So far, most of the Blacks in the US who are academics, or have a strong academic lean, usually towards the liberals arts and social sciences tend to focus on race. Not the Thomas Sowell type of focus, but the "we were oppressed" type and "gonna figure the social justice out for my people because it's not equal" type.
Take for instance Eli Devaughn (Harvard undergrad, Rhodes Scholar) and Danielle Green (former teacher, PhD Stanford focusing on education).
In light of the recent gun shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvadle, Texas I will say this: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects - just like a car, a pencil, a knife, a baseball, a machete or a shovel. Each item mentioned can be misused against anyone or thing. Alone the object cannot cause harm unless it's a bomb which is meant to self-destruct by its very nature.
Don't believe me? Well, you ignore reality. People don't blame guns or the lack of gun control when nations go to war. If you're in a combat position you'll either be dead via bomb or by gun. Yet there's no calls for "gun control" when it comes to war - no one's saying the soldiers should use tasers or batons. Nope. The people who despise guns are not to be found here. What they do say is that X or Y war isn't necessary. Ah ha! So you're appealing for people to not declare war or to invade a country! People! It's the people! It's the head of the government responsibility to send or not to send troops in X or Y country.
If people are going to call for gun control if not an outright ban of guns (see: Australia, UK), then you'd have to take a good look at cars and knives - both of which have been used as a means to harm or to murder someone - or alcohol which has a long, long, long history of abuse. But nope. Brittons won't have their pubs turned into literal watering holes, now, eh?
On the end of the spectrum I do think those who extoll the goodness of America's 2A should tactfully bring up the issues of the lack off mental health in America. We have innocent people dying at the hands of psychopaths, sociopaths and the mentally unstable. Just last year an Asian women was pushed in front of an NYC train as she waited by a mentally unstable person. There was no serious national call for better care of his kind.
Once again, we don't have a gun issue in the States. We have a mental health issue in the states which has been going on much longer before the likes of Columbine or Sandy Hook came into the picture. In my mind it's better to attack the root cause of it, not the means of it because it simply scares you (I myself have never handled a gun - in fact I'm intimidated by a gun not shown in a picture so there's that, yet I refuse to fall for the narratives of the anti-2A types).
We don't need Woke education to be taught in American schools. Training and resources towards it are wasted time and money. What there needs to be put in schools at least one trained individual - who is vigilant and courageous at all times - to protect the one main entrance. That's a matter of life and death - or else all those kids who were to be killed won't grow up to be the physicians, engineers, social workers, teachers, moms, dads, astronauts and welders they were meant to be. Chuck out the Wokeness (which warps and later destroys them) and put in individuals who will protect our society's most innocent population.
Particularly African-Americans born post 1975. I tend to find them lacking in actual intellectual vigor - not all of course. I can't seem to remember but maybe I addressed it in a past post, but I remember two African-Americans, one whom I believe was half-white, where just based on their CV that their degrees that they sought out were mainly based on public perception of the institution. Case in point of the following two examples.
Case #1
This same prestige/name-brand hunting could be said to be present amongst African-Americans when it comes to medical schools and post-grad residency/fellowships. I think a decent indicator of whether or not the POC (i.e. African-American) is academically sound is if they get into AOA, the medical school version of Phi Beta Kappa. In places like University of Chicago (Pritzker) med school the African-Americans who have attended in the past four years, only a minority of them were inducted in AOA. Arguments for the lack of POCs, especially African-Americans, is, of course, racism. Unlike that Northwestern study, AMA's own survey is more interesting.
The WSJ Opinion piece, written by Joseph Epstein, commenting on who's a "real" doctor - a physician vs someone who holds an Ed.D (Doctor of Education) has caused some stir. This has centered around Jill Biden, wife of politician Joe Biden (D - Delaware). Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro also broadcasted his thoughts on the matter on his Youtube channel. Both conclude that Jill Biden has no right to use Dr. in front of her name let alone be called "doctor" in the public square.
They're both wrong.
In the States the term "doctor" is often referred to a physician, or a medical doctor. The history of how this came to be is somewhat interesting. To make a long story short physicians in Scotland asked PhD holders, the original "doctors," if they can use the honorific title in their everyday language to refer to practitioners in their own field to bolster their prestige in the public eye. An agreement was met and that honorific title became synonymous with a physician alongside the prestige that was wanted. This carried over to the New World.
