All American Blogger

Collectivist Wonders, “Should I Sacrifice My Child For the Greater Good?”

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:31:16 +0000

Here’s one of those peeks inside the mind of a true believer, a follower of Marx, whether they realize it or not. Even though this parent feels she is doing what is best for his child, she wonders if she shouldn’t sacrifice her child’s education for the greater good.

Not my words…hers:

My family lives on the west side of Los Angeles. I face the same choice as many urban families: Will the kids attend public or private schools? Should one minimize opportunities for one’s own child in service to the greater good?

In our desire to protect our children physically and academically, we send them to very expensive schools that are inherently segregated ethnically and economically. We, being white, educated, and comparatively affluent, are the agenda-setters in society. The agenda does not include fierce protection of the public school system we value in general terms but abandon in our own specific cases.

And so we’ve let down our future fellow citizens by turning our backs on them. And we’ve certainly let the government off the hook yet again, by individually shouldering the burden of quality education for our own children and letting the public schools crumble. Advice?

The collectivist laments providing the best for her child at the expense of the “greater good.” This is a great example of left wing thinking.

She doesn’t understand how this thinking has created the state the public school is in. Why did she choose the private school? Because it’s simply a better school.

Why are private schools better? Competition and the bottom line.

The owners of private schools want to earn a profit. In order to do that, they need to sell their product, in this case a good education. In order to provide a good education, they need to hire the best teachers they can afford. If the teachers they have don’t meet their standards, they find employment elsewhere. Then, the administrators minimize the costs of operating the schools while maximizing the environment students learn in.

Then they compete against the other private schools for your money. If the price is right and you like their product, you buy.

Now, in the public school system, there is no reason to do any of this.

Public schools don’t worry about making a profit. If they need more money, and they always seem to need more money, they can just raise taxes. If they can’t raise taxes, they’ll cut programs, or get more money from the federal government.

They don’t need to compete against anyone. They just have money budgeted for them.

This results in schools that don’t pay teachers as well as private school teachers. Generally, not always, but generally this results in the better teachers working for private schools. The physical school is might not be as nice as the private school, and the equipment is usually older. And administration costs are astronomical because of the immense bureaucracies.

This is the capitalist, free market system at work. The same capitalist, free market system that collectivist thinkers, like the one above, find to be evil. Everyone in the private school system is doing what is best for them, not for the collective. It results are obvious.

If they could accept this, then more students would be attending private schools via vouchers and more students would be receiving a better education.

But rather than rejoice that such schools exist and are available, collectivists consider sacrificing their children to the collective.

Such thinking is disgusting.

You have no such obligation to the collective. Your obligation is to your child. That’s what you put first.

Will Tom Hanks Screw Up “The Pacific?” Sounds Like He Might

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:12:04 +0000

Tom Hanks has brought more attention to the stories of World War II than one man can be expected to bring. However, a recent article in TIme magazine makes me wonder what he is going to do with stories from the Pacific Theater.

The Pacific, his new 10-hour epic about the Pacific theater in World War II, plays out against a very different backdrop, when the country is weary of war and American exceptionalism is a much tougher sell. World War II in the European theater was a case of massive armies arrayed against an unambiguous evil. The Pacific war was mainly fought by isolated groups of men and was overlaid by a sense that our foes were fundamentally different from us. In that sense, the war in the Pacific bears a closer relation to the complex war on terrorism the U.S. is waging now, making the new series a trickier prospect but one with potential for more depth and resonance. “Certainly, we wanted to honor U.S. bravery in The Pacific,” Hanks says. “But we also wanted to have people say, ‘We didn’t know our troops did that to Japanese people.’ “

Emphasis mine.

Let’s start with the first bolded section of text. What do they mean “different from us?”

He doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

Ok, back the truck up, Hanks.

