Achieved: Homogeneous Mediocrity

Watching a British humor bit on politics and the education system (a real gem you’d get a laugh out of along with some insight on how to argue for school choice and a minimized Department of Education, read on for the links), it struck me that the great American Education system is an exercise not in excellence or even equality, but mediocrity.

Pushed upon us with the rationale that forgotten corners of America would be educated, that a standardized system would raise all schools to a uniformity of excellence and achievment on par with the best schools in the nation.

Instead, the poor and those who don’t care languish in the scum of poor teachers and poorer facilities, while those who care and those who can, pay for private schools to do their best upon their children.

There is no basis within a non-competitive system for any to excel. Teachers are protected by Unions from having to strive for real excellence and can instead coast on ignorance while their pupils languish in the squalor of low expectations and high bills.

The centralized system is capable only of moving quickly only in the direction of untested and untried educational philosophy promoted by pawns and peons of pop-culture, and is incapable of modifying itself to special circumstances and situation unique to each neighborhood and city.

The monolithic education system is shown to be a false hope by the very awards it offers. Principles, administrators, and teachers who buck the system, go far beyond the call of duty (or their contract) to achieve real results are rewarded instead of expected. The system has not helped them and only pay lip-service to their triumph over it.

The solution? Privatise and allow competition to take over the system. It may be (slightly) humorous, but the truths you’ll hear in the four videos linked below will encourage you.

The National Education Service - 1 of 4
The National Education Service - 2 of 4
The National Education Service - 3 of 4
The National Education Service - 4 of 4

Every Family Has One…

…in my family it was me.

From ICanHasCheezburger

And some linky love:

• The Night Writer is a recent discovery and addition to my blogroll.
• Neil at 4Simpsons keeps up the quality, like always. I like his dogs.
• Animate Matters’ Wes keeps my connected to Vox Day by one order of separation, a distance I can handle.
• TikiRae from Haemet keeps me up to date with current conservative thought on the Cornell College campus.
• Ironic SurrealismII and Velvet Hammer keep hitting things, plushly.
• MomLovesBeingAtHome loves being at home. My fiancee will appreciate her.
• Jay at OldFordRoad grew up on old Ford Road, it’s who he is. Stalwart.
• Sol at SolomonHezekiah keeps us up to date on the state of education in rural UK.
• SunflowerDesert keeps me wondering where I can find that desert.

And finally, this fine adaptation of Abbot and Costello’s famous “Who’s on first?”

Dead Sexy

In a previous article, Priorities Of Preservation, I discussed the importance Christianity puts on the entirety of an person: body, mind, and spirit.

While the world, in a misguided and myopic view constrained by sin, only really cares for the preservation of the body. And through ignorance, loses the whole person.

In a report released last week which most have already heard of or commented on, it was noted that 1/4 of the US Teenage Female population is infected with one of several Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

The immediate cry was that Abstinence Education must be completely abandoned and further explanation of the ins and outs of safe sex be taught to every child.

I find those making that argument to be their own worst enemies, and I am determined to sit and watch them tear themselves apart trying to make sense of what they’ve said.

Better have a good belt to hold these sides in. The problem is, this is no laughing matter: peoples lives are at stake.
At the blog dbTechno (”Providing Science And Technology News Since 1996″) under the headline “Teens Having Sex, Getting STD’s Due To Lack Of Knowledge” (strongly caution) there is a small picture of three bikini-clad young women shaking their derrières before the camera. This was the picture Google had selected on it’s news aggregator to highlight the several articles on this topic this morning.

In our sexified culture it is considered “emancipated” for a woman to be so “comfortable” with her sexuality that she feels willing to flaunt her body either scantily clothed or free of clothes before the whole world.

I don’t think that it is a sign of a healthy self-image that women are willing and even choose to clothe themselves that way.

I am not for arbitrary requirements in clothing, but it is saddening that, younger and younger, we are compelling out daughters and sisters to choose between frumpy and scandalous.

Removing their modesty with bits of lycra and spandex.

Revealing their bodies for the eyes of all the world.

And then we worry that too many of them are having sex.

I think a healthy self image will result in true self-worth, where the woman will not feel compelled to dress “sexy” to get the approval and acceptance of others.

When a woman is dressing revealingly they are revealing their insecurity, not their assuredness.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board this morning published an article titled “Abstinence-Only Education Needs To Go” (no scandalous images here) in which they completely demolish their own claims, twice.