The etymology of the word also does not lend itself to Epstein and Shapiro's daft and elitist rantings. The word "doctor" means to teach. It also means a "learned person." In the medieval times subjects that were open to study were immensely limited. Theology was the main subject matter and the advanced degrees conferred are today's ancestors of what is now known as the PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy. For those that are religious or are religious literate the phrase Doctor of the Church will ring a bell. This phrase refers to theologians, mainly Catholic, who have contributed immensely to the body of knowledge that have advanced theology and philosophy.
A PhD is mainly used as a research to degree and many who are able to finish their doctorate are employed by the university/college system as professors or lecturers. They are expected to contribute to their chosen speciality in form of publications (enter the "publish or die" mentality in order become tenured). All PhDs require a dissertation that require an oral defense. This differs from professional doctorate degrees in the States (e.g. JD, MD/DO) where no dissertation is required leaving no oral defense to be had. Professional doctorates are, truly, vocational tracks, especially the older professional doctorates (MD, JD). An Ed.D is a fairly new kind of professional doctorate, sort of like the DSW (Doctor of Social Work) or PsyD (Doctor of Psychology). You may have seen a subtle difference between the PhD and these professional degrees in the name itself. There is no "Doctor of Philosophy." An MD is Doctor of Medicine, not Doctor of Philosophy in Medicine.
On a more grounded and modern level, technically anyone with a doctorate degree can be referred as a doctor in public. Unless a physician is needed such people are doing no wrong in asking to be called doctor. The term doctor was not given to the profession by the layman or some governing body because they came to the realization that physicians were immensely smart and that their services were critical to the human race. None of that happened; no such thinking was entertained. It was simply asked for by physicians themselves to bolster their reputation, and given there were more physicians than academics interacting with the public, the public started to associate the word with the profession. A smart marketing move by Scottish physicians one might say. It has paid dividends.
And remember: not until the turn of the 20th century did medical research, procedures and equipment start to advance rapidly into what would be today's world of medicine. Institutions for formal medical training were sparse and knowledge was infantile. Surgeons were seen as inferior to that of what is now considered the family physician (primary care); surgeons were sometimes not seen as physicians but as a vocational track, like brick layering or that of a blacksmith. Quack doctors were abound prescribing moonshine to ailments and cures for deadly viruses.
So is Jill Biden a "real" doctor? Yes. The layman must educate himself, or even re-educate himself on the matter. Unless a non-medical doctor tries to pose as a physician, wishing to have all the positive stigmas that being a physician entails in modern times, then there should be zero issue. For those that do - don't do that. Stop it. Be secure in your degree and speciality, add to the body of knowledge, be a pioneer, be a competent practitioner and scholar.
Dr. Jill Biden, I hope that you do not mind the fact that your honorific title was used as an example to spread proper knowledge and to shed ignorance of whom can be called a doctor and whom cannot.
The push for "comprehensive sex education" has always made me tilt my head to the side in interest and concern. As a product of parochial schools from K-12, the concern to learn how to put a condom on properly or to know the "options" of how to delay pregnancy when a female is in her early teenage years has truck as immensely odd and disturbing. People will say it's a health concern. I say it's a campaign disguised as concern to infiltrate the homes of parents without being the student's parents. It's an insidious plan. It's the invisible social worker influencing the very intimate actions of a child. It's government saying they're just merely concerned.
One reason I think sex education, at least how public schools handle it in general, is one big joke is that the act of sex isn't rocket science. Boys are naturally curious. Girls are naturally curious. Growing up, for whatever reason, no one that I knew of in either my grade, the grade below me or the grade above me, got pregnant before the age of 20. I suppose we either had decent parenting or just had good self-control. I think both. I don't think we were anymore mature than our public school counterparts, just that we had been taught that sex is intimidate and "special." I mean, I'd bet that we instinctually knew this and we respected more so than others, especially in comparison to any teenage John Hughes characters.
