Day: February 8, 2018

A 2nd Amendment Thought Experiment


Here’s a simple thought experiment regarding the 2nd Amendment. What do you think the U.S. would be like if we didn’t have it?

Without the 2nd Amendment, firearms would likely be highly restricted and controlled. Various state legislatures might not vote for that, but it would come about through a combination of federal action, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic decrees. Violent crime would probably be higher as an unarmed citizenry is easy prey for criminals. In all likelihood, America would look like other Anglo countries such as Australia and Great Britain with respect to gun ownership. 

That’s the easy part of the answer. But there’s more to it than that. Without the 2nd Amendment, might not the social and cultural landscape of America be different from what it is today?  

To understand why, look at how far within living memory the U.S. has drifted from its founding principles. The country has been pushed further and further to the left by undemocratic means in the form of judicial decrees and bureaucratic edicts, many of which have no basis in written law or the Constitution. Abortion, homosexual marriage, transgender rights, and massive illegal immigration are examples. And think of all the statewide referendums that have been overturned by the courts because the results went against the progressive agenda. So much for “every vote counts.”

Furthermore, we live in what is called an “agency state.” Loosely written laws give government bureaucrats the power to set rules and regulations that have the effect of law. We’ve seen government departments like the EPA, staffed by environmental radicals, running amok with their regulatory power. Probably no federal government agency is innocent of bureaucratic overreach, some more than others, which is why the country is choking on ‘laws,’ many of which people neither know of nor can understand.

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Simple. Most office-bound bureaucrats, left-wing judges, and government elites are not exactly prime examples of virile American manhood. Quite the opposite. When you think of this government class, which is predominately male, a picture of a feminized metrosexual springs to mind, especially the higher up you go in the hierarchy.  

This point is this. In the back of their minds, even if it is buried at a subconscious level, these people fear an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry puts a check on how far and how fast the government class dares to push its progressive agenda by unconstitutional means. True, the 2nd Amendment by itself has not completely stopped the unconstitutional drift to the left, but one has to believe it has prevent what could have been from being what is. 

Without the check of a 2nd Amendment, how bold would those who hold government power would be? Some real possibilities: Perhaps home schooling would be illegal; many aspects of political correctness might be weaponized by bureaucratic ‘law’; unapproved speech might be criminalized; racial quotas might be more prevalent; web sites like the American Thinker, Drudge, etc. could be curtailed and talk radio muffled. 

Here’s an interesting second question. What would Europe look like if it had a Second Amendment? Would the people in the various countries of the EU have lost their national characteristics and rights to make their own laws to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? Would the European states have allowed the EU to dictate to them on Third-World immigration? Would European men be hiding under their beds in fear of Muslim immigrants terrorizing their women? Specifically, would Europeans have allowed their rights as citizens be so usurped by the elite that today they are more subjects than citizens? 

Some would say that Europe has been so emasculated that a 2nd Amendment would not make much of a difference. Perhaps, but then again, would the population of Europe have been neutered in the first place if it had an armed citizenry equivalent to what exists in the United States?

The bottom line seems clear. As far as the United States goes, the 2nd Amendment is necessary, but by itself insufficient, to maintain freedom in America. The 1st Amendment is equally vital, as it protects the right of religion and free speech. The rights in both amendments must be aggressively defended and put to use. As to firearms, one does not have to be a hunter or target shooter to support both the 2nd Amendment and groups that defend it like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Nor does one have to be a member of the press to exercise the right of free speech. The rights guaranteed to us under the 1st and 2nd Amendments must be exercised. If not, they will atrophy like muscles that are neglected which is what the left and its running dogs in the Democratic Party sincerely hope for. 

Here’s a simple thought experiment regarding the 2nd Amendment. What do you think the U.S. would be like if we didn’t have it?

Without the 2nd Amendment, firearms would likely be highly restricted and controlled. Various state legislatures might not vote for that, but it would come about through a combination of federal action, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic decrees. Violent crime would probably be higher as an unarmed citizenry is easy prey for criminals. In all likelihood, America would look like other Anglo countries such as Australia and Great Britain with respect to gun ownership. 

That’s the easy part of the answer. But there’s more to it than that. Without the 2nd Amendment, might not the social and cultural landscape of America be different from what it is today?  

To understand why, look at how far within living memory the U.S. has drifted from its founding principles. The country has been pushed further and further to the left by undemocratic means in the form of judicial decrees and bureaucratic edicts, many of which have no basis in written law or the Constitution. Abortion, homosexual marriage, transgender rights, and massive illegal immigration are examples. And think of all the statewide referendums that have been overturned by the courts because the results went against the progressive agenda. So much for “every vote counts.”

