Right to Opine

In a recent poll, young people aged 16-25 picked Thomas Edison as the greatest innovator of all time. Considering his innumerable contributions to technological advancement, that’s not at all an unreasonable choice. But take a gander at the top 7, as highlighted in the article:

1. Thomas Edison (52%)
2. Steve Jobs (24%)
3. Alexander Bell (10%)
4. Marie Curie (5%)
5. Mark Zuckerberg (3%)
6. Amelia Earhart (3%)
7. Temple Grandin (2%)

Are you serious? I’m often accused of being an Apple fan-boi, but Steve Jobs? A quarter of our youth think he was the greatest innovator of all time? I suppose if you were born after the Mac was invented you might be excused for believing Jobs was the greatest innovator of your lifetime, but in history? History is apparently limited to your generation.

The bottom four are equally revealing. Zuckerberg? If you don’t know how life could possibly exist without Facebook, …

The other three point out the success of the feminist movement within our educational system. Yes, Curie and Earhart were pioneering women in their field, but if you’re considering aviation, wouldn’t the Wright brothers have been a better choice? Inventing flight, and all that. Oh, but they’re men. Madame Curie was certainly a brilliant scientist, but, well…not so much as an innovator. But she was a she. Did I mention her work killed her? And Grandin? You watch one made-for-TV movie about an autistic woman and suddenly she’s a great innovator?

The ignorance of this generation regarding real innovators throughout history would be stunning if it weren’t so terribly predictable. Do they even know who da Vinci was? (Or that he didn’t actually have a code?) What about our own Founding Fathers, such as Franklin and Jefferson? Oops. Old, dead, white guys.

Sadly, most of this age bracket is old enough to vote. That should be enough to scare anyone into fighting for real educational reform.

Interesting that a web site dedicated to science shows so much animosity to one of the basic tenets of science—examining all sides of an issue and exposing both the strengths and weaknesses of any theory.

A subcommittee of the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted 6-to-1 Tuesday to approve an industry-standard biology text, which conservative critics had attacked for failing to teach the “controversy” about evolution.

While the article focuses on criticism of creationism and intelligent design, conspicuously absent is any mention that there are, in fact, gaping holes in every flavor of evolutionary theory—a fact which they fear having taught in public schools lest any thinking student have doubts about the validity of Darwinist thought.

The left—which for decades has dominated education in our country—has an obsession with race that never fails to fascinate (and disturb) me. While accusing the right of being racist, it is they who focus so consistently and intently on race. Consider a new study based on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) math and reading tests.

[A] new report focusing on black males suggests that the picture is even bleaker than generally known.

Race, race, race. The report compares blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians. You can read it in its entirety here.

Just once I’d like to see an analysis of this data which investigates things that really matter rather than race.

• How do kids from intact families compare to those from divorced and single-parent homes?
• What about kids whose parents take them to church or synagogue regularly versus those who watch TV all weekend?
• Do kids who are involved in scouting and organized sports perform better than those who aren’t?

I mention these because in my experience they have a much greater effect on academic performance than do race and economics. For example, I have black friends who have been married for twenty years and go to church regularly. Their kids are doing really well in school. Meanwhile a white family I know has divorced and stopped attending church—their kids are struggling. Race is a non-factor while family cohesion is paramount. Yes, I know these are “merely anecdotes”, but I am quite willing to bet your personal observations are generally similar. (And at some point when you’ve collected enough anecdotes you have “data”.) Sadly, our society has come to substitute statistics for common sense and wisdom.

But I do suspect that these factors have a statistically significant impact on test scores. Unfortunately I can only surmise. Because I’m just an independent mathematician with a very good understanding of statistics—and not a “qualified researcher”—I can’t get access to the raw data. The real reason I suspect that these, and similar, factors other than race have a real effect on scores is the very fact that those factors are never reported. If they had a significant effect and that impact or a lack thereof agreed with the agenda of the researchers the results would be published in a heartbeat. (If you think educational researchers don’t have an agenda, with a list of acceptable pre-determined outcomes, you’re not awake.) That there is such eerie silence makes me suspicious.

There are a lot of factors that can greatly affect academic performance. Race isn’t one of them—unless you are a racist! That the left is obsessively focused on race speaks volumes.

Elementary schools are limiting the activities boys can use to productively channel their innate aggression and competitive drives, for example eliminating such useful games as dodgeball. Youth sports associations hand out trophies to every kid for the sheer act of breathing and their parents’ ability to pony up the $100 registration fee instead of reserving accolades for those who actually accomplish something on the field of play. Schools hand out awards for good behavior and “citizenship” (i.e., being nice to classmates) instead of mandating them and rewarding academic performace. After all, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s self-esteem by leaving them out as we hold up exemplary achievement as a mark to be emulated. Now we’re being told that modern superheroes are bad role models.

“There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday,” said Professor Lamb.

“Today’s superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he’s aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity.

