Below is my column in the Hill on the litigation over the new admissions policy at the elite Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax, Virginia. The school board ended the use of an admissions test in favor of a “holistic approach” to achieve greater diversity at the school. Notably, this week, the board defended its policy before the Supreme Court by insisting that it was not “race balancing” and that the new policy is entirely “race neutral.” However, the board replaced a race-blind, merit-based system for the express purpose of achieving greater diversity. Indeed, one board member declared “in looking at what has happened to George Floyd . . . we must recognize the unacceptable numbers of such things as the unacceptable numbers of African Americans that have been accepted to TJ.”
The Virginia Attorney General (and various other states) have filed to challenge those assertions in a potentially important case that would allow the Court to consider allegedly discriminatory admissions practices and polices not just on the college but the high school levels.
Here is the column:
A small, exclusive public high school in Northern Virginia is emerging this month as a major battleground over free speech and academic integrity. It began with a decision to drop admissions standards to achieve greater diversity, and now there is a fair possibility that this small high school will be the subject of a Supreme Court challenge with far-reaching legal, educational and social implications.
Known as “TJ,” the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Va., is routinely ranked as one of the nation’s best public high schools, a feeder school for top universities around the world. It is the source of pride for many of us in the county, a school that was reserved for brilliant students who are able to take extremely advanced courses and perform university-level research.
A couple of years ago, activists objected that TJ was overwhelmingly Asian and white. While admission was based objectively on scholastic performance (including an entrance exam), a group formed to promote dropping such threshold standards to attain greater diversity. They succeeded, and the Fairfax School Board killed the entrance exam, adopting a “holistic review” approach that includes a “student portrait sheet” and consideration of a student’s background as “experience factors.”
Some of the TJ parents opposing the change challenged it in court, and federal judge Claude Hilton ruled in favor of those parents that the new admissions policy was racial discrimination targeting Asian American students. That ruling was stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which allowed the school board to continue its new admissions policy. However, the case has attracted the attention of the Supreme Court, which is considering two major college admissions cases, which also allege racial discrimination against Asian students. Chief Justice John Roberts has asked the school district to respond to the discrimination claims and explain why the Court should not add the case to its docket.
The TJ case is important not just to constitutional but educational standards in America. For years, meritocracy itself has been under attack as racist. Even science and mathematics have been declared to be “inherently racist” or “colonized.”
At the same time, school districts are closing gifted and talented programs over their alleged lack of diversity — leaving top-performing students with fewer options in the public school systems. These moves achieve a bizarre equity by eliminating merit-based distinctions and opportunities.
And there is a growing movement to end the use of standardized testing to achieve greater diversity. Last month Cal State dropped standardized testing “to level the playing field” for minority students.
Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano also caved to this movement. California voters have repeatedly refused to allow the state to engage in affirmative action in admissions. Napolitano then moved to just do away with standardized testing for admissions, which would make admission challenges more difficult while enhancing diversity numbers. She assembled a handpicked Standardized Testing Task Force in 2019 to study the issue, but that task force found the opposite: Standardized testing is the most accurate single indicator of college performance, including for minority students. In other words, it helped students find institutions where they were most likely to thrive. Napolitano thanked the task force and then overrode those conclusions by ending the use of the standardized college tests.
Even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) seemed to yield to this movement during the pandemic by dropping the use of standardized testing requirements. However, this week, MIT reversed that decision and reinstated the use of the tests as key to preserving its elite status as an educational institution.
MIT has decided to hold firm on the academic standards that made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world; TJ achieved that distinction among high schools by maintaining the same elite entry standards. Now, however, it appears TJ will be “leveled down” to achieve “equity.”
As more advanced programs are eliminated, gifted students will find their own advancement stymied or slowed. Left unchallenged, some will lose interest while others are less likely to achieve the same levels of distinction.
Liberal activists aren’t the only ones celebrating this trend in American education. Foreign competitors like China can only rejoice at seeing the United States decapitate its top academic programs. Our enemies must hope that meritocracy will be replaced by mediocrity in science and other fields as the world economy becomes more and more competitive.
The real loss will be felt by students of all races.
It is possible to achieve diversity in these programs, but it is not as easy — or as fast — as just leveling down entry standards. We can focus on underperforming public schools to better prepare minority students. However, with continuing dismal performances of public educators in major cities, that’s not a welcome approach to many in the education or politics professions. It’s easier to reduce entry standards than it is to elevate performance rates. Indeed, Oregon recently achieved equity in graduation rates by simply suspending the need to be proficient in reading, math, and writing. Done: Instant equity.
The Court’s consideration of admissions challenges at Harvard and the University of North Carolina may bring greater clarity for higher education. However, the same challenged admissions practices are now being implemented in high schools, which serve as the feeders for college admissions. The Court needs to establish its own “holistic approach” and establish a clear and coherent standard for admissions throughout our educational system.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“ We can focus on underperforming public schools to better prepare minority students. However, with continuing dismal performances of public educators in major cities, that’s not a welcome approach to many in the education or politics professions.”
If only it was that simple. Improving underperforming schools requires money. Especially in poor districts. Everyone says the problem is poor education at these schools but at the same time when it comes to action people suddenly balk at spending money to start these improvements. Teachers are subjected to disrespectful attitudes from those same parents AND students. Then there’s the new problem of parents second-guessing educators and getting bent out of shape because there are rainbow flags in the classroom.
People who complain about the poor state of public education don’t want to spend the money to change it. So it continues to be the same. Further angering those same folks doing the complaining.
Money is not the problem. The teacher’s union and Democrats are the problems. This was proved by Sowell in NYC, where the charter schools send kids to college and graduate the kids with proficiency and high proficiency rather than having most fail.
It would be best to open your eyes because most of what you say is wrong. Have you ever read a book of importance?
“Improving underperforming schools requires money.”
No it doesn’t. It requires a rational curriculum, high standards, and an objective teaching method.
There are plenty of schools in poor neighborhoods with a track record of success. See, for example, the remarkable success of Marva Collins.
If I pay an incompetent employee more money, all I get is an incompetent who drinks more expensive beer.
Undergirding the equity movement is the pernicious expectation of equal outcomes for all groups with the only explanation for unequal outcomes allowed is bias. This expectation runs counter to what we know about average group characteristics and therefore attractions to professions driven by biology (e.g. the futile attempts to equalize the participation by the sexes in STEM professions). Likewise, certain cultural or ethnic groups will have remarkable affinities for professions such as medicine, language, sports, or music. The expectation and blind drive to achieve the equal outcomes expectation by fiat is masking some serious underlying social issues that really need to be addressed. Furthermore, force fitting people into academic or professions to which they are innately ill suited does little for the individual or for society in general.
Finally, the guiding principle of this nation (so far), although not always expressed so or implemented correctly, of equal opportunity is clearly most beneficial for society as it allows individuals the opportunity to study and work in fields that best suit them. This in turn should motivate them to become progressively better which benefits all of society. Doctors who aren’t crazy about being doctors are likely to make a lot of people miserable including themselves. The same is true for any other profession. Equal opportunity is America’s “secret sauce”. We cannot lose the recipe.
For the benefit of all, let us make sure that those who are highly motivated are given the opportunity to excel in their chosen field of study and profession.
i don’t believe that all people are created equal, and race-preferential policies in education are based on this assumption, and/or the assumption that there is somehow an equal right for proportionate representation of all races, genders, etc. in quality educational programs. I don’t agree. Everyone can’t be an NBA star or a Ph.D in physics. I also think that the sad fallout of a general policy of giving minorities preferential treatment in admissions to prestigious schools is that it creates in the minds of many a suspicion that the person who received the preferential treatment wasn’t as talented as his/her peers who didn’t receive preferential treatment. Therefore, those minorities who qualify based on their talent and achievements are disadvantaged. There was actually an episode of ER that dealt with this subject: a black patient refused to allow the black resident to treat her because she said that he probably got into medical school because of his race, not his talent, so she was willing to wait an extra 2 hours to see a white physician.
So what is the purpose of education? There’s so much concern about judicial philosophy when confirming a SCOTUS nominee, but isn’t it as important, if not more, to be concerned about the educational philosophy they matriculated from? Abraham Lincoln said it best:
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
Harvey agrees that there’s no need to scrap what has served us well in the past: “The most significant skill [young people] can develop in the 21st century is the same skill that served them well in prior centuries: a mind equipped to think, the most important work skill of them all.”
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/what-is-the-purpose-of-education
I don’t believe Justice Brandeis intended the schoolroom to be where the “laboratory of democracy” conducted their experiments. At least at the K-12 level.
The farther anything or anyone moves from the truth (either absolute or practical), the more corrupt the thing or person becomes regardless of motive, intention or well-meaning. That’s the lesson the ancient Greeks taught us eons ago.
TJ’s governing board apparently needs a remedial lesson in truth, the overarching importance of merit and and the imortality of legacy all covered by Keats in his classic work “Ode on a Grecian Urn:
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Thomas Jefferson High School degraded from a prestigious school, known for academic rigor, to one of the most notorious schools in America. Instead of infamy for violence and gangs, it is infamous for far Left woke attacks, and racism against Asians.
The totalitarian Left has attacked parents who sincerely criticized its efforts.
Harry Jackson, a black man, has a child at Thomas Jefferson High School. He joined a lawsuit against the school in opposition of its removing entrance exam requirements. A left-wing activist, Jorge Torrico, attended a PTSA meeting, even though he does not have a child at the school. He spoke directly with students, and exchanged phone numbers with the child. This is exactly the kind of behavior that schools are supposed to prevent. In a Twitter exchange, Jackson said he was disturbed by Torrico’s “grooming behavior”, and stated he was not comfortable working with him while engaging with children. He remarked that he had a background check and suggested Torrico do the same.
Torrico brought 4 separate criminal charges against Jackson for that remark, all stemming from an old law that criminalized offensive remarks about a woman’s chastity. The law had been altered to replace “woman” with “person”. The far Left prosecutor actually agreed with Torrico. That prosecutor, Steve Descano, quarreled with Jackson’s attorney over his free speech rights. After months of wrangling, he was willing to nolle pros the case, which would mean he could refile at any time. Jackson’s attorney fought him on it and successfully got the court to dismiss with prejudice.
This totalitarianism is the ugly side of Leftism.
The place to start leveling the playing field is family formation. Fathers give children confidence to explore and take risks intellectually in a way mothers alone rarely do. If you look at the % of TJ students who were fatherless at birth, it’s going to be < 1%.
Start educating k12 children around age 10 about family structure, life-path decisions, security and prosperity with FACTS that will convince them how important is sound family formation to their future, and that of their children's future. Stop with the "all family forms are equal" BS…this is a "big lie" responsible for our nations ongoing pattern of intergenerational poverty. And, revamp all government assistance programs to steer young people into forming strong marriages before having any children.
That would do the most for promoting equal opportunity.
“. . . meritocracy will be replaced by mediocrity in science and other fields . . .”
And that will be our undoing, not only on the global stage, but a national one.
What are the solutions?
Expand charter schools in urban/inner cities. Saw this first hand in New Orleans. Charter schools were those poor minority children’s best chance to get out of poverty.
Home school.
Like to see alums that reject the leftist indoctrination of their former college/university, come together to form private higher learning that focuses on meritocracy and critical thinking.
Just read a WSJ article about new emerging trends of how blue-collar workers are getting better paying tech jobs without being saddled with college debt. And companies are foregoing college education requirement for OJT.
Just read a WSJ article about new emerging trends of how blue-collar workers are getting better paying tech jobs without being saddled with college debt
Just saw another television ad, from wal mart. Truck drivers guaranteed $100,000 per year. I assume you need a spotless driving record and qualifying miles. I had an acquaintance sell his own truck and sign on with wal mart, 25 years ago. He never regretted going to work for them. Iowa convenience store chain Casey’s is paying in that range for fuel drivers. When I pull into a Casey’s and some of the pumps are bagged, its because they don’t have drivers, not poor planning.
Any parent of any gifted child who does not shop around for a private school that fosters and challenges their talents and helps them to fully achieve their potential and instead sends them to a public school is cheating them of their future and essentially engaging in a form of child abuse.
Public schools can be outstanding if parents demand it and teachers and admin expect it. I attended one such school.
