Category: Noel S. Williams

The Diversity Umbrella Is Full. Illegal Aliens Can't Fit.


Fully qualified applicants for employment with Washington State government agencies are being clobbered by the diversity cudgel.  Even if they congenially comply with most diversity principles, they may conscientiously object to the state’s sanctuary status, which receives much of its rationale from diversity dicta.  They should not be compelled to sacrifice their American conscience, nor surrender their love of a country with borders, to get a government job.  There is no room for illegal aliens under the diversity umbrella.

The State of Washington, and several cities therein, have pronounced sanctuary status under the guise of diversity.  Since commitment to diversity is used in the employment screening process, job candidates are pressured to embrace an agenda that welcomes illegal aliens.  To get hired, they must acquiesce to doctrine that cloaks illegal aliens as “residents” and “immigrants,” thereby becoming complicit in undermining the supremacy of federal law. 

Most state government employment candidates should be judged apolitically, but Governor Jay Inslee has welcomed illegal aliens under the deceitful dogma of diversity.  For example, he imposed a sanctuary regime when issuing Executive Order 17-01 with the title “Reaffirming Washington’s Commitment to Tolerance, Diversity, and Inclusiveness.”  You can only imagine the mind-numbing liberal groupthink that concocted the P.C. platitudes it presents.  Employment candidates (and workers not yet protected by unions) oppose the sanctuary policy at their peril.

Mollycoddling illegal aliens with illegal diversity decrees confounds many citizens who still want America to control its borders and retain its identity.  This diversity dilution is problematic because the state’s main H.R. online hub pays tribute to cultural sensitivity and equity – presumably for those legally authorized to work.  Furthermore, job announcements from every single Wash. State agency contain purple prose urging applications from various minorities.  Their intent closely parallels Inslee’s sanctuary state proclamation, as well as the Sanctuary City Resolution from Olympia, the state’s capital.  Indeed, Olympia’s resolution is actually posted under the “Diversity and Equity” section of ITS website.

Some common themes these documents present are respect for all, recognition of our ever changing demographics (accelerated by open borders), authentic selves, inclusiveness and equity, and a workforce reflective of their customers (which increasingly includes illegal aliens).  The usual litany of special classes are afforded these protections.  Indeed, it’s already crowded, with only white males on the outside looking in, but now, per sanctuary state and city proclamations, illegal aliens are also covered. 

It’s apparent that Inslee’s executive order pays deference to diversity doctrine in aiding and abetting illegal aliens.  The main body contains approximately 1,100 words, but it has six – six – references to “diversity.”  It presents a list of dubious “Whereas” clauses highlighting the contributions of “undocumented immigrants,” without considering their costs to society.  There are many, including dependence upon government largesse, reliance on mandated services that help “limited English Proficient” people file claims for stuff, remedial education, and burdening our strained law enforcement and health care services.  Bottom line: There’s plenty of evidence that illegal aliens take more than they give.  Yes, we are a generous people, but America first – Americans foremost.

Inslee’s testament to so-called “tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness” also contains 12 references to “immigrants,” as if repeating it will brainwash us; “undocumented” appears twice, but “illegal” is entirely omitted.  “Residents” are mentioned a couple of times, completely glossing over the stark reality that illegal aliens are law-breaking interlopers. In fact, the whole document is a bunch of political propaganda that spuriously conflates legal and illegal immigration, demonstrating absolute disdain for immigrants who diligently follow the legal path, bringing with them skills and true value to our society.  A decent citizen might reasonably recoil at this diversity subterfuge, potentially jeopardizing a career in state government when confronting the hiring managers’ mad mandates. 

Speaking of mad, Inslee’s executive order really strains the propriety of diversity by asserting that Washington “embraces diversity with compassion and tolerance and recognizes the value of immigrants.”  Citizens at large, but especially job-seekers subjected to diversity measures, might ask,  “What value?”  Unquestionably, legal immigrants provide plenty, but many illegal aliens are ill educated and ill equipped to compete with resolute robots.  The tireless robots can’t pick strawberries – yet – but they are increasingly performing menial and repetitive jobs. 

Frankly, illegal aliens actually bring neediness and dependence – in other words, a rationale for misguided liberal policies.  Since they’re “undocumented,” there’s no legitimate way they can complete form I-9 to prove their employment authorization.  Pandering politicians looking to expand dependence on government welcome these destitute illegals-cum-residents who disproportionately drain our finite wealth.  Conversely, legal immigrants – who are given short shrift by Inslee’s propaganda – must show they have the resources and wherewithal to support themselves.

Inslee has political motives to concoct contrivances to expand and solidify his political power.  In so doing, he’s potentially subverting his Oath of Office, whereby he’s obliged to “support the Constitution of the United States[.]”  After all, at least in spirit and deed, he’s flouting the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reigns supreme over immigration laws.  Fortunately, “average” citizens generally uphold the tenets of diversity and are probably more honorable than he is.  Why should these decent people have to quell their repulsion to the corrosion of America’s character in order to become a dedicated public servant?

Why should law-abiding citizens who are qualified for a state job be dinged by diversity that pretends we are not the United States, but the United Nations?  Just as it is illegal to discriminate based upon national origin, it should be impermissible to discriminate against workers who respect our nation…and its borders.  Distorting diversity to decriminalize illegal aliens in a sanctuary state is neither tolerant, nor diverse, nor inclusive.

It is already very crowded underneath the untouchable umbrella of diversity.  There is no room for illegal aliens.

Fully qualified applicants for employment with Washington State government agencies are being clobbered by the diversity cudgel.  Even if they congenially comply with most diversity principles, they may conscientiously object to the state’s sanctuary status, which receives much of its rationale from diversity dicta.  They should not be compelled to sacrifice their American conscience, nor surrender their love of a country with borders, to get a government job.  There is no room for illegal aliens under the diversity umbrella.

