D-day

After a most fabulous weekend camping, I'm back in town and back at work. I'll have some pictures of our campsite and our new tent. This is the most relaxing camping trip I've ever had. A major reason for that is the new tent we got back in Winter, a real steal.

It's a nine-person tent with two “rooms” and square-footage that's bigger than the room I'm using as a study. Luxury defined!

The reason today's post is titled D-day is because today's the day my wife and I join the vast ranks of homeowning capitalists—we're closing escrow on the new house. My life is going to change in subtle ways: for example, I'll suddenly start giving a shit about local schools because even though I don't have any children, I'm going to be paying to teach these fuckers.

Speaking of which, who saw this nonsense:

Fort Worth, TX.

This is a picture of “students” of the Trimble Tech High School protesting the decision by School District trustees to bar students who failed a Texas aptitude and skills test from graduating.

Look closely at the sign the boob in the foreground is carrying: LET ARE KIDS WALK.

Yes, let are kids walk. Fuck me.

Naija Calls

For the past few weeks, my cell phone's been ringing with a peculiar type of call. The Caller ID for these turns up as “Unavailable”, which usually means the call originates outside known civilization—for me, this has always meant receiving a call from Nigeria.

My mother is long gone now so I know it's not her.

Invariably, I pick up the phone and a godawful perversion of broken English comes sputtering through. Take for example a call this morning:

“Helooo? Fred.”

“Yes, this is Fred, who is this?”

Unintelligible … “Mark.”

“Who are you, Mark? How do I know you?”

“Na wa. Allao me toe call you back.”

“No, don't call me back. Who are you?”

Click.

Fuck me!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infect the armpit of whatever lout distributed my phone number.

I've received Unavailable calls from men, women, people who sounded old, young, people with Hausa accents, and some with Yoruba accents and harsh Igbo accents. You name it.

What in Zeus' butthole these people would like to talk to me about is beyond me but I'm sure it's the usual: money.

The only consolation I draw from this is that it costs me nothing to receive these calls, but I'm sure it's costing them a ton. Which is why I sometimes answer.

Immigration Reform

I was not born in America even though I'm an American by birth. I am not against immigration, believing it to be a valid, required refreshing factor for the most diverse country in human history. Immigrants should be welcome. However, and I believe this very strongly, not illegally!

Following a post from another African American (du Toit) I found this eloquent graphic that speaks more than I ever could about the impending immigration reform “law”:

The Raging Limps

Also known as the Angry Left.

My hero, Thomas Sowell, here wonders about Leftist Derangement Syndrome. If I don't reproduce it here, I'll feel a bit empty, like Alexander's soldiers must have felt in that story.

(Which one? You know, the one in which Alexander and his Army were trudging through a tunnel in the mountains on their way to India. His Army was dejected and the tunnel was very dark, causing even further misery. Alexander told his men that they should pick up the stones on the ground and keep them as souvenirs.

“When you leave this tunnel,” Alexander told his men, “You will be ecstatic and unhappy at the same time.”

Most of his men thought he'd finally cracked and didn't bother picking up any sodding stones. Others, on second thoughts, picked up a few and pocketed them.

As they left the tunnel, those who had picked up stones were astonished to find they'd picked up large diamonds, rubies, and sapphires. At once they understood: they were very happy they picked up the stones, but they were also full of regret they didn't pick more.)

Anyway, without further ado:

The Anger Of The Left
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.

There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.

Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.

Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.

Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.

If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.

Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.

If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.

Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.

It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

DreamzCatcher

Because I was out celebrating Mothers' Day, I wasn't able to watch the finale of the CBS show Survivor: Fiji. Yesterday, the missus and I were able to finally able to see it.

Sometimes to my regret, I have to admit that I am a fan of most reality TV shows, Survivor heading the list. I've seen every single one of the 14(!) they've had. (Here come the rationalizations.) I like Survivor because it's a test of human endurance, mental, and otherwise. I like watching psychology at work as the everyday folks on the show attempt to wade through interesting situations that most of them will never again witness.

It's most enjoyable to watch truly skillful play like this year's winner, Earl Cole. Yau-man Chan, a computer engineer, was another extraordinary player. At 54, who would have given this older Chinese any chance at all? Yet, with guile, tact, and above all, displaying a deep intelligence, he made it to the final four.