First, early in the article they lay claim to the moral high ground:

From here, it would be easy to play the blame game. But that would be unproductive. It doesn’t matter if you’re the pro-sex education or abstinence-only type, the statistics speak for themselves, and what matters most is that something be done to make our children more sexually responsible and safe.

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Let’s start with re-tooling the failed abstinence-only approach backed by the Bush administration. Let’s teach teenagers about contraceptives and other precautions that could help protect them if they are sexually active.

Yes, lets avoid the blame game, and lets look at the facts. The Bush Administration has indeed backed and supported an abstinence-only education approach, because no one who practices abstinence contracts an STD, no one. It make sense to back a winner. But how many education programs has the Bush Administrations policy actually affected? Good question.

I would be willing to bet that with state policy, and NEA policy, and DoE policy, there is precious little abstinence-only education going on in the public schools of America.

The article then goes on to make an astounding statement. I very nearly cheered, at work, when I read this:

Abstinence teaching has its merits. It not only promotes a sure-proof defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but also the idea that sexual activity requires a high level of maturity and understanding. An adolescent who engages in “protected” sex prematurely may not run the risk of physical infections, but could be exposed to long-term emotional and psychological damage.

And then gets to the…

BOTTOM LINE: Place more emphasis on contraceptives and STDs in sex-education classes.

And they reached that how?

With this simple caveat they have attempted to justify their entire tortured argument, and by extension, rationalize their continued support for the torture of young minds and bodies with illness both physical and psychological:

Like it or not, half of the teenage girls in this country are already sexually active, according to the study. Something has to be done to make them wiser in their choices, or we soon could have an even bigger public health crisis on our hands.

Do they not see the cruel irony?

Because we’re a bunch hapless, helpless dolts who’ve bought the lie that children are capable of making their own informed decisions regarding sex and mature relationships.

Because we’re a bunch of laissez-faire non-present parental units who feel no particular responsibility to counter the culture’s claims that boys are animals and girls are meat.

Because we’re a bunch of lazy do-gooders who value intentions over actions and outcomes and are willing to allow our children to do whatever they please so long as it makes them feel good.

We will complete ignore what we already know to be true: that premature involvement in adult relationships, emotional and physical, will not only harm the body but will also damage the mind.

So long as we tell enough of them to use condoms, we are perfectly willing to let them hop into bed with any yahoo or floozy who comes along.

Yea, that’s advanced society and parental love for you.

See also:

The Condom Conspiracy: Sex, Lies, STIs and Teenage Girls - the evangelical outpost

While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.

STD Data Comes As No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say - Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver in the Washington Post

The Marrow girls offered several reasons why teenagers have sex.

“It’s to fit in, peer pressure,” Christine said, noting that virgins are often mocked. Also, “sex sells on TV.”

Khadijah chimed in that some young girls found their inspiration in the popular R&B singer Rihanna, whose latest album is titled “Good Girl Gone Bad.”

But Christina suggested something closer to home. “Write this down,” she said. “Bad parenting.”

10,000 Lies

Does the truth we find in this humor scare anyone else?

I’ve had the following images floating around on my computer for a while, waiting for me to actually post them. It seems to me, in their attempt to paint the liberal and Democrat as the loving, caring, truly human leadership, anybody with a mind will recognize the fallacies and dangers of the blanket statements made in this children’s book.

Children reading this book will be cursed with the feeling there is actual truth to be found in the ideas. They will accept without thinking the lies of socialism and liberal socio-political theory and practice.

Read and weep for America.

What parent wants their children to hurt?

What parent tries to protect the children from the pains of life?

What parent can?

Laudable.

But given the current state of Political-Business relations, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: “Democrats give the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Unions the tools they need to keep dead weight and stupid policies in place hampering the heroes efforts, abilities, skills, and desires to serve as they are called”?

And I would want my children to go to those war-zones, indoctrination facilities, stupid-makers, great-levellers of the people they call schools?

I know what they mean is that we can all go to college. But 1) where is that a constitutional right or a universal requirement, and 2) aren’t there plenty of great colleges for cheap?

There are plenty of jobs in which one can work their way up to a comfortable level of pay which require no college. And the government has neither interest nor right to take money from those who aren’t going to college to give to those who are.

