What's Wrong With Education?

Actually, nothing. I mean it. Depends on the context. Our teachers are getting paid well---though not enough. It isn't their fault students don't take their books home; it looks so stupid, really. You can't get a date if hot chick three houses down from you thinks you're a nerd. Parents for the most part either don't care enough to help their kids study, or they'd rather not get into it with their kids. Teachers today are nothing more than messengers. They recite what is scripted for them by so-called educated elites who may be elites but not educated. So don't kill the messenger. We know what methodology is. If you got it, you can teach almost anything. The problem is, the educated elites don't trust them enough to, well---allow them to teach. That's why classrooms are so boring. Instead of giving the students a dose of reality, maybe perhaps a brief history about the real world, current events, decision making, exercises in critical thinking maybe. Educated elites don't like that last item. Heck no! They don't want you to figure out what is best for you. They want the government to teach you how to think. They do this better than they govern. The dumbing down of the American constituency has been going on for some time: fifty years at least. You can't cook a frog by throwing it into boiling water; you put it in cold water and cook it slowly. You get the idea, I hope.

     Let me give you a few examples of what "dumbing down" has done to earn the name:

     1.- If you held up an outline of the United States with the states left in blank, very few could write in the    names of each state, including their own.

      2.- A co-worker of mine once argued he was English based on his surname. When I asked to see his British passport, he stated he didn't need one because he was born here in the United States.

       3.- That the Amazon River is located in Africa. "Then where is the Nile, if I may ask?" "In South America, of course," was the response.

     This dumbing down of American society does not exclude our elected officials. Even our president erred when he said there were 52 states.

      

The Loch Ness Monsster: Real or Myth?

We have all heard, read, and have seen the photos of "Nessie" from time to time. That lovable and evasive creature that dwells in the depths of Loch Ness---a very long and deep sinister looking lake in Scotland. The most celebrated photos, all in black and white and frustratingly blurry, have no doubt helped the local tourist trade. But what about the creature itself? How is it we don't see him or her much? There have been countless expeditions and forays by both the serious and the curious, all wanting to take that definitive photo that will forever prove the existence of "Nessie". 

     I have from time to time, especially in a classroom setting if for no other reason than as an exercise in critical thinking. 

     Most of the answers centered around the possible origin of the creature and why it was so camera shy: "It's probably a dinosaur that didn't go extinct." or "We can't see it because it's hiding at the bottom of the lake."

      They are easy enough answers. I guess anything is possible---to a point. 
      It has been suggested that "Nessie" is a plesiosaur. This is based on the fact the "alleged" creature has been seen perhaps half a dozen times over the many decades since those poor quality black and white photographs were taken in the 30s all sporting very long necks on half submerged bodies with very few details to help identify the elusive beasts. Plesiosaurs, according to mainstream paleontologists, are not classified as dinosaurs (odd since every animal back in the age of dinosaurs were, well, dinosaurs; even reptiles which dinosaurs imply: "Terrible Lizards"). They are what is classified as aquatic reptiles. Even had they survived the K/T extinction event 65 million years ago, they would have become extinct in any case genetically. Nothing lasts forever. There would have had to have been many such survivors---at least half a dozen or so to be viable. But that begs the point. Biologists will tell you that a species generally lasts anywhere from 5 to 10 million years before it either goes extinct (for lack of genetic reinforcement), or evolves into something else---at least that is present-day Darwinian thinking. As far as hiding in the depths of Loch Ness (the deepest is reportedly 900 feet) that would not be possible given the fact it is an aquatic reptile and needs to surface to take in air. Whales and other aquatic mammals may stay under water for hours at a time, but all eventually need to surface. Why then hasn't it, or they, been seen on a fairly routine basis?

       Let's try a little experiment: dump a couple fresh water dolphins in the Loch. I can bet you they'd be seen by boaters and land-lovers alike; at least long enough for you to take videos, in color of course, of their antics. 
        Attention teachers: Use this post to test critical thinking. 

     

     

      

 

 

                         The Political Assassination of Gov. Chris Christie Has Begun 

 I was wondering how long it was going to take the godless media to seize upon the crack in the bulwark of the governor of N.J., Chris Christie. "BridgeGate" was the first of the scandals allegedly involving the Christie administration orchestrating the closing of a bridge connecting New Jersey with New York because of a New Jersey Democrat mayor's failure to endorse the Republican governor, Christie, during the latter's re-election. This was followed more recently by testimony from another Democrat mayor of New Jersey accusing Christie's lieutenant  governor of urging the mayor to support a state project, threatening the withholding of federal monies for Hurricane Sandy victims if the mayor did not cooperate.  The floodgates have opened, and the governor looks vulnerable, naked to the world. He's also a Republican.

     The Democrats would never think of doing anything similar to what I have just mentioned. How horrific! How dastardly!  Cries for an investigation into the governor's apparent abuse of power are mounting; not surprisingly, by Democrats. 

       The question I have is this: If Governor Chris Christie was the bully and abuser as they say, why wasn't this subsequent accusation made known prior to "BridgeGate"? This reminds one of the Jennifer Flowers sex scandal against Democrat Bill Clinton. In the months that followed other women stepped from out of the political shadows with similar accusations. Again, the question: Why didn't they step forward long before Flowers' initial testimony? 

        I find it all highly suspicious. 

        "Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." 

        Anthony Weiner comes to mind.

       I can hear the soulful violin music playing softly in the background; the gnashing of teeth, and the wailing lamentations of the truly hypocritical. The sooner the public realizes this, the better suited they will be to vote.

         Politics is not for the polite, nor for the sensitive honest. They play by rough rules. They are big boys and girls. They need to leave acting to the actors. We the people are on to you. The gig is up.