Right Wing Nation
Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. - Thomas Sowell

Right Wing Nation

Where’s My Kleenex?

March 31st, 2006 at 2:47 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

This is a must read. Francisco.

There’s a man named Francisco in my Speech class. He barely speaks English, he’s about 5′7”, and around 50 years old. Francisco came here from Mexico 3 years ago and sits exactly two seats behind me to my right.

A few weeks ago, our speech instructor asked each of us to stand and deliver a 60-second speech on a topic that meant the most to us.

I chose to talk about my dog; the lady in front of me talked about her daughter, and the guy across the room talked about beer. Francisco talked about America.

With his plaid shirt tucked into his worn jeans and scuffed loafers peering from beneath tattered hems, Francisco’s first words were:

“I talk to you about important. America is important and why I love it.”

The giggles, the papers rustling, the chairs creaking…all came to a sudden halt. Suddenly, the classroom fell silent. Teachers yelling over the din couldn’t silence we the youthful mass. But Francisco’s soft, unobtrusive voice uttering the name of our nation as his beloved vaporized the commotion in the air.

Read the whole thing.


Friday Free Thread

March 31st, 2006 at 9:15 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to this post.

Trackback URI:
http://rightwingnation.com/2006/03/31/friday-free-thread-3/trackback/

Last free thread is here.

Showcase Carnival entries are here.


Pointedly Humorous

March 30th, 2006 at 5:49 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

I found this on Ohioans for Concealed Carry:

Indiana to Illinois: Don’t pass CCW (humor)
Date: Wednesday, March 14 @ 23:32:16 EST
Topic: Pro-CCW

This is copied from the Daily Illini, an Illinois newspaper:

To the editor:

As your neighbor, I strongly encourage Illinois not to allow the concealed carry of handguns. You see, we allow concealed carry here in Indiana and criminals know it is a bad idea to attack a Hoosier because they just might wind up looking into the barrel of a gun. This customarily makes criminals nervous and less willing to ply their destructive trade.

By refusing to pass a law that is similar to ours you let the bad guys know it is still safe to continue to do their evil deeds in your state. This naturally encourages our rapists, muggers, mass-killers, white-sheeted bigots, gay-bashers, and anti-Semites to leave us and go to Illinois. The mass exodus of our criminal element from here to there will help ensure the continued well-being of all the citizens of Indiana, even those who choose not to carry a handgun.

I particularly want to thank the liberals for their eager willingness to openly encourage all those who would oppress the weak to come on over to Illinois. We will certainly do our best here to also spread the news to the Hoosier criminal element that, while Indiana citizens are allowed to legally shoot them, Illinois citizens are defenseless lambs, ripe for shearing.

I realize this isn’t of much comfort to Illinois folk who may be victimized by these vicious predators, but your citizens can find comfort in knowing that we really do appreciate their willingness to make themselves available as easy targets of opportunity. If it saves just one Hoosier life, it is worth it.

Rick Sxxxxxx
Crown Point, Ind.


Un. Be. Lieve. A. Ble.

March 30th, 2006 at 4:45 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

No comment. Just look here. Hat tip My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.


Nothing Left To Say

March 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

House Speaker Boehner responded to the Democrats’ “national security” platform (stop snorting!) and really, what’s left to say?

The Democrats’ years of negligence in addressing the real safety and security needs of the American people provide a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats on security issues.

“While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

“While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens, and secure our communities.

While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws, and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society.

The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed the Patriot Act, opposed REAL ID legislation, and opposed efforts to strengthen and secure our borders. And they remain unable and unwilling to articulate a cohesive strategy for supporting our troops and winning the War on Terror.

When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else: no. A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security.”

Point. Set. Match.

Hat tip: GOP Bloggers


Speaking Of Chicago And Food

March 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

A landmark for the last 107 years the Loop, The Berghoff, closed on the last day of February. I understand the beer is still being made and sold, but the restaurant is no more (whimper). Click on the image to go to the Berghoff Memorial Blog.


It’s Official: State College Has No Steak House

March 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

We went to the Down Under Steak House at Toftrees (that’s the ritzy golf resort here) last night. And no, it isn’t a steakhouse. I’m not sure what’s going on here, if it’s a local, state, or east coast block, but apparently restauranteurs — and customers — have a problem understanding the concept of steak house. But before I deal with State College, let me address this first:

jeffrey Quick on March 30, 2006 at 12:47 pm said:

Yeah, I guess you’re right. I enjoyed the variety of Bloomington’s ethnic restaurants when I was there this summer (what, TWO Tibetan restaurants?), but quality was all over the map, and south more often than north. I wish I could get raw milk cheese as good and as cheap as what I bought at the Co-op though.

I’ll only go to the “new” Bloomingfoods, east of the mall. The original down off Kirkwood, is filthy, dark, and disgusting. They have Bloomington’s best cream (however ironic that may be), though you’re likely to be lectured on holistic diets, how dairy is cow abuse, and health food when you check out.

Two Tibetan restaurants, and surely Tibetan is the world’s more boring food. They’re both owned by the Dalai Lama’s brother, who is IU faculty. Don’t eat at either unless you don’t mind dead flies floating in your room temperature, free-range water.

If you want great local food, eat at Wee Willie’s, on South Walnut, or Ladyman’s on Kirkwood. Now, back to State College.