“When not in superhero costume, these men exploit women, flaunt bling and convey their manhood with high-powered guns.”

Now I’m not sure what movies and TV shows she’s watching, but today the only “superheroes” that wear costumes are either parodies or remakes of classic comic book mainstays. We just don’t do the whole tights-and-capes thing anymore. Further, I’m a big fan of action movies and TV shows—even the cheesiest—and I guess we’re simply seeing completely different images. Virtually every successful action hero of late follows the same model that has sold well on screen for nearly 100 years: chivalrous, confident but modest (except when it’s necessary to fling a good one-liner at the bad guys), and motivated to fight for the helpless and powerless.

In a second presentation, Dr Carlos Santos, from Arizona State University, examined 426 middle school boys’ ability to resist being emotionally stoic, autonomous and physically tough – stereotyped images of masculinity.

When, exactly, did these qualities become viewed as harmful to boys’ development? Our nation was made possible by the stoicism, autonomy, and physical toughness of generations of men (yes, and women) who lived hard, often brutally short, lives in an effort to tame a wild and dangerous continent. While most of the specific dangers they faced are gone, they have been replaced by others which can only be met by men of equal character.

Unfortunately, academics would have us believe there are no significant differences between the genders, and consequently have us raise the next generation of boys to be women. Such nonsense can only be perpetuated to the detriment of society.

In a townhall meeting with NJ Governor Christie, a teacher whined that, “You’re not compensating me for my education, and you’re not compensating me for my experience.” His response was simply sublime: “You know what? Then you don’t have to do it.”

Ma’am, step away from the left and join us in the real world.

You see, out here in the real world, we don’t get automatic pay increases based on the number of years we’ve worked, how many degrees we hold, or the number of initials and acronyms that follow our names. We get paid based on two things: perceived value and scarcity of skill. Until there are more teacher openings than applicants, the law of supply-and-demand is going to hold your salary down. And until the taxpayers believe you are providing something of increased value, they aren’t going to pony up more of their hard-earned cash.

Like those of us in the real world, you—along with the rest of us who haven’t had pay raises in years—have two basic options: find a higher-paying career, or quit whining and be thankful that in an economy running 10% unemployment you still have a job. Me? I live here in the real world. I choose the latter.

A common misconception on the left is its arrogant and elitist notion that if only conservatives were better educated they’d be more liberal.

• Marx studied law in Bonn and Berlin.
• Lenin had a degree in law (his father was an official in the Russian education system).
• Stalin attended Tiflis Theological Seminary and was later a private tutor/instructor.
• Mao Zedong went to Beijing University.
• Ho Chi Minh was educated in France and was, at one time, a teacher.
• Pol Pot was a graduate of the École Française d’Électronique et d’Informatique (French School of Electronics and Computer Science) in Paris.

On the other hand:

• George W Bush and Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale.
• Thomas Sowell is an economics fellow at Stanford.
• Bill O’Reilly holds degrees from Boston University and Harvard.
• Charles Krauthammer holds degrees from both Harvard and Oxford.
• Michelle Malkin went to Oberlin (a rather left-wing college).
• Bobby Jindal went to Brown University and Oxford (Rhodes Scholar).
• Newt Gingrich got his PhD in history from Tulane and was a college history prof for almost a decade before entering politics.

The difference isn’t education. It’s values.

Many of us tend to encapsulate the Christmas story by having it end tidily with three wise men bringing gifts to a cuddly little baby. Some of us know better…

An eight-year-old boy was given an assignment in class to draw something that reminded him of Christmas. His picture got him sent home and ordered to undergo a psych evaluation because of its violent imagery. What did he draw? Machine gun-toting Santa? No (though I think that’d be pretty cool). Vampire Rudolph feasting on elves? No. Headless Frosty with a chainsaw? No.

He drew a picture of Jesus crucified on the cross.

Read that again. The blatant and pernicious anti-Christian bias in our educational system could not be more clear.

Here’s a news flash for the uninformed: the Christmas story has a really violent, bloody episode just before the plot’s climax. If you don’t include the death and resurrection of Christ then Christmas has no meaning whatsoever. This young boy demonstrated what very few adults do—a complete understanding of the meaning of the holiday. Rather than punish we should emulate.

For a supposed Constitutional scholar, lawyer, and professor, our President doesn’t appear to know the document at all. To wit:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 9. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Ergo without the express consent of the Congress, Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is strictly unconstitutional, as it is awarded by a committee of five persons elected by the Norwegian Parliament (see <http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/org_structure.html>).

Of course devoted Obama supporters will say this doesn’t matter. It should be noted they also have no respect for our Constitution.

In his address to Congress Wednesday, President Obama asserted once again that his health care plan would not fund abortion. Let’s examine that claim using the most widely quoted current proposal.

HR3200 Subtitle B Section 2511 (p. 992) provides for “School-Based Health Clinics” (SBHC) to be funded with your tax dollars. This sounds great on the surface. Who doesn’t want to provide health care for our kids? The problem is that the language is, deliberately, overly broad and opens the door for groups such as Planned Parenthood, our top abortion provider, to open clinics in our schools.

