Another Umbridge?

Hmmmm.....my Hillary Clinton picture where I compared her to Dolores Umbridge has apparently been taken off the internet. I read this article today, reminding me of Umbridge again. Not so much because I'm fixated on Umbridge, but because Tracy and I just watched the Order of the Phoenix a few days ago, and I'd like (given enough inspiration) to write about how the Harry Potter series (1) provides strong arguments in favor of the death penalty, and (2) in principle, seems to lambast publicly run schools.


There's a lot of clues that our public schools are unconstitutional, imprudent, and dangerous towards liberty. Perhaps one of these clues is the mass of seeming contraditions and difficult constitutional questions that arise out of public school issues.

In a home schooling situation, is there any question that a Mom can revoke many privileges if her child/student decided to call her a douche bag? Of course not. In fact, add a few spankings, a hefty allowance dock, added chores, and a lengthy grounding and the kid should be in his place. In the work place, the boss could and maybe should (without any impropriety) fire a worker in a heartbeat. Even in a private school, it is absolutely appropriate to maintain high levels of respect and propriety.

Herein lies the quandary. It's a school. We need efficiency and order and to accomplish this, it is reasonable and appropriate to punish disprespect. On the other hand, it's the government, and we do not want to, as law professor Jonathan Turley said (quoted at the end of the article) "teach[] students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities."

Have your cake and eat it too.

It's obvious that when Obama says empathy is better than reason when it comes to being a judge, he meant it, as evidenced by the quote below by SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor:

"'Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,' she declared. 'I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'" WSJ article.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how "there can never be a universal definition of wise" while the conclusion that some conclusions are "better" than others is so obvious as to need no discussion.

There's no right or wrong, and by the way: I'm right, you're wrong.

Why the no vote, Dr. No?

There's been a big stink about Pelosi and the CIA and allegations of lying, of torture, of political bruhaha, yada yada yada.

I was puzzled to see that Ron Paul voted against a resolution to create a bipartisan panel to investiage Pelosi's allegations.

After all, the CIA is a government organization that operates in the shadows, doing things that we, the public, don't get to know much about. Ever talk to friends or family who are in intelligence? It's uncanny how little they'll tell you. Such a thick shroud of secrecy threatens to shelter corruption the way a stagnant pool provides the breeding ground of mosquitos.

Sure, the Republicans may be putting forward the resolution primarily for political reasons, but that's why most of the Democrats are voting against it. Why did Ron Paul vote against it, but more importantly, do legitimate reasons for voting against it outweigh legitimate reasons for voting for it? Since everybody is making a big deal about this whole torture mess, the CIA's claims, and Pelosi's claims, why shouldn't we get some folk to dig to the bottom of it, and shed some light on the issue?

Homosexuals are vulnerable.

A man in UK reported illegal behavior in a public place to the police, but was repeatedly ignored.

The man opted for some vigilante justice and filmed the lawbreakers in an attempt to shame them publicly.

The illegal activity--homosexual sexual activity in public.

The law being violated was a public decency law that, by its terms, applies evenly to all people, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

"Chairman of the bench Pat Walsh told Mr Haw: 'Your actions were premeditated and quite deliberate in targeting a group of people we would describe as vulnerable.'"

Mr. Walsh understands President Obama's brand of justice well.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090520/man-convicted-for-trying-to-stop-gay-sex-in-public/

Obama Understands One Thing - Government by the Elite

I don't have much to say. I really just want you to read Walter Williams's recent blog post, because it's really good.

The first paragraph quotes President Obama.

"President Obama's articulated criteria for his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is: 'We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize — the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.'"

In this quote, and Obama's actions throughout his presidency to date, the president continuously proves that he understands very little but one thing: that government ought to be by elite individuals unbounded by the rule of law. Instead of the Law being King, the King should be Law. This concept encapsulates the quote above quite nicely. The quote might as well say: "The criteria I'm using for selecting my judges [haha, notice him call the judges, "my" judges] is that they govern, not by law, but by sympathetic outcome selection that fits my own personal socialist opinions."

Anyway, I'll let you read what Mr. Williams has to say:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/empathy-versus-law.html

Massachusetts aspiring teachers can't do math.

Let's do the easy stuff first: Pathetic. It's a disgrace that the vast majority of people trying to be teachers in Massachusetts are mathematically incompetent.

Now for the interesting stuff.

In a world that is increasingly dominated by specialists, why should we care if 73% of the people teaching in Massachusetts don't understand math? Who cares? Obviously, as long as we're not socialist (oh wait, nevermind) pre-college education should be as well rounded as possible (with particular attention to not sacrificing quality for allowing for more diversity (I'm sure it is a sin to say that)).

Does it follow, then, that an elementary school teacher needs to be well rounded as well? In a school of 100 teachers, you don't need 27 teaching math, so there are plenty of math teachers to go around. Maybe schools should go away frmo the model where teachers teach a broad range of classes and just teach in their areas of expertise. What do you think?

Wikipedia should be banned from the Internet

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Irish-student-hoaxes-worlds-apf-15201451.html?.v=1

:?D

Walter Williams on Grade Inflation / Fraud

Fraud in Acadamia

He concludes: "The bottom line: To approach truth in grading, parents and employers should lower the average student's grade by one letter, and interpret a C grade as an F."

Interesting.

In the past, I've said that college is the gateway of American aristrocracy. Obviously, I don't mean this on the level of medieval European aristrocracy. The point was, rather, that employers treat college degrees as making you ipso facto more qualified for jobs than people who don't go through college. The average student in the average public school may be less qualified then that same average student four years later after graduating with a degree, but that person will still be much less qualified than a student who was forced to acquire a quality education in highschool.

I'm thinking that Employers should rather invest in developing practical leaning application exams and choose who to interview based on these exam results. Just as Employers will hand application packets to everyone who walks through the door, whether they are a highschool drop out, a home schooler whose parents didn't get them a highschool diploma, or a Ph.D. graduate, Employers could hand the exam out to everyone and go from there.