Just ain't smart enough

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The title refers to me, not you. I am the one not smart enough. You may, after reading this piece, decide that you too are not smart enough, but I leave that to you.

I have met a few other people who are also not smart enough. Mark is the one who comes to mind immediately. He and I worked together at a newspaper years ago.

When he informed me that he was not smart enough, I was quite surprised. But since then, I have come join him.

You are probably wondering what Mark and I and a few other people are not smart enough about.

Before I tell you, I have more information to share.

When I tell people in person, their eyes glaze over. It's like I'm suddenly speaking a foreign language or discussing quantum physics. They immediately tune me out. Most will then shift the subject to something they and I are smart enough to handle. A few just quit talking altogether.

A very few people look at me with an astonished incredulous visage. I actually had one person say to me "Well how do you know what is going on?"

At the time I tried to explain it. Nowadays, I won't bother explaining, I'll just say "How do YOU know what is going on?" and then invite the person to question me about pretty much anything of substance, relevance and importance.

I admit here that what is important to me is not important to someone else. Same thing with relevance. That is why I include the word "substance." Substance means of significance, importance, weight, of major impact and lasting implications.

I just like this image.

With those provisos in place, there are certainly lots of topics I don't know much, if anything, about. Professional and collegiate sports; celebrities (any time I use celeb references in my stuff, I have to check with someone else to make sure I'm using such references correctly, then I promptly forget them), talking heads like those on cable news networks (see parenthetical note immediately preceding).

Got any idea yet of what I'm not smart enough for? I'll give you a hint. Federal regulation and cathode rays.

Any closer?

Another hint. Outside Adel there is a billboard on Highway 41. It says "Save money! Get rid of cable!" The rest of the information urges people to contact an internet service provider.

Closer?

Ok try this.

 
How about now?

Yep. I am not smart enough to watch television. I used to be. Watched it for hours a day. But I haven't been smart enough in years.

And some people are now quite offended.

"But all you have to do is turn it on and sit there and watch," you say.

Interesting. How does this profit you? How does it make you a better person? How does it edify and educate you and in what way does it elucidate? Never did much for me.

Yes, yes, yes, I admit there are a few things on TV which are superlative. My brother actually learned to read watching Sesame Street and the Electric Company (which surprised his kindergarten teacher to no end). Documentaries can also be good stuff. I actually do miss watching Mythbusters every now and then.

But for each TV event which does inform you, educate you and give you information you can actually use to make informed and intelligent decisions to make the world a better place there are 1,000 events which at best do nothing and at worst render you incapable of independent thought.

Even those TV events which are worthwhile are bracketed by spewing fountains of electronic compost, also know as a commercials.

You are now asking what I do since I don't watch TV. I listen to the radio, mostly National Public Radio and I do that while I either work or read. I read several books a week. I read newspapers, hard copy and online.

I listen to NPR because it has no commercials, very little blather and no idiot news as compared to other major broadcast news sources. I define idiot news as things like Charlie Sheen's most recent meltdown (if I got that right). NPR also gives me more detail than any other broadcast medium, which I then take and go in search of more information on topics that are important to me. In other words I don't take NPR's word for it, I go research for myself.

Do you take what you see on TV and go do research on it? Or do you take the TV as gospel truth?

Really?

If TV news is that untrustworthy and bad why do you keep watching it?

I also write. You see part of how much I write each week in this forum.

As for being informed by television, g'head. Pick a topic of substance, relevance and importance. Pick one. We'll discuss it. You can decide for yourself if I am informed or ignorant on such matters.

I am not criticizing you if you watch TV. This is your choice. I only say I'm not smart enough to watch TV. There is far too much I need to learn before I can start watching TV again.

"All I know is that I know nothing."

How hot was it?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

In an ideal world, described by a perfect writer, it would bubble every now and then, a massive gaseous eructation from from the bottom, slowly rising to the top to stop and settle. In that perfect setting, stray beams of light would glance off reflecting an evil rainbow. Then the bubble would pop, spraying everywhere and things that rose to the surface in the bubble would slowly sink back to the bottom like a Nile crocodile that had just missed snagging a zebra a the water's edge.

