All You Need To Know About the NEA

From this week's EIA Communique:

Resolution E-9 now begins, "The National Education Association believes that federal and state mandates regarding school programs should be broad, general guidelines, must be fully funded, and must not be based on student achievement."

Multiplication Method

I've seen this done before, but it looks more complicated and less elegant than the standard method.

Still, there's no reason not to try it if the standard method doesn't work for some students.

Global Warming Video on CNN?

I'll quote from Kerplunk (see blogroll at left):

Anyhow, here's CNN Exposed with their take The Climate of Fear. Have a look at Al Gore's history with the Kyoto Protocol as Vice President. Now THAT is a real inconvenient truth for the man and his supporters.

It's a 41 minute video that doesn't purport to be balanced. In fact, the host states outright in the first minute that the show gives "the other" side of the debate, the one you don't hear often enough (unless you read Kerplunk or Right On the Left Coast!).

Another Reason Not To Elect A Democrat in '08

As if you needed another one. This is about as important as the nomination of Supreme Court justices.

Update, 7/19/07: Here are some further thoughts on the subject.

(Not) Teaching History

Britain's World War II prime minister Winston Churchill has been cut from a list of key historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools, a government agency says.

The radical overhaul of the school curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds is designed to bring secondary education up to date and allow teachers more flexibility in the subjects they teach, the Government said.

I'd agree it's radical, that's for sure.

Unfortunately, the article only mentions by name one person still required to be taught (about) in history classes, the important but unknown William Wilberforce.

Churchill's grandson calls this decision "madness", and I must agree with him.

From "Greatest Briton of all time" to not meriting a mention in history class in only 5 years. Amazing.

At least most of the commenters at the article's web site have some sense about them. As one says:

If Ghandi, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, et al are OUT, who is IN? The Spice Girls?

Another Anecdote Regarding Socialized Medicine

I was talking to my dad's wife today, explaining why I've finally entered the 21st century and gotten a cell phone. We were discussing all the utilities I didn't purchase, such as unlimited long distance, and she started telling me about the long distance plan they have at home.

"We have that internet phone service, and get free long distance. We can call anywhere in the US, England, and Mexico for free. When I have friends over, I ask them if they want to make any long distance calls. They seem shocked, but it's free!"

And that, dear readers, is why I don't want national (or even state) health care.

There Are Good People In The World

I was with a group once that put tears of joy into the eyes of a waitress, but our tip wasn't anything like this one.

A "Good" President

Remember when a "good" president was defined as one who got to take credit for a good economy?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street soared Thursday, propelling the Standard & Poor's 500 index and Dow Jones industrials to record highs as bright spots among generally sluggish retail sales allowed investors to toss aside concerns about the health of the economy. (emphasis mine--Darren)

But wait, there's more! And it's not Ginsu knives.

Incredible Shrinking Deficit
New York Sun Editorial
July 12, 2007

2004 - $413 billion
2005 - $318 billion
2006 - $248 billion
2007 - $205 billion...

But as the shrinking figures above show, in fact the deficit is shrinking. When you look at it as a percentage of GDP, the decline is even more striking:

2004 - 3.6%
2005 - 2.6%
2006 - 1.9%
2007 - 1.5%

This isn't to say that we shouldn't get a handle on federal spending--after all, a deficit is a deficit. I've used the phrase "spending money like a drunken sailor in a Southeast Asian port" to describe the last several years.

But we've had worse spending than this (as a percentage of GDP) before and if the stock market was up, the president was fine (and got reelected). I certainly haven't heard this excellent news trumpeted on ABC World News, like they used to announce each new stock market high or milestone ending in three zeroes.

Funny how the rules change.

Hat tip to Instapundit (see blogroll at left).

Biased Professoriate?

Zogby's a leftie, and look what he's reporting.

Zogby Poll: Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem

Nearly six in 10 - 58% - said they see it as a serious problem, with 39% saying it was a "very serious" problem.

A New Visitor at RightOnTheLeftCoast?

click to enlarge

I must admit, I've never seen a reader from here before. Should I expect thoughtful consideration of my points, or goons showing up at my door?

Democrats for Education Reform

Is this too much to ask for?

I guess it's a start. I'll be more upbeat when they challenge the NEA on something big.

Update, 7/12/07: Joanne brings up similar issues.

Bubble In The Correct Answer

EIA (see blogroll at left) has an excellent foil to those, like every presidential candidate who addressed the NEA convention, take it as an article of faith that standardized tests are bad.

Any question on a fill-in-the-bubble test provides all the data necessary to come up with the correct answer. Students are then supplied with four or five possible responses. By their very nature, standardized tests inflate the scores of students on the low end of the scale. The only students who score lower than 20 percent on a fill-in-the-bubble test are victims of bad luck, since entirely random responses should raise you at least that high.

Just the appearance of a correct answer printed on a test booklet should increase scores across-the-board. Some percentage of students who cannot correctly answer the question "Who was President of the United States during the Civil War?" with no further prompting, will no doubt choose the correct answer when it is placed next to George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton. There is good reason to believe that scores would plummet if tests were "fill in the blank" instead of "fill in the bubble."

Student assessments can also include essays, projects, or oral interviews. These allow students to demonstrate a deeper and wider knowledge of a particular subject than can be measured by a "fill in the bubble" test. However, using the previous example, it's hard to imagine a student who can write a meaningful and exemplary essay about any aspect of the Civil War if he or she can't answer the "bubble" question of who the President was.

So why would educators and their political allies criticize measurements that cast them in a better light than the alternatives?

And the answer is:

Because of the political battles over education and the presence of standardized tests, the tendency of school systems is to evaluate students more generously in alternative assessments. In the absence of standardized tests, very few students "fail," receive Fs, are retained, or are denied diplomas.