Furthermore, we live in what is called an “agency state.” Loosely written laws give government bureaucrats the power to set rules and regulations that have the effect of law. We’ve seen government departments like the EPA, staffed by environmental radicals, running amok with their regulatory power. Probably no federal government agency is innocent of bureaucratic overreach, some more than others, which is why the country is choking on ‘laws,’ many of which people neither know of nor can understand.

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Simple. Most office-bound bureaucrats, left-wing judges, and government elites are not exactly prime examples of virile American manhood. Quite the opposite. When you think of this government class, which is predominately male, a picture of a feminized metrosexual springs to mind, especially the higher up you go in the hierarchy.  

This point is this. In the back of their minds, even if it is buried at a subconscious level, these people fear an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry puts a check on how far and how fast the government class dares to push its progressive agenda by unconstitutional means. True, the 2nd Amendment by itself has not completely stopped the unconstitutional drift to the left, but one has to believe it has prevent what could have been from being what is. 

Without the check of a 2nd Amendment, how bold would those who hold government power would be? Some real possibilities: Perhaps home schooling would be illegal; many aspects of political correctness might be weaponized by bureaucratic ‘law’; unapproved speech might be criminalized; racial quotas might be more prevalent; web sites like the American Thinker, Drudge, etc. could be curtailed and talk radio muffled. 

Here’s an interesting second question. What would Europe look like if it had a Second Amendment? Would the people in the various countries of the EU have lost their national characteristics and rights to make their own laws to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? Would the European states have allowed the EU to dictate to them on Third-World immigration? Would European men be hiding under their beds in fear of Muslim immigrants terrorizing their women? Specifically, would Europeans have allowed their rights as citizens be so usurped by the elite that today they are more subjects than citizens? 

Some would say that Europe has been so emasculated that a 2nd Amendment would not make much of a difference. Perhaps, but then again, would the population of Europe have been neutered in the first place if it had an armed citizenry equivalent to what exists in the United States?

The bottom line seems clear. As far as the United States goes, the 2nd Amendment is necessary, but by itself insufficient, to maintain freedom in America. The 1st Amendment is equally vital, as it protects the right of religion and free speech. The rights in both amendments must be aggressively defended and put to use. As to firearms, one does not have to be a hunter or target shooter to support both the 2nd Amendment and groups that defend it like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Nor does one have to be a member of the press to exercise the right of free speech. The rights guaranteed to us under the 1st and 2nd Amendments must be exercised. If not, they will atrophy like muscles that are neglected which is what the left and its running dogs in the Democratic Party sincerely hope for. 



Source link

T-Mobile and Leftism


The T-Mobile SuperBowl commercial #LittleOnes contains only 77 words. But those words summarize the divisiveness and dehumanization of the progressive left and unloads them onto babies. The voice-over monologue is godless political pablum served up to build anger and selfishness in the next generation. The ad shows a circle of nine infants of different races, all about three months old. A soft female voice says:

Welcome to the world, little ones. Yeah, it’s a lot to take in but you come with open minds and the instinct we are all equal.

Ashley Rae Goldenberg at the Media Research Center has written an essay entitled, “T-Mobile Super Bowl Ad Pushes Myth That Babies Don’t See Race or Gender.” The only mistake Miss Goldenberg makes in that piece is that she succumbs to the ill-advised term “gender” when the correct term is sex. The article briefly reviews the strong evidence that not only do babies distinguish and react differently to people according to race and sex, they do so before the age of one.

Tabula rasa, or the mind as a blank slate, is central to the progressive creation mythos. This fallacy asserts that everything human beings think, say, and do derives from what they learn in the environment, as controlled by society. For example, an application of tabula rasa trending now is that male babies become boys and female babies become girls mainly because society tells them they have to, and requires they be given “gendered” clothes and toys. This thesis is so at odds with natural phenomena it must be deemed insane. Tabula rasa is dear to the left because it minimizes individuality and personal responsibility, while emphasizing the differences among groups rather than within groups.

