Friday, March 11, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 11, 2011


Jesus... first Christchurch... now Japan...

New York City will be hit by a major earthquake sooner or later.

We should all say a prayer for the people of Japan.
Posted by at

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/europe/12gates.html?hp

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply rebuked the United States’ allies on Friday for effectively abandoning Afghanistan and threatening what he described as tenuous progress in the nearly decade-old war.

* NOW, GANG, YOU ALL KNOW ME... NO ONE ENJOYS "FOREIGNER BASHING" MORE THAN GOOD OL' BILL... BUT PLEASE RE-READ - ALOUD - THE LAST FIVE WORDS OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE: "...THE NEARLY DECADE OLD WAR."

* ONE MORE TIME: "...THE NEARLY DECADE OLD WAR."

* FOLKS... THE FRIGG'N SOVIETS HAD THE BRAINS TO GET OUT AFTER "ONLY" NINE YEARS! (AND AFGHANISTAN WAS A MAJOR "STRAW" THAT BROKE THAT "CAMEL'S BACK...")

In a deliberately undiplomatic speech to NATO defense ministers, Mr. Gates called on European allies to put aside their domestic politics and work with the United States to secure the “semblance of normalcy” that he said was emerging in some parts of Afghanistan.

* OH...! PLEASE...! "NORMALCY" IN AFGHANISTAN IS A RETURN TO THE DARK AGES... ONLY WORSE! ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING CRACK...? ARE THESE PEOPLE PARTYING WITH CHARLIE SHEEN AND CHRISTINE AGUILERA...?!?!

“Frankly, there is too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right,” Mr. Gates said. “Too much discussion of exit and not enough discussion about continuing the fight.

* ONE MORE TIME: "...THE NEARLY DECADE OLD WAR."

Mr. Gates signalled that the initial American troop withdrawals ordered for July by President Obama would be limited, perhaps to no more than several thousand troops.

* SO MUCH FOR YOUR F--KING OBAMA, PEOPLE...

The United States has about 100,000 soldiers in [Afghanistan].

* AT A COST IN BLOOD AND TREASURE OF HOW MANY MILLIONS... TENS OF MILLIONS... A DAY...???

* HEY... PERHAPS WE SHOULD RETURN TO VIETNAM... WE CAN WIN THERE YET!

(*SMIRK*)

* WE JUST NEED MORE TIME... MORE MEN...

(*EXASPERATED SIGH*)

The German Parliament voted in January to begin withdrawing its 4,900 soldiers by the end of this year, the first time that Germany, which has the third-largest number of troops in Afghanistan, set a time frame for bringing its men and women home.

Britain, which has the second-largest contingent, with about 9,000 troops, said in December that it was “possible” that its forces would start leaving this year.

Poland has said it will bring its 2,600 troops home by 2012, and Canada is scheduled to pull its 2,800 troops out by the end of this year.

Last year the Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, when it withdrew its 1,900 forces.

* FOLKS... THIS IS OBAMA... GATES WORKS FOR OBAMA...

* ONCE AGAIN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIED TO. OBAMA PLANS ON STAYING IN AFGHANISTAN.

March 11, 2011 at 8:23 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/republicans-urge-more-energy-production/?ref=politics

* SARCASTIC SUBTITLE FOR THIS NEWSBITE "YOU'VE GOTTA LUV THE NYT"

(*SNORT*)

Is “drill, baby, drill” about to make a comeback?

* IT NEVER WENT AWAY, JERKOFF!

With gas prices soaring, Congressional Republicans are clamoring for more domestic energy production...

(*SIGH*)

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... THIS IS THE NYT IDEA OF "NEWS." EARTH TO NYT: SANE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CLAMORING FOR MORE DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION ALL ALONG!

At a press conference on Thursday, Speaker John A. Boehner said Republicans were moving ahead with an umbrella initiative that would seek to spur more domestic energy production and end federal policies he said were contributing to rising gas costs.

* I LIKE THAT! "HE SAID." AS IF THE TRUTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE! PERHAPS ALL NYT WRITERS AND EDITORS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO READ BARKER'S NEWSBITES...