So we went to the Down Under Steak House, opened the menu, and no ribeye. I asked. They had just taken it off the menu. I sat there for a few minutes, decided I wanted a steak, not roast beef, and we went to Outback. No commentary necessary there; it was okay, but at least it was a steak.

You can’t call yourself a steak house if you have only three steaks on your menu. This is the only place I have ever been where restaurants with only three steaks on their menus call themselves steak houses. Is it because nobody out here has ever eaten in a steak house?

If you go to Quaker Steak and Lube (that’s a Pittsburgh chain), their thing is wings. The menu has two pages of nothing but different types of wings. That’s an excellent analogy for a steak house.

At a steak house, the predominant item on the menu is (drum roll) steak. That means more than just three, more like three pages of steaks (though you are allowed to have chops as well). That’s what makes it a steak house.

You cannot have three pages of salads on your menu and be a steak house. Nor can you have Wednesday’s Monkfish Special, not if you’re a steak house. Nobody goes to a steak house to eat salad or fish. You go to a steak house to eat steak.

What is so hard about that? How is it that you can’t find a ribeye here unless you go to a chain? And what makes you think you can call yourself a steak house, if you only have three steaks on your menu?

Go to Chicago or Kansas City, both cities that specialize in the genre. Note that when you go into a steak house there, most of the menu is (drum roll) steak. Do you not get the connection between steak, as in on the menu, and steak house?

One thing is certain: When we next visit Bloomington in May, Little Zagreb will be a necessary stop, at least once.


Thursday Free Thread

March 30th, 2006 at 9:47 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to this post.

Trackback URI:
http://rightwingnation.com/2006/03/30/thursday-free-thread-3/trackback/

Last free thread is here.

Showcase Carnival entries are here.


Chimpy McBushitlerburton!

March 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

It’s all Bush’s fault!

Stocks shrugged off Tuesday’s interest-rate increase like yesterday’s bad news, led by a powerful rally in the technology sector that lifted the Nasdaq Composite Index to a five year high.


Protectionist Crap

March 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Well folks, this is what happens when you have protectionists, like Democrats and paleocons (think Pat Buchanan) pushing legislation:

Giant Eagle customers who have been filling their gasoline tanks by filling themselves with milk will not have that option beginning Saturday.

The region’s dominant grocer no longer will credit Pennsylvania customers for purchases of certain milk products toward discounts via the fuelperks! program at the company’s GetGo gasoline stations.

Excluding milk sales in fuelperks! came after the state Milk Marketing Board asked the O’Hara-based Giant Eagle to comply with regulations concerning Pennsylvania’s minimum pricing for milk.

Unfortunately, milk goes bad and needs to be refrigerated, or I would have bought a couple hundred gallons when I was last in Indiana to bring back here. Hey dairy farmers, if you can’t compete, you deserve to go bankrupt.


Moving Goalposts

March 29th, 2006 at 5:22 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

You’ve heard liberals — some of them, like Pelosi and Reid, elected officials — claim that Bush has no mandate because he didn’t get enough of the popular vote. Indeed, Pelosi, Reid, Leahy and the other Democrats were calling for Bush to “unify the country” and “reach across the aisle” after winning the last election — meaning, of course, that Bush should have reneged on every campaign promise he made, like a Democrat president, and adopt Democrat positions.

That word, “mandate,” now there’s a goalpost the liberals move at their whim. Note the following Time cover:

See the word, “mandate” there? Remember that Bush doesn’t have a mandate because he didn’t get enough of the popular vote? Clinton won the 92 election with 43% of the popular vote; Bush won in 04 with 50.7% of the popular vote.

But Clinton had a mandate, while Bush does not. Bush didn’t get enough of the popular vote, remember? And see those two percentages above again.

This is exactly the kind of liberal dishonesty, this liberal culture of corruption, that keeps them out of office. The fact that they would expect Bush to slap his supporters in the face, as Clinton did, just to “cooperate” with them is the ultimate corruption for an elected official. They might as well stand on the streets with big signs saying I’m a Democrat; I can’t be trusted.

Pathetic.


First, Bin Laden, Now The Iranians

March 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of “running away,” leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.

Democrats in 06 and 08, anyone?

Didn’t think so.


Republicans Outsack Democrats

March 29th, 2006 at 4:23 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Transcript here. Hilarious.

She has a line in here about Republicans. They understand that foreplay is about sex and lots of it. Democrats are too busy checking if the condoms you keep by the bed are good for the environment.


Why I Love John Gibson

March 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Yesterday’s My Word:

Why we’re so different than France, part umpteen.

We have a massive demonstration on Saturday in Los Angeles. Half a million people protest.

First, it’s peaceful.

Second, it’s about working. The half million illegals and their supporters do work and want to work. They want legal status.

You can argue about whether we should or shouldn’t do it, but let’s be happy the issue is working while legal.

In France they have a big demonstration Tuesday.

First, it’s about not working. The rioters don’t want to work and the threat of firing if they’re lazy or won’t work is what they’re mad about.

Second, it’s not peaceful. French youth are angry they won’t have the same chance at a lazy do-nothing job which they can’t get fired from — same as their parents. The idea they might have to compete against workers in other countries who do work hard and don’t take six-week vacations, well that’s enough to burn cars and attack the cops.