Carnival of Education

This week's is posted here. My post about compulsory unionism is included.

A Cynical View of Poorly Run Schools

This blog is from Britain, but how can you tell in this snippet?

I therefore feel qualified to comment on the little flaw in this scheme: challenging schools don’t actually want bright, academically able teachers who want to make a difference.

Now, there might be a few well run schools that count as challenging, but schools that are well run soon improve. Any school that has been “challenging” for a considerable length of time will be run, or have been run, by idiots, those too stupid to either improve the school or to leave. The last thing they want is anyone with even half a brain asking questions or pointing out when something they are told makes no sense. There is an anti-academic, anti-intellectual, anti-thinking culture in these schools.

Anecdotes, anyone?

National Healthcare (aka Hillarycare)

So this guy explains why all the state attempts have failed at providing universal coverage, and somehow uses that explanation to show that a national plan will succeed.

I'm not buying it.

Update, 7/11/07: Here's Michael Moore-on and Dr. Sanjay Gupta disagreeing about Sicko. I'm more apt to believe Gupta.

"None of the facts were fudged." Yeah, Moore-on is known for his unvarnished integrity.

Summarizing Presidential Candidates' Speeches at the NEA Convention

EIA (see blogroll at left) does his usual spectacular job in this week's Communique, but two widely separated statements jumped out to me as being intensely related:

For an organization that espouses local control and vilifies top-down mandates, NEA's delegates cheer rather loudly for candidates who want to insert the federal government into even the most mundane decision-making in their schools...

NEA has listed as non-negotiable any provision in NCLB or other federal law that "undermines collective bargaining." But the delegates' response to the far-reaching promises of the presidential candidates indicates they obviously don't mind undermining collective bargaining if it produces the kind of result they want, whether it is smaller class sizes, higher teacher salaries, or less accountability for measurable results.

What have I said so many times about consistency not being a strong point of the left?

Oh Snap, Global Warming!

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Thousands of Argentines cheered and threw snowballs in the streets of Buenos Aires on Monday as the capital's first major snowfall since 1918 spread a thin white mantle across the region.

Wet snow fell for hours in the Argentine capital, accumulating in a mushy but thin white layer late Monday, after freezing air from Antarctica collided with a moisture-laden low pressure system that blanketed higher elevations in western and central Argentina with snow.

Don't you just love stories like this?

"This is the kind of weather phenomenon that comes along every 100 years," forecaster Hector Ciappesoni told La Nacion newspaper. "It is very difficult to predict."

Really? It's difficult to predict the weather, you say? Sir, could you tell what the climate will be like in 50 years, please? (hehe)

The snow followed a bitter cold snap in late May that saw subfreezing temperatures, the coldest in 40 years in Buenos Aires.

The coldest in 40 years, you say? Really!

OK, that's enough lighthearted fun directed at the global warming zealots. Now let's talk seriously--about forecasting.

Professor Scott Armstrong is at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr Kesten Green is with the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University. They're experts in forecasting techniques. (Many people are unaware that forecasting is a subject with many academic experts and a body of research going back to the 1930s. The website forecastingprinciples.com attracts more than 200,000 visitors a year.) Their paper is Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts. It was written for the 27th Annual International Symposium on Forecasting.

Armstrong and Green looked at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group 1 report from earlier this year. This is the major source for the orthodoxy.

They focused on chapter eight, which sets out the methodology used for the forecasts in the report. They found that the panel, despite its immense assembly of scientific talent, appeared to have no idea of how to make a reliable forecast. Although the chapter has 788 references, none relates to forecasting methodology.

Armstrong and Green rated the methodology used by the panel against 89 principles of good forecasting derived from years of research. They found that the panel report breached 72 of those principles. They concluded that the forecasts the weather was likely to change in many negative ways were worthless.

What are some of the main principles of forecasting? One involves the notion, so popular among orthodoxy advocates, of consensus. While consensus might say something about testable scientific theories, it says nothing about forecasts.

Armstrong and Green say: "Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy. This is especially true when the experts communicate with one another and when they work together to solve problems, as is the case with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process."

Another principle involves uncertainty and complexity. The more of each you have, the less sure you should be of your forecasts. Climate forecasts involve so many factors and so much uncertainty that Armstrong and Green believe they're useless.

Many people believe these complex forecasts can be trusted because computer models are used. But so much uncertainty and subjectivity is involved in the input that Armstrong and Green say the use of these computer models is just a modern version of an old practice: the use of mathematics to make personal opinions sound more impressive. (Robert Malthus's predictions on population increase and food decline, very influential in the 19th century, were presented with a lot of mathematics. They were wrong.)

Armstrong and Green note: "To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words will contribute to forecast accuracy."

Update, 7/10/07: You have to admire someone who can write like this:

I COULD not have upset the soft-left, soft-green middle classes more if I had crept in their kitchens and snuck genetically modified tomatoes in their paninis.

And what does he say about global warming?

So what was our conclusion, after months of research that involved talking to hundreds of scientists and wading through mountains of science papers? It's all codswallop.

Previously we've heard it described by a well-respected climate scientist as hooey. I don't even know what codswallop is, but I'm guessing it's not good.

Update #2, 7/10/07: When SCIENCE Magazine starts backing away from the topic, you know the lefties are in a hurtbox. Thanks to reader EllenK for pointing me to this piece.

It Couldn't Happen To A More Deserving University

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court against officials of San Francisco State University, where the administration forced the College Republicans to stand trial for “the desecration of Allah” because they stepped on Hamas and Hezbollah flags in political protest at an anti-terrorism rally.

“America’s colleges and universities should recognize the constitutional rights of Christian and politically conservative students just as they do for all other students,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Officials at San Francisco State are required to respect the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to free speech in exactly these kinds of situations.”

