It's Not the Textbooks, It's the Test
Posted by Mr. Naron, Mar 11 2010, 02:26 PM
The Texas Textbook War, while important, fails to address what really drives what is taught in the classroom: High stakes, standardized tests.
We can include Ronald Reagan's conservative revolution, the Contract with America and Phyllis Schlafly all we want, but unless there are questions about them on the test, eventually teachers will throw them under the bus in favor of more review time for "essential" content standards. I wrote about this back in December...
Here's what California's Department of Education thinks is "essential"...
industry and trade; the development of cities divided according to race,
ethnicity, and class. A**
4. Analyze the effect of urban political machines and responses by immigrants
and middle-class reformers. A**
5. Discuss corporate mergers that produced trusts and cartels and the
economic and political policies of industrial leaders. A**
Notice the little "A**" at the end of each content substandard. If you look at the key on the bottom of the page, it says "* Standard not ranked for emphasis.
** Emphasis: A=high; B=medium; C=low." So anything with the "A**" is going to be featured prominently on the high stakes state test we take in April. Go ahead and take a look at the rest of the standards with this ranking.
Notice some kind of pattern emerging? I've gone through it and pulled out some key terms, and it looks like a fairly obvious theme to me. Here's what I came up with...
race, ethnicity, and class
immigrants (x4)
reformers
trusts and cartels
progressives
civil liberties/ACLU
Ku Klux Klan
women's rights (x3)
Harlem Renaissance
McCarthyism
Palmer Raids
Vietnam War
Latin America Policy
Vietnam protests
nuclear freeze
civil rights (x3)
Watergate
So although Texas conservatives might succeed in getting more balance in the standards or even in the textbooks, the realities of high stakes testing will eventually drive the curriculum toward those standards deemed "essential". So what the conservatives in Texas should be doing is making sure that test questions are as balanced as the standards.
As teachers and departments scratch and claw each year to make their test scores a little higher, they pay more and more attention to what's on the test. And while we can't see what's on it, we can piece together a clearer picture by using the standards "blueprint" as you see above and looking at released questions on the state website. The result for many teachers can be a depressingly dull, minutiae focused emphasis. And if that teacher is either too timid in the classroom or not really all that interested in the subject (you'd be surprised at how many history teachers don't care to read all that much), the net result for the students is not hard to predict. At best, most will be conditioned to ignore history as a source of wisdom and at worst, they may despise it.
If YOU are not teaching your child history, then you can expect them to become less like you in thought and belief. If YOU believe in accountability and want high stakes testing to continue, then you need to get involved in the process of making the tests. You cannot rely on the state to do an effective job.
My Mind is Clean
So That's Why Black People Hate Ronald Reagan
Posted by Mr. Naron, Mar 10 2010, 04:57 PM
He created a new system of Jim Crow...
*As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
*A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.
*If you take into account prisoners, a large majority of African American men in some urban areas have been labeled felons for life. (In the Chicago area, the figure is nearly 80%.) These men are part of a growing undercaste — not class, caste — permanently relegated, by law, to a second-class status. They can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, much as their grandparents and great-grandparents were during the Jim Crow era.
Now, what does that have to do with our 40th president?
Actually, President Nixon started it back in '73, but we all know he was a racist, too. As for the assertion that drug crimes were on the way down, maybe they were and maybe they weren't. We're given no data on that, nor is it easy to find. The best I could figure is that they threw a bunch of stats together from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and converted it to a per 100,000 individuals. So, I suspect the overall numbers of drug crimes were up while drug crimes per 100,000 citizens were on their way down. And I suspect that to be the case because I can't think of any other reason to make that conversion.
But let's say the assertion is correct. So what? Is there any evidence whatsoever that Ronald Reagan had any desire to create a system arguably more obnoxious than Jim Crow? Certainly none is forthcoming in this paragraph or in the entire article. It's an extremely nasty allegation to make against any president and should be met with the utmost skepticism. Unfortunately, it is as widely accepted by African-Americans as the urban legend that Elvis once said that black people were good for nothing but buying his records and shining his shoes.
I'm all for ending the drug war and for doing whatever we can to get government off the backs of African-American men. But that's not the solution Michelle Alexander wants...