Personally, my favorite moment Tuesday was the water canon.

This is a very effective device. Attack the cops, get blasted by a high-pressure fire hose on specially built riot trucks that can fire blasts of water at rioters in all directions.

Hats off to the French for that one.

And hats off to the French for a thoroughly entertaining riot.

May I confess to the guilty pleasure of a satisfying laugh at the sight of a French protester getting knocked on his butt and rolled down the street like a burger wrapper?

I know, it’s unkind and I should feel sympathy.

But somehow a guy rioting over being able to keep a job he doesn’t do but thinks he has a right to anyway, that doesn’t produce much sympathy in me.

Now compare this with our problem.

I understand the half a million illegals and their friends on Saturday were a disconcerting sight. And we do have to do something about border security and 12 million illegals.

But these people work and they want in the system to work legally and their protest was peaceful.

The French, they’ve got another problem altogether.

Frankly, I’d rather have ours.

That’s My Word.


Birthday Dinner

March 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Bloomington is not a great restaurant town (most college towns aren’t), for two reasons. One, it’s full of people who would order and eat dogfood at a restaurant if it was cheap; and two, it’s full of multicultural morons who don’t know the difference between “ethnic” and “quality” (or don’t understand that “ethnic” does not mean, or imply, “quality”).

However, Bloomington does have one of the best steakhouses outside Chicago, Little Zagreb. It’s where the football team eats, and it’s Cream and Crimson (IU’s answer to PSU’s blue and white), Bobby Knight, and IU sports pictures and photos everywhere you look, but forget the decor. Little Zagreb is a carnivore’s paradise.

Did I say one of the best steakhouses outside Chicago? Little Zagreb can hold its own with the best of Chicago’s steakhouses.

I miss my friends. Some I’ve known for over twenty years. But other than people, Little Zagreb is what I miss most about Bloomington.

See, State College has no steakhouse — and no, Outback doesn’t count. Let me rephrase that. State College has one restaurant that bills itself as a steakhouse, Down Under Steak House at Toftrees. We’ll see. We’re going there tonight for my birthday dinner.

It’s the only place in town I’ve found that has ribeyes on the menu. Did you catch that?

Well, there’s Kelly’s Steak and Seafood, which bills itself as a steakhouse. It’s not. They only have three or four steaks on the menu, though the prime rib there is top notch. But that’s why I’m skeptical about the Down Under.

Like I said, we’ll see.


Wow. Get A Life.

March 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati: ,

The next time you hear liberals complaining about talk radio, send them here, then ask them how bad they think it is here.


Immigration Reality Check

March 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

I have so far kept away from this issue, because both sides are about half wrong. However, I’d like to ask the proponents of deporting illegal immigrants one question, simply because I have yet to see anybody bring it up.

Currently, each deportation takes about six months of court time. Tell me, if there are 12 million illegal immigrants, how long will that tie up our courts, how much money will it cost, how many violent criminals will go untried?

Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic. I realize that I risk angering some of the people in the blogosphere I most respect. But really, get a grip. Do the math. Think about it.

And don’t be a Democrat. Come up with an alternative idea, please.

Here’s mine:

Immigration Swap is a private, non-governmental solution to illegal immigration, and operates on the concept that the problem is welfare, not immigration. Immigration Swap will operate somewhat like an adoption agency, with immigrants instead of children and communities instead of parents. Immigrants must sign a contract that legally binds them to working at least forty hours a week once here, and stating that should they accept any public assistance, they will immediately be deported and permanently barred from re-entering the United States. For every hard-working immigrant adopted by a community, that community will trade one American on the public dole, who will be permanently deported to the immigrant’s country of origin. Should immigrants violate their contracts and be deported, the Americans traded for them will not be allowed to return to the United States.

Fund-A-Shield is a compassionate charity that seeks to give appeasenik anti-war weenies the chance to realize their consciences. Qualified applicants will be awarded a one-way ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan, and will be transported to the areas of the highest combat so they can be human shields for all those poor, oppressed, marginalized, disenfranchised, disempowered little terrorists. Note that awardees may be subject to prosecution for treason if they are not killed and attempt to return to the United States.

Daily Burkha is another compassionate charity. The program will pay for qualified applicants to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan and live with a poor, oppressed, marginalized, disenfranchised, disempowered little fundamentalist Muslim family. Applicants must be female, liberal, anti-war, proponents of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” and CAIR advocates (protestors, “wimmin’s music” fans, women on the public dole, ANSWER and Tides-related activists, and university faculty will be given top priority). Like Fund-A-Shield, awardees are strongly encouraged to remain outside the United States; no round-trip tickets will be awarded. Applicants must sign a document that releases the Daily Burkha charity from all responsibility for injury, mutilation or death resulting from living in a poor, oppressed, marginalized, disenfranchised, disempowered little fundamentalist Muslim Shariah community (such as being pulled apart by horses, female genital mutilation, being beheaded for looking at a man, all those “culturally diverse” practices.)

Anyone interested in helping me set these charities up, or applying for any, should contact me.


I Would Like An Answer

March 29th, 2006 at 1:30 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Yes, I posted this some time ago. However, the questions are not rhetorical. I really would like an answer from my colleagues in the primary and secondary school system — particularly those in the education union establishment. And I’d like an answer because I really do want to know why I have to do your job as well as mine.

