The Democratic Party and the liberal left’s obsession with disparate impact race politics crept into K-12 public education. Their latest social engineering experimentation uses black and Hispanic kids in poor urban classrooms as pawns for political power. Education is secondary.
Liberals believe they can artificially wipe away serious behavior problems that are cultural in nature. They do this by labeling reasonable standards of classroom discipline as racist or discriminatory. When urban schools with predominantly black and Hispanic students enacted protocols that create an environment where learning can take place, more suspensions and expulsions resulted, accompanied by a widening of the achievement gap between black students and their white counterparts.
The knee-jerk reaction from liberals was to claim that school disciplinary policies that disproportionally affected black and Hispanic kids were culturally insensitive, discriminatory and evidence of racism. The liberals were confusing correlation and causation. School officials were even discouraged from calling police even in cases of violent assaults – that could also be considered racist.
Social engineers in colleges and universities began drawing up untested experiments using black and Hispanic kids as laboratory rats. They wanted to show that leaving disruptive kids in the classroom, instead of removing them for serious behavior violations including assaults on teachers, would improve scholastic performance.
Instead, disruptions and scholastic performance both got worse. Leaving disruptive kids in a classroom is a danger not only to the teacher but to other students as well. The university professors are nowhere near the classrooms to see the disaster they created with their inane idea, nor are they held accountable.
Not surprisingly, no amount of cultural sensitivity training of school officials will negate the culturally dysfunctional baggage brought to school every day by students.
Too many black kids today do not come to school in a state of readiness to learn. They have not been read to by parents. They are not socially adjusted for a group environment like a classroom, nor have they been reasonably disciplined for unwanted behavior. This emotional baggage is then thrown into the lap of a teacher who does not have the education or skills for handling these serious emotional and behavioral problems.
Kids have an excuse because of their age, immaturity and bad parenting. The parents of those disruptive kids have no excuse. Long ago, parents were absolved of their responsibility to raise their kids effectively. Liberal social dogma told them racism was at the root of their inability to raise kids who were ready for the demands of a school classroom.
Poverty was to blame too. Now liberals had a reason for not just government but economic intervention as well. This gave the left a two-for-one moment to enact expensive government-run tax-supported programs. They could spend more money not just on unproven education experiments but also on new anti-poverty programs.
K-4 programs have become K-3 programs. This further absolves mainly black and Hispanic parents from their rightful responsibility of raising their kids.
We are on our way to kids being taken immediately from the maternity ward to a government school. They are already being fed three meals a day and provided for by taxpayer-funded after-school programs. Why not just start them on the road to government dependency, not to mention indoctrination and exposure to leftist dogma, as early in life as possible?
GOP politicians in Congress have been reluctant to challenge the efficacy of these expensive programs lest they are accused of not caring about black and Hispanic children, or being outright racist. Nothing makes a white Republican politician run like their hair is on fire faster than being accused of not caring about black kids.
Education has always been the traditional vehicle for upward mobility in America. It is even more important in today’s knowledge-based economy.
Blacks who have embraced education are less likely to have kids who drop out of school, commit crimes, join gangs or make other flawed lifestyle choices like drug and alcohol abuse and having children they are ill-equipped to raise.
One of the hallmarks of slavery was criminalizing the education of black children thus keeping them ignorant. I would argue that many of today’s public school policies achieve the same results – they keep kids ignorant.
The goal of social activists is not to fix education problems but to fix the statistics. They are focusing on the wrong thing. Statistics can be exploited not only to make school problems (seem to) disappear, but also to demonstrate the need for the continuation of government programs. The kids who fail in school today are the population that tomorrow will fill jails and prisons and be in need of government assistance.
Former President George W. Bush called these low expectations “soft bigotry.” He was right. Now the left wants to back up the soft bigotry with faulty statistics.
Yes I Believe In Global Warning You Damn Idiots. The Fuhrer Was A Tree Hugger.
The Great Global Warming Scam Began with the Nazis…
If you really want to understand the great global warming scam you must listen to my podcast this week with Rupert Darwall.
In his new book Green Tyranny, Darwall tells a story so extraordinary and implausible that it’s no wonder most of the mainstream media has been too scared to touch it.
The bottom line: it all started with the Nazis.
Yes, I know. It sounds so click-baity, doesn’t it?
That’ll be why even those journals and writers that have reviewed the book favorably have tended to steer clear of the key chapter in Darwall’s book. The one mischievously titled ‘Europe’s First Greens’.
Europe’s First Greens were, of course, the Nazis.
The documentary evidence provided by Darwall is irrefutable, for this is a considered, well-researched and scholarly work not a potboiler.
What Darwall demonstrates is that the ideology driving the current climate scare originated in Hitler’s Germany.
