Why the Democrats' putsch* will ultimately fail:
1. The economy will not recover before November 2010 or 2012.
2. The Democrats have not successfully dehumanized their opposition or smeared the tea party.
3. The Supreme Court has upheld free speech, for now, and truth has had a chance to get its pants on to catch up with Democrat lies.
4. The Democrats "hope and change" mantra is next to dead, along with the "post-racial presidency" narrative.
5. The mainstream media continues to shrink in size and influence.
6. People are noticing how our schools are dumbing our kids down, through incompetence and a corrupt curriculum. This leads to parental distrust of the schools and universities and mentally preparing children to deal with the lies.
7. The military enlisted men are not sympathetic to the socialist agenda.
8. Emergency personnel and police tend not to be sympathetic to the socialist agenda, and have no interest in committing violence against Americans.
9. Infighting among power elites (such as at Copenhagen).
10. Once the American people see the enemy, they defeat it.
* Due to inaccurate definitions on the web, the term "putsch" must be defined here. A putsch is not "the sudden overthrow of a government,"which is a romanticization of the term. It is most accurately the sudden and illegitimate seizure of power by a minority group, typically one that has infiltrated the government.
7 comments:
In reference to point 6:
"People are noticing how our schools are dumbing our kids down, through incompetence and a corrupt curriculum. This leads to parental distrust of the schools and universities and mentally preparing children to deal with the lies.", my friend's son was the #1 engineering grad at Rutger's this year. I do not think NJ schools "dumbed him down." You once referred to me as " a useful idiot", I think you are the idiot.
Idiots use anecdotes as evidence. Informed people use evidence that is representative of the population under discussion.
With that in mind, here is a report "International Test Scores - Poor U.S. Test Results Tied To Weak Curriculum": http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
My evidence is not anecdotal; he actually was the number 1 grad. in engineering this year at Rutgers. If I were using him as the only data point to make a predictive model about school performance outcomes, then perhaps you are correct, but otherwise, no. I looked at your report; there is no discussion about how the scores were weighted nor anything about statistical methodology.
First of all, pointing to a single case of anything is by nature anecdotal. (Congratulations on your son's graduation, by the way.) But second, the report explains it's methodology - math and science scores are the basis for cross-country comparison. Why? Because you cannot fake these, and weighting is irrelevant. You either know that 2 + 2 = 4, or you don't.
Notice that comparative scores decline in a nearly linear fashion from grades 4 through 12. The decline of rational problem-solving is a consequence of the intentional mental distortion (aka "social reengineering") taking place in our schools.
Note: The report cites education leaders and major texts. It also links to John Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down," which has a flawed thesis (that industrialists are driving the decline in test scores), but nonetheless has many relevant factoids for those interested in getting at the truth.
Most tellingly, Gatto claims that our schools are producing "robots" instead of thinking adults, which in my experience is completely accurate. Another good line: "Schools (are) training a social lump to be needy, frightened, envious, bored, talentless and incomplete."
citing Rothman, "Epidemiology, an Introduction", page 5, he explains that anecdotal information is information which is selectively cited to draw a specific conclusion; his example was a Boston Globe story on age of symphony conductors. While it is true that I used a specific example, I was not trying to draw a generalized conclusion other than I asserted that he was not harmed by NJ public schools. I suppose one could argue the negative, in this case that he actually was harmed by NJ schools, because he would be even smarter had he gone to a very elite, rigorous private school, but we would have to wait 20 years and do a prospective case-control study, and I do not think we want to wait this long.
But you were countering my general statement with an anecdote, presuming inductive logic.
And there have been longitudinal studies that show the general decline in math and science scores from the 1970s.
May I sum up your default position, regardless of evidence, as "left-wing government-run education has been a smashing success?" Because this is laughable in light of high drop-out rates (especially for so-called "minorities"), deplorable math and science scores by historical or cross-country comparative standards, and out of control education spending.
I would never argue that amerika is getting smarter, but I do not attribute it to a left wing political bias as you do.
Post a Comment