I left my local for High School. They had a statewide excellent reputation for math and science. Sadly, they also had a track record of at the same time turning out illiterates. I begged my parents to send me to the local Catholic H.S. I think I chose well. Not 3 weeks into college, a good friend from public school who had graduated Salutatorian and was on a full academic scholarship to Carnegie Mellon called me for help because he couldn’t write a complete paragraph.
Huh. That’s terrible, currentsitguy. Not my experience at all. I had a professor commend me on my ability to write a coherent essay and praised my teachers. We had an excellent lit program, too. My high school survey of chem class was nearly equivalent to Chem 101 in college. There were a few things that could’ve been stronger, but overall I am very appreciative of the public school education I received. Even my elementary schooling was excellent and prepared me well for middle school and beyond. I got lucky, it seems…
Apparently the Thomas Jefferson Board Member quoted by Professot Turley either didn’t attend the school himself, or has forgotten much of what s/he learned. “. . . the unacceptable numbers of such things as the unacceptable numbers” is a locution which should be reserved to communications from the Department of Redundancy Department.
As for the much-embraced solution to our education system’s utter failure to educate our most at-risk youth, it seems to me eliminating standardized testing is akin to a roach-infested kitchen’s owner deciding the solution is to keep the lights off, so the roaches won’t be visible.
Or a coal mine’s owner deciding it’s those pesky canaries that cause gas leaks, and don’t use them.
There is a book out there. “The Bell Curve.”
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-American/dp/0029146739/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
The thing to remember. When you measure performance, the results always create a bell curve.
Its the law of big numbers. The bigger the data set, the more accurate the numbers.
It is easy to figure out what party supports our enemies.
“Liberal activists aren’t the only ones celebrating this trend in American education. Foreign competitors like China can only rejoice at seeing the United States decapitate its top academic programs. Our enemies must hope that meritocracy will be replaced by mediocrity in science and other fields as the world economy becomes more and more competitive.”
Turley has revealed the great danger to America, Democrat policies on education.
SM:
“Turley has revealed the great danger to America, Democrat policies on education.”
*******************************
Or “Democrats” for short.
This offers a perfect reason to offer a system of public education where the tax dollars assigned to each student follows the student to the school of his/her/its choice. Strip the unions of their monopoly on education and provide opportunities for charter schools or home schooling that makes those self-serving unions compete for those dollars.
I disagree.
Stop administrators from working with corporatists who want to shape education to serve their own interests. Check the background on those oh so philanthropic foundations that lend their “expertise” and give grants. They might just be a mouthpiece for the World Economic Forum…
Tax dollars are not students’ money. It is taxpayer money. Taxpayers shouldn’t be treated like a feeding trough. Taxpayers should get to elect representatives who will decide how much and in what way pooled tax dollars are spent. As soon as that money follows a student, taxpayers have no say over how their money gets used–even if a bunch of it is lost in wasteful spending because the “oversight” is weak.
“Tax dollars are not students’ money.”
You’re right. It’s their parents’ money. Why shouldn’t parents have the right to spend their money on the school of their choice? Last I checked, children belong to parents, not to the state.
Sam,
Their share (if they pay property taxes) of the per student cost of education is a fraction of the pooled dollars.
Communities team up to educate the kids of the community. Every adult in the community can vote to elect representatives from the community to discuss how education is funded and is conducted in the community. Community members can discuss the budget proposals (etc) with their representatives.
No one elected parents to decide where and how to spend their neighbors’ money.
What a strange perspective
Medicare is paid by taxpayers. Patients take their coverage to the physician, hospital and nurse they choose. Ditto for food stamps: the consumer takes the “coupons” to the grocery store of their choice. Likewise with subsidized housing vouchers, the resident chooses the dwelling from a list of participating lessors.
Your example does not apply. Parents should have the right, like a Medicare patient, etc, to shop for the best service at participating vendors.
Public schools run the gamut of very polished to very dangerous and poor performers.
Taxpayers can discuss how their money is being spent with their representatives regarding Medicare and food stamps. Maybe more taxpayers should be talking with their representatives about all the corporatism in medicine.
All of those things you mention are federal programs that then work with doctors to complete payements, or, the food stamps and housing vouchers are set amounts, again, managed by the federal government. The federal government is supposed to share its budget and expenditures with our representatives who are then supposed to consider whether or not the outlay is appropriate and vote on a new budget. These entities are not NGOs or corporations getting taxpayer dollars straight-up with little oversight.
If public schools are lousy, the people paying for them need to step up to the plate and get them back into shape.
Thats like suggesting Medicare patients should stick with a failing hospital and fix it instead of choosing a better hospital for better health outcomes
The management of tax dollars is completely different. That money isn’t “their” money. They don’t decide anything with tax dollars, as has been argued for charter school families. A certain amount has been budgeted by Congress for Medicare. With education, let’s not put more power into either the federal government or corporations. Both have too much power already.
“That money isn’t “their” money.”
The hell it isn’t. That money was forcibly taken from them (directly or indirectly).
Sam,
We are misunderstanding each other. The money reimbursed to doctors caring for Medicare patients does not equal the amount of money Medicare patients were taxed. The money is pooled from all taxes and budgeted, so the total amount used is an aggregate of a bunch of people’s money. They money reimbursed doesn’t belong to the patient.
You are correct – but Sam is also correct that promises were made in return for allowing the forced taking of medicare taxes.
That said the courts have been crystal clear – those promises are worthless.
Anyone who beleives the promises government makes to get your vote should remember – no court has ever found a political promise binding.
“If public schools are lousy, the people paying for them need to step up to the plate and get them back into shape.”
Or find a competent educators and trade with them, just like parents do with countless other products and services.
“(if they pay property taxes)”
Or if they rent. Property taxes are included in the cost of the rent.
“Community members can . . .”
What if I, as a parent. disagree with the community about how and where to educate *my* child? The “community” does not own my child.
Your approach to education is collectivistic. Mine is individualistic.
There can be a balance. There is an optimal middle ground for most people. Education can balance grouped education and individualization for most people–I got a pretty well balanced public education. I had a nice balance of grouped learning but had many opportunities for individual papers and projects. And this was back in the 80s and 90s. Individuals are part of communities–even hermits need the nearby community now and then.
Not according to Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the woke Dems.
“holistic review” = extra points for those applicants who have the right skin color
And, yes, “holistic review” is a cover for racism.
I met recently with administrators of my school district to talk about steps to improve the performance of students who don’t meet expectations on state-wide standardised tests. Most of these students are socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or black or Hispanic. I suggested introducing methods highlighted in the writings of Thomas Sowell on charter schools and Roland Fryer in his Houston public schools experiment. These include increased time on task, improved quality of teachers, high expectations, no excuses and use of data to evaluate programs to find what works.
The administrators appeared sympathetic to these ideas but said they were constrained by the contract negotiated in prior years with the unions. Among other things, the contract:
1. Stipulates one of the shortest school days in the state;
2. Prohibits explicitly the use of “student growth percentile” (a measure of a student’s improvement year over year on the standardised tests) as a tool in assessing teacher performance;
3. Eliminates the top and bottom categories of the four teacher evaluation categories; and
4. Apparently creates a risk that offering additional time after school through tutoring programs open to struggling students would be impermissible “job encroachment.”
The district is highly “anti-racist” in its orientation, so whether these administrators were really interested in this kind of change we discussed is open to question. Nonetheless, this is further evidence of how teachers unions impede known solutions to disparities in public education.
The administrators appeared sympathetic to these ideas but said they were constrained by the contract negotiated in prior years with the unions.
We know the teachers represent teachers and consider children adversaries of the teachers. One of the teahers union heads is famously quoted as saying, ‘we will worry about the students when the students start paying duews’.
Any way….. You could talk to Mark Zuckerberg and Cory Booker. The two teamed up together to fix the schools. With Zuckerberg bucks, and Booker brains, the greatness almost spontaneously erupted, when the two come in close proximity.
$100,000,000 later (yes I double counted the zeros, its correct) Failure was declared.
“The plan was to turn Newark into what Zuckerberg called “a symbol of educational excellence for the whole nation,” spent on retaining the best teachers, and creating environments that would produce successful students and, one day, graduates.
Newark is a city wrought with crime. Its graduation rate is about 67%. It needed the help, and Booker’s vision sounded promising.”
Read the article any you will find a quick 20% went to expert consultants.
So first lets admitt, just because you have a lot of money, doesn’t mean you are smart. Mostly yes. Musk…yes, Zuckerberg,? the exception proving the rule.
When all was said and done. Graft and teachers unions (redundent?) scuttled the whole comedy of errors.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-gave-jersey-100-130400933.html
iowan2,
I heard a Fresh Air episode on that very topic.
Guess who they never bothered to talk to or include in their grandiose plan: The parents and students.
Yes Upstate.
Parents have no input in their child’s education. A man running for the Gov. of Virginia, let us know how Democrats think about education. Fortunately for the Parents, parents vote for people that have a different vision.
” Most of these students are socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or black or Hispanic. I suggested introducing methods highlighted in the writings of Thomas Sowell on charter schools and Roland Fryer in his Houston public schools experiment. “
Thank you and thank you for the insight into that school.
When the Bakke decision was made, I thought a better way to manage the problem was to provide hi level economically disadvantaged students the ability to go for a masters in a related science discipline and then have them apply to medical school.
S. Meyer,
“ I thought a better way to manage the problem was to provide hi level economically disadvantaged students the ability to go for a masters in a related science discipline and then have them apply to medical school.”
What? Do you want to have them apply to medical school?
How are these economically disadvantaged students are supposed to afford to get a master’s degree and then you propose to HAVE them apply to medical school?
Are you implying you others are to decide what they should be?
You know these students can decide for themselves what they want right?
My reference was to Bakke, which might have been difficult for Svelaz to understand. Bakke applied to Medical school, but he was refused while a black person was accepted (his record in life after medical school was not good). The acceptance was due to affirmative action.
I was suggesting another way of helping economically deprived students of getting into medical school rather than lowering the standards. They need to get up to speed which is understandable because people like Svelaz support the teacher’s unions that prevent these deprived kids from appropriate schooling. One way would be to target those with inferior education and take the ones with the most promise and let them take a year or more to get a master’s degree in a science discipline. We pay for many things, so I wouldn’t hesitate to pay their way.
The advantage is that we achieve the goal set by affirmative action while not destroying the student or society. Additionally, if these students compete on a level playing field, it opens the discipline for more of them.
S. Meyer,
Well geez S. Meyer nobody has mind-reading skills to figure out what you are referring to. Just mentioning Bakke without any context is just poor writing on your part.
When you stated without any context on Bakke, “ I thought a better way to manage the problem was to provide hi level economically disadvantaged students the ability to go for a masters in a related science discipline and then have them apply to medical school.”. You offered your solution that implied they should apply to medical school as if they didn’t have a choice.
Your bad writing leads many to bad conclusions.
“ We pay for many things, so I wouldn’t hesitate to pay their way.”
So you are willing to have your property taxes increased to pay for it?
“Well geez S. Meyer nobody has mind-reading skills to figure out what you are referring to.”
Bakke was an important SC decision discussed on this blog numerous times. I was wrong, Svelaz. I errantly gave you more credit than I should have.
I would apply what I said elsewhere and strive to get these kids into schools that match their abilities rather than place them where they become frustrated and never live up to their potential.
I have no problem paying for things that are needed and should be paid for. I supported Trump’s tax cut even though it increased my taxes tremendously.
Why is it that Democrats have so little concern for the education of our young?
The unionization of ANY government position has always been a bad, if not unconstitutional, idea.
That legendary conservative, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, agreed with you.
I’d be inclined to explore some of E.D. Hirsch’s and Susan Wise Bauer’s ideas of what constitutes an outstanding education.
“These include increased time on task, improved quality of teachers, high expectations, no excuses and use of data to evaluate programs to find what works.”
Depends on how this is implemented. The list, as is, sounds rather dry and incomplete. It needs life and wonder and some degree of interconnectedness of the knowledge being gained. Perhaps an improved quality of teachers can accomplish this, but, these elements are more than just people with higher degrees.
Prairie:
Would that be Susan Wise Bauer of Classical Education? We used her material for ELA for homeschooling last year, and found it excellent.
