ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 


The liberal media decide who is "respectable" and who isn't. No conservative can be respectable if he shows that he has a memory, which is a dangerous thing to liberals.

Take the two big issues right now. On the Clinton pardons, Democrats insist that Clinton got lots of money from those he pardoned, but there was no quid pro quo. In other words, the liberals say that there is no reason to think he did it for the money.

But every time the NRA or a business gives money to Republicans, Democrats quote the amount and say they are selling favors. No respectable conservative will ever remind them of that.

On the tax cut, liberals insist it will benefit the rich. But the liberals also insist that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. The fact that the tax cut helps the rich presupposes that the rich are paying their share of taxes, but no conservative will ever mention that.

Actually, very rich people can avoid a lot of tax. It is the small business or family farm that gets hit hard. That is why limousine liberals don't mind the heavy estate tax. They use tax deductible foundations to keep family control over their funds, and they have plenty left over for their descendant's personal use. We see this in the Rockefeller, Ford, and Mellon Foundations, for example.

 


One of the easiest ways to spot bias is to listen for one side's buzz terms. If you hear "pro-choice" you're listening to the pro-abortion side, and pro-life means one is on the anti-abortion side (unless the same speaker says both).

So, when the newscaster on CNN refers to "investment in education" instead of "expenditures on education," you know he is so liberal he doesn't know he's using Libspeak.

Since only Libspeakers have been reporting the news, those for more Federal spending on education get away with a really childish trick.

They know that the more years of school a person has, the more money he makes, ON AVERAGE. They then say that education alone has produced all that extra income.

Meanwhile, back on earth, you can do the same thing with almost any expenditure. The more expensive the car a person owns, the more money he is likely to make. The bigger the house he was raised in, the more likely he is to have gone to college and graduate school.

In other words, by exactly the same statistical process by which we justify "investments in education," we could justify an "investment" in a limousine or a home in Beverly Hills.

If your parents spend more money on education, it means that they are probably richer. If your parents spent more on their home, it probably means they were, ON AVERAGE, richer and just plain smarter than people who have smaller homes. Their kids will then be smarter and make more money.

It's too bad the "investment in education" logic is so silly, because it would be wonderful if it worked. It would mean that education is magic, and that any moron could be made a brain surgeon by "investing" money in training him. It would mean you wouldn't even have to be human to make millions. You could take a horse, a duck, or a puppy dog, give them the magic training and they would be able to make all that money.

It takes training to develop somebody's natural talent. But you have to have the talent first, and that is what all education statistics leave out. A psychologist writing a column was recently asked if you have to be SMART to be a "gifted child." The implication was that if he said you had to be born smart to be "gifted," he would be anaziwhowantstokillsixmilionjews".

OH, no!, said the good doctor, you could be born retarded and still stand just as good a chance of being "gifted" as one of those smart kids.

You can see that this sort of logic leads straight to silliness.

The fact is that education or training is used to develop the gifts you already have. You are paid not only for training, but for BEING TRAINABLE.

Being trainable, in turn, is a matter of genetics. Hitler believed in genetics, so our entire national policy is rooted in the idea that anyone who mentions innate intelligence is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

For those who make their living in education or other supplements to genetics, this is a wonderful label. It means that those who sell social sciences like education or psychology or sociology can say that they can cure anything. They don't say you can hire ducks and make them brain surgeons, but they say you can do absolutely anything else by "investing in education" or financing other social programs.

And if you disagree with them, they shriek that you are anzaiwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. All of our silliest misconceptions are defended by that label.

Until we stop screaming "HITLER!" and begin to apply logic to education policy, it is going to keep failing, no matter how much you "invest" in it.

 

 


Immediately after the student shootings at Santee, California, a defense lawyer was asked about it. He blamed the right to own guns for the shootings. I addressed this argument on May 8, 1999 in ARMED SWITZERLAND AND THE COLORADO SHOOTINGS.

But another question arises: Why interview a defense attorney? The death toll of shootings like this one is nothing compared to the number of people slaughtered by the criminals that defense attorneys put back on the streets.

Professional criminals commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in this country, and they are only on the street because of defense attorneys. That shooting in California took two lives. Every day, those let loose by defense attorneys and sympathetic judges kill more than that.

America has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined.

In other words, everything that can be said about guns can also be said about defense attorneys: we have more lawyers than any other country, and we have more guns per capita than any developed country except Switzerland.

But those who call themselves "civil libertarians" want more defense attorneys, and they want guns outlawed.

Now, why do the ACLU and other liberal groups demand more of these defense attorneys who cause so much havoc? They say that any person accused of crime has a right to be defended.

Liberals tell us that every person ACCUSED OF CRIME has a right to defend himself. That principle cannot be compromised no matter how many people get killed.

But unless you are accused of crime, this right does not exist. If you go into a dangerous area, you have to go unarmed, because you have no right of self-defense.

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Mar. 10, 2001
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org