The solution isn't less government, it's more. I'll be the first to call President Reagan's support of the drug war a mistake, but I'm not going to sit still while some opportunistic left-winger tries to paint him as a racist and use the unintended consequences as an excuse for MORE government intervention.
My Mind is Clean
Legalize Blackmail?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Mar 9 2010, 01:01 PM
An interesting discussion has emerged from The Evangelical Outpost on whether or not blackmail should be legalized. Although Joe Carter, the blogger who posted the argument, believes it is still a sin, he asks why two actions, revealing public information and asking for money, should be a criminal act in light of the fact that by themselves, they are perfectly legal. 
It appears he was prompted to ask this strange question because of discussions with"Christian Libertarians":
I'm wracking my brain to figure out the Biblical principle that makes it a sin. All I can come up with is that trying to use another's wrong doings to gain monetary compensation is bad character, and bad character is sinful. I'm sure the answer is staring me in the face. Maybe one of my two loyal readers can help me out.
What I'm pretty sure of, however, is that I can't think of a single reason why blackmail should be illegal. It's illegal for you to demand money in return for not telling a man's wife that he cheated on her. Without the demand for money, your telling her would be perfectly legal. Asking for money would be legal as well. But put the two together and you have an illegal act.
I'm asking if it should be against man's law. Either way, I don't think it changes my opinion of those who engage in it.
What do you think?
My Mind is Clean.
Satanists in the Vatican: Is it Really That Far Fetched?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Mar 7 2010, 07:26 PM
Mike Potemra at National Review's The Corner thinks it is...
Just a couple of days ago, I was talking to a devout and educated Catholic layman, who was telling me about the spiritual dangers of excessive interest in demonology. The demonic/Satanic exists, but a focus on it can warp the spirituality of a believer, and should be indulged in only with great caution. The high probability is that Father Amorth has been taken off the emotional rails by the work he does, in which case I wish him a speedy recovery.
I wouldn't be so sure. Where better for the enemy to infiltrate? I have no doubt in my mind that there are Satanists pastoring churches and teaching Sunday School in evangelical denominations. It would be silly to dismiss the possibility. In fact, we know it has happened.
Sure there's reason to remain skeptical with the absence of any real proof, but I wouldn't be quick to start diagnosing Amorth with emotional problems either. All Christian sects need to be on the lookout for Satanic infiltration in all its forms, even the seemingly cartoonish brand. It sounds like a joke until you find out something horrifying is going on.
I'm reminded of the reactions to allegations that communists had infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It couldn't be possible that someone like Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White could be Soviet agents. And despite plenty of conclusive evidence, many on the Left and some on the Right still don't believe it.
When dealing with people who don't play by any concrete set of rules like Satanists or communists, the facts can easily become obscured. No one wants to be seen as engaging in a "witch hunt" because, these days, such activity is viewed as worse than actually being a Satanist or a communist. So, out of an abundance of caution, we overlook things vigilance demands we investigate.
I hope the Catholic Church doesn't think itself invulnerable to the influence and infiltration of Satanists and Satanic forces. I can't imagine a more dangerous institution than a Roman Catholic Church in the clutches of the enemy.
My Mind is Clean
My Conservatism Ran Over Your Dogma
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 28 2010, 06:17 PM
In his article, The Anti-Dogma Dogma, Jonathan Chait tells us what would happen if God cleared it all up for us:
How would liberals respond? No doubt by rethinking and abandoning nearly all their long-held positions. Liberalism, after all, claims to produce certain outcomes: more prosperity and security, especially for the poor and middle classes; a cleaner environment; safer foods and drugs; and so on. If it were proved beyond a doubt that liberal policies fail to produce those outcomes--or even, as conservatives often claim, that such policies hurt their intended beneficiaries--then their rationale would disappear. It may be hard to imagine liberals advocating capital gains tax cuts as a way to lift up the working stiff. But that's just because there's no evidence to show they do. If the evidence were to change, so would the liberal mindset. The point is that liberalism has no justification other than the belief that liberal policies produce beneficial outcomes.
Since when does liberalism claim more prosperity? It promises security, trees with healthy self esteem, organic granola, legalized recreational drugs and nationalized--or better yet, marginalized--drug companies, but prosperity? I think that we're using the same word to mean two different things. In the liberal lexicon, we must conclude that "prosperity" really means an abundance of security. Conservatives call that "serfdom."