(*SMILE*)

Democrats fired back that Republicans were doing the bidding of oil companies...

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

March 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704399804576192981822688892.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Here's the fundamental problem with public-employee unions: They exist to compete with, and undermine, public priorities.

The priority of Wisconsin citizens is a state that can provide basic services, encourage private-sector jobs, and pay its bills. Wisconsin public-employee unions, by contrast, were formed to, and exist to, erect a system that showers members with plump pay and benefits, crowding out state services and private jobs.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made some progress this week in rescuing his state from the public-sector unions holding it hostage.

* YET...

Even as state battles rage, the Obama administration has been facilitating the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

(*HEADACHE*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DESPAIR*)

Ready for Unionized Airport Security?

(*BANGING MY HEAD ON THE DESK*)

Tens of thousands of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are now casting votes to choose a union to collectively bargain for cushier personnel practices on their behalf. Liberals are calling it a "historic" vote. It is. Henceforth, airport security will play second fiddle to screener "rights."

(*SIGH*)

On Sept. 11, 2001, more than 3,000 Americans died after terrorists turned airplanes into missiles. It was a colossal security failure. Congress responded by creating the TSA. (The merits of federalizing airport screening were always questionable, though at least the public priority was clear.)

Back then, a bipartisan majority of Congress agreed that a crack airport security service was incompatible with rigid unionization rules. ... [B]y 2008, Democratic presidential candidates were betting that security worries had receded enough that they could again pander for union votes.

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

Candidate Barack Obama sent a letter to American Federation of Government Employees boss John Gage, vowing that his "priority" was giving Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) "collective bargaining rights and workplace protections."

[A]s South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint says, President Obama is finally making good on a "political kickback to the union bosses who poured money into his campaign in 2010 and who he desperately needs to win re-election in 2012."

(*SIGH*)

Whatever union is now chosen to bargain for TSA workers...will have the power to begin transforming the agency into one that puts union priorities first, security second.

(*NOD*)

Mr. Pistole is insisting that he won't bargain over security policies, pay and benefits, qualifications or disciplinary measures. But some of this is fuzzy, and there's plenty for the union to be getting on with, including union rules on shifts, hours and transfers. This will stymie or delay the TSA's ability to quickly move workers to heightened security risks, to institute new procedures, or to keep terrorists guessing.

Aviation experts like Michael Boyd of Boyd International have warned the TSA is already a "60,000 member DMV from Hell."

* AND OBAMA IS THE "DEVIL IN CHIEF" PUSHING THESE INSANE POLICIES... (*SIGH*)

March 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190753164940240.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

It is abundantly clear from the research that the most important school factor in determining a child's success is the quality of the teacher at the front of the classroom.

That's why it's absolutely imperative that [New York] state leaders completely eliminate the "last in, first out" policy, which mandates that the last teachers hired must be the first fired, regardless of how good they are.

The [Republican controlled] state Senate passed a bill last week that moves to make performance a key factor when teacher layoffs are required.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has now introduced legislation that addresses the important issue of how we define effective performance...

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

...but it is silent on layoffs.

(*SIGH*) (*GNASHING OF TEETH*)

While the governor's bill is an encouraging step to improve teacher evaluation, it does nothing to address the critical issue we face today. Up to 5,000 layoffs are soon to come in New York City alone, and right now the antiquated policy of "last in, first out" remains in place.

* COM'ON, CUOMO - STEP UP!

Why sacrifice our children's future when we can enact laws that save great teachers while ridding the system of those we know are less effective?

* WELL... UNFORTUNATELY THE ANSWER LIES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TEACHERS UNIONS.

The state Senate bill lays out objective criteria to determine who gets to stay in the classroom. In New York City there exist three categories of teachers who should be the first considered for layoffs: those who have lost their full-time status and have been reassigned as substitutes, those with excessive absences without medical excuse, and those who have received an unsatisfactory rating. If everyone in these three buckets were let go, it would take care of layoffs this year while protecting the 1.1 million kids in New York City's public schools.

