A Teaching Moment

The modern American Right have - over the course of the last decade - slowly moved closer and closer to stating point-blank that higher education is completely worthless.

Seems that they are just moments away from claiming that, in light of this report featured in USA Today:

Nearly half of the nation’s undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don’t make academics a priority, a new report shows.

Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students, who in turn are more tuned in to their social lives, according to the report, based on a book titled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Findings are based on transcripts and surveys of more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide, along with their results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students’ critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.

After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.

Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago, the research shows.

And right on cue, one of the biggest Right Wing blogs pushes exactly that question - do kids really need college?

But the author - AllahPundit - doesn't stop there, as they make a none to thinly veiled accusation that there has to be some sort of bias ( read: liberal ) at all colleges that causes students to put emotion and political alignments before "critical analysis", based on an article from McLatchy - then following up with this:

If you think false media narratives are easily absorbed now, wait until the Leaders of Tomorrow graduate and take their place in society. I keep thinking that the combination of a poor economy and ludicrous higher-education costs will solve this problem to some degree by re-normalizing the idea of entering the labor force after high school. If you’re a kid who’s unenthused about incurring a mountain of debt for the privilege of four more years of study with no guarantee of finding a job afterward to fund the repayment, why not pound the pavement for an entry-level/trainee position somewhere instead? The pay will be rotten to start and the lack of a diploma will make some future employers think twice, but in the meantime you’re debt-free and building skills — and if I’m right about re-normalization, the “no diploma” stigma will fade a bit culturally over time.

And there's the money shot - are conservative parents going to stop what they did when I was young, to urge that their children get a higher education so that they can end up better off in the world than they are?

Certainly, the world is a different place than it was in 1989 when I started high school, but have we come so far as a nation that we are willing to buy into this notion that a college education simply doesn't matter?

The first argument that any parent has with their high school senior is of the "cost" of the school of their choice. And while not every child is lucky enough to get that grant or scholarship, it is one of the obstacles with sending a student to college and will be a conversation that a plurality of parents will have with their kids. But should that be the rationalization for telling them they don't need any further education after high school? Should that be the reason that a kid give up their dreams of being a doctor, a lawyer, geologist, or an architect, or even a teacher?

I still owe a fairly large sum of money for my college education. Was it worth it? Every last penny. Could I have made some better choices after I graduated? Most certainly. But are we to believe that the modern American Right think that they could fair better without a college education? Are we to operate under the assumption that college is as outdated as cassette tapes, VHS, and CB radio? Are we to believe that the value of higher education in the eyes of employers will disappear in a sufficient enough timeframe to satisfy Right Wingers like the above mentioned author?

What the study shows, and what most within the modern American Right will ultimately ignore, is a lack of motivation by the students in the percentiles highlighted. This isn't about what classes are offered, where the school is located, or how much it costs - it's the students' desire to learn.

I'm not so naive to think that there won't be temptations at college, as I took part in my fair share of ribaldry and class skipping - but I knew that in order to make the grade I had to do the work. The person that is ultimately responsible for your grade is you, regardless of what the author at HotAir has to say about "grade inflation".

College isn't for everyone. I had this same talk with my nephew after he dropped out of a regional University and thought his parents would be mad at him for the rest of his life. But if you opt to skip college, don't think that you will have the same job opportunities as those with a college diploma, even if you don't have that debt hanging over you.

Attack Everything

I'm guessing had Michelle Obama wrote each spouse of the delegates of the UN a personal letter that conservatives would concoct yet another conspiracy about how the Obamas are out to create a "one world government". But they've only got vegetables and a gift basket to work with this time.

A special recipe of pickled, hand-picked ingredients from the White House Kitchen Garden, including sun gold tomatoes, okra, cucumbers, chocolate bell peppers, carrots, lemon verbena, and fresh herbs are presented in jars with the First Lady's signature. The jars are topped with original artwork done by California artists, Michael Cronan and Karin Hibma, who were inspired by a photo of Mrs. Obama tending to the garden with children and a wheelbarrow.

That's right, a gift based around the idea of healthy eating, promoting American small-business, and the very ideals that make up the American spirit of creativity and exceptionalism.

Naturally conservatives want nothing to do with that at all.

As the world leaders were back in the City scheming to divvy up money that doesn’t belong to them, the spouses hung around with FLOTUS and received a basket that I’m predicting will come to be known as “the re-gifting heard ’round the world”

Because all Republicans have been taught since Obama started his bid for the Presidency that you can't eat vegetables anymore, as only "liberal elites" do that.
This actually fits in quite nicely with Glenn Becks tirades about his french fries. Wait, are they still calling them "Freedom Fries"?