A corollary of the fundamental belief system of progressivism is that there is no such thing as sin before God, only social injustice among groups, according to the opinions of people. If the only evil is social evil, religion is irrelevant and politics are everything. Enlightened leaders such as the executives at T-Mobile get to decide which social conditions constitute injustice, to build those political opinions into their advertising, and to virtue-signal good on themselves by advertising their politics. After huddling for weeks, perhaps in the miserly light of curlicue enviro-lights above them, the creative minds working for T-Mobile corporation pinpointed racism, sexism, and homophobia as the preeminent and permanent evils in life. And they wrote a commercial to drum that into the heads of babies. The soft voice says:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them, but you are unstoppable.

Be warned little ones, American society has made scant progress towards interracial acceptance. You children, except maybe for whitey on the end there, will live in a world full of people who are threatened by you and who will hate you just for who you are. But it’s okay, the haters can’t stop you from getting what you want.

This message is devoid of the highest truth regarding the problem of enmity and strife among people. This generation must not hear that God is love, that the only remedy for hate is divine love. They will not hear the Golden Rule, or to love the enemy as the self. They have neither inspiration nor obligation to heal fear and misunderstanding. Their obligation is to themselves, to not be stopped in fulfilling their own desires. Next the soft voice says:

You’ll love who you want.

Here we go, the big lie, wrapped up in soothing falsehoods about human possibility. Forced marriages have never been a method of imposing the American Judeo-Christian religions, and unless such practices are brought by Islamic immigrants they never will be. Furthermore, there has been an unparalleled degree of social mobility and unregulated public interaction in America, which has resulted in a whole lot of self-directed love. Of course, “love who you want” is a dog whistle for the “LGBT” entitlement, and especially for same-sex marriage. What a waste! To encourage yet another generation to focus on the political partitioning of sexuality. (Interestingly, the only thing the left believes lies outside of the premise of tabula rasa is the predilection for variant sexuality. Apparently, babies have completely “open minds” except for that hardwiring.)

Let’s do the math. It is a well-established statistic accepted by both left and right wings that approximately 3% of the American population is accurately termed homosexual. The 3% statistic amounts to a strong prediction that none of the nine babies in the commercial will grow up to evidence predominant same-sex attraction. Suppose T-Mobile assembled a representative sample of thirty babies, and one grew up to be homosexual. What a burden to place on this one member of the group who belongs to a small minority. His needs will continue to be defined for him according to left-wing politics, his labeling will continue to bestow a priori virtue upon him, and his life will still be used as a weapon against the chimeric “homophobe,” i.e., anyone who thinks for themselves outside the progressive prison cell. Suddenly the voice is not soft any more, it covers the babies in angry tones:

You will demand equal pay, you will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going, you will be heard, not dismissed.

What a crock! The hoax of unequal pay has been discredited innumerable times. Ask any sample of the most successful people in America if they had the freedom to rise above the circumstances of their birth. The script is serving up the senseless anger characteristic of the left.

Regarding being heard, T-Mobile sees the babies as the next generation of foul-mouthed fools, cursing and screaming like the rest of the infantile left. The tragedy here is that the young are not being given the truth — that you have will be listened to if you get past yourself, use your God-given talents, work hard, and develop knowledge that is useful. Lastly, the voice says:

You will be connected and not alone.

Human beings need families; organized criminals and social justice warriors need connections. The destruction of the traditional family lies at the core of all left-wing politics. This is why the commercial emphasizes political connection rather than family. The young need to be prepared for the great opportunity to be the loving and grateful members of a family throughout life. Above all, they need to be taught that if you give love to all because all are one, and if you serve others even at the cost of your own comfort, you will never be alone.

The T-Mobile SuperBowl commercial #LittleOnes contains only 77 words. But those words summarize the divisiveness and dehumanization of the progressive left and unloads them onto babies. The voice-over monologue is godless political pablum served up to build anger and selfishness in the next generation. The ad shows a circle of nine infants of different races, all about three months old. A soft female voice says:

Welcome to the world, little ones. Yeah, it’s a lot to take in but you come with open minds and the instinct we are all equal.

Ashley Rae Goldenberg at the Media Research Center has written an essay entitled, “T-Mobile Super Bowl Ad Pushes Myth That Babies Don’t See Race or Gender.” The only mistake Miss Goldenberg makes in that piece is that she succumbs to the ill-advised term “gender” when the correct term is sex. The article briefly reviews the strong evidence that not only do babies distinguish and react differently to people according to race and sex, they do so before the age of one.

Tabula rasa, or the mind as a blank slate, is central to the progressive creation mythos. This fallacy asserts that everything human beings think, say, and do derives from what they learn in the environment, as controlled by society. For example, an application of tabula rasa trending now is that male babies become boys and female babies become girls mainly because society tells them they have to, and requires they be given “gendered” clothes and toys. This thesis is so at odds with natural phenomena it must be deemed insane. Tabula rasa is dear to the left because it minimizes individuality and personal responsibility, while emphasizing the differences among groups rather than within groups.