But, it was not an ideal world and, as evidenced by the typos that slip through every week, I am certainly not a perfect writer.

So, it had to sit, dark and hot, in the barn like the Reboobicans in Washington beginning in January 2007. Any stray beams of light that wandered through stopped long enough to ask for directions and hauled out so fast a Georgia Tech theoretical physicist would rewrite Einstein's laws of the universe more along the lines of E=cpBBHpVC, that being the shorthand math equation that Energy equals a crock pot of Ben Baker's Habanero pepper Venison Chili.

I've cooked up some tough food over the years. I've made more than my share of coffee with enough attitude to make Cynthia McKinney back down. A few times I've even pulled something out of the pot that could be called mean. Once in college I even made some spaghetti sauce which caused a frat boy (not me) to cry.

But that crock pot of chili, which I cooked especially for the Christian Union annual Christmas Supper was different.

It was not hot.

It was not vile.

It was not evil.

It was a religious experience. I say that because it was possessed.

If you were one of the few, the proud, the denser than a lead brick, the determined to prove "you can't make chili so hot I can't eat it" crowd, well then you understand what the chili was.

If you ate a bowl of my plasma fusion with kidney beans, on the next day you didn't "heed the call of nature." No. You summoned a priest and had an exorcism. You walked funny for the next two days.

In the tradition of the finest chili, it cooked for two days. In the tradition of things that take place in my barn because doing it in the house would make my family move into the Ramada Inn, it cooked in the barn. Even I couldn't stand the smell of it in the kitchen.

Larry "Hawgin'" Fishbreath, who was born with a titanium stomach, lifted the lid and sniffed. His nose fell off. 

"Best my sinuses have felt since deer season opened," he said. He took the stirring spoon (plastic - you don't eat MY chili with metal table hardware) and dipped off a little bit. He sipped at the spoon, pooching his lips out far enough to park a Cadillac.

His lips smacked. He looked at me.

"Man, that is goo" was as far as he got before The Burn kicked in. I watched his lips chap. His gum line receded faster than my brother's hairline. A filling fell out of a tooth, bounced off the table-saw table and rolled into the sawdust.

"Woooo. That has to be good," I said, taking the spoon from his unresisting hand. I dipped myself some and slurped it off the spoon. Like a fine wine connoisseur would treat a rare vintage, I rolled the chili across my tongue.

When I had my entire mouth coated, The Burn kicked in. My tongue dialed 911 on Hawgin's cell phone. My brain leaked out of my ears. My sinuses opened wide enough to accept a liberal Damnocrat. I'd have spoken in tongues, but my throat went on strike.

It was good chili.

The best part is, after the church supper I had some left over. Lemme know if you 'd like to sample some.

Redamnocrapitood

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The more things change the more they stay the same.

"For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.  Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges.  But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.  That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks."

The president has decided the United States is to be the world's policeman, but only where we can be at least somewhat assured of not getting our butts handed to us on a platter.

Which president? Pick one. For the entire time I have been alive, each United States president has committed this nation's military to a military action on foreign soil. Yes huhn. Every one of 'em has either started a war or maintained one.

G'head. Doubt me. Then put $100 on the table. I'll match it. Winner takes all.

Pickin' on the wimps of the world is why we're not taking on China. The Red Giant would be too much for us to handle.

What about Mexico? People are being slaughtered there in the drug wars. What is the US doing about?

Why aren't we doing something? Aside from cheap labor, Mexico doesn't have anything we want. The cheap labor comes here so efficiently we can't stop it if we tried.

Yeah. This nation is the world's bully.

If you read the president's speech (which I linked to) note his words "interests and values." I'm not pickin & choosing here. The president's speeches are carefully vetted and each word is subjected to scrutiny before he every says it. That in mind, notice he never bothers to define what our "interests and values" are.