The State of Washington, and several cities therein, have pronounced sanctuary status under the guise of diversity.  Since commitment to diversity is used in the employment screening process, job candidates are pressured to embrace an agenda that welcomes illegal aliens.  To get hired, they must acquiesce to doctrine that cloaks illegal aliens as “residents” and “immigrants,” thereby becoming complicit in undermining the supremacy of federal law. 

Most state government employment candidates should be judged apolitically, but Governor Jay Inslee has welcomed illegal aliens under the deceitful dogma of diversity.  For example, he imposed a sanctuary regime when issuing Executive Order 17-01 with the title “Reaffirming Washington’s Commitment to Tolerance, Diversity, and Inclusiveness.”  You can only imagine the mind-numbing liberal groupthink that concocted the P.C. platitudes it presents.  Employment candidates (and workers not yet protected by unions) oppose the sanctuary policy at their peril.

Mollycoddling illegal aliens with illegal diversity decrees confounds many citizens who still want America to control its borders and retain its identity.  This diversity dilution is problematic because the state’s main H.R. online hub pays tribute to cultural sensitivity and equity – presumably for those legally authorized to work.  Furthermore, job announcements from every single Wash. State agency contain purple prose urging applications from various minorities.  Their intent closely parallels Inslee’s sanctuary state proclamation, as well as the Sanctuary City Resolution from Olympia, the state’s capital.  Indeed, Olympia’s resolution is actually posted under the “Diversity and Equity” section of ITS website.

Some common themes these documents present are respect for all, recognition of our ever changing demographics (accelerated by open borders), authentic selves, inclusiveness and equity, and a workforce reflective of their customers (which increasingly includes illegal aliens).  The usual litany of special classes are afforded these protections.  Indeed, it’s already crowded, with only white males on the outside looking in, but now, per sanctuary state and city proclamations, illegal aliens are also covered. 

It’s apparent that Inslee’s executive order pays deference to diversity doctrine in aiding and abetting illegal aliens.  The main body contains approximately 1,100 words, but it has six – six – references to “diversity.”  It presents a list of dubious “Whereas” clauses highlighting the contributions of “undocumented immigrants,” without considering their costs to society.  There are many, including dependence upon government largesse, reliance on mandated services that help “limited English Proficient” people file claims for stuff, remedial education, and burdening our strained law enforcement and health care services.  Bottom line: There’s plenty of evidence that illegal aliens take more than they give.  Yes, we are a generous people, but America first – Americans foremost.

Inslee’s testament to so-called “tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness” also contains 12 references to “immigrants,” as if repeating it will brainwash us; “undocumented” appears twice, but “illegal” is entirely omitted.  “Residents” are mentioned a couple of times, completely glossing over the stark reality that illegal aliens are law-breaking interlopers. In fact, the whole document is a bunch of political propaganda that spuriously conflates legal and illegal immigration, demonstrating absolute disdain for immigrants who diligently follow the legal path, bringing with them skills and true value to our society.  A decent citizen might reasonably recoil at this diversity subterfuge, potentially jeopardizing a career in state government when confronting the hiring managers’ mad mandates. 

Speaking of mad, Inslee’s executive order really strains the propriety of diversity by asserting that Washington “embraces diversity with compassion and tolerance and recognizes the value of immigrants.”  Citizens at large, but especially job-seekers subjected to diversity measures, might ask,  “What value?”  Unquestionably, legal immigrants provide plenty, but many illegal aliens are ill educated and ill equipped to compete with resolute robots.  The tireless robots can’t pick strawberries – yet – but they are increasingly performing menial and repetitive jobs. 

Frankly, illegal aliens actually bring neediness and dependence – in other words, a rationale for misguided liberal policies.  Since they’re “undocumented,” there’s no legitimate way they can complete form I-9 to prove their employment authorization.  Pandering politicians looking to expand dependence on government welcome these destitute illegals-cum-residents who disproportionately drain our finite wealth.  Conversely, legal immigrants – who are given short shrift by Inslee’s propaganda – must show they have the resources and wherewithal to support themselves.

Inslee has political motives to concoct contrivances to expand and solidify his political power.  In so doing, he’s potentially subverting his Oath of Office, whereby he’s obliged to “support the Constitution of the United States[.]”  After all, at least in spirit and deed, he’s flouting the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reigns supreme over immigration laws.  Fortunately, “average” citizens generally uphold the tenets of diversity and are probably more honorable than he is.  Why should these decent people have to quell their repulsion to the corrosion of America’s character in order to become a dedicated public servant?

Why should law-abiding citizens who are qualified for a state job be dinged by diversity that pretends we are not the United States, but the United Nations?  Just as it is illegal to discriminate based upon national origin, it should be impermissible to discriminate against workers who respect our nation…and its borders.  Distorting diversity to decriminalize illegal aliens in a sanctuary state is neither tolerant, nor diverse, nor inclusive.

It is already very crowded underneath the untouchable umbrella of diversity.  There is no room for illegal aliens.



Source link

The Democrats as Russian Dupes, 2018 Edition


No wonder the Russian meddlers are laughing – the Dems are wittingly colluding in sowing discord through sleazy identity politics and by fostering extreme multiculturalism.  Lacking substantive policy ideas, their main hope for electoral success is to divide and conquer.  Russia is a major geopolitical adversary, which makes the Democrats the enemy within.

The thread that binds our great tapestry of cultures was woven by our founding fathers “in order to form a more perfect union.”  Their system of checks and balances ensures that rationality and compromise establish a balance between our contradictory instincts of cooperation and competition.  Their emphasis upon individual liberty – rather than the organic state – helped ensure that a thriving civil society based on shared values would emerge from the nasty and brutish conditions of a state of nature.