A corollary of the fundamental belief system of progressivism is that there is no such thing as sin before God, only social injustice among groups, according to the opinions of people. If the only evil is social evil, religion is irrelevant and politics are everything. Enlightened leaders such as the executives at T-Mobile get to decide which social conditions constitute injustice, to build those political opinions into their advertising, and to virtue-signal good on themselves by advertising their politics. After huddling for weeks, perhaps in the miserly light of curlicue enviro-lights above them, the creative minds working for T-Mobile corporation pinpointed racism, sexism, and homophobia as the preeminent and permanent evils in life. And they wrote a commercial to drum that into the heads of babies. The soft voice says:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them, but you are unstoppable.

Be warned little ones, American society has made scant progress towards interracial acceptance. You children, except maybe for whitey on the end there, will live in a world full of people who are threatened by you and who will hate you just for who you are. But it’s okay, the haters can’t stop you from getting what you want.

This message is devoid of the highest truth regarding the problem of enmity and strife among people. This generation must not hear that God is love, that the only remedy for hate is divine love. They will not hear the Golden Rule, or to love the enemy as the self. They have neither inspiration nor obligation to heal fear and misunderstanding. Their obligation is to themselves, to not be stopped in fulfilling their own desires. Next the soft voice says:

You’ll love who you want.

Here we go, the big lie, wrapped up in soothing falsehoods about human possibility. Forced marriages have never been a method of imposing the American Judeo-Christian religions, and unless such practices are brought by Islamic immigrants they never will be. Furthermore, there has been an unparalleled degree of social mobility and unregulated public interaction in America, which has resulted in a whole lot of self-directed love. Of course, “love who you want” is a dog whistle for the “LGBT” entitlement, and especially for same-sex marriage. What a waste! To encourage yet another generation to focus on the political partitioning of sexuality. (Interestingly, the only thing the left believes lies outside of the premise of tabula rasa is the predilection for variant sexuality. Apparently, babies have completely “open minds” except for that hardwiring.)

Let’s do the math. It is a well-established statistic accepted by both left and right wings that approximately 3% of the American population is accurately termed homosexual. The 3% statistic amounts to a strong prediction that none of the nine babies in the commercial will grow up to evidence predominant same-sex attraction. Suppose T-Mobile assembled a representative sample of thirty babies, and one grew up to be homosexual. What a burden to place on this one member of the group who belongs to a small minority. His needs will continue to be defined for him according to left-wing politics, his labeling will continue to bestow a priori virtue upon him, and his life will still be used as a weapon against the chimeric “homophobe,” i.e., anyone who thinks for themselves outside the progressive prison cell. Suddenly the voice is not soft any more, it covers the babies in angry tones:

You will demand equal pay, you will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going, you will be heard, not dismissed.

What a crock! The hoax of unequal pay has been discredited innumerable times. Ask any sample of the most successful people in America if they had the freedom to rise above the circumstances of their birth. The script is serving up the senseless anger characteristic of the left.

Regarding being heard, T-Mobile sees the babies as the next generation of foul-mouthed fools, cursing and screaming like the rest of the infantile left. The tragedy here is that the young are not being given the truth — that you have will be listened to if you get past yourself, use your God-given talents, work hard, and develop knowledge that is useful. Lastly, the voice says:

You will be connected and not alone.

Human beings need families; organized criminals and social justice warriors need connections. The destruction of the traditional family lies at the core of all left-wing politics. This is why the commercial emphasizes political connection rather than family. The young need to be prepared for the great opportunity to be the loving and grateful members of a family throughout life. Above all, they need to be taught that if you give love to all because all are one, and if you serve others even at the cost of your own comfort, you will never be alone.



Source link

Lack of Sleep is the Latest Ammunition for Anti-Trumpers


Political pundits, celebrities, and liberal politicians are constantly looking for ways to explain what they call the president’s “erratic behavior,” when the reality is that they simply don’t agree with his policies and decisions. The latest blame tactic? Poor health and a lack of sleep.

White House Physician Rules Trump Healthy

As President Trump concludes his first full year in the Oval Office, media members on the left are trying to come to terms with the fact that he’s actually been quite productive and effective — something liberal publications like the Atlantic have even admitted. While “reporters” and “journalists” have spent the last year running down nonexistent Russian rabbit trails, Trump and his cabinet have rattled off a long list of accomplishments.