* MAKES SENSE TO ME!

* COM'ON, CUOMO... PUT THE KIDS FIRST... PUT THE TAXPAYERS FIRST... PUT THE GOOD TEACHERS FIRST...!

March 11, 2011 at 1:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261893/obama-s-social-security-hoax-charles-krauthammer

* BY CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - Social Security is the most solvable.

Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation), and means-test so that Warren Buffett’s check gets redirected to a senior in need.

* NOT A "SOLUTION"... BUT I GET KRAUTHAMMER'S POINT.

The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration’s Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem.

* TRULY... OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.

* JACK LEW SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. (OR WHATEVER IT IS CONGRESS CAN DO TO GET THIS CLOWN OUT OF OFFICE.)

[Lew's] claim is a breathtaking fraud.

* AS FREQUENT READERS OF THIS BLOG (AND OTHER EDUCATED READERS) ARE WELL AWARE!

The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction.

[L]isten to the OMB’s own explanation (in the Clinton administration budget for fiscal year 2000 under then-director Jack Lew, the very same):

The OMB explained that these trust-fund “balances” are nothing more than a “bookkeeping” device. “They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

(In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains - nothing.)

(*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... WHAT KIND OF SICK COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING IN WHEN THIS LEW INDIVIDUAL IS A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL?

Bottom line? The OMB again:

“The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government’s ability to pay benefits.” No impact: The lockbox, the balances, the little pieces of paper, amount to nothing.

So when Jack Lew tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction certified as such by his own OMB.

* WHICH IS WHY HE SHOULD BE - AT THE VERY LEAST - FIRED. (BUT HE WON'T BE - NOT BY HIS BOSS PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE OFFICIAL LIES SPOUTED BY LEW!)

(What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.)

[A]s of 2010, the pay-as-you-go Social Security system is in the red.

For decades it had been in the black, taking in more in FICA taxes than it sent out in Social Security benefits. The surplus, scooped up by the Treasury, [redirected] the federal debt by tens of billions. But demography is destiny. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit - $37 billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire.

President Obama is preparing the ground to demagogue Social Security right through the 2012 elections.

With Lew’s preposterous claim that Social Security is solvent for 26 years, Obama is preparing to lead the charge against entitlement reform as his ticket to reelection.

March 11, 2011 at 3:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031004742.html

In diplomacy, as in medicine, the cardinal principle in any crisis is to first do no harm. The Obama administration's approach to Libya has violated this principle in at least two respects.

First, there's the arms embargo, imposed by the U.N. Security Council with strong U.S. support two weeks ago. Initially advertised as a measure that would weaken the Gaddafi regime by preventing it from acquiring additional weapons, the State Department this week revealed its view that the U.N. embargo also makes it illegal to provide defensive arms to the opposition.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

An evenhanded arms embargo might make sense if the Libyan conflict were between two equally armed sides and we were indifferent to which side won.

* ANYONE WANNA HAZARD A GUESS AS TO WHICH SIDE IS BETTER ARMED? (*SMIRK*)

* HMM... THAT LEAVES "INDIFFERENCE" WITH REGARD TO WHICH SIDE WINS. (*SHRUG*)

* OPTION NUMBER THREE...??? OBAMA AND CLINTON ARE SIMPLY SO OUT OF THEIR DEPTH THAT HAVING THEM IN OFFICE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY.

The Obama administration professes to want the opposition to prevail, but by prohibiting arms transfers to both sides, it has almost guaranteed that Moammar Gaddafi will win a drawn-out conflict.

* HEY... THAT'S THE BET OF OBAMA'S OWN NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR!

* FOLKS... THIS ADMINISTRATION IS A DISASTER! CARTER AND HIS PEOPLE HAD MORE FRIGG'N BRAINS...!!!

[T]he administration [is apparently unaware of] the U.N. experience in the Balkans two decades ago.

Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was determined to dominate and ethnically cleanse much of Bosnia and Croatia. In 1991, the United Nations tried to tamp down the conflict by imposing an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia. Because Milosevic's army had inherited most of the Yugoslav military arsenal, he was able to crush the lightly armed Bosnians and Croats. Far from penalizing Milosevic, the U.N. arms embargo perpetuated the vulnerability of his victims.

Tens of thousands died as Serbian forces advanced unimpeded.

It took the massacre of 8,000 Muslim civilians at Srebrenica in July 1995 to finally bring about the end of the arms embargo.

* OH... AND A HISTORY LESSON MY FRIENDS:

[I]t was not the Clinton administration nor the United Nations that forced the issue but, rather, [the then newly installed Republican] Congress, which in August 1995 approved legislation by veto-proof margins to compel the United States to disregard the embargo.

* I'LL BE HONEST, FOLKS... THIS WAS A BIT OF A HISTORY REFRESHER FOR ME TOO! (*WINK*)

The second Obama administration misstep was its support for the U.N. decision to give the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction to prosecute Gaddafi and his lieutenants for war crimes. The administration did this to send a powerful message to the Gaddafi regime, but the signal sent was not the one intended.

* YEP. NOW GADDAFI FEELS HE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT AND WIN - RETAINING POWER - OR LOSE POWER AND BE PROSECUTED, CONVICTED, AND IMPRISONED.

* GREAT JOB, HILLARY!

Essentially, what the United Nations has done in Libya is deny Gaddafi any attractive alternative to fighting to the death with his opposition, while locking in Gaddafi's overwhelming military advantage in that fight.

March 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12wisconsin.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299865540-LaVDdaBOjuA/5SOMYassnQ

[Wisconsin] Gov. Scott Walker announced on Friday that he was rescinding layoff notices for 1,500 state workers after Wisconsin lawmakers approved his plan...

“While tough budget choices certainly still lie ahead, both state and local units of government will not have to do any mass layoffs or direct service reductions because of the reforms contained in the budget repair bill,” Mr. Walker said in a statement Friday morning.

* SOUNDS LIKE FACING UP TO REALITY HAS LED TO JOBS BEING SAVED! THAT'S GOOD... RIGHT...?

March 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/11/morning-bell-the-time-to-cut-spending-is-now/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Last November, voters sent a clear signal to Congress: cut spending and get our government in order.

As we watch the current debate in Washington over how to fund the government for the rest of 2011, it is clear that some heard the voters’ message and others are flatly ignoring it.

The House of Representatives took decisive action and passed a bill cutting $61 billion from the status quo.

* WELL... I HESITATE TO CALL A PROPOSAL TO CUT $61 BILLION DOLLARS (OUT OF A $3.8 TRILLION BUDGET WHERE $1.65 TRILLION WILL BE FUNDED BY BORROWING) "DECISIVE" ACTION... BUT IT'S A FIRST STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

President Obama and his Senate allies insist on irresponsibly choosing to do practically nothing.

* BECAUSE THEY'RE SCUM.

Indeed, to force Americans into accepting the [borrowing and] spending habits that have led to the crisis we face, liberals and their interest groups are trying to scare us with visions of a “government shutdown” that will deprive us of government services.

Let’s analyze what is at stake:

First, the coming budget showdown stems from the liberals’ refusal to cut a mere 1.6% of the $3.8 trillion in federal spending this year; second, a “government shutdown” does not mean what you’ve been hearing; and third, those who counsel “compromise” want to continue on the current course and reverse the election results.

The Senate on Wednesday voted down the bill passed by the House of Representatives...that would cut $61 billion from government spending this year. (Even with this cut, spending would still continue to grow due to increases in spending on entitlement programs.)

* SO IN OTHER WORDS WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING A TRUE CUT AS YOU AND I RECOGNIZE THE WORD!

The debate then boils down to this: House Republicans have passed a bill cutting about six days of deficit spending...

* DISGUSTING, ISN'T IT? AND TO THINK... THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE (RELATIVELY!) RESPONSIBLE ONES!

(*CONTEMPLATING SLITTING MY WRISTS*)

* THE DEMOCRAT'S COUNTER-OFFER?

Senate Democrats have offered to cut the equivalent of a half-day of deficit spending.