Thanks ahead of time for your response. Here it is:

I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea. I’ve had many extremely bright students. Many. Some had the necessary knowledge for the class, and some did not; of those who did not, most worked their butts off and did well. I also don’t want you to think smarts are what I care most about.

My favorite students are the ones who aren’t that bright, but work their tails off to do as well as they can. My least favorite students are the ones who are extremely sharp, but don’t work.

Sometimes, however, there’s too much missing knowledge, so much that the best thing the student can do is drop the class. It breaks my heart when I get a student like this.

I had a student some time back I’ll call Mark. Mark was bright, though his high school had cheated him, and he was lost almost from the first day. He worked hard, and came to my office hours. But … well, there was too much missing, as I discovered early in the semester when he was in my office.

I asked him what he wanted me to clarify, and he said he didn’t understand the 68-95-99 Rule. The conversation went something like this:

Me: “In a normal distribution, 68% of the data fall within one standard deviation in either direction of the mean. So here’s our distribution,” I drew a bell curve on the whiteboard, “And here’s our mean,” I drew a dashed line bisecting the curve. “Our mean is 50, and our standard deviation is 2, so 68% of the data fall between 50-2 and 50+2, 48 and 52.” I drew lines and arrows, and a 68% beneath.

Mark: “I don’t understand. Wouldn’t it be 75?”

Me: “Wouldn’t what be 75?”

Mark: “The mean.”

Me: “Why would it be 75?”

Mark: “That’s what you said in class.”

Ah. He was stuck on the example — and being a firm believer in introducing concepts in contexts familiar to students, I introduce basic descriptive stats in terms of grades, since what else are students more familiar with?

Me: “The mean could be 75, sure. In this particular distribution,” I pointed to the curve on the whiteboard, “the mean is 50.” I then erased the 50. “But let’s say the mean is 75,” and I wrote 75 after the x-bar, “then 68% of the data falls between 75-2 and 75+2, 73 and 77.”

Mark: “How do you know if the mean is 50 or 75?”

One of the difficult parts of teaching is diagnosing the problem. Students have questions, but the problem may actually be more fundamental than what they are asking about, as I was beginning to understand here.

Mark was having two basic problems: He didn’t understand what a mean was, and he was having trouble abstracting the idea out of the example. The former is easy to fix; the latter is not.

Me: “Can I erase this?” I pointed to the whiteboard, and he nodded. I erased the curve, and wrote a series of numbers on the board in a vertical column: 90, 85, 70, 65, and 50. “These are test scores,” I said, “How do you calcualate the mean, or average?”

Mark didn’t volunteer an answer.

Me: “Okay, let’s say the whole class takes an exam, and these are the scores. An average, or mean, tells me how well the class did overall. To calculate the average, I add all the scores, then divide by the number of scores. Here, you do it.” I have him the marker.

Mark added the numbers, then stopped.

Me: “How many scores are there?”

Mark: “Five.”

Me: “Okay, divide the total by five.”

Mark complied.

Me: “What’s the mean?”

Mark: “Seventy-two.” He looked at the numbers for a minute, then smiled. “I get it!” he said.

That’s when I realized what I’d suspected: Mark was a university freshman who had not, until just now, understood the concept of an average. I found that disturbing, but Mark was on a roll.

Mark: “So what’s a median?”

Me: “The middle score.” I pointed to the five numbers. “Half of the scores will fall above the median, and half will fall below the median. What’s the median of these scores?”

Mark: “Seventy.”

Mark was in my office three hours. No wonder he’d been lost. He didn’t understand an average. He didn’t understand sampling or distributions. We didn’t get to the 68-95-99 rule that day, because there was too much he didn’t understand.

I worked with him twice every week, and he got a B in the class. He worked harder than nearly any other student I’ve had. But if he had not come to my office every chance he got, he would never have passed.

Mark had no sense of entitlement. He wanted to understand, and he wanted a good grade, and he worked for both. He was bright. The thing is, I pretty much ran him through a high school math program in the office during the course of the semester.

I’m a teacher, so I can ask the obvious question, and some other teacher can’t come back with any of the usual non-answers.

I did it. Why couldn’t you, when Mark was in high school? It’s not money. I got no extra pay for helping Mark. It’s not time. I spent many hours in the office working with him. It’s not his intelligence or ability to learn. He’s smart, and he learned quickly, once we got started.

So I’ll ask again: Why couldn’t you do your job? It wasn’t my job to teach Mark high school math, but I did. Why did I have to? How did Mark get through all the required high school math courses without understanding what an average is? How did Mark get through all the required math courses without ever having seen y=mx+b? How did Mark get through all the required math courses and not understand that each flip of the coin is independent of all others? Most of all, how did you, his teachers, let such a bright, hard-working, motivated student slip through the cracks?

What’s going on there?


Games Liberals Play

March 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Rarely do I link to, or comment on, a comment thread on another blog. But I’m going to do it today. On an immigration article by Gay Patriot, we see this in a liberal’s comment:

It’s not illegal to be in this country without documentation. You just aren’t supposed to be here and will be ejected.

But it’s not a crime.

