The Intelligence of Race

H'm:

It's a biological fact that there are innate differences in IQ among different races. If you can't deal with that, enjoy being a truther.
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) January 30, 2015

Set aside the fact that Charles Johnson is a soulless ginger (heh), let's talk about race and intelligence and this assertion he makes about a fact of biology. But more, let's talk about the consequences of his assertion about that fact of biology.

To start, I will declare outright some biases: (a) I fucking love science (ahem) (b) I am bi-racial; specifically, I'm half white boy, half black girl. That sounds weird, but there you have it. I have some skin (heh) in the game, so to speak. And (c) I am a Christian.

I was born in Cameroon, lived the first half of my life in Nigeria in the west of Africa and then moved around until I settled in Florida, which is as close to a melting pot as you will have anywhere else in the US, both in literal and metaphorical terms. What this means is that, as an average observer of humanity--certainly enough to know I don't like most humans--I can tell you that there are truths to be found in generalities about groups. Where things start to fray is in applying those averages, those generalities to individual members of those groups. It takes a steady mind to avoid bigotry, and we are all of us guilty of it regardless of skin color.

For example, the myriad problems in Nigeria have at their root the deep divides between Nigerian ethnic and attendant religious groups: the eastern Igbos, reputed to be more intelligent than the northern Hausas, don't like the western Yorubas, etc. And they each say things about each other in generalities: "Don't trust an Igbo trader, son. He's out to steal as much as he can. Learn to bargain!" And so on.

We are generalization engines. We categorize. We sort and classify. It's what has made us the dominant species on the planet. But it is also the bane of our existence. The source of much strife, of war, of violence, of evil. With this in mind, let's talk about genetics, of which I know just enough from High School & College biology (I was a Zoology major at a University in Nigeria, intending on going on to Medical School). It is a fact that certain attributes pass genetically from generation to generation. It is, truly, settled science if there ever was such a thing. Among black Americans, a doctor will say, high blood pressure is more common. Sickle Cell Anemia is prevalent among black Africans, etc.

Chances are, you inherited your father's thighs or your mother's breasts--which would really suck for you if you're a man. Chances are, you'll likely die from the same disease that killed one of your grandfathers, if medical science doesn't find a cure. Chances are, people will say you have your mother's green eyes, Chances are, you and your sisters share your grandmother's Roman nose. And the list goes on.

There's no valid reason why genetic inheritance of attributes should stop, by human fiat, at the neck and go no higher. Those calf muscles you got from your father, but no one knows why you both suck at mathematics. No idea. Nonsense. Intelligence and the attendant capability is heritable. I've seen it, you've seen it. I believe, based on the evidence, that this is a fact of life.

Well now, what about groups? Ah now there's where the road is not so easy to walk. The Nazis (you knew it was coming) used the "biological fact" of racial differences to send millions to the gas chambers. Does this, one wonders, therefore invalidate the study of racial differences? Of course not, because to do so is to commit a logical fallacy. Are there racial differences between peoples and are those differences genetic? I say yes. Race, like sex, is most certainly not a social "construct" and it is foolish to think otherwise.

And if by extension, there are biological--including morphology--differences between the races, transferrable through the genes, and if, intelligence is likewise transferrable through the genes, it ought to follow that there are differences in intelligence between the races. As a half-black, half-white man, this makes sense to me; it does not make me uncomfortable in the least.

And this is why: I do not apply what I know to be true about groups to the individual members of that group. For two reasons: first because it's committing a logical fallacy to do otherwise and also because earlier I declared the bias that I am a Christian. What that means is that in the way I live my life and in my interactions with people, there are certain rules and regulations that govern and provide guidance to those interactions. I believe I am made in God's image (Imago Dei) and I also believe every human being on the planet is also made in God's image. This does not nullify the fact of our differences, of which there are many: racial, ideological, political, and so on. What is does do is require that I act accordingly for we are, all of us, God's children, brothers and sisters.

The problem is, we're humans. Fallible and fallen creatures that really suck generally. With evil in the heart, we seize on our differences to rationalize our evil actions against others. It is "harder" to shoot your son in the head than a stranger's. It is "easier" to kick a dog (Canis familiaris) than it is to kick a child (Homo sapiens). People and things that are different from us are easier to act against with malice. It is the stuff of which human history is made and all you have to do to convince yourself of this reality is to read a few history books.