Some of the Trump administration’s early accomplishments include: near defeat of ISIL forces in the Middle East, plummeting rate of illegal border crossings, a successful Supreme Court nomination, multiple lifetime appointments in lower courts, massive deregulation across multiple industries, tax cuts for virtually every American, and a thriving economy with stock markets that hit new highs every few days.

Despite all the progress that’s being made — much of it bipartisan in nature — the media can’t bring itself to focus on the facts. Instead of reporting news, they’re trying their best to create news. Recently, they’ve decided that Trump is mentally and physically unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Apart from the absurd double standard — remember that this is the same media that was outraged when people questioned Hillary Clinton’s health during her campaign — there’s nothing to indicate the president is suffering from any sort of health crisis.

In order to quell these rumors and shift the focus back to real issues that matter to the American people, Trump recently agreed to have a full evaluation done by the official White House physician. While he’s considered slightly overweight and continues to take medication for high cholesterol (as he has for years), there were no red flags. He even volunteered to take a cognitive test and scored 30 out of 30.

“I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought processes,” says Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician who was originally appointed by former President Barrack Obama.

Despite Trump voluntarily taking a physical, insisting on taking a cognitive test that wasn’t necessary, and agreeing to discuss the results, the media still isn’t satisfied. They’ve reached for several new claims and unearthed some old ones. The most ridiculous is that the president doesn’t get enough sleep.

How Much Sleep Does a President Need?

On his campaign trail, President Trump made numerous references to his sleep habits — frequently claiming that he averages just four hours of sleep per night. But this isn’t something new. He’s reportedly done this for decades. It’s also not out of the ordinary for other politicians and former presidents.

Bill Clinton was known to get just five hours of sleep during his presidency. Barack Obama averaged right around six hours. Even the UK’s current Prime Minister Theresa May gets just six hours. So the idea that Trump’s four hours of sleep are an outlier is a stretch, at best. And the idea that his limited sleep schedule makes him cognitively unfit for the presidency is an unfounded and insane allegation.

Think, for a moment, if the opposite were true. What if Trump were sleeping 10 hours per night? Surely the media would be calling him lazy — saying he sleeps too much. That’s what today’s reporters do. They quickly flip the script so that it conveniently fits their agenda.

While Trump’s abbreviated sleep schedule could be based on his biological makeup and/or personality, it’s more than likely the result of the chronic stress he’s faced for years.

“There can be plenty of reasons why sleep is hard to come by, and stress is one of the most prevalent factors,” Sleepopolis explains. “When the mind is undergoing stress, it can create wandering thoughts that make it difficult to feel relaxed enough to fall asleep. Too much stimulation from smartphones, televisions, and computers before bed can trigger the mind to stay alert, making it more difficult to wind down at bedtime.”

This latter point is actually pretty interesting and relevant, considering that Trump does a lot of late night tweeting. Till Roenneberg, professor of chronobiology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich actually took the time to analyze 12,000 Trump tweets and made some hypothesis about how his social media behavior interacts with his sleeping. While the results are anything but scientific, he actually believes Trump gets more like six to six and a half hours of sleep per night.

Anti-Trumpers Always Looking for More

Whether it’s four hours, six hours, or eight hours, Trump’s sleep schedule doesn’t appear to be having any significant or prolonged effects on his cognitive functioning and decision making. Could he think more clearly by getting another hour or two of sleep per night? Perhaps — but former presidents like Clinton and Obama could have as well. (Not to mention Abraham Lincoln, who is widely considered to be one of the most productive individuals to ever hold the office.)

Essentially, this all boils down to a witch-hunt. It’s not a witch-hunt in some evil or egregious sense of the term, but it’s certainly annoying, childish, and unnecessary. The media is constantly looking for ways to discredit President Trump and will steep as low as possible to put chinks in his armor.

At first, they said he was running for president as a publicity stunt. Then, they tried to discredit him with allegations of racism and sexism. Once he got elected, months were spent on unfounded allegations of Russian interference. Most recently, it’s been the idea that he’s unstable and unhealthy. What’s next?

Political pundits, celebrities, and liberal politicians are constantly looking for ways to explain what they call the president’s “erratic behavior,” when the reality is that they simply don’t agree with his policies and decisions. The latest blame tactic? Poor health and a lack of sleep.