I'm not always convinced the Constitution applies in San Francisco, but I'm glad this lawsuit has been filed.

Best (and worst) Bang For The Education Buck

Interestingly enough, this analysis is questionable for California because our school budgets are determined in Sacramento, not on local property taxes.

Now THIS Could Be Fun To Watch

CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Hehe :-)

Update, 7/12/07: Circular Firing Squad! Ready, aim...

Live Earth

I have nothing to add. Yet.

Update, 7/8/07: Not related to Live Earth, but to so-called global warming:

What's really interesting about the confession is that Makower very quickly goes on to reveal just how much the environment counts for with your average star environmentalist:

...like many of my environmental professional brethren, air travel is far and away my biggest personal and professional footprint. And it's not likely to change any time soon. This reality notwithstanding, the airline industry seems poised to finally confront its environmental impacts -- and mine.

I find it hard to believe he's really saying "There's no way in hell I'm going to stop flying so much, so the airline industry had better get its butt in gear reducing my climate impact for me." But you could sit there staring at the quote all day and you can't make it mean anything else. It's also important to note that Joel Makower's speaking engagements are a cosmically fixed "reality"; unfortunately, your shopping, home-heating, and toilet habits don't enjoy this status.

As Allen put it in a comment in this post, the rules don't apply to rich liberals, just to the rest of us.

New Wonders of the World

I don't see what makes Brazil's Christ the Redeemer statue more of a wonder than the Eiffel Tower, but other than that, it's a pretty good list.

From a link that probably won't be active for too long:

The seven beat out 14 other nominated landmarks, including the Eiffel Tower, Easter Island in the Pacific, the Statue of Liberty, the Acropolis, Russia's Kremlin and Australia's Sydney Opera House.

Folsom

Today I decided to go to nearby Folsom to take a few pictures.

Folsom is an interesting place. It was founded because of gold in the American River. Its placement at the "boundary" of the Sierra Foothills and the Sacramento Valley made it an important geographic point. Folsom State Prison opened in 1880, made from the very granite that's so plentiful in the area. A powerplant, opened in 1895 and supplying Sacramento's first electricity, sealed the existence of a boomtown that would otherwise go bust.

As always, click on the pictures to enlarge them.

My first stop was the Old Powerhouse, which provided electricity to Sacramento for almost 60 years.

You should really click on this next picture and admire the images it contains. The explanations are extremely interesting, too. I never knew that Sacramento owed its electricity to forced labor from Folsom Prison--yes, that Folsom Prison. I apologize for the funky perspective--it was necessary to avoid glare and keep the text readable.


Obviously I got this image from Google Earth. It should be clear what I've added to the image, and how this picture complements the previous one.
In this next picture, also from Google Earth, I've pretty much centered the old powerhouse. The two small bridges to the northeast are the Rainbow Bridge on the left, built in 1917, and the Truss Bridge on the right, built in the 1890's.

Here's the exterior of the powerhouse, looking much like it did in the old pictures. The penstocks (shown below) are in the bright part of the building behind the brick.


Here's one of four penstocks, which fed one of four turbines (at the bottom), that turned one of four generators, that each generated 750 KW of electricity. That penstock is 8 feet in diameter. That's a lot of water.

Here are two of the generators in the brick portion of the building.

It's a short walk from the Old Powerhouse to the old bridges. This is the view from the southern edge of the Truss Bridge. I assume the sign on it is a replica of an original from days gone by.

This is the Rainbow Bridge over the American River. When it was built in 1917, it was the 4th largest concrete arch span bridge in the world. Try not to pay too much attention to the graffiti.

Looking east from the truss bridge, you can see the wall of Folsom Prison in the distance, as well as the remains of the canal that fed the powerhouse.

Moving back to historic Sutter Street, I saw this old picture of one of the street corners.
Here's that corner today.
Sutter Street now consists mostly of small eateries, antique stores, and similar establishments.

I did not know this about the Pony Express. I knew it ended in Sacramento, but didn't know that the "terminus" kept moving east as railroads were built here in the Valley.

As I said, gold is what gave Folsom its founding. Negro Bar and Mormon Island (they weren't so politically correct in naming places back then) were successful enough to bring non-blacks and non-Mormons to the area to establish the town. In any gold town, an assay office is critical.

And of course, Wells Fargo is still around today.

Teachers Unions

California is an "agency shop" state. That means that since the feds have ruled that unions are required to represent me even if I don't want them to, California says that I have to pay my "fair share" to the union for such representation. I must do this even though I refuse to be a CTA or an NEA member. This is a problem.

The feds created the problem by requiring the union to represent me, and California compounds that problem. It would be better merely not to force the union and me to associate at all. Freedom of association, and all that.

Some states are "right to work" states. Unions are still required by the feds to represent all workers if they represent any in an organization, but workers in right to work states are not required to be members or to support the union financially.

Let me state categorically: Every (non-military) American has a right to join a union. Every American has a right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to support a union financially.

I've said that before on this blog, but it bears repeating. Often. Honestly, I don't understand how any American could legitimately disagree with that sentiment.

The California Teachers Empowerment Network isn't anti-union. It isn't pro-administration. It supports California's teachers, giving them information that will allow each of them to make informed choices which satisfy his or her own conscience.

I have no problem with unions. I have a huge problem with compulsory unionism.

Some might say: You knew about this going into teaching. You consented to it. Deal with it. Actually, I didn't know about it going into teaching, but that's irrelevant. Let me share a story with you.

From about 1821 until the early 1970's, West Point required all cadets to attend chapel services on Sunday morning. Cadets marched to the Catholic Chapel or up the hill to the Cadet Chapel. The stated reason for this requirement was for a cadet's moral and ethical training and character development. Everyone going into West Point knew about this requirement. It's clearly unconstitutional, but that didn't stop its occurrence for over 150 years. It's not until a cadet and some Naval Academy midshipmen filed a case, Anderson v. Laird, that made it all the way to the DC Court of Appeals, that the practice ended.