And here, in this breathtakingly stupid statement, we have the illogical and irrational game liberals play. You redefine a word (here, “crime, criminal”) and then you use the redefinition to argue your point.

By being here illegally — note to liberals: that means against the law — illegal immigrants are criminals — note to liberals: if you break the law, you are by definition a criminal.


Feeling Masochistic?

March 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

You should head over to Dummycratic Underwear, then, and read through this thread, full of liberal tolerance and sensitivity. It will warm your heart, really it will. It’s not unlike being at one of those “teacher seminars” surrounded by wackjob leftist faculty.


Come Again?

March 29th, 2006 at 11:23 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Today’s weirdest story comes to me by way of Blue State Conservatives. It seems that Right to Life Michigan is withdrawing their support of a candidate because, well, he’s just too right-to-life:

GRAND RAPIDS — Jerry Zandstra, the Cutlerville minister running for the U.S. Senate, risks losing Right to Life’s support for a surprising reason: He supports a ballot initiative that essentially would ban all abortions.

The proposal would change the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.

Led by the new group Michigan Citizens for Life, the direct approach to banning abortions is at odds with the more incremental strategy of Right to Life of Michigan, which opposes the initiative.

Mmmmm-kay, then. That’s logical.

Blink. Blink. Blink.


Death For Pedophiles

March 29th, 2006 at 10:59 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

This is the best news I’ve seen in a long time, at least from the Antique Media. Let’s hope states across the nation start passing laws like this (hat tip to The Skipper):

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The state Senate on Tuesday endorsed making repeat child rapists eligible for the death penalty, setting aside arguments the move might be unconstitutional.

“What we’ve got to do today is vote our conviction,” said Republican Sen. Larry Martin.

The proposal allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.

No doubt the liberals, ACLU and other pro-child molester groups will be shrieking bloody murder about it. Heh.


Wednesday Free Thread

March 29th, 2006 at 9:58 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to this post.

Trackback URI:
http://rightwingnation.com/2006/03/29/wednesday-free-thread-3/trackback/

Last free thread is here.

Showcase Carnival entries are here.


Carnival of Education

March 29th, 2006 at 9:51 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Welcome to the Carnival of Education — and, oddly enough, happy birthday to me! There are some really good, thought provoking articles this week. I hope you enjoy!

Our first topic? Curriculum, course content, and pedagogy.

I love reading about what other people are doing in their classes, no matter what the topic. This week, The Magic School Bus continues his series on teaching biology lab. Good stuff! And speaking of good stuff, Scheiss Weekly introduces her students to Sherlock Holmes and chooses not to freak out when a student uses one of those naughty words. Oddly enough, Random Yak also has something to say about naughty words.

The Daily Grind takes a hard line on teaching grammar. And speaking of grammar, Trivium Pursuit inverviews Martin Luther about the importance of a classical education.

And how can there be a carnival of education without discussing grades, testing, and evaluation?

A Teacher’s Perspective asks a question I’ve wondered about for years: Are As and Bs academic entitlements? (And be sure to read the comments.) Shameless, I know, but I’ll add my own piece about grade inflation.

NYC Educator asks a provocative question (again, read the comments), though this is something we do in the university every semester. And Going to the Mat contemplates certifying teachers if ed schools were abolished.

Extreme Wisdom raises some disturbing questions about the education establishment and testing. Multiple Mentality has a humorous, yet pointed, article on review sessions and objective vs. subjective testing. Friends of Dave takes on the Academic Performance Index. Three Standard Deviations to the Left wonders about graduation requirements (this is a bit scary). EduWonk defends the basics here, while Spunky Home School takes the oppositie position. Dayton Daily News asks if the testing establishment is cracking.

And the politics of education …

Ruminating Dude questions the value of education for his students’ job prospects. And Scholar’s Notebook is concerned about the expansion of the nanny state in the name of education.

Concerned about what your kids are doing in public school? Education Matters US will give you more reason to do so, with a deceptively cute title. Also conerned, Cross Blogging has disturbing news from Los Angeles. And Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes declare war on the school board (there’s a linked video — be sure to watch it).

EdWonk tackles students’ protesting for illegal immigrants and asks if they are walking out on their futures. And NCLBlog discusses who takes the blame for school failures.

Schweiss Weekly has completely had it with negligent parents, and I must say after reading this, I’m glad that parents are one thing I don’t have to deal with! I’m even more glad after reading Polski3’s latest parental encounter.

Casting Out Nines discusses banning blogs from high school computers. Speaking of banning, Shrewdness of Apes writes about a book selection that isn’t your usual book censorship controversy.

Data and analysis

You know I’m a math geek, and I love data. Circdiana presents a fascinating article on adolescent sleep cycles. And I did a couple of interesting cursory analyses of reading and math proficiency data, here and here (just in case you wondered what my idea of fun is — I said I was a math geek, didn’t I?)

This midway is registered at TTLB’s carnival roundup. Next week’s carnival will be hosted by EdWonk. Send your submissions to owlshome [at] earthlink [dot] net by 9:00 pm PST, Tuesday, April 4th.


Grade Inflation

March 28th, 2006 at 4:49 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Earlier, I mentioned that rubrics are a useful tool for dealing with grade inflation, specifically, the “I barely satisfied the requiremens so I deserve an A” type of grade inflation.