White House Physician Rules Trump Healthy

As President Trump concludes his first full year in the Oval Office, media members on the left are trying to come to terms with the fact that he’s actually been quite productive and effective — something liberal publications like the Atlantic have even admitted. While “reporters” and “journalists” have spent the last year running down nonexistent Russian rabbit trails, Trump and his cabinet have rattled off a long list of accomplishments.

Some of the Trump administration’s early accomplishments include: near defeat of ISIL forces in the Middle East, plummeting rate of illegal border crossings, a successful Supreme Court nomination, multiple lifetime appointments in lower courts, massive deregulation across multiple industries, tax cuts for virtually every American, and a thriving economy with stock markets that hit new highs every few days.

Despite all the progress that’s being made — much of it bipartisan in nature — the media can’t bring itself to focus on the facts. Instead of reporting news, they’re trying their best to create news. Recently, they’ve decided that Trump is mentally and physically unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Apart from the absurd double standard — remember that this is the same media that was outraged when people questioned Hillary Clinton’s health during her campaign — there’s nothing to indicate the president is suffering from any sort of health crisis.

In order to quell these rumors and shift the focus back to real issues that matter to the American people, Trump recently agreed to have a full evaluation done by the official White House physician. While he’s considered slightly overweight and continues to take medication for high cholesterol (as he has for years), there were no red flags. He even volunteered to take a cognitive test and scored 30 out of 30.

“I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought processes,” says Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician who was originally appointed by former President Barrack Obama.

Despite Trump voluntarily taking a physical, insisting on taking a cognitive test that wasn’t necessary, and agreeing to discuss the results, the media still isn’t satisfied. They’ve reached for several new claims and unearthed some old ones. The most ridiculous is that the president doesn’t get enough sleep.

How Much Sleep Does a President Need?

On his campaign trail, President Trump made numerous references to his sleep habits — frequently claiming that he averages just four hours of sleep per night. But this isn’t something new. He’s reportedly done this for decades. It’s also not out of the ordinary for other politicians and former presidents.

Bill Clinton was known to get just five hours of sleep during his presidency. Barack Obama averaged right around six hours. Even the UK’s current Prime Minister Theresa May gets just six hours. So the idea that Trump’s four hours of sleep are an outlier is a stretch, at best. And the idea that his limited sleep schedule makes him cognitively unfit for the presidency is an unfounded and insane allegation.

Think, for a moment, if the opposite were true. What if Trump were sleeping 10 hours per night? Surely the media would be calling him lazy — saying he sleeps too much. That’s what today’s reporters do. They quickly flip the script so that it conveniently fits their agenda.

While Trump’s abbreviated sleep schedule could be based on his biological makeup and/or personality, it’s more than likely the result of the chronic stress he’s faced for years.

“There can be plenty of reasons why sleep is hard to come by, and stress is one of the most prevalent factors,” Sleepopolis explains. “When the mind is undergoing stress, it can create wandering thoughts that make it difficult to feel relaxed enough to fall asleep. Too much stimulation from smartphones, televisions, and computers before bed can trigger the mind to stay alert, making it more difficult to wind down at bedtime.”

This latter point is actually pretty interesting and relevant, considering that Trump does a lot of late night tweeting. Till Roenneberg, professor of chronobiology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich actually took the time to analyze 12,000 Trump tweets and made some hypothesis about how his social media behavior interacts with his sleeping. While the results are anything but scientific, he actually believes Trump gets more like six to six and a half hours of sleep per night.

Anti-Trumpers Always Looking for More

Whether it’s four hours, six hours, or eight hours, Trump’s sleep schedule doesn’t appear to be having any significant or prolonged effects on his cognitive functioning and decision making. Could he think more clearly by getting another hour or two of sleep per night? Perhaps — but former presidents like Clinton and Obama could have as well. (Not to mention Abraham Lincoln, who is widely considered to be one of the most productive individuals to ever hold the office.)

Essentially, this all boils down to a witch-hunt. It’s not a witch-hunt in some evil or egregious sense of the term, but it’s certainly annoying, childish, and unnecessary. The media is constantly looking for ways to discredit President Trump and will steep as low as possible to put chinks in his armor.

At first, they said he was running for president as a publicity stunt. Then, they tried to discredit him with allegations of racism and sexism. Once he got elected, months were spent on unfounded allegations of Russian interference. Most recently, it’s been the idea that he’s unstable and unhealthy. What’s next?