Our union was an improvement, but it started imperfectly; nevertheless, we’ve always been guided by our nation’s motto.  Though there have been several iterations of the Great Seal of the United States, the one constant is the inscription “E Pluribus Unum.”  Historically, legal immigrants embraced this ideal and eventually assimilated into America, particularly those processed through Ellis Island.  While proud of their heritage, they were grateful for the bountiful opportunities America bequeaths to those who relish the promise of America and who cherish the ways of the last great hope of Earth.  This makes it even more galling that Democrats endeavor to unravel our legal fabric by flouting federal immigration laws.  They are the enemy within who prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.

Democrats are also inflaming social disharmony by pursuing identity politics, to the undoubted amusement of Russian trolls.  This tends to be self-perpetuating, for if a constituency is rewarded for being a distinct group, there is little motivation to assimilate.  It is a zero-sum proposition that corrodes the “common good” that underpins a vibrant body politic.  By fostering dependence on government, and divvying up handouts based on ethnicity, the Democrats are making a mockery of JFK’s inaugural address exhortation: “… ask what your country can do for you.”

No wonder liberals are not enamored of Western civilization, as this extremely divisive multiculturalism is anathema to the profound teachings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke.  They emphasized a shared set of norms, with social strata acting in concert toward the common good of the republic.  Locke, in particular, provided the philosophical underpinning by which civil society emerges from the “might makes right” chaos of nature.

Perhaps Trump was observant when describing the Democrats’ reactions at his SOTU address as treasonous.  Not chanting “USA, USA,” but cheering when the stock market’s “Trump Bump” temporarily turns into a “Trump Slump” is preposterous, though I’m sure Vladimir delights in their perfidious propaganda.  Let’s face it: most Republicans were against Obama because his polices, as proven, were bad for America; however, Democrats are against Trump out of fear that his polices are generally good for America (pending the extent and outcome of his trade tariffs).  In essence, what’s good for America is bad for Democrats.  They are the enemy within who deride America’s founding principles and ideals.

Meanwhile, the Russians are doing a Cossack Dance and savoring our discord.  Their army of trolls spent a pittance, especially in the “blue wall” states, compared to the billions spent by the presidential campaigns.  Notably, most of their efforts to undermine confidence in American democracy came after the election (56 percent of Facebook ad impressions) and dovetailed with the Democrats’ resistance.  For example, Russian operatives organized the “Trump is not my president” rally, which had the biggest attendance, as Democrats participated wholeheartedly.

The Russian intruders must be thrilled with their puppet, Nancy Pelosi.  Given the extent of her collaboration, perhaps we should assign her a Russian-style last name like Popov; after all, Nancy has been popping off a lot lately.  Debilitated by her liberal disease, she even proselytizes that tax cuts are unpatriotic.  Nancy Popov is like a political commissar shrieking that Trump’s DACA proposal is subterfuge to make America white again.  The Russian trolls couldn’t have scripted this insidious racism any better, as it implies she’s trying to make America browner.  Certainly, she has the bona fides, having once arranged a photo on the Capitol steps (and then doctored it) to commemorate white men no longer representing a majority of the Democrat caucus.

After popping off about white guys trying to negotiate an immigration deal, she bizarrely claimed that DREAMers – otherwise known as young illegal aliens who commit disproportionately more crime – make America more American.  That just defies logic, since America flourishes when the rule of law is observed, not when illegals are aided and abetted.  Clearly, Nancy Popov’s unwavering determination to institutionalize identity politics aligns with Russia’s exploitation of our social divisions.  They must be laughing their rears off in Moscow…and in the troll farm in St. Petersburg.

I’m sure the Russian operatives would like nothing more than to subvert the sanctity of our cherished “one citizen, one vote” principle.  Once again, Democrats are their allies: the Russian bots have infiltrated the Democrats’ collective consciousness in Nancy’s home state of California, where they plan to automatically register driver’s license recipients to vote, making voter fraud by illegals more likely.  Disconcertingly, there are no penalties for ineligible voters who do vote.  Chicago is just as bad with its new municipal ID cards for illegal aliens (they deviously call them “undocumented immigrants”) being valid to register to vote.  This will likely bolster the ranks of the enemy within.

Perhaps offended by our exceptional nature, Putin believes that our society is imperfect and vulnerable to internal strife rooted in divisive social issues.  That’s why his troll farms are leveraging social media to provoke extreme multiculturalism that rips asunder our social bonds.  Whereas recent European leaders sounded a requiem for multiculturalism, Pelosi and her colleagues are onboard with Vlad: they are determined to turn our nation’s motto upside-down.  “Out of one, many” seems to be their imperative.

To buttress a government framework that ultimately depends upon basic shared principles founded upon a universal understanding of the common good – for citizens – it would certainly be better if Nancy Layov.

Image: Renate Dodell via Flickr.

No wonder the Russian meddlers are laughing – the Dems are wittingly colluding in sowing discord through sleazy identity politics and by fostering extreme multiculturalism.  Lacking substantive policy ideas, their main hope for electoral success is to divide and conquer.  Russia is a major geopolitical adversary, which makes the Democrats the enemy within.

The thread that binds our great tapestry of cultures was woven by our founding fathers “in order to form a more perfect union.”  Their system of checks and balances ensures that rationality and compromise establish a balance between our contradictory instincts of cooperation and competition.  Their emphasis upon individual liberty – rather than the organic state – helped ensure that a thriving civil society based on shared values would emerge from the nasty and brutish conditions of a state of nature.

Our union was an improvement, but it started imperfectly; nevertheless, we’ve always been guided by our nation’s motto.  Though there have been several iterations of the Great Seal of the United States, the one constant is the inscription “E Pluribus Unum.”  Historically, legal immigrants embraced this ideal and eventually assimilated into America, particularly those processed through Ellis Island.  While proud of their heritage, they were grateful for the bountiful opportunities America bequeaths to those who relish the promise of America and who cherish the ways of the last great hope of Earth.  This makes it even more galling that Democrats endeavor to unravel our legal fabric by flouting federal immigration laws.  They are the enemy within who prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.

