Educators and administrators who accept financial compensation for improving their school’s test performance should be ashamed.Back in the real world, improving a school's test performance means better education for those children. Apparently, that's a bad thing.
Mary Ogden Condeff
Santa Rosa, Calif., June 11, 2010
The writer has worked in special education in public schools.
Monday, June 21, 2010
What's wrong with public schools?
In a nutshell, this:
Friday, June 11, 2010
Don't run, fight
Rand Paul has been pilloried for stating a perfectly reasonable philosophy:
Trying to do good, or what we think of as good, at the expense of principles is injustice. For while blacks were the supposed beneficiaries of this act, the reality is that they too belong to the mass whose rights were violated. When they open a business, and choose whom to serve, the government can dictate those terms. Nothing was gained except the reduction of everyone's freedom.
From a political standpoint, trying to muzzle charges of racism is futile. You are conservative, therefore you are racist in the eyes of all liberals regardless of your actions. It's always a mistake to counter insanity with rational argument, and only a man of guilty conscience runs around pleading his innocence. You are not racist, no need to repeat it over and over. Address the issues, ignore the drama.
Attack their implicit beliefs; white people are inherently racist; had the civil rights act not been not passed, blacks would not have made any progress; without whites to do business with, blacks would fall on their face, blacks cannot stand on their own. The bottom line is that their position is offensive. This is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the depiction of a race of people as sub-human.
Liberals are inherently racist. They live in segregated and gated communities where they breathe white guilt. To diffuse their uncomfortableness with themselves, they level charges against everyone else.
The next time Rand Paul is asked whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. His answer should be an unequivocal yes. And then he should press the question: Do you believe that such a law is necessary today? And why is it necessary that with people like you in positions of power, when progressives have power at every level of government and private business, that such a law is necessary? Are you a racist?
And if it sounds harsh, asking someone point blank if they are a racist, understand that that's exactly what they are asking you.
Private individuals have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want. Government does not.There is absolutely nothing objectionable in this statement. Freedom of association means the freedom not to associate. What the hub-bub is about has to do with the fact that that government overstepped its bounds by forcing private businesses to engage in commerce it didn't want to. The civil rights act prevented private businesses from discriminating against blacks. The government was wrong.
Trying to do good, or what we think of as good, at the expense of principles is injustice. For while blacks were the supposed beneficiaries of this act, the reality is that they too belong to the mass whose rights were violated. When they open a business, and choose whom to serve, the government can dictate those terms. Nothing was gained except the reduction of everyone's freedom.
From a political standpoint, trying to muzzle charges of racism is futile. You are conservative, therefore you are racist in the eyes of all liberals regardless of your actions. It's always a mistake to counter insanity with rational argument, and only a man of guilty conscience runs around pleading his innocence. You are not racist, no need to repeat it over and over. Address the issues, ignore the drama.
Attack their implicit beliefs; white people are inherently racist; had the civil rights act not been not passed, blacks would not have made any progress; without whites to do business with, blacks would fall on their face, blacks cannot stand on their own. The bottom line is that their position is offensive. This is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the depiction of a race of people as sub-human.
Liberals are inherently racist. They live in segregated and gated communities where they breathe white guilt. To diffuse their uncomfortableness with themselves, they level charges against everyone else.
The next time Rand Paul is asked whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. His answer should be an unequivocal yes. And then he should press the question: Do you believe that such a law is necessary today? And why is it necessary that with people like you in positions of power, when progressives have power at every level of government and private business, that such a law is necessary? Are you a racist?
And if it sounds harsh, asking someone point blank if they are a racist, understand that that's exactly what they are asking you.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Leaving - Idealism versus Reality
I saw this independent movie called "Leaving" and the implicit subtext was fascinating. Here's the story in a nutshell: Housewife falls in love with another man; leaves husband to pursue true love; husband objects and makes new life impossible; goes back to husband; shoots husband; Fin.
If that synopsis doesn't whet your appetite, maybe this will. The movie is really about the notion that normal life is unbearable. It's a liberal shot across the bow declaring the terribleness of a content life and raising the unreasonable expectation that life is always a bowl of cherries.
What I find most interesting is that this idealized version of life was not intended; the movie was intended as a love story or some other nonsense, but the director couldn't hide his true feelings. They come out in every scene and they are loud and clear to anyone listening.
Initially, the wife doesn't seem discontented with her life. She has a successful husband who apparently cares about her, and kids who love her. While redesigning her home, she meets Ivan but there is little hint of potential romance. As a result of an (contrived) accident, the wife and Ivan must spend time together to see his daughter in Spain. It's on that trip that she "falls" for him and realizes just how much life she is missing. Why she loves this man is somewhat of a mystery, other than a song he sings to her, there is little to suggest that they are truly compatible. Nonetheless, the sex is fantastic and she can't get enough. She's made the decision, her husband and her former life must go.