I also have to strongly question Chait's assertion that liberals would abandon their deeply held beliefs when confronted with data that runs contrary to their policies. After all, when conservatives suggest lowering taxes during an economic downturn because history has shown that revenues increase when tax rates are lowered, liberals stick their fingers in their ears and chant "I'm not listening! La la la la laaa!" But he's right about cutting the capital gains tax. A little cut probably won't do anything for the working stiff. To do that, we need to eliminate it altogether.
Chait goes on to imagine what would happen if God came down with the opposite news:
And not because conservatives are necessarily more stubborn. (Indeed, on an individual level, liberals may well be just as stubborn as conservatives.) Rather, conservatism, unlike liberalism, overlays a deeper set of philosophical principles. Conservatives believe that big government impinges upon freedom. They may also believe that big government imposes large costs on the economy. But, for a true conservative, whatever ends they think smaller government may bring about--greater prosperity, economic mobility for the non-rich--are almost beside the point. As Milton Friedman wrote, "[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself."
He's got us there. Conservatives and libertarians, having access to history books, know that the effects of big government isn't a matter of doing it the wrong way or the right way, but a matter of inevitability. Big governments will always take more of all other freedoms as their economic goals seek to level. It's as certain as gravity. So, yes, Conservatives hold to a "deeper set of philosophical principles" than liberals but not for the reasons Chait thinks.
Again, I must point out that what he and other liberals mean by "material improvement" is actually leveling security that requires a government agency to rob Peter. Paul may feel good about his security, but that only proves that he's too complacent to know that he's the ward of the state.
After a lengthy explanation of how liberalism really isn't an ideology, but a lack thereof, and a cute attempt to distance liberalism from its own conscience, Socialism, Chait asks us to take a hammer and beat ourselves over the head until we forget the 1994 Republican takeover:
Clinton also recognized the failure of welfare, previously a cherished liberal goal, to accomplish its stated purpose, and he enacted a sweeping overhaul. Many liberals complained, but the main objections centered around the details--certain punitive provisions and the lack of adequate job-creation measures--not the concept of welfare reform.
Right. Clinton didn't get his butt handed to him over that idiotic $16 billion stimulus package. Hillary didn't try to take over 1/6 of the US economy with a single payer health care scheme? I must have dreamed these defeats just like I dreamed the fact that the GOP controlled the purse strings during that period of fiscal restraint. And I think I might have been smoking the Doug Wead when I saw Newt Gingrich on the cover of Time as "The Gingrich That Stole Christmas."
"Clinton also recognized the failure of welfare..." Don't take a drink before you read that. He knew the Republicans were going to leave him in the dust, so he jumped on the bandwagon. With the aid of media pimps like Chait, he co-opted the issue and spread the myth that it was his idea. Ever hear of The Contract With America?
All in all, this is an amusing not-so-little piece of sophistry, complete with enough smarm and condescencion to make liberal comfortable with the awe inspiring historical omissions and attempts to pee on our legs while telling us it's raining. Hard to tell these days in Southern California, though.
Fast forward to 2010: I wonder why Obama isn't trying to slash the deficit like Clinton "did". Gee, could it have something to do with the fact that he has control over both houses of Congress? Is there anyone reading this who honestly thinks that Clinton wouldn't have tried to do exactly what Obama's doing had he controlled Congress? If there is, read this post one more time because you obviously missed the part where CLINTON DID EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA'S DOING UNTIL THE GOP TOOK OVER CONGRESS.
My Mind is Clean.
When Was the Last Time You...?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 27 2010, 04:14 PM
1. ...laughed until you couldn't breathe?
For me, it was while watching this:
I don't know why, but the first time I saw that, I nearly passed out.
2. ...cried in a movie theater?
My last two were Mel Gibson films. Strange, eh? The second to the last was in The Patriot when the little girl finally speaks to Benjamin Martin. The last one was this:
3. ...were angry enough to hit someone?
It's hard to remember that far back. I haven't been in a fight since high school, but I think the last time was because someone spit on a friend of mine.
4. ...were inspired by a politician?
Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall" speech. Bush 43's megaphone moment after 9/11 comes close, but it didn't stick like Reagan's:
5. ...were completely underwhelmed by a political gesture?
