American Elephants


Morning Cute III by The Elephant's Child

A Bison calf was born in Chicago at the Brookfield Zoo on May 16. the first birth of this species since the early 1970s. Feisty little girl. Zoo Borns is a great website for moments when you are tense, or down. Who can look at baby animals and not relax.

And there are so many species that I’ve never heard of. Great website to share with the kids. Zoos all over the world are cooperating in an effort to save endangered species.



The Majority of Babies Under 1 Year Old Are “Minority Race” by The Elephant's Child

The Census Bureau released a set of estimates on Thursday May 17 showing that 50.4 percent of our nation’s population younger than age 1 were minorities as of July 1, 2011. This is up from 49.5 percent from the 2010 Census taken in April 1, 2020.  What? The White Race is no longer in the majority, now the Minority Race is in the majority.  Wait — “the Minority Race?”

Well, yes. That’s how silly this whole race thing is. Last time I went in for a routine mammogram, the forms insisted that I fill out a lengthy form listing my race — to see if I had cancer? I went for the “refuses to answer” designation. Damn government is just too intrusive.

Race doesn’t mean anything anyway.  There is no such thing as a “minority race.” Barack Obama is half-white and half-black, but he has settled for black. People from South of the border are “Hispanic”, even if they are Indian. People from Spain, even with names like Garcia or Fernandez, are not Hispanic, but white — because Spain is in Europe.

The “Minority Race” is composed of everyone who is not of European heritage: folks from south of the border, from Asia, the Pacific Islands (but not Australia, unless Aborigine), Africa (unless Moslem) from North Africa, or white from South Africa, and so on. Members of the minority race may have nothing in common, and certainly cannot be classified together.  And what do you do when people start intermarrying — which they do.

There was a time when Scots and English loathed each other and fought constant wars. So some Scots went to live in Ireland where they became Scots-Irish, from whence they emigrated to America where they were roundly despised until it was discovered that they were good with guns and crack shots, and useful in war.  In turn, the Irish were despised and called shanty Iris, or lace-curtain Irish. The Italians, Greeks, Albanians and Turks were despised for being darker skinned with funny accents.The Poles— are you old enough to remember Polish jokes?

And then we have Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law professor, running for Congress as a minority because she has high cheekbones which she inherited from her great, great grandmother who was possibly or definitely not (depending on who you listen to) Cherokee and thus native American.

People have all sorts of different shades of skin. Those who are pasty-white like me spend scads of money to darken it in tanning booths, with tan in a bottle stuff, or preferably at expensive sunny resorts. Being white, we are assumed to be deeply prejudiced against those who have the darker skin that we are trying so hard to acquire.

People of mixed racial heritage, and intermarriage is so common these days that there are many, are still asked to declare their race. ‘Many’ is not acceptable, you have to pick.  George Zimmerman was accused of a racially based hate crime until the media finally discovered that he was part Hispanic and part black as well as the white part.

The Democrat party has long found it profitable to divide their potential voters up into victim groups. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Women are assumed to be incompetent without massive federal help with housing, food, transportation, health care and preferential laws to make their lives worth living. Campaigns are organized to pander to those areas where the group may feel most vulnerable. See the fabled “War on Women.” Republicans talk some about the Hispanic vote or the Black vote, but they’re not any good at it because they don’t really believe in it.

America has had a difficult history with slavery, but far more slaves were transported to the sugar islands and to South America than to this country. It is deemed a far greater evil for America because we talk about it. We fought a horrendous war over it, and we have fought to get rid of its vestiges, step by step, very publicly. With a history of a free press, we have washed our dirty linen in public, and the world knows every step we have taken. But who knows the history of slavery in the Caribbean and South America — hardly anyone, though it lasted much longer and was in many cases more difficult.

Americans come in all shades and sizes, and we are coming much closer to simply recognizing all of us as “Americans”— an eventuality much to be desired. But the government schools keep teaching our children that their race is the most important thing about them, and that some races are victims. And the government insists on counting how proportions of races within a school, a business, a class compare to the proportion in society, as if that is important.   And the Census Bureau keeps dividing us up by categories that just don’t matter at all.  Resist.



Pity the Poor Professors: They’re on Food Stamps Too. by The Elephant's Child

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, between 2007 and 2010, the percentage of people with a graduate degree who were on food stamps or were receiving another kind of federal aid more than doubled, reaching 360,000.

In 2007, 9776 people with PhDs were receiving some kind of aid.  In 2010 that number had more than tripled to 33,655. For people with Master’s degrees, the number spiked from 101,683 to 293,029.  Austin Nichols of the Urban Institute crunched those numbers for The Chronicle using census data.

Walter Russell Mead surveys the situation:

And we have nothing but admiration for the love of knowledge that leads young people to want to study these fields in greater depth.

But that respect and affection shouldn’t blind us to the sad reality that much of the American academy today works as a Ponzi scheme. PhD programs in many fields are churning out grads for whom no jobs will ever be found. They have to produce excess grads because if they cut back enrollment, the programs would be too small to justify the continued employment of their current staff. …

Worse, if we decided to cut the number of programs so that the number of job openings matched the number of PhD graduates each year, the number of job openings would crash. Currently, suppose that 200 professors of medieval history retire or otherwise leave the field each year; that would mean we need 200 new PhDs each year to replace them.

The jobs of the current practitioners depend on recruiting a steady stream of new hopefuls into the profession, even though many of those new hopefuls won’t get jobs themselves. This is pretty much how Ponzi schemes work, and besides being unfair to the young, it undercuts the integrity of the teacher-student relationship and it puts the whole scholarly enterprise under a dark ethical cloud.

