We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In media, connectivity is all about getting content out in as many ways possible, as quickly as you can. There is no worrying about how information is processed. When there were limited forms of media outlets, the ability to add discussion (Op/Ed pieces in print, news shows on TV) created some context and helped the information flow. With the myriad resources available today, and the speed at which information arrives, context is being pushed to the side in favor of raw data. The medium is no longer the message. The message predominates.
How is this impacting youth?
It's troubling question, leading researchers to address the different potential outcomes. There are indications that people's brains are becoming 'wired' differently. But whether that wiring is improving decision making or analysis is open to question.
My point of view is that shortened attention spans and more breadth of knowledge (exchanged for less depth) is the likely outcome, which is not necessarily beneficial.
the immersive nature of 24/7 connectedness creates the illusion that Millennials can somehow tap into a form of collective intelligence just by being online, while looking impatiently for messages every three minutes.
The best you could say is that he at least defends Limbaugh's right to speak. Beyond that, this is a very pale attempt to sidestep outrage at his otherwise outlandish and clearly misogynist use of language. He claims because he gets a laugh, it's fine to use words that demean a woman. What he's really saying is it's fine to use those words regarding Sarah Palin or any woman on the Right who he dislikes, especially if it gets a laugh.
The bit I did about Palin using the word c-, one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know.
The outrage regarding Fluke was about the use of the word, and had little to do with context. That, somehow, just using it was wrong. Limbaugh didn't use it to label all women, it wasn't a misogynistic commentary. He did not show hatred or distrust toward women in general.
Maher was not misogynistic, either (to be fair, my original statement above was meant to be sarcastic). But he cannot distance himself from Limbaugh on this. Both of them utilized language and imagery that is inappropriate. Getting a laugh, I have been told by my Human Relations Department, does not make something okay to say. Now, Maher lacks an HR Department, but common sense is clearly lacking if he thinks that just because people laughed, his jokes were acceptable. And being a "pottymouth" doesn't make it okay, either.
We all use words, from time to time, we wish we hadn't. Limbaugh apologized for using his. Maher tries to rationalize his.
"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."
Orson Welles
And on where you start it. We may not be professional scientists here on the Farm, but we've all read the classicHow to Lie with Statistics, and I assume we've all studed at least basic calculus.
(And we all also know that computer modeling depends on the parameters you chose, or adjust ex post facto: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." - John Von Neuman. In science, if data fails to fit models, they adjust the models to fit the data, and keep their jobs and federal grants. In finance, you get fired or lose your bonus.)
Sticking with Orson Welles for today, my point is elementary math: If you select your end point (and your starting point), you can extrapolate out any line from any piece of any graph or curve you want. That's termed "cherry picking." That's why they say that, if you extrapolate the curve of the log graph of the population of Houston from 1950 to 1980, Houston would shortly contain the entire population of the USA.
Climate alarmists are famous for extrapolating from small, selected pieces of data - and also for continual realignment of modeling parameters (which is not science, it's computer gaming).
Let's accept that post-glacial global warming has been going on, with dramatic bumps up and down but generally beneficially for humans (not for Wooly Mammoths), for 10,000 years, with the resulting 120-150 meters of ocean rise. (There are many Neolithic villages underwater in the English Channel and the North Sea, many Indian villages underwater 50-60 miles out from the coast of Virginia, etc.) This will continue until the climate tide changes back to the next glaciation in the next few centuries or millennia. Given recent predictions, we are warned to expect at least several decades of global cooling around now. Will it be the Big One? A warning to go long Key Largo real estate?
Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges.
As if it all began in 1880. It's probably closer to 6 inches in the past 200 years, but let that pass. The real question is why they picked 1880 instead of saying "Rising seas since 1800 increase the risk of damaging storm surges"? The line would be less scarey. Or better yet, why not say "Rising seas since 15,000 BC increase the risk of damaging storm surges"? Look at this graph. Why not draw your average beginning at 1800?
Aha. they picked a low point and a high point on the curvacious historical graph, and are extrapolating from that teensy piece of it to instill terror. If you picked 1800 as your starting point, your line would look different.
And, as we posted yesterday, if you picked 18,000 years ago, your take on the data would be quite different again. You would relax and turn on the basketball game. Go Huskies - and we may need real Huskies here soon:
Call me paranoid if you want, but my view is that there is an unspoken alliance (not a conscious conspiracy) between greedy scientists and greedy governments of all sorts to make a big deal out of a big nothing. I hope to survive the big chill to see that finally people will have admitted, as they finally admitted about the imminent Ice Age scare of the 1970s - that it is pure hype.