Gosh, let me think. Why, that'd be this last Thursday:
My Mind is Clean
NYT: Was Stack the First Tea Party Terrorist?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 24 2010, 09:44 PM
"Oh, we're just asking!" 
Yeah, right. Robert Wright is a hack even by the NYT's standards. Check out this "conclusion"...
See, he can't get away from the fact that there are clear left-wing sentiments in Stack's manifesto, so he makes up some characteristic of the Tea Party that fits Stack's behavior, then shoe horns the two together. What a crock of dog crap.
Does it ever occur to left-wing op-ed writers and bloggers that individuals on their side of the ideological spectrum could possibly hate our government, the IRS included? Does it occur to them that a hatred for the IRS is almost universal anyway? How much more would a left-winger who thinks only the very rich should be taxed hate the IRS?
Of course these things never occur to lefty blogger/op-ed writer because they act as a speed bump on the way to a knee jerk smear of a right-wing movement.
He goes on to patronize and condescend like the Queen of England if she were physically attractive...
But you could instead conclude, as both Yglesias and the blogger Glenn Greenwald kind of suggest in their posts on the Stack episode, that maybe we should just quit using the word “terrorist.” After all, if we start thinking of the Tea Party movement as housing terrorists, then — “terrorist” being the policy-shaping word that it is — we’ll be more inclined to wiretap Tea Partiers and infiltrate their gatherings. And subjecting excitable people with a persecution complex to actual persecution could lead to more excitement than I’m in the mood for.
Get that? It would be perfectly logical (without even using logic--MAGIC!!!)to conclude that Stack is a Tea Party Terrorist, but let's not call him that because it might lead to a Democrat administration acting like an evil GOP administration, and that would really be dangerous. No, I mean REALLY dangerous. Didn't you all read Janet Napolitano's report about the violent right-wingers who haven't done any violence yet but are surely to do so just because there's a black guy in the White House? It's best we just stick with writing confused op-eds where we sort of pretend to be fair and balanced but very clearly indicate that the Tea Party has its first bona fide terrorist so nah nah nah.
Finally, Wright saves his most amazing trick for his post-script...
So even though we will never know exactly what he meant--you know, the guy who lamented the fact that we don't have universal health care--Wright's suspicion that Stack's quoting of the Communist Creed was somehow, what, sarcastic(?), is plenty reason to clearly indicate that Stack was the first Tea-Party-terrorist-but-don't-call-him-that? Wriiiiight, er, I mean riiiight.
This is exactly what the left does with Hitler. His racism, nationalism and militarism clearly put him on the right because everyone knows that racism, nationalism and militarism are exclusive to the right.
No it doesn't because no, it's not. Stack, like Hitler, was a lefty. Own him.
My Mind is Clean
Where Conservatives Stand On Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 22 2010, 07:32 PM
It's pretty amazing that a self described schmuck like Glenn Beck has done so much to energize conservative self-examination. It's certainly causing some on the right more than a little consternation as evidenced by William Bennett's column. I think Beck is doing something that no other news/analysis/entertainment figure has ever been able to do: He's getting us to talk about history as if it's relevant or something.
See, you might think that's not such a rare or controversial thing, but you'd be mistaken. Last week, Michael Medved played the smug pragmatist by questioning even the need to discuss the Progressive Era or Woodrow Wilson. I'm sure Mr. Stache thinks he already knows the pertinent facts about Wilson and the Progressives, but I'm sure he doesn't nor do most conservatives. If he did know the connection with what was happening then with what's happening now, he'd simply be a useful idiot for progressivism.
No, Beck is sparking some great conversations that are long overdue, like this one at The Corner...
Ramesh Ponnuru:
Jonah Goldberg quoting TR: "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary."
As Jonah contends, you've got to find this quote offensive as a conservative. There's no way around it in context or out. Whether TR was a great man, speaker, cowboy, scholar or just a downright interesting guy is totally irrelevant to the point. The guy was a statist, fortunately more so once he left office.
Would we even be having this conversation were it not for Beck's CPAC speech or his constant reference to the Progressives every evening? I don't see why we would. It seems to me that most conservatives and all moderate Republicans are perfectly content to let sleeping progressives lie (pun gloriously intended). Such history is best relegated to cocktail party quips and predictably glowing treatments in public education.
I know it wasn't Bennett's point to criticize Beck's fixation on the Progressives, but it would have gone a long way to establish his credibility had he given Glenn a little credit for doing what all other conservative pundits are either incapable or unwilling to do.