So then, for argument's sake accept the fact of the matter that there are differences between the races. The question now is, so what? From which follows, no what? What are we to do with this information? As with most questions posed to humanity, it comes fraught with advantage and danger.

My doctor asks me for a family history so he can help me avoid "family-related" problems so I can live longer and healthier than my mother who died young. The racist down the street from me assumes because of my mother's skin color that I am unintelligent, if not outright stupid, and because of this, am two steps away from being violent. Well, in a way, he's right: I am steps away from being violent, but that requires he takes the first few steps first. :)

For good and for bad, there are differences between the races. For good, we can tailor health practices to ensure we all live longer. For bad, we can have Auschwitz. Personally, for you, as an individual, what should this bit of information do for you? Information, data, sitting there means nothing. You may as well have never known it--and I believe this is the path many take, to turn a blind eye. Does this mean that you will act in a certain way when you meet a black person? An Arab? A Jew? A Chinese man? Will it change the way you would have acted?

If it is shown that the intelligence of black Africans is lower than that of white Europeans, does this mean you now understand why black African countries are such hell holes? Does this remove the blinders, everything now clear? Does the relatively high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews now mean we should only have those Jews be scientists? Drawing only from that class of persons the doctors, engineers? Are you, as a white man, better than me, as a half-white man who is in turn better than a fully-black man? What does "better" mean in this situation?

As a government, do we start passing legislation barring certain groups from occupying certain posts in society based on genetics? Are we to segregate blacks in certain sections of our cities (which they already do on their own, by choice, it seems)? Japanese? Do we pass laws requiring that blacks cannot intermarry with Asians because the ensuing offspring will be "less capable" for society?

What do we do with this information, considering it's truth? Now, what? Considering how bad we are at statistics, replete through and through with cognitive bias after cognitive bias, now what.

Kill or Be Killed

Last night, because I wanted to understand the salient points of Idaho's self-defense statutes, I decided to take the course by the Ada County Sheriff's Office. It was three hours long and mostly worth it. However, there were a few glaring errors--maybe it would be better to call it let-downs than errors; I'm going to describe them, for the hell of it. There were two instructors, one behemoth deputy with each arm the size of three baseball bats taped together with bungee cords, Deputy Muscles. This is a guy you wouldn't want to tangle with without the aid of a meth/8-ball cocktail. The other instructor was a typical Idahoan male of a certain persuasion: funny, meek, untraveled, provincial, 6 children, all homeschooled. I liked him immediately. He was a Sergeant, Muscles a Corporal. After a few corny jokes that the universe could have done without, we got into it, wading ankle-deep into what was surely a wide and deep ocean of self-defense law. We were made to understand that our fine state had laws essentially unchanged since the 1800s when they were first drafted. The Deputies tried and laughably failed to show that the laws had been updated to “the present day” through the accumulation of case law. Now, I knew this, but from the vacant looks on the faces of the approximately 30 people in the class, I could tell they didn’t understand the concept. Is it slightly gauche to point out at this point that more than half the class was female? Maybe sexist. Maybe. And I’m not kidding about the Idaho Statutes! There’s mention of a justifiable homicide in defense of the life of one’s wife, husband, etc. and one’s “master or mistress or servant.” Nice. What was missing--but kept getting hinted at--was the fact that it would be necessary, on shooting in self-defense, to articulate the reason. Muscles made it seem as if you would be so doing to the Police. He did, naturally, point out that it was up to you whether or not you chose to speak to the Police and that, of course!, you had a right to shut up and request an attorney. But, it would still be necessary to “articulate” your reasons. Yes, Muscles, I must be able to articulate clearly the reasoning that went into my decision to shoot and possibly kill in self-defense. But it wouldn’t be to you, or any other Law Enforcement official: in the immortal ebonics of Tupac, only God can judge me. Well, Him and a jury of my peers. What they left out was that the articulation would be to that jury. While one’s first contact would certainly be with Law Enforcement, none of those yahoos had the power to pronounce guilt or innocence. With that in mind, Muscles really ought to have instructed class takers that in addition to the archaic-sounding statutes, it was necessary to find and read the Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions. This is really the standard to which one would be held. It should also have been mentioned that the standard for judging an action of self-defense involves what a third person, a so-called “reasonable person,” would have done in the same circumstances. That this wasn’t discussed by Muscles is slightly alarming. The other surprising thing I noticed: Muscles came to a slide in his pitiful Powerpoint deck that he skipped outright, mentioning insouciantly that it dealt only with Law Enforcement. By the way, these atrocious Powerpoint slides featured the usual “presentation sins”: text-heavy, shitty default templates, ponderous animation; in other words, something these cops were probably very proud of creating. Back to the slide in question: it dealt with Idaho’s “fleeing felon” law. 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. I can understand why Deputy Muscles didn’t want to discuss it, because it essentially gives citizens the right to pursue and possibly kill a felon. He preferred to lie instead. For shame. Yes, that Statute gives the everyday man and woman the right to claiming that killing a fleeing felon was a justifiable homicide. I know you don’t like it, Muscles, but that does not mean you get to lie about it. It does not only cover Law Enforcement, it covers everyone. The hint is in the title of the Statute itself: 18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. I’ll save you the time and simply give you the answer: “any person” includes you, me, and yes, Deputy Muscles. Is it a good idea to pursue a fleeing felon and possibly kill him or her? No. The cold and unwavering eyes of the modern Justice system would probably not look with any mercy if you did. But that statute exists and can be claimed by, yes, any person. Another faux pas was his mentioning the fact that, by law, you needed to aid the now-stopped threat/assailant. I don’t see this anywhere in the books. It does indeed look good that you attempted to give aid and succor to the jerkoff you just shot--after all, one is shooting to stop a threat, not to kill but to say it was required by law without reference to any law is, again, a bit disconcerting. In all, I enjoyed the class. It needs a bit of a retouching, some highlighting, a spiff-up here and there and definitely losing a bit of shitty information. In his defense (no pun intended), Deputy Muscles did take the effort to point out that this class was just the beginning. More study was necessary. Roger wilco.

