Friday digest
- Now that the creepy eco-Marxist David Orchard has endorsed Stephane Dion, I find myself squarely in the neutral camp on the Liberal leadership.
- Rapper 50 Cent has called Oprah "white" because she won't have him on her show. We can only conclude that according to Fitty, you're not authentically black unless you promote gangsters and street thugs.
With role models like him, no wonder the kids today are so confused. (Explains a lot, doesn't it?)
- Here's an interesting interview with Bjorn Lormberg, Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
- Hezbollah isn't even trying to conceal their brazen attempt to take control of the Lebanese state apparatus, and we're supposed to accomodate and legitimize their sponsors?
Please.
Let's be realistic.
- Here is an excellent look at the role of Pope Benedict in conflict between the West and radical Islam.
- Lastly, if you only read one link in today's Digest, make it this one.
It's too important to ignore.
posted by Road Hammer @ 11:37 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I still can't figure out why Orchard ran for PC leadership and not the NDP. Let alone how he got so much support.
Check out
this article written by Jason Whitlock, a black columnist. He refers to guys like Fitty as "The New KKK."
"You find me in the club. I got what you need. I'm into having sex, I'm nmot into making love, so come give me a bub(?)...in the club"
Is there something wrong with being white?
Fiddy rules.
Going to see G&G this weekend. Really looking forward to it. Got Grams a Mary statue from Fatima in Portugal. I'm banking that this, plus a rosary from St. Peter's will increase my odds of getting into heaven. I'm all about riding coattails.
Folks, my brother, from London, ON ... Brian!
Took your advice and followed your suggested link to the article by Rosen on "critical thinking."
I can only conclude that this is an experiment you are conducting to see if any Hammer Heads are practicing this lost art. It is so ridiculous and baseless that it has to be satire, as anyone with any critical thinking skills can see this piece of dung disguised as journalism for what it is.
The author makes a generalization about the entire U.S. school system based on the response to a question that was reprinted in a magazine. Obviously, a magazine wouldn't highlight an average or typical response from a study to make its point. Rather, it would use an extreme example to further its argumment.
The magazine's example of a Grade 10 student with ridiculously poor writing skills, and the critical thinking assignment itself, are marched out again in this "article" as evidence that the education system is dominated by ..."Democrats, collectivists, liberals, union members, government employees, nannyists, politically correct social engineers, etc."
I'm curious to find out where he gets this information, since it's not cited. I'm also curious how every state / district that teaches creationism has been able to escape the evil clutches of the left's agenda?
I'd further exercise some critical thinking on my own and ask "who stands to benefit from an education system stocked with these evil cast of characters." (The only plausible answer I can come up with is Noam Chomsky -- the bogey man himself. Or maybe Michael Moore, as these two represent the entire left.)
But back to the article. I think the "illiterate" kid's answers to the question "write down five things the U.S. government is currently doing that might be unconstitutional" deserve a closer look before being dismissed out of hand due to poor spelling and the assumption that the kid doesn't know anything about the constitution (hey, maybe this is a valuable exercise to have the kid learn about the constitution, if in fact he doesn't know anything about it?).
He states:
1. Bushe cold have help the Katrina people whin it hapin.
2. Bushe should't be tipin in to people's phone
Although not unconstituional, the kid's first statement is correct. This has been verified by none other than W. himself.
I'm not an expert on the constitution, but I'm sure there is something in there re: illegally tapping people's phones ... again something the admin. has admitted to (you can argue that the ends justify the means, but you can't argue that illegally tapping people's phones is okay under the constitution.)
I would say this kid is doing a half-decent job of following news/current events ... a good first step to developing critical thinking skills.
However, the author suggests the kid isn't qualified to tackle higher order tasks such as critical thinking because "he hans't been taught how to read and write, and then introduced to the U.S. Constitution?" (Again, an assumption disguised as fact).
Reminds me of an argument that I hear often on this blog that goes something like "people's, and more specifically celebrities' opinions on world affairs, politics, etc. are baseless unless they are public policy experts." It's a little elitist I'd say, which is surprising coming from the right ... but I digress.