Karen,
Yes. I have other preferences for grammar, but I really like her recommendations for spelling and phonics (Spelling Workout and Plaid Phonics) and Zaner-Bloser cursive. We also really enjoyed her Story of the World series (as well as her history books for adults) and her recommendation of Math-U-See. We also used some of the Nature Study materials she recommended. I do also like Charlotte Mason’s ideas for Classical Education. I have seen some of these same materials used in a private school and I used Zaner-Bloser as a kid in public school.
We used Linda Corson’s cursive workbook, and really liked that. I was very disappointed in one of the modern books on cursive I got prior. It discouraged writing cursive in a slant, but looked more like printing that was simply connected. I wish I knew which cursive method I learned in public school. I’m not familiar with the name Zaner-Bloser, and will have to check that out.
It was really surprising that the local public schools don’t teach cursive, at all.
Karen,
“discouraged writing cursive in a slant”
Really?! That floors me. I think it would be trickier to learn without a slant. Zaner-Bloser still teaches cursive nearly the way I learned it (I think Q is different)–if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I agree that higher degrees are irrelevant. I disagree about wonder and interconnectedness. We are talking about kids who can’t read, write or do basic math. They need to get these down to make anything of themselves. They can be taught in a pleasant way, but they must be taught, not left to gape in wonder and thrill to deep connections.
Daniel,
I think we have different conceptions of wonder and interconnectedness. Wonder sparks curiosity. Discovering interconnections deepens understanding.
So now it’s do away with entrance exams. When course failures pile up it will be grade on a color curve. When graduation comes along you must graduate a percent of color. It will all ends the same.
There’s a problem, is it the teachers or the students. When were able to identify the problem honestly maybe then we’ll be able to correct it.
There’s a problem, is it the teachers or the students. When were able to identify the problem honestly maybe then we’ll be able to correct it.
You left out parents.
Large number of children show up at the school house door, hungry and tired. Government drones, being drones, think they can fix “the problem”. Then scratch their head when their fix, multiplies, rather that ameliorates, the problems
To recognize the source of the problem identify who benefits from eliminating entrance exams and standardized testing. It isn’t the students, it is the teachers, The failures of students are due to the teachers who aren’t properly teaching. If too many students are under performing it exposes the incompetence of the teachers. Hence the teachers benefit by eliminating a measure of their success (or failure) at the job of teaching. The same mindset is what brought about the tenure system.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter where, how, or why it occurs.
In Life there exists a fact that all of us are no equal in our abilities and if we are being measured based upon ability (IQ, ability to reason, to perform specific functions, etc) then it is the “demonstrated ability” that should be the measure….not Skin Color.
Certain endeavors are not opportunities for equity……they are for the gifted.
Pro Sports is a clear example….the Teams only seek the outstanding players….as do College Teams so why should a scholastic endeavor be any different?
Race should not be a criteria in the selection process….simply match the top scoring contenders to the number of openings and go down the list in the order of the scores.
Until recently, the goal was a color blind society….but for some reason that was given up in trade for preferential treatment.
That is symbolized by the choice of our Vice President and latest Supreme Court Justice…..each had to be a Black Female and all other candidates were excluded.
That is how bad the situation has become.
Pro Sports is a clear example….the Teams only seek the outstanding players….as do College Teams so why should a scholastic endeavor be any different?
I just Looked at the Final two teams in the NCAA Basketball Championship .
North Carolina has two white players, Kansas was closer to 50/50. uncertain about Asians and non-white Hispanics, or tansgenders
“Until recently, the goal was a color blind society….but for some reason that was given up in trade for preferential treatment.”
You must be thinking of a different universe. America has only been color blind for those whose color benefits.
Enigma:
Studies have shown the US to be less racist than any other mixed race country on planet Earth.
Problems that black people face in their lives typically do not involve white people. Single motherhood is a high risk factor for children to grow up in poverty, lack a father figure, do poorly in school, drop out, join a gang, do drugs, commit crimes, engage in violent behavior, go to jail, and/or get murdered. The connection is so indisputable that Obama memorably lamented the absence of fathers in black communities. Yet, rather than address the particular sub culture of black Americans that has in excess of 75% single motherhood, with the ensuring problems and poor outcomes, the black community has fallen prey to mostly white Democrats, who insist they are helpless victims of circumstances, white patriarchy, colonialism, and identity politics. While there is the occasional piano of fate that falls out of the sky, people do have some influence on their destinies. If you want improved circumstances for any American, start with the culture in which children are raised. The attitude about transgenderism has nothing to do with the crime, blight, and intense peer pressure to blow off school that are main obstacles to success in poor neighborhoods.
Have you considered the normalization of racism against whites and Asians, and the anti-semitism that has become so pervasive in some black communities? Louis Farrakan, for example. BLM activists committing violence against whites, Asians, and Jews.
Where has the Leftist gospel left black Americans, preaching that responsibility, punctuality, and studiousness are aspects of whiteness? Preaching that they need more handouts, and that bootstrapping it is “whiteness”?
Just like white Americans, no single community represents all black Americans. But there is something in common with successful people of any race, including blacks. That is that they have conservative values, and are often religious. No kids out of wedlock. Wait for kids until marriage. Be responsible. Do well in school and work hard. There are black people in white and blue collar jobs all across America for whom the BLM activists, with their anti-white, antisemitic, anti-success, and anti-cop rhetoric do not speak for.
People see color if they have eyes. They see eye and hair color, too. It is wrong to assume that someone’s entire identity is based on the wrapping. Do you have more in common with a recent immigrant from the Congo, or with a white person with similar opinions, and likes? Being color blind doesn’t mean they don’t notice color; it means skin color is not the defining factor of people they meet. For instance, I prefer the conversation of a black horseback rider (who has the most elegant mare, lovely mover), and a black conservative techie with fierce opinions on music and sci fi, more than I do some of my far Left white relatives. By a parsec.
If a white person walked between two groups of black people, one wearing gang colors, hostile posture, flashing gang signs, smoking weed, and armed, and at the other group of black chess players passionately discussing strategy, do you think they would instinctively react to both groups the same? After all, the melanin would be the same.
You believe that your judgement on people based on race is justified. But that’s because you’ve been conditioned to be biased.
The NYC subway shooter, Frank James, has been hit with terrorism charges by federal prosecutors. Frank James’ insults against Americans of all persuasions, posted on youtube and other social media venues, reflected the same exact verbiage Enigma spouts here. Hatred breeds hatred. Someone should check Enigma (aka William Spivey in Orlando) social media accounts for similar hate speech
Anonymous:
It’s like a social contagion. People grow up hearing hate speech normalized, and do not question it. Peer groups normalize and homogenize belief systems. Social contagion is also used to describe the frenzy of transgenderism, skyrocketing in the US and Western Europe.
Enigma’s posts are often thought provoking. However, I wonder if I were to ever meet him in person, if he could get past his bias against my skin color. He appears to view the country as tribes of races, although I haven’t seem him categorize people based on other identity politics or victim intersectionality. Race appears to be the qualifier of sin or virtue.
History was not safe for anyone. The Western concept of individual worth and equality evolved. In the US, we mourn the wrongful death or persecution of the little guy and demand justice. During the Aztec reign, the prisoner held on the stone table, having his beating heart torn out by a tlamacazqui didn’t matter. The victims the Maori cannibalized didn’t matter, legally, the same as them. Women slaves did not matter to the Apache. Tribes in Africa would still be enslaving and selling each other. Might made right.
Were it not for Europeans arriving, the Aztecs would have kept building pillars of skulls. The concept of individual rights would not have spread.
I would not want to live in past history in any culture I can think of. But that past shaped where we are today, where poor Americans live better than the middle class in most nations. Until the defund the police movement, and the Left’s enabling criminal behavior, more of America was a pretty safe place to live. Today, criminal gangs follow people home in Wilshire and Hollywood, CA, to rob and car jack them. And they get away with it. Perhaps we shall see another form of evolution in America, and a return to chaos and might makes right. The fall of our civilization might be studied by archeologists and anthropologists in the future.
“Studies have shown the US to be less racist than any other mixed race country on planet Earth.”
You’re going to have to do a little better than tell me that these studies exist. Learning who performed them might be educational as well. Other nations played a greater role in colonizing with the accompanying brutality. No other nation engaged in the forced breeding and rape of slaves to meet their production needs like America.
I used to believe that current day America was less racist than other predominantly white countries but based on current trends, I no longer think so.
Enigma:
I’ll do a quick search and see if I can find them again.
For comparison, consider this. America is a country without a race. If someone says Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Lithuanian, or from Zimbabwe, your mind comes up with a picture of what to expect. If you’re black, and move to China, you can live there 80 years, but will not be referred to as Chinese. Not so in America. If you’re born in America, you’re an American. Or you can be a naturalized citizen. You can be American whether your ancestry is Southeast Asian, Australian Aborigine, African, or whatever. Africans immigrated here long after slavery ended, had children here, who are emphatically American.
Not many other countries can claim the same.
Consider also that there is intense racism in China, with the Uighur a tragic target. North Korea forces women defectors they recapture to abort babies conceived by Chinese men. South African whites were racist against blacks in Apartheid, and South African blacks are so racist against whites that they’re hacking entire families to pieces.
Most countries have a root ethnic identity, a national race. That makes different races always “other”. Here in the US, people of all races live together, intermarry, go to school together. One of the ways you can tell the level of racism is how easily interracial marriages are accepted. How do you feel about the pervasive racism of blacks against whites? How common it is for black women to become angry when a good black man marries a white woman? About black majority schools regularly ganging up on Latino and whites who go there? The violence and harassment of other races who go to black majority schools are well documented. While it’s true that when black students attend white majority schools, they sometimes feel other, under scrutiny, or objects of interest, you don’t see blatant, massive violence against them like you would a white boy going to a black majority school. Out in the rural area where I live, schools a couple of towns over self-segregated. Black kids beat up Latino kids until they all left. The Latino-majority school kids persecute the few black kids who attend, until they became completely segregated. There are regularly news articles about groups of all black or all Latino minors hunting down a kid from the other “team.” Given that I read the news, the idea that white racism against blacks is a pervasive problem in the everyday life of a black person is ludicrous. Blacks are in more danger from black-on-black crime, or from the simmering resentment between blacks and Latinos. But, maybe the latter is not so much of a problem in other parts of the country. It has been theorized that some of the drivers between black and Latino animosity with each other is illegal immigrants taking jobs, plus the serious beef between street gangs.
I agree with you that no study should be taken at face value, and the parameters are important.
In the study I’m thinking of, one of the ways racism was gauged was someone’s willingness to have a neighbor of a different race.
Here is a WaPo article I found quickly. I don’t have much time to dig up the studies I found previously, but you can Google.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/
Slavery developed in ancient times. The predominately white English-speaking people were the first to abolish slavery.
Where did black slavery come from? Africa. Who enslaved those people? Other black people. Who sold those black people all over the world? Black people. Where is slavery today? Africa.
Enigma, I don’t blame black people for their role in slavery, but I blame you for not moving forward. Your arguments of the past that neglect so much history are of no help to black communities. It is your type of thinking that enslaves those communities in a different manner. Racism was in decline in this country before Obama. If you wish to blame someone for the racial divide today, blame him.
Stop going through life looking through your rearview mirror while destroying all the good as you run over it.
Karen says:
“That is that they have conservative values, and are often religious.”
If one believes that he can pray to an omniscient invisible supernatural being who will heed his prayers, there is nothing he couldn’t believe. Religion makes people more irrational not more intelligent- look at Trumpists who- by and large- are very religious. Falling for a “carnival snake charmer” is not a sign of intelligence.
Know them by their fruits.
While there are, of course, some infamous outliers, most people who regularly go to church are responsible, or become so. States with a more religious population tend to have less murder and violent crime. Perhaps you should look into the effect of regular religious observance on crime rates. It’s been extensively studied.
If you’re an atheist, believe you become nothing after death, don’t have to answer to a higher power, then why not break every law that you can if you think you can get away with it? There would be no judo-christian right or wrong. You would define what is good, as in what furthers your own interests. That’s why Lenin believed that any act that promoted his cause, including mass murder, was “good.”