The American’s Creed

I got a book yesterday, a 1948 edition of the Boy Scouts of America Handbook for Boys. I have a feeling there’s nothing about gay scoutmasters mentioned anywhere in it.
Here’s something I did find:

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy within a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity, for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it, to support its constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its Flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

That was by William Tyler Page. I wonder if this is in the newest edition of the BSA’s handbook, if they still publish a handbook. Absent a shared, organic culture, we need these kinds of coalescing creeds and stories that impart values to the children. That serve as a great Moral Compass for us as we wend our way, a nation of many different peoples.
For example, too many people don’t understand our system of government. People who have grown up here and supposedly been taught it at school. People who react with incredulity at the Electoral College and have no idea why it’s in place even though we’ve been electing Presidents that way for ever.
People who don’t understand the difference between a democracy and a republic and what type of government either one engenders. People who don’t understand that we elect democratically within a republic. People, in other words, who have never read or recited the above Creed.
Here’s the answer to the question “what’s the difference between a republic and a democracy” that I just this second read:

one is a form of government where at[sic] the other is a system is the real answer but democracy doesn't exist

The person who wrote this is 23-years-old. A native-born American. If this doesn’t shake what remains of your hope for America, what would I wonder.
A child reading this ex-classroom would be naturally inclined to ask what the line about a democracy within a republic meant and therein lies a teachable moment as the blowhards say. No one reads this kind of stuff anymore. And they all end up like the 23-year-old who thinks democracies don’t exist.

Baccalaureate

A quote, from LP:

Imagine a large corporate machine mobilized to get you to buy something you don't need at a tremendously inflated cost, complete with advertising, marketing, and branding that says you're not hip if you don't have one, but when you get one you discover it's of poor quality and obsolete in ten months. That's a BA.

Nod.

Language, Young Lady!

Thank you, teacher!

The College Bubble

Sorry Freddie, things may be a bit tougher for you when you’re ready for college than it was for me …

Plato’s Leaders

“Therefore we must elect as ruler and guardian of the city him who as boy and youth and man has been tested and has come out without strain, and render him honours in life and after death, giving him the highest rewards of public burial and other memorials. The others we must reject.” —Plato

What I find interesting is that in Plato’s opinion, we must actively reject the ‘others,’ and not, say, simply ignore them. I wonder if that’s got any deeper meaning?