In contrast, the other two in the final four were Cassandra and Andria Herd also, or better known as Dreamz. Cassandra is a Civil Engineer Manager (whatever the fuck that means) and was about as useful as an asshole on an elbow. A complete waste of time. Dreamz, on the other hand, is a Cheerleading Coach from North Carolina.

From the first, one gets the idea that Dreamz is uncouth and completely out of his element amongst the mostly educated crowd on Survivor. His only saving grace is his physical ability. At 25, he's already a father to two boys(!) which seems to lend credence to my believe that idiots can do no better in life than procreate and propagate even more idiocy.

And literally, this guy's a fucking idiot. For starters, he wouldn't (or couldn't) shut up. Yap, yap, yap all the time. Telling one and all about his desultory childhood in the projects of Wilmington—sleeping on the streets, eating in soup kitchens, performing in the streets, you name it, he's done it.

As if that wasn't bad enough, he entered into a pact with Yau-man who offered him a $60,000 truck in return for handing over immunity in the final four should Dreamz win it. As it turned out, Dreamz did indeed win the immunity then, to my utter disappointment and shock, refused to hand over the immunity to Yau-man as he had promised.

In the time leading up to the final four tribal council, this jerk-off would not stop talking about how he was a man of his word, a Christian man, a father who would be proud to keep his bond and thus, show his children what a real man does, in spite of the potential of losing a million dollars.

Yap, yap, yap. In the end, like the product of the quintessential black American experience, he chose to break his word and keep the immunity for himself. And he was suitably excoriated for it, as he should.

He has no honor, no pride self. When one enters into a pact of one's own free will, one upholds one's end of the bargain. That's how life works, but alas, the metaphor of modern black American life is apt: dishonor, the pursuit of the impermanent, the quick buck, the shortsighted view. If he had thought things through, the million dollars he stood no chance of winning would have easily been his several times over had he kept his word.

But the seedy product of the modern black American family won over. Imagine for a moment if he had indeed done what he said he would do. The accolades, the tours, and if money was the overriding factor as it seemed to be, the oodles that would have poured in: Here's an honorable man! We want men like these to push our products, a real-life role model, a hero. One million dollars would have been a drop in the well. How ironic!

After breaking his promise, he rightly looked dejected and kept his eyes averted and sometimes even covered, in shame. Afterwards, he apologized to Yau-man and the others. Then, in a feeble attempt to assuage his guilt, he talked about only playing the game, as if the shame he had felt wasn't real. Pathetic, rational lies.

In a lot of ways, as hinted to earlier, this is symptomatic of the black American experience. There is no dignity in suffering and pain if it doesn't strengthen and build, otherwise, it only means you have not learned anything, the unexamined life that isn't worth living.

The mentality that pervades black America is that of a five-year-old. A five-year-old easily swayed and easy to deceive because it has no critical faculties, exhibiting little foresight, no discernment, and thus no integrity and absolutely no honor. And above all else: talk, all-bloviating, all-complaining.

“Me want now!” is the overriding cri de guerre, the all-encompassing, driving need for temporary gain at the expense of long-term fortune. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Which is why Democrats just love black people like Dreamz.

Raising Kids.

Why do I always agree with VA?  I wonder, indeed.

In her March 6, 2007 posting, she talks about raising children and how the marginalization of fathers in today's America results in children who are:

... narcissistic, lazy, weak, emotionally stunted, neurotic, manipulative, dishonest, imaged obsessed, greedy, obnoxious wastes of human life.

Further:

You can’t even say their saving grace is their superb intelligence because they’re failing aptitude tests quicker than Mother can yell at their teachers for being ‘unfair.’

Read the entire thing, it's a jewel of a post.

Whatever Happened To ...

That pedophile's (R. Kelly) trial?  I have no idea, but it's a brutal miscarriage of justice that the prick is continuing to walk around a free man after abusing a 13-year-old girl.

CNN has an update.