Where did this idea start, that barely satisfying the minimum requirements entitles one to an A? That is, by definition, C work. How exactly did a C become an A? Which bleeding-heart teacher first decided to give As to mediocre work?

Until I started publishing rubrics with assignments, the following was one of the most common exchanges during office hours:

“Why did I get a C?”

“Because you did average work.”

“But I did everything you wanted me to.”

“Not very well, you didn’t.”

“But it took me hours to do this assignment! As hard as I worked on it, I should get an A!”

“Look, you didn’t even get the right answer.”

“But I worked for hours on this!”

“Actually, because you not only didn’t get the right answer, but got the wrong answer because almost everything about your project was wrong, I could have given you a D. Let’s go over your project.”

“I don’t want to go over it! I deserve at least a B. I should get an A. I worked really hard. Can’t you give me an A?”

“That wouldn’t be fair to the students who did the work correctly, would it?”

“I deserve an A, as hard as I worked on this!”

“I’m sorry, but let’s go over this, so you can do better on the next project.”

“I’ve got to meet somebody. I don’t have the time.”

Then there was the sibling argument, which was always, “I did the minimum; therefore, I deserve an A.”

Actually, we have here two separate problems that converge as grade inflation. One involves grading for effort, and the other, well, just grade inflation in its purest form.

Personally, I have no problem with assigning a certain part of the grade to effort, or participation, or even attendance. Motivation and the willingness to work and be an active part of the class should count for something. But there is a crucial difference between giving 10% for effort, participation, or attendance, on one hand, and 50% or higher, on the other.

The first is entirely reasonable. The second is indefensible.

The problem with over-weighting effort is that it inflates the grade to such an extent you can only end up with a situation like California has, where huge numbers of seniors who were passed from grade to grade by virtue of their class grades cannot demonstrate eighth-grade proficiency on a graduation exam. It doesn’t make any difference how hard you worked, or how much you participated, or how often you came to class if you don’t know that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or that the square root of 64 is 8, or can’t read a newspaper story.

And there is another problem.

I used to coordinate a writing program, and one thing I said thousands of times to new teachers was to be careful of setting up expections in their students. If you do nothing but correct grammatical errors on papers, you set up an expectation that later writing teachers are going to have to battle when they try to teach their students — your ex-students — to write. And the students are going to be lazy, and refuse to edit their own writing for grammatical errors, because they think it’s the teacher’s job, not theirs.

The same is true here. The reason I had to listen over and over again to how much time students worked on a project and why therefore they should get an A is that they had had teachers who weighted effort far too heavily in their grading system. Those teachers created an expectation in their students that all of their teachers would do the same.

Bumping a D+ up to a C- because the student worked really hard is fair and reasonable; bumping it up any higher is unfair and unreasonable.

Then there is the second situation, students who believe that doing as little as possible while still fulfilling the requirements entitles them to an A. This is just utterly unacceptable. In the real world, people get fired, and should get fired, for doing the bare minimum and nothing more. A means excellent, and there is nothing excellent about minimal work, even if it does barely satisfy the requirements.

And again, expectation rears its head. The only way a student can get to college and believe that minimal work entitles him to an A is that he had teachers who gave him As for minimal work.

The ultra-PC, postmodernist, chic and trendy school of education crowd is fond of insisting that grade inflation doesn’t exist; and this, despite the huge numbers of seniors in California who (according to what they’ve said in the media) got As all through school, yet cannot demonstrate 8th grade proficiency in reading and math.

Grade inflation is a problem.

Educators are also fond of talking about fairness, but how is it fair to the student who does turn in excellent work when you give an A to the student who does the bare minimum? What message does it send to that hard-working student when Johnny, who barely did the assignment, gets an A? Why would you expect that hard-working student to continue to work hard, if little slacker Johnny gets an A?

Grade inflation is not only inherently unfair, but it is a demotivator.

Possibly the biggest advantage of incorporating rubrics into assignments has been its effect on grade inflation. No student argues that the bare minimum should get an A, because it’s right there on the rubric that the student has had since the project was posted. And though I’ve had a few students who (obviously) never read the rubric, none has been so shameless that he admitted it in my office.

I used to be a big fan of autonomy. I am no longer, at least not past a certain point. Instead of writing sensitivity statements and worrying about what hack pop culture icon should speak to the students, or expelling second-graders for passing love notes, school adminstrators should be working on standards and forcing teachers to comply with them. There should only be a certain amount of discrepency between a teacher’s grades and his students’ test scores; anything beyond that, and the teacher should be told in no uncertain terms that his grading is off, and he needs to get with the program.

Sorry, but I’ve completely had it with grade inflation, and excuses. (Note that I didn’t mention “self-esteem” above, because it’s utterly irrelevant to education.) Edwonk chimes in here.


The Sky Is Falling (For The 2683rd Time)

March 28th, 2006 at 4:21 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

When liberals aren’t whining and moaning and wringing their hands and being afraid, they’re slandering conservatives with those oh-so-chic nasty names, like fascist or Nazi. The one thing liberals never do is confront the facts—or defend the United States.

Liberals have constructed a fantasy world from myths that have nothing to do with reality, and yes, Virginia, they really do believe their delusions are real. In order to see just how irrational these people are, we have to look at a few of the myths liberals have constructed—starting with the most fundamental.