Oh, and for an added bonus, check out how quickly the racial invective starts up at Fox"Nation" in their comments section about this story. Yeah, no racists in the conservative movement - none at all.

Not Exactly A New Approach

Conservatives simply don't get it. If you want to have a broad approach to something, you bring in experts from ALL fields - and yes, that includes those with Hollywood ties.

Federal officials are hoping Cameron can help them come up with ideas on how to stop the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, officials said today.

The “Avatar” and “Titanic” director was among a group of scientists and other experts who met Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

The Canadian-born Cameron is considered an expert on underwater filming and remote vehicle technologies. “Avatar” and “Titanic” are the two highest-grossing films of all time.

BP, meanwhile, hopes to place a cap on a fractured oil pipe and contain the Gulf of Mexico spill within the next 24 hours, a top company official said.

"If everything goes well, within the next 24 hours, we could have this contained," BP's chief operating officer Doug Suttles told reporters in Louisiana.

Considering Cameron's expertise in underwater remote technology, I'm all for him being part of a larger panel doing to brainstorming and problem solving. However, conservatives are framing this like Obama and Cameron are the only ones in the room with their heads in their hands going "oh, shit, what are we going to do?"

But this isn't the first time Feds have used sci-fi writers to help shape specific policy and practices. The intelligence community has been using them for decades to help modify and craft national security procedures and how our defense departments will have to react to or prevent threats against our country.

The most prominent of these groups of authors is called Sigma.

Many SIGMA members are Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers; all are science fiction writers who have spent careers applying their technical and literary talents in exploring the future of science, technology, society and cultures. SIGMA provides a significant pool of talent for volunteer pro bono consultation with the Federal government and other organizations which need the imagination that only speculative writers can provide.

With sufficient notice, SIGMA can provide a panel of distinguished science fiction authors with real-world expertise ranging over physics, astrophysics, nuclear science, advanced weaponry, engineering, nanotechnology, biomedicine, human factors and a common element of practical futurism. Other members can be recruited as needed; a large pool of potential SIGMAns exists within the professional science fiction community.

I'm also reminded of the numerous occasions that Author C. Clarke consulted with NASA prior to new missions into space. Was this seen as out of the norm by conservatives? Likely there were a few that found this practice strange, but considering many of the most brilliant minds from the sci-fi genre have predicted most of what we now take for granted, this should come as a surprise to no one.

Again, this is all a matter of perception versus perspective. If you completely lack the proper perspective on any issue, you perception can be manipulated quite easily. This is a perfect example of such an issue.

Elena's Long Road

Some are insisting that Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing will likely mirror Sotomayor's. I'm thinking the opposite - she's going to have a much tougher time.

First, here alleged ties to Goldman Sachs.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.

The advisory board position that Kagan held from 2005 to 2008 and here status and position on the board is in no way connected with practices that Goldman Sachs is being investigated for. However, the name alone is going to cause conservatives to shape a storyline that Kagan is connected in some fashion to the economic decline simply because of proximity.

If that be the case, it would certainly begin to tear away at the conservative narrative that the Obama administration is "punishing" banks and actually defending Goldman Sachs. If they are going to approach Kagan's confirmation from the point of view that what Goldman did was wrong, they are going to have to pull off some very elaborate rhetorical acrobatics. Then again, conservatives have very short memories so they will likely be focusing on what is said in order to slander Kagan rather than how context plays a very important role. When it comes to making Democrats look bad - all bets are off for what conservatives have previously said.

Second, her virtual lack of a "paper-trail" is going to translate to "lack of experience" to conservatives.

One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan's judicial philosophy and view of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse. That's not only because she's never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama's Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration's policies regardless of whether she agreed with them.

Considering conservatives have recently rediscovered the Constitution after Obama was elected, Kagan's lack of writings on the Constitution will likely play a huge role in her confirmation process. But considering her ability to actively engage in constitutional issues ( like the Citizens United case ) proves that she's got the knowledge and the ability to replace Stevens.

I'm sure, however, that we will likely hear from conservatives that due to her lack of writings on the Constitution that she is some sort of "rogue", a "radical". Hey, who else did they label a "radical"? Oh, yeah.