Honestly, are union supporters so blinded by their own desires that they can't see the injustice of compulsory unionism? Will it take the Supreme Court to fix this problem which the Congress could more easily solve by passing a national right to work law that eliminates the harmful parts of the National Labor Relations Act?

Congress created this problem, Congress should fix it. The Republicans had 14 years to pass a national right to work law and didn't do so. The Democrats would never go against their union overlords in such a way--in fact, the Democrats are trying to make it even easier for unions to move into businesses by getting rid of secret ballots and allowing card checks.

It's about as anti-American as you can get.

Even Liberal SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Are Whiners

For all those years when conservatives were in the minority on the Supreme Court, did you ever read news articles about how upset they were, how they felt compelled to read their dissents from the bench (because that's apparently a big deal), and how divisive the rulings were amongst the justices themselves?

I didn't. Divides were kept hidden. But no more.

With the liberal bloc narrowly losing a number of high-profile cases this term -- including late-term abortion, campaign finance reform, and public school desegregation -- the political and legal stakes produced sharper ideological lines.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer all wrote toughly worded dissents, punctuated by reading some of them from the bench. It is a rarely used privilege, reserved for only the biggest, most contentious cases.

"The one symbolic step that they can take to show they are almost outraged and that they think something terrible has happened is to read these dissents from the bench. And so the fact that the more liberal members of the court have done it is really a sign that they are frustrated."

I expect this from ordinary, garden-variety liberals, but I'd like to think that Supreme Court justices are at least a little above such plebeian acts. Apparently they're not.

Legal experts say the new conservative majority of the Roberts court will continue to produce divided rulings, and divisive rhetoric.

Why weren't legal scholars saying such things when liberals held sway in the court? Gawd, liberals think we're all entitled to their beliefs.

Update, 7/9/07: Here's someone else who thinks we're all entitled to the liberal view regarding court decisions.

Idiot Lawyer-Wannabe

So this idiot says that answering questions about the law, on his bar exam, violates his religious freedom?

Sorry buddy, I'm not buying it. The law may go against some of your beliefs (it certainly goes against some of mine), but that doesn't mean you're entitled to be ignorant of the law and still become a lawyer.

Oops, I Did It Again

Three and a half years ago, two student-editors of the high school paper approached me and and asked if I'd write an opinion piece for them. I did, it made international news, and about 8 months later my principal and I came to an agreement "ending hostilities". The district insisted on having a provision in the agreement saying I'm not allowed to divulge the details of said agreement.

Looks like I've created a bit of a controversy again, only this time in the blogosphere. And I wasn't even trying to.

http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/06/presidential-hopefuls-attend-ceafu.html
http://shoeblogs.com/wordpress/2007/06/30/the-ron-paul-and-his-disgraceful-shoes
http://shoeblogs.com/wordpress/2007/07/06/ron-pauls-disgraceful-shoes-redux/
http://dcpleats.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-and-his-disgraceful-shoes.html
http://dcpleats.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-response-to-ron-paul-response.html
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-shoes-make-the-man/ron-paul-dresses-as-poorly-as-his-internet-fans-274456.php
http://www.ronpaulsshoes.blogspot.com/
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/ron_paul_shoes.php

If you know of any other blog posts on this topic, please send them to me. Not that I intend to go after people for copyright violations, but there are a lot of people out there using my photographs on their blogs, without attribution. At least The Manolo gave me credit!

Leftie Inadvertently Makes Case Against Socialized Medicine

I've often said that government works much better as a sledgehammer than as a scalpel, meaning that it can do big things well (defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, build freeways, send men to the moon) but doesn't do so well when it tries to fine tune (War on Poverty, welfare).

This leftie says that part of the reason the US government doesn't do well in general is its "gigantism". I assert that's also why nationalized health care doesn't work in Europe or Canada and won't work here. I doubt he'd agree with me regarding health care, but he made the argument--I'm just agreeing with it.

The scalpel metaphor takes on a whole new meaning!

Update: A (former) Canadian tells us what health care in Canada is really like.

Government-run health care in Canada inevitably resolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago - she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest quality care in the government's eyes - I can honestly say that (Michael) Moore's preferred health care system is something I wouldn't wish on him.

Perhaps I'd wish it on him.

Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.

That's pretty bad.

What's really amazing is that even the intended beneficiaries of Moore's propagandizing don't support his claims. The Supreme Court of Canada declared in June 2005 that the government health care monopoly in Quebec is a violation of basic human rights.

And the finale:

There's a good reason why my former countrymen with the money to do so either use the services of a booming industry of illegal private clinics, or come to America to take advantage of the health care that Moore denounces.

I'd say Q.E.D., but some people just don't let facts stand in the way of their political beliefs.

Update #2, 7/8/07: My admiration for Mark Steyn's writing knows no bounds, especially when he writes like this:

Some 40 percent of Britain's practicing doctors were trained overseas – and that percentage will increase, as older native doctors retire, and younger immigrant doctors take their place...When the president talks about needing immigrants to do "the jobs Americans won't do," most of us assume he means seasonal fruit pickers and the maid who turns down your hotel bed and leaves the little chocolate on it. But in the United Kingdom the jobs Britons won't do has somehow come to encompass the medical profession...According to a report in the British Medical Journal, white males comprise 43.5 percent of the population but now account for less than a quarter of students at UK medical schools. In other words, being a doctor is no longer an attractive middle-class career proposition. That's quite a monument to six decades of Michael Moore-style socialist health care.

The American Left

Calling the Weather Underground "patriotic" for carrying out a bombing campaign against the US government--this is the face of America's so-called progressives today. Lefties, if you think I'm wrong, then disavow these people.