Dickhead Du Mois

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Frederic's Dickhead Of The Month (FDM):

Here's his citation for winning the prestigious FDM:

Mr. Daniel Simpson, erstwhile US Ambassador to various African countries, is responsible for this utter crap drivel bullshit brain-dead swill article in the Toledo (Ohio) Blade newspaper. In the article, Mr. Simpson, showing an amazing grasp of the intricate nuances of American jurisprudence and history, recommends the thorough and uncompromising disarming of the American population and by so doing, ensure an enforced Peace In Our Time.

Once again showing an amazing sense of fair play, he proposes a tenure of time (three months) during which the population would be given a chance to turn in their guns after which time, a $1000 fine and one year in prison per weapon would be enforced.

After this period of voluntary disarmament, Mr. Simpson proposes the formation of "special squads" of police that would randomly storm entire city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas to search for firearms and seize them. Any weapons unearthed during this search would result in the aforementioned $1000 and one year in prison per firearm. As if this was not enough, Mr. Simpson further proposes the stop-and-search of anyone, "even grandma with her walker."

Generous to a fault, Mr. Simpson will allow limited hunting during "hunting season" for those interested in this "pointless, no-contest affair". In the time before and after hunting season, hunters will deposit their weapons in a "centrally located arsenal." Mr. Simpson has gone above and beyond the call and bravely revealed the workings of a deranged mind. For this service to Psychiatry, I officially award Frederic's Dickhead of the Month award for April 2007 to Dickhead Daniel Simpson.

Um ... ?

This man is a fucking loon. A true blue son of a bitch who should be divested of his American citizenship immediately. Anyone who would advocate the suspension of vast swathes of the US constitution should, by definition, not be a citizen and is, in fact, an enemy of the republic. I mean, come the fuck on! Police Squads raiding "entire city blocks" at random? Ever heard of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment, DICKHEAD? Come to think of it, ever heard of The Constitution? Fucking piece of fucking shit @!D(_(F*SD()@@@!*&^**&(

Carbon Credits

I was reading Backpacker magazine last weekend and found a letter to the editor in which the pathetic writer asked a curious question. He wanted to know what steps he could take so as not to contribute to Global Warming.

His quandary was understandable, you see. In order to get out to the otherwise inaccessible Great Outdoors, he needed to use his gas guzzling SUV (or truck or whatever) to reach it and he didn't want to contribute to Global Warming while attempting to commune with Nature (gasp!) so he wanted to know if the editors at Backpacker had any suggestions.

Wouldn't you know it they did? These paragons of environmentalism suggested he buy something called Carbon Credits that would, theoretically, offset the emissions from said Gas Guzzler.

What a load of shite!

Here's some advice for those concerned about emitting more gas than they are comfortable with (apart from the obvious: stop eating Broccoli): kill yourself. Now. Really, do it. Now.

You see, that's the only way to be sure, really. You stop breathing (which produces the dreaded Carbon Dioxide), you stop driving that Gas Guzzler, everything stops. And you've saved the day.

I mean really think about it: your very presence on Mother Earth is an open wound on Gaia's ass. You use up resources every day you're alive: electricity, driving, excreting your vile waste that ends up god-knows-where, drinking the pure water that robs the pretty fish of their homes. Everything about you is a direct affront. Paying some company for Carbon Credits is another waste of time and yet even more salt on that wound. If you don't think so, think: how'd you make that money except by exploiting something? Someone, something suffered as you unthinkingly and brutally robbed them.

Every step you take kills a living, breathing, beautiful organism, if not millions. When you wash your stinky ass with precious, precious water, you kill peaceful symbiots that lived in peace on your person. If you use soap, it's even worse!!

As an added benefit, if you kill yourself, just think of those millions of organisms you'll be feeding? For once in your life, you'll be giving instead of taking. Doesn't that feel good?

Please give it some serious thought: kill yourself. Kill Yourself Now, Save The Earth.

Hint to the idiots among us: this is a joke, it is only a joke. Please don't kill yourself, I love you. I really do love you, you big palooka.

Tax And Spend

A New York state senator, Frank Padavan, has proposed an extra three per cent tax on everything New Yorkers buy for their dogs, cats, hamsters, or birds, a so-called Paw and Claw Tax.