Also, I'm sure that Breitbart or Hannity will suddenly have some long-lost video footage about her making some comment regarding women and the decision making process. Then we are likely to hear specious claims about someone she may have been in the same room with that has a peculiar past of their own - maybe someone she worked indirectly with at Harvard. It's a pretty open playing field for conservatives right now, and I'm sure it will get interesting very quickly.

Of course, there will also be the third aspect of the confirmation process - though this will be in the public realm ( talk radio and blogs primarily ) - that will likely be echo to an extend on Capital Hill: pointless name calling.

This is generally used as a second wave of attack when conservatives see that their ideological blatherings are having no discernible effects. But considering that we are dealing with a white woman who has apparently no specific ties to any group/organization that conservatives love to use as a racial weapon, the name-calling could either be quite ineffective and muted or could be so over-the-top that it will dominate at least 4 news cycles.

That being said, and considering how Kagan has flow below the radar to a certain extent, I'm quite curious as to how Beck is going to start handling this. I'm sure the words "socialist" and "communist" will come up several times throughout his two programs.

But back to the Constitution, Kagan faces a challenge that Sotomayor didn't face - the Constitutionality of healthcare reform:

As soon as President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, right-wing governors, attorneys general, and state lawmakers immediately began pushing measures to nullify the new health care benefits. However, even many conservative legal scholars acknowledged that their argument for the unconstitutionality of health reform was “weak” and nothing more than a political stunt. Nullification efforts around the country have largely lost momentum and failed to pass.

Nevertheless, this morning on Fox News, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said that he wants to make this fringe view of health care reform a centerpiece of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing:

Considering how well Kagan handled herself when discussion Citizens United, I'm sure that she's more than ready to take on a hack like Senator Barrasso.

This isn't going to be an easy confirmation, as conservatives are willing to go full-tilt in trying to derail this. Granted, Kagan isn't this radicalized liberal that she will be characterized as, but the mythos already being created by the conservative movement again shows that they are more than willing to destroy an American life than ensure that their country is bettered.

The Pee-Wee Herman Defense

I know you are, but what am I? Seriously.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — U.S. Congressman Steve Cohen is drawing national attention for remarks he made about the tea party movement in a recent radio interview.
The Commercial Appeal reports that the two-term Democrat said the tea party -- "without hoods and robes" -- has shown an angry, hardcore side of America that's against diversity.

He made the comments Thursday night on The Young Turks, an Internet and satellite radio talk show.

Cohen went on to say tea party members have shown hostility toward anybody who isn't "a clone of George Wallace's fan club," and that he has seen no Republican standing up to appeal for reason.

Memphis Tea Party founder and chairman Mark A. Skoda calls Cohen's remarks "hate speech."

I've run into this while attempting to discuss political matters with a group of Tea Baggers that post on a local news forum. This was posted yesterday as a response to my previous statements:

It's not that you've issued direct threats, it's your tone and rhetoric. Using words like "you people are disgusting", "Tea-bagger", "blatherings" and "little brats" to name a few show your intention is to bait conservatives not debate them.

This town is a hotbed of conservative insanity since Obama was elected. And it's surprising to hear this person is so upset with innocuous rhetoric is used by me and the highly inflammatory and blisteringly false accusations from people like Hannity and Limbaugh are unchecked and unchallenged.

The funny part of all this is, that I'm attending the local Tea Bagger fest on the 15th and I've been threatened - with hugs. People are actually refusing to stand up for their beliefs in favor of feigning compassion.

Misplaced Admiration

Still trying to wrap my head around this USAToday/Gallup poll that shows that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are essentially tied for the "Most Admired Woman In America" title.

The woman hasn't finished anything since her stint as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. She quit her elected job as Governor in order to take credit for writing a book that someone else wrote for her and then toured the country trash talking Obama and any and everyone that asked her a valid question she couldn't answer.

If this is the new high-water mark in conservative political action then I don't see 2010 being that bad of a year for Democrats.

Careful There, Micheal

Considering that Micheal Medved started his career as a Movie Critic, it's easy to see why he would step into another field that is even less relevant - the Right-Wing talk-show host.

*Apologies must go to Mike Clark - film critic with USA Today - who's thoughts on film have dovetailed quite nicely with mine over the years. He's one of the few critics in the industry that I can agree with*

In a recent article at USA Today, Medved laments that perhaps he and his fellow right-wing prattle-heads are one of the causes of the downfall of the GOP:

For more than a decade, I've hosted a nationally syndicated political talk show. Like all radio veterans, I cherish the notion that the last time a young Democrat took over the White House with gauzy visions of change, it produced a "Golden Age" for right-wing talk.