My Mind is Clean
Red Dawn: Great, Good or Crap?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 17 2010, 09:28 PM
Scotsman, our resident Euroweenie (I kid because I care 
) weighs in...
I would be insulted if he did understand its appeal. It's an American movie meant to appeal to Americans. A Euro pretending to like Red Dawn is like a wigger pretending to get Tupac lyrics. Stick with Brave Heart or Rob Roy.
My take...It's not a great film because the actors are all terrible. Pretty much everything they're in after it is terrible. But it's more than a good film because of the scenery, the wish fulfillment and Cold war catharsis. In the early Eighties, anxiety about the Cold War was higher than it had been since the early sixties. Americans couldn't image a better release than seeing a bunch of commies get whacked by some below average American kids. As Swayze's character says at one point "Because we live here!"
And that leads me to the whole plausibility thing. As subjective as it is to discuss the quality of the film itself, I think the concept is objectively realistic. At least as far as such scenarios go. Did commies ever attack schools and kill teachers? Of course they did. Have young kids ever take up arms against invaders, of course they have. Why wouldn't it happen in America the way the film lays it out. Plus, I guess it's easy to forget that all of these kids except for two get killed. It doesn't end with them winning. Stranger things have happened in real life.
The magic of Red Dawn was in the timing. There's no way the remake will come close to grabbing people the way the original did. And there's no way foreigners will ever understand why we like it.
My Mind is Clean
Family Guy vs. Sarah Palin...Confusing
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 16 2010, 07:37 PM
I try not to be too protective of my political ilk when they're satirized in print or media, so it was with skepticism that I viewed the following clip from Sunday's The Family Guy...
click bottom of image for video link
I can't say I was offended or not offended. I was confused. Parts of the clip were funny, I guess, but I'm not even sure if I was chuckling at the right parts. The part where they supposedly made fun of Trig Palin didn't make any sense.
Here's Trig with his parents...
The character in the clip is a teenage girl named Edna or something. I think this is a fishing expedition to get us right wingers all wing nutty over something completely stupid. If I were to be offended, it would be at the lack of thought that went into the joke. I'm upset that it wasn't funny.
Moreover, there's far more to be upset about later in the show when the dad makes creepy comments about someone's twelve year old daughter. So I guess twelve is the age at which pedophilia becomes funny and not cause for a beat down.
I get why people think The Family Guy is funny. It's full of clever little twists and references. But its tendency to cross the line for the sake of crossing it gets tiresome. I don't begrudge anyone watching it. I just can't get into it.
Here's Bristol Palin's response...
I agree that the writers of The Family Guy are heartless jerks, but I'm not sure it's because of the part she's talking about.
My Mind is Clean
Are You Leading the Life You Want?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 15 2010, 02:31 PM
One of the reasons I love the movie, Office Space, is the scene where the main character, Peter, discusses the old highschool guidance caunselor question about what you would do with your life if you had a million dollars. I loved Peter's answer: Nothing. I'd do nothing.
Of course no one can truly do "nothing" in the strictest sense although there are many out there who come darn close. What Peter meant and where I agree with him is in the notion of having freedom to do whatever you want when you want. That's exactly what I would do if I had enough money to allow me to stay home.
Now, the point of the question is to direct you to your true calling. My true calling happens to be teaching. So, in my "do nothing" perfect life would I still be teaching? Of course I would. It never fails to amaze me how we equate rigid scheduling with the worthwhile use of our time. When did we get the notion that everyone works at the same rate and produces the same results in the same eight hour period?
If I were set free from the prison of arbitrary scheduling, I would get much more done and have much more satisfaction. I also love to blog, play and write music and play sports. Guess which of these things I don't do anymore because of scheduling? And I'm not even going to hide the fact that I watch copious amounts of television. I love to do that, too. Should I, then, do those other things instead? I guess by some people's standards I should. Afterall, TV is a vast wasteland, right? Either way, I prefer to watch TV than begin an activity that I know will engross me so deeply that there's no way I would ever get to complete it. (Going to the gym doesn't count because it can be a very short trip) At least I can DVR TV shows and pause them when the kids need me. If I'm trying to record a song, interuptions will make me ever so crabby.
