This week, entries from readers (I’m woefully behind).
Science Is Blind
Blind on purpose. Elizabeth Murphy recalls a lecture “delivered at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador recently sponsored by the Dept. of Sociology.” The “Henrietta Harvey Lecture: How Climate Change Became Controversial: Examining the Denial Counter-Movement” which took place Thursday, Oct. 01, 2015, but a fellow named Dr. Riley E. Dunlap. Here’s a PDF of the announcement (see p. 8).
Fascinating thing about this is that Dunlap is purposely ignorant about why people join the global-warming-of-doom anti-counter-movement. I mean, as far as I can tell, he has made no effort whatsoever to study fully the subject on which he is a purported expert. For instance, he edited the review article Dunlap, Riley E. (ed.). 2013. “Climate Change Skepticism and Denial.” American Behavioral Scientist 57: 691-837. And he is co-author of McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2011. “Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change among Conservative White Males.” Global Environmental Change 21:1163-1172. And so forth.
This Dunlap isn’t alone. Many, many scientists these days start out with a belief and then charge after anything which might support that belief, and these folks are constitutionally unable to search for evidence which might deny their belief. Their beliefs are just true, and the only question they can conjure is “Why isn’t everybody like me?”
Incidentally, I say people join the doom movements because they believe in the solution to global warming. About the physics, they are usually ignorant.
Shaming People Into Abusing English
The desperate-to-remain-relevant John McWhorter wants to shame people into dropping standard English pronouns and instead embrace insanity. “Goodbye to ‘he’ and ‘she’ and hello to ‘ze’?”
We are opening up to the idea that binary conceptions of gender are unnecessarily rigid and don’t correspond to the self-image of a great many people, and even that people’s sense of their gender may not correspond to their biological sex. In this new world, a bland opposition between “he” and “she” seems increasingly antique, and even insulting, to many.
This guy calls himself a linguist. I’m guessing from the Ministry of Education.
Death Becomes Us
Nina Rhea points us to the latest thrust in education: death awareness.
Here is a quote from an essay written in 2011, which favors Death Education.
“This article uses Pinar’s (1992) theory that the ‘concept and realities of death need to be integrated in everyday conversation and in everyday curriculum, and not treated as exotic topics of extreme anxiety. As life leads to death he asks us not to tempt death but invites us to perhaps make friends with it.” From Death and Dying in the Curriculum of Public Schools: Is there a place? (pdf)
The document is 11 pages and has a bibliography of death ed books going back to the 1970’s.
This may be the first time you have heard about Death Education. It is so awful and disturbing. Humanists have invaded our public schools with their damaging ideas about life.
The push is on for the “right” to die with “dignity.” Just like with same-sex attraction, they start the propaganda with the young. Soon will come the day when junior comes home and says, “Mom? Why are we keeping grandma alive? She can barely walk. Teacher said it would be better if she were made into Soylent Green.”
Longtime reader Ken says, “Speaking of climate change, here’s an interesting study on pornography I just ran across. Doubt if it means much, and I question it somewhat, but there it is”. The study title claims “Porn watchers think more highly of women“.
I’ve run out of creative ways to say BS. Thing that caught my eye was this admission by the researcher: “Research estimates have suggested that between 25-95% of men and 2-85% of women use pornography.” Notice it’s use porn, not watch or view. Use. This is accurate, which is why it’s so startling.
The push here is obvious: porn is healthy and promotes diversity, etc., etc. That it, like death education, is deadly to families is ignored.
Thanks to longtime reader Al Perrella we learn the New York Times thinks college lectures are “unfair”. Why?
Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that the lecture is not generic or neutral, but a specific cultural form that favors some people while discriminating against others, including women, minorities and low-income and first-generation college students. This is not a matter of instructor bias; it is the lecture format itself — when used on its own without other instructional supports — that offers unfair advantages to an already privileged population.
Growing body of research my festering…ah, skip it. The Left is one big unfairness factory. Equality of opportunity is impossible, so here we have another target that can never be reached, and so will provide and endless supply of material to rile the base.
From John Moore comes the find “We Are All Related! So Get Over It.” Yeah. We all descend from Adam and Eve, yet even Cain plastered Abel. And doesn’t the author know that family fights are the most internecine.
Contributor Jim Fedako discovers “Is YOUR baby racist? Scientists discover a way to reverse racial bias in young children.” Just is what is causing these horrors in the womb! Recognizing your own mother is now racist.