 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought October 15, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
In his book, “State of Fear,” author Michael Crichton appended an opinion entitled “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous,” and cautioned against, “a social program masquerading as a scientific one,” citing the widespread eugenics movement in the early part of the last century. “A second example of politicized science is quite different in character,” warned Crichton. “It exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts.” Just as eugenics drew praise and support from politicians, academicians, and media in its time, so too has the manufactured crisis of global warming today (emphasis added). This politicizing of science can be found in the way the United States government spends billions to fund various research programs. One example is the $40 billion spent by the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 1990. For that kind of money one would think something conclusive has been ascertained about “global warming”, but if its recent report is any indication, the answer is no. Another egregious example can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency that, over the past decade, has made grants to more than 2,200 nonprofit groups. An Associated Press article by Rita Beamish in December 2005 noted that those grants often went to groups “that lobby and sometimes sue the agency.” Multiply this by all manner of government agencies concerned with energy, education, health care and other issues, and by countless advocacy organizations and individuals receiving billions in taxpayer funding. What emerges is research that often reflects the outcome of whatever cause or theory government bureaucrats are advancing. Some of this research is published in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals, and while some good science is achieved, there is no way of knowing how much government-funded research exists to advance various social and political agendas. Amid these problems, we now have a new piece of legislation called the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (S. 2695), which was introduced last May. The bill would mandate that, “federal agencies develop public access policies relating to research conducted by employees of that agency or from funds administered by that agency.” The Act would further require original research papers that, “have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and result from research supported, in whole or in part, from funding by the federal government” be available to anyone with access to the Internet. We paid for it, so why shouldn’t We the People have access to it? The problem is that We the People don’t get to decide what gets researched and what doesn’t. Furthermore, We the People rarely have the scientific training and knowledge to grasp the implications of such research. That’s why serious journals, at considerable expense, publish peer-reviewed studies for their peers rather than Joe Sixpack. Moreover, hardly a day goes by when a headline screams from the pages of some newspaper that some study has concluded that the Earth is doomed or everything you breathe, eat or drink will kill you. The public has been bombarded for years with bad reporting about bad scientific research, a trend “open access” would only compound. This innocent sounding bill might better be called “The Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006.” All the government-funded studies, whether having merit or redolent with hidden agendas, would be available to become a platform by which various social agendas would be advanced. Nothing truly impedes anyone from access to published research studies; it’s available for those who want to read it. “Open access”, however, is an invitation for more clueless journalism and covert advocacy. This bill literally forces publishers of medical, scientific and scholarly journals, which invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in their publications, to give away their work. There is something inherently wrong in that. The Open Access bill is, in this respect, an unconstitutional “taking” of intellectual property by the federal government. So, what starts out appearing to be a reasonable mandate based on federal funding turns out to be bad news for everyone; from those doing the research to those publishing the research. Ultimately the unskilled consumers of “open access” could also be at risk inasmuch as they are unaware of whether the material they’re reading has any real merit. Another way to further debase the process that supports questionable science is to create “alternative journals.” It should come as little surprise that liberal financier George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, is a big fan of “open access” and alternative journals. In 2002, Soros gave $3 million dollars to the Budapest Open Access Initiative, one of whose objectives is to “assist in the establishment of alternative journals that are committed to offering free and unrestricted online access to published articles.” Open access to bogus research could result in the easy dissemination of the social control agenda behind global warming and other “theories.” A government that commits boneheaded mistakes every day should not be in the business of requiring what research should be openly available while it competes against private research that may well be of far superior merit. An email, letter or call to your Senator might be a good idea before S. 2695 becomes law. For very good reasons, medical, scientific, and scholarly journals are intended to be read by those in the communities they serve, not the general public. This system has worked for a very long time to winnow out ultimately bad or junk science and should be left alone to continue that process. |