Source link

'Customized Learning' Means Every Student Learns Something Different


According to the people controlling our public schools, this country has been blessed by an endless stream of brilliant innovations. For examples, we had Sight-word instruction, which creates dyslexia and illiteracy, we had New Math, which the whole country hated; we had Constructivist instruction, which guarantees less success in the classroom. Point is, the hype is often far separated from reality. We have a lot of gimmicks in our classrooms that almost always share two things: they were lavishly promoted as breakthroughs; and they don’t work very well.

So forgive my hesitation when I read praise of “mass customized learning,” which the developers hail as “the only way to achieve true education reform. We have to redesign student learning from class time to curriculum and from teaching styles to learning spaces.” Translation: throw everything out the window and start anew with a big blank check.

Julie Mathiesen has been the director at TIE (Technology and Innovation in Education) in Rapid City, Iowa, since 2008. She promotes “the concept of Mass Customized Learning; a technologically empowered educational system in which learning activities are keyed to the individual student’s learning style and developmental level.”

According to Mathiesen; “The old way of learning doesn’t work anymore, because students are living in a world where they are no longer ‘told’ how to think and don’t process and learn through ‘telling.’ Instead, students learn by doing and by learning anytime, anywhere.”

Mathiesen claimed that, no matter how much you spruce up an old model of car, no one would want it because “there’s always a maximum capacity… and the same applies to education.”

Maybe this is baloney. There is no reason why the human brain is any different now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. In fact, the best students around the world are typically sitting in large classrooms, more like amphitheaters, listening to professors, just as they have for hundreds of years. The large lecture is efficient and it’s cheap. What’s not to like? Unless perhaps you don’t want efficiency and economy.

We know for sure that our Education Establishment is always finding reasons to attack the traditional classroom, the traditional lecture, and the traditional role of the teacher. Typically, they announce: none of this stuff works, we have to do everything differently. If it was blue, paint it pink; if it was tall, make it short; if it was up in the air, put it on the floor.

All instruction will be customized. Students may sometimes be in the same classroom but each will be attending his own separate school. Each will, in effect, have what schools now call an IEP, individualized education program.

Why is this such a great idea? What about the responsibility of the school to identify those things which everyone should know and then teach those things? In other words, what about the classical concept of a shared community of knowledge??

Taken to its logical conclusion, customized learning means a different academic experience for every kid. That might sound fun and exciting for a time. But surely there are things that everybody should know. Who is Shakespeare? What’s a hypotenuse? Why do people still talk about Julius Caesar?

The truth is, our progressive educators don’t like people knowing a wealth of knowledge. It’s not fair; it’s not what socialists call “democratic.” So this new approach is a good way to keep everybody ignorant and separate. Nobody will have any way to judge anybody else’s knowledge because everybody will know different things.

Customized learning is a proposal that would probably require more administrators and bigger budgets. But here’s the main problem. What about the theory that there is a best way to do things? Why not do it that way? When you design a hotel lobby, or machine interface, or an amusement park ride, you don’t create a different ride for every customer. No, you try to create the best ride for everybody in one place.

ASCD, a big voice in the Education Establishment, concluded: “Mass customized learning is about each learner becoming an active, engaged partner with real voice in how he or she learns and how he or she demonstrates knowledge or skill.”

In other words, students decide what they should know and how they will prove that they know it. How convenient for the students. The Education Establishment gets “competency learning” or “standards-based learning” all in one swoop. 

Subjective assessment will be the norm. Expect more administrative problems, as there will be different tests for every student. Chaos will necessarily increase. No two students will know the same facts. Mass customizable learning might be the best gimmick yet if your real goal is to make sure that K-12 education remains ineffectual.

You never know with our Education Establishment whether they are searching in the dark for a bright idea, or their real purpose is to finally kill off what’s left of traditional education. I’d put my money on the latter.

Let’s consider this question: if people were really serious about making schools better, wouldn’t they pick a certain body of knowledge and demonstrate how that knowledge can be taught most quickly and efficiently? Funny thing, they never do this. The most popular first step is to throw everything out the window and jump into deep, very expensive water. That’s how we lost phonics in 1931. That’s how we got New Math in 1962. That’s how we now have Constructivism in every classroom.

The Education Establishment, for the past century, has relentlessly tried to chip away at traditional content. Less and less is taught. Customizable learning achieves the same goal in a different way. Each child learns a different set of facts. In total, more might actually be taught. But the facts are all Balkanized, atomized, divided into small parcels. There will be less and less shared knowledge, and therefore less communication within the society. That seems to me a weakness.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them? He deconstructs educational theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  

According to the people controlling our public schools, this country has been blessed by an endless stream of brilliant innovations. For examples, we had Sight-word instruction, which creates dyslexia and illiteracy, we had New Math, which the whole country hated; we had Constructivist instruction, which guarantees less success in the classroom. Point is, the hype is often far separated from reality. We have a lot of gimmicks in our classrooms that almost always share two things: they were lavishly promoted as breakthroughs; and they don’t work very well.