Freedom? Visit a prison some day. The bulk of folks locked up are there on drug-related charges. Last time I checked, alcohol accounts for far more deaths and fatalities than marijuana. I have yet to meet a person who smoked a joint who wanted to fight. I have met MANY drunks who wanted to take a poke at me.

Freedom? Gonna let homosexuals get married to each other?

Freedom? What's your opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church protests?

Freedom? Cap. Brandon S. Hocking, 24, died after his unit was hit by an improvised explosive device in Samawah, Iraq, the Defense Department said. I wonder how free he feels today.

If you are not willing (note I said willing; I did not say able) put join the military and go to war, then you have no business supporting the wars or supporting orders to send someone else over there to die.

Freedom? If the courts do not intervene we will soon be forced to buy something - health insurance. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Americans must pay for insurance simply because we exist. Income tax, well, that is Constitutional.

"To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.  Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries.  The United States of America is different.  And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

 So we're gonna invade Zimbabwae next?

Even better - what about Israel and Palentine? They've been lobbing bombs at each other longer than that idiot in Libya has been alive. The US is funneling MASSIVE amounts of money to Israel, which supports their military effort. How many civilians have to die over there before we starting bombing runs?

Value? Cheap crap from China and a continual flow of oil to keep them gas hogs suckin' down the 87 octane.

Never mind the cost in American jobs as factories go overseas. Let us save a buck in the short term!

There's a reason I don't go in a certain store nor do I allow the store name to appear in venues I control.

Interests? What's Paris Hilton doing with Lady Gaga in Sean Hannity's penthouse?

Never mind the plan to raise income tax again, we gotta find out who's gonna be on American Idiot - I mean Idol next time.

"So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear:  The United States of America has done what we said we would do."

Really? Ask the Arab nations how they feel about that statement. Ask American Indians. Ask the men who were left with untreated syphilis in the Tuskegee experiments. Ask the 'Nam veterans who fought and fought and fought and continue to fight The United States Government about illness related to exposure to Agent Orange. Ask the veterans who are coming back from the Middle East with war trauma and can't get the help they need.

As a student of political science, I tell you that the United States in the past 200 years has broken more treaties than any other major nation on the globe in the same time frame.

Um, excuse me, but I must have been asleep when it was explained what we are going to do.

Sigh.

The United States has been a great nation. It is a great nation. It will continue to a great nation. But we are sliding because too many people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. With that in mind, I bring today's reluctant rant to a close with the following:

A while back I posted a link (which I do not intend to dig out) which said our current president is quite a lot like his immediate predecessor. This infuriated damnocrats and reboobicans alike, both of which insisted I and the author of the piece I linked to obviously had no mind to lose to begin with.

In the interest of full parity and equality, I shall henceforth refer to them as Redamnocraps. I define these people as those who swear blind, deaf and absolutely not dumb allegiance to a particular party and that party's idiotology regardless of their personal feelings, opinions and beliefs.

Have a glass of Kool Aid why doncha?

Considering the way I talk about tolerance and acceptance and not attacking people, these redamnocraps may very well take issue with my nomenclature.

If you are one of those people I so reference and you read the president's speech and don't find massive overlaps with what his predecessor did, including the double-talk, lies, evasions so on, then all I can say is my ramblings are not for you.

There is no hope for you, at least from the way I see things, barring a brain transplant. If you can't think for yourself, then get out of the way of the people who actually do think.

That's the way George Washington wanted the nation to run. And you ain't gotta believe me when I say that either. But it won't change the truth.

You don't want prayer in schools

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.

As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in schools.

So said Austin Saxon some years ago. He was right then, he's right now and he will be right in the future.

Austin, in this case, referred to the practice of bowing one's head over the test and asking silently for divine intervention to guide the hand and thoughts of the poor student in hopes of getting a passing grade and on up the academic ladder to the point where honor students pray they'll maintain their honor status.

So I ask you, do you support prayer in school? Before you answer, read this.