Of course, this took place in San Francisco, and photoessayist Zombietime has more.

Update, 7/9/07: Victor Davis Hanson has this to say about the left:

What is striking about all this savagery—whether with the filmed beheadings of Westerners in Iraq to the recent flaming Johnny Storm human torch at Glasgow, screaming epithets as he sought to engulf bystanders and ignite his canisters — is the absolute silence of the West, either distracted by Paris and i-Phones or suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and obsessed with Guantanamo.

It is hard to recall an enemy so savage and yet one so largely ignored by rich affluent and distracted elites as the radical jihadists, as we have to evoke everything from mythology to comic books to find analogies to their extra-human viciousness.

For a self-congratulatory culture issuing moral lectures on everything from global warming to the dangers of smoking, the silence of the West toward the primordial horror from Gaza to Anbar is, well, horrific in its own way as well...

Maybe if the jihadis put panties over the heads of their victims before killing them, the left would get concerned.

Obama Supports Merit Pay

So Barack Obama supports merit pay.

Hillary Clinton is the accepted front-runner for the Democratic ticket, but Obama raised significantly more campaign money than Clinton last quarter. I have no way of knowing if Obama is sincere in his merit pay proposal, but could it be more than just a coincidence that he's swinging a bit to the right here in order to try to pick up some moderates and fence-sitters? After all, he has nothing to fear in such a move--if he were to become the party nominee, the NEA would support him no matter what. They've given Nancy Pelosi their 2007 Friend of Education Award, and have never supported a Republican for president (and they've been stumping for Presidents since Carter). They support candidates who send their own children to private schools, so why not someone who supports merit pay? It's not like a federal merit pay system would ever become law anyway--how could it?--so it's an easy point in Obama's favor with some voters, a point he'll never have to make good on.

The only way the NEA wouldn't support a Democrat for president is if that candidate were to be anti-union or if he/she were to support "right to work" laws. Otherwise, the NEA is an easy endorsement--just put a "D" after your name. Had President Bush said the same thing as Obama, he'd have been crucified by the NEA and the press.

This is a smart political move for Obama.

Update: EIA has more details on Obama's statement.

Ancient Greenland Warmer Than Previously Thought

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

But how can that be? It's hotter now than it's ever been in the history of the planet! Earth rests in the balance, and all that.

Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.

And how much of a rise is the IPCC predicting in the next century or so? About 17 inches?

Let's look at the track record of similar scares.

Population bomb
Peak oil
Global cooling/"The Coming Ice Age"
Nuclear winter
Bird flu
SARS pandemic
Global warming

What do they all have in common? Several things.

1. They all required immense, immediate governmental action,
2. action favored by leftists,
3. action that would have a seriously adverse effect on the global economy and prosperity,
4. to forestall apocalyptic consequences.
5. None of them happened.

Is it any wonder I'm skeptical about the claims of the Church of Global Warming?

Update, 7/9/07: In my list above, how could I forget Thomas Malthus?

Does High School Math Prepare You For College?

If I had to answer that based on the results of CSU's Entry Level Math test, I'd say no. Apparently they're getting similar results in Pennsylvania. Their reasons seem different from ours, though.

Students are heading to college less prepared for math than they were a decade or two ago, forcing colleges and universities to rewrite textbooks and add more review work and remedial courses.

Math professors in the Lehigh Valley laid the blame on integrated math programs that don't emphasize basic skills, high-stakes testing and the push to give students higher-level math courses at increasingly younger ages.

Has the curtain not fallen on those failed so-called integrated math regimes yet?

The NEA and *Your* Money

It's not like California's teachers don't already pay exorbitant union dues--teachers in my district gladly give almost $1,000/year to the local, state (CTA), and national (NEA) unions.

And now they're going to give more. From EIA:

The delegates also approved an acceleration of the increase in dues assessment that goes to the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises and Media Campaign Funds. The assessment would have been $8 per member in 2007-08, $9 in 2008-09, and $10 in 2009-10. It had a sunset provision after that.

By today's vote, the assessment will go immediately to $10 in 2007-08, and that assessment was made permanent. I believe this raises the level of NEA's national dues in 2007-08 to $153.

They can call it a "democracy" since representatives voted on it, but there's a difference between democracy and freedom. As long as I'm required to give them any of my money at all, injustice reigns. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Every (non-military) American has the right to join a union. Every American has the right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to financially support a union.

California teachers, you really should look into the California Teachers Empowerment Network, or just click the CTEN label below or to the left.

Do You Wonder What Your Military Academy Looks Like?

Here's an aerial view of West Point, taken by a 1973 graduate who does aerial photography for a living. The picture was taken 2 days ago, on "Reception Day" (R-Day) for the incoming Class of 2011. They're in the lower right corner of the picture, marching either to or from their swearing-in ceremony.

Update: More pictures by the same photographer can be found here.

The Declaration of Independence

If you've never read it, you should. The prose is beautiful, the sentiments enduring. (I am adding the boldface for emphasis.)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

Thereafter follow the signatures of the gathered representatives of the thirteen colonies. Jefferson was masterful with words, wasn't he?

Have a happy Independence Day.

Carnival of Education

Find this week's Carnival, in an extremely readable format, over at NYC Educator. My post on Teaching And The Military is included.

Hypocrisy Regarding the Scooter Libby Commutation

I haven't addressed that issue much, because, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't interest me much. This CNN article, though, hits the nail squarely on the head.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypocrisy is unpardonable. President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of a convicted liar brought out the worst in both parties.

Gotta love the AP, though. "Convicted liar". I guess they don't have to refer to former President Clinton in such terms because he wasn't convicted--he was merely disbarred for lying to a grand jury. Like the old movie conversation goes:

"Every been convicted of any crimes?"

"Convicted? No. Never convicted."

