Never Look a Gift Course in the Mouth.

I fully agree with a student body's right to self-govern. If the students at UC Irvine feel that flying the flag of the country in which they are located sends the wrong message, and endorses American "exceptionalism and superiority," then by all means they should completely separate themselves from that. Completely. I eagerly await, then, the next resolution, which divests UC Irvine from all that dirty, dirty American federal funding as well as federal student loan opportunities. Because clearly, taking that money sends the wrong message, and might lead people to think that one who accepted that money, even tacitly, through attending a school funded in part by that money, was lauding themselves (with an exceptional, superior attitude, I guess) over others.

In case any of you out there don't recognize sarcasm when you read it, let me just say that I do actually applaud those who have strong convictions. But if you feel that strongly about them, live by them. Attend one of the many other universities around the world that don't feel any need to tout American values, including "exceptionalism and superiority." Otherwise, you just seem like a petulant child, throwing a tantrum, telling mommy and daddy how much you hate them, even as you ask to borrow the keys to the car.

I'm not even going to address the "freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech" line of the resolution, because if you think that, even a little bit, then you don't really understand the concept of "freedom of speech." Or possibly language.

Farleigh-Dickinson Poll Finds Dems Less Informed Than Republicans

 I've been wanting to write a post about the recent Farleigh-Dickinson poll, but haven't gotten around to it until now. I distrust polls in general, because when you start breaking them down, there's almost always some kind of bias inherent in them. The one in question is no exception. (Otherwise, why would I bother, right?) It proffers the claim that people who watch only Fox news are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

Well, they don't come right out and say that, but as you can imagine, that's what most of the liberal media and bloggers latched onto. For example, here's the headline at The Huffington Post:

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

And this one from The Nation:

It’s Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider

Of course, I have to point out that The Nation's headline is just factually incorrect. Even if the poll does find Fox News viewers to be least informed, a) being informed and intelligence are two different things, and b) correlation is not causation, and the poll shows no causation. Anyway, you get the idea. Most on the left were drooling over this. But maybe not so much by the time I'm finished...

There are a couple of problems I saw right off the bat. The sample is pretty small to represent the entire nation (1,185), and it does have a MOE of +/- 3%. I would also venture that most people would admit that among the cable news networks, Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left. Yet they include self-described Democrats who watch Fox and Republicans who watch MSNBC, with no indication of why those people were watching a channel they—at least on the surface—are opposed to ideologically. I think that’s important if you’re going to look at whether or not they’ve “learned” from watching. For example, if someone is watching for a news “watchdog” group, they’re watching for incidents of bias, not necessarily watching to glean information.  Should those numbers be included with these statistics? For example, on both international and domestic questions, conservatives watching Fox news scored better than "no news."

But more importantly, if you’re going to accept this as a valid examination of knowledge of current events, you’re going to also have to accept a few of the numbers that they buried. For example:

1. There are eight questions (nine if you count the a & b parts of K6). On all but two of them (K1, K3, K4, K5, K6B, K7, and K8), a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans answered that they “don’t know” the answer. On the other two (K2 and K6A), it was a tie.
2. A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans got 0 domestic questions correct, and got 0 international questions correct.
3. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats (52%-45%) got 4 or more questions correct.
4. Finally, on every single question, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats chose the correct answer (unless I missed one myself, but you can easily follow the link and check me).

Given that a higher percentage of Democrats "don’t know" the answers to these questions, a higher percentage of Republicans got at least half of the questions correct, and—when looking at individual questions—a higher percentage of Republicans got the correct answer on every question, if one argues that this poll is an accurate representation of knowledge of current events, doesn’t one also have to then accept that when looking at their respective groups, Republicans are better informed about current events than Democrats? What other choice is there? If the numbers are valid in one case, they must be valid in the other.

Obviously, I’m being a little facetious about this (hence my own biased headline), but that’s the problems with this type of poll: people can twist the numbers into whatever conclusion they want them to reflect. At least until someone else comes through and twists them another way. You might say, those who live by the statistics die by the statistics. Or maybe better said, those who live by the statistics must live by ALL the statistics.

Best Quote I've Seen This Week

Regarding the upcoming school address by Obama, from the comments section of an article by AP writer Ben Feller. The article is about Robert Gibbs' response to the increasing fervor over the perceived inappropriateness of the address.

"I think we've reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can't tell kids in school to study hard and stay in school," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. 

 And this, from commenter dojo711:

Why would anyone "study hard and stay in school" under this new regime that punishes hard work and rewards complacency?

Indeed.

No More Teachers, No More Bo...Wait, What??

From McClatchy:

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that American children should go to school longer — either later in the day or into the summer — if they're going to have any chance competing for jobs and paychecks against foreign kids.

Bet those little moppets that sang about how "Obama's gonna change it" never saw that coming.

But Some Animals Are More Fair Than Others...

Yet another example of how the Right and Left think completely differently...

One of the latest issues of the teachers' union magazine had this gem on the cover:

The wealthy pay the same top tax rate as the working class. Is this really fair?

I wonder if they apply the same definition of "fair" when handing out those grades?

"I'm Not Sure, But I Can Guess..."

"...San Francisco's extremely Left."

I'm sure it's not much of a surprise to anyone, but this is a little too much, though. It seems that the San Francisco school board voted 4-2 to phase out the Junior ROTC program over the next two years. I'd like to be funny about this, but frankly, it's just reprehensible. How can four individuals decide to eliminate a program that has been a part of the SF school system for the last 90 years?

A former teacher, Nancy Maniacs...oh, I'm sorry. That's Nancy Mancias. Nancy said "We need to teach a curriculum of peace." That's going to make that "History of World War II" chapter very difficult, I'm guessing. Or maybe not...