Now I ask you again, do  you support prayer in school?

I then refer you to the toon at right, an image which I have enlarged a bit for my buddy Art and an image which will not doubt send everyone on FB who yelled "YES!" this morning in response to my question running for torches and pitchforks to come after me.

"Baker! Yer a Christian and an evangelist! How can you support such nonsense as espoused in that offensive cartoon?" you ask me.

I never said I supported it. I merely use the illustration to make a point. But to answer your unasked question: I am not a Christian - any more. I am a follower of the man we call The Christ. Further, this is exactly why I will not support prayer in schools.

"Huh?" you ask.

Jesus never forced Himself on anyone nor did He demand anyone believe. He offered and suggested and even told us if our GENTLE EFFORTS do not work "Shake the dust from your feet."

Lemme now ask you, do you support the US Constitution and believe in it?

Do you know what it says?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let us now jump to the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment: Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This applies the Constitution to the various states. So, the prohibitions on religion as enumerated in the First Amendment are thusly applied to the states as well.

This next may get a bit confusing. I will try to make sense. If I don't, please, post comments and I'll try to clarify.

Public education in the US receives federal dollars.

With federal dollars comes federal oversight.

As the federal government CANNOT pass laws saying which religion is appropriate and which is not, it then cannot pass laws regarding prayer in school.

Lost my mind you say? Wrong, you say? Lemme continue.

The same set of affairs applies to state government. Public education in this nation receives state tax dollars.

With that comes state oversight.

The states are also restricted, thanks to the 14th amendment, by the first amendment.

You may say I am still wrong.

Federal and state governments have the right to dictate educational matters to the local districts.

You don't like that, fine. Form a private school. There are plenty in the nation today.

Fact is, you take their money, you play by their rules.

The rule says, government cannot say which religion is correct, right and appropriate.

Ya don't like it, ya try to get the Constitution amended. (That being a different topic, I say no more on that).

Since government CANNOT say which religions are suitable, the same coin says government cannot say which religions are not suitable. Subject to intelligent laws like banning human sacrifice and so forth.

So the question then is:

Are you willing to allow prayer in schools?

Really?

Whose?

If the government can't point to one religion as appropriate, it must, by default, either refuse to accept any religion or accept all religions.

Allowing only Christian prayer is a direct contravention of the Constitution. Doesn't matter what the Constitution is based on. Fact is, it prevents government from taking an active role in religion.

Just to debate, let's say Christian prayer.

All you Baptists out there will you let a Presbyterian pray? Methodist?

"Well, sure," you say.

Catholic? Knowing Catholics pray to the saints (not worship the saints) will you allow 'em to?

"Uh. Yeah. I suppose so," you said.

 Aaaaight alla you above (who won't let a pentecostal preach in your church) would you let a pentecostal prayer, knowing we (I am one) speak in tongues, raise our hands and generally become possessed by the Holy Spirit which takes over our bodies? It can get loud and noisy.

"Uh. Not if it will disrupt the other students in class," you say.

Hold it right there! If I can't raise my hands and speak in tongues then you have infringed MY right to pray!

What about Jehovah Witnesses? They believe in Christ, but reject the idea Jesus is part of the Holy trinity. They do not accept Jesus as God.

Can they pray?

We haven't even left Christianity and you are beginning to wonder.

Since government has to stay out of religion, let's expand past the narrow confines of Christianity.

Could Jews pray? How about Samaritans? Samaritans, in case you don't know, are Jews who believe only the first 5 books of the Bible are canonical. They believe in the sacrifice of animals. Before you object, I remind you animal sacrifice is part of the Bible. So is Human Sacrifice, but we shan't go there right now 'cause that would sprain some brains even beyond what is already happening.

Can the Samaritans sacrifice a pair of doves as part of prayer?

How about Muslims? Can they unroll a prayer rug, bow toward Mecca and pray?

Getting uneasy yet? We haven't even left the Judeo theological model.