We are not living in a manufacturing economy anymore where uniformity is required for maximum efficiency. My job could be done so much more effectively in a much shorter period of time if the idea of a forty hour work week wasn't a given.
Finally, please take this as a suggestion for the improvement of our daily lives and not as a complaint. My current job is like a vacation compared to these:
Short Haul Trucker
Cab Driver
Electrical Sign Salesman
Electrical Sign Installer/Fabricator (think big pole signs you can see from the freeway)
Roofer/Yardman
Security Guard
Vacum Cleaner Salesman
Electroplating Inspector
Telemarketer
Veterinary Assisstant
Baseball Stat Keeper
Not all of those jobs sucked, but most of them went beyond sucking. Therefore, I am perfectly content with my current job. That doesn't mean, however, that I would submit to the tyranny of the time clock if I had a choice.
What kind of life would you lead if you had a choice?
My Mind is Clean
Don't Call it a Picnic
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 14 2010, 03:31 PM
Did you know...
This e-mail comes to you as a public service announcement and as information in the form of a little known Black History Fact. This information is in the African American Archives at the Smithsonian Institute.
Although not taught in American learning institutions and literature, it is in most Black history professional circles and literature that the origin of the term "picnic" derives from the acts of lynching African-Americans. The word "picnic" is rooted from the whole theme of "Pick A <censored>". This is where individuals would "pic" a Black person to lynch and make this into a family gathering. There would be music and a "picnic". ("Nic" being the white acronym for "<censored>"). Scenes of this were in the movie "Rosewood". We should choose to use the word "barbecue" or "outing" instead of the word "picnic".
Please forward this e-mail to all of your family and friends and let us educate our people.
Of course, anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can see that this is a hoax. Furthermore, anyone with a little education would catch the unclear use of the word "acronym". And the whole thing has been long proven to be a hoax.
Why, then, is it still being taught by professors of multi-cultural education?
A friend of mine is working on his PhD and had to take one of these classes. It sounds verbatim like the multicultural classes I had to take. That's right. CLASSES. I had at least four of them. Some of the most insane crap you can think of was asserted in those classes, but the picnic thing was a new one on me. Here are some other gems from his notes that I didn't have to sit through...
*The Bible was rewritten in the US t justify slavery.
*Greeks shot the nose off the Sphinx because they didn't like the African features.
*Africa is the largest continent.
*If you were caught teaching blacks to read under Jim Crow, you were killed.
*African-Americans are rejected when they visit Africa unlike Euro-Americans who are welcomed when they visit their "homeland".
*If an African leader is corrupt, he is mimicking the evil colonial white man.
*The word "Hispanic" was created by the US Department of Education in the 1970s.
*Mexicans are disenfranchised even if they "apparently" given rights on paper. [the word "disenfranchised" refers to not being allowed to vote, so...yeah]
*Cubans are the only minority group assisted by the federal government.
*Thanksgiving was a myth: the Indians came because they heard gunfire.
*The Europeans who came to the Americas to find religious freedom killed the Indians who didn't convert.
*Motives behind "affordable housing" similar to those of putting Jews into ghettos.
*The "rite" in which rappers pour out booze onto the graves of their dead homies has its roots in an ancient African tradition.
I'm not sure about that last one. It has all the appearances of verbal masturbation like the rest of the list, but I've not studied the roots of urban booze rituals.
Again, these are simply the ones I had not heard of in exactly those terms. We've all been taught or have heard of someone being taught that Thanksgiving was a myth, but I'd never heard of the gunfire theory.
This is what's being taught to Masters and PhD candidates, people. And it's not isolated or rare. This is the norm. There's no such thing as academic freedom in this country just in case you were still wondering.
My Mind is Clean
All Time Greatest Grunge Song
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 13 2010, 05:18 PM
It has been a long time, but I think I can finally forgive grunge for spoiling the party. Well, not completely. Grunge still mostly sucks and takes the fun out of everything. But as I look around campus these days, I see far more Iron Maiden and Metallica shirts than Nirvana. So, as I expected, grunge's appeal has worn out pretty quickly, and the bands who kids will be listening to twenty years from now are the ones I listened to twenty years ago and the ones kids listen to now. And by kids, I mean kids who like music, not the pre-adults who merely seek a social soundtrack.
