Right Wing Nation

Ricki sez:

About the only real “slacking” I did as an undergraduate was to go home (rather than to the library) an afternoon or two a week because one of the local indie channels would re-run MI.

(However, if it was an ep without Peter Graves in it, I’d often pick up and go back to the library).

Do any channels still run it? It seems it would be a reasonable fit for the Sci-Fi channel, but my cheap-o local newspaper doesn’t run channel listings for all the cable channels that the local cable company offers…

It’s not shown on any channel DirecTV carries, which somewhat mystifies me. It was an espionage show, the longest-running espionage show in TV history. It was an intelligent show–half of what they were doing you had to figure out from paying attention, and wasn’t explained beforehand. So why is nobody showing it?

And speaking of Peter Graves, he is James Arness’s brother. Here’s Graves:

And here’s Arness, from Gunsmoke:

Arness was 6′ 7″ tall. Dennis Weaver, his costar, was 6′ 2″. Weaver is on the left, Arness on the right:

Arness, believe it or not, is still alive.

The greatest TV theme of all time:

I bought a copy of the freshman algebra book we used in high school (Pearson and Allen, Modern Algebra: A Logical Approach, 1961). Here’s a problem example dealing with fractions (and before you complain about the quality of the scan, you try scanning a book bound in 1961–they don’t make ‘em like that anymore):

and here are some of the problems we did:

Look at 13, which says:

Why is it that you cannot find the cost of one ball and one bat in this case although you could find the cost of one uniform and one hat in Exercise 12?

This is excellent. You’re not asked to solve the problem here. Instead, you’re asked to explain why you cannot solve this problem, but could solve a similar problem. In other words, you’re being asked to think analytically about the problem–about the mathematics behind the problem. If “higher-level thinking” meant anything that had any pedagogical usefulness, this is what it would mean.

Also note that the problems are literate–that is, they’re written in educated Standard English:

Were he to reverse the amounts, the yield would be only $330 per year.

That speaks less to the math and more to the place of literacy in education and the way educators treated students (then) seriously, rather than condescending to them with “hip” nonsense and pathetically trying to be “relevant.”

Now, contrast with these current examples of 8th grade math:

In a couple of paragraphs, explain how you would estimate the square root of 170.

x² + 2y = 10

What do you notice about the expression?

In the first, the student is asked to do no math. Instead, he’s asked to talk about it. Note that he’s not asked to think about it–just write a narrative about how he would approach the problem. Also note that the embedded problem he doesn’t have to solve is to estimate, and not find, the square root of 170. The second problem isn’t a problem, just as the first isn’t a problem, and it’s ambiguous. What is the answer supposed to be? That the expression contains an x and a y? That it’s a quadratic equation?

And you wonder why we geezers can make change and these kids can’t?

What liberals have wrought: Fenris Badwulf is contaminated with white privilege.

V the K says in a comment on Gay Patriot:

I don’t want politicians to “court” me. I want to be left alone by government to live my life. Government should protect the borders and provide the national defense, and maybe a few other things. But everything a man can do for himself, a man should do for himself.

The political left has made a bargain that goes like this: “We’ll give you total freedom to do whatever you want to whoever you want in the bedroom, in exchange, you let us micromanage every aspect of life outside the bedroom. We’ll tell you what to eat, what to drive, hell, we’ll even dictate what kind of lightbulbs you can use. We’ll limit your economic freedom by raising your taxes as high as they’ll go. We’ll put in place affirmative action laws to decide who gets to go to school and who gets access to the best jobs. We’ll regulate what you can do with your own property to the point where ownership is meaningless, and with eminent domain, we’ll confiscate your property and give it to somebody else if they’ll pay more taxes. We’ll tell you what to think and if you don’t agree with us, we’ll call it hate speech and take away your right to say it. We’ll confiscate your means of self-defense and make you dependent on the state for that, too. When we run health care, we’ll tell you which doctor you can see and which one you can’t, we’ll even decide who lives and who dies. The only freedom we won’t infringe on is the freedom of terrorists to plot to kill you.”

That’s why I’m a Conservative. And not a moderate and not a Republican, because there’s plenty of them that feel more or less the same way as liberal lefties on the issues mentioned, including, regrettably, most of the front-runners for the GOP nomination.

What more need be said?

Captain Ed has linked to the latest Editor and Publisher stats for newspaper circulation, and given the numbers, the title of the story is, er, interesting: ABC Reveals Big Drops in Circ in Spring 2007.

Let’s look at the data ABC released:

And the chart:

Note that not all circulations declined. Also note which newspapers lost circulation: The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe. Granted, that’s most of the papers listed.

Note which papers increased their circulation: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and New York Daily News. Are you seeing a pattern? Not yet? Then let me help.

All of the newspapers that lost circulation are well-known for their reliably liberal editorial policies. The New York Times (and its child, The Boston Globe). The Los Angeles Times. The Washington Post. The Chicago Tribune. The San Francisco Chronicle. Let’s contrast these with the papers that increased their circulation.

USA Today is a balanced, centrist paper, and publishes both liberal and conservative editorials and columns. The Wall Street Journal has a reliably conservative editorial page. The New York Daily News, like USA Today, has a balanced editorial page. But the biggest increase in circulation is the New York Post, which has possibly the most in-your-face conservative editorial page of any paper in the nation. The New York Post publishes editorials like this (emphases mine):

May 2, 2007 — President Bush last night resolutely vetoed an Iraq-war-funding bill that would have tied the hands of his military commanders and forced a U.S. capitulation to bloody-handed terrorists in a matter of months.

“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said. “[That] makes no sense.”

Indeed it doesn’t.

Bush noted that congressional Democrats had made their point - they’re against the war - and that now it is time to move forward and fund U.S. troops.

He’s right. But it hardly undoes the damage Democrats already have done.

Senate Majority Leader Harry “White Flag” Reid and House Speaker Nancy “Miss Syria” Pelosi knew very well that they didn’t have enough votes to override Bush’s long-promised veto of their bill.

But they passed it and sent it to Bush - solely to score political points.

It was meant as a symbolic gesture - as indeed it was.

A symbol . . . of weakness.

Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will surely interpret a bill calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq before it has been stabilized as a sign that this nation has gone all wobbly.

In Iraq and the Middle East, in particular, the mullahs and Islamists can fairly conclude it’s only a matter of time before Democrats force defeat upon America.

And that the next stage of their war against the West can soon begin.

It also sends a message, as Bush noted, to America’s allies: When the going gets tough, America - with the Democrats leading the way - starts running. So why fight by America’s side?

And one more thing: Congress’ passage of the bill - Bush’s veto notwithstanding - does enormous harm to the troops in theater themselves.

Not only because it delays urgently needed funding for equipment and munitions to support them.

But also because it gives such encouragement to the very people trying to kill them.

Now Congress will go back and finally get serious about funding the troops.

But much damage has been done.

The Democrats - Reid and Pelosi, in particular - have dealt the troops, and the nation, an enormous setback.

They’ve made victory in Iraq harder to achieve. All for political motives.

Democrats ought to be ashamed.

And Americans should take appropriate note.

The New York Post increased their circulation by 7.6%, significantly more than any other paper. And note where that circulation is: New York City. Not Utah, not Indiana, not Alabama. New York City.

Coinkidink?

The Carnival of Education is up!

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.