What about Buddhists? Jainists? Zoroastrians?

Druids?

Wiccans?

If you refuse to allow one, just because you are in the majority, what happens when your brand of religion is in the minority and the majority bans your prayer?

Maybe you version of reality is that your kind of prayer is OK and it is acceptable to force it on other people.

If you say "Well fine! They don't have to participate. They can either leave the room or wait for me to ge done," then I suggest you've not been to a kindergarten class since you left it as a student. Kids that age want nothing more than to belong, be accepted and be a part of what is going on.

Besides which, that statement sounds a lot like some extremist Muslims who kill Christians simply for being Christian.

Furthermore, is that really fair? The Constitution is set up to provide parity and equality and to be fair. All religions are treated exactly the same under the Constitution.

When you start treating one religion differently, then you violate the Constitution.

When you start forcing your brand of belief on others (which is exactly what happens with government-sanctioned prayer), then what makes you any better than a Muslim beheading a Christian?

Anton LaVey - hoser boy extreme.

Ah. I fear now I must really tell you something that will cause a cerebral hemmorrhage.

Did you know the US military books for chaplains include sections on how to hold Satanic rituals? Reckon they should be allowed in school? Would it surprise you to know I read Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" in school? (It is quite droll, BTW).

Uh oh. Those pesky First and 14th amendments!

Isn't a good thing that we can't require prayer in school? If we did require it, can you imagine the consternation of Baptists everywhere when I showed up to lead them to baptism in the holy spirit so they could pray in tongues? Or a Catholic priest shows up to teach the rosary? Or a JW shows up to teach that Jesus is not really God?

It's no step at all from requiring a certain form of prayer in school to mandating the teaching of a specific form of religion.

All that said, as long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in schools. It'll just be a quiet, one-person prayer with no government oversight, injunction or regulation.

That kind of prayer, I believe we can all support.

FAF'in 2011

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Flame and a buddy

Wade Henry

Little ones get down to the music.

Wayne Baxter had EXCELLENT blood pressure in case you wonder.

Homemade planes

William and a real wiener dog

No, Ben Baker didn't run in the 5K after all.

3rd place on their home turf.

We SHUT DOWN I-75 again with the fireworks show. People pulled off onto the medians to watch

A new carnival packed 'em in.

The Spider Man jump

Ashley Wheeler as the Evil Diva Cher

Art Eld and Franke Tedders in Jailhouse Rock

Scott McGuinty enjoys the Lip Sync contest WAY too much

Flame and the Fire Ants

Wayne Newton never had legs that looked this good.

Thanks Phil, Ricky, Lee and the whole Channel 51 Crew

.

In search of slant

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Perception, in the eyes of the perceiver, is more than reality. In other words, what you think you see, hear, feel, taste, intuit, etc, is reality, nevermind that reality may actually be different.

Arg. Still confusing.

Lemme try this.

Ask anyone - National Public Radio is a liberal organization.

Is that true?

Sunday evening as I recovered from the Fire Ant Festival, I listened to On The Media (OTM), the National Public Radio show which looks at media in all its forms.

OTM got several other organizations which look at media bias to examine NPR news shows. OTM also got a number of listeners to keep a week-long diary of new programs and list any liberal bias they found.

The results?

Not exactly what I expected, but very very very close.

Not that expect anyone to believe me. After all, why should people start believing me now.

NPR is not liberal, except in how listeners perceive the news casts.

That's what I expected and predicted when I first wrote of the OTM self-inspection a few weeks ago.

Compared to the nation's 10 other major media outlets, NPR has LESS coverage of political fights, MORE coverage of policy, less coverage of national news, more coverage of international news.

If you base the slant on which side gets more coverage - NPR is conservative. Yep. Conservative news makers get substantially more time on NPR than liberal news makers.

A major accusation of NPR illustrating a liberal bias is coverage of homosexual issues. The results? NPR spends 1 percent of the news cast covering those, exactly the same as the other major media outlets, except talk radio. Conservative talk radio spends up to 40 percent of its time on homosexuality.