But, what the heck, let's step even further backwards from the frame for the really Big Picture. I'll bet teacher never told you that we remain in a cold spell, historically-speaking. Yes, indeed. Polar ice caps are not normal for planet Earth. The earth doesn't have a fever - it has a very bad cold right now:
Catholic and other institutions are forced by the Obama administration to provide for killing the unborn, contrary to their religious doctrine, but the Obama administration just granted the Northern Arapaho tribe permission to kill bald eagles for their religious freedom, even though US law prohibits the killing of bald eagles in almost all cases.
The agency’s decision comes after the Northern Arapaho Tribe filed a federal lawsuit last year contending the refusal to issue such permits violates tribal members’ religious freedom. Although thousands of American Indians apply for eagle feathers and carcasses from a federal repository, permits allowing the killing of bald eagles are exceedingly rare, according to both tribal and legal experts on the matter.
Far rarer than allowing the killing of unborn humans.
Promoted from the Comments: "If their permit is refused, then they should apply to construct a wind farm. Then wait." (The author is Earl. Anyone remember the TV show "My Name Is Earl." I didn't know he is a reader!)
The machinations of the Army Corps of Engineers - levees, water diversions, flood control etc - around New Orleans prevented the maintenance of the Mississippi delta by blocking the flow of the silt down the river.
But, if you read the article, the LA Times writer repeated brings up "climate change" and how the current situation "left the sinking Mississippi Delta defenseless against the slower but inexorable onslaught of rising seas brought about by climate change." (By the way, it is not "sinking. River deltas are sustained by river silt, or else normal erosion and currents wash them away.)
Thus the author first explains the real mechanics of why the delta has shrunk, and then brings in the irrelevant topic of "climate change" and seal level, converting an interesting article into a propaganda piece. That bugs me.
Sea levels have been slowly rising to a total of around 120 meters since the last Ice Age, recently by an unalarming average of 3 millimeters per year. (Since 2010, they have been dropping, to the dismay of the alarmists.)
and, just for fun, post-glacial climates. Looks like we're trending downward from the optimum, which is not good:
Hundreds of articles analyze whether the US should or not take a stronger stand vis a vis Syria or Iran. The articles usually increase uncertainty among readers. In the absence of complete information as to all the players’ goals and means or perfect knowledge beforehand about the outcomes, the reader is understandably confused or paralyzed by doubts. Indeed, that seems the purpose of many analyses and comments by officials.
It is impossible to know with certainty in advance the effect and outcomes of the many variables and responses possible. So, uncertainty is natural. But, uncertainty does not require indecisiveness nor excuse inaction.
Despite being told for decades that the Israel-Palestinian issues are central to peace or progress in the Middle East, the past year has demonstrated conclusively that is not so. Internal and external ethnic and religious divisions among the Moslem states, and the rise of Iran in its efforts to predominate among all, were distracted from, often purposely, by attacking Israel. That veil has been ripped off in the past year.
A pox on all their houses would be a proper response, if the outcomes among them didn’t have a significant effect on the West.
I guess you could call it "Occupy Sandra," but that sounds a little bit disrespectful of her natural feminine sex drives and desires, and I'd hate to get into a brouhaha like Rush.
It occurred to me that, as an act of charity, caring Americans ought to each mail her a box of condoms from the minimart. She is begging, after all, and she, bravely, heroically, will not be silenced until she gets them. As pictured on the right, they appear to come in three sizes: Tall, Grande, and Venti so maybe one pack of each size, just in case.
Let's all show some compassion for this 30 year-old single law student and bury her Georgetown apartment in ultra-ribbed lubricated Trojans so she can have the fun she deserves as an American citizen.
I am a believer in freedom from government power, a believer in self-governance and self-determination. I am deeply skeptical about the notion of "rights to free stuff" because that always entails government power and usually government coercion by our betters.
We already have seen Obamacare become politicized, and that is just the beginning. It will get much worse, because I need daily cigar aromatherapy to maintain my mental health and count on my fellow citizens to provide it for me for free. Habanos, please.
This whole topic of "positive rights," ie entitlements, is a strange thing, isn't it? Come on, people. Do you want the government in your sex life and your cigar life, or out of it?