Liberals will grudgingly admit that Stalin wasn’t exactly Willy Wonka, but then turn around and insist that Hitler and the Nazis were right-wingers. Well no. The Nazis were left-wingers. Exactly what part of ’sozialistische’ in ‘Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei’ don’t you understand? (Or for those who can’t read German, what part of ’socialist’ in ‘German National Socialist Workers Party’ don’t you understand?)

Liberal fear-mongering hinges on this myth. It is their only justification for howling “Nazi! Police state!” when they’re trying to get you to vote for their agenda—rather, against Republicans (liberals know they can’t get people to vote for their platform; that’s why they rely on the SCOTUS to push it on the nation). Without this myth, the web of liberal hysteria falls apart, into otherwise unrelated doom and gloom predictions and breathtakingly surreal fantasies of “a better world,” which translated from liberalese to English means, “You will do what we say because we know better than you what’s good for you and the nation.” (And if you don’t believe that, read this delightful little piece written the day after the 2004 election.)

If you thought, “There is no terrorist threat!” was the most idiotic thing you’d heard, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you’re wrong. Far more idiotic, nearly psychotic, in fact, is, “There is no terrorist threat! And the Religious Right is trying to turn us into a theocratic police state!” Closely related is, “Christianity is a religion of hate and violence, but Islam is a religion of peace and love!”

That no doubt explains the Southern Baptist homicide bombers in London, Mormon missionaries flying planes into the World Trade Center, Roman Catholic honor killings and Presbyterian female circumcision.

I hate to keep saying this, but I’m not making this up. Liberals don’t fear Islamist homicide bombers (this is why they call them freedom fighters or insurgents instead of terrorists), but they fear Reverend Stanley. Do they think his congregation will kidnap them and force them to eat jello salad at a church dinner?

If you don’t believe in mass hysteria, read the New York Times.

If there’s one good thing about all this screaming about Bush, Rove, Rummy, the Nazis in the White House, and the poor oppressed disadvantaged marginalized little brown terrorists (or should that be terrorists of color?), it’s keeping these wackjobs from howling about global warming and saving the spotted earthworm. God, I was getting sick of that.

It’s Chicken Little all over again. The sky is always falling, often because of shadowy global corporate conspiracies, or evil Republicans, or global warming, or drilling in Alaska, or flags, or Christians, or talk radio, or the Electoral College, or free speech, or people with firearms, oh, liberals are scared of everything except each other and terrorists. And everything they’re scared of is going to cause the end of the world as we know it — I mean, when was the last time you heard a liberal say, “Well, this idea or program could cause problems,” instead of, “You’re disenfranchising the poor! You’re tring to enslave wimmin by taking away our right to choose! Sisterhood is powerful!” or something equally hysterical?

Fear, fear, fear, fear. It’s always fear and hysteria. Don’t they realize that if they at least tried to appear rational, people might vote for them?

Somebody tell them to shut up. Thanks.


Logic Isn’t The Problem

March 28th, 2006 at 2:39 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Beth at Blue Star Chronicles makes some excellent points in this piece that questions why liberals are illogical. But the piece misdiagnoses — or understates — the problem when she gives examples (emphases and additional commentary mine):

I listened to a young woman tonight argue that the Battle Cry rally in San Francisco today was fascist. She hysterically claimed they were ‘brainwashing’, destroying gay rights, murderers, warmongers, etc., etc.

Video of the counter-demonstration showed a dozen or so people dressed up like cats or other such little outfits, holding signs asking, ‘Who would Jesus Bomb?’.

The poor girl in this ‘debate’ didn’t have anything to work with. Her only come back appeared to be on the line of, ‘Yeah, well, yo mama.’

She insisted that the Battle Cry group had no right to preach what they preach. I’m not that familiar with this group. But we do have free speech in this country - which is why SHE can say what SHE says. (that’s the part where the logic gets skewed somehow).

While she was ranting about how America doesn’t allow her to express herself as a lesbian - she is on national television expressing herself as a lesbian.

See what I mean? Illogical.

She said President Bush is a tyrant and doesn’t allow people to oppose him. She said he reigns over an oppressive regime that keeps women submissive and quiet. She says this while she’s opposing him on national television and as a woman was certainly not being submissive or quiet. [Two words: Condi Rice, a who is neither submissive nor quiet]

Illogical again.

. . .

They declare they are being denied liberties while exercising their liberties to the fullest extent [and on television in front of millions of viewers].

Logic is not the problem. Hysteria — and the privilege of having grown up in a free nation without having seen much, if any, evil — is the problem. It’s not that liberals are illogical. Liberals are completely disconnected from reality. They have their own little fantasy world in which the United States and white, Christian, conservative, heterosexual men of European extraction are the root of all evil, a fantasy world in which George Bush is at least as bad as Hitler, and the more poisonously one hates the United States and every principle upon which it was founded, the more “patriotic” one is.

Never mind that there are no white, Christian, conservative, heterosexual men of European extraction kidnapping and beheading hostages. Never mind that there are no concentration camps and Bush is not having rooms full of “oppressed” people gassed. Never mind that one cannot love one’s country and despise it simultaneously.