The grand results of the OTM investigation, with plenty of results from independent groups as well as critics, show if there is a liberal bias at NPR it is a perception and not a reality.

The liberal slant comes from subjective interpretation of how the reporters present the news and ask questions of subjects.

Yes, there are liberal shows on NPR but these are not the news cast shows. Accusing NPR of a liberal bias on that basis is like accusing Rush Limbaugh of being a news show anchor. He's not. He's admitted he is an entertainer, albeit an entertainer who does politics.

Pretty much what I expected. What surprised me is the amount of coverage given to policy issues. That was a bit higher than I expected.

But I don't expect this to change anyone's mind. Those who are firmly in the camp of believing NPR has a liberal bias (in the news shows), either don't listen to NPR enough to know or have made their minds up and refuse to be swayed by facts.

Idiotology continues to reign supreme among those who refuse to think for themselves.

Liars in charge

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Graphic included to be completely fair.

“[W]hat I call the ‘monarchist’ view of the war power [is] that the President holds nearly unlimited power to direct American forces into action.” Joe Biden, current Vice President, commenting in 1998 at which time he introduced legislation to replace the 1973 War Powers Resolution designed to prevent the president from indefinitely committing U.S. forces to a military engagement without congressional approval.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”—the current president speaking in Dec 2007.

Can someone reconcile these two statements with the current actions in a fashion that presents the prez and VP as anything other that standard politicians?

Calling it racist doesn't mean I don't support it

.
.,
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
Yer getting Friday's blog today because Friday starts THE FIRE ANT FESTIVAL and I'm going to be working my posterior to the bone.

Rebel & Paula on their wedding day.

Normally I do not like classifying anything according to a minor difference in ancestry. I have, do and will continue to call such things racist.

Back me into a corner, and I’ll tell  you even the matter I write about today is racist. But I still support it. Why? Cause something needs to be done.

An excellent blog on the marriage as seen from a segment of the aforementioned culture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html

Telling quote: "Marriage is for white people."

The young man so opining in this article is apparently not kidding.

According to US Census data from 2005:

    •    50% of African American children live in single parent families headed by the mother

Take 'em as you will.

    •    25% of Hispanic kids live with a single mother

    •    16% of non-Hispanic white children reside with a single mom

    •    10% of Asian kids live with a single mother

    •    4-5% of children of all races live with a single father

Study, after study, after study, after study proves kids do better when raised in a two parent household. Studies are not definitive enough, in my opinion, about same sex couples raising kids, but initial indicators show no difference in kids raised by same sex parents and kids raised by a man and woman, provided this is all done under the same roof.

I will take this a step further: Relationships under the same roof which do not have the sanction of clergy or the state do not last as long as those which are so sanctioned. In other words, the two parents who commit to a ritual or ceremony to unite their lives stay together longer than those who do not.

Yes. I know there are exceptions to this. I speak to a majority of couples.

Even more studies show that these children being born to single moms are born into a household where the mom is poorly educated. Yes, I also know this ain’t the case everywhere, but it is a majority.

Yet other studies show one of the major indicators of a child’s eventual level of education is determined by looking at Mom’s education. In other words, the kid can be expected to achieve the same level of education as mom. Furthermore, kids raised in a two parent household also tend to have higher education levels.

So yeah. Black Marriage Day is racist in my book, but the facts in this one are adding up to a very real racial divide on the subject of marriage. Because I don’t like that the notion is racist doesn’t mean I’m gonna sit here and ignore reality.

Something needs to be done to bring about more unity in the segment of our nation’s culture.

I ain’t supporting Black Marriage Day for the couples getting married. I am doing it for kids.

Kids deserve to have a full time momma and a full time daddy.

Go Black Marriage Day Go!

And here's to hoping Rebel and Paula wind up with a houseful of kids so I can borrow 'em periodically and return 'em when I am done making them think like I do.

