct to avoid trouble. The appalling state of the average US citizen’s ability to think critically will likely result in more difficulties in the future.
Still with so-called feminism apparently in the ascendant there is one question that has not been answered, and perhaps never asked. Why has the governorship of California never been held by a woman? It is well known that California represents all that is progressive and is the last bastion of reason and goodness in the United States; so why not elect a woman to the governor’s mansion?
While this question might seem to be a puzzle the answer is really quite simple: Democrats, liberals, ultra-liberals, still support white male dominance. The party is top heavy with old, white males, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The Democrat Party’s failure to support any major effort for national or state office by “protected class” citizens is disgraceful but unavoidable. This tendency bodes ill for Barak Obama’s political ambitions. Already the media is broadcasting beefcake pictures of Mr. Obama at the beach; can his candidacy be taken seriously? JFK was a one time senator and then was elected to the presidency; will Mr. Obama be allowed to fill Kennedy’s shoes?
With all the drivel emitting from the self-described arts crowd in Hollywood it seems that some effort should be made to live up to the prattle and get a woman in the governor’s chair. A likely candidate would fit the profile of a white lesbian weightlifter with a Hispanic surname whose previous experience might include a period as a sexworker in San Francisco, a grief counselor in Los Angeles, an Ebonics teacher in Oakland, and finally a city council member in Modesto.
Hats off to Nancy Pelosi, of course the men will still run things behind the skirts, and it might take another hundred years to get a woman governor in California.
Still with so-called feminism apparently in the ascendant there is one question that has not been answered, and perhaps never asked. Why has the governorship of California never been held by a woman? It is well known that California represents all that is progressive and is the last bastion of reason and goodness in the United States; so why not elect a woman to the governor’s mansion?
While this question might seem to be a puzzle the answer is really quite simple: Democrats, liberals, ultra-liberals, still support white male dominance. The party is top heavy with old, white males, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The Democrat Party’s failure to support any major effort for national or state office by “protected class” citizens is disgraceful but unavoidable. This tendency bodes ill for Barak Obama’s political ambitions. Already the media is broadcasting beefcake pictures of Mr. Obama at the beach; can his candidacy be taken seriously? JFK was a one time senator and then was elected to the presidency; will Mr. Obama be allowed to fill Kennedy’s shoes?
With all the drivel emitting from the self-described arts crowd in Hollywood it seems that some effort should be made to live up to the prattle and get a woman in the governor’s chair. A likely candidate would fit the profile of a white lesbian weightlifter with a Hispanic surname whose previous experience might include a period as a sexworker in San Francisco, a grief counselor in Los Angeles, an Ebonics teacher in Oakland, and finally a city council member in Modesto.
Hats off to Nancy Pelosi, of course the men will still run things behind the skirts, and it might take another hundred years to get a woman governor in California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