Democrats are also inflaming social disharmony by pursuing identity politics, to the undoubted amusement of Russian trolls.  This tends to be self-perpetuating, for if a constituency is rewarded for being a distinct group, there is little motivation to assimilate.  It is a zero-sum proposition that corrodes the “common good” that underpins a vibrant body politic.  By fostering dependence on government, and divvying up handouts based on ethnicity, the Democrats are making a mockery of JFK’s inaugural address exhortation: “… ask what your country can do for you.”

No wonder liberals are not enamored of Western civilization, as this extremely divisive multiculturalism is anathema to the profound teachings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke.  They emphasized a shared set of norms, with social strata acting in concert toward the common good of the republic.  Locke, in particular, provided the philosophical underpinning by which civil society emerges from the “might makes right” chaos of nature.

Perhaps Trump was observant when describing the Democrats’ reactions at his SOTU address as treasonous.  Not chanting “USA, USA,” but cheering when the stock market’s “Trump Bump” temporarily turns into a “Trump Slump” is preposterous, though I’m sure Vladimir delights in their perfidious propaganda.  Let’s face it: most Republicans were against Obama because his polices, as proven, were bad for America; however, Democrats are against Trump out of fear that his polices are generally good for America (pending the extent and outcome of his trade tariffs).  In essence, what’s good for America is bad for Democrats.  They are the enemy within who deride America’s founding principles and ideals.

Meanwhile, the Russians are doing a Cossack Dance and savoring our discord.  Their army of trolls spent a pittance, especially in the “blue wall” states, compared to the billions spent by the presidential campaigns.  Notably, most of their efforts to undermine confidence in American democracy came after the election (56 percent of Facebook ad impressions) and dovetailed with the Democrats’ resistance.  For example, Russian operatives organized the “Trump is not my president” rally, which had the biggest attendance, as Democrats participated wholeheartedly.

The Russian intruders must be thrilled with their puppet, Nancy Pelosi.  Given the extent of her collaboration, perhaps we should assign her a Russian-style last name like Popov; after all, Nancy has been popping off a lot lately.  Debilitated by her liberal disease, she even proselytizes that tax cuts are unpatriotic.  Nancy Popov is like a political commissar shrieking that Trump’s DACA proposal is subterfuge to make America white again.  The Russian trolls couldn’t have scripted this insidious racism any better, as it implies she’s trying to make America browner.  Certainly, she has the bona fides, having once arranged a photo on the Capitol steps (and then doctored it) to commemorate white men no longer representing a majority of the Democrat caucus.

After popping off about white guys trying to negotiate an immigration deal, she bizarrely claimed that DREAMers – otherwise known as young illegal aliens who commit disproportionately more crime – make America more American.  That just defies logic, since America flourishes when the rule of law is observed, not when illegals are aided and abetted.  Clearly, Nancy Popov’s unwavering determination to institutionalize identity politics aligns with Russia’s exploitation of our social divisions.  They must be laughing their rears off in Moscow…and in the troll farm in St. Petersburg.

I’m sure the Russian operatives would like nothing more than to subvert the sanctity of our cherished “one citizen, one vote” principle.  Once again, Democrats are their allies: the Russian bots have infiltrated the Democrats’ collective consciousness in Nancy’s home state of California, where they plan to automatically register driver’s license recipients to vote, making voter fraud by illegals more likely.  Disconcertingly, there are no penalties for ineligible voters who do vote.  Chicago is just as bad with its new municipal ID cards for illegal aliens (they deviously call them “undocumented immigrants”) being valid to register to vote.  This will likely bolster the ranks of the enemy within.

Perhaps offended by our exceptional nature, Putin believes that our society is imperfect and vulnerable to internal strife rooted in divisive social issues.  That’s why his troll farms are leveraging social media to provoke extreme multiculturalism that rips asunder our social bonds.  Whereas recent European leaders sounded a requiem for multiculturalism, Pelosi and her colleagues are onboard with Vlad: they are determined to turn our nation’s motto upside-down.  “Out of one, many” seems to be their imperative.

To buttress a government framework that ultimately depends upon basic shared principles founded upon a universal understanding of the common good – for citizens – it would certainly be better if Nancy Layov.

Image: Renate Dodell via Flickr.



Source link

Anti-Trump Zealots Require More Than a Calmness App


The 2017 iPhone App of the Year is “Calm.”  The co-CEO of the company that makes the meditation app observed that downloads doubled in the months following president Trump’s election.  While meditation apps may cushion anti-Trump zealots pinging around their liberal echo-chambers, to truly soothe their tortured souls, they need to confront the stages of grief.  For lasting inner peace, they need to move beyond the denial stage toward acceptance of President Trump’s legitimacy.

Overall, meditation and mindfulness apps saw their popularity soar in 2017 – apparently, there are a lot of liberal snowflakes reluctant to Make America Great Again.  These apps may provide some temporary solace to the forlorn intellectuals, but their cognitive dissonance invariably re-emerges when the reality of President Trump’s successes intrudes upon their delusional world.

Apps that encourage emotional well being in Trump deniers are, at best, palliative.  Riddled with irrational hate, the Trump-haters’ underlying disorder festers even as they project their mental psychoses onto Trump.  By bizarrely asserting (despite his major accomplishments in the first year of his term) that he’s somehow unfit for office, they only exacerbate their mental anguish by demonstrating that it is they who are unfit for public participation.  Beyond downloading a meditation app, they might achieve true mental equanimity by engaging in loyal opposition rather than floundering in reflexive resistance.  An example of the former is President Reagan’s “frenemy” Tip O’Neill; the latter is well represented by the gnarly ogre Nancy Pelosi, who wallows in the grief-ridden state of denial.