We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese because they were different. We wanted to annihilate the Japanese for this:

2,402 personnel were killed. 1,282 were wounded. As if that were not reason enough, consider the story of Ralph Ignatowski, as told by Iwo Jima flag raiser, John Bradley, from the book, “Flags of Our Fathers“:

“I have tried so hard to block this out. To forget it. We could choose a buddy to go in with. My buddy was a guy from Milwaukee. We were pinned down in one area. Someone elsewhere fell injured and I ran to help out, and when I came back my buddy was gone. I couldn’t figure out where he was. I could see all around, but he wasn’t there. And nobody knew where he was.

A few days later someone yelled that they’d found him. They called me over because I was a corpsman. The Japanese had pulled him underground and tortured him. His fingernails… his tongue… It was terrible. I’ve tried hard to forget all this.”

Many years later, in researching my father’s life, I asked Cliff Langley, Doc’s co-corpsman, about the discovery of Iggy’s body. Langley told me it looked to him as though Ralph Ignatowski had endured just about every variety of physical cruelty imaginable.

“Both his arms were fractured,” Langley said. “They just hung there there like arms on a broken doll. He had been bayoneted repeatedly. The back of his head had been smashed in.”

Other reports say Iggy “had been tortured in the cave by the Japanese for three days, during which time they also cut out his eyes, cut off his ears, smashed in his teeth, and cut off his genitalia and stuffed them into his mouth.”

in 1946, Time Magazine detailed another instance of Japanese war crimes – cannibalism:

By 1945, when the blockaded Bonins had no fresh meat, he hatched the idea that liver would soothe his gnawing stomach pains. The islands’ commander, fat, bullnecked Lieut. General Yoshio Tachibana, had ordered all captured U.S. flyers executed. That was the chance Matoba had been waiting for.

Cannibal Feast. At least two aviators were beheaded publicly by Matoba’s own 308th Battalion, to buoy the troops’ morale. In each case, the liver was cut from the still-warm bodies, delivered to Matoba’s cook, cut into strips and served in sukiyaki. At one gay party, where the cannibal dish was washed down with sake, Tachibana was Matoba’s guest. That night, during a U.S. air attack, Matoba boasted that enemy bombs could not hurt him because he had eaten the enemy’s flesh.

Other unit commanders who wanted a morale-booster for their own men were given the privilege of staging the executions of flyers captured in their bivouac areas. On at least two occasions the livers of the executed men were served in the officers’ messes while strips of flesh cut from the legs were used to flavor enlisted men’s soup.

Do I need to go into what happened on the Battan Death March?

Will Hanks cover that, so viewers can say, “‘We didn’t know ~~our troops~~ the Japanese troops did that to ~~Japanese people~~ our people.’ “?

Or will this be a rewriting of history? Let’s hope Tom does right by the men who fought and died on those islands, so far away from home.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Obama Judicial Nominee Fought For Serial Killer and Against Sex Offender Registries

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:20:20 +0000

An Obama judicial nominee is facing a little scrutiny following a letter detailing how he fought to prevent the execution of a serial killer. That’s not the really bad part. Rather than being the lawyer fighting for the stay, he was the judge hearing the case:

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own “sexual sadism.”

His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross’ attorney’s law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan’s Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel.

“I’ve never seen conduct like this,” said a Republican source. “I’m shocked that the White House vetted this guy … and still put him up for a judgeship.”

Sen. Jeff Session asked for more time to review the judge’s record and Sen. Patrick Leahy was happy to give it to him.

Chatigny actually told Michael Ross’ lawyers to fight the execution and how, despite the fact that Ross didn’t want to fight. He threatened the defense lawyers, telling them he would personally go after their law licenses:

Chatigny stunned those involved in the serial killer case in early 2005 by pressuring Ross’ attorney on a conference call to challenge his scheduled execution even though Ross had said he did not want to fight.

The judge had raised concerns about whether Ross was mentally unfit and whether prison isolation had led to despair — at the time of the conference call, federal appeals courts had overturned two prior orders from him postponing the execution.

According to a transcript of that Jan. 28 call, the judge threatened to go after the law license of Ross’ attorney, T.R. Paulding.

“So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life,” Chatigny said. “And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I’ll have your law license.”

