Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2014

Saw a great story about a second grader who tried to defend actually thinking through a common core math problem:

This second grader’s revenge against Common Core math will make your day

Do you know why Common Core has such a convoluted, non-intrisic method? It’s like having to learn a proprietary guild handshake, They made the entire thing arbitrary so that in 10 or 20 years they can turn homeschoolers and private school students out from college entrance. It’s an end-around educational freedom. Why else do you think they would do this, sheer incompetence? Don’t believe it. Progessives are always working an angle. That’s the angle with common core.

Read Full Post »

It’s uncanny how the logic was identical in the Supreme Court decisions Scott v. Sandford  (the “Dred Scott” slavery case of 1857) and Roe v. Wade (the abortion case of 1973). Ultimately they were the same decision.

Scott v. Sandford:

The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not…

Roe v. Wade:

All this…persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn…

 

Read Full Post »

Just watching Episode 1 of the new “Cosmos” series. The first words of the series is a faith-based statement by Carl Sagan.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  The statement is based in blind-faith regarding an unobserved singularity, the beginning of the universe.  It is purely philosophical, not scientific, because evidence is inconclusive and we cannot go back to the beginning of the universe and treat it with the scientific model:  Observe it several times, record data, and then use the data to test theories.  Carl’s voice trails off and says, “Come with me…”  The very next words in the new Cosmos series are from the narrator.  He says, “A generation ago the astronomer Carl Sagan stood here and launched hundreds of millions of us on a great adventure, the exploration of the universe revealed by science.”  Did you catch that?  The new series begins with a statement based on blind faith which sums up the message of the original Cosmos series.  But it calls this position “science.”  There are two logic fallacies that naturalists fall into when insisting that non-theism is a rational position for science.  The first is non-sequitur (something which does not logically follow).  “We’ve never observed God directly, therefore there is no God.”  Well, we’ve never observed abiogenesis or spontaneous, ex nihilo universe formation.  The second logic fallacy is argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic, assuming a theory is false just because one proof put up on it’s behalf can be proven false).  “There are multiple, mutually exclusive explanations for what God could be, like the ‘Spaghetti Monster’ theory, so therefore no theory is correct.”  The sad thing is that the philosophical position these logically flawed statements support is unquestionably accepted in many modern academic circles and then incorrectly labeled as being “science”.  This matters.  A blind-faith belief about one’s origins informs a person’s day to day decision making and their perception of morality.  It ultimately ~IS~ their religious world view of the universe.  In the case of Naturalism, it is the worship of nature as the self-creating whole.  Consider Carl Sagan’s words again.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  That blind-faith belief has huge implications regarding the sanctity of life, belief in individual rights to life, liberty and property and personal moral conduct.  In a word, it is inherently religious.  And yet this position is being taught to our children in public schools as the unquestionable truth, after all the proponents say, “it’s science.”  If you watch the new Cosmos series enjoy it.  I’m sure there will be lots of cool mind-blowing facts, and a lot of truth.  But just as much as that – if the previous series was any indication – there will be a host of philosophical, faith based positions and beliefs incorrectly presented as also being facts.  If you want to be objective, you’ll want to keep that in mind.

Read Full Post »

http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/video-penalty-insurance?ecd=wnl_wmh_031714&ctr=wnl-wmh-031714_ld-stry&mb=ciecCa%2fPTya8dBlh2qfMx2dEpmNqbUHLsVsn2q7Nd1M%3d

I subscribe to WebMD mail updates, and I was shocked to see them send me an “exclusive” interview with President Obama where he stumps on behalf of the ACA and tries to alienate women from men along lines of class envy. I used the contact feature of their website to send them my response:

“I subscribe to email from health@messages.webmd.com. Usually the content is great, however this time I received a video from a President who has blatantly lied about keeping my plan and my doctor. The video is part of a campaign for people to sign up for what we all, by law, have no choice about signing up for. In the video, the President calls being female a ‘preexisting condition’ that women had to pay more for. In reality pregnancy is what’s been more expensive for women and this is insurance, so it should reflect costs. Furthermore, women are actually paying more now (the same way men are) because four-fifths of the population is being forced to pay for a fifth who choses not to work to have ‘Cadillac’ health care at everyone else’s expense. And perversely, most of those who are paying more now can’t afford to get treated if a condition is found, because working men and women are being subjected to unaffordable copays and deductibles. The President MADE this happen by choosing to interpret the ACA as making everyone’s plan, which he said they could keep, as now covering, ‘too little’. And so now a 50 year old infertile women must pay for pregnancy coverage where they didn’t have to before. Another thing, if we stayed closer to traditional values in our society – something this President opposes in education and civil law – then more pregnancies would be paid for by a man and a woman together, not just a woman. I think it’s disgraceful that WebMD is sending propaganda, and it’s incorrect, misleading propaganda.”

Read Full Post »