(*NOW CONTEMPLATING HOMICIDE*)

March 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

For the President and the liberals in the Senate to threaten a government shutdown over such a meager first step on the road to fiscal sanity is simply baffling.

* ONLY TO THOSE WHO HOLD OUT HOPE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SIMPLY MISGUIDED AS OPPOSED TO DELIBERATELY SEEKING TO "BUST THE SYSTEM."

There is no doubt that if the existing continuing resolution expires and Congress and the President cannot agree on a level of day-to-day spending, we would reach an impasse. But the actual result would be far different from what the scaremongers call a “shutdown.”

What would cease? Well, not the functions of government that most people consider essential, which would continue as they have in past government shutdowns.

Social Security checks would arrive; doctors and hospitals would provide medical services to seniors, veterans, and the poor; the mail would be delivered; our troops and national defenses would continue to protect us; law enforcement at our border would continue; protection of life and property would go on as before.

The government would slow down, not shut down.

This government slowdown is then simply one more check and balance built into our system. The “timeout” keeps the vital services of government operating while lawmakers prioritize what we can - and can’t - afford.

* SOUNDS KINDA POSITIVE IN FACT!

Yes, it is true that if the President and the Senate don’t act, some would be affected. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), for example, bemoans the potential loss of federal funding for a cowboy poetry contest in upper Nevada.

(President Obama appears determined to throw more taxpayer dollars at NPR, even though one of its executives admits it does not need these federal handouts.)

This is only the first skirmish in an epic battle to put America back on a path toward national solvency and federal responsibility. If we cannot trim a meager 2% from this year’s budget, what signal does that send to credit markets? What does that say to future generations who will pay for Washington’s lack of courage?

This is about much more than cutting $61 billion; it is the opening salvo in the battle to change the culture of Washington.

March 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/editorialsopinions?ContentRecord_id=e4401167-640c-4519-a358-497376b7c1bf

BY UNITED STATES SENATOR (R-OK) TOM COBURN, M.D.

Cutting spending in Congress is so difficult because every area of the budget is defended by an army of special interests and perverse alliances that often defy reason and common sense. Nowhere is this more evident than with the federal government’s ludicrous $6 billion subsidy of ethanol, which I and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) have proposed to eliminate.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

[T]he ethanol subsidy is a spending program...a rank cash payment.

[T]his cash payment is nothing more than corporate welfare not-so-cleverly disguised as a tax break that, in the real world, has the impact of a tax increase.

(*HOOTING AND HOLLERING MY APPROVAL*)

As Pete Sepp with the National Taxpayers Union says, “the refundable VEETC is a prime example of tax policy at its worst. Congress needs to focus on simplifying the tax law and cutting rates for everyone, rather than manipulating the tax law and distorting our economy.”

(*TWO THUMBS UP*)

Another damning assessment comes from Matt Kibbe, president of Freedomworks: “[P]olicymakers in Washington have opted for a fuel that can only exist in a world of subsidies and distortions. The energy sector is a prime example of Washington’s inability to second guess the marketplace; it is a confusing world of myriad and simultaneous subsidies, taxes, spending programs, monopolies, trade barriers and regulations. Current ethanol policy is bad for the economy and for the environment, and seems driven more by corporate interests rather than any concern for the nation’s energy supply.”

(*NOD*)

Ethanol distorts and manipulates the economy by increasing the price of food and energy.

[G]roups like Americans for Tax Reform...previously opposed the elimination of the subsidy are now neutral[;] their neutrality is supporting a de facto tax increase on every American consumer.

* EXACTLY RIGHT! THANK YOU DR. COBURN FOR HAVING THE GUTS AND THE INTEGRITY TO CRITICIZE EVEN THE LIKES OF THE NORMALLY "WHITE HAT" WEARING GROUP "AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM."

CBO has said the “cost to taxpayers of displacing a gallon of gasoline with a quantity of ethanol that provides the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline is $1.78.” How’s that for efficiency?