Aiming for the bottom with Occam's razor

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
A new federal initiative is pushing states to increase college graduation rates. Washington has even produced a guide on how to do this.


If you downloaded the PDF file through the link above, jump to page 6. "Strategy 2: Embrace Performance-Based Funding of Higher Education Based on Progress Toward Completion and Other Quality Goals." This being Bureaucrat-Speak, something I have a passing fluency in, I will summarize.

Get more people to graduate.

For that matter, after you look over the whole document and I shall summarize it for you.

Get more people to graduate.

This being a federal effort aimed at states, I believe it's time to whip out Occam's Razor and trim this down to reality. But, before I slice & dice, I need to point out a few more things.

The federal boyos want to increased college graduation rates to get us ahead of Korea, which presently leads the world in college graduation.

The US, in case you are wondering, is tied for 9th place with Israel, Belgium and Australia. Canada is in second place.

I note, just for obfuscatory purposes, Israel is home to nearly daily terrorism attacks, Australia is home to the world's top 20 most poisonous critters and, according to Douglas Adams, "Belgium" is considered to be an extremely profane word among more advanced galactic civilizations. Perhaps I will earn a Rory for this column.

Returning to the actual column, the idea behind this federal push is to get more people to graduate.

Yes, I know I have repeated that several times, but it's important. The "College Completion Tool Kit" makes much of that idea. So I must do so as well.

The US Department of Education file also lists a few things which can be done to increase college graduation rates:

• Increase financial aid

• Keep tuition costs reasonable. This is a MAJOR matter in my state, Georgia. Here, the university system Board of Trustees has jacked tuition and jacked tuition. Why? Because our state lottery pays for college. Yes huh. Since college is then free to students, the price goes up.

• Tighten up high schools and make college-prep work the standard, not the option.

• Figure out ways to help adults, past the typical college age, get into college.

• Make transferring between colleges easier.

This being a federal mandate in the form of a suggestion, the state legislatures will take steps to see that is enforced.

Now as distasteful as this may be, put yourself in the position of a state paper pusher. The federal paper pushers are suggesting you increase college graduation rates. Being a suggestion, this will shortly become a mandate and your job will be linked to how well you manage to accomplish this or how well you can pass the blame for not achieving the goal to someone else.

Here it is time to whip out the sharpened steel blade Mr. Occam so kindly gifted to us.

Occam's razor as defined by Wikipedia: Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects^. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

Occam's razor as defined by a Redneck Genius: Whatever is the simplest and easiest. Go with that.

Razor in hand, full bureaucrat brain crunching ahead, what do you do?

Pass the buck. Which begs the question, to whom do you pass it? Obvious answer, the colleges and universities and the board of trustees.

Situation solved for the bureaucrat.

But now the colleges are left with the problem.

What do the colleges do? Remember, colleges have a vested interest in protecting their turf, which pretty much is preventing reality from the real world becoming a part of the educational efforts. In other words, colleges are interested in educating people, not training them. (I note with much sadness this is even becoming the case in the vocational-technical institutions across the nation. They are becoming far more interested in theory than practice.)

Think. Slice this one down to the barest minimum (which is a hint of what will be done). Chop chop.

What do colleges do?

They lower graduation standards. Never mind how low standards are right now. There's always room to deteriorate more.

Situation solved. Immediately.

Graduation rates go up. Colleges protect their turf. Tuition remains the same. Entry requirements remain the same. Class sizes remain the same. Professorial requirements remain the same.

Tenure might be a minor issue as professors who refuse to play the game and pass students who really ought to fail might be eased out.

As for concerns that this impinges on academic freedoms, ethics, morals and a whole bunch of other even more nebulous concepts, well, I can only say you don't know much about the way the education system in this nation works. Passing the failing students along to the next teacher in line is de rigueur.

Never mind the graduates are even less prepared for the real world than they are now. The requirements from the federal guys are met. Never mind we'll continue to slip across the globe in performance and real-world achievement, the requirements are met.

Graduation rates are up and that's the goal.