"Surviving is Necessary to Stay Alive" (and Other Insights from College Freshmen)

At Palomar College where I teach part-time, the English 50 final exam is a two-hour, hand-written, prompt-driven essay. Students are given a brief article to read a week before their final, are allowed to annotate the article and do whatever preliminary "research" (term used loosely) on the general topic addressed in the article, and then, upon arrival the day of the final, are given a prompt in which they are asked to discuss an open-ended question addressing some aspect of the article. Typically, the prompts ask the students to agree, disagree (or worse, both) with the issue raised in the article. 

On the Friday after the students have completed their exam, the English professors assemble as a body to grade the student essays. Professors who teach the subject don't grade their own student essays. Two readers evaluate an essay separately and a final grade is assigned based on the average of the two scores. 

Needless to say, generally speaking, the papers are . . aren't . . . (how to put this politely) . . . Put it this way: they could be better. Many students, it seems, come ill-prepared for the task, either by failing to engage intellectually with the topic, or, um, by failing to engage intellectually with the topic. 

It's a bit depressing, I admit, reading one vapid essay after another. D's and F's are frequently assigned, B's are seldom seen, A's, never. You can hear the sighing, the groaning, and, occasionally, the laughing. Last semester, to lighten the atmosphere during the grading session, professors began wandering up to the white board to jot down some choice phrases from the essays. 

Here's a sampling: 

People who have only one body need to take care of it. 

The American dream is only 48% of what it used to be. 

What's love got to do, got do to, with Tinder. 

Tinder, which got its name from the word "tinder," meaning "can be ignited by a match."

Surviving is necessary to stay alive. 

Social media is now changing what the heart wants. It is causing chaos towards romanticism. 

Even those who say they are not judgmental are wrong. 

When someone works hard for their money and then spends it on a rental, they're showing pride of rentalship.

That last one is the one I contributed to the white board collection. I actually thought it was pretty clever. I don't know if the writer was trying to be funny. I like to think he was.

Ted Cruz Turns Table on Reporter

Good for him. 

A Tale of Two Commencement Speeches

On the same day, no less!  

Barack Obama speaking to graduating cadets at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

"Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security--our economic infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people . . . We all know what needs to happen--it's no secret: The world finally has to start reducing its carbon emissions now. This is a place where we need you." 

Obama Recasts Climate Change as a Peril with Far-Reaching Effects (Julie Hirschfeld David, New York Times)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaking at the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran on Wednesday, May 20, 2015

"They say new things in the negotiations. Regarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center."  

Iran's Supreme Leader Rules out Broad Nuclear Inspections (Thomas Erdbrink, David E. Sanger, New York Times). 

That President Obama could speak about global warming as a threat to our homeland security only a few days after the fall of Ramadi to Islamic State, seemingly oblivious to the defiance of Iran's Supreme Leader regarding the supposed "deal" John Kerry is negotiating with Iran suggests that this president is quite possibly delusional. 

Credit Where Credit is Not Due

Ugh. I'm so tired of people attributing to Barack Obama characteristics or contributions which are not true. Take, for example, the Nobel Peace Prize which was awarded to President Obama in 2009. The man was elected in November 2008. What had he done in less than a year other than give a few good speeches? Now, here we are, six years into his administration, en route to paving the way for Iran to have a nuclear bomb in less than a decade that is likely to set in motion an arms race in that region (see "A Perverse Consequence" in The Weekly Standard here, for example). Meanwhile, the monsters of Islamic State are busy carving out a swath of destruction in their pursuit of an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. Their most recent conquest: Ramadi in Iraq, easy enough for them since Barack Obama, in his eagerness to withdraw troops from that region, left a huge vacuum. The barbarity, the atrocities, the rapes, the slaughter...this is Obama's legacy, "peace" prize notwithstanding. 

Speaking of speeches, that's another good example of attributing accomplishments to Obama that don't exist. He's supposed to be such an amazing orator. I have heard one amazing oration--the one he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I actually remember watching him speak that night and saying to no one in particular because no one was nearby, he's going to be president someday. Yes, that was an incredibly powerful speech. However, nothing since then compares. Indeed, I can barely stand listening to him. Besides his unbearable propensity to pontificate, his speeches are punctuated by as many "uh's" as there are "I''s" and "me's."  

This photo essay in yesterday's Los Angeles Times is another good example. In almost a throw-away line, the author includes Obama with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela as a "sunny example" of civil rights leader. King, certainly! Mandela, of course! Their contributions to civil rights are easily recognized and extensively documented. Not so Mr. Obama's. In fact, as the first African American president, he has actually made race relations in America worse, not better. Personally, I think we're now a more racist country, not because "whites" hate the idea of a "black" president which his detractors love to say with little evidence to back it up, but because this black president has cynically promulgated the idea of "us" against "them," not only in a racial sense but in a socio-economic, classist sense.

Promoter of international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples? Mesmerizing orator and rhetorician? Notable civil rights luminary? Barack Obama is none of the above, and then some. Yet left-leaning Democrats, so loyal to ideology, seem practically incapable of recognizing the fraudulence of these putative attributes. 

Next up, Hillary Clinton, another politician of the worst stripe, queued up and ready to exploit the loyalty of those who will want to see her elected for no other reason than that she's a Democrat and she's a woman, regardless of the fact that she is unscrupulous, dishonest, manipulative, shady and probably corrupt. 