(Condoms For Sandra, aka Occupy Sandra, is not a 501(c)3 company, but it is coming soon through your government on your nickel - for Sandra)
My blackbirds - mostly Red-wings, Cowbirds, and Grackles - arrived yesterday. It's always between March 12 and March 15. They empty out the bird-feeders and move on. Do they remember my feeders from last fall?
People are annoyed with Grackles because they like to poop in swimming pools. They don't bother me at all.
Here's an autumn migratory flock in Sipp's previous back yard:
I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the (catcher's) glove, but I didn't hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters, and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes, I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. I started having a crazy idea in the fourth inning that Richard Nixon was the home plate umpire, and once I thought I was pitching a baseball to Jimi Hendrix, who to me was holding a guitar and swinging it over the plate. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn't hit hard and never reached me.[6]
The endgame is just that no one actually pays for anything; the government, or a co-opted government-controlled industry which provides the functions of a socialist government ("insurance companies" which no longer insure anything, but merely send checks to people), simply takes over almost all costs in life.
As long as they call it "insurance," people can pretend they aren't mooching off their neighbors.
So live your life so the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their views, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or sign of salute when meeting or passing a stranger if in a lonely place. Show respect to all people, but grovel to none. When you arise in the morning, give thanks for the light, for your life and strength. Give thanks for your food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies in yourself. Touch not the poisonous firewater that makes wise ones turn to fools and robs them of their visions. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Allegedly composed by Tecumseh, but maybe not. Tecumseh made himself into a myth.
In blatant chutzpah, if the pro-Palestinians at UCSD will allow a Yiddish term, they have launched a specious campaign to claim they were harassed and insulted by their opponents. This false claim is in order to step up their own fear, slander and harassment that silences students and faculty at UCSD and other campuses from defending Israel.
These false charges are a test experiment to use elsewhere to counter the documented charges of harassment and violence by pro-Palestinian students at other campuses that have been deemed serious enough to be taken up by the federal government under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and for which ten students were convicted for their acts at U of C Irvine.
The absurdity of their specific claims at UCSD is even more manifest, and dangerous, because it is actually the opposite that occurs at many campuses. The activities of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli students and faculty have harassed pro-Israeli students and faculty, leading many to be silent rather than become involved because of fear of attack or that it would endanger their career path in retribution by the alliance of virulent Israel haters with extremist Leftist allies.
A young woman recently commented to me that she thought one reason she was in love with a certain man was because he "made her feel safe." "Safe from what?" I asked. She thought for a minute and said "Safe from the world, I guess."
It's not an unusual topic of conversation among some of my more conservative lady pals to speculate about why women have some tendency to vote more Leftist than men do.
We have lots of theories, but more questions than anything else.
For some examples, Women are more caring and nurturing, less aggressive or more needy than men (maybe, possibly, I sort of doubt it but, if so, why would women think of government as a vehicle for those feelings?)
Or, Women are fearful of losing a man, and want government to step in as a husband if needed
Or, many women don't have a man, and would rather lean on government than on charity
Or, Women are more prone to parental transferences to powerful government, while masculine pride resists accepting government "help" because it makes them feel diminished
We have other theories too.
Here's a piece on a related topic at Reason: "Women vs. the State. It’s time to liberate ladies from unequal and unjust government policies."
Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation's paradigm that "all men are created equal"?
The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one's self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it "the old serpent, you work I'll eat." But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.
It did not take long for their paradigm to be challenged by interest and by "science." By the 1820s, as J. C. Calhoun was reading in the best London journals that different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results, slave owners were citing the Negroes' deficiencies to argue that they should remain slaves indefinitely. Lots of others were reading Ludwig Feuerbach's rendition of Hegelian philosophy, according to which biblical injunctions reflect the fantasies of alienated human beings or, in the young Karl Marx's formulation, that ethical thought is "superstructural" to material reality. By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called "all men are created equal" "a self-evident lie," much of America's educated class had already absorbed the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class's religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.
Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked "can't you let anything alone?" he answered with, "I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill." Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world's examples and the world's reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to "teach [them] to elect good men."
Regarding gelato, all you have to do is point at random. It's all good. The rule is just one gelato per day.
A friend is visiting northern Italy for the first time, in a couple of weeks. Great time of year to go. Asked for food advice. Here are a few of my suggestions (bearing in mind that no menus will be in English):
Antipasto
- Any norceria platter - Any crostini - every place has its own versions - carpaccio - delicious. Usually served on dandelion greens. Sprinkle a little oil on top.