(*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*)

Regarding food prices, CBO said, “The increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008. In turn, that increase will boost federal spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program) and child nutrition programs by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in FY 2009.”

* IT'S A FRIGG'N DOMINO EFFECT!

The subsidy also exacerbates hunger internationally, which we pay for with increased food aid and defense spending - both of which are financed with taxes and borrowing.

* AND DON'T FORGET THE INTEREST DUE ON THE BORROWING!

Emira Woods with Africa Action calls it a “shameless subsidy.” She writes, “In the midst of a global food crisis and rising hunger, the ethanol industry expropriates land in Africa and elsewhere to grow food that fuels cars.”

* AND WHAT ETHANOL DOES IS RETARD GAS MILEAGE WHICH IN THE LONG RUN ADDS TO, RATHER THAN SUBTRACTS FROM, VEHICLE EMISSIONS!

AAA, the nation’s biggest motoring organization, has said higher ethanol blends may damage exhaust systems, engines and fuel pumps, and destroy catalytic converters.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

March 11, 2011 at 5:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2487

[T]he fundamental source of the degradation of higher education in the United States [is] the historically sudden movement of a limited, elite institution toward the practices of mass production.

[A]n individual who really wants a good education can get one with nothing more than a library card. No institution, no curriculum, no program of academic rigor can serve up a generous helping of intellectual skills and knowledge to just anyone who walks into an admissions office.

Someone who only wants a credential to secure a desirable position will not get an education under any circumstances.

* AND THAT THERE IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE CREATED AN ARTIFICIAL EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY FLOOR!

The key question is not: why are colleges failing to educate students - it is why are students not educating themselves in these knowledge-rich environments.

* AHH... SADLY THAT GOES TO HUMAN NATURE AND AMERICAN CULTURE. (*FROWN*) (*SHRUG*)

* FOLKS... CONSIDER NEWSBITES... CONSIDER THIS BLOG! I LOVE READING. I LOVE LEARNING. I LOVE INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION. MOST FOLKS SIMPLY DON'T. (*SHRUG*)

In 1960, only 17% of those aged 18 to 24 were attending institutions of higher education. Today, 46% of the 18 to 24 cohort are enrolled.

* AT INCREDIBLE COST... WITH ASSOCIATED MIND-BOGGLING WASTE...

That expansion would have been a wonderful thing if it had been due to the diffusion of a craving for intellectual inquiry throughout the population, or to widespread dedication to self-improvement in technical skills. Instead, the push for college credentials came from two mutually reinforcing pressures: the desire for a degree as a white-collar "union card" and from government subsidization of post-secondary schooling.

(*SAD NOD*)

The proportion of the labor force with college degrees began to outpace the proportion in professional and technical occupations as early as 1970. As degrees became more common in every kind of job, having the piece of paper became critical for positions that previously had required little formal education and for which the substance of college education was largely irrelevant.

(*NOD*)

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a regional manager of waffle houses who told me he was looking for new restaurant managers and the only requirement was a college degree in any field. I respect people who run small businesses and I like waffles, but I can’t think of anything my colleagues or I profess that will teach someone to manage a waffle house better than an intelligent, industrious high school graduate.

By providing subsidies for higher education, state and federal governments have encouraged college attendance by students who have no interests other than obtaining employment certificates. This hasn’t just led to a greater number of unqualified pupils. It has degraded the institutions as environments for learning.

(*NOD*)

One of the reasons why a campus can be better than a public library is that students learn from each other. ... Getting a good education depends on going to school with peers who are intellectually acute and interested in their academic subjects. Unfortunately, flooding classrooms with credential-seekers has watered down both the acuity of the student body and the intellectual content of courses. Instructors tend to teach to the average student and as the average becomes less able to respond to challenges, the teaching becomes less challenging. More importantly, what pupils can learn from each other becomes less and worse than what they could learn by sitting in the isolation of that public library.

(*STANDING OVATION*)

* THERE'S MORE TO THIS INSIGHTFUL, ON TARGET ESSAY. I URGE YOU TO READ THE FULL PIECE VIA THE LINK PROVIDED.

March 11, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)