Have you ever sat in a room full of liberals? One will say something about Bush being a dictator, and somebody else will pop up and say that any day now, the police are going to start rounding up protesters and throwing liberals in camps. And somebody else will say that they already are, but the media is covering it up. And they quickly descend from merely paranoid to certifiably insane. The same liberal that says that Bush is destroying free speech one minute will turn around and insist that “hate speech” doesn’t count and should be outlawed the next.

It’s a fantasy world, and there’s no breaking through. Liberals only associate with other liberals, and when they spend time together, they feed each other’s insanity. Liberals have to find their own way to sanity. Liberals have to suddenly look around and realize that hey, there they are burning flags on television and demanding that Bush be beheaded, so they obviously don’t live in a police state. Liberals have to figure out that free speech only works if those they hate also have the same right.

But don’t hold your breath. Most won’t open their eyes anytime soon.


Quality Of Life And Education

March 28th, 2006 at 10:36 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Yesterday, Mr. Miller the math teacher asked me (on his blog) if I had taken into account standard of living differences in my pre-proto-preliminary analysis of per pupil spending and reading and math proficiency. I had not, because I didn’t have the data. I still don’t. However, I did find something that gave intriguing results.

I ran across data from the Manhattan Institute here, and while looking through their data, the Quality of Life index caught my eye. The Quality of Life index is comprised of several factors: Net Migration, Infant Mortality, Uninsured Low Income Children, Teen Pregnancy, Deaths from Heart Disease, Homeownership Rate, Charitable Giving, Voting Rate, and Crime Rate.

This is an interesting statistic. It includes health (Infant Mortality, Deaths from Heart Disease), strength of family and values (Teen Pregnancy, Uninsured Low Income Children, Charitable Giving), sense of civic duty (Charitable Giving and Voting Rate), private property ownership (Homeownership Rate), and crime rate, all things that one could reasonably assume might affect education. So what relationship, if any, might there be between the Quality of Life index and reading and math proficiency?


Tuesday Free Thread

March 28th, 2006 at 8:05 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to this post.

Trackback URI:
http://rightwingnation.com/2006/03/28/tuesday-free-thread-3/trackback/

Last free thread is here.

Showcase Carnival entries are here.


Why Is Nobody Asking?

March 27th, 2006 at 4:08 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Obviously, Moussaoui isn’t very bright, since at his sentencing trial he not only insisted on testifying, but testified that he was supposed to fly a plane into the White House. After the blunder of the prosecution a couple of weeks ago, that’s welcome news.

However, there’s a question that has really been bugging me for over a year now, and I don’t understand why nobody else is wondering the same thing.

Lynne Stewart, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Moussaoui, all committed war crimes. Would somebody please explain why they are being tried in a civilian court, instead of by military court? Why did the Administration allow these war criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and why is the Department of Justice not demanding that Padilla be tried at a military court, as Lincoln did during and after the Civil War, and FDR did during and after WW2?

Terrorism is a war crime. Sedition is a war crime. Treason is a war crime. And we are at war. All war crimes should be tried in military courts. It’s not too late — and I’d say CAIR would be a good start.

Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.


Bed-Wetter Code

March 27th, 2006 at 11:10 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Since all these geeky codes are going around, I thought I’d be my ever helpful self, and create one for the moonbats. Here are the bed-wetter codes.


Monday Free Thread

March 27th, 2006 at 9:05 am by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Technorati:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to this post.

Trackback URI:
http://rightwingnation.com/2006/03/27/monday-free-thread-3/trackback/

Last free thread is here.

Showcase Carnival entries are here.


Super-Size Jerk

March 26th, 2006 at 6:43 pm by rightwingprof -- Trackback URL

Would it be too insensitive of me to ask why a high school — an institution of learning — would even contemplate asking somebody who produced a worthless documentary to speak in the first place? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to pay a scholar to speak at an institution of learning rather than a pop culture moron? Am I completely out of the ballpark here?

‘Super Size’-er mouths off in Montco

By Steve Wartenberg
Of The Morning Call

In posters for the popular 2004 documentary ”Super Size Me,” filmmaker Morgan Spurlock is pictured with his mouth stuffed full of McDonald’s french fries.

On Friday afternoon at Hatboro-Horsham High School in eastern Montgomery County, administrators say he put his foot in his mouth during an entertaining and humorous but profanity-laced, politically incorrect address to about 700 students.

As he talked about the making and aftermath of ”Super Size Me,” the Academy Award-nominated filmmaker — who ate three meals a day at McDonald’s for 30 days — mocked ethnic groups and joked about the ”retarded kids in the back wearing helmets” and teachers smoking pot in the balcony.

There actually were special education students in the back row.

Teachers led them out during the hourlong presentation.

So let’s sort this out. Educators, who are always moaning and whining about how awful it is that their students are supposed to learn the subjects they teach, and demonstrate it on exams, educators who are always moaning and bitching about how they don’t get enough money are paying some brainless idiot to speak to their students.

How is it that people this incredibly stupid end up teaching at all?

Oh that’s right. Teaching is all about “social justice” and other such crap. I guess they’re doing a good job teaching that:

While most students laughed, gave Spurlock a standing ovation and mobbed him for autographs, some administrators and teachers were offended. A speech Spurlock was to make Friday night at the high school for community members was canceled, and Spurlock might not be paid for his appearance.

Well, at least some of the educators had the decency to be of