As one professor cum psychologist predicted, the anti-Trump crowd will suffer a mixed up path through the stages of grief.  In fact, we are entering into President Trump’s second year in office, and many haven’t even made it beyond the first stage.  While the putrid Trump-bashers shriek in self-pitying sanctimony, no amount of “mindfulness” apps will overcome their insidious symptoms: uncontainable weeping; unfathomable sadness; unnerving panic attacks; and, in extreme cases, venom-spewing convulsions.  Meditation and mindfulness apps are simply no match for these behaviors, which require a personal shrink, if not commitment to the nutty asylum for disaffected liberals.

This may be where this anti-Trump zealot belongs after exhibiting several of these symptoms while heckling a Trump robot – a robot, mind you – at a Disney venue.  Some futurists fret about the potential misanthropy of clever robots, but it is the Trump robot I sympathize with after the protester screamed, “Lock him up!”  He’s obviously in his own deluded world.  It goes to show how becoming inextricably enmeshed in an alternate reality is detrimental to long-term mental health.  For the sake of sanity, eventually one has to rewire the liberal cognitive patterns and come to grips with the prevailing reality, and legitimacy, of President Trump.  It will lift a mental burden, and it’s really not that bad, actually, as American optimism now flourishes under his leadership.

Our own America-loving president is deemed more dangerous than little Rocket Man over in North Korea, and a hapless animatronic Trump is subjected to a bewildering barrage of insults from someone who needs behavioral therapy, not some mindfulness app.  President Trump can handle the insults, but please don’t annoy the robots or provoke them into rebelling against us.

The theme for the 2017 New Year’s Eve ball was “the gift of serenity,” which can be defined as balancing tranquility, peace, and composure.  In other words, here is everything the futile Trump resistance movement isn’t.  They’ll march to force Trump out of office; they’ll disrupt civil discourse; they’ll cause public mayhem; they’ll loot and riot; they’ll concoct implausible investigations; they’ll even try to impeach.  No wonder so many liberal elitists are critical of America and Western civilization.  They want to uproot one of our cherished traditions: the peaceful transition of power.  Such anti-American machinations are hardly a recipe for serenity, but they will engender more stress than any “Calm” app can cure.

Meditation apps and gifts of serenity are inherently incompatible with the hate-filled demagoguery and Deep State collusion of the resistance movement.  All this will avail them nothing, for America is inexorably becoming great again, and that’s something to be mindful of.  That’s something worthy of meditation.

The 2017 iPhone App of the Year is “Calm.”  The co-CEO of the company that makes the meditation app observed that downloads doubled in the months following president Trump’s election.  While meditation apps may cushion anti-Trump zealots pinging around their liberal echo-chambers, to truly soothe their tortured souls, they need to confront the stages of grief.  For lasting inner peace, they need to move beyond the denial stage toward acceptance of President Trump’s legitimacy.

Overall, meditation and mindfulness apps saw their popularity soar in 2017 – apparently, there are a lot of liberal snowflakes reluctant to Make America Great Again.  These apps may provide some temporary solace to the forlorn intellectuals, but their cognitive dissonance invariably re-emerges when the reality of President Trump’s successes intrudes upon their delusional world.

Apps that encourage emotional well being in Trump deniers are, at best, palliative.  Riddled with irrational hate, the Trump-haters’ underlying disorder festers even as they project their mental psychoses onto Trump.  By bizarrely asserting (despite his major accomplishments in the first year of his term) that he’s somehow unfit for office, they only exacerbate their mental anguish by demonstrating that it is they who are unfit for public participation.  Beyond downloading a meditation app, they might achieve true mental equanimity by engaging in loyal opposition rather than floundering in reflexive resistance.  An example of the former is President Reagan’s “frenemy” Tip O’Neill; the latter is well represented by the gnarly ogre Nancy Pelosi, who wallows in the grief-ridden state of denial.

As one professor cum psychologist predicted, the anti-Trump crowd will suffer a mixed up path through the stages of grief.  In fact, we are entering into President Trump’s second year in office, and many haven’t even made it beyond the first stage.  While the putrid Trump-bashers shriek in self-pitying sanctimony, no amount of “mindfulness” apps will overcome their insidious symptoms: uncontainable weeping; unfathomable sadness; unnerving panic attacks; and, in extreme cases, venom-spewing convulsions.  Meditation and mindfulness apps are simply no match for these behaviors, which require a personal shrink, if not commitment to the nutty asylum for disaffected liberals.

This may be where this anti-Trump zealot belongs after exhibiting several of these symptoms while heckling a Trump robot – a robot, mind you – at a Disney venue.  Some futurists fret about the potential misanthropy of clever robots, but it is the Trump robot I sympathize with after the protester screamed, “Lock him up!”  He’s obviously in his own deluded world.  It goes to show how becoming inextricably enmeshed in an alternate reality is detrimental to long-term mental health.  For the sake of sanity, eventually one has to rewire the liberal cognitive patterns and come to grips with the prevailing reality, and legitimacy, of President Trump.  It will lift a mental burden, and it’s really not that bad, actually, as American optimism now flourishes under his leadership.

Our own America-loving president is deemed more dangerous than little Rocket Man over in North Korea, and a hapless animatronic Trump is subjected to a bewildering barrage of insults from someone who needs behavioral therapy, not some mindfulness app.  President Trump can handle the insults, but please don’t annoy the robots or provoke them into rebelling against us.

The theme for the 2017 New Year’s Eve ball was “the gift of serenity,” which can be defined as balancing tranquility, peace, and composure.  In other words, here is everything the futile Trump resistance movement isn’t.  They’ll march to force Trump out of office; they’ll disrupt civil discourse; they’ll cause public mayhem; they’ll loot and riot; they’ll concoct implausible investigations; they’ll even try to impeach.  No wonder so many liberal elitists are critical of America and Western civilization.  They want to uproot one of our cherished traditions: the peaceful transition of power.  Such anti-American machinations are hardly a recipe for serenity, but they will engender more stress than any “Calm” app can cure.

