Stuff about me.
OK, I haven’t been writing much lately. I’ve been sick this past week. The big news in Colorado right now is West Nile virus. No, I didn’t get that. I had something I like to call South Platte River virus. Basically I had a fever for a few days and the sniffles. My voice still sounds all congested.
I’ll see if I can’t get back in the saddle with my musings.
The debate on stem cell research is centering on harvesting stem cells from human embryo’s. It turns out the most promising research is coming from adult stem cells. Brazilian researchers have taken stem cells from patients’ bone marrow and injected into their hearts to repair damage patients on heart transplant lists. Four of the five patients tested were successful enough to be removed from the lists.
Maggie Gallagher has a great view on this. Research ought to be going to the most promising area of research, not the most controversial.
The unofficial end of summer has come and gone. My wife and I celebrated by going to the Taste of Colorado on Sunday. Apparently the idea is to showcase the most expensive food in the world (not the best food mind you – just the most expensive). A thin strip of steak (or something they called steak) costs 5 bucks. A soft drink was a mere $2.50 – apparently a “gourmet” Coke. We managed to get out of the festival without buying any junk that we didn’t needs. That’s something.
Now that summer is over. Maybe gas prices will go back down to a point where multi-year financing at the pump is unneccessary. Whatever happened to the engine of the future that would run on chicken fat right off the stove? Yeah, I know I’m being absurd. Who cooks enough at home any more? Everyone would have to go to KFC to fuel up their cars. “A bucket of white meat and fill up the tank please.”
Yep, it’s true. Society doesn’t like boys. It’s provable too. USA Today knows it. Just look at studies in education.
Now 56% of college freshmen are women. 76% of National Honor Society members are girls.
USA Today mentions a major factor in this imbalance. Boys learn differently than girls (surprise! boys and girls are different) and curricula are now designed more for the manner is which girls learn. Result, girls are doing better at the expense of boys.
Educators don’t want to do anything about it though. USA Today pointed out, “Female education researchers…questioned whether helping boys would mean hurting girls.” In fact, when the question is raised, advocates for girls cry foul. Jacequline Woods claims that ” the implicit solution sounds disturbingly close to advocating rolling back gains for girls to address our concerns about boys.” Her statement acknowledges there is no calls to roll back gains for girls. Those who are concerned are just “close” to it. Her statements show a disturbing lack of concern for a problem that will effect all of society, even women when there are fewer qualified mates. Intelligent, responsible people know that dragging one group down does not elevate another.
My solution? Single sex classrooms. Separate boys and girls. Then each can taught in the manner in which they learn best without having to compromise to accommodate the other sex. An added advantage is neither boys or girls are distracted by trying to impress the other. It really is win/win.
Society needs to stop penalizing boys of today because others in prior years had an advantage. So what if men have quickly slipping edge in federal math and science scores?
Society has changed. Women now have a historically unprecedented choice in careers. Men won’t have that choice if we don’t educate them as boys.
The social decay that is MTV marches on. Last night the MTV Music Awards show stopper was Madonna giving an onstage kiss to Britney Spears. Great.
At this point, I’m not sure why this is such a big deal. There have been plenty of lesbian kisses on TV. Madonna published her sex book over ten years ago. What is the significance? I suppose it may be that as rich as booth Britney and Madonna are, they will still do anything for money and a little public attention.
Why is the media so friendly to terrorists. In reading today’s Reuters’ story about Israel killing a Palestinian terrorist, the recap recent events leads one to think Israel broke the cease fire. Amazing how they can state the facts but still mislead:
“Islamic militants renounced a seven-week-old truce a week ago after Israel assassinated Hamas’s second-ranking political leader, Ismail Abu Shanab, by destroying his car with a missile. That followed a suicide bombing that killed 21 in Jerusalem.”
Reuters reports the events, but not chrnologically. The result is to make Israel look like the rogue state. So this is the real order of events:
1. Terrorist kills 21 Israelis. Notice Reuters does not mention that 21 Israeli civilians were killed. Just that “21” were killed. Whatever that means.
2. Israel retaliates by killing a terrorist leader. Notice Reuters paints him as a “political leader”.
3. The terrorists renounce the cease-fire. Notice again, Reuters calls them “militants”. How are they militants when they target civilians? Their bombings have no military connection.
Beware when you read an article. They may state the facts, but not present them accurately.
If you haven’t noticed, I have updated my layout today. It took hours and hours of design, and code writing. OK, I installed a new template and figured out how to add my own colors. Ingenius.
I disagree with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and his supporters. I understand where his frustration comes from though. Our right to freely practice our religion has come under attack. The majority of the country believes in God, yet suits are filed to prohibit children from saying the pledge of allegiance because it acknowledges God. Student led prayer is now against the law.
The Roy Moore does not have the authority to arbitrarily decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. That leads to anarchy. I agree with the position Judge Moore’s two options were to follow the judgement of the higher court, or to resign in protest. Ignoring the law as interpreted by a higher court undermines his own authority as Chief Justice when he makes a ruling.
Finally, someone on the national level has put out the idea I’ve been thinking of for years. USA Today has weighed in on the issue of cable companies not allowing their customers to choose which channels they want to buy. Today nearly every basic cable package includes MTV and ESPN whether or not you actually want to watch either channel. Don’t like the debauchery MTV tells young people is normal? Tough. If you want FoxNews you have to pay for MTV as well. Like Discovery Channel but hate sports? Bite the bullet because you are paying for ESPN even if you don’t know a field goal (NFL) from a field goal (NBA).
Now USA Today brings this issue to light. Why can’t we pay for and get only the channels we want? Can you imagine going to the store and wanting to get a Coke, only to be told you have to buy a Sprite, Dr. Pepper, and a Vanilla Coke as well? Cable does it to you every month. They are saying, since we sell the channels together, you are getting more channels at less cost. So really, you are saving money.
Don’t forget a law of economics. You are not saving money you spend. When you spend $40, you have not just saved $20 – even though the item may be on sale from $60. That $40 is gone. Add that to the fact that you may not even want some of the products you just bought for $40. Cable is exactly like this. You won’t use half the channels you are paying for in the current system.
Fine, I’ll pay more per channel. I’ll still spend less money in the long run giving me a better value. So what is the better value for the consumer? 40 Channels for 40 dollars (most of which will never be viewed), or 15 Channels for $20.00 – all of which are viewed sometime during the month?
I first found this at littlegreenfootballs.com who tracks terrorism at his blog.
AP published this photograph picturing three Palestinian terrorists (four counting the AP photographer) planting a bomb. Look at the caption. Notice how AP generously avoids the term terrorist when talking about the bombings which specifically target children as young as 5 months old.