Carrie Doesn’t Live Here Anymore

This article, published in City Journal, is an account of one teacher’s experience in a very well-funded urban school, viz:

“At my school, we pay five teachers to tutor kids after school and on Saturdays. They sit in classrooms waiting for kids who never show up. We don’t want for books—or for any of the cutting-edge gizmos that non-Title I schools can’t afford: computerized whiteboards, Elmo projectors, the works.”

The problem? A soul-wrecking list of the symptoms of a failed and broken society which, in failing to discuss and attack the real issues, fails the most vulnerable in the worst way.

Read it. Then weep.

My Country ‘Tis Of Thee

If you don’t know this by reading my rants, I am an unabashed patriot. I love the United States because I know what it is to live elsewhere. Not just any elsewhere, but Africa ferchrissakes!

In other words, I subscribe to the catch-phrase “My country, right or wrong,” but as one of my few favorite Englishmen John Derbyshire (“Daarbysher”) writes,

most people forget the second half, which goes: “If right, to keep her right; if wrong, to put her right.”

I didn’t know this, but now that I do, I’m re-upping my subscription!

Tiger Booboo

I’m a huge fan of Amy Chua’s new book, The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” which is, I think, an exquisitely told memoir of trying to fit the square peg of her strict Chinese upbringing in the round hole of modern American children.

For some inconceivable reason, many people—many who haven’t even read the book—think Chua’s advocating a certain style of child-rearing, a manual if you will. It’s no such thing. It’s a memoir, morons!

I believe there are some excellent things to take away from the Tiger Mother method and some things to reject. Even Amy Chua ultimately regrets many things she didn’t (or did) do.

Various Americans of Asian origin have risen up like a typhoon of recriminations against Chua because, I think, they hated growing up in such a strict environment. One such is Lac Su, the author of I Love Yous are for White People. CNN approached him for comment and he wrote this article in response.

Here’s where the irony comes—in the article, a screenshot of which appears below, Su writes that he still “bare wounds that haven’t healed.” That’s right, “bare”. It seems he should have listened more to his parents, and perhaps he’d know the correct spelling and tense of the word “bear”. Sorry Tiger Mother.

Why Johnny Can’t Reason

It struck me back in college that the essential goal of education is critical thinking, whatever the “major” which naturally leads to efficient problem solving. That’s what employers want: they have a problem and they need you, whatever you do for them, to solve it.

I’ve now attended two Universities, one in the United States (Florida Atlantic University) and the other in west Africa (the University of Benin). There was—and perhaps still is—a marked difference in the students’ approach to scholarship. In the US, a vein of “un-seriousness” or mirth pervaded the atmosphere, a certain attachment to the gaiety expected of being away at college.

UniBen—as we called the University of Benin—students were, on the other hand, suffused through with a responsibility to their parents. They seemed to understand that a lot was expected of them, that jobs obtained after college were predicated on graduating with an excellent score. In fact, this atmosphere of seriousness began even before they were admitted. In my case, for example, I had to get high marks in pre-admittance grueling examinations that lasted several weeks.

So with this in mind, it is not altogether unexpected to read that an unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication skills assumed to be at the core of a college education. In addition, it found that students spent 51 per cent of of their time—about 85 hours a week—socializing or in extracurricular activities.

Regardless, I believe Logic, as a course of study in and of itself, should be required for every year students spend in college.

Jack And Jill Went Up The Hill

I have attended more co-educational schools than non so I feel, however illogically, that I can tell the differences between the two types of schools.

Kindergarten, of course, was co-educational as was my “primary” (or grade) school after which, for the next five years, I attended Immaculate Conception College, an all-male “secondary” (or high) school. Both the universities I attended were, necessarily, co-educational.

I believe that we do a great disservice to both boys and girls—especially boys—when we force co-educational schools on them for various reasons. This gentleman, posting on a site I came across on Wintery Knight’s blog, neatly encapsulates some of those reasons:

I’ve long thought that coeducation is one of the major factors behind the dysfunction of the modern world. Just as important as the academic problems it causes are the socio-sexual ones. Since most boys have very little of the status and power that attracts the opposite sex, the ones who end up being most popular with girls are jocks and badboys[sic], who in turn become the role models for the rest of the boys. (And of course, badboys[sic] are a lot easier to emulate than jocks.) In an all-male environment, boys can be valued for other qualities, whether of intellect or of character, and proper male hierarchies can develop, in which individual boys with different strengths and weaknesses can find their place, gain in confidence, and grow into men. In the past, it was only after these formative years that young men were exposed to all-out competition for the attention and affection of young women.