Angela Merkel’s Energiewende, the brainwashing of your kids in school with green propaganda,the Climate Industrial Complex, the black outs in South Australia, Solyndra, Obama promising that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket”, the bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes destroying a skyline near you, the real reason Trump just had to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord – it’s all basically the fault of the Nazis.
Americans Are So Damn Stupid. I know Climate Change Is A Joke But I Still Gave Them Solyndra $535 m. I’m A Pimp Damit
That’s because Nazis – though similar in so many ways to their fellow totalitarians the Communists – had at least one major point of difference with Marxist ideology: they feared and loathed industrial progress and they worshipped nature.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.
The Fuhrer, in other words, was as big a Gaia worshipper as even Naomi Klein or Emma Thompson or Leonardo di Caprio.
As Hitler thought, so did the Nazi intelligentsia. Many of them were vegetarians and, like Rudolf Hess and Agriculture Minister Walter Darre were big fans of organic farming. The party was fiercely anti-smoking (even though the Germans continued to smoke fanatically so long as tobacco was available). They were also massively into “renewable” energy, especially wind, tidal power and hydroelectric.
Hitler said in a dinner party conversation in 1941:
“We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt…Coal will disappear one day.”
He then speculated on renewable solutions to this ‘peak coal’ problem:
“The future belongs, surely, to water – to the wind and the tides.”
(This isn’t mentioned in the book but Hitler’s favorite SS commando – Otto Skorzeny – who miraculously survived the war and retired to live in Spain spent his later years campaigning on behalf of the wind industry.)
Darwall doesn’t mince his words:
The Nazis’ profound hostility to capitalism and their identification with nature-politics led them to advocate green policies half a century before any other political party. As an approximation, subtract Nazi race-hate, militarism and desire for world conquest, and Nazi ideology ends up looking not dissimilar to today’s environmental movement.
What Darwall goes on to demonstrate is how this mindset, unabated by the defeat of Nazi Germany, continued to dominate European political thought. This was especially so in the two countries most responsible for promulgating the climate change scare: Sweden and Germany.
In Germany, the Nazis’ green ideology became linked inextricably with that of the Peace movement – which, with a certain irony, was largely sponsored by the Soviet Union.
Sweden, meanwhile, did most to get the global warming scare up and running in the early days. Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a Swede.
You’ll have to read Darwall’s book for the full, rather complicated story. By the end you’ll have an answer to perhaps the most puzzling of the many questions about the global warming industry: why, given the scientific evidence is so flimsy, does it carry on pushing its cause so fervently?
The answer is simple: because “global warming” is not about “the science” and never was about “the science.”
Like the “acid rain” scare and the “nuclear winter” scare, the man-made global warming scare is a fake news story designed to push a political and economic agenda.
At the bottom of that agenda is the same superstitious fear the Nazis had: that industrial progress is morally wrong because it is against Nature.
Hence the greenies’ obsession with renewables. Despite all the evidence that renewables do at least as much environmental damage as fossil fuels, only much more expensively, and without making any meaningful difference to “climate change” the green ideology persists in pretending that renewables are the “clean” “natural” alternative to “dirty” fossil fuels.
It’s about emotion not logic; about the narrative, not reality.
For decades we’ve been gulled by a compliant (and invariably ignorant) media into believing that the global warming scare is about scientists doing clever sciencey stuff and reaching important conclusions which the world can only ignore at its peril.
But actually, all along, the tail has been wagging the dog.
The scientists are a virtual irrelevance in this story: merely the useful idiots of a political agenda.
That agenda is part religion – a kind of pagan nature worship expressed through opposition to Western industrial civiliation and the embrace of retrograde technologies like wind power.
And it’s part leftist politics and economics: a way by which Europe can destroy and overtake the United States’ economic hegemony by neutralising one of its greatest competitive advantages – the abundance of fossil fuels which have now made it the world’s number one energy superpower.
Donald Trump probably hasn’t a clue about the intellectual and ideological undercurrents which created the great global warming scare. But he’s a businessman and saw what was happening through gut instinct.
Global warming is a scam – the biggest the world has ever seen.
Would Someone Tell This Idiot That Socialism Has Always Failed!
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the runner-up for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2016, told an audience on CNN Wednesday night that Americans would be happy to pay more in federal income taxes if he could just explain to them it would mean they’ll get more “free” government benefits, including health care, child care and college.
In a televised debate against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders told the audience the American people would support his economic vision if only he were able to explain it to them.
“If we can explain to people, ‘Yeah, you’re going to be paying more in taxes. It’s going to be a progressive tax system,’” Sanders told the crowd, “‘The wealthy are going to pay their fair share, not the middle class, not the working class, but everybody will pay some more. But you’re gonna get free health care, and maybe you’re gonna get free child care, and maybe your kids are gonna be able to go to college tuition-free. You know what? You’re gonna better off than under Ted’s system.’”