You should note that it wasn’t the “Trumpists”, as you called them like any Leftist bigot, who burned down cities, committed mass looting and arson, and held the nation in terror for over a year. It wasn’t “Trumpists” who committed anarchy and held multiple city blocks in Seattle as an “autonomous zone.” We all saw BLM burn cities. Business owners would board up their windows ahead of BLM, not “Trumpists.” Trump supporters had one, single protest in which a few people rioted. That’s it. One. Capital police even waved them inside, which is why one of the defendants was found innocent of all charges. Others were mostly convicted of illegal parading and trespassing. While of course it was wrong to intrude or trespass, it is a false equivalence to in any way compare conservatives, even including Jan 6, with the violence of the Left that was pervasive, long running, well documented in major blue cities across the nation. Pretending otherwise is not a sign of intelligence, either. But that’s the thing about a real carnival snake charmer. He would have you deny your lying eyes to buy what he’s selling you. Thinking people have facts available to them. Trolls get angry about that.
http://marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates
Karen says:
“it is a false equivalence to in any way compare conservatives, even including Jan 6, with the violence of the Left that was pervasive, long running, well documented in major blue cities across the nation.”
Did I make that equivalence? What did *I* say? Go back and read what I said. You are creating a straw man. All I said was religion makes people irrational, less intelligent and more susceptible to be duped by conmen.
You say:
“But that’s the thing about a real carnival snake charmer.”
So you disagree with Turley calling Trump a *real* “carnival snake charmer”? Tell me: has Turley ever said a kind word about Trump’s character?
I’ll wait.
I’m sure you must have seen a few days back the video of the DC Police waving/welcoming in the peaceful Americans into the US Capital on Jan 6 2021 & the Judge Dropping all the False Charges against the Peaceful Trump attendee showing what Lying Evil Pieces Sh*its your type of Azzhole you people are!!
Peaceful People kept in a DC Gulag for over a year & some sentenced longer by you Anti-American Trash!!!
Plus the Truth is out about your people’s Illegal murderous CV19 Bio-Chem-Weapon patented in 2016!!!
At least Jesus didn’t die in vain for your sins.
I suggest you Repent.
You are living proof why Turley and I are NEVERTrumpers. Good luck to those on your side defending the likes of you!
I think you will have no luck selling your Satan Worshiping, Child Molesting Pedophile rape sh*it to most all of the American people.
Go hold your buddy Ken Buck’s hand freak or go to Ukraine.
BTW: I don’t recall Prof Turley saying you were his official PR agent. Piss Off Fraud.
If only Turley would read your assaults on decency. I have no doubt he would be aghast to have you as a member of his “blog family.”
Karen, you want to defend Oky1’s remarks?
Oky1 — This blog has a civility rule. I suggest you read and then apply it to your remarks.
David,
Show me were Propf Turley said someone like Jeff is now his spokesmen & that Prof Turley & endorses denying of basic civil rights of peaceful public objections by the Jan6’21 participants that were welcomed into the US People’s House by Capital Police on J6.
Some mouthy ahole’s words like Jeff isn’t “Civility” it’s Fraud upon the people.
But it’s Good Friday so I’ll attempt to let a few sodomite supporters infractions pass hoping they’ll later have a chance to Repent of their sins later.
Ok1, I’ll try to make it simple for your shriveled brain: don’t call other commentator names.
David,
You can take your Agiprop fools, paid or unpaid, trolls until the sun goes down & take a hike. You/he are not fooling anyone. You/he do not wish to present any discernible argument, it’s clear.
Leave now & come back when you boys can present some sort of an agreement.
Many of the J6 Hostages held by the Commie/Nazis of DC Gulags have been denied their USC Rights for over a year!
On this Good Friday, you people have shown the World what Evil Azzholes you really are.
So go pound fence posts for 10 miles creeps.
ok1, that is acceptable except for your next to last paragraph. Do try to express your emotions with some cleverness.
Study Winston Churchill’s speeches. He was a master at skewering his opponents.
BTW:
David, for the 2 people that liked your post, if people/scum throw lies/ call names in public they should be expected to defend their falsehoods.
A couple of points of interest, Prof Turley has brought up in the past. 1st you authoritarians may recall Truley’s post explaining the importance of calling things by their proper names Aholes.
You may also recall Prof Turley’s post about the Supreme Courts ruling in 1800′ blah, blah, blah …… that them there words are fighting words.
And yet you dare to go further & bring up Churchill of which No-one did anything more then he to Destroy the British Empire!
So you disagree with Turley calling Trump a *real* “carnival snake charmer”? Tell me: has Turley ever said a kind word about Trump’s character?
People have opinions. WHO the people are, is the cachet of the opinion.
Here is what David Mamet has to say
“It is the immemorial tactic of a dictatorial regime to accuse its opponents of what it is doing. Donald Trump was vilified by the left because “he lied; in fact, he was at a disadvantage because he did not lie. He was,by by inclination and experience, a superb director – that is, one who achieves a goal through inspiring employees – but he had neither the inclination nor experience to rule, which is to control disparate groups through false promises, stealth, deception, propaganda, and lies. Its all there in The Prince. We don’t know if todays thugs have read it, but we may be sure Marx did.”
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/04/part-of-lefts-outrage-at-trump-was-his.html
Iowan,
I repeat the question in hopes you may answer this time:
“So you disagree with Turley calling Trump a *real* “carnival snake charmer”? Tell me: has Turley ever said a kind word about Trump’s character?”
I’ll wait for your reply.
I’ll wait for your reply.
Totally oblivious to the whole opinion and corresponding cachet. I’m not surprised, didn’t know you would be so transparent about it.
I’m not interested in what Mamet has to say. I’m interested in what Turley has to say. I do give Mamet credit for Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict and the Winslow Boy.
fought a lot of Democrats on Trump’s side because he felt the Democrat position was wrong.
Turley respects Trump for what he has accomplished. He might not like some things about Trump, but Turley recognizes that Trump treats people he comes in personal contact with very well.
You don’t like Trump because compared to him, you sound like a blithering idiot.
“There would be no judo-christian right or wrong. You would define what is good . . .”
You are still peddling the false alternative that morality is either mystical (e.g., religious) or subjective (based on feelings). Morality is neither: It is objective.
And, again, I ask: How do you derive moral absolutes from a premise (the supposed existence of God) that is itself beyond evidence, facts, proof, reason?
From an unprovable premise, one can conclude anything or nothing — which is precisely the pathetic state of the history of religious moral codes.
“If you’re an atheist, believe you become nothing after death, don’t have to answer to a higher power, then why not break every law that you can if you think you can get away with it? ”
Because it’s not moral.
“There would be no judo-christian right or wrong.”
One does not have to believe in any gods to believe in right and wrong.
“You would define what is good, as in what furthers your own interests.”
No, I wouldn’t and don’t. If you wanted to educate yourself, there are plenty of relevant readings, just do an internet search on secular humanism or morality without god.
why is it not moral ? Where to “right and wrong” come from ?
I would note that internet searches do not answer Karen’s question.
Karen said without god you would define good as what is in your interests.
How many people have read and accepted “morality without god” ?
Even having done so – why should EVERYONE accept that – rather than say FU, I am doing what benefits me ?
Why is persuing your self interests not inherently moral ?
You build castles in your head and pretend they are truth.
Truth is defined by reality, and one required element is that it must work.
And I suppose you can explain a observable universe that is 92 billion light-years across. Just a quick point of perspective: 1 light year is nearly 6 trillion miles. How about a little humility.
carpslaw, yes I can but what was your point?
Carpslaw,
Yes, it’s called Dark Energy which makes up the majority of everything in the Universe, followed by Dark Matter, and all visible matter accounting for around 5%. The Universe is made up of neutrons, protons and morons. As Einstein said:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.
Yes, good description of what makes up the universe. However, science is saying there is an edge to our universe. What comes after that edge? And since it all started with the big bang, there was a beginning. Where did the infinitely small, super dense object that exploded at the with the big bang at the beginning come from? Infinity is a concept that is easy to define but impossible to comprehend.
An excellent book on how science is proving their there is a God – Is Atheism Dead by Eric Metaxas. Sites a great deal of new mind blowing science.
Carpslaw,
Actually, I was going to watch again one of my favorite programs, “ How the Universe Works,” Season 8, episode 7, “Edge of the Universe.” I’ll get back to you. Some believe there is a multi-verse though it probably would be impossible to ever get evidence of it.
There may be no such concept as “before” or “after” since time may not exist:
https://singularityhub.com/2022/04/15/time-might-not-exist-physicists-say-causation-is-the-basic-feature-of-our-universe/
It’s very mind-blowing stuff. The evolution of the Universe is much harder to believe than any Bible story, and science spends hundreds of billions to explore the infinitively big and the infinitively small. Religion just clouds the mind.
Jeff,
“The evolution of the Universe is much harder to believe than any Bible story, and science spends hundreds of billions to explore the infinitively big and the infinitively small. Religion just clouds the mind.”
You and many of Bible literalists are of like mind. The Bible is not a book of science. It is not in contrast to science and the universe. The Bible is a book about ethics, morals, and relationships. You really do not understand religion. You skip stones on the surface of a lake and say you understand its depths.
Prairie Rose,
Religious people believe the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God.
Arguably, there are many Bible verses that advocate things that are unethical/immoral, such as stoning a woman who was raped for failing to cry out, and murdering all of the male children and non-virgin females from an enemy group.
Please cite specific bible verses in context advocating for these things.
Jeff,
“Religious people believe the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God.”
That is an overstatement and an over-generalization. While there are religious people who believe the Bible to be literal, not all do. Truth is a far bigger than a material definition. And, the word ‘inerrant’ is a complicated word. What layer of meaning for ‘inerrant’ could people have in mind? I think we may have different conceptions.
Jeff’s argument is fallacious on many levels.
Most of his assertions are false.
Anonymous,
Torah means teacher. What is in this book is meant to be wrestled with (and has been for thousands of years).
Prairie Rose, in Hebrew, the word “Torah” means “instruction” or “teaching” and refers broadly to Jewish sacred literature, oral tradition, instruction from one’s parents. It doesn’t mean teacher (a person). The phrase “the Torah” refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.
People can wrestle with the concepts of ethics, morals, and relationships using religious texts. People can also wrestle with those concepts without turning to religious texts.
That is correct.
People can also ignore ethics and morality completely.
Fundimentally religion provides an impetus NOT TO.
To the extent that there are reasons to behave ethically and morally without religion – these are relatively weak.
Behaving morally and ethically does result in relationships, community and society benefiting.
But it does nto always benefit us individually.
If without religion I can lie, cheat, and steal without any fear of ever being caught -why would I not do so ?
We may not always be able to lie cheat or steal without getting caught. but we can often enough that we must have a reason to choose morality over self interest when they do.
Anonymous,
“Prairie Rose, in Hebrew, the word “Torah” means “instruction” or “teaching” and refers broadly to Jewish sacred literature, oral tradition, instruction from one’s parents. It doesn’t mean teacher (a person).”
Teacher could mean ‘one or that which teaches’, as in, life is a great teacher, though, too.
“The phrase “the Torah” refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.” Yes.
“People can wrestle with the concepts of ethics, morals, and relationships using religious texts. People can also wrestle with those concepts without turning to religious texts.”
I agree. Cicero is a great one to wrestle with, for example. However, to set aside religious texts means refusing to plum the depths of an unfamiliar ocean, so to speak. The ancient texts are still with us because people have found value in them for often thousands of years. A synthesis of the wisdom in secular and religious texts may be a greater boon to understanding than sticking with only one or the other.
Prairie Rose, I have no problem with people reading the Bible, Koran, the Vedas and Upanishads, etc. as works that may help them wrestle with the concepts of ethics, morals, and relationships.
My problem is with people who insist that parts of their preferred religious text are the word of God, argue that we need to believe in God to be moral, and insist that their preferred god is the one true god.
Whew! I am glad you deign to allow others to read whatever they wish.
Regardless, why are they not equally entitled to belive what they wish ?
You think that beleif in a god is irrational.
Modern gender dogma is far less rational.
I have no more problem with those who beleive the bible is the inerrant word of god, then those who believe they were supposed to be born a fish.
Often those who believe something strongly are the easiest to debate, Strong unambiguous clear beliefs are obviously either true or false.
I frequently state my own positions in the strongest least ambiguous terms possible. I frame them in the way that most demands rebuttal, that most challenges your views, that should if I am incorrect be easiest to refute.
Discussion with a christian fundamentalist is simple compared to you. They generally are more knowledgeable about what they believe, and they are clear and accurate in their representations.
Discussion with you is like nailing jello to a wall.