||||||
Since the Democrats have discovered the voters to be a lot smarter than they thought they were they are opting for a newer and more refreshing upbeat way to win an election. They are going to run what they consider to be hunks for the soccer moms. Actually what I’m saying is they are going to try to insult us again and hope they get away with it along with the election. I’m certain they are going to stay away from National Security, since it’s obvious it doesn’t matter to them anyway. I guess that’s not quite fair. It does matter to them immensely if they think they can use it to win an election. Other than that, like the facts, it’s an obstacle to power. Besides, their message is ringing out far and wide from the likes of Castro and Chavez and everyone’s favorite - Gorbachev. It’s no longer necessary for them to fret or worry their pretty little heads anymore. The enemy has heard them loud and clear and has picked up their banner and talking points. I particularly enjoy reading Chavez, who just had a protest thrown in his honor in Venezuela that was actually as big is the ones the liberals have tried so desperately to assemble here in protest of the war. It really looked as though it was as large as the ones the liberals claim they have. They didn’t have to do a close up and say how many people were there. An aerial photo caught most of the group, but it was obvious that, like their economy, a lot of people still got left out. Some people are just more equal than others in a society like the Democrats dream of, aren’t they? Apparently the locals aren’t impressed with the socialist utopian idea of happiness, but that’s probably because they are actually living in it instead of just fantasizing about it. Speaking of another bastion of freedom; it looks like the Russians still don’t take too kindly to anyone insulting the government. They recently ‘retired’ another reporter. I remember the good old days when people over there caught colds a lot and quietly went away. It’s pretty obvious that Putin really means it when he decides to clamp down on the press over there. But I find it rather amusing to hear Gorbachev saying the exact same thing as the liberals are saying about how Bush missed out on the chance to make the world a better place. We probably wouldn’t be seeing anywhere near as much turmoil in the world if the Russians weren’t always in there, fomenting a revolution somewhere. Maybe if they weren’t trading oil and gas rights to the Iranians for weapons systems the Iranians wouldn’t be so bold as to go ahead and make nukes. Just like the North Koreans did after that totally awesome deal Clinton and Carter brokered. Actually I was joking when I said that Gorbachev had picked up the Democrat talking points. I really think that the Russians gave those talking points to them. It’s just that now that the various leaders in duplicity are parroting them the Democrats have decided they might want to move on to something else in order to win an election. Even the DNC seems to be able to learn something on occasion. In this election the real question is whether the soccer moms really care about their children instead of the hunk they should be listening to rather than leering at. Right now much hangs in the balance in this world. If we get the appeasement crowd in there these soccer moms will have to send their kids off to clean up another mess the liberals were only willing to talk about dealing with. They will get the much-feared draft again. I guess the reason the Republicans aren’t as concerned about the election as the liberals think they should be is that the Republicans in all actuality have more faith in the intelligence of the voter than the liberals do. The Democrats think that pretty is more important than substance. They think saying something is the same thing as doing it. As usual they are wrong. The real question in this election is ‘Are they right about the voters or are the Republicans right?’ We’ll see pretty soon won’t we? I wonder if we’re going to read quotes like “I don’t care if they’re dead. At least they were smart enough to vote Democrat, unlike the people that were alive” after the election. Or maybe “I know they voted more than once. That doesn’t bother me unless they voted Republican. That’s when I’m willing to prosecute. Only then has a criminal act been committed.” Or my personal favorite - “You know those guys actually mean what they say? It’s shocking.” Reference Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Dear Utterly Useless Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission: I’m sorry. I thought we paid you the big bucks to clean up the airwaves — not to sit around, sucking your thumbs all day. In case you haven’t noticed, reality TV is a threat so real I can taste it. Where art thou, FCC? Are you not watching? I first noticed how bad things were getting a couple of months ago, when NBC introduced the sickest, most culturally destructive show I could