House of Eratosthenes

Hat tip to Facebook friend Kayla Anderson. If you have an account there, you can see I was so tickled pink with this nonsense about “party of civil rights” that I put up a link to blogger friend Phil’s history lesson. But, of course, those other college kids…Kayla’s pals, who are busting a gut over this bit of unintentional hilarity…probably don’t need to see that.

Many’s the time I’ve made a comment about what I’d teach in sixth grade, fourth grade, kindergarten, etc. Most of those comments reveal that the teaching career of Teacher Freeberg would fizzle in a day or two. In college, I think, Professor Freeberg would be more inclined to go with the flow. The damage has already been done, by then. For a time.

Probably, what I’d do, is lead an interactive class discussion titled “Now that we’ve all decided the more lefty ya are, the better, what are we gonna do to fix everything?” Because with some of the ideas today’s college-grad libs are coming up with, I think even that translucent experience would be an improvement.

I mean, imagine it: A reasoned, properly skeptical, intellectually vigorous discussion supervised by your Prof…what do we do to fix the world. Not gonna teach ya what to think, gonna teach ya how to think. We — legalize gay marriage? Elect a black President? Don’t cut any social programs, raise taxes on the wealthy? Any other ideas?

Can you imagine a college professor, of the non-communist kind, asking at the end of every single bright idea “Okay, then what happens? How does your idea change the outcome of something? What could go wrong?”

It might not change any minds, and it might not thwart the path of these Leaders Of Tomorrow toward ideological disaster and silliness. But I gotta believe it would interrupt the momentum. And that looks to me, from watching the video, like what’s needed here. These vapid young tykes are short on steerage and long on momentum. And they probably think they’re “independent” thinkers, too. It’s a national tragedy.

My favorite is the kid who’s a Democrat because he wants to prevent new job-killers like NAFTA, a prominent accomplishment of Bill Clinton.
- rob | 06/28/2011 @ 11:33
“because I believe hope is the stuff of dreams, and I believe in keeping that hope alive.”

Yeah, well I because I believe that water is the stuff of oceans, and I believe in keeping water liquid. And that makes me a … whatthef*ckareyoutalkingabout???

because I believe that anyone can make it in America.

Um … I thought that Democrats believed that nobody but white males could make it in America and that Democrats are needed to “level the playing field” to “fix” that.

because I believe more women should be involved in politics and I believe our party is the tool to do so.”

The first five, and eight of the first ten women in the House of Representatives were Republicans. Half of the first 10 female Senators were Republicans. The first one, Jeannette Rankin, was the first woman ever elected to a national office.

Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann. Kristi Noem. Vicki Hartzler. Lots of others. Anyone? Bueller? See, Democrats get around this by deciding that anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say the Women’s agenda is doesn’t count. Much like polls that show Fox News viewers are the most uninformed rely on questions to which the answers amount to opinions, and if you don’t have the “right” opinion you are officially “misinformed”.

Morgan already pointed out Civil Rights via my post (in turn via Bob Parks … a black Republican) but I will highlight this point:

After the Civil War, 23 blacks (13 ex-slaves) were elected to Congress. All as Republicans. (The first black Democrat wasn’t elected to Congress until 1935.)

Similarly, if a person of color doesn’t hold the “correct” opinion, that person can be thrown from consideration — much like an Ed Darrell argument, as Morgan pointed out, which follows this kind of logic:

he goes after the definitions first, followed by inclusions and exclusions. He’s got some argument to present about why A should be thought-of as B…and C is to be excluded…and everyone should be fixated on D.
- philmon | 06/28/2011 @ 14:45
I should clarify — Jeannette Rankin was in the House, not the Senate … that was an “edit-o” that left that statement disconnected from the first by the insertion of the Senate statement.
- philmon | 06/28/2011 @ 14:47
I’m not even going to watch that. If I want to hear a bunch of sniveling left-wing tripe, I’ll just watch the evening news or something. No reason to subject myself to it here.
- cylarz | 06/29/2011 @ 00:49

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Why I’m A democrat”Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

“Why I’m A democrat”
Tuesday, June 28th, 2011