Maybe if there were less “free” money floating around from the government, the cost of education would come down, and only those dedicated and intelligent people would stay in teaching as it became less of a lucrative career option.

Democrats are government, not Mommy. This is a legitimate role for Mommy, not government.

To the extent that Democrats seek to usurp this role, they confuse the nature of society and culture. This is immoral.

Pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal do-gooders!

Show me someone who believes this and I’ll show you someone certifiably insane.

First, there is no proof the Earth is “sick” with Global warming. There is proof there are regular and natural cycles of warming and cooling, and there is not proof we are even in a warming cycle.

Second, the temerity of the writer and those who agree with him in assuming a political party which has existed a mere 200 years has the might to enact significant change in an entire planet which they believe has existed 4.5 Billion years.

Someone call the nice men in white coats.

False.

The truth is, Democrats make sure schools cannot fire bad teachers. Democrats make sure children know all about condoms and how to have sex with each other, leaving it to the parents to teach reading and writing and true morals.

Individually, Democrats are generally caring people. But are they busy loving people to hell?

UPDATE:

These are not parodies, these are selections from one of two books for children:

Why Mommy Is A Democrat & Why Daddy Is A Democrat

The Art Of High Insult

A friend wrote the following in a Facebook note:

Twice in less than 24 hours I have been called “Silly”–as in “No silly!”–by two separate should-be-grown-men, on two separate occasions, for two separate reasons. I think it was supposed to be some sort of mild insult. Well, let me tell you, I am way more offended by the lack of genius and creativity in the name calling.

I was just discussing this with the second man, when I realized that I–who limit my name calling to things like “stupid”, “bone-head”, “douche bag”, the politically-incorrect “retard” and the slightly more creative “blow-hard” am almost just as bad. Not quite, but almost. The scene from the 1991 Steven Spielberg classic, HOOK, came to mind. In the clip Peter, a grown lawyer and Rufio, head of the lost boys get into a name calling match.

THIS is a prime example of what the glorious ART of insulting is supposed to be! It is the masterful utilization of all bad things, jobs, reading levels, body functions, etc, to come up with the most extraordinary ” bad-name” ever! We should be creative enough NOT to use the same bad name twice!

I decided to put a copy of the name calling match up as an example in all its educational glory, but I must warn you:

**READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!!!**

Peter Banning: I bet you don’t even have a fourth grade reading level.
Rufio: Hemorrhoidal suck naval.
Peter Banning: Or maybe a fifth grade reading level.
[kids whistle and waves their hands around]
Rufio: Boil dripping beef fart sniffing bubble butt.
Kids: Bangerang, Rufio.
Peter Banning: Someone has a severe ka-ka mouth, you know that?
Rufio: You are fart factory. Cheesy, scab picked, pimple squeezing finger bandage. A week old maggot burger with everything on it and flies on the side.
Peter Banning: Substitute chemistry teacher.
Rufio: Mung tongue.
Peter Banning: Math tutor.
Rufio: Pinhead.
Peter Banning: Prison Barber.
Rufio: Mother lover.
Peter Banning: Nearsighted gynecologist.
Rufio: In your face, camel cake.
Peter Banning: In your rear, cow derrière.
Rufio: Lying, crying, spying, prying ultra-pig.
Peter Banning: You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.
Kids: Bangerang, Peter.
Rufio: You… You man! You stupid, stupid man!
Peter Banning: Rufio, if I’m a maggot burger why don’t you EAT ME? You two-toned zebra-headed paramecium brain, munchin’ on your own mucus, suffering from Peter Pan envy?
Don’t Ask: What’s a paramecium brain?
Peter Banning: I’ll tell you what a paramecium is. It’s a one-celled critter with no brain, that can’t fly. Don’t mess with me man, I’m a lawyer!

Whilst discussing this matter with my brother, he also reminded me of the scene in What About Bob? It is less spectacular in nature, but good none-the-less.

But that cannot even begin compare to the fabulous scene from HOOK! Again,
**View Discretion is ADVISED-(Especially for those easily offended, or with poor senses of humor.)**

Note: You really only need to watch the first two minutes of this clip to catch the gloriousness of it. Enjoy.

And as a test of your name calling prowess, you have permission to post your most creative insult. (Profane and Obscene posts are subject to deletion.)

I think a main issue preventing true forms of high insult is our unfamiliarity with and uncomfortability with larger, multi-syllabic terminology.
Large words have become a cultural more now, and their users are considered posers and charlatans seeking to impress rather than communicate.