I Primi
- pappardelle al funghi - Any gnocchi - Any polenta, but especially al tartuffo - Any risotto - Sometimes you can find a Spaghetti alla Bolognese - it's nothing like the American version - Bean soup/stew with pasta - Pasta e fagioli - in springtime, Risi e Bisi if they have it on the menu (rice and fresh peas in broth - a Venetian classic primi)
Secondi
- Tuscan steak (they are very proud of that Bistecca alla Fiorentina, generally grilled on a wood fire with lauro or rosemary - rare is best) - Venetian-style liver (fegato) - Brasato - Braciole (stewed beef) - Veal with tuna sauce (vitello tonnato) - Ossobuco - Cinghiale (wild boar) - however they make it is great - Fish and seafood. Easy to forget that Florence, for example, was a major seaport before the Arno silted up. So was Pisa. (One way Florence became wealthy in the Renaissance was by importing shiploads of wool from Britain and turning it into nice stuff. Also, from being a financial center, of course.)
Another tip: Order one antipasto, one primi, and one secondi - and share them. That's really all you need. They are used to people doing that these days. They understand "to share."
Another: If you want a vegetable or green, like spinach with garlic or asparagus, or a salad, it's a separate order as a side dish. In Italy, a secondi is never contaminated with random vegetables on the plate. Except, sometimes, roast potato. You are supposed to savor just one taste at a time.
Another: Barbera is the local and popular table wine up there. Cheap and pretty good.
Feel free to add your northern Italian favorites in the comments -
Here's our game menu for this year's dinner for 24-28 friends that I and two of my buddies put together every March (we guys do all the cooking). We try to vary the menu each year.
We'll have fires in the fireplaces, and Mrs. BD will do the flowers. I think we'll do two tables for 12-14 this year, and, as we often do, change the place settings after the main course to mix things up.
Hors d'oevres: Smoked pheasant, wild venison filet on crouton with horseradish sauce, maybe something else too
Main buffet: Moussaka made with Oryx (yeah, my buddy shot an Oryx and has a freezer-full, and we are certain nobody here has ever had Oryx Moussaka), wild venison Bourguignon with noodles, rare sauteed Mallard breast with olive and cherry tomato gibier sauce on wild rice.
Dessert: Our traditional Apple Crisp with vanilla ice cream
After-dessert Cheese boards: A good assortment of France's stinkiest, unpasteurized cheeses and baguette with walnuts, dried fruit, grapes, and sliced pears.
From Part 5 of Takuan Seiyo's The Bee and the Lamb, a rambling but interesting essay at Gates:
What emanates now from important Christian leaders, not to speak of such bona fide faithful as the Johnson, Carter, Kennedy, Bush, Blair, Brown and Atlee names adduced in a previous chapter, is something entirely different: it is secular solipsism and utopian eschatology masquerading as enlightened Christianity. It harks back to 2nd century Gnostics and not to the great Christian thinkers of the Renaissance or Enlightenment. It’s the lamb lying down with the lion that’s still a lion. It’s redistributive socialism and minorities-exalting Progressive doctrine that has nothing to do with the recognition of God’s presence on Earth.
and
The glow of Jesus has come to us distorted by the distance light has to traverse over 2000 years to reach the here and now, bounced along the way off such cracked mirrors, bent copper pans and dented silver chalices that the Gospel writers and Church leaders have been, and all men are. It’s miraculous that unknown outside a little sliver of a remote, benighted province at its inception, and multiplexed with great noise as it has been since, the transmission has reached us at all. Admitting that we don’t know where the noise ends and the transcendent music begins could rebuild a stout foundation for a new Christian spirituality. “There lives more faith in an honest doubt,“ wrote one of the great 10-percenters of the 19th century, Alfred Tennyson, “than in half the creeds.”
It depends on how you define "thinking." If "thinking" means an effort to form a logical progression of thoughts and ideas, words sure come in handy whether you intend to communicate the thoughts or not. In my experience, most people tend to avoid the effort that this requires unless they are trained to do it in some area of life such as diagnosing a car breakdown or a legal case or a medical complaint.
But if "thinking" refers to all sorts of mental activities, then of course words are not required for most of it. Impulses, gut feelings, images, daydreams, movement, musical ideas, etc. are all wordless mental activity (I exclude mathematics, which is just another language). Furthermore, unconscious mental activity, which may be the bulk of mental activity, is all or mostly wordless.