Of course that should be self evident as you post as anonymous, the ultimate jello identifier.
Most everything I have said about gender and the left above applies to the left on ANY issue.
Morality is a very important construct, we have spent 150K years developing morality.
Historically the evolution of morality is strongly tied to religion.
Further a solid clear and workable moral foundation results in a prosperous society – whether you define prosperity as wealth or happiness or whatever.
Western morality – the morality that the left seeks to destroy is both the most developed and that which results in the best outcomes.
Most of us are poorly educated on the foundations of that morality. But these under pin our law, and our system of government.
Modern western morality is both in arguably imperfect and inarguably even imperfect and imperfectly applied produces prosperous societies.
But the left seeks to elude that debate – trying to tear western morality down lock stock and barrel and replace it with a worse permutation of the socialism and communism that were so god awful bloody in the last century.
No equity based system has ever succeeded. The most opresive and bloody systems in the world focus on equity in some form.
The most successful systems have individual liberty at their root.
These are irreconcilable and very nearly opposite.
The fundimental flaw in equity systems is that people are not equal. That is by design.
“To the extent that there are reasons to behave ethically and morally without religion – these are relatively weak.”
Really? A moral code based on *facts* about man’s nature is “relatively weak?” If so, then every science based on certain facts is “relatively weak.”
And yet again I ask: How do you derive moral absolutes from a premise that is unprovable? The essence of the religious approach to morality is: I start with a premise (God exists) that is beyond evidence, logic, reason — i.e., a premise that I cannot prove. Yet from that arbitrary premise, I conclude X, Y, and Z about morality.
If that’s not “relatively weak,” then there is no such thing.
If your foundation is rotten, then whatever you construct on top of it will also be rotten.
Almost every species prior to has that moral code derived from facts about nature that you tout.
It is a simple code, it is self interest, survival, and the ends justifying the means.
It is NOT the moral code must humans live by.
It is also not a moral code that would work for humanity today
king assertions that you do not think very deeply about.
“king assertions that you do not think very deeply about.”
I can’t understand gibberish. But I’m guessing that’s supposed to be an insult — which is, of course, an admission of intellectual impotence.
“Yes, religious people do get to pick and chose what they beleive.”
Based on what?
Maybe, it clouds the mind, but at least there’s promise or chance of something more than our time her on Earth, and that can clam the mind. It can give us grater purpose, making our time here much more pleasurable and satisfying. None us know the answers for sure. It’s a choice to believe in God or not, and I chose to respect, not denigrate anyone who makes that choice.
How the Universe Works Is also one of my favorite shows and the episode you site is excellent. You’ll note the scientists admittedly struggle with the concept of infinity. One doesn’t even think they should discuss it.
Carpslaw says:
“None us know the answers for sure.”
Yes we do, but people are afraid to admit it. You have to be taught from an early age to believe in such nonsense not unlike a belief in tooth fairies. Most people put away such childish notions as they mature. People DO cling to their Bibles in desperation as you put it, “at least there’s promise or chance of something more than our time her on Earth.”
You say:
“It’s a choice to believe in God or not, and I chose to respect, not denigrate anyone who makes that choice.”
Do you respect the beliefs of Heaven’s Gate? You think it was rational for people to commit suicide to join the Mothership? Christians denigrate such beliefs as you well know. Monotheists are atheists as to all gods but their own. I am consistent- I make NO exceptions.
NO, jeff on an infinite number of issues – we do not know the answers.
There is far more that we do not know than what we know,
Worse still the current half life of knowledge is about 7 years – that means in the next 7 years half of what you know to be true will prove false.
We are gaining knowledge at a much faster rate than we are falsifying things first thought to be true. but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we do not know.
You cite examples of purportedly irrational beleif, So What ?
Your posts frequently state as true things as irrational as heavens gate.
You are a lot like Meyer if not Meyer himself. I can’t reason with you. For instance, you say:
“Your posts frequently state as true things as irrational as heavens gate.”
I said just the opposite! Christians believe that the followers of Heaven’s Gate were crazy, but my point is that Christianity is even more hard to swallow than even Heaven’s Gate. After all, there are such things as spaceships and comets at least! But all of it is nonsense.
“Your posts frequently state as true things as irrational as heavens gate.”
I beleive that was a typo. I have a new laptop and it has a jumpy touchpad and I do not always pick up when it has jumped.
Regardless my problem, and I appologize.
The correct statement is:
Your posts frequently state as true things as irrational.
“I said just the opposite!”
No what you said was irrelevant.
Absent imposing those beleifs on others through force, it is not relevant how I feel about the beleifs of others.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
“Christians believe that the followers of Heaven’s Gate were crazy”
So ?
“but my point is that Christianity is even more hard to swallow than even Heaven’s Gate.”
Wrong. but irrelevant. Don’t swallow Christianity – I have not asked you to.
I find alot of value in christianity – but I am not christian.
“After all, there are such things as spaceships and comets at least!”
???
How is this relevant to anything ?
You wouldn’t understand.
Jeff,
You do not reason.
You lob naked assertions.
Your posts are rife with fallacies and unsupported and implausible and often wrong claims.
You have no idea what logic is.
And you presume that is argument ? That is reasoning ?
Why not just ignore me then?
http://www.warrentheatre.net/uploads/1/3/6/0/13600428/16427332-10154970314523630-1334218084963727076-n_orig.jpg
“The evolution of the Universe is much harder to believe than any Bible story”
That is a misapprehension of the Bible. God created the Universe. Science tells us the how. The creation story in the Bible is not a science lesson. It is rife with meaning rather than mere facts.
Rose,
You are not a true believer. A religious person does not pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. It’s all or nothing.
Once again that is absolute nonsense.
Please sue whatever schools educated you – you were cheated.
In the future pause a few seconds before hitting post and think – what might be wrong with this post.
The doctrine of biblical innerancy did not exist prior to the reformation.
It is fundamentally a PROTESTANT concept,
Today in the form you present it, it is held only by evangelical christian fundimentalists in the US.
But the most obvious flaw to your argument is that most of the religious in the world are NOT CHRISTIAN.
Are Buhdists requited to accept the Bible as literally correct ? Muslims ?
Must Jews accept the New Testament ?
What about the old and new testament Apocrypha ?
I can go on and on – but hopefully my point is made – The world is not divided in two between american evangelical christian fundimentalists, and atheists – which is all your post allows.
Yes, religious people do get to pick and chose what they beleive.
Even reformation protestants who first conceived of biblical inerrancy STILL beleived each individual must on their own determine the truth of gods word.
Thank you Father
John, what I find extraordinary is how little Jeff Silberman knows. I believe he stated he was educated at Dartmouth while D’Souza was there. Does Dartmouth value the ignorance of Jeff as much as they value the intelligence of D’Souza? Education has gotten worse in America, but Jeff is old enough that he should have learned something. Maybe he lied.
Science tells us very little about what existed before the “big bang”.
As I said before there are many things science has no answers for – maybe someday it will – for some,
but the unknown is infinitely greater tha the known and many things are not knowable.
Jeff,
“You are not a true believer. A religious person does not pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. It’s all or nothing.”
Huh?
Jeff,
“You are not a true believer. A religious person does not pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. It’s all or nothing.”
I have been puzzling over what you are getting at with this comment. At first I was wondering whether you were indicating a person ought to take the Bible fully literally. I disagree with that. I am also not sold on the “all or nothing” idea exactly; that, too, seems excessive in some sense and would need teasing out as to what that should mean exactly (people may foolishly reject the spirit if they cannot fulfill the law).
But, then I got to wondering about embodied faith. Methodists, as I engaged with them growing up, aimed to embody faith. The Book of James was viewed with great import. There was an abiding idea amongst the Methodists who raised me that “faith without works is dead.” And to embody faith means one is a true, full believer. I want to embody faith; I try to aim to embody faith. With shame, I acknowledge, I too often fail to even just attend to this aim. And, even if my aim is there, my follow-through too often falls short. I want to embody faith but too often fail miserably. I try to remember ideas like: “Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.” or “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” or “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”
So, you are right. I am not a true believer as I’d like to be. The best I can do is to ask forgiveness of those I’ve wronged and to try to step back upon the Way.
carpslaw — No edge to the universe. Cosmology makes this clear. As for “before the beginning”, there are a variety of attempts to explain this, but as there is no evidence it is impossible to say just what happened before the first 3 seconds after the posited big bang.
Of course science provides the means to discuss the evolution of everything without positing a creator or enabler. Makes for better theories and hypotheses.
David B Benson — I am thankful to God for evolution.
carpslaw —- If it makes you feel better.
I would be careful about claims resting on cosmology.
TODAY it may be clear – tomorow ?
Most of the universe is dark matter and we know little or nothing about that.
You confuse the leading edge assessments of experts with truth or facts.
Newton was ultimately wrong.
Much of what you think is fact today will be wrong tomorow.
And you will will glide to whatever is knew – without the understanding to grasp that either what you called truth before has proved false or what you call truth now is false.
What is the difference between the christian fundimentalist who takes the bible as the litteral word of god, and someone like you who takes the current state of science as truth.
Einstein understood that one experiment at any time in the future could falsify his entire lifes work.
You do not understand that science is about seeking answers, not the hubris of pretending to have them.
Science is not static. It does not and never will have all the answers.
Jeff,
I don’t think you understand religion at all. Religion does not *make* people more irrational. You have mistakenly fallen into a logical fallacy. Gregor Mendel was brilliant, rational and a monk. I could say the reverse about people without religion–that lack of religion makes them irrational. I doubt that’s true. What, then, makes people irrational? Being ideologically-possessed, perhaps, which could be towards a very narrow interpretation of religion or it could be towards any other ideology. Perhaps, too, shifting sands of moral relativism or missing some other element of ‘groundedness’ could also perhaps predispose people towards irrationality.
I think it unfair to lay irrationality at the feet of Believers.
Rose,
Belief in God is irrational for 2 reasons: lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary. Faith is opposed to reason. Of course, religious people can be rational in other respects. The Heaven’s Gate followers were devoutly religious. Even Christians would consider them irrational.
Jeff,
Hmm. Then lots of people are irrational about the injections if they believed those darn things would actually prevent them from catching the virus. 😉
Faith is not the opposite of reason, though. God isn’t something that can be proven or disproven in a material manner anyway since He is outside the material world, having created it.
Just because some religious people are irrational doesn’t mean faith in God is irrational. That doesn’t follow.
Prairie Rose,
You are assuming that some god created the world, but there is no evidence of this.
If any gods exist, we do not know what their moral beliefs are or whether they’ve attempted in any way to intervene in life on our planet.
Religious texts are human creations. Treating parts of those human creations as if they came from a supernatural being is irrational.
“but there is no evidence of this”
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
What signature would you like to find?
A portion of Job 38:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2“Who is this who obscures My counsel
by words without knowledge?
3Now brace yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall inform Me.
4Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6On what were its foundations set,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8Who enclosed the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9when I made the clouds its garment
and thick darkness its blanket,
10when I fixed its boundaries
and set in place its bars and doors,
11and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther;
here your proud waves must stop’?
12In your days, have you commanded the morning
or assigned the dawn its place,
13that it might spread to the ends of the earth
and shake the wicked out of it?
14The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.
15Light is withheld from the wicked,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea
or walked in the trenches of the deep?
17Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
18Have you surveyed the extent of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
You might appreciate this.
https://youtu.be/9YummAsPqq0?t=65
Are you actually stupid enough to be trying to engage in a debate over philosophy of religion on a political blog ?
Worse your arguments are crap.
Yes all religious texts are written by humans. I believe it is Kierkegard that demonstrated long ago that if there is a god – humans can not know more of god than the contraints of their own humanity.
Put simply if god exists – our picture of him MUST be human.
This tells us absolutely nothing about whether god exists or not.
Put differently your argument – or specific premises, are valid but they do not lead to your conclusion.
Further it is NOT irrational for us to presume that there is a god and that god is the best of us.
It is just impossible to falsify.
Rose,
Come on. You know that no vaccine is 100% effective. No one said that it ever would be. That’s a bogus argument.
Faith is by definition the opposite of reason. When you have reason to believe, you don’t need faith, and when you have no reason to believe something, that’s when you need faith.
Had the Bronze Age men known then what we know now, they would not have had to create myths.
jeffsilberman, we have our own myths in this day and age…
Oops. I wrote that.