Chatigny raised those concerns because of a letter he received from Ramon Lopez, mentioned above. Lopez was an inmate.

in 2001, Chatigny ruled “against sex offender registries created under Megan’s Law.”

The Obama administration calls Chatigny “a ‘first-rate’ legal expert and ‘faithful’ public servant.

What do you call him? And remember, this is supposed to be a family friendly blog.

Corey Haim: Dead at 38

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:43:51 +0000

TMZ is saying it was possible an overdose:

Police tell us they were called to St. Joseph’s hospital in Burbank, CA shortly before 4AM PT to investigate.

Haim shot to fame in the 80s — when he co-starred in a number of films, including “The Lost Boys,” with Corey Feldman.

The Lost Boys is actually on my iTunes. Love that flick.

I grew up with this guy. Not literally. You know what I mean.

Here’s an interview with him from about a year ago:

Here’s another one dated two weeks ago, with Corey Feldman. Language warning:

What a difference a year makes.

Scandal: ABC News Writes 3 Pages On the Discounting of Black Barbie

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:18:27 +0000

Whenever I go to WalMart with the family, we inevitably end up in the Aisle of Red Stickers, aka the Clearance Aisle. This is an aisle of the store where everything is priced not to sell, but to get it out of the store. Everything has a red sticker, calling to the consumer as if to say, “BUY ME! I COST LESS!”

It is so drastically different you can’t help but know it’s not the usual price.

Which brings me to this “scandal.” Someone took this picture of a black Barbie next to a white Barbie. The black Barbie cost half as much as the white one.

Racism in 3…2…1…

”The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.

“While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage,” Dye said.

Other experts agree. Walmart could have decided “that it’s really important that we as a company don’t send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness,” said Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles and the founder of the blog Sociological Images.

Are race relations so positive in America that the only place they can find a scandal is in WalMart’s clearance pricing strategies? No, but this is a double whammy for liberals. They get to stir up racial tension and they get to blame it on WalMart.

They spent three pages on this. Really.

Sociological Images co-author Gwen Sharp, a sociology professor at Nevada State College, said that inequality might not necessarily be what’s behind Ballerina Theresa’s lagging sales.

Black parents, she said, may simply choose black dolls whose physical features hew more closely to those of themselves and their children. Barbie has weathered critcism in the past for producing dolls that bear little resemblance to the ethnicities they represent.

“Maybe for both parents and kids, it seems more real and less symbolic of a change to have a doll that actually presents a range of attractive features rather than ‘Oh we’ve changed the skin tone slightly,’” Sharp said.

Let me get this straight. The racism industry kicks into high dudgeon over clearance pricing, but Mattel is supposed to now make the black Barbies’ “physical features hew more closely to those of themselves and their children.”

Can you hear that protest?

Come on! It’s not like Jesse Jackson has anything better to do than protest Mattel headquarters. He’s protesting Bingo rights. You know he’d jump all over this.

What would he say if Mattel made the doll’s lips bigger? Made her too dark? Too light? What about her hair?

Can you imagine how many focus groups this doll would be in, only to be attacked once released?

You know I’m right.

If you can turn a clearance priced Barbie into a racist event, imagine what race baiters could do with one that was meant to represent the appearance of black America.

I fully expect to be labeled a racist for bringing up the physical appearances I did above. That’s the kind of ridiculous racial environment America has created.

Lindsey Graham v. Liz Cheney – I’ll Be In Cheney’s Corner

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:05:03 +0000

Sen. Lindsey Graham is a guy I would like to see retire. If he won’t retire, I think it is the solemn obligation of South Carolina voters to retire him.

Now, he’s got a problem with this ad from Keep American Safe:

Graham is actually defending not only the appointment of lawyers who defended al-Qaeda terrorists to the Justice Department, but the fact Holder won’t name them. And at the same time, he’s condemning Liz Cheney.

He had this to say:

“A defense attorney who is making the government do their job regardless of the nature of the case is making this whole country a better place,” said Graham, a military lawyer who’s currently a senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School. “I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts and I gave them my all.”