have imagined. That show was called Deal or No Deal, and it starred Howie Mandel. I didn’t think it could get any worse than that program. But then NBC raised the bar and lowered the common denominator. As it turns out, their latest so-called reality show is twice as sinister. It’s called To Catch a Predator, and it stars Stone Phillips and Ann Curry (formerly of Dateline). Here’s how it works: Each week, the show visits a different city, sending its staff members online to pose as young boys and girls. Tiptoeing through chatrooms, using poor grammar and strange words like “kewl,” these staff members lure their contestants — usually grown men — to visit the set with sexual promises. When they arrive, six packs of Corona and condoms in tow, the men are given the Ashton Kutcher treatment. Cameramen jump out from deep in the shadows. The men are then scolded, and then, as a parting gift, policemen await to wrestle them to the ground. This is sick. To me, it was obvious America was headed in the wrong direction when ABC first debuted Who Wants to be a Millionaire? But at least back then we were watching randomly chosen contestants compete for unattainable sums of money. Now? I guess fabulous cash prizes just aren’t enough for us capitalist pigs anymore. Today’s reality TV contestants compete for sex with kids that they don’t even know. What kind of message does this send to our children? To make matters worse, To Catch a Predator is like that movie, Quiz Show, all over again. Only this time it’s real. The contest is rigged; contestants can never obtain the underage sex they are after. And they can’t even save face by winning the lightning round: Once they flee the set, cops jump them with guns drawn. Are we supposed to be rooting for these men to get away? The way I see it, FCC, this country has a lot of problems. I shouldn’t have to ignore those problems, and yet I do, because I am focusing on this show. We should be busy fighting terror, fixing the economy, and applying HeadOn directly to our foreheads. Instead, we are watching Stone Phillips wheeze his way through a talk of “Perverted Justice”—all while those greedy NBC fat cats get fatter on my lucky dime. There’s a time and a place for child pornography, and that time and place is a Baby, One More Time-era Britney Spears concert. Make primetime network TV safe for grisly crime dramas, FCC. America needs you. Enough of this reality filth. Sincerely, P.S.: I had more stuff to say to you, but I forgot most of it, because I was really mad. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
In Washington we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts, but the rhetoric does not always match the reality. For most Americans, taxes remain too complex and too high. After the tumult of the upcoming midterm election, it is imperative that Congress gets back to basics and addresses our terrible tax system. Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes – rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us — and more each year — the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage. I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system. The question to ask yourself is this: What would I do with the money withheld from my paycheck each month? The answer is simple: you would spend, save, or invest the money, all of which do more for the economy and society than sending it to Washington. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month! Tax relief is important, but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts- and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending. Cutting spending would not be hard if Congress simply showed the political will to tackle the problem. I’m not talking about cutting the rate at which government spending grows, but cutting the actual amount of money spent by the federal government in a single year. If federal spending grows at 5% rather than 7% one year, that’s hardly a great achievement on the part of Congress. The current federal budget of around $2.7 trillion could be cut to $2.5 trillion quite easily. The vast majority of Americans would not even notice. But we must begin chipping away at the federal budget if we hope to address the underlying problem of government debt. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
Throughout my career in teaching, there has been no shortage of colleagues who have made the remark that faced with a blank sheet of paper; kids don’t know what to do with it. Sadly, many have not developed their imaginations enough to conceive of their own ideas. Others believe they cannot draw and therefore won’t accept the challenge to create something on the paper. With middle school students, I discovered that when asked to draw something that relates to a story we read in class, students still have problems getting started. It is as though they haven’t formed any pictures in their heads about what we read. Some simply try to copy the artist’s depiction offered on the cover of the book. To achieve any modicum of success with an open ended assignment, whether it is writing, drawing, or through some other medium, requires some type of direction in order to nudge a student to begin. Sometimes, this nudge can take the form of an outline which the class begins together, a brainstorming session to generate topics of interest, constructing the beginning as a group, and so on. Research has indicated that students