Meditation apps and gifts of serenity are inherently incompatible with the hate-filled demagoguery and Deep State collusion of the resistance movement.  All this will avail them nothing, for America is inexorably becoming great again, and that’s something to be mindful of.  That’s something worthy of meditation.



Source link

Sick of your Congressman? Elect a Veteran


Our dysfunctional Congress is riddled with self-serving politicians who resist for the sake of resisting.  It needs disciplined problem solvers who embody the spirit of public service.  The most unproductive Congress in 164 years needs more military veterans to supplant strident career politicians.

Admittedly, that’s easier said than done, but there may be ways to make races against entrenched incumbents more competitive.  For example, there’s a checkbox on your tax forms that reads: “Presidential Election Campaign:  Check here if you … want $3 to go to this fund[.]”  There should be another checkbox, more conspicuous, with the caption, “Do you want $X of your federal tax dollars to go to the Elect Veterans to Congress Campaign Fund?”

The usual grievance merchants who cling to equal protection conventions should be quelled by the fact that minorities have an equal opportunity to serve.  Moreover, when the hispanic demographic is included, the racial makeup of the U.S. military roughly mirrors the population at large.  Admittedly, women are less represented among veterans, but their numbers are increasing inexorably.  Indeed, they apparently intend to storm the halls of Congress, so let’s give them the financial wherewithal.

Our electorate is deeply divided, and we probably get the politicians we deserve: rather than lead opinion, they wallow in intellectual laziness and exacerbate tensions with intemperate propaganda.  In this context, the potential rewards of electing more military veterans, who are more likely to pursue practical solutions than succumb to orthodoxy, exceed the costs.  Actually, since presidential candidates are relying less on public money, an additional option would be to divert proceeds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the Elect Veterans Fund.

While most voters don’t see campaign finance reform as a big problem, they are sensitive to veterans’ needs, as are pandering politicians.  Taking care of veterans is one goal that fosters bipartisan support, so diverting flexible funds (in 2014, Congress converted political party convention funding to a pediatric research program) to benefit would-be veteran candidates may engender goodwill.  Indeed, the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees are about the only ones in Congress who sometimes reach accord, shepherding legislation that benefits veterans through the congressional labyrinth.  

A political axiom is that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.”  It is also something many veterans with the gumption to run for office lack and is a big reason their appeal doesn’t always translate into electoral success.  Perhaps the Veterans’ Affairs Committee could prevail upon their colleagues to amend campaign finance laws to fund veterans seeking federal office.  This could do wonders to restore trust to an institution whose approval ratings are abysmal.

Interestingly, Congress’s disapproval ratings have mirrored the declining number of veterans serving in Congress.  These charts show the decline of veterans in Congress.  Not only in absolute terms, but the percentage of veterans in public office has declined greater than their percentage of the population.  This chart from Gallup shows the decline of Americans’ level of confidence in the three branches of government.  None is salutary, but Congress’s public image is downright dismal.  This table is even more embarrassing for our labored lawmakers, especially when contrasted to the military.  When asked about their confidence in various institutions in American society, Americans rated Congress lowest with a measly 9 percent in June 2016 and a paltry improvement to 12 percent in June 2017.  Conversely, the military is highly esteemed, with confidence levels of 73 and 72 percent, respectively.

Hmmm…I know that a tenet of our constitutional republic is to not conflate military and political power, but Congress would surely benefit from an influx of veterans infused with military-style values.

There is an ingrained creed that veterans have forged in the military cauldron that will better serve our republic.  Rather than fight for fight’s sake (someone once joked that Schumer would block his own nomination to the Supreme Court), they know who our real enemies are and fight to win for America.  Their experiences prepared them for principled debate without describing the political opposition as enemies of America.  Veterans are trained to be pragmatic problem-solvers who are less inclined to sacrifice what’s good for what’s perfect.  Such ideological purity may exist in the partisan echo chambers of Congress or the ivory towers of fake academia, but it is ephemeral in the real world.

Winning a House seat in 2012 cost about $1.6 million, but much of that was concentrated in battlegrounds.  Consider that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund’s balance was about $290 million in 2015-16.  Despite far fewer taxpayers contributing overall, in recent years, about $40 million is added annually to the fund.  It’s reasonable to predict that a Veterans’ Campaign Fund would quickly surpass that and, when divvied up strategically by political party officials, would help replace lazy incumbents with patriotic, disciplined public servants who are not obsessed with orthodoxy but are keen to help make America great again.

Clearly, both major parties believe that veterans are attractive candidates, though their general appeal is not enough to unseat incumbents latched onto the money teat.  Our society acknowledges the importance of military veterans by giving them bonus points in federal hiring scoring systems.  Public funding to elect veterans to federal office would level the political playing field and give a much needed boost of dynamism to the legislative process.   Maybe we’ll even end up with a do-something Congress. 

Our dysfunctional Congress is riddled with self-serving politicians who resist for the sake of resisting.  It needs disciplined problem solvers who embody the spirit of public service.  The most unproductive Congress in 164 years needs more military veterans to supplant strident career politicians.

Admittedly, that’s easier said than done, but there may be ways to make races against entrenched incumbents more competitive.  For example, there’s a checkbox on your tax forms that reads: “Presidential Election Campaign:  Check here if you … want $3 to go to this fund[.]”  There should be another checkbox, more conspicuous, with the caption, “Do you want $X of your federal tax dollars to go to the Elect Veterans to Congress Campaign Fund?”

The usual grievance merchants who cling to equal protection conventions should be quelled by the fact that minorities have an equal opportunity to serve.  Moreover, when the hispanic demographic is included, the racial makeup of the U.S. military roughly mirrors the population at large.  Admittedly, women are less represented among veterans, but their numbers are increasing inexorably.  Indeed, they apparently intend to storm the halls of Congress, so let’s give them the financial wherewithal.