But back to the article. After the biased opening sentence, the article is full of details. It's worth a read--and then we can let this issue drop, since no one's hands are clean and everyone seems to be living in a glass house.

Update, 7/6/07: Here's more.

WHERE Did This Statistic Come From?

The NEA has only backed Democratic presidential candidates in the past. About 85 percent of the union's members end up voting for the union's recommended candidate in the general election.

When even their own internal polling shows that Republicans/conservatives make up about a third of teachers, I find the 85% figure more than a little hard to swallow.

Does CNN Have Anyone Who Can Say This?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

I won't be on-air at FOX for a few days. My wife and I need time to absorb and then recover from the trauma that's just hit us, something that's irrevocably changed our family and left most of us in tears: this morning, we delivered our oldest son, Josh, to college.

Perhaps you've been down this path before; we haven't, which is part of the reason it hit us so hard. But before you think me a melancholy sap that needs a good dose of "man-up" medicine, let me say that the institution to which we've given up our son isn't an ordinary university. And no, he's not starting out in summer school on this second day of July. Josh is one of 1,311 new cadets hoping to join the class of 2011 at West Point — the United States Military Academy.

I'll skip my usual commentary about MSM leftie bias for this story.

June 2007 California Educator Magazine

Why is it that I don't get the June issue until July? Just asking. It's that way every month with California Educator.

It's a very short issue, and to be honest, most of it doesn't interest me. I did, however, find a few morsels on which to chew.

From page 4, in the outgoing president's column:

We soundly defeated those who wanted to destroy our public schools, the teaching profession and our rights as union members.

Let me state this unequivocably. Every (non-military) American has the right to join a union. Every American has the right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to financially support a union. Until I have that last right, I couldn't care less about Babs Kerr and the rights of her union members.

Page 24 is a puff piece on Michael Moore-on's new movie.

"We are the only country in the western world that doesn't believe it's a human right to provide care to its citizens," said Moore... "That's not what we used to be about."

It's not? When did we ever believe that individual health care is owed by government to its citizens? Where did the Founders write that?

"Moore fills three boats with emergency workers who were injured providing help in the aftermath of the World Trade Center tragedy. He then takes them to Cuba for health services denied them in the United States."

I wonder if they were taken to any of these fine institutions. And let's be honest here--they weren't denied health services in the US, they just weren't given them for free.

And CTA is using this new movie to try to sell California's legislature on socialized medicine. Grand.

Page 32 has a story called "CTA is leading the charge to erase the vindictiveness of NCLB (ESEA)".

"Recent polling conducted by CTA indicates that 91 percent of CTA members (emphasis mine--Darren) support CTA's campaign to erase the vindictive provisions contained in NCLB..."

Really, 91% you say? Recent polling conducted by the Republican Party indicates that 0% of them will vote for Hillary Clinton for President. Does either statistic surprise anyone?

And just for giggles, let's look at the chart on page 34 that updates us on CTA-sponsored and co-sponsored legislation for 2007. Of the 6 bills, four relate to community colleges and/or universities, one relates to universal healthcare, and one relates to mandatory kindergarten. So, K-12 teachers in California, how do you like those stats?

And finally, on page 38 are a few paragraphs about the NEA Rep Assembly taking place in Philadelphia. The piece closes with:

The association's 2007 NEA Friend of Education award will be presented to Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi...."

Do I even need to mock that? Or does it mock itself?

Terrorism in the UK

While skimming through Little Green Footballs (see blogroll at left), I came across two adjacent posts the juxtaposition of which was most interesting.

From the first:

The number of doctors involved in the UK terror plots is now seven, and a eighth suspect is a lab technician. All have links with Britain’s National Health Service.

Immediately below that:

If you were hoping that British elites might be shocked into a state of awareness by the Islamic terror attacks, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

Because new prime minister Gordon Brown thinks the best way to approach the subject is to crack down on speech and refuse to acknowledge reality: Brown: Don’t say terrorists are Muslims.

They're doomed.

Update: Here's some more information about recent terrorists.

Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No. 2. George Habash of the PLO. Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas strongman in Gaza. All trained as doctors — as did at least seven suspects in the failed bomb attacks in Britain.

"People often assume that terrorists are poor, disadvantaged people who are brainwashed or need the money. But the ones who actually perpetrate violence without handlers and manipulation are highly intelligent by necessity," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

Another leftie mantra shot down.

NEA's Annual Convention

This year it's in Philadelphia, the city that gave birth to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Let's see what genius is coming out of the NEA's convention there:

NBI (new business item) 36 directs NEA to "call for a 48-hour, locally initiated, nationally coordinated political strike early this coming fall to defeat NCLB, oppose bipartisan attacks destroying public education, and demand full education funding at corporate expense."

"Locally initiated, nationally coordinated." How is that accomplished, especially since it's being proposed at a national convention? Yep, these idiots are teaching our children. And yes, this is the very organization that former US Secretary of Education Dr. Paige says has a deathgrip on American education. If by "strike" they mean walk out of the classrooms, they can count me out. And bipartisan attacks? How can that be, with Nancy Pelosi getting the 2007 Friend of Education Award?

I bring up this other new business item just for its entertainment value:

NBI 15 wants NEA to "promote monarch butterfly studies."

Again, these people are teaching our children.

Democrats and Public Education

NewsAlert linked to this, and I will, too:

The eight Democratic presidential candidates assembled in Washington last week for another of their debates and talked, among other things, about public education. They all essentially agreed that it was underfunded -- one system "for the wealthy, one for everybody else," as John Edwards put it. Then they all got into cars and drove through a city where teachers are relatively well paid, per pupil spending is through the roof and -- pay attention here -- the schools are among the very worst in the nation. When it comes to education, Democrats are uneducable.