living in environments where the child is either over-stimulated for extreme amounts of time or under-stimulated because there is a lack of social interaction; often require more structure than others. It is believed that safety and consistency provided through an ordered, structured environment allows children from disadvantaged homes to open up to new experiences. Furthermore, imagination and creativity can bloom in a structured, ordered environment. Many preschool teachers have been educated to follow a strict constructivist philosophy which dictates that in a developmentally appropriate classroom, teachers are not supposed to direct children’s activities and they are only supposed to facilitate their learning by creating an interesting, ordered environment in which children choose to interact. As a matter of fact, just by creating an environment, these teachers are actually directing their children’s learning. By limiting choices, teachers are directing their children’s learning. And by bringing children to circle and teaching them to sit for a specified period of time and not to speak out of turn, these very same teachers are directing learning. Yet, direct instruction, validated by research as early as 1978 and found the most effective of all different methodologies, has been deemed unacceptable by the education establishment. Structuring environments and facilitating learning is more acceptable and politically correct. In strict Montessori preschool, the teacher is specially trained to keep order and structure within the classroom. Moreover, Montessori schools use specially designed materials which engage students in tasks in order to isolate a single concept or achieve one goal. (Implementing the Montessori Method is very expensive, one reason why Montessori hasn’t caught on.) In choosing an activity, students are intrinsically motivated to reach task-oriented goals. Only a specified number of students can engage in an activity at one time, and space in which to interact with materials or others is clearly delineated. Indeed, teachers are called Directresses. In a regular preschool, children might invent alternate ways to use materials. In my classroom, I often must direct students not to use the long pieces in the triangle puzzle as swords. I have to remind them that they must use the toys appropriately and that weapons can be used to hurt people and we cannot have that in our classroom. In reality, teachers are often directing students in the appropriate use of materials. Hmmm, whether to be called a facilitator or Directress…what an interesting twist in the use of our language. For all the structuring and facilitating going on, there is very little if any direct instruction happening with regard to literacy. According to Lilian Katz,
Elucidating further, she explains,
Finally, she cuts to the chase. Some skills may not be learned spontaneously or through discovery. Developmentally appropriate classrooms may support both instructivist and constructivist goals through the use of projects. We have reached a consensus, then. A qualified teacher can and should provide materials and direction to students who are ready and eager to dramatize a story the way it’s done on a flannel board by showing them how to create a bridge by pasting Popsicle sticks onto a sheet of blue paper and gluing prefab drawings of goats and a troll onto additional sticks for puppets. This idea might never occur to them otherwise. Once it has been introduced, they might want to do the same for another story. Sequencing, determining that print has meaning, these are critical to the development of literacy. Sometimes a teacher may have to directly instruct a student in how to write their name or show them how they can copy it from a sample card. Other times, a teacher can use a student’s knowledge of shapes and colors to direct them in constructing a picture. Finally, a student and teacher can construct a story together. A teacher might draw a circle, the child might draw one underneath, the teacher draws one on top, the child draws a rectangle on top of that, the teacher draws two circles inside the top circle, and you get my drift. They’ve created a snowman. The teacher can ask what we shall call him. What is this snowman doing? The teacher can write what the child dictates. All of this helps develop imagination while fostering literacy. Sometimes common sense (validated by scientific evidence) trumps all these theories or ideologies. If students don’t know how to draw a pumpkin and want to learn, show them how. Then encourage them to take it a step further. Show them how to draw a cat. Ask what they could do to make it night time. Suggest they explain what is happening in the picture. Try to appeal to all five senses. There’s nothing wrong with scenting play dough to smell like pumpkin pie. What real difference is there between providing prefab cook cutters to use with play dough and prefab pictures with which to construct puppets? Kids can write stories about three dimensional creations, too. If a teacher doesn’t introduce the idea, sometimes it might never come up. And to borrow a phrase, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” Reference Links: Curriculum
Disputes in Early Childhood Education Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
||||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:51 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