Our electorate is deeply divided, and we probably get the politicians we deserve: rather than lead opinion, they wallow in intellectual laziness and exacerbate tensions with intemperate propaganda.  In this context, the potential rewards of electing more military veterans, who are more likely to pursue practical solutions than succumb to orthodoxy, exceed the costs.  Actually, since presidential candidates are relying less on public money, an additional option would be to divert proceeds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the Elect Veterans Fund.

While most voters don’t see campaign finance reform as a big problem, they are sensitive to veterans’ needs, as are pandering politicians.  Taking care of veterans is one goal that fosters bipartisan support, so diverting flexible funds (in 2014, Congress converted political party convention funding to a pediatric research program) to benefit would-be veteran candidates may engender goodwill.  Indeed, the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees are about the only ones in Congress who sometimes reach accord, shepherding legislation that benefits veterans through the congressional labyrinth.  

A political axiom is that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.”  It is also something many veterans with the gumption to run for office lack and is a big reason their appeal doesn’t always translate into electoral success.  Perhaps the Veterans’ Affairs Committee could prevail upon their colleagues to amend campaign finance laws to fund veterans seeking federal office.  This could do wonders to restore trust to an institution whose approval ratings are abysmal.

Interestingly, Congress’s disapproval ratings have mirrored the declining number of veterans serving in Congress.  These charts show the decline of veterans in Congress.  Not only in absolute terms, but the percentage of veterans in public office has declined greater than their percentage of the population.  This chart from Gallup shows the decline of Americans’ level of confidence in the three branches of government.  None is salutary, but Congress’s public image is downright dismal.  This table is even more embarrassing for our labored lawmakers, especially when contrasted to the military.  When asked about their confidence in various institutions in American society, Americans rated Congress lowest with a measly 9 percent in June 2016 and a paltry improvement to 12 percent in June 2017.  Conversely, the military is highly esteemed, with confidence levels of 73 and 72 percent, respectively.

Hmmm…I know that a tenet of our constitutional republic is to not conflate military and political power, but Congress would surely benefit from an influx of veterans infused with military-style values.

There is an ingrained creed that veterans have forged in the military cauldron that will better serve our republic.  Rather than fight for fight’s sake (someone once joked that Schumer would block his own nomination to the Supreme Court), they know who our real enemies are and fight to win for America.  Their experiences prepared them for principled debate without describing the political opposition as enemies of America.  Veterans are trained to be pragmatic problem-solvers who are less inclined to sacrifice what’s good for what’s perfect.  Such ideological purity may exist in the partisan echo chambers of Congress or the ivory towers of fake academia, but it is ephemeral in the real world.

Winning a House seat in 2012 cost about $1.6 million, but much of that was concentrated in battlegrounds.  Consider that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund’s balance was about $290 million in 2015-16.  Despite far fewer taxpayers contributing overall, in recent years, about $40 million is added annually to the fund.  It’s reasonable to predict that a Veterans’ Campaign Fund would quickly surpass that and, when divvied up strategically by political party officials, would help replace lazy incumbents with patriotic, disciplined public servants who are not obsessed with orthodoxy but are keen to help make America great again.

Clearly, both major parties believe that veterans are attractive candidates, though their general appeal is not enough to unseat incumbents latched onto the money teat.  Our society acknowledges the importance of military veterans by giving them bonus points in federal hiring scoring systems.  Public funding to elect veterans to federal office would level the political playing field and give a much needed boost of dynamism to the legislative process.   Maybe we’ll even end up with a do-something Congress. 



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Student Tests Should Recognize the Plasticity of Giftedness


Gifted education is often rife with elitism: test results used to identify gifted students tend to reflect the social strata of the students’ families and reinforce the achievement gap.  This is partly because wealthy and pushy parents are more likely to ensure that their children are nurtured and identified as gifted.  To level the educational field, tests should be available to all students and should be administered recurrently.  Furthermore, the definition of giftedness should be expanded.

Since intelligence is malleable, tests that identify gifted students should be malleable.  Since giftedness encompasses traits beyond intelligence, tests should measure those traits.

Accommodating gifted students in public schools whose primary objective is grade-level proficiency is problematic.  Historically, schools have spent far more resources helping low-achieving students than gifted students.  However, the Every Student Succeeds Act, signed in 2015, does contain provisions to support gifted students.  Among these are the more flexible use of funds to identify and serve gifted and talented students and to train educators to administer gifted programs. 

Even if funds are available to implement services like specialized curricula or grade advancement, identifying those who participate is fraught with peril.  ESSA, which allows combining periodic assessments into a summative score, has created angst amongst testing experts.  The psychometricians who specialize in these things warn that the validity of tests that combine interim test scores into a summative score are suspect.

While ESSA has provisions for computer-adaptive assessments, the processes for identifying gifted students vary by state and local district.  Generally, aptitude tests are administered once, or very infrequently.  However, scholars of educational testing point out that a test-taker’s scores on any two tests may vary.  With children, the effects may be more dramatic; indeed, their test scores may be particularly unreliable.

I don’t need a fancy psychometrician to tell me that.  When I first took an armed forces aptitude test, I scored okay.  Then, after a few semesters in college, a bit of algebra, some critical thinking, and enhanced language skills, my brain was energized.  I retook the test and scored about 25 points higher.  This is because my brain’s synaptic connections were finally flourishing in college. 

Beyond consistency, there’s an even more fundamental issue with the validity of tests, administered infrequently, that purport to identify the gifted amongst us: our brains!  It was once thought that after early-stage development, they don’t change much.  That would probably make analyzing the results of tests easier and pigeonholing students – indefinitely – more convenient for overwrought educators.  But oh, dear – there’s a slight complication: a wondrous thing called neuroplasticity, which has gained acceptance in the scientific community.  Essentially, it is the capacity of neurons and neural networks in the brain to change.  Synaptic connections are dynamically configured in response to new thoughts and sensory stimulation.  When we exercise our brains, we increase our learning capacity.  Eventually, we actually get smarter.