The approach to public school sex education is also warped. It's mostly done out of a public health concern. It indirectly says that sex outside marriage is okay and that to avoid pregnancy and STDs you can use many options of artificial birth control (ABC). Physicians in the forms of OB-GYNS support this push for ABCs on young teenage girls. Why? Simply put: it reduces STDs and pregnancies. Fair enough. But they are oddly not concerned about the effects of ABCs on what is biologically natural in the form of ovulation and eggs and so forth. Public studies triumph over the decline of teenage pregnancies due to the advent and use of ABCs. No concern is followed up by how ABCs effect the view of sex, children and marriage. No OB-GYN that I know of has raised an eyebrow. It's an odd mix. an OB-GYN deals with something that is natural yet they don't care much about the effects of what they push onto their patients.
Another reason I think public sex education is a crock is that it's rather immature. Sex is seen as something you sorta snicker at and if you've listened to the OB-GYN, Masters in Public Health expert, and you're "taking control of your sexuality" you might get an IUD implanted in your uterus. You want to the O but not the child. People mock abstinence in that it doesn't work, citing the failure rate. Stupidly enough they don't cite the failure of alcoholics getting a sip of wine instead of abstaining from it. Proof that abstinence is 100% effective are those who dedicate themselves to religious life or those who choose not have sex in general, either out of religious or health concerns. No sex. No kids. No STDs. If people are going to tout the brilliance of ABCs in its effectiveness while laughing at abstinence then they should also laugh at the failure rate of not using ABCs and having sex. Hello pregnancy.
Self-education, in this case, is better than having some government program waltz into your classroom or gymnasium or library extolling the wonders of ABCs. Heck, anecdotally, most of my friends who never had a "comprehensive sex education" never had any real issues regarding sex. They dated, got married and had kids. Unless you're some weird pasty loser, religious or otherwise, with underdeveloped social skills a Chesil Beach isn't likely gonna happen.
Better yet, I think my own sex education which was regulated to an annual visit to an outside secular agency dedicated to relatively neutral sex education starting in six grade (though I'm not sure how much the agency has changed since then), was more dignified and respectful to sex in general. Aided with my school's religious themes, we walked away with a somewhat balanced view of sex minus the touting of ABCs. At the end of the day we realized that if you don't want to get pregnant the best way is to not have sex. We were reminded of common sense that isn't all too common today.
Public "comprehensive sex education" is an exercise pushed by your agenda driven Masters in Public Health Overlord of Wokedom. This Overlord doesn't trust that kids can indeed figure it out without the government's help.
"The Strategic theme enables you to sort through the clutter and find the best route. It is not a skill that can be taught. It is a distinct way of thinking, a special perspective on the world at large. This perspective allows you to see patterns where others simply see complexity. Mindful of these patterns, you play out alternative scenarios, always asking, “What if this happened? Okay, well what if this happened?” This recurring question helps you see around the next corner. There you can evaluate accurately the potential obstacles. Guided by where you see each path leading, you start to make selections. You discard the paths that lead nowhere. You discard the paths that lead straight into resistance. You discard the paths that lead into a fog of confusion. You cull and make selections until you arrive at the chosen path—your strategy. Armed with your strategy, you strike forward. This is your Strategic theme at work: “What if?” Select. Strike."Context
"You look back. You look back because that is where the answers lie. You look back to understand the present. From your vantage point the present is unstable, a confusing clamor of competing voices. It is only by casting your mind back to an earlier time, a time when the plans were being drawn up, that the present regains its stability. The earlier time was a simpler time. It was a time of blueprints. As you look back, you begin to see these blueprints emerge. You realize what the initial intentions were. These blueprints or intentions have since become so embellished that they are almost unrecognizable, but now this Context theme reveals them again. This understanding brings you confidence.
No longer disoriented, you make better decisions because you sense the underlying structure. You become a better partner because you understand how your colleagues came to be who they are. And counterintuitively you become wiser about the future because you saw its seeds being sown in the past.
Faced with new people and new situations, it will take you a little time to orient yourself, but you must give yourself this time. You must discipline yourself to ask the questions and allow the blueprints to emerge because no matter what the situation, if you haven’t seen the blueprints, you will have less confidence in your decisions."Learner
"You love to learn. The subject matter that interests you most will be determined by your other themes and experiences, but whatever the subject, you will always be drawn to the process of learning. The process, more than the content or the result, is especially exciting for you.
You are energized by the steady and deliberate journey from ignorance to competence. The thrill of the first few facts, the early efforts to recite or practice what you have learned, the growing confidence of a skill mastered—this is the process that entices you.