Rosen goes on to question "how would a student be graded if he concluded that the administration has not engaged in any unconstitutional acts?" My bet is that the student would get a top mark for an excellent display of critical thinking.
Way to go Rosen ... we'll put a gold star right beside your name. Keep up the good work!
Rosen goes on to highlight two more isolated incidents before concluding the whole education system is f'ed (apparantly the answer is to abolish teacher unions). I have to assume a voucher system would also solve many problems.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Greenchief, you own, but I have to take issue with a few points you make.
First, it's an op-ed, not an academic paper, so you gotta take it for what it is - a quick, provocative piece designed to get the reader thinking.
Second, it can't be denied that left-wing orthodoxy is the accepted wisdom in too many classrooms these days. Look at all the attempts to increase "social awareness" among students. They're often a barely-hidden, left-leaning political agenda being pushed on impressionable teens, all dressed up as "critical thinking".
Also, ever hear of any teacher who disagreed with anything his/her union did or said and went on to have pleasant relations with his/her peers in the staff room? I haven't.
Look at how the students are used as pawns in any labour dispute between teachers' unions and school boards. The first ones who the unions enlist to write letters to the papers, march in the protests, and send home as missionaries to preach around the kitchen table in a cynical effort to get Mom and Dad onside are the kids.
That's not education. It's indoctrination.
Third, the NYT itself has admitted that there's nothing wrong with what the Administration has done on wiretaps.
Fourth, celebs on both sides of the aisle get way too much attention when they spout off about politics. I don't hear Cheney telling Audioslave's Chris Cornell how to improve his vocal pitch, for instance.
Fifth, give me any mainstream lefties who have ever distanced themselves from Moore/Chomsky. The whole anti-war Left, anyways, has built itself on their foundations. To talk poorly about either of them is tantamount to committing political suicide if you're a Democrat.
Sixth, teaching creationism, or intelligent design as it is sometimes called, has been ruled unconstitutional by US federal courts.
Finally, here's a personal anecdote of the nonsensical political agendas pushed on teens today. Amost fifteen years ago, when I was in grade 13, my World Issues teacher stated that if you lined up everyone in China on the eastern shore of that country and got them to simultaneously jump, once, it would create a tidal wave so huge that all of North America from San Diego to St. John's would be no more.
I asked him how he knew this. He harrumphed and dismissed my remark out of hand.
My final mark in the course was 56.
I get that this is an op-ed, but this clown still tries to pass off his bias as fact. He makes a series of sweeping assumptions on the entire school system in the U.S. based on anecdotes and nothing. Not sure if he's trying to be ironic, considering he's prattling on about critical thinking.
And no, I've never heard of a teacher who has disagreed with his/her union and suffered. I'm sure it happens, but I've never encountered this. From this, I could deduce the silent majority has no problem with their union(s). There will always be squeky wheels ... union or no union.
Next, do you think its possible that some students agree with their teachers' stance during labour disputes, and are not infact victims of left wing indoctrination? I'm sure there are some kids who try to sell their teachers' side in a strike to their parents. Is this the majority of students. I'd highly doubt it. Maybe they have enough critical thinking skills to form their own opinions? Why is it that every young person who has an idea contrary to the right is a helpless, brain washed victim? That sounds like the condesending left who always knows what's best for people.
And hooray for the NYT. Sounds like you've come around in your opinion of their journalistic standards. Could it be related to the fact that they say there is nothing wrong with wiretaps (which by the way, isn't the same as saying its unconstitutional, which was the point of the exercise that Rosen bases his ass article on).
Re: musicians not taking music advice from Cheney ... I'd say the stakes are a little different in your analogy. One is presumably trying to write hit records and deliver some enjoyment to people's lives. The other is among the most powerful people on the earth who's decisions directly affect the lives of millions of people.