One candidate after another lambasted George Bush, the Republican Party and, of course, the evil justices of the Supreme Court. But not a one of them even whispered a mild word of outrage about a public school system that spends $13,000 per child -- third highest among big-city school systems -- and produces pupils who score among the lowest in just about any category you can name. The only area in which the Washington school system is No. 1 is in money spent on administration. Chests should not swell with pride.

And that's just the beginning; it gets better. But this line stuck out to me:

In so far as the Democratic presidential candidates talked about public school education and in so far as they mentioned the Supreme Court decision, they largely mouthed Democratic orthodoxy.

Where have you heard something like that before? =)

Getting A Clue On Global Warming?

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

Go figure.

By the way, is "scepticism" a British way of spelling "skepticism", or did the BBC make a major spelling error in its headline? (If it's a mistake, I wonder how long it will take them to correct it.)

Anyway, back to my favorite line:

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

I don't know; so much of the hoopla about climate change is dog mess.

Update: Oh no, the polar bears are going to die of thirst!

(Reuters) - Ancient ponds in the Arctic are drying up during the polar summer as warmer temperatures evaporate shallow bodies of water, Canadian researchers said on Monday.

But...

Douglas said a study of the fossilized sediments in these pools of water -- which are less than 6.6 feet deep -- showed climate changes beginning as long as 150 years ago.

Did they have SUV's 150 years ago? I thought not.

Update #2: Read this about the upcoming Live Earth concert in Hamburg. The comments are as entertaining as the post is!

Talk Radio, Blogs, and the So-called Fairness Doctrine

Dean Barnett has a brilliant piece over at Hugh Hewitt's blog. You owe it to yourself to read the entire thing, which I'll excerpt here (without ellipses):

In the Beltway’s eyes, Markos (of Daily Kos fame) leads a movement of progressives in the blogosphere. But this is inaccurate, and Markos would be the first to tell you so. Markos doesn’t lead the movement. He stands in front of it and is symbolic of it, but the movement’s direction and interests flow directly from the people who compose it. The movement is a bottom-up thing, not something that a guy leads from the top.

If Markos came out tomorrow and said he’s supporting Hillary, the people who read his blog would tell him to pound sand. They would keep reading his blog, but they wouldn’t open their hearts or their wallets for Hillary.

CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO has the same kind of dynamic. The people who listen to conservative talk have their own views, and they are extremely well informed ones at that. They listen to conservative talk because they hear opinions that are friendly to their political and personal philosophies. Listeners also tune in to conservative talk because, unlike liberal talk, conservative talk shows are fun and entertaining.

Mort’s (Mort Kondracke) a great guy, but he has the immigration bill debacle completely bass-ackwards. Talk radio didn’t lead the charge so much as it gave voice to the angered conservative base. The Republican Party’s problem wasn’t that it angered a handful of professional talkers (myself included). Its problem was that it outraged virtually its entire base with the content of the immigration bill and the downright un-American way the Senate and the administration attempted to shove the bill down the throat of the American body politic.

In truth, the Republican Party should be grateful for both talk radio and the blogosphere. If certain Republican politicians had paid attention to talk radio rather than baselessly assail it, they would have seen how dangerous this immigration bill was. If the bill had passed, the damage to the party would have been incalculable. The political class should appreciate the presence of an early alarm system like talk radio rather than bemoan it.

As far as the blogosphere is concerned, both the left and right blogopsheres have readerships that are puny parts of the electorate. Rush’s and Sean’s audiences are each nearly 50 times the size of the most-read center right blog. But the blogs provide an even earlier alarm system. If we’re going berserk in the blogosphere, the smart politician should take note.

The political class would be well advised to remember that the message that so distresses them comes from the people.

I left out specific examples, but the condensed version above gives you the slightest flavor of the entire piece.

I Can't Believe This Is Even Possible

link to video

Laughter Is The Best Medicine When You've Caught The NEA Virus

From the 7/1/07 EIA Intercepts:

I also discovered that NEA spent some of its media campaign fund money placing print ads in NASCAR event programs. It would make more sense to sponsor the pace car - ensuring that everyone moves at the same slow speed.

Diversity In Education

"Diversity it great. Education is better... Given the choice between diversity and education, I'd choose to educate students and let diversity be damned."

The author at the link above mentions some schools with not-very-diverse populations, and they reminded me of Downtown College Prep in San Jose.

Via Joanne (see blogroll at left).

Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act

I've heard it said before that all the good debates on the important issues of our day are taking place amongst conservatives.

Iraq? The lefties debate only how fast to remove our forces. Conservatives debate what to do there, what constitutes winning, how to win.

Immigration? The lefties want amnesty, open borders, and no ID checks to vote, ostensibly to increase votes for Democrats. Conservatives have a genuine debate over amnesty (heck, even the President appears to support it), over how and how much to secure the borders, and over naturalization for those illegals already here.

Abortion? Every single Democrat presidential candidate is pro-abortion. Republican candidates occupy both sides of the debate.

Global warming? It's not the left who considers the possibility that it's a natural, cyclical occurrence.

Education? Liberal activists (outside of those in Congress) want NCLB ended. Conservatives have a diversity of views.

Just as an example, at last week's Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism conference, I initiated some lively discussion with a speaker from the (conservative) Heritage Foundation, who, on the grounds of federalism, wanted to see NCLB gone. Additionally, he wanted to see federal education dollars go to states with few strings, for the states to do with as they see fit--again, under the banner of federalism.

I asked what was conservative about giving money to states with minimal accountability. While I understand the federalism argument, I say that if the feds have to be in the education business at all, there should be accountability a la NCLB. My view is a sort of Realpolitik, but I can justify on conservative grounds just as strongly as did the speaker from Heritage.

