Thomas Sowell to 11 Year Old: Get Off My Lawn!

thomas sowell, education, science, evolution, economy,

Just when I think wingnuts can't get any lower, Thomas Sowell verbally assaults a little kid.

In short, schools are supposed to prepare children for the future, not give teachers opportunities for self-indulgences in the present. you know, like doing something other than reading aloud from a book. One of these self-indulgences was exemplified by a letter I received recently from a fifth-grader in the Sayre Elementary School in Lyon, Michigan. and he makes that child identifiable, too.

He said, "I have been assigned to ask a famous person a question about how he or she would solve a difficult problem." The problem was what to do about the economy. I'm not sure why anyone would ask this tool anything, but i thought it was kinda cute. but just being nice to a little kid is utterly beyond a wingnut, he has to make a point all over this kid.

notice to 11 year olds: stop reading this blog. srsly, this blog is not edited for family content. however, if you'd like to ask me questions as a famous person, go ahead. i'd be tremendously flattered. do try to keep your parents from suing me afterwards.

Instead, I replied to his parents: With American students consistently scoring near or at the bottom in international tests, I am repeatedly appalled by teachers who waste their students' time by assigning them to write to strangers, chosen only because those strangers' names have appeared in the media.

yes, that's why American students are falling behind: letter writing. it has nothing to do with constant standardized testing that forces teachers to teach to the test and nothing else* or the fact that a large portion of the country thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and our president may be the antichrist.

It is of course much easier-- and more "exciting," to use a word too many educators use because you can tell how effective an educator is by how boring they are. if they can put you to sleep in 30 seconds or less, they're the Beyonces of education-- to do cute little stuff like this read the preceeding seven words and ask yourself who might have benefited from a little more letter writing. than to take on the sober responsibility to develop in students both the knowledge and the ability to think that will enable them to form their own views on matters in both public and private life. in fifth graders, no less. i wonder when the last time was that Mr. Sowell was within 50' of an 11 year old. What earthly good would it do your son to know what economic policies I think should be followed, especially since what I think should be done will not have the slightest effect on what the government will in fact do? well, in your case, none. however, i think it wouldn't hurt the kid to hear a rational person's point of view. and we should we definitely teach children that unless they are currently in a position to effectuate change, they shouldn't even think of ways to do so. that's a valuable lesson to learn. And why should a fifth-grader be expected to deal with such questions that people with Ph.D.'s in economics have trouble wrestling with? that's right, we should prepare them to take on the sober responsibility to think (something), but they shouldn't think about hard stuff. that Mr. Sowell probably doesn't know anything about. yeah.

I'm guessing Mr. Sowell's house is the one that receives an unusual supply of toiletry items a little later in the month.

*My niece hasn't had science in a year and a half because of this. i've been teaching her science. i'm a legal secretary.

Grinding the Abstinence Axe

abstinence, education, religion, institute, research, evaluation, onenewsnow
Onenewsnow, your source for a great many things that are not news, offers a defense of abstinence only education, fantastic failure that it is. Oddly, the very title of the article proves my point, or someone just doesn't understand the proper use of sarcastiquotes.

Abstinence ed "outperforms" comprehensive sex ed. (That's exactly how the title appears on onenewsnow.) The article is the usual hysterical complaints about teens having sex !!1!!!eleventy!!! and condoms spread disease !!1!!!eleventy!!!, but it includes a link to a study that purports to show that abstinence ed is, in fact, effective, and much more effective than sex ed. I always ask myself in these situations, "Who performed the study, and do they have an axe to grind?"

It was an excellent question in this case. The study was performed by the Institute for Research and Evaluation, which includes information about AEGIS International, the Character Education Company, whose program is represented by the following picture:

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Institute for Research and Evaluation might have a vested interest in proving that abstinence education works. Considering the billions of dollars spent on abstinence education over the last decade, they may have a quite large interest in proving that abstinence only works.

Sex, It Leads to Dancing

abstinence, only, sex, education, lobby, vagina, misogyny, stupid,
Apparently, the abstinence only crowd (it doesn't work, but we don't care!) has realized that they are in for a little trouble. Science has proven that abstinence only doesn't work, and is in fact worse than no sex ed at all, and well, with the new President in place, the going might be a little rough.

What's a lobby to do?

Rebrand!

"the talking point repeatedly drilled into the young lobbyists’ heads was that their programs aren’t just about not having sex. Oh, no… they are actually “holistic approaches” to promote “healthy lifestyle choices”.

Longtime abstinence-only defender Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation spoke, giving the standard false talking points of the movement . . . His most blatant falsehood is that “0%” of comprehensive sex education programs talk about abstinence.

This study was thoroughly debunked by ETR Associates in 2007, as they found that ACF merely studied curricula by doing word counts of “abstinence” and “condom”. . . limited use of the word “abstinence” stems from studies that have shown this word to turn off students and instead used language that produced better results.

Another falsehood he pushed was that “0%” of unintended pregnancies could have been prevented if they had access to or knowledge about contraceptives. Literally… zero. Why? Because they all wanted to have babies. One might say that he pulled this stat out of his “Rector”, so to speak.

Referring to the fact that abstinence only doesn't work, Rector laid out a strategy to spin this report to the media, saying “The other spin I think is very important is not [program] effectiveness, but rather the values that are being taught”, further stating that whether or not these programs work is a “bogus issue”.

That's right: protecting teens from unwanted pregnancies and STDs is a "bogus issue". I'm a little surprised he came out and said it, but that is the truth about the abstinence only crowd. They don't care if teens get pregnant or end up with STDs, in fact, as far as their concerned, babies and AIDS are simply justice for the sluts who dare to have sex. You like fucking? Hope you like herpes, too, whore!

The morals they're teaching, by the way, include the idea that what you're buying with an engagement ring* isn't a symbol of commitment, it's an unused vagina. The more used the vagina, the smaller the ring:

Following their next round of Congressional visits, they held a concert of sorts in front of the Russell Senate Building, full of raps and Christian rock songs about abstinence (including one speaker claiming that if a girl is not a virgin, she doesn’t deserve to have a nice engagement ring).

There's nothing like adding a little misogyny to the mix!

I love it when the religious right wants to lecture me about values.

*I don't wear an engagement ring, and neither my hubby nor I wear wedding rings. What I have instead is a house. I don't like diamonds, but do I ever love my hardwood floors!