But I would agree with your assertion that these guys on both sides get too much attention. I'd heard none other than your buddy Jeannie Garafino (sp?) say the same thing.
Re: your Chomsky/Moore obsession, I'd be curious to know how many Democrats out of 100 would say that these two guys represent them and their ideas. My guess would be somewhere near zero. And I don't recall hearing Republicans denounce Coulter, Robertson, or Scooby Doo. Does that mean they are afraid or unwilling to? Or is it because it's an irrelevant point.
Although creationism has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, it's still being taught in America. How can this be, considering left wing orthodoxy is so rampantly accepted in the school system?
And regarding your personal anecdote ... all this proves is that your teacher was an idiot. What political agenda do you suppose he was trying to push on you?
Every op-ed writing clown passes off their bias as fact, no?
(Hell, I do, but I have to admit that I'm pretty convinced.)
I'd suggest that most kids are more worried about getting some play, finding a place to drink this weekend, and avoiding WWIII with their parents than they are mgmt/union issues in their school. Hardly any 14-17 year old can figure out what's what with this stuff, so I maintain that union activitsts prey on them big time.
Wiretapping was the biggest non-story of 2006, as the NYT (who broke it) later admitted. But I digress on this issue and others such as the ability of Karl Rove to strum a guitar or Danny DeVito to find Tehran on a map, even when sober.
Bottom line is that for every public school high school kid who exists who is able to explain - not even argue in favour of, just explain - say, the arguments presented by those who advocate cutting personal tax rates or increasing trade, you'll have at least 10 (and that's being conservative) who will tell you how the world is going to hell in a handbasket unless we have more and bigger government to solve every problem on God's green earth from aboriginal poverty to global warming to spousal abuse to pornography to gang violence to AIDS in Africa to animal extinction to (insert pet cause here).
Considering the left wing indoctrination in our education system, it's a mircale a Conservative government is in power at present.
As a student, I never heard an argument from my teachers / instructors that said big government is the solution to all, or anything remotely close to that.
I don't get your stance on people's right to be engaged in dialogue (sorry to use the phrase, it is ca ca, as you said last week.)
I've heard you bitch that en masse, youth are completely out to lunch on news, current affairs, etc., and I would agree.
And now I'm getting that they shouldn't even think about / work through difficult issues such as union grievances since they don't have the requisite sophistication.
So what is it? Are we f'ed because young people don't know what's going on in the world, or because they're too involved with issues they don't understand (still way elitist man).
I think any individual is entitled to an opinion on the world as he/she sees it, even if they don't know the ins and outs of trade agreements and taxation theroies.
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion and to engage in dialogue. Some opinions are simply more informed than others and I think that the public education system does a better job of telling kids what to think rather than how. THAT'S how kids are out to lunch on current affairs, etc.
I can't fault teens for being concerned with teenage things. I was one (and still am in many ways!). However, people in positions of authority take advantage of kids' impressionability and push their own views on them rather than present both sides of an argument and allow the kids to think it through themselves. This extends to university, and 90% of the time, the logical conclusion of this ideological bullying is that government at all levels doesn't do enough to make the world a nicer place.
I'm reminded of my third-year Canadian foreign policy prof, fresh off his defeat as an NDP candidate in the 1995 provincial election, who advocated a one-world government ( but I went to Carleton so that should be no surprise). In the same class, he asked all people who voted for Mike Harris to stand up. I didn't, because I didn't feel like taking the abuse. However, he was the one who played the fool later on that year when he had to stop the class because he was brought to tears talking about how the sinister US government built the Fort Drum army base in upstate New York in order to invade Canada and impose martial law in the event of Quebec separation.
Anyways, I'm always going on about how numbers and data tell the story more than anecdeotal evidence does, so I'll just say that I think an informed opinion is a well-considered one. I don't think most youts today are given that chance to consider things themselves - hence, Winston Churchill's famous axiom that if a man isn't a socialist at twenty, he has no heart; while if he remains one at the age of sixty, he has no brain, which remains as true today as it did a half a century ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home