I agree with the first part. Here’s a little bit of nuance for you, Lindsey. You don’t have to appoint those same people to the Justice Department. It’s not a law. You can say, “Oh, you defended people who wanted to kill thousands of innocent Americans while simultaneously destroying Western culture and installing an Islamic caliphate? I think I’ll pass.”

As for representing people “charged with some pretty horrific acts,” were you not appointed their defense lawyer? Weren’t these people who couldn’t afford a private sector lawyer? They have the choice.

As do the people who appointed lawyers who choose to defend the enemy. You don’t put people like that in the Justice Department.

Switzerland and The Brave New World

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:11:16 +0000

I just finished reading Aldus Huxley’s “Brave New World.” (I’ll change the graphic in the sidebar today, so you’ll be up to speed with my reading.) One of the disturbing aspects of the world Huxley creates is the sexual behavior of the children.

You read that right.

From early childhood, the people in Huxley’s world are encouraged to engage in sex. Here’s an excerpt from Chapter Three:

OUTSIDE, in the garden, it was playtime. Naked in the warm June sunshine, six or seven hundred little boys and girls were running with shrill yells over the lawns, or playing ball games, or squatting silently in twos and threes among the flowering shrubs. The roses were in bloom, two nightingales soliloquized in the boskage, a cuckoo was just going out of tune among the lime trees. The air was drowsy with the murmur of bees and helicopters.

…”That’s a charming little group,” he said, pointing.

In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.

“Charming, charming!” the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.

“Charming,” the boys politely agreed. But their smile was rather patronizing. They had put aside similar childish amusements too recently to be able to watch them now without a touch of contempt. Charming? but it was just a pair of kids fooling about; that was all. Just kids.

“I always think,” the Director was continuing in the same rather maudlin tone, when he was interrupted by a loud boo-hooing.

From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.

“What’s the matter?” asked the Director.

The nurse shrugged her shoulders. “Nothing much,” she answered. “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now …”

“Honestly,” put in the anxious-looking little girl, “I didn’t mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly.”

“Of course you didn’t, dear,” said the nurse reassuringly. “And so,” she went on, turning back to the Director, “I’m taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything’s at all abnormal.”

“Quite right,” said the Director. “Take him in. You stay here, little girl,” he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. “What’s your name?”

“Polly Trotsky.”

“And a very good name too,” said the Director. “Run away now and see if you can find some other little boy to play with.”

The child scampered off into the bushes and was lost to sight.

Why in the world would Huxley write about children being encouraged to have sex? Here’s one opinion:

The interplay between sexuality and emotions is complex. Huxley realized that monogamy, sex, and family ties generate most human emotions. Thus, the Utopian society is based on promiscuity and baby factories. The goal is to eradicate emotions by replacing them with pure sexual desire and nothing else. This, combined with the baby factories, destroys family life and monogamous relationships. Emotions are therefore directed mostly by the state, which is necessary for social control and stability. It is interesting to note that the exact opposite technique was used by George Orwell in 1984. Orwell banned sexual relationships in order to eliminate dangerous emotions that might go against the state.

However, since both authors realized that sexual emotions destabilize society, each technique achivies the identical goal: elimination of sexual emotions.

It’s interesting, especially when you finish reading a book like “Brave New World” and find something like this at The Other McCain:

Extra small condoms for boys as young as 12 could soon be on our shelves.

The Hotshot condoms are going on sale in Switzerland after research found that not enough 12 to 14-year-old boys were having protected sex.

Yes, that does say “not enough 12 to 14-year-old boys were having protected sex.” But socialist Switzerland isn’t the only country with this problem. It seems the late Great Britain needs extra small condoms also:

A spokesman said the UK would be ‘top priority’ if the company expanded abroad, considering it had the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

Nysse Norballe said: ‘At the moment we are only producing the Hotshot in Switzerland.

‘But the UK is certainly a very attractive market since there is a very high rate of underage conception.’

I’m not saying that Switzerland and the late Great Britain are using Huxley’s book as a how-to guide. That would be ridiculous considering how well they are already using “1984.” I just think it’s interesting that our values have broken down so much that there is actually a market for pre-teen rubbers.