(c) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds awarded under a grant under this section may be used for—

(1) providing training related to the provision of comprehensive primary health services and additional health services;

What, exactly, are the “additional health services” here? We don’t really know, as the bill does not specify. You can, however, connect the dots. Oversight of the clinics is left to the Secretary of Health & Human Services (SHSS), currently Kathleen Sebelius who is a radical pro-abortion advocate and supporter of late-term abortionists (e.g., the late George Tiller).

(d) CONSIDERATION OF NEED.—In determining the amount of a grant under this section, the Secretary shall take into consideration—

…

(3) other factors as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

This gives quite a bit of leeway to the SHSS. She could, for example, grant greater funding to SBHCs that provide “family planning” counseling of the sort she approves.

(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) COMPREHENSIVE PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES.—The term ‘comprehensive primary health services’ means the core services offered by SBHCs, which shall include the following:

…

(C) OPTIONAL SERVICES.—Additional services, which may include oral health, social, and age-appropriate health education services, including nutritional counseling.

Sounds innocuous enough but what, exactly, are “age-appropriate health education services” under this definition? Would pro-abortion counseling qualify? Given the current SHSS you can count on it.

(3) SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CLINIC.—The term ‘school-based health clinic’ means a health clinic that—

(A) is located in, or is adjacent to, a school facility of a local educational agency;

…

(4) SPONSORING FACILITY.—The term ‘sponsoring facility’ is—

…

(D) a nonprofit health care agency;

Bingo! Planned Parenthood qualifies. In fact, they wouldn’t even have to operate on school grounds. Any Planned Parenthood clinic near a school would qualify under this plan.

Now back to Obama’s claim that our tax dollars would not fund abortions. First note that nothing in this bill excludes abortion and great leeway is given to the SHSS to determine how funds are meted out. There is no guarantee here that funds would not be used directly for abortion. Assume, for the sake of argument, that none are. Even in that case Planned Parenthood clinics on or near school grounds would qualify for these funds. In practice every dollar they receive for even legitimate purposes frees up another dollar to fund the rest of their practice…being America’s number one provider of abortions.

Republican Congressman Charles Wilson may have been out of line concerning the venue of his outburst, but he was correct. Mr. Obama, you lie.

Why did we keep our daughter home from school today? So we could watch the President’s speech with her and provide corrections where necessary. You can be sure our public schools will not balance their adulation of The One with anything approaching reality.

After last week’s firestorm of protests over the supplemental materials provided to teachers, President Obama gave a rather bland and predictable speech to our nation’s students this morning. (The prepared text can be found here.) The problem with his speech wasn’t what he said, but that he didn’t mean it.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But you don’t really mean it. It’s one thing to claim to set high standards. It’s another entirely to enforce those standards. One of your biggest backers, the NEA, opposes enforcement of standards (i.e., failing students and denying graduation). As a state senator, U.S. senator, and now as president, you have done absolutely nothing to change that. Without enforcement standards are meaningless. Your record speaks for itself.

My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had.

But you know that’s only a half-truth. The fact is, you were largely raised by your maternal grandparents, one of whom was vice president of a bank. You didn’t grow up poor. You didn’t grow up disadvantaged. You grew up in a comfortable neighborhood in Hawaii and chose to waste your time hanging around a Marxist mentor and smoking dope. Puhlease.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

Ah, if only you really believed that. If you did, you’d support eliminating affirmative action and other racial quotas. You’d support reducing government expenditures on welfare and entitlement programs. You’d insist that college admissions and job opportunities be given to the best qualified candidate, not the most racially diverse candidate. But you don’t. Instead you support expanding entitlement programs, encouraging future generations to rely more and more on the government rather than themselves. You have put zero pressure on universities and corporations to give rewards to those who have earned them.

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time.

But we’re not allowed to let kids fail, even when they don’t do their work at all, much less when they do it but poorly. Instead we pass them on from grade to grade and they never learn from their failure because they aren’t allowed to fail.

If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave.

Um, actually, I think that is a pretty obvious definition of a troublemaker. (From Merriam-Webster: trou-ble-mak-er, n., a person who consciously or unconsciously causes trouble.) Quit with the touchy-feely stuff, sir, and just tell them to shape up. Of course, there have to be consequences or they won’t, so never mind. Keep the feel-good slop flowing.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day.

Yes, but the group you ask for help includes Marxists, tax cheats, racists, etc. Hopefully our kids will choose wiser advisors.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation.

And let’s all recall what that revolution was about…taxes! A sobering history lesson for you, Mr. President, as we host our TEA parties across the nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Um, why isn’t the ACLU up in arms over this? A high school valedictorian can’t mention God in a graduation speech but you give your homeboy a pass? To quote our fearless leader, “Enough!”