According to this Fox News report, NY already has an outrageously high sales tax, which, when combined with city and county taxes, can top out at 9.5 per cent!  Of course, the good senator assures New Yorkers that this tax will be going towards animal shelters.  The article's author correctly exhibits a slight skepticism and points out that most tax proposed for some program or fund doesn't generally end up serving that program ("Just like every penny raised in Social Security taxes goes right into your Social Security trust fund. Not!)

It doesn't surprise me.  New Yorkers deserve every tax hike they are charged.  They like to think of themselves as the US's most "progressive" bunch so it seems they're putting their money where their hearts are.  Kudos, and Up With The Taxes!  Help The Poor! Etc.

Here's a telling excerpt from the piece:

Economist Tom Sowell once added up all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government spends on poverty programs—everything from food stamps to Medicaid. The total was so large that if you just divided that huge number by the number of poor families in America, you could raise the annual income of poor families to levels solidly in the middle class. In other words, if you just canceled all government poverty programs and used that cash to cut a check for every poor person in America, there would be no poor people in America.

Food for thought.

Ha!

Carolyn McCarthy (Socialist-NY) has no fucking clue what she's banning [YouTube], nor, I feel, does she care ("it's the thing that goes up").  As long as something, anything gets banned.  Dumbass.

Meanwhile, a modern Tale of Two Cities, Kennesaw, Georgia and Morton Grove, Illinois.

Ahhreck Bardwrin

Thanks to Hudnall, I listened to the epitome of modern progressive parenting: Mr. Alec Baldwin leaving a message for his 12-year-old (or is it 11-year-old, daddy doesn't know) expressing [mp3 link] his slight disappointment to his child for not picking up the telephone when he called.

Nothing will surprise me about the most selfish generation in American history, but this ... this one takes the biscuit.

Insanity

Dick says:

"It's hard to explain why a person needs a clip with more than 10 bullets in it."

That's why Dick's a dick.

The point is not why a person needs a "clip" (roll eyes) with more than 10 bullets in it, the point is why a person needs a "clip" at all. Heck, why does a person need a gun to put that "clip" in. That is the point, dicky McDick.

The above quote was in an article in the Washington Post titled Democrats Wary of Tightening Laws. As well they should, but that's another blog post. For now, one needs to understand the context in which the dick made the statement: the possible renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, one of President Clinton's many pseudo-successes which includes scoring a direct hit on a certain blue Gap dress. Great shot, Mr. President!

The AWB, which "sunset" in 2004, has the distinction of being the* most useless piece of legislation ever and that's saying something, considering it's the US Congress were talking about here. In addition to some other things, it limited the number of bullets in a "clip" to 10. Stopping to reload a magazine takes less time for most people than pulling the trigger thrice. Besides this, all through the entire 10-year-period the AWB was in effect, anyone who wanted to buy a "hi-cap" or high-capacity magazine was able to do so, willy nilly.

In other words, beyond wasting paper, a heck of a lot of time, and inconveniencing a ton of people, the AWB did not lessen--much less stop--crime. It certainly did not stop VT-type mass murder sprees; it did nothing except make people feel safe.

Except, it didn't do that well either.

The Democrats and Gun Fearing Wussies (to borrow a phrase from Kim) are once again squarely looking squarely in the wrong direction. Actually, one wonders if they are even looking so perhaps I should restate: ... looking squarely in the wrong direction with their eyes firmly shut. What they have done is what they always do: recast and reformulate the argument so that one spends time arguing inane points about how many rounds (why 10? Why not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, or, you guessed it, 9?) one should have in a magazine instead of the real issues.

*An analysis of the useless AWB can be found on the Mad Ogre, Gun Cite, Awbansunset, FrontPage, NRO, NRA-ILA, etc.

Phillips on The Fifteen

Melanie Phillips, in a brutal, no-quarter-given-nor-taken recounting of the salient points, excoriates the Royal Navy amongst others:

Iran kidnapped 15 British sailors in an open breach of international law. What consequences has it suffered? None. On the contrary, it has played Britain like a fish on the end of a line. We don’t yet know the terms of the deal that was undoubtedly struck, but the abasement of Britain has allowed Iran to tweak our noses. In Teheran, a top Iranian official has said Britain sent it a secret letter that was a condition for the captives’ release and in which it apologised for entering Iranian waters and promised never to do it again. The Foreign Office flatly denies this. Who knows? Who will believe a British government that has so comprehensively lost the plot?