...

Today's titans of talk naturally dream of repeating this revival, but even if Obamatrons offer targets for ridicule every bit as juicy as Clintonistas, it won't be easy to recapture the potent magic of the 1990s. Most obviously, the rapid development of cable TV and the Internet has given the public innumerable new options for debate and information. During Clinton's era, conservative talk radio offered the inevitable destination for political junkies who cared deeply about the fate of the new administration. Today, many leading TV comics and commentators lean unabashedly to the left, while progressive websites rival popular right-wing sources online.

This fragmentation of the mass audience has led many talk shows to cultivate a niche audience rather than the Republican mainstream. In the aftermath of stinging GOP defeat in November, radio crackles with blame-game arguments intended to divide "real conservatives" from unworthy moderate imposters -- as if the GOP could become the first party in history to expand an already shrunken base by purging its membership.

I'm left with the question as to whom Medved thinks "real conservatives" are?

Is he speaking about the people that pick and choose verses from the Bible in order excuse their own behavior while using that same process to remove civil rights from others? Is he speaking about those that skirt so closely to overt racism while leaving just enough space between them and the white sheets and burning crosses to claim that any and all that question them are "race baiters"? Is he speaking of those that would gladly use members of the military as a verbal stick with which to browbeat people with?

I find it slightly ironic that Medved is so eager to claim that Right-Wing talk-radio is destroying the GOP when he is regularly a featured blogger on one of the lunatic-fringe Right's top websites - Townhall.

Interestingly enough, not all the hardline wingers agree with Medveds assertion. Take HotAir's Ed Morrissey for example:

Two editorials in the past two days have attempted to shift blame for two successive election losses onto someone who has never run for public office. Both Mort Kondracke and Karen Harper blame Rush and other conservative talk-show hosts for the GOP’s descent into the minority in Washington DC. Neither, though, explain how a conservative talk-show host whose policy positions got largely ignored over the last eight years cost Republican candidates votes.

Huh? Did Rush or any of the other people Kondracke mentions support an explosion of pork-barrel spending? As far as I know, Rush never uttered the phrase “compassionate conservatism” without irony or contempt. Rush, Laura, Sean, and the rest of the talk-show circuit certainly didn’t back the biggest expansion of discretionary spending by the federal government in decades. Other than the war and judicial nominations, Kondracke would be hard-pressed to identify which parts of the Republican agenda as pursued by GOP officeholders over the last decade belonged to Rush.

You can read Morrissey's full fledged rant here.

While one says that Right-Wing talk-radio is to blame, the other says that it isn't. Moreover, many actually believe that it's the single-minded radio jocks that embody the "core values" of the GOP.

It appears to me that Medved is attempting to feed from both ends of the trough. Expect him to revise his opinion of talk-radio when his listership calls him on this article.

Further Proof That O'Reilly 's Ego Is Bigger Than Yours

Not like you really needed any more proof, but here it is anyway.

In a passage from his latest self-masturbatory fantasy entitled "A Fresh, Bold, Piece Of Humanity" O'Reilly writes:

Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don't believe there's a God!

More, from the USA Today write-up:

With a huge first printing (775,000 copies), it's more personal than his previous best sellers, including Culture Warrior (2006) and Who's Looking Out for You? (2003).

His publisher, Doubleday, reports 5 million copies of his four major best sellers are in print.

O'Reilly, 59, is nostalgic: "I liked my country better pre-Vietnam. It was more fun. The Aquarius deal was too confusing. I mean, John Lennon thought he was a walrus. What was that all about?"

Even as a college student, he writes, he never got drunk or did drugs: "I did not want to be under the influence of anything other than my own dubious personality. Ever."

He complains that the "crazed, dishonest ultraliberal media" brands him a conservative. He criticizes conservatives on several issues, including a failure to curtail illegal immigration.

He also attacks "left-wing loons," such as former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who's a "pinhead."

I'll leave the "I was so pure in college" schtick alone. My question is, how many of those 750,000 copies were purchased by Fox, NewsCorp, or Doubleday in advance of printing in order to put O'Reilly on the best-seller list?

I've read just about all his stuff - though I couldn't make it through but about 1/2 of "Those Who Tresspass" without getting nauseous from the poorly structure narrative - and I can say that this book, like his others, will likely be a rehash of the previous ones with about 15-25 pages of "new" material. O'Reilly's pretty predictable that way.