The Trumpists’ myth that the election was stolen has become an article of faith in the Republican Party. If you don’t parrot it- whether you believe it or not- you are a heretic- a NeverTrumper.
Then why is it that the left the media and democrats have so vigorously opposed any meaningful inquiry ?
Whatever the issue is that we disagree on – lets actually look into the evidence, and let the facts fall where they may.
You do not want meaningful inquiry because you are affraid – the like the collusion delusion. the russian bounty story, hunter bidens laptop and so many other things – actual inquiry into the facts might prove you wrong.
I would note that Time did an excellent peice on how the democrats won the 2020 election – while it does not address ballot fraud – it does address a significant amount of bad conduct – in fact the article Celebrates it.
Regardless, we can debate whether there was election fraud.
There is no debate the election was conducted lawlessly.
Today I had several of my democratic friends over to a party and they volunteered unsolicited that in 2022 they would not vote by Mail
They did not trust it. They checked into it and absentee voting is very easy and their vote would be much more secure.
Say says:
“Regardless, we can debate whether there was election fraud.”
Bill Barr’s DOJ did look into it, and he concluded it was all “Bullsh*t.” Has Turley said one word objecting to Barr’s final statement on the matter? No he has not!
Trumpism like Birtherism before it is an article of irrational faith. Trumpists will go to their graves believing the lie of a “carnival snake charmer” that the election was stolen.
“Bill Barr’s DOJ did look into it”
No, it didn’t. As proven by recent news reports, there wasn’t time for Bill Barr to look into it and draw any lasting conclusion.
Your replacement of the faith-based leftist religion for religion hasn’t helped you move forward. It has made you sound like a bigot.
Actually Barr’s DOJ did not.
If you are following this a Barr US attorney noted that Barr’s instructions to DOJ and specificially him, was to pass cases on to the states.
If you say so…
I do not say so, several Barr US Attorney’s as well as DOJ documents say so.
Regardless as is typical you make claims without checking them first and as a result you are often in error.
If I were falling of the left edge of the world as you are I would call that lying.
If you say so…
As always you seem to think saying something makes it true.
How exactly did DOJ “look into” election fraud ?
And weren’t you pissing all over Barr 24 months ago ?
Overall I think Barr was a good person – but he was a failure as AG.
He came back to clean up DOJ and FBI and restore confidence in them – and he failed.
Whatever good he did was swept away the moment Biden took office.
Beyond that Barr said and did alot of things – and I listen to what he says and agree with alot of it.
But not all of it.
It is pretty self evident at this point that after the election Barr had to appoint a Special Counsel to look into the Biden Family garbage.
I suspect that he did not – because he did not want to appear like the Obama administration – booby trapping the executive branch after he left.
Only there is a huge difference – as Horowitz, Mueller, Durham and logic for the few of us who had it in 2016 prove, There was no substance to the allegations against Trump – they were litterally a deliberate HOAX – that last part was not obvious until recently. But it was ALWAYS clear there was no substance.
Just as it has ALWAYS been clear that there is much more than enough substance to investigate the Biden family.
There is zero doubt that Joe Biden’s conduct as VP was immoral and unethical and in some cases illegal. What has not been proven YET, beyond a reasonable doubt is whether it was criminal.
The hardest thing for a man to do is to change his long-standing prejudices and beliefs
Actually it is quite easy. All you need do is accept reality – the facts as they are, instead of trying to force reality to match your ideology.
My positions shift significantly less frequently as I grow older – that would be because I have already confronted often the best of the best arguments against them.
But if you actually make a good valid argument I will give it significant consideration.
I would note that even the aforementioned stability is only in domains that I have being dealing with for long times.
I am constantly learning new things, and in those fields my positions shift frequently as I gain more knowlege.
This is how things are supposed to work.
I refuse to accept your reality
Do you have something to actually contribute ?
As I have noted before – you do not really make arguments.
Most of your posts are just childish insults – and weird things you seem to think are funny.
I’ve tangled with you long before now. You and Meyer are cut from the same cloth. I can have lucid conversations with some people here, but not with you and Meyer.
Jeff, thank you so much. That is the best compliment I have received on this blog. Just when I thought you had nothing to say that was true, you came up with a statement that was. John is intelligent and honest. Your life has been made better by his extended hand helping a dumb twit who has opened his eyes to reality for the first time.
I don’t know how I will ever be able to thank you for showing me the way.
No need to, Jeff. You are a person in need, and though the left would not lift a finger to help you, conservatives will almost always demonstrate their humanity and love. Go now, child, and have pleasant dreams.
Bless you
You are not very knowledgeable.
“Birtherism” was concocted by Clinton Crony Sydney Blumenthal.
As was the Ukraine corruption allegations against Biden.
Have you always been this like this or do I bring it out in you?
I have always – throughout my entire life dealt with facts, logic reason.
I’m glad you think so
You can avoid replies from me entirely by checking the accuracy of what you post first.
It is not very hard especially in the internet era.
Thanks, I’ll do that.
You say Trumpism is “irrational” – but you do not define “Trumpism”.
MAGA, or Trumpism if you prefer acording to a BBC evaluation of Trump policies is:
Ending the ‘reliance’ on China and protecting US manufacturing
‘America First’ and reasserting US sovereignty
Building the wall and curbing immigration
Lower drug costs, terminate the Affordable Care Act
Promoting US energy
Database to trace police misbehaviour
Defending the Second Amendment
Whether you agree or disagree – these are not irrational.
You are constantly saying things without providing any evidence to support them.
I would note that Trump and republicans enacted policies that lead to the best economy in the 21st century (that is unfortunately not saying much).
Biden and democrats took over with the wind at their backs and have managed to turn what should have been coasting to a good future into galeforce headwinds – all in 18months. Today Biden is not far short of eclipsing James Buchannon as the worst president in US history.
Overall despite quibbles with some of them – Trump’s policies worked, and worked better than those that preceeded him – that is rational.
While Biden’s have failed – that is irrational.
You talk more and say less than any person I know.
Again you keep trying to make everything personal.
You do not make actual arguments.
Just lobbing insults.
I will be happy to address anything substanative you write – I have where appropriate even given you credit for a few decent observations.
But mostly you just lob hand grenades – badly.
Noted
Jeff,
The election was stolen.
Whether that was through ballot fraud remains an open question.
But there is no question that the election was won lawlessly, immorally and unethically.
Biden and democrats LIED to get Joe elected. They lied about Covid, they lied about Fracking and energy policy, they lied about Biden’s competence, and finally they lied about the corrupt conduct of the Biden family.
It is not unusual for politicians to lie. But it is unusual for them to get away with it.
Democrats got away with it because our institutions failed. Members of the intelligence community lied, and the press and social media not only covered up but actively suppressed the truth.
That may not be illegal, it may not be ballot fraud, but it is unethical, immoral, and it is fraud.
State election laws and constitutional provisions were violated. I would note that YOUR claim regarding the illegitimacy of the J6 actions and such things as Pence putting forward alternate slates of elections is that doing so would be lawless.
Once democrats violated the law and state constitutions – why are republicans bound by them ? It is hypocracy to claim that only democrats can through lawlessness. Further, What Trump/Eastman were proposing was unusual – but not actually unconstitutional. It had happened more than one time before, and it was attempted during every single election in my lifetime. Even Hillary tried to persuade electors to change their votes.
You also used private money to fund Government GOTV efforts almost entirely in the 6 cities in the country that determined the election. The government can not take sides in an election and it can not engage in GOTV.
And these are just the highlights.
Finally – all these have one thing in common – “the ends justify the means”.
It is no reach to suspect that those who would act immorally, unethically and illegally in several other major election areas would also engage in voter Fraud.
Please, I can’t handle a thousand details, just give me the broad strokes…
You have been given the broad strokes. And the details to support them are readily available should you want.
Regardless, we have myriads of examples of malfeasance, misrepresentation, unethical or immoral conduct at a large scale by our institutions and the left.
It is reasonable. practically required to distrust those who have in the past not been trustworthy.
Like Trumpists. We finally agree!
Jeff,
It isn’t really a bogus argument because I know people who were shocked and quite upset that they and their family members got the injections and still got Covid–they believed that the injections would prevent them from catching SARS-Cov-2 and subsequent variants.
I still think faith is a bit sideways from what you assert. Also, reason seems a bit deeper to me than being merely rational. Rationalizing something is unreasonable. Also, if faith is irrational, then, so too is trust??? While the definitions of faith below bear no mention of trust, others define it as: “a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone”. Should we dispense with trust because it stands with faith?
“faith
noun
1. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
2. Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one’s own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.
3. In a more restricted sense: In theology, spiritual perception of the invisible objects of religious veneration; a belief founded on such spiritual perception.”
Rose,
Those people who believed that the vaccine was 100% effective heard it on Fox since it claimed that Fauci was a liar for claiming so in an effort to discredit him, but, of course, Fauci never so claimed.
Trust is based upon someone’s prior experience or the other’s known reputation. One does not trust a veritable stranger. I’ve never met god. So why should I trust her/him/it? Especially given the problem of evil in the world. Why would a god permit cancer in a child who has done no one any harm? To accept that evil, you need the ultimate faith- that the goodness of god will make these wrongs right some day. It’s long overdue, don’t you think? After the Holocaust, many religious Jews lost their faith. Who can blame them?
“Those people who believed that the vaccine was 100% effective heard it on Fox since it claimed that Fauci was a liar for claiming so in an effort to discredit him, but, of course, Fauci never so claimed.”
Jeff, when the truth smacked you in the face, you ignored it and instead responded with a lie.
You are constantly making completely unsupported assertions as if they were proven facts.
No one claimed the vaccines were 100% effective – the earliest data was that they were about 97% effective 2 weeks AFTER the 2nd booster. That has been true through Delta. One of the many problems with the Vaccine has been that the half life of effectiveness is too short. Though the exact parameters of the decline in effectiveness were not know initially, it WAS know that this vaccine would have a short half life.
Maybe there is some fox host somewhere who said what you claim, but it certain was NOT and STILL is not a theme from Fox.
With regard to Fauxxi – if you say differetn things at different times to different people – you will always have examples of being correct.
I do not honestly understand why you would defend Fauxxi, he is a self serving charlatan and liar.
Says you
Says me and readily accessible FACTS.
What is it that you disagree with ?
You can not even state that clearly.
“you are constantly making completely unsupported assertions as if they were proven facts. ”
You prove that over and over with everything you say.
Rather than say “Your wrong”
Try
“Your wrong about X”
And then atleast a clear counter claim about X.
Prairie, Jeff’s acceptance of his faith-based leftism is irrational. Your belief in God might be faith-based but isn’t irrational.
Those who believe in God and others in science cannot prove the other wrong. Those who believe in leftism have been proven wrong regularly.
In Spring 2021, Fauci described the vaccines as creating a “dead end” for the virus, explaining that when it got to a vaccinated person it stopped with that person. He said this in a TV interview. This was wrong. Moreover, no study showed this. He just made it up.
Jeff,
“Those people who believed that the vaccine was 100% effective heard it on Fox”
Unlikely. These folks are ardent Democrats and steer clear of Fox.
“Trust is based upon someone’s prior experience or the other’s known reputation. One does not trust a veritable stranger.”
Trust is too valuable in society for these to be the only metrics. There is a certain degree of trust that does get bestowed on veritable strangers, and more can built. That is what successful societies do.
It is a delicate but vital thing, trust.
Much of what we are told by the left, by government experts, and increasingly by “scientists” must be taken on “faith”.
Pretty much the entirety of our response to Covid is NOT supported by evidence – either before or after.
The effectiveness of masks has been studied for decades – there is no high quality study – Randomized Control trial that has found a statistically significant benefit to masks.
It was evident in early 2020 that Covid’s likely primary spread was as an aerosole – but we advised cleaning and sanatizing – which is effective for viruses that spread by contact. The likelyhood of contact spread diminished with Delta and was obliterated by Omicron.
It was self evident that it Covid was more likely than not a lab creation in Jan 2020. Today the best evidence is that Omicron was developed from the original Wuhan virus in a lab and only escaped recently.
Lockdowns do not work – that is self evident – but it was also evident from efforts over 100 years ago.
We should be asking why we responded to Covid in a way that we have not responded to a disease in over a century if ever.