So forgive my hesitation when I read praise of “mass customized learning,” which the developers hail as “the only way to achieve true education reform. We have to redesign student learning from class time to curriculum and from teaching styles to learning spaces.” Translation: throw everything out the window and start anew with a big blank check.

Julie Mathiesen has been the director at TIE (Technology and Innovation in Education) in Rapid City, Iowa, since 2008. She promotes “the concept of Mass Customized Learning; a technologically empowered educational system in which learning activities are keyed to the individual student’s learning style and developmental level.”

According to Mathiesen; “The old way of learning doesn’t work anymore, because students are living in a world where they are no longer ‘told’ how to think and don’t process and learn through ‘telling.’ Instead, students learn by doing and by learning anytime, anywhere.”

Mathiesen claimed that, no matter how much you spruce up an old model of car, no one would want it because “there’s always a maximum capacity… and the same applies to education.”

Maybe this is baloney. There is no reason why the human brain is any different now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. In fact, the best students around the world are typically sitting in large classrooms, more like amphitheaters, listening to professors, just as they have for hundreds of years. The large lecture is efficient and it’s cheap. What’s not to like? Unless perhaps you don’t want efficiency and economy.

We know for sure that our Education Establishment is always finding reasons to attack the traditional classroom, the traditional lecture, and the traditional role of the teacher. Typically, they announce: none of this stuff works, we have to do everything differently. If it was blue, paint it pink; if it was tall, make it short; if it was up in the air, put it on the floor.

All instruction will be customized. Students may sometimes be in the same classroom but each will be attending his own separate school. Each will, in effect, have what schools now call an IEP, individualized education program.

Why is this such a great idea? What about the responsibility of the school to identify those things which everyone should know and then teach those things? In other words, what about the classical concept of a shared community of knowledge??

Taken to its logical conclusion, customized learning means a different academic experience for every kid. That might sound fun and exciting for a time. But surely there are things that everybody should know. Who is Shakespeare? What’s a hypotenuse? Why do people still talk about Julius Caesar?

The truth is, our progressive educators don’t like people knowing a wealth of knowledge. It’s not fair; it’s not what socialists call “democratic.” So this new approach is a good way to keep everybody ignorant and separate. Nobody will have any way to judge anybody else’s knowledge because everybody will know different things.

Customized learning is a proposal that would probably require more administrators and bigger budgets. But here’s the main problem. What about the theory that there is a best way to do things? Why not do it that way? When you design a hotel lobby, or machine interface, or an amusement park ride, you don’t create a different ride for every customer. No, you try to create the best ride for everybody in one place.

ASCD, a big voice in the Education Establishment, concluded: “Mass customized learning is about each learner becoming an active, engaged partner with real voice in how he or she learns and how he or she demonstrates knowledge or skill.”

In other words, students decide what they should know and how they will prove that they know it. How convenient for the students. The Education Establishment gets “competency learning” or “standards-based learning” all in one swoop. 

Subjective assessment will be the norm. Expect more administrative problems, as there will be different tests for every student. Chaos will necessarily increase. No two students will know the same facts. Mass customizable learning might be the best gimmick yet if your real goal is to make sure that K-12 education remains ineffectual.

You never know with our Education Establishment whether they are searching in the dark for a bright idea, or their real purpose is to finally kill off what’s left of traditional education. I’d put my money on the latter.

Let’s consider this question: if people were really serious about making schools better, wouldn’t they pick a certain body of knowledge and demonstrate how that knowledge can be taught most quickly and efficiently? Funny thing, they never do this. The most popular first step is to throw everything out the window and jump into deep, very expensive water. That’s how we lost phonics in 1931. That’s how we got New Math in 1962. That’s how we now have Constructivism in every classroom.

The Education Establishment, for the past century, has relentlessly tried to chip away at traditional content. Less and less is taught. Customizable learning achieves the same goal in a different way. Each child learns a different set of facts. In total, more might actually be taught. But the facts are all Balkanized, atomized, divided into small parcels. There will be less and less shared knowledge, and therefore less communication within the society. That seems to me a weakness.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them? He deconstructs educational theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  



Source link