The sailors's behavior is especially atrocious, as she points out:

If the strategy is fundamentally one of cravenness in the face of war, the behaviour of the sailors themselves poses some urgent questions about the way military recruits are trained. These sailors appear to have been but wholly unprepared for war and wholly ignorant of the way in which they should behave when captured. Undoubtedly, they were subjected to terrifying experiences. But for heaven’s sake, they are Britain’s fighting forces! You would scarcely believe, to hear them justify their behaviour by recounting how frightening the whole thing was, that these individuals were members of the Royal Navy.

Terrible. This is the modern equivalent of Nelson, Drake, and Churchill? Even stranger:

Most astounding of all, they arrived home clutching the goodie bags of sweets, CDs, books and trinkets they had been given to cement the grotesque impression of Iranian benevolence, for all the world as if returning from a children’s party. Why didn’t they leave these ‘gifts’ behind? Why didn’t they leave them on the plane? Was there simply no-one in the Royal Navy or MoD who thought that maybe it might not be an entirely wonderful idea for servicemen released from captivity to retain and flourish ‘gifts’ from their manipulative captors, thus actively assisting the propaganda coup? Is there simply no-one with any sense at all left in the British defence establishment?

Good question! Alas, the fact it has to be asked is ominous indeed. Read the whole thing.

Wobbly

Commenting on the "recent unpleasantness," re the the Fake Fifteen, Jonah Goldberg writes:

"Blasphemy itself could not survive religion," G.K. Chesterton observed, "if anyone doubts that, let him try to blaspheme Odin." Similarly, humiliation cannot survive the death of pride. So it was a hopeful sign that the British newspaper The Telegraph editorialized that Britain had been "humiliated" by the Iranians. At least the sting of pride can be felt in that lonely journalistic redoubt.

But looking to the British government itself, pride seems to be sorely lacking. The most outrage I could find from a government official came from Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, who called the spectacle "deplorable." Alas, she was referring to something else. She was infuriated "that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people." Imagine the outrage if those captured marines had been fed trans fats.

The British have not lost all of their steel. The Daily Mail reported this week that police tracked down and nearly arrested an 11-year-old boy for calling a 10-year-old boy "gay" in an e-mail. This was considered a "very serious homophobic crime" requiring the full attention of police. The article explained that this sort of thing happens quite a bit. Last October, the coppers fingerprinted and threw a 14-year-old girl into jail for the crime of racism. Her underlying offense stemmed from the fact that she refused to join a class discussion with some fellow students because they were Asian and didn't speak English.

He wonders if the Brits have gone wobbly.  'Fraid so, guvnor!  About as wobbly as 10 pounds of fresh goat cheese.

Disgusting

Colonel Jack Jacobs calls the British "fighting men"'s press conference the most disgraceful thing he's seen in more than 40 years and quotes John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

Thanks to LGF, video here.

English Majors

James Hudnall blogs about The Fear Factor in a most telling post.  Read and be edified.

What really captured my imagination is his quote of John Stossel's:

Newsrooms are full of English majors [emphasis mine] who acknowledge that they are not good at math, but still rush to make confident pronouncements about a global-warming “crisis” and the coming of bird flu.

Bird flu was called the No. 1 threat to the world. But bird flu has killed no one in America, while regular flu—the boring kind—kills tens of thousands. New York City internist Marc Siegel says that after the media hype, his patients didn’t want to hear that.
“I say, ‘You need a flu shot.’ You know the regular flu is killing 36,000 per year. They say, ‘Don’t talk to me about regular flu. What about bird flu?’”

Let's face facts, the American Media is comprised of journalists and others who were mostly average students in school.  Under a stultifying, stupid American educational system as it is now, "average" is nothing to boast about.  It's a wonder they can type out an article without the help of Microsoft Word's grammar and spell check features.