Your excitement leads you to engage in adult learning experiences—yoga or piano lessons or graduate classes. It enables you to thrive in dynamic work environments where you are asked to take on short project assignments and are expected to learn a lot about the new subject matter in a short period of time and then move on to the next one.
This Learner theme does not necessarily mean that you seek to become the subject matter expert, or that you are striving for the respect that accompanies a professional or academic credential. The outcome of the learning is less significant than the “getting there.”'Responsibility
"Your Responsibility theme forces you to take psychological ownership for anything you commit to, and whether large or small, you feel emotionally bound to follow it through to completion. Your good name depends on it. If for some reason you cannot deliver, you automatically start to look for ways to make it up to the other person. Apologies are not enough. Excuses and rationalizations are totally unacceptable. You will not quite be able to live with yourself until you have made restitution.
This conscientiousness, this near obsession for doing things right, and your impeccable ethics, combine to create your reputation: utterly dependable. When assigning new responsibilities, people will look to you first because they know it will get done. When people come to you for help—and they soon will—you must be selective. Your willingness to volunteer may sometimes lead you to take on more than you should."I mostly accept the description but I don't obsess over restitution - genuine apologies, if the matter is grave then confession, tend to work for me.
"If you possess a strong Belief theme, you have certain core values that are enduring. These values vary from one person to another, but ordinarily your Belief theme causes you to be family-oriented, altruistic, even spiritual, and to value responsibility and high ethics—both in yourself and others. These core values affect your behavior in many ways. They give your life meaning and satisfaction; in your view, success is more than money and prestige. They provide you with direction, guiding you through the temptations and distractions of life toward a consistent set of priorities. This consistency is the foundation for all your relationships. Your friends call you dependable. “I know where you stand,” they say. Your Belief makes you easy to trust. It also demands that you find work that meshes with your values. Your work must be meaningful; it must matter to you. And guided by your Belief theme it will matter only if it gives you a chance to live out your values."I'm no relativist.
Throughout the course of the 2012 Election Cycle, the pundits continued to predict that student turnout would be lower than the 2008 election. They claimed that students were less involved, less excited, running on empty.There's so much wrong in this that it's laughable. Yes, the writer is from Yale, one of the world's elite institutions for higher education, and this is what it produces.
But on November 6th we proved them wrong. More than 1,500 Yale students turned out to the polls to vote, almost double the number of Yale students that voted in the 2010 midterm elections and even higher than the number of Yale students that voted in 2008.
While the pundits may not have been expecting those numbers, what they failed to realize was that students had a lot at stake in this election. In the wake of the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, students had a choice between a candidate who recognized the devastation as a real effect of climate change and a candidate who turned climate change into a punch line at the Republican National Convention. Students had a choice between a candidate who affirmed the right of every citizen in this country to love whomever they choose and a candidate who would deny that right to millions of Americans. Students had a choice between a candidate who would work to protect student loans and a candidate who would tell the 55% of Yale students on financial aid to just borrow college money from their parents.
With choices like these, it’s not surprising that students made their voices heard at the polls. But more than just showing up to vote, students had also worked tirelessly to get out the vote. From the beginning of this semester, the Yale College Democrats, the Democratic Town Committees, and Students Unite Now worked together to register more than 500 voters. We canvassed in New Haven together, and the Dems canvassed around the state and out of the state in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The Dems even traveled to Pennsylvania over Fall Break.
To those who said that we couldn’t or that we wouldn’t: we said “yes we can” and “yes we will.” To those who said we were less involved or less excited: the thousands of people who we talked to on the phone or at their doors would beg to differ. And to those who said we were running on empty: I can tell you that we are fired up and ready to go for four more years.
Whether there is a God or not is one of the fundamental questions in life that everyone should examine. The agnostics I can "get," but the apathetic people are the ones left to be slaughtered by modernism. It's fine to be agnostic after serious reflection; it's not fine to be apathetic. It's fine to not care about learning how fishes breath under water. It's fine to not care why leaves change colors when a new season enters. It's fine to not care about learning the stock market. But like any reasonable adult, curiosity and the hunger for knowledge - the hunger "to know" and "to learn" - should be present in a certain amount.
So when it comes to God, pick a side. Read. Research. Vet your sources. Write. Debate. But don't be apathetic.