Why did we do everything differently this time ? Were hundreds of years of understanding of communicable diseases wrong ? Did we magically – without studies, without experiments, without trials suddenly get things right now ?
It was absolutely amazing that we were able to develop a vaccine and get it tested and approved as quickly as we did.
Nor should there be judgement on the shortcuts taken or the reduced safety standards – this was an emergency and this was our best hope.
But the fast track approach and the relaxed standards are also reason why the vaccine MUST be voluntary, and why we can not forceibly experiment on children.
Regardless, ultimately the vaccine has proved ineffective. It does little or nothing to reduce the spread, It is inneffective against omicron,
adverse effects are more numerous and severe than initially reported, the half life of immunity is short.
We should take pride in what we have accomplished. The long term value of mRNA technology that got a world wide trial is alone incredible.
There will with certainty be amazing benefits from this technology – far beyond epidemics and vaccines for decades to come.
But we should also grasp that the vaccine is at best a mitigating tool.
It is still too early to tell but there is a very real risk that vaccines as well as other interventions made Covid WORSE rather than better.
“Flattening the curve” has consequences to – it only reduces the number of deaths – if our healthcare system is over burderened AND has effective treatments. But it protracts the duration of the epidemic, and increases the likelyhood of even worse variants.
Data from arround the country and arround the world STILL shows no noticable impact of government covid policies.
Blue states did nto do better than red, Draconian countries are not doing better than those that did nothing.
Covids impact can be modeled near perfectly by demographics and geography alone.
Nor is covid anywhere near the only failure of government experts.
Ukraine was supposed to fall in 96hours. Afghanistan was supposed to take years.
People are still ranting about Global warming though there has been no average warming for almost 8 years and very little for over 20, and since 1979 average warming has been 0.13C/decade compared to 0.11C over the past 250 years. We are more than 2.5 std dev below the models, and no one has made any effort to fix the models.
Energy policies under Trump strengthened the US globally and made the world safer and more peaceful.
While the reversal of those policies gave Russia the opportunity to a invade Ukraine. And left Europe vulnerable to energy blackmail.
There was no Russian collusion – and as we are seeing in Ukraine – Russia is a paper tiger, a very dangerous one with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. But incapable of most of what we have feared.
The “experts” who told us the hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation – were wrong, and probably lying.
Nor is the above even close to the extent of the failure of our government expert class.
There is little if anything they have gotten right – IN MY LIFETIME.
There is not one malthusian prognostication that has ever been close to true. Peak Oil 1, 2, 3, 4, have all been wrong. There were no WMD’s in Iraq. Antrax did not come from Ivers or Hatfill at ft. Deatrick.
And on and on and on.
Yet, we are supposed to accept – on FAITH the pronouncements of “the experts”.
Jeff,
You unconsciously highlight the problem with the vaccine AND all other covid policy responses.
MATH. The Higher the R0 of a disease the exponentially greater the effectivieness of the means to thwart it must be.
I think the Covid vaccines are an amazing accomplishment.
And they would not have been produced so quickly without Trump.
But it is SELF EVIDENT that they were too little too late.
It is possible – even probable that if the current vaccines were widely available in June or even August of 2020 they would have worked.
But they were not.
The immunity from the vaccine is not strong enough, nor does it last long enough.
This is not a political statement – it is FACT.
If you wish to get vaccinated – by all means do so. There are risks associated with the vaccine, there are risks associated with not getting vaccinated. But if you expect to benefit you must get boosted every 4-6 months until Covid is wiped off the face of the earth. And the very act of vaccinating large portions of the population means that Covid will last longer – unless as we are seeing something so highly contageous as Omicron emerges and creates massive natural immunity.
Regardless, the cold hard truth is that the Covid vaccine is not effective enough to be a beneficial policy measure.
It MAY be a wise choice for many people. Those are NOT the same thing.
As a separate matter – it is pretty trivial to know the vaccine can not work.
We can not vaccinate almost 8B people every 4-6 months.
Religion is not rational.
That is NOT the same as irrational.
The domain of religion is what we do not know, and often what we can not know.
It is the domain that reason has no answers for.
“It is the domain that reason has no answers for.”
Then *how* do you know about the existence of that “domain?”
Really ?
If Science has no answer – the question does not exist ?
That is what you are arguing.
My point – which you miss is there are questions scince can not currently answer, and questions science never will be able
to answer.
“Faith is not the opposite of reason, though. God isn’t something that can be proven or disproven . . .”
I gather you do not grasp that those two statements are contradictory.
Sure would like it if you would be more specific. Do you view professional sports in America as color blind?
Historically no, certain positions in football for example were deemed to require the greater intelligence of white people. There are sociological factors as well that led to a high percentage of Black athletes. Some were far more desperate to achieve to escape their environment. Most college teams, especially in the South didn’t accept Black athletes, until they needed them to win.
You are correct, but you are talking about the past.
Current: Voter suppression tactics, some of which are the exact same ones used in the past. Current: Sentencing disparities, while I’m on voting. A Black woman was sentenced to 5 years for supposed voting illegally after getting okay from the county. Two white men in the Villages amit voting twice and get 50 days probation. Not to mention disparities between crack and powdered cocaine and stop and frisk in minority communities only. I can talk about the present all day, Jefferson was part of the topic Turley raised so I talked about him.
Is asking for a voter to show ID voter suppression?
In can be depending on how it’s implemented but voter ID isn’t a big issue for me. All the other laws that accompany voter ID everywhere it’s implemented are designed to suppress minority and youth votes.
I hope you realize how vague you are being. “All the other laws that accompany voter ID everywhere it’s implemented are designed to suppress minority and youth votes.” What laws are you talking about?
What state do ypou reside in? I’ll be very specific.
Do Georgia
“Do Georgia ”
Why? He admits to coming from Florida and has scr-wed up what he has said about that state, so why Georgia? He has a source he seems to be using that is wrong in one state, so it probably is wrong elsewhere.
Enigma:
It has been decades since sports were deliberately segregated.
However, there is certainly racial disparity in professional and collegiate sports today. If, by your reasoning, in which a disparity is proof of racism, then clearly there should be affirmative action in sports. Black athletes should only represent a percentage equivalent to their population. The rest of the spots should be distributed among Asians, short Jewish men, transgender…
And we definitely need more Pacific Islanders. If a basketball team fails to have a Pacific Islander, then it’s definitely racist.
We need to fire all these high paid black athletes, immediately, as they unfairly benefit from the systemic racism that caused the disparity in sports. It couldn’t possibly be due to athletic meritocracy. Nope. Must be a racist plot. So fire most of them and replace them with players who would provide more skin deep diversity to the teams.
The whole sports issue is a diversion to keep from talking about the rest.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg never had a female clerk, when she was nominated for SCOTUS. By the standard in use by the Federal govt at the time, that statistical evidence would have gotten a business a hefty fine. Why are leftist such screaming bigots, and misogynists?
The whole sports issue is a diversion to keep from talking about the rest.
It is proof of innate performance disparities between races.
“America has only been color blind for those whose color benefits.”
Oprah Winfrey called. She wants to thank America’s “systemic racism” for her $2.6 *billion* net worth and international fame.
Do you think Oprah hasn’t experienced racism? Candace Owens has forgotten about the time she needed the NAACP to back her in a lawsuit. Sen. Tim Scott keeps getting stopped while driving in D.C. Being rich has it’s privileges and you get a pass sometimes when people know you’re rich and powerful. But America is very racist and is in a phase where it’s a badge of honor to be racist (ask Steve Bannon).
“But America is very racist . . .”
$2.6 *billion*.
“Do you think Oprah hasn’t experienced racism? ”
Enigma, it is sickening for you to claim such horrid racism in a country that is one of the least racist and with the most opportunity. You limit the scope of racism to blacks despite others who have faced far more significant challenges worldwide. You say nothing about black racism towards others where the racism evolves into hate and violence.
By doing so, you are partly responsible for the bad that comes from your community. You wish to blame others when you should blame yourself.
I almost replied until I saw it was the troll. You almost got me.
Enigma, I guess signing my name saved you from making an A$$ of yourself.
“in looking at what has happened to George Floyd . . . we must recognize the unacceptable numbers of such things as the unacceptable numbers of African Americans that have been accepted to TJ.”
“The Virginia Attorney General (and various other states) have filed to challenge those assertions in a potentially important case that would allow the Court to consider allegedly discriminatory admissions practices and polices not just on the college but the high school levels.”
In making so sure the schools don’t institute a racially discriminatory policy, there seems to be no consideration as to whether the existing “merit based” policy is discriminatory? The result according to one board member certainly is. I won’t give you the history (unless you ask) about how the man who wrote about it being “self-evident that all men are created equal” in reality did more to promote the forced breeding and rape of enslaved women than any other human. Go to Monticello and the tour guide will mention he owned about 400 slaves on the property (leaving out the other 200 he owned elsewhere). Historians like Edwin Bett ignored evidence slaves were whipped at his nailery to improve productivity, it didn’t fit the image he wanted to portray.
So why shouldn’t a private school in his name be mostly white? And if the new policy discriminates against Asians but not white people, it’s because they kept the percentage of white people the same, leaving everyone else to fight like crabs in a barrel for the scraps.
Enigma:
All tests are discriminatory. Grading is based on how many right answers you get. The grading discriminates against people who do not know the material. The original testing requirements was a meritocracy. Black, white, Asian, if you did well, you got a spot. You were not denied a spot because of race. The new policy deliberately discriminates against the academically meritorious.
Can you discriminate between right and wrong? If you needed brain surgery, would you prefer a black neurosurgeon who had the bar lowered every step of the way in order to produce skin deep diversity in the student body and on staff, or would you want the best surgeon there was, regardless of race or gender? Would you discriminate based on skill, or skin color, if your life was on the line?
A disparity is not, by definition, unjust.
Why do black students statistically get lower grades, and have a higher dropout rate? Do you acknowledge that in certain black subcultures, there is intense peer pressure to blow off school? The problem is cultural, and environmental. I’ve gone over the risks of single motherhood ad nauseam. Poor black communities have single motherhood rates in excess of 75%, and some cities are over 85%. Of course the kids are not going to do well in school. Does that mean that racist white people are unfairly grading them? If so, that’s a feat, because most teachers and administrators of majority black schools are also black.
Instead of blaming white people, who are not present for 99.999% of black people’s pivotal decisions, we should instead emulate measures that work to give kids, of any color, a chance to break the cycle. I say of any color, because the proven steps of success and failure are the same regardless of race. There are kids who are the children of white drug addicts, criminals, and irresponsible people who also face similar obstacles in their path. Kids learn values from their parents, and if those parents teach them to fail, they’re handicapped. It’s quite hard to break free of that cycle.
There are measures to take for success. Well-meaning white people cannot change the sub culture of poor black communities from the outside. For some strange reason, those within don’t particularly care for our opinions. Such change needs to be driven from within, by community leaders, pastors, teachers… Black kids need to learn in school or elsewhere which steps they can take that are statistically likely to produce at least a middle class lifestyle, and which are statistically proven to lead to poverty, prison, and early death. They will grow up into women who refuse to have kids out of wedlock, and refuse to settle for no-account men who deposit and abandon children with various women. They will grow up into responsible, law-abiding men who take their duty to their families seriously.
“Can you discriminate between right and wrong? If you needed brain surgery, would you prefer a black neurosurgeon who had the bar lowered every step of the way in order to produce skin deep diversity in the student body and on staff, or would you want the best surgeon there was,”
Your false beliefs are showing through. Black doctors didn’t get to be doctors because the bar was lowered, in most cases they had to work harder.
Enigma:
Let me introduce you to “affirmative action” which, by definition, lowered the bar to less academically qualified black students in order to promote diversity.
I’ve actually known black doctors, scientists, and researchers who lamented AA because they said people automatically assumed they were not qualified. These were brilliant men who got to where they were based on hard work, talent, and grit. But they knew people in their schools who got there by AA, and many of them flunked out.