Identity politics (first race, now gender) and not qualification, coupled with social media and an electorate of diminishing intellect, could very will be the undoing of this beautiful experiment we call America.

Remarkable, Especially Considering the Source

The left, writes Jeffrey Taylor, has Islam all wrong.

How right he is. I only hope his side (yes, he is on the left, publishing these views in Salon, also on the left), wakes up before it's too late..

The Left has Islam All Wrong

Taylor writes: 

This is no call to disrespect Muslims as people, but we should not hesitate to speak frankly about the aspects of their faith we find problematic.  But it’s not up to progressives to suggest how an ideology based on belief without evidence might be reformed.  Rather, we should cease relativizing and proudly espouse, as alternatives to blind obedience to ancient texts, reason, progress, consensus-based solutions, and the wonderful panoply of other Enlightenment ideals underpinning our Constitution and the liberties characterizing Western countries.  

The only path to victory in this war in defense of free speech lies through courage.  We cannot wimp out and blame the victims for drawing cartoons, writing novels, or making movies.  We need to heed Gérard Biard, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief, who declared, as he received the PEN award, that “They don’t want us to write and draw.  We must write and draw.  They don’t want us to think and laugh.  We must think and laugh. 

 They don’t want us to debate. We must debate.”  

In doing as he urges, we will give the terrorists too many targets to attack and convince them that we will not surrender, not cede an inch.  That means the media needs to begin showing Charlie Hedbo’s Muhammad cartoons.  We must stop traducing reason by branding people “Islamophobes,” and start celebrating our secularism, remembering that only it offers true freedom for the religious and non-religious alike.  And we should reaffirm our humanistic values, in our conviction that we have, as Carlyle wrote, “One life – a little gleam of time between two eternities,” and need to make the most of it for ourselves and others while we can.  There is nothing else.  

This is not a battle we have chosen; the battle has chosen us.  

It’s time to fight back, and hard.

Oh, and for those castigating Geller for inciting violence against Islam and blaming the folks at Charlie Hebdo rather than thanking them for their courage in standing up against tyranny, there's this.

The winning cartoon, which, by the way, most news outlets did NOT publish:

Some Letters Should Remain Unopened

I happened upon a post on Facebook, posted by an acquaintance who was replying to one of his own friends. I guess privacy settings were non-existent because I was able to read the original post and my friend's affirmative comment. Since the exchange appeared on my wall, I felt compelled to comment since the original post was so offensive (i.e., it's not as if I was stalking someone else's wall). 

The original post was an article (so-called) that appeared on the DailyKos, an uber-left leaning site. It was written by a blogger who goes by the name Ministry of Truth, who is actually someone named Jesse LaGreca (I know because I had to do a bit of sleuthing). LaGreca is obviously also on the far-reaches of The Left, judging not only by this article but by the Wikipedia write-up about him which shows him affiliated with the obnoxious Occupy Wall Street movement. 

Here's his article. 

An Open Letter to the People Who Hate Obama More Than They Love America

And here's what I posted on my friend's Facebook post. 

What a despicable letter. If anyone's a "hater" it's the author of this odious tirade, which is based exclusively on caricature and stereotype. It occurred to me that the author (Jesse LaGreca?) is himself a caricature, but judging by the comments that follow the article, maybe not. I had to slog through the muck before I ran across one comment that reflected some insight. Referring to the few conservative acquaintances with whom he apparently respectfully differs, this person writes, "We do talk about issues, though, and I often learn something. I think it's good to remember that they're people who have a different outlook that puts blinders on their better interests. My friends honestly believe in a market that creates opportunities and risks but builds a better personal character. I believe them wrong but neither of us know for sure. What we do know is that they have been there for me when it counted and still are. That's what matters." What a gentleman. For more insights into why liberals and conservatives differ (and how, hopefully, to bridge the gap between them), perhaps Mr. LaGreca could look into the research of Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Peace out.

Later, I might write my own "Open Letter" to people like Jesse LaGreca, maybe even to LaGreca, himself. Meanwhile, here's a good introduction to Haidt's research.

Jonathan Haidt: The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives (TED Talk)

Atlas Shrugs Blogger Pamela Gellar

What did you think of Pamela Gellar's stunt in Texas?

The media are trying to shame her. But I think she's brave. The point she's making--the right to mock--is on target. But the media want to make her out as a bigot since she's only targeting one group (as opposed to Charlie Hebdo, which satirized any group). But it's only the radical Islamists who are trying to silence and intimidate using violence and terror. So she's defying them. 

The sad and stupid thing is, now mainstream media outlets are beginning to say Islam should be off limits for mockery. Here's the most ridiculous example, from (wait for it) an MSNBC anchor. So it's OK to mock Mormons ("The Book of Mormon") or Christians ("Piss Christ") or Jews. But we have to respect Islam.

We need more brave people speaking up. If we're not careful (as a society), it won't be long before ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of religion will seem "quaint" to the next generation.  

Here's Gellar, writing on her blog Atlas Shrugs, responding paragraph by paragraph to an article in the Washington Post by Sandhya Somashekhar, the new National beat reporter covering social change, apparently. 

Here Somashekhar's article in the Post: "Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack in Texas"

Comments to the WaPo article are interesting, many coming down on Gellar's side. Here's a good one: "Since when do we expect someone to apologize for legally exercising their Constitutional rights?"