Did I say “interesting?” I meant “sad.” Perhaps if parents were a little less focused on other things, they could focus on their children and educate them about morals and sex. Instead they are being trained by society that sex is just fun and with the right equipment, totally safe.

It’s almost like they are working towards the “elimination of sexual emotions.”

Middle School Girls Says No to Drugs, Gets Suspended for Five Days

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:42:48 +0000

Ever have someone hand you something that you then realized you didn’t want?

That’s what happened to Rachel Greer, a seventh grade student in Jefferson, Indiana. She was in the locker room when another female student brought in a bag of Adderall:

Rachael Greer said it happened on Feb. 23 during fifth period gym class at River Valley Middle School when a girl walked into the locker room with a bag of pills.

“She was talking to another girl and me about them and she put one in my hand and I was like, ‘I don’t want this,’ so I put it back in the bag and I went to gym class,” said Rachael.

Believe it or not, kids do say no to drugs.

However, that really doesn’t matter to Greater Clark County Schools. She touched the pill. She’s guilty as sin, even though she didn’t actually “sin.”

During the next period, an assistant principal came and took Rachael out of class. It turned out the girl who originally had the pills and a few other students got caught. That’s when the assistant principal gave Rachael a decision.

“We’re suspending you for five days because it was in your hand,” said Rachael.

Think that is bad, consider this. If Rachel had given the pill back, walked out of the gym and told the gym teacher about what happened, the same punishment would have been given to Rachel.

Now, what would motivate her to tell anyone about drugs on school property? In the future, how many kids will be thrown under the bus when a pusher gets pinched? Seems like it would be pretty easy to finger a kid who you think might have told on you. Just tell the teacher they touched it and they get a nice drug related addition to their permanent record.

The only thing Rachel did wrong was not turning in the girl who had the drugs, but then again, it wouldn’t have mattered. She’d still be suspended and her scholastic future made that much more difficult because of regulations that prevent common sense and judgement from school officials.

1,776 Facebook Friends – Cool

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:20:23 +0000

Noticed this when I was listing the top 9 most successful fast food chains (yeah, that’s what you miss if you aren’t my Facebook friend.)

1776 friends. All patriots.

Kinda cool.

My First Pajamas Media Article: Homeschooling vs. Howard Zinn

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:15:29 +0000

I have officially accomplished one of my 2010 blogging goals. If you remember, I set the following goal back in January:

Goal #7: Become a Paid Columnist Again

Getting writing gigs is tough these days. In order for me to get another paid column, I am going to have to perform here first. By focusing on quality articles here, hopefully it will lead to getting paid for quality articles somewhere else.

Well, today I was published at Pajamas Media. Here’s a taste:

While the untrained homeschool dad is teaching his children about American history from two authors who focus on facts, the trained teacher is busy educating students about how terrible America has been from its creation, because the author of their text “wanted to be a part of history.”

But then again, the students in the all important “brick and mortar” school may not even be burdened with learning history. North Carolina state education leaders recently floated the idea of starting high school level American history at 1877, foregoing all that unnecessary learning about the Revolutionary War or even the Civil War.

Why would this even be considered?

Rebecca Garland, chief academic officer for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, says they are trying to “figure out a way to teach [history] where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.”

The Foundry, the Heritage Foundation’s blog, explained what that means:

By implication, nothing before 1877 has any meaning to students …

Early 20^th century Progressives also taught that nothing before 1877 has meaning for today. In his new book We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future, Matthew Spaulding recounts Progressives attack on America’s First Principles. The Progressives sought to remake America, so that the Declaration’s Founding Principles, the Constitution’s institutional structures, and the Civil War’s meaning as a victory for Founding principles would no longer ring true. The progressives argued that equal, natural rights were non-existent; government creates rights.

Between the leftist slant in the texts and the outright banishment of a century of American history, it is difficult to see how having the endorsement of the state government automatically results in a better education.

Let me know what you think.