That these very same people would have an opinion related to the Hard Sciences is beyond me.  Yet, without batting an eyelid, we are force-fed journalistic opinions about ... insert present fear and crisis here (it just happens that Global Warming is the flavor of the month).

Stossel has an example:

What do you think is more dangerous, a house with a pool or a house with a gun? When, for “20/20,” I asked some kids, all said the house with the gun is more dangerous. I’m sure their parents would agree. Yet a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.

Parents don’t know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines. Ask yourself which incident would be more likely to be covered on TV.

Without the requisite tutelage in the specific Mathematical and Scientific areas, much less Economics and Statistics, even I, with my undergraduate studies in Electrical Engineering, would be hard-pressed to proffer an opinion on Global Warming, yet these genius-fools run where Angels fear to tread.  God save us from English Majors.

It just proves that Great Lie: one is most certainly NOT entitled to one's opinion.

I Knew It!

Yeah, the whole brouhaha about early Daylight Saving Time is just hot air: according to this report, several large utility companies report the impact is negligible.  Repeal DST.

Um?

I am thoroughly confused. There's a school in Seattle called the Hilltop Children's Center. It's an interesting school, to be sure. According to this article, the teachers are using some innovative teaching methods to teach about the supposed evils of private property ownership. Yes, you read that correctly. Here's an excerpt:

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."

Um? It continues:

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Is Stalin alive and well, and the Principal of Hilltop? Is this a Communist Russia indoctrination camp circa 1949? Shudder!

Reading a page on the school's web site, I understand they have what they called an emergent curriculum, which usually means they give out picture stickies of fruit and animals in lieu of actual grades.

"What did you get in Social Justice Mathematics, Johnny?"

"A pear!"

"Wonderful, Johnny, but you should really try for a Baboon."

Ugh!

According to them:

At Hilltop, we don’t plan our curriculum weeks or months in advance, as is typical in most child care programs. Instead, we grow curriculum in collaboration with children and their families. This approach is child-centered and inquiry-based. We observe children and take cues from them, providing stimuli and provocation to encourage exploration, analysis and reflection.

Child-centered, eh? What if the child--like I didn't--doesn't like reading or maths? Or if all they want to do is play video games? Or smear crap on other children's faces, or eat paste? Just what kind of curriculum guidance does that give these nincompoop teachers?

And if you take curriculum guidance from the children, who exactly is the teacher and who is the student? There's just so much wrong with this picture, I pity the children most of all.

The retardation continues:

At Hilltop, we are committed to growing curriculum from children’s questions and pursuits, and from our understandings of social justice, anti-bias education.

Social Justice, Anti-Bias Education? Whatever happened to English Literature and Grammar, World History, Geography, Mathematics and Science? I'm speechless, the leftist indoctrination camps continue their nefarious work, and I'm speechless.

Sick Of It

In my best Peter Griffin voice: you know what really grinds my gears [YouTube]? People who think passion is the be-all, end-all quality to have. So what if I'm passionate about a topic or my work, or whatever?! Passion is all well and good, but that last thing you want is a passionate serial killer or a passionate rapist; Hitler was passionate about certain subjects.

I bring this up because I just finished watching a presentation at TED linked by Guy Kawasaki of a black lady* named Majora Carter. While she's a pretty good speaker and while Kawasaki--who I like and trust, from his writing anyway--said she was in ways better than Steve Jobs, I have to disagree: she spoke way too fast and read from her notes which meant she kept looking down, employed classic (and cheap) "white male guilt-inducing" tactics, and generally turned me off--I couldn't watch after she started crying about her dead brother. Ad misericordiam anyone?

But(!) the overarching reason Kawasaki and her other apologists gave for liking her? Her passion! Passssssssssssshhhhhiiiiooooooooooon! Yes, she was just so passionate, wasn't she? And, to quote some math-addled commenter on Kawasaki's post, "passionate + articulate = compelling." Sure buddy, whatever. I wonder what Ms. Carter thinks of being called the black American's worst back-handed compliment ever: articulate. Heheh, I kid, I kid.

*I use this because she took every opportunity (including once raising her hand, schoolroom-like, as she said the words "black woman") to shove her black "femaleness" in the audience's faces.