If you won’t acknowledge about AA lowering the bar, then I urge you to read the LA Times expose on King/Drew Medical Center. It was a terrible scandal in CA. Activists had the grand idea that they wanted a hospital in a black majority community to hire only black people. Black nurses, doctors, orderlies, janitors… Instead of hiring the best, they hired based on an irrelevant qualification of skin color. What resulted was massive malpractice. Doctors charged more than 24 hours a day in time, and went golfing instead. There were a shocking number of medication mistakes, some of which killed people. Patients died in the hallways waiting to get care. It had the worst reputation of any hospital I have ever heard of in my life. A simple chair became the most dangerous instrument in the hospital, because staff would tip back in the chair during break, deliberately tipping it over, and then go on long, drawn out medical leave for their “injuries”. It was a slip and fall scheme. So many staff were out on paid leave due to falling out of chairs that they had trouble getting bodies in the building to actually work.
When the hospital was in danger of losing its accreditation, black activists descended upon the city, and claimed that white racists targeted the hospital because the people who worked there were black, and served a black community. They urged people to ignore that this hospital was more deadly to go to than simply staying home. They pretended it was all about racism, and fought tooth and nail against reforms, or having it closed and go under new management.
You should go to the latimes.com website and look it up. Then get back to me about AA and racial hiring.
I was friends with one of my professors, who lamented to me about how AA put people in his class who were completely lost, and unprepared for the work. He said he had to teach the same class to two different audiences.
I noticed, as well, that you deflected and refused to answer my question. So I will ask you again, and urge you to give me an honest answer. Not deflection. Not ignoring it. Be honest.
If you needed brain surgery, would the race of your doctor matter, or their skill? Maybe the top specialist is black, but if he or she is, who cares? It’s not his melanin that will operate on you.
If your life was on the line, you’d see the value of meritocracy in choosing a surgeon.
I don’t accept that AA means lowering the bar, it did force people to consider those they otherwise wouldn’t have considered. For me, I have a few specialists and a primary physician,, all of different races. I didn’t really consider race in my choices. If I were a woman having a baby, evidence shows that white doctors are more likely to ignore their pain and symptoms and Black women are more likely to die during childbirth with a white doctor.
A program can be implemented poorly by lazy people. If someone hired someone simply because they were Black without considering their qualifications, that would be wrong.
Excellent points and well said!
Not to say there isn’t racism, but what the country adapted from Thomas Jefferson and put at the core of our governing principles was “self-evident that all men are created equal”. It’s a core American principle that we still base our governance and society on today. His abhorrent practice of owning slaves was soundly rejected and has no place in our country today. Because one (or perhaps even many) aspects of the man’s life was/were evil, doesn’t make “self-evident that all men are created equal” any less important or true.
It was a core principal that Jefferson didn’t intend to apply to Black people. Neither did Patrick Henry when he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” How did that apply to the slaves he owned?
You keep talking about the past and ideas/practices that are not really in play today. Granted, there may be some long term residual economic impact resulting from those past ideas/practices but they are not practiced or accepted today. I fail to see how someone being racist 200 years ago makes certain categories of people racist today, especially if they have explicitly rejected the racist ideas/practices and only further embraced non-racist principles.
” but they are not practiced or accepted today. I fail to see how someone being racist 200 years ago makes certain categories of people racist today, especially if they have explicitly rejected the racist ideas/practices and only further embraced non-racist principles.”
In what universe have they categorically rejected racist practices when the same people are trying to suppress minority votes across the country. Ron DeSantis just eliminated a couple of seats that typically would represent minorities while bringing back election police that hadn’t existed since Jim Crow.
Enigma:
Since voter ID is associated with an increase in black voting, please defend your allegations about voter suppression.
Do you think election watchers will prevent black people from voting? Defend your position.
Or are they to prevent electioneering and voter intimidation?
Democrats cleverly pretend that any effort to prevent voter fraud and cheating is racist voter suppression, and their obedient followers don’t question. They just get mad at “voter suppression”.
It’s like Joe Biden calling the Georgia voting bill “Jim Eagle” or “Jim Crow on steroids” when his pants should have burst into flames from the lying.
I read the Georgia voting bill, and there was no voter suppression in it whatsoever.
“Since voter ID is associated with an increase in black voting, please defend your allegations about voter suppression.”
Any increase in Black voting is due to increase effort to vote despite the restriction. How does removing hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls based on the sound of their names increase voting?
Enigma, you lose all credibility by making statements based on your conclusions. Ron DeSantis vetoed two Republican maps because they featured unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
DeSantis said, “We have a responsibility to produce maps for our citizens that do not contain unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” “Today, I vetoed a map that violates the U.S. Constitution, but that does not absolve the Legislature from doing its job. I appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to work with me to pass a legally compliant map.”
If you wish to criticize Republicans for gerrymandering, you have to blame Democrats as well.
“Slavery, slavery, slavery…you dwell on the past but letting it go requires more bravery.” Coleman Hughes
https://youtu.be/YEkFBVErK7E
Interesting historical facts. However, the only thing that counts today is what the country embraced and what got carried forward. Racism 200 years ago isn’t having any significant impact on your life today. And to keep bringing it up as examples of what make us a racist country today makes no sense to me. My take away from these sins of the past is that we have been good enough people to acknowledge our mistakes and make corrections. You’re saying we are racist today because we used to be. I’m saying we’re not racist because we used to be.
I’m saying that not only did America used to be racist (which some of your friends here don’t acknowledge) but still is today, using some of the same practices from the past. We still have segregated schools in New York and Mississippi. Unfair housing practices still exist, voter suppression, sentencing disparities and overpolicing communities. Wage and hiring inequality. Which of these things do you think don’t still exist?
Enigma,
Chris Rock summed it up when he asked the white members of his audience who among them would trade places with him and he is rich?
Jeff:
Most black people would not actually trade bodies with a white person, even if metaphysically it was possible.
That’s because body snatching is a bit of a jarring idea. Who would want to look in a mirror and see a total stranger?
You know who actually would trade bodies, whether it was a white person for Chris Rock, or a black person for a white? Someone handicapped, whose body doesn’t function. The handicapped would want to be able bodied, of any color, in a heartbeat.
Karen,
First of all, Rock was making a *joke.* But like all good humor, there is an element of truth, that is, *white* people would never trade places with a black person- even a multi-millionaire black person.
That says it all.
But like all good humor, there is an element of truth,
There a jew jokes, blonde jokes, Italian jokes,
Black jokes. All with a bit of truth.
And jokes about rednecks. You might be a redneck if you don’t need a clean shirt to go to work.
Aren’t jokes supposed to be funny ?
It’s funny if you are not a redneck.
I am not a redneck. and it is not funny.
Lenny Bruce is funny,
George Carlin is funny.
your purported joke is just a dud.
Some good redneck jokes.
Mine WAS a Jeff Foxworthy joke which I stole….
Then you could have stolen a funny one.
I thought it was humorous. We are going to argue about this too?
“We still have segregated schools in New York and Mississippi. Unfair housing practices still exist, voter suppression, sentencing disparities and overpolicing communities. Wage and hiring inequality. Which of these things do you think don’t still exist?”
1. Segregated schools – The only places I’m hearing about segregated schools are woke African American college kids calling for more segregated classes, events, etc. That said, if there are schools that are segregated for reasons other than there aren’t minorities living in the area, we have laws against that.
2. Unfair housing – How? What is unfair? We have laws against that as well and plenty of advocacy group that would help out with taking it to court.
3. Voter suppression – Again, how? Sorry but I don’t see voter ID as voter suppression. I see it as racist by assuming African Americans aren’t as capable of obtaining an ID as white voters. If you’re talking about mail-in ballots
4. Sentencing disparities – That may be the case. I don’t know enough about the data.
5. Over policing communities – Well thats being address by cutting back police forces. How’s that working out for Black communities?
6. Wage and hiring inequality – Again there are laws against that. Where are the lawsuits proving it?
All that said, you asked which of these things don’t still exist, and my answer would likely all to some extent. But not on a systemic scale as many people claim.
Lastly, it frankly perplexes me, why if we are such a racist country we have people of color by the millions willing to break the laws to get into this country?
You claim all these things without a bit of documentation and no research. You are so sure you’re right you aren’t willing to listen.
Enigma, take the plank out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in another’s.
You said your opponents gave no documentation or research. We’ve provided it to you before but you just ignore it.
We’ve asked you, numerous times, for proof to back up your claims about unfair housing, voter suppression, etc, but you won’t give anything other than your opinion.
I linked a WaPo article, and urged you to look for the studies I mentioned. I gave you concrete, easily verifiable examples of not only racism, but the perception of other races as outsiders in most countries that have a national race or ethnicity.
You just ignore it and persist in your bias.
Doctor, heal thyself.
Hey Karin, did you know that the United States of America was the only country in the world that had slaves? This is the worst country that ever existed. Why I think we all should leave and go to a better place.
I have provide a great deal of proof to an audience that refuses to listen.
“. . . an audience that refuses to listen.”
Nice projection.
Well for one the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (or there about) made much of what you’re claiming illegal on a national basis. And even though I can’t do it off the top of my head, I’m confident that there are many, many state laws that protect against the kinds of discrimination you claim is so common. Believe it or not the overwhelming majority of people in America want to see African Americans succeed. That includes Republicans. Just because their approach is more centered on helping African Americans help themselves and having the same rights and standards for everyone regardless of race, doesn’t mean Republicans don’t want African Americans to succeed or that they are racist.
I am willing to listen. Thats why I want to hear specifics when you make a claim. Anyone can repeat platitudes, but that doesn’t let you know what needs to be fixed. There’s nothing to discuss. It’s why politicians and the news media are not helping.
I’m sure you meant the Civil Rights Act of 1964, combined with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fait Housing Act of 1968 which in combination were supposed to do a lot of good. What you certainly aren’t aware of is that in history there have been a number of Civil and Voting Rights Acts and the Supreme Court haw weakened of found unconstitutional, each and every one. Voting Rights in particular with Shelby V Holder in 2013 which eliminated preclearance and the enforcement provisions and SCOTUS further weakened the Voting Rights Act this year. You’re going by what you think and I’m going by what I know.
I appreciate the correction and clarifications. And you are obviously well versed in law history. So America is a irredeemable racist country. But that takes me back to a question I had earlier – Why are millions of people of color wanting to come here so badly that they are willing to break the law, travel great distances and risk their lives to get get here. Someone should warn them that they are coming to a racist hell hole, have no chance, and that their lives will be miserable. If fact, if our President was a decent person he would stop them from coming so they can avoid all the suffering they are about to endure in this country.
Enigma:
What are some examples of modern, racist, unfair housing practices?
Please provide an example of voter suppression. Or were you referring to the suppression of people who are not legally allowed to vote?
Example of modern, racist, unfair housing practice:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/homes/black-homeowner-home-appraisal-feseries/index.html
You say you’ve read Georgia’s laws. They have removed over 500,000 people from the rolls since 2019, many of them for having last names similar to criminals. They attempted to end Sunday voting because too many Black people voted on Sundays. They generally reduced mail-in-voting, reduced early voting in some places and have thrown out duly elected Democratic election board members and replaced them with Republicans. They reserved for themselves the right to replace officials and overturn elections.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-voter-suppression-bill_n_605d01dfc5b67593e056fb32
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote language into the Declaration of Independence that would have stopped the slave trade and eventually ended slavery.
Being human, and a product of his times, he cannot be judged by today’s social mores. Just like you will not pass muster when judged 250 years from now. I doubt either you or I will come across as enlightened as Jefferson to far distant future generations.
Whoops. I forgot to add that Jefferson’s original anti-slavery language was removed from the DoI, with the exception of the phrases involving liberty and all men are created equal. Even so, those were the seeds that made the US one of the Western nations at the vanguard of ending slavery, despite its agricultural reliance upon it.
Jefferson actually ended the International Slave Trade but only as a protectionist measure to increase the value of Domestic bred (raped) slaves. Give me an example from his life and not his words that he desired to end slavery? I can judge him against others of his time like his sometimes friend John Adams or even others that owned slaves like John Jay who released many of his own slaves and ended slavery in New York. Jefferson falls short even by standards of the day, without even getting into starting raping one of his slaves at age 14.
Watching lefties enact their policies is both depressing and invigorating.
Depressing to see so many stupid people determined to condemn the country to mediocrity.
Invigorating because lefties are energizing us to take back our country.
Lefties, in their arrogance, have shown us the folly of their ways and we are mobilizing.
More of the indoctrination rhetoric: “Us vs. the Lefties”. That’s what’s truly sad. The alt-right media you rely on do not represent the views of most Americans.
Welcome to the clown show.