If we are to devote more public funds to gifted education while avoiding the potential pitfalls of elitism, then we need to continually improve the identification process.  Neuroplasticity argues strongly for recurrent testing. 

Since our brains can change in such remarkable ways, our giftedness status can change.  Perhaps this is why luminaries who revolutionized our knowledge on topics ranging from medicine to the universe, or invented products and services that enhance our lives, weren’t always considered “gifted.”  Just a few of the people who underperformed at some point in formal school settings include Newton, Edison, Einstein, Churchill, Sir John Gurdon, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates.  There are many more.

Given that part of the rationale for increasing funding for gifted education is so these students can make contributions that benefit society at large, it also makes sense to broaden the definition of giftedness.  Traits like motivation, creativity, and leadership make a big difference in the real world, as witnessed by the above list of luminaries who transformed our society with their ideas, entrepreneurship, and inventions.

What strikes me is how motivated these leaders became.  It’s an apt cliché that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, suggesting that motivation and dedication may be the greatest gifts of all.  Yet motivation is rarely included in definitions of giftedness.  A robust gifted education program, ultimately dedicated to bettering society, must recognize these traits as part of the giftedness spectrum. 

Unfortunately, many schools acquiesce to administratively simple notions that giftedness is a fixed phenomenon.  This mindset may be more appropriate for emphasizing grade-level proficiency and ensuring that no child is left behind.

Insofar as the goal of gifted education is to harness inventive and intelligent minds that will disproportionately contribute to society’s well-being, we need to recognize the magnificent malleability of intelligence wrought by our brains’ neuroplasticity.  This means more flexibility and frequency of tests that measure a broader array of characteristics, including those shared by innovators and entrepreneurs whose plasticity of giftedness enabled them to make our lives better.

Gifted education is often rife with elitism: test results used to identify gifted students tend to reflect the social strata of the students’ families and reinforce the achievement gap.  This is partly because wealthy and pushy parents are more likely to ensure that their children are nurtured and identified as gifted.  To level the educational field, tests should be available to all students and should be administered recurrently.  Furthermore, the definition of giftedness should be expanded.

Since intelligence is malleable, tests that identify gifted students should be malleable.  Since giftedness encompasses traits beyond intelligence, tests should measure those traits.

Accommodating gifted students in public schools whose primary objective is grade-level proficiency is problematic.  Historically, schools have spent far more resources helping low-achieving students than gifted students.  However, the Every Student Succeeds Act, signed in 2015, does contain provisions to support gifted students.  Among these are the more flexible use of funds to identify and serve gifted and talented students and to train educators to administer gifted programs. 

Even if funds are available to implement services like specialized curricula or grade advancement, identifying those who participate is fraught with peril.  ESSA, which allows combining periodic assessments into a summative score, has created angst amongst testing experts.  The psychometricians who specialize in these things warn that the validity of tests that combine interim test scores into a summative score are suspect.

While ESSA has provisions for computer-adaptive assessments, the processes for identifying gifted students vary by state and local district.  Generally, aptitude tests are administered once, or very infrequently.  However, scholars of educational testing point out that a test-taker’s scores on any two tests may vary.  With children, the effects may be more dramatic; indeed, their test scores may be particularly unreliable.

I don’t need a fancy psychometrician to tell me that.  When I first took an armed forces aptitude test, I scored okay.  Then, after a few semesters in college, a bit of algebra, some critical thinking, and enhanced language skills, my brain was energized.  I retook the test and scored about 25 points higher.  This is because my brain’s synaptic connections were finally flourishing in college. 

Beyond consistency, there’s an even more fundamental issue with the validity of tests, administered infrequently, that purport to identify the gifted amongst us: our brains!  It was once thought that after early-stage development, they don’t change much.  That would probably make analyzing the results of tests easier and pigeonholing students – indefinitely – more convenient for overwrought educators.  But oh, dear – there’s a slight complication: a wondrous thing called neuroplasticity, which has gained acceptance in the scientific community.  Essentially, it is the capacity of neurons and neural networks in the brain to change.  Synaptic connections are dynamically configured in response to new thoughts and sensory stimulation.  When we exercise our brains, we increase our learning capacity.  Eventually, we actually get smarter.

If we are to devote more public funds to gifted education while avoiding the potential pitfalls of elitism, then we need to continually improve the identification process.  Neuroplasticity argues strongly for recurrent testing. 

Since our brains can change in such remarkable ways, our giftedness status can change.  Perhaps this is why luminaries who revolutionized our knowledge on topics ranging from medicine to the universe, or invented products and services that enhance our lives, weren’t always considered “gifted.”  Just a few of the people who underperformed at some point in formal school settings include Newton, Edison, Einstein, Churchill, Sir John Gurdon, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates.  There are many more.

Given that part of the rationale for increasing funding for gifted education is so these students can make contributions that benefit society at large, it also makes sense to broaden the definition of giftedness.  Traits like motivation, creativity, and leadership make a big difference in the real world, as witnessed by the above list of luminaries who transformed our society with their ideas, entrepreneurship, and inventions.

What strikes me is how motivated these leaders became.  It’s an apt cliché that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, suggesting that motivation and dedication may be the greatest gifts of all.  Yet motivation is rarely included in definitions of giftedness.  A robust gifted education program, ultimately dedicated to bettering society, must recognize these traits as part of the giftedness spectrum. 

Unfortunately, many schools acquiesce to administratively simple notions that giftedness is a fixed phenomenon.  This mindset may be more appropriate for emphasizing grade-level proficiency and ensuring that no child is left behind.

Insofar as the goal of gifted education is to harness inventive and intelligent minds that will disproportionately contribute to society’s well-being, we need to recognize the magnificent malleability of intelligence wrought by our brains’ neuroplasticity.  This means more flexibility and frequency of tests that measure a broader array of characteristics, including those shared by innovators and entrepreneurs whose plasticity of giftedness enabled them to make our lives better.



Source link