Sanders recently introduced a Medicare For All bill to extend the government-run health insurance program for the elderly and disabled to all Americans. His bill, which has garnered support from one third of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, would extend benefits not only to all Americans, but to illegal aliens as well.
Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986.
In the video, you can watch Galen lick a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax. He also spiked the basement flooring of his own home with enough radioactive material to send any Geiger counter reading off the scale to disprove the fear mongering surrounding radon at the time.
Galen surmises the regulations and fear mongering that surround radioactive materials are in place to prevent the widespread adoption of nuclear power in local small scale neighborhood/home based reactors. Galen also points out that hot nuclear “waste” can be effectively turned into a safe power source through thermionic conversion, which is how the U.S. submarine navigation network was powered. The heat it gives off can also be used to safely heat homes.
He points out that nuclear “waste” is worth roughly $10 million (in 1986 dollars) a ton if it were to be reprocessed to collect its useful isotopes, so all of this talk about trying to bury it is a sham. He says the power companies are holding all the waste with the intent of playing the plutonium futures market. The “waste” could be stored above ground in already constructed buildings meeting all the regulatory requirements without the need to have these outrageous basalt mines dug into mountains. The only reason he can think of for these underground vaults is to hide bodies/evidence that the state doesn’t want uncovered.
At its core, he says federal controls over nuclear material is about maintaining power and control over the masses through the denial of self-sufficient power sources. Obviously if one had a personal sized power source that was cheap and efficient, they wouldn’t need to be connected to the “grid” for anything. The power grid is the control grid our rulers use to keep us under their thumbs.
He also says Three Mile Island was an intentionally created disaster, and that a core meltdown could not melt its way deep into the Earth.
You do not have a choice about paying for the wars in Libya, Iraq, Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.. etc.. You do not have a choice about paying for nuclear weapons. You do not have a choice about paying for NSA wiretapping programs that monitor your own communications. You do not have a choice about paying for bureaucratic stripper parties. You do not have a choice about paying for bank bailouts worth tens of trillions of dollars. You do not have a choice about ANYTHING. As the author Robert Heinlein once said, “There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. ”
Further, I reject the notion that ideas can be “property.” Rand was big advocate of copyright and patents, and a lot of her work actually revolves around those concepts. Most academic libertarians like myself reject this view. The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom has some good academic articles on the subject for those who are interested.
So, with those myths dispelled, let’s move on to the article itself. You’ll notice that when I make a point, I use the term “he says”. While I find Galen’s arguments to be compelling, I haven’t looked very deeply into the research on the subject. And I’m certainly not advocating for people to go out and consume uranium for kicks. No where do I suggest that. I’m simply offering up information that others may care to dig into more deeply.
And contrary to Herbert’s unsubstantiated claim, Galen did not die an early death from leukemia. He died from age related complications at the age of 82.
If the author of this article wasn’t such a reactionary, she may have actually bothered to look up some research on the subject to see just how accurate Galen’s claims were before deriding them. This chapter from The Nuclear Energy Option, written by Bernard L. Cohen from the University of Pittsburgh, pretty much backs up the claims made by Galen in the video.
“We now turn to the question of why the public became so irrationally fearful of radiation. Probably the most important reason is the gross overcoverage of radiation stories by television, magazines, and newspapers. Constantly hearing stories about radiation as a hazard gave people the subconscious impression that it was something to worry about. In attempting to document this overcoverage, I obtained the number of entries in the New York Times Information Bank on various types of accidents and compared them with the number of fatalities per year caused by these accidents in the United States. I did this for the years 1974-1978 so as not to include the Three Mile Island accident, which generated more stories than usual. On an average, there were 120 entries per year on motor vehicle accidents, which kill 50,000 Americans each year; 50 entries per year on industrial accidents, which kill 12,000; and 20 entries per year on asphyxiation accidents, which kill 4,500; note that for these the number of entries, which represents roughly the amount of newspaper coverage, is approximately proportional to the death toll they cause. But for accidents involving radiation, there were something like 200 entries per year, in spite of there not having been a single fatality from a radiation accident for over a decade.
From all of the hundred or so highly publicized incidents discussed earlier in this chapter (with the exception of the Three Mile Island accident), the total radiation received by all people involved was not more than 10,000 mrem. Since we expect only one cancer death from every 4 million mrem, there is much less than a 1% chance that there will ever be even a single fatality from all of those incidents taken together. On an average, each of these highly publicized incidents involved less than 1 chance in 10,000 of a single fatality, but for some reason they got more attention than other accidents that were killing an average of 300 Americans every day and seriously injuring 10 times that number. Surely, then, the amount of coverage of radiation incidents was grossly out of proportion to the true hazard.”