Of course, the same thing goes for girls. Homely girls or late-bloomers who in earlier times would have had to dread only the occasional party now find themselves evaluated on a daily basis in comparison with their more attractive and confident sisters. I wonder how much of feminists’ venomous hatred of men has its roots in the humiliation felt by scrawny, pimply or bookish girls. Likewise the feelings of bitterness, frustration and rage felt by so many men no doubt go back to a sense of non-stop rejection experienced in adolescence. These emotions are an unavoidable by-product of forcing boys and girls into close proximity with each other day in and day out at the very time in their lives when they are most sensitive to the other sex’s assessment of their sexual desirability and thus most emotionally vulnerable. Add to this the fact that young people often compensate for this vulnerability by being gratuitously cruel in their judgments of others, and the fact that most of the time they are not under adult supervision, and you have a recipe for disaster.

And this all exacerbates the academic disparity between boys and girls. Lots of girls find academic competition a welcome escape from this other kind of competition. Boys who study hard, on the other hand, risk being seen as overly compliant and eager to please—in short, as unmasculine[sic]. Better to be defiant or act like you don’t care—then at least you’re not a nerd. For a teenage boy, being at the top of the class grade-wise is a poor substitute for being popular with the girls.

That there are differences in cognitive capability between boys and girls has been borne out by the study of the brain. My own very limited experience also bears this out: my son was behind his female cousin in walking, for example. She was up and at ‘em very quickly. He didn’t start walking and generally moving about until he was almost one.

However, don’t take it from me but do from Dr. John Medina whose 11th “rule” from his best-selling book, Brain Rules, is Male and female brains are different. For starters, he reports that mental retardation is more common in males than females (ouch). In addition, men seem to be better at coping with traumatic situations and so on. While he claims we need to be very careful in interpreting these data, the point is, there are clear differences between the male and female brains.

Here’s where modern education takes us down the primrose path toward the disaster of a system we have today: professional “educators” earnestly refuse to do anything based on these scientific facts unlike in every other aspect of education where brain “science” is given more than its due with respect to influencing teaching methods.

The blog I mentioned earlier, The Thinking Housewife, has this to say about co-education in a posting on co-education, complete with quotes from the pre-eminent British psychologist, Simon Baron-Cohen:

In the current mode of schooling, these differences work against boys, who are often unfavorably compared with girls in their mastery of academic skills and organization. This begins early in life and extends to higher education, where we now see the disproportionate number of girls in colleges and universities viewed as a sign that young men are lazy or incompetent. In truth, boys and men develop at a different rate than girls, a difference that makes sense in light of the natural roles of men and women.

Single-sex schools or single-sex classrooms, though generally considered less enlightened by modern standards, are practical and sensible. Home education is naturally coeducational, but then home education is by its very nature more individualistic and attuned to differences. Small schools also can more easily accommodate coeducation. Single-sex schooling does not prevent all interaction between boys and girls, which naturally occurs outside of school.

From my own experience, and not wanting to over-indulge in casuistry, I will say that the learning environment in high school was so radically different—in more ways than you think—than at any other time in my educational history, I’ve come to accept it as nigh gospel: separate girls and boys and they’ll learn better.

Courting Rules

Wintery Knight is fast becoming my favorite blog. In this post which I excerpt below, he discusses rules for courting prospective wives:

Do not believe anything they say to you, because women adapt to men and say what men want to hear. Demand that she read hard books on complicated things like astronomy and economics and education policy. Demand that she write about what she reads. Demand life experiences that show that she has sympathy with things like capitalism and apologetics. Demand a track record of past activism in defense of marriage, the unborn, parental rights, Christianity and small government. Make moral judgments of her constantly and tell her the judgments so you can see how she responds to being judged. Hold her accountable for every mistake she makes - demand that she have a plan to change so that the mistake isn't made again. Push all kinds of moral obligations onto her. Put her in charge of taking care of your pet, your garden, your car, and anything else that can be used to test her to see if she can handle responsibilities. Talk constantly about your desires and feelings. Complain about feminism and female nature all the time. Burden her up with the stories of your hard work day and how hard it is to be a man. Express your concerns about women who withhold sex, put on weight, and spend too much, after they get married. Demand that she engage all of her non-Christian friends and relatives so that they make progress towards better worldviews. Monitor her performance in debates to see how well she can reason and research evidence for her views. Harp on something you like to take care of, like your car, your pet, or your garden - and watch to see whether she shows an interest in it or considers it a rival to be taken away so that she is the only thing to get your attention.

The only way to test a woman for marriage and parenting is to... test a woman for marriage and parenting. And physical attraction is not a good way to test a woman for the roles of wife and mother.

He’s also got rules in other posts for women in testing the viability of men as prospective husbands and fathers which I’d probably have failed! Thank God I found a good woman who isn’t the feminist New Ager type and is a great mother and wife.

That said, I find Wintery’s rules fascinating. Demanding the woman read “hard books on complicated things” is something I have never heard of or seen anywhere else. Of course for a Christian man looking for a wife, marrying someone whose worldview is antithetical to Christ is allowing a Dragon into the home so it makes sense to demand sympathy with that worldview. The other “rules” sound simplistic and sort of brutal, but you know, I find a certain harsh beauty in them once you realize that the choice of a partner should be for life and the next generation of people depends on these choices.

Here’s another relationship advice I found nourishing as well.

First post of 2011. Happy New Year!

Something I Read Today

In Classical Education and the Home School by Douglas Wilson et al:

“The education of children for God is the most important business done on earth. It is the one business for which the earth exists. To it all politics, all war, all literature, all money-making, ought to be subordinated; and ever parent ought to feel, every hour of the day, that, next to making his own calling and election sure, this is the end for which he is kept alive by God—this is his task on earth.” — R.L. Dabney, On Secular Education

Well. It seems I’ve got work to do.

Before You Teach

This is an excellent post on knowledge and the quest for truth, from which I excerpted the following:

In such a case, and before one is qualified to teach on the subject, one ought to...

1) Study as much of the relevant evidence as is necessary to have a full grasp of every facet of the issue.

2) Read widely on both sides of the issue, not just proponents of the view to which you are already inclined.

3) Where you remain dependent on the arguments of others, ascertain the qualifications of those sources to weigh in on the issues.

4) Examine the arguments made by proponents of both views (for validity, truth of premises, cogency).

5) Interact with the strongest (not the weakest) arguments of each side, particularly of the view with which you disagree.

6) Never mischaracterize the view of either side, particularly the one with which you disagree.

7) Treat those with whom you end up disagreeing with the utmost respect.

I’ll modify this to include not just teaching, but even holding an opinion on any topic.

Thomas Sowell

The Founders And The Classics

From the book of the same title by Carl J. Richard, the first paragraph:

The eighteenth-century educational system was the institution most responsible for the classical conditioning of the founders. It was mostly in the schools that the founder learned to venerate the classics. The socialization process was so complete, and the classics themselves so attractive, that even bad teachers, employing the most brutal and unimaginative pedagogical techniques, often instilled a love of the literature in their students. The founders’ classical conditioning was so successful that most learned to relish the classics as a form of entertainment and to consider the ancients wise old friends. The founders loved and respected the classics for the same reason that other people love and respect other traditions: because the classical heritage gave them a sense of identity and purpose, binding them with one another and with their ancestors in a common struggle; and because it supplied them with the intellectual tools necessary to face a violent and uncertain world with some degree of confidence. Even when those tools failed to reflect reality, the proved essential to the self-assurance and enthusiasm necessary for many of the founders’ achievements. Throughout their lives, the founders continued to believe that the classics provided an indispensable training in virtue which society could abandon only at its own peril. hence, most of the founders argued passionately that the educational system must maintain the classical emphasis.

What an infinite tragedy then that we have indeed abandoned the classical emphasis. Happy Friday.

Dumb California

In 1970, California had the 7th most educated work force of the 50 states in terms of the share of its workers who had completed high school. By 2008 it ranked 50th, making it the least educated state.

That’s what illegal immigration does to you, dip shits.