Speaking only for myself, I find that my words and my thought stream seem to do a sort of dance together, and a fresh new word or verbal concept can add new color or shape to it all. What is most fun is when a fresh word or phrase or concept crystallizes a dimly-thought thought.
I have some family visiting midday on Saturday en route to pay homage to a newborn member of the clan, and figured we'd provide soup and sandwiches for the crew.
Somebody happened to mention turkey-mango sandwiches to me. It's a wonder how mangos have taken over in the supermarkets in Yankeeland, for good reason (I'll give y'all my mother in law's mango salad recipe some other time.)
Here are two versions, but I suppose one can mix and match. These could either be sandwiches or roll-ups (I have come to prefer roll-ups - less messy, less bread, and you don't need to eat as much if you cut them into 3" lengths).
Thin slices of fresh mango lettuce slice tomato swiss cheese or provolone avocado slices couple of turkey slices mayo
or
slices of Stilton slices of turkey arugula fresh mango, mango salsa or mango chutney lemon juice
or (if one is fresh out of mango)
turkey slices any cheese lettuce tomato very thin apple slices apple butter on one side (or prune butter. I love both of those old-timey things.) mayo on the other side
You can't get these at Subway. OK. I am hungry now.
This is what I term "a real job." These guys have balls. You may have seen this one before. I hate the way he has to make sure to tighten each hand-hold bolt on the final stretch. It's a nightmare for me.
Why moralism spoils the appetite - Adam Gopnik makes a powerful and entertaining case for why we shouldn’t ruin the aesthetic pleasure of food by adding a side order of moralism.
We have often posted here about food cranks and food Nazis, "organic food" nonsense and "natural food" nonsense, and even the concept of "healthy food". The "moral food" fad is just the latest incarnation of cranky food Calvinism - which is another incarnation of cranky Calvinism.
Everything has already been said about Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh, supporters and opponents of each, and double-standards toward misogynistic public statements, except to thank Ms. Fluke and her supporters for setting a new standard for future misogynistic utterances by all politicians and celebrities.
From here on out, we should expect a loud and persistent opprobrium by all and the media against anyone using such excessively derogatory terms to describe their opponent. Or, is such an expectation hollow and the double-standard be allowed to continue? Will the Left be hoisted by its own petard? If so, again thanks to Ms. Fluke and her supporters for making that hypocrisy evident. As yet many undecided voters are watching and taking note.
Halfway through my first year as a history teacher at an inner-city comprehensive in England, I am reeling from the volley of abuse and misbehaviour that makes up my daily grind. I can be sure that at some point in my day I will be aggressively confronted, blithely disobeyed, and probably sworn at. Restless nights are common, and nervousness ongoing. Still, talking to my friends from teacher training, I feel I'm having a comparatively easy ride. I have not yet been physically assaulted, and so far I have avoided the much-feared mid-lesson breakdown.
At schools such as this, the deprived background of the children is routinely presented as a catch-all explanation for bad behaviour. The pupils' chaotic home lives, their lack of prospects, and an absence of aspiration in the local community are all popular excuses for the pandemonium that pervades inner-city schools. These factors undoubtedly have an effect, but such thinking lets schools like this off the hook. The endemic discipline problem within the state sector is in reality self-inflicted. At least half a century of "progressive" thinking on pupil behaviour has had disastrous consequences. In the competitive field of follies wrought by 1960s radicalism, there is a very good case for progressive education being the most socially destructive.
In recent decades, key sectors of the American economy have experienced huge and disruptive transformations — shifts that have ultimately yielded beneficial changes to the way producers and customers do business together. From the deregulation that brought about the end of AT&T's "Ma Bell" system, to the way entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs forever changed the computer world once dominated by IBM, to the way the internet and bloggers have upended the business model of traditional newspapers, we have seen industries completely remade — often in wholly unexpected ways. In hindsight, such transformations seem to have been inevitable; at the time, however, most leaders in these fields never saw the changes coming.
The higher-education industry is on the verge of such a transformative re-alignment. Many Americans agree that a four-year degree is vastly overpriced — keeping many people out of the market — and are increasingly questioning the value of what many colleges teach. Nevertheless, for those who seek a certain level of economic security or advancement, a four-year degree is absolutely necessary. Clearly, this is a situation primed for change. In as little as a decade, most colleges and universities could look very different from their present forms — with the cost of a college credential plummeting even as the quality of instruction rises.