Chapter Ten: The Fireside Chats

And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt began what were known as "Fireside Chats." These were chats where FDR and Hitler got together in front of a warm fire to drink tea, braid each other's hair, and talk over their differences. Hitler apologized for trying to kill all the Jews and take over the world, and FDR forgave him and gave him a big hug. The next morning, all the guns had turned into chocolate. The end.

Let's call the cancellation of this program what it is: pushing a political ideology upon students. Full stop.


Mark Sanchez, one of the board members who voted to end the program:

"I think people should not despair too much," Sanchez said. "I think now the work begins -- to work within the community to develop new programs that will fulfill the needs of our students."

As opposed to what? The extra work that isn't required to continue the program already in place that was already fulfilling the needs of 1,600 of your students? I'm anxious to see just what these new programs will be, and just what "needs" those programs will fill. I've watched while higher education has become increasingly compartmentalized and esoteric in term of its programs, resulting in graduates often unprepared for life outside academia. Add to that increased college costs and you end up with a significant number of graduates with a tremendous amount of debt, and a degree that qualifies them to...well...teach in academia, I guess. That, in an already saturated market, no less.

Are they worried about the safety of the JROTC students? Then perhaps we should get rid of sports programs as well, especially full-contact sports, like football. Certainly JROTC stands a better chance than sports of fulfilling at least one student need: that of making a living. Only 252 players were selected for this year's NFL draft, for example.

But why stop there? Let's get rid of some of the other aspects of the curriculum that might prove dangerous to the students. First thing to go? Driver's Ed. Over 42,000 people were killed in auto accidents in the U.S. in 2001 alone. And as of 2008, it's the number one killer worldwide of persons aged 10-24. Based on the 2006 casualty rate, the U.S. would have to be in Iraq for over 50 years to equal one year of domestic auto deaths. One last, sobering (but appropriate) comparison:

If you made a yearbook containing the photos of those killed this year, putting 12 photos on each page, it would have 3,500 pages.

How many pages in a San Francisco yearbook, I wonder?

Encouraging the little moppets to stay out of a car is good for them. It's good for all of us.

Maybe we should eliminate schools all together. After all, the CDC estimates about 20,000 people die every year from the flu. Home schooling might cut that number down significantly, no? (BTW, both numbers are higher than the number of homicides for the same year.)

Oh, and you can forget physics and biology, too. At least for those who want to become astronauts, anyway. Percentage-wise, that could be one of the most dangerous professions of all. They have to face radiation (possible cancer/sterility), mechanical failures, effects of zero gravity, fires and explosions, and any other risks of being shot into space. Whew. Spirit of exploration, my eye. Lets not encourage that.

Sandra Schwartz, member of the American Friends Service Committee:

"We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions. In a healthy democracy... you contain the military. You must contain the military."

That's right. The military does nothing. Well, except secure our liberty. Oh, and safeguard those civilian institutions Sandra was talking about. But that's it. Secure liberties and safeguard institutions. And provide discipline and direction. Secure liberties, safeguard institutions, provide discipline, and that's all. Oh, crap...providing money for college. Secure, safeguard, discipline and money. And nothing else. (Kudos to anyone who recognizes the film reference!)

Maybe they aren't worried about the safety of the JROTC students, but if that's the case, then someone has some 'splaining to do because I just can't see another reason that justifies this policy. I can understand wanting to place restrictions on recruiters; depending on the conditions, I might even agree with them on that one. After all, the military does have a bit of a reputation for "questionable" recruitment tactics. But that's not what's been done here. Besides, when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure that the promises made by a military recruiter are any more exaggerated than, say, the promises made by a college recruiter to a student interested in Medieval literature. "It's a fast growing, wide-open field." "Don't worry, I'm sure you can get student loans." "It's a very flexible degree." Uh-huh. And the financial aid check is in the mail. (My apologies to you ML majors out there, but I call 'em like I see 'em.)

I suppose the board members might think that the JROTC program encourages students to enter the military. (See Nancy's quote) In that case, I'd be curious to know what their thoughts are on an abstinence-only sex-ed program. I only ask because it would seem a little odd to me to argue one the one hand that telling students to stay away from sex is an ineffective deterrent, while at the same time arguing that keeping students away from a program like the JROTC is going to prevent them from joining the military, if that's what they're really interested in.

I found a nice quote by Claire Bindis, a health policy professor at University of California at San Francisco. She's talking about sex-ed, but I think the main idea is valid in this case as well:

There's a lot of people who believe knowledge is dangerous, that if you give kids more information about condoms they'll go out and have sex.

"But isn't it better," Brindis asked, "to give young people and our large immigrant population the tools to plan? I can't think of anything more moral."

Me either. Ultimately, I find it distressing that four individuals can make such a politically-charged decision that will affect 1,600 or so students. I don't know what's worse--the fact that they actually voted to end the program or their astounding arrogance in thinking that they were being anything but self-serving.

Shameful.

It's True

I tried to downplay it, but since Ken let the cat out of the bag (really, someone ought to take that bag away from him), I'll acknowledge it--I'm another year older. Unfortunately, I have to teach all day long. But at least I'll get to spend this special day doing what I love...looking at young co-eds. (What? You thought I was gonna say teaching? C'mon, you should all know me by now.)

I Don't Remember Books Like These In School

I know it's wrong, but God help me, I can't stop laughing!

Two of my favorites:







The rest are here.

Someone may have sent these to me already. And by someone, I mean Wheaton. If so, sorry Ken, but hey--they're still funny!