Life with Ivan is depicted as continual bliss, every action connotes their eternal true love. But would life with Ivan really be so wonderful? Would the magic last forever? Isn't it possible, that over time, Ivan would become like her husband? After all, Ivan had a daughter with a woman who does not want to be with him? Perhaps he has a few flaws, perhaps they would eventually come out? But that would be three dimensional, real.
In fact, the husband is depicted as the only obstacle to their Eden. It's his actions which prevent Ivan and the wife from being together. The implication could not be more clear, eternal bliss is possible if it weren't for the man keeping the wife down.
I would love to make a movie called "Meeting" where the wife and husband first meet. It could show how they were in love, and how their love and infatuation was going to last forever. Instead of shooting her husband, she could have stayed with Ivan. That ending would be more tragic; life with Ivan would become real, just like the one she left.
If that synopsis doesn't whet your appetite, maybe this will. The movie is really about the notion that normal life is unbearable. It's a liberal shot across the bow declaring the terribleness of a content life and raising the unreasonable expectation that life is always a bowl of cherries.
What I find most interesting is that this idealized version of life was not intended; the movie was intended as a love story or some other nonsense, but the director couldn't hide his true feelings. They come out in every scene and they are loud and clear to anyone listening.
Initially, the wife doesn't seem discontented with her life. She has a successful husband who apparently cares about her, and kids who love her. While redesigning her home, she meets Ivan but there is little hint of potential romance. As a result of an (contrived) accident, the wife and Ivan must spend time together to see his daughter in Spain. It's on that trip that she "falls" for him and realizes just how much life she is missing. Why she loves this man is somewhat of a mystery, other than a song he sings to her, there is little to suggest that they are truly compatible. Nonetheless, the sex is fantastic and she can't get enough. She's made the decision, her husband and her former life must go.
Life with Ivan is depicted as continual bliss, every action connotes their eternal true love. But would life with Ivan really be so wonderful? Would the magic last forever? Isn't it possible, that over time, Ivan would become like her husband? After all, Ivan had a daughter with a woman who does not want to be with him? Perhaps he has a few flaws, perhaps they would eventually come out? But that would be three dimensional, real.
In fact, the husband is depicted as the only obstacle to their Eden. It's his actions which prevent Ivan and the wife from being together. The implication could not be more clear, eternal bliss is possible if it weren't for the man keeping the wife down.
I would love to make a movie called "Meeting" where the wife and husband first meet. It could show how they were in love, and how their love and infatuation was going to last forever. Instead of shooting her husband, she could have stayed with Ivan. That ending would be more tragic; life with Ivan would become real, just like the one she left.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Paintball kills people
As a jew I really dislike my people. They are extremely smart on average, yet they are ridiculously stupid when it comes to common sense. Hence, they are liberals and their liberalism is going to get them killed.
First, bullies don't respect weakness and nuance, they respect strength. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Most people secretly want to impose their will on others, most don't because they don't want their ass kicked. If they think you are going to kick their ass (or at least make a fight unpleasant enough), they won't f*** with you.
But only liberal jews board a flotilla with PAINTBALL guns. What the f*** were they thinking? They were trying to be nuanced and respectful to people whose entire purpose was to be blunt and disrespectful. Nine people got killed because they weren't scared, because they saw paintball guns and thought they could be a bad ass and attack the commandos. I bet had the Israeli's had real guns, pointed directly at the protesters heads, and the protesters knew it, their bad assness would have gone away. How many of those nine would have done what they did if they knew that was their last day on earth. I'm betting less than nine.
All nuance and proportional force does is make it less costly for your enemies to continue to fight and in the long run, there will be more conflict and more death because of it. You want to prevent violence, you want peace, then you have to kick some serious ass. Unfortunately the Israeli's are a bunch of liberal jews and they are going to get themselves (and others) killed.
First, bullies don't respect weakness and nuance, they respect strength. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Most people secretly want to impose their will on others, most don't because they don't want their ass kicked. If they think you are going to kick their ass (or at least make a fight unpleasant enough), they won't f*** with you.
But only liberal jews board a flotilla with PAINTBALL guns. What the f*** were they thinking? They were trying to be nuanced and respectful to people whose entire purpose was to be blunt and disrespectful. Nine people got killed because they weren't scared, because they saw paintball guns and thought they could be a bad ass and attack the commandos. I bet had the Israeli's had real guns, pointed directly at the protesters heads, and the protesters knew it, their bad assness would have gone away. How many of those nine would have done what they did if they knew that was their last day on earth. I'm betting less than nine.
All nuance and proportional force does is make it less costly for your enemies to continue to fight and in the long run, there will be more conflict and more death because of it. You want to prevent violence, you want peace, then you have to kick some serious ass. Unfortunately the Israeli's are a bunch of liberal jews and they are going to get themselves (and others) killed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