Anyway, since I'm not mad at grunge anymore, here's my list of the stuff that I can still listen to without having to listen to the entire Iron Maiden Piece of Mind album just to get the taste out of my mouth...
5. Daughter by Pearl Jam
One of the few things I like about grunge is how some of it is tinged with country. Ironic, I know, since I can't really stand country all that much. No band used country in a grungy way than Pearl Jam. Yellow Ledbetter is also a good example.
4. Creep by Radiohead
One of the things I don't like about grunge is the conscious way it's stripped down. I don't mind stripped down on principle, but I hate it when bands tell their drummers to use a smaller kit just because a big one looks too "metal" or when they don't let the lead guitar solo because it's too "rock". Whatever that means. But I like this kind of stripped down. It doesn't seemed too contrived. I also think the falsetto is a nice break from the usual grandpa voice so common in grunge.
3. Vasoline by Stone Temple Pilots
Probably my favorite grunge band in general. I like this one more than Plush or Interstate Love Song because it's more up tempo. I think they're the most metal of all grunge bands besides maybe Soundgarden.
2. Hunger Strike by Temple of the Dog
More of the country thing. I think these guys should have stayed together as an actual group.
1. Outshined by Soundgarden
I probably should be angry at Soundgarden for going from metal to grunge, but this is a good song. Very hard. Way better than Black Hole Sun.
And you'll notice that there's no Nirvana in the list. Well, that's because they suck. Dave Grohl is a very talented guy who seems very down to earth. He probably knows how to have a good time. I love Foo Fighters. But Nirvana? No. Not a fan.
My Mind is Clean
Things People Shouldn't Say to Me
Posted by Mr. Naron, Feb 12 2010, 06:57 PM
We're all tired of vocal pauses, the over use of the word "literally" and cliches we're sure the users don't even understand. But there are some phrases that are really bugging me lately.
1. I deserve...
No, you don't. The majority of us never get what we really deserve, and that's a good thing. Other people should treat us with respect and dignity only as long as we return the favor.
I rarely hear people voice what they truly deserve. It's always "I deserve a nice wedding" or "I deserve to be happy." Not really. Unless you're my friend, Mike, who's a missionary in Uganda, I'm sure you've done nothing to deserve such things. In fact, you've probably done something rotten and deserve the opposite.
We would all be much happier if we realized that what we are getting is much better than we deserve. Remember that when you're bitching out the minister at your wedding.
2. Who are you to say...
This applies sometimes, but not nearly as often as people use it. One big clue is that in the context of an internet debate, we're all experts and none of us are. So, that phrase should never be uttered in cyberspace. At the same time, making assumptions about another person's inner thoughts, promting the phrase, is equally annoying.
When you share a personal anecdote, don't do so in an attempt to disprove a generalization or a tendency. It makes you look silly. Yes, there are exceptions, and I'm sure you are an exception to every rule in the book--or at least you know someone who is. Nobody cares.
3. Any kind of literal humor
This is more of a category of phrases or stupid things people say. We all know someone around whom no one can ever speak figuratively without them trying to play off the literal meaning of what you say. My ten year old is entering into this phase.
Here's an example of what I mean. In the next to last paragraph above, I wrote "It makes you look silly." If my daughter were out there in cyberspace looking for a rumble, she would write back, "How can I look silly when you can't even see me?" Then her maternal grandmother would praise her for being so smart. She's ten and will grow out of it; grandma fought in the Crusades and has no excuse.
4. Starting our life together... or I'm finally starting my life
I don't know how to make this sound like anything other than a personal problem, but it really burns me when I hear people use this as congratualtory. For instance, several people said this to me when I graduated from university, when I got hired down at the high school and when I got married. How many freaking times do I have to start my life? As far as I'm concerned, I started my life the day I was born. My wife and I started our lives together the day we met.
This one is about expectations and is closely related to #1 on this list. The same people utter these phrases. They tend to have a cookie cutter image of what life should be, and unless you fit that image, you haven't really "started your life." Screw that. I would be one miserable SOB if I had that attitude.
I also notice people who say such things usually have quite a bit handed to them. I didn't. I have to appreciate my life even if it doesn't fit the image many people have. So, the next time you're fishing for a way to compliment a friend who has just struggled his or her way through something or reached a major goal, don't insult them instead by implying that up to this point, they've had no life.
My Mind is Clean