Instead of being full of deep, rich, and precise meaning, large words are gauche.

So, to those whose minds cannot process anything longer than an 8bit instruction set, I leave you with a small word: fie!

To the rest of you: Have at me, scoundrels!

End Of January Election Links

Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.

With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.

McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)

McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.

It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?

Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.

Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:

Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.

(From the American Thinker)

Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…

I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.

…and endorses Romney.

Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.

And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:

After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.

I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.

I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.

And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.

I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.

Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.

Riehl ponders:

Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain - an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?

We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”

(From Copious Dissent)

My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.

This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.

Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:

• He can win
• He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
• He believes America’s best days are ahead of it

And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.

Today’s Interesting Stuff - December 3rd, 2007

As this years begins winding to a close, we have one of those news days which just makes me happy.

Hugo Chavez, the communist thug who wanted to run things forever in Venezuela, has been told he can’t hang around any longer than 2012, his original term limit. Students formed a coalition and grassroots campaign to fight his power grabs, and because he’s still constrained by a constitution he must abide by the law. The Communist News Networks print mouthpiece, Time Magazine, had the temerity to call Chavez’ power grabs “reforms“.

They cannot stand the thought of not using murdered babies to try to improve lives. And they aren’t afraid to lie about it. There has not been a single case of successful treatment of any condition using human embryonic stem cells. The only reason the government is being petitioned to fund this research is because private industry will not.

And what of the propriety of the government funding research anyway? Is it the responsibility of the government to do such things? Consider another expensive project: space travel. Now consider such programs as the Ansari X Prize which encouraged the production of vehicles which can enter space and return with a usable payload twice in two weeks. Using private money and initiative. Can the space shuttle do that? Can the government do that?

The State of Texas School Board fired their science curriculum coordinator for sending around an article critical of Intelligent Design. And the ruckus begins. With baited headlines such as “Hey Science, Don’t Mess With Texas” from the Huffington Post (which is apparently a major Yahoo Op/Ed outlet now) and “Evolution: Don’t even talk about it in Texas” the frenzied crowds cry foul. However, where is the issue? I’m not going to make a judgment on whether the coordinator ought to have been fired, there may have been other issues which led up to this. It would be unwise to fire someone just for sending around a document such as this. But a common thread through this hue and cry is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are some super heavy-weights in the world stage which have dominated Evolutionary theory in education and elsewhere.

Now tell me this: which theory has had the greater part of the last 50 years to indoctrinate our youth, guide our scientific inquiry, and silence any and all public debate? It’s not Creationism or Intelligent Design. No, evolution, a theory without proof or even a preponderance of evidence beyond that offered by the need for man to be able to define himself apart from an omniscient God, has enjoyed all formal and official public support. Evolution is no spunky underdog in this fight, it is instead the 800 pound gorilla which has dominated all arguments and quashed all dissent. Evolution is a flighty, sensitive thing too, which does not allow argument or dissent.

Further joy from the religion of Peace. Thank God she has been pardoned and is back in the UK now. Though with the ‘peaceful’ nature of British Muslims, her safety may not be guaranteed at this point.

The hurricane season is over. It was average, low average. And less than was predicted.

If they can’t predict a single season, why do they think they can predict the end of the world?

Anyone, Anyone?

Ben Stein is Expelled.

Who Really Cares?

With Thanksgiving and the holiday season on us, Alablama Policy Institute’s Gary Palmer looks into “Who Really Cares?”

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Professor Arthur C. Brooks reports that conservative families give about 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal families, even though their income is about six percent less. Conservatives give more regardless of income bracket, even with lesser levels of education. Prof. Brooks, director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, says that the difference is particularly strong when comparing religious conservatives and secular liberals.

Asking Too Much

Over at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation blog, Lynn Harsh presents a reasonable argument which will be dismissed as all the others which come against the entrenched and combined strength of the public education establishment and the teachers unions.

What is so difficult to see and understand regarding the benefits that competition would bring to education.

Is it that difficult to see that on average private schools can do and have done more with significantly less money than the public schools?

Is it hard to stomach that the system is broken, and that pouring more money into it is NOT the solution?

Yes it is. Because it is lust for power that drives bureaucracies and unions, fueling and feeding their insatiable appetites. Power is as blinding as it is grasping.