If this transformation does come to pass, it could have profound and beneficial implications.
When a struggling student getting D’s or F’s hears over and over that the only future for him is college, but college is an unrealistic expectation because the student isn’t academically oriented, resists school work, and has no educational career plans he can achieve without intense support and personal motivation (which he lacks), the student has only one alternative, and that is to drop-out. The F student who never studies or does a shred of homework often has no plans for the future. The lack of a life goal often leads to dropping out. The student who cannot or will not study sees a professional, college trained career as unattainable because all these professions require academic effort and knowledge, and this is a student who is academically behind appropriate level, sometimes by a significant gap. This leads to a “why try?” attitude. “Why try/” leads to quitting, floating along and letting life happen to you, teen pregnancy, dropping out, and gangs.
By insisting that everyone should attend college, college stops being a training place for the brightest minds. When everyone goes to college, it doesn’t elevate the unmotivated, non-studying student. It lowers the bar for everyone else.
Another consequence of the belief that everyone should go to college is that the high school student who graduates and gets a job is therefore seen under this paradigm as a failure. This is grossly unfair. This country has always valued the person who labors honestly, starts his own business, or provides people with desired goods and services. Historically these backbone working people have not needed a college degree. To this day many successful store or restaurant owners, plumbers, contractors, mechanics, and on and on, thrive despite never having graduated from, or perhaps never attending even a day of college. These people and their contributions should be valued. They obviously have all the education they need to create a business, provide needed services, and to succeed.
It's all about "The Dark Triad." From Yes, Chicks Dig Jerks, and evolutionary science gives us a good idea why:
The Dark Triad is a combination of psychological traits — subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism, and what Professor Jonason calls “Machiavellianism” — that are, he believes, in fact a unitary phenomenon associated with a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners. The correlation of the Dark Triad with larger numbers of sexual partners holds true for both men and women, but the effect is much more pronounced in men. This is unsurprising, inasmuch as men’s relative preference for larger numbers of short-term sexual relationships and women’s relative preference for long-term relationships is, as Professor Jonason notes, “one of the most consistent and strongest sex differences in the field.”
So: Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism: not exactly the stuff of a Jane Austen romance, but apparently the stuff of sexual success. Professor Jonason concludes: “Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness” (I warned you this was depressing stuff) “such traits may facilitate — especially for men — the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.”
But you knew that already, if you are a homo even half sapiens and went to high school.
That's all true of my experience with skirt-chasing seducers. They know how to say exactly what you need to hear but, in the end, you will never be enough for them because, Psychiatric as it may sound, they are really manchilds looking for Mommy while having fun with pseudo-adult seduction, romance and sex along the way.
Image is Luigi Bassi in the title role of Don Giovanni in 1787, via Wiki.
This is as fresh as the day he wrote it. The great (young) man himself conducted the premiere of this astonishing (comic?) opera in Prague, in 1787:
James Q. Wilson had been frequently referred to that way. He knew about everything.
My first reading of him was in his The Moral Sense, back when it had just come out. The book made a lot of sense to me (if you haven't read it, those Amazon comments on it are helpful).
Here's a Wilson quote from the end of the book:
Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul.
I guess you could call it "Occupy Sandra," but that sounds a little bit disrespectful of her natural feminine sex drives and desires, and I'd hate to get into a brouhaha like Rush.
Here's our game menu for this year's dinner for 24-28 friends that I and two of my buddies put together every March (we guys do all the cooking). We try to vary the menu each year. 
What emanates now from important Christian leaders, not to speak of such bona fide faithful as the Johnson, Carter, Kennedy, Bush, Blair, Brown and Atlee names adduced in a previous chapter, is something entirely different: it is secular solipsism and utopian eschatology masquerading as enlightened Christianity. It harks back to 2nd century Gnostics and not to the great Christian thinkers of the Renaissance or Enlightenment. It’s the lamb lying down with the lion that’s still a lion. It’s redistributive socialism and minorities-exalting Progressive doctrine that has nothing to do with the recognition of God’s presence on Earth.
I have some family visiting midday on Saturday en route to pay homage to a newborn member of the clan, and figured we'd provide soup and sandwiches for the crew.
It's all about "The Dark Triad." From 
James Q. Wilson had been frequently referred to that way. He knew about everything.