Townhall.com has an interesting piece on conservatives who are lining up to challenge the reauthorization of NCLB. The closing is brilliant:

But even one of NCLB’s most prominent supporters said the White House can no longer ignore the law’s critics. “I believe No Child Left Behind will eventually be reauthorized and should be, but I think that Senators DeMint and Cornyn’s proposal needs to be taken very seriously,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told me last week. “I would expect that their concerns will have to be accommodated somehow in the legislation.”

For all his stubbornness on immigration, President Bush would be wise to follow that advice. Extending his hand to critics now would present an opportunity to patch up the wounds inflicted during the immigration debate. It might also lead to a better bill.

Even the comments at the end of the article span a variety of positions.

The diversity of opinions is on the right; there's nothing "progressive" about the left.

The Moral Emptiness of the Left

Zimbabwe's archbishop has called on the UK to invade the country and rescue it from the famine and other forms of death caused by Robert Mugabe and his so-called government. Sadly, I'm at a loss as I marvel at some of the online comments from lefties regarding the archbishop's request:

With all respect, it was British intervention itself which painted Zimbabwe into this corner. It wasn't an armed intervention; but it was just as deadly -- or worse. It was an attack on an entire nation, with the express purpose of (1) showing Africans that so long as Europeans aren't at the helm of a country's governance that country cannot survive; and (2) to dissuade any person of African decent, looking in at Zimbabwe, from believing that nationalism is a proper course to take.

How about this one?

Removing tyrannical rulers is a starting point on the road to failure; vacuums are created with their removal. It seems crass to say but do we really want another Iraq? Mugabe is an old man, his time on this world is going short once he is gone the country will correct itself saving thousands of lives in another botched and illconcieved (sic) invation (sic).

That leftie is too stupid to see the flaw in his own argument. Wouldn't Mugabe's death also lead to power vacuum, only one that occurs later than an invasion would? And how many more deaths would occur in the interim? I guess to lefties, African lives aren't worth saving.

There's more, of course.

As for Zimbabwe it should be noted that its people are sovereign unto themselves; therefore they should be able to sort out Mugabe if they want to. If they stick with him, its their problem, not ours.

They stick with him at the point of a firearm.

Let nature take its course. There are too many people on the planet as it is.

Nice one. Very humane.

Of course I am sympathetic to the plight of the Zimbabwian (sic) poeple (sic), who couldn't be & for sure that despot Mugabe should have been removed from power years ago.
However, Britain should not consider opening up another war front as we have enough on our plates with Iraq, Afghanistan and domestic terroism (sic). Let someone else act as the Worlds (sic) policeman, maybe Russia or perhaps China.
We need to retreat to our island fortress and bring our boys home.

Ah yes, you're very sympathetic. A very good person indeed.

Are you lefties proud?

Math Humor

It's true, every word of it :-)

Making Fun Of The President

Liberals don't get that they're usually not funny, they're just mean. Bitterly, rabidly partisan, and mean. And mean isn't funny, which explains in part why Air America, the liberal radio network, is such a flop, and conservative talk radio is successful enough that some liberals (and Trent Lott) want to reintroduce the clearly unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine.

There is a way to poke jabs at the President, and yet do so in a very humorous way. It's not partisan, it's not mean--it's funny. Who can show us how to do this? The Manolo, of course.

Happy Canada Day!

To my few Canadian readers!

Teaching History

I've written before, and not in a very flattering light, about the teaching of US history. I enjoyed Lies My Teacher Told Me by socialist James Loewen, which is a fairly good book when you get past his socialism. This book looks interesting as well.

From Publishers Weekly
Woods (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History) argues that the history lessons schoolchildren learn are ideologically driven distortions aimed at producing citizens who believe that big government is good and big business is evil. He aims to set the record straight. He says that Americans have been fed propaganda about the origins of Social Security, which is nothing more than a tax. Indeed, Woods thinks nothing good came out of the New Deal, which, far from lifting the U.S. out of the Great Depression, actually prolonged the nation's economic woes. Much of the book touches on issues of race: desegregating public schools hasn't really helped black children; racial discrimination is not the main cause of the gap between blacks' and whites' salaries; and Martin Luther King Jr. was a dangerous radical who sought an immediate, palpable improvement in blacks' material condition, a vision he thought could be achieved by racial quotas and socialism. Blacks, according to Woods, should model themselves not on King, but on an enterprising if oft forgotten 20th-century self-made man, S.B. Fuller. (July 10)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Book Description
Guess what? The Indians didn’t save the Pilgrims from starvation by teaching them to grow corn. Thomas Jefferson thought states’ rights—an idea reviled today—were even more important than the Constitution’s checks and balances. The “Wild” West was more peaceful and a lot safer than most modern cities. And the biggest scandal of the Clinton years didn’t involve an intern in a blue dress.

Surprised? Don’t be. In America, where history is riddled with misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and flat-out lies about the people and events that have shaped the nation, there’s the history you know and then there’s the truth.

In 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask, Thomas E. Woods Jr., the New York Times bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, sets the record straight with a provocative look at the hidden truths about our nation’s history—the ones that have been buried because they’re too politically incorrect to discuss. Woods draws on real scholarship—as opposed to the myths, platitudes, and slogans so many other “history” books are based on—to ask and answer tough questions about American history, including:

- Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?
- Was the Civil War all about slavery?
- Did the Framers really look to the American Indians as the model for the U.S. political system?
- Was the U.S. Constitution meant to be a “living, breathing” document—and does it grant the federal government wide latitude to operateas it pleases?
- Did Bill Clinton actually stop a genocide, as we’re told?

You’d never know it from the history that’s been handed down to us, but the answer to all those questions is no.

Woods’s eye-opening exploration reveals how much has been whitewashed from the historical record, overlooked, and skewed beyond recognition. More informative than your last U.S. history class, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask will have you wondering just how much about your nation’s past you haven’t been told.