The Baby Boom started all this. Colleges and Universities expanded like crazy to cope with the army of new students.  The first 18 year-olds started college in 1963, and the numbers increased exponentially until the peak year of 1977, and dropped off precipitously in the baby bust. These same years saw students avoiding the Vietnam War by staying in school for advanced degrees. We have had a temporary boom in the need for PhDs as anyone who could think up a grant proposal linking their specialty to global warming  became deeply involved in some kind of (profitable) climate research. There is a higher education bubble, and it is collapsing. Mead adds:

This is beginning to break down. Governments — federal, state and local — have less money for higher ed, and the student loan burden is becoming insupportable.

The current system will change. It imposes unsustainable costs of society at large even as it leads tens of thousands of aspiring professors down the primrose path to the food stamp line.

 



House Democrats Get Trained to Make Race the Issue by The Elephant's Child

House Democrats received formal training this last week in how to address the issue of race to defend government programs. Race has long been the number one issue for Democrats. Way back in 1998, the left-leaning New World Foundation commissioned a survey by Zogby International that asked 1,800 rank-and-file members of nine progressive groups what it was that could galvanize them, what a progressive agenda should look like. They wanted to unite progressive groups in a coherent base and win elections. The results of the poll were reported in The Nation magazine.

Respondents ranked Racism as the country’s single most important social problem, followed by poverty, corporate power, jobs/economy, environment, moral decline and education.

The prominence of racism as an issue for Democrats is understandable. They have a long and abysmal record on race to overcome, and they count on government programs for the poor to bind the black and minority vote to the Democrat party. House Democrats fear that the minority vote is slipping away.

Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion told the House Democratic Caucus and staff that “conservative messages are racially ‘coded’ and had images of people of color that we commonly see used” and proposed tactics for countering the Republicans (presumably) racially-coded rhetoric.  “Right-wing rhetoric.” according to Wiley’s group website.”has dominated debates of racial justice —undermining efforts to create a more equal society, and tearing apart the social safety net in the process” for over 25 years.

As examples of race-coded rhetoric, Wiley reminded the Democrats of Newt Gingrich’s famous comment about President Obama. “Calling a black man ‘the food stamp president” is not a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism.”

The website of the Center for Social Inclusion includes the following statement:

The right has a strategy to turn us away from racial justice. They claim that racial justice means blinding ourselves to race. They attack programs that right the wrongs of racism or help people of color by calling those very programs racist. Sometimes they pretend that they are not talking about race when they are. Sometimes they use stereotypical images of people of color to suggest that we shouldn’t support policies, implying that “these” people would benefit, without coming out and saying that. The right has been effective in keeping those who want reforms on the defensive, constantly in the position of justifying existing policies rather than advancing new ones that would further our goals. The conservative movement has delayed and rolled back our progress toward a fair and just society under the mantle of a “colorblind” American ideal.

Ms. Wiley and the Center she founded depend on racial justice issues for their livelihood. Preferring government handouts to good jobs, seems an odd  definition of “social justice,” but the center’s website also declares their opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming that those jobs are only temporary, (some are, but many are permanent) and we don’t need the oil because solar energy and wind energy provide a cleaner future.

The Democrat Party depends on notions of “racial justice” — and accusations of racism will not go away. They make a lot of money on racism, and they will keep it alive. They have a long history to overcome.



An Embarrassed Massachusetts Legislature Backs Down. by The Elephant's Child

Common sense triumphs. Massachusetts state lawmakers overturned the ban on school bake sales. The controversial ban’s guidelines also prohibited pizza, white bread and 2 percent milk. Legislators heard plenty from outraged parents.

The theory is an “epidemic” of childhood obesity is threatening the lives of the country’s youngest generation —and that government bureaucrats must decide what foods children should eat and when. Hardly a day goes by without a new article about some bureaucrats somewhere telling people how to live their lives, or parents how to raise their children.



The Life of Julia’s Son Zachary. by The Elephant's Child

The Obama campaign came up with “The Life of Julia” to extoll all the wonderful things that Obama was doing for an ordinary woman throughout her life, by making her completely dependent on the government.

Republicans had a wonderful time mocking this scenario that was so ripe for  parody and ridicule. Google has 2,700.000 entries just for the last 4 days.

One of the best was The Life of Zachary, her son, compiled by Nicole Gelinas of City Journalimagining how the next generation will fare in the Obama administration’s scenario. Enjoy.



Successful Reform in Wisconsin: Sullen, Angry Unions! by The Elephant's Child

EAGnews.org has produced an exclusive video report titled “Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left Embraces Chaos” disclosing who and what were behind the massive demonstrations, the occupation of the Capitol in Madison, and extreme tactics employed to stop Walker’s reforms from being enacted.

Remember the riots and the drums, the signs and the screaming mobs in the Capitol building? Lawmakers  fled to Illinois to avoid voting on Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining law last year. The unions were enraged that government workers and union members were to pay 5.8% of their paychecks toward pensions and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums— a pittance compared to the average in private business.

Since Governor Walker’s reforms went into effect, the doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Property taxes in the state were down 0.4% in 2011, the first decline since 1998. Wisconsin moved up four more places in an annual CEO survey of the best states to do business, after jumping 17 spots last year. The Governor’s office estimated that altogether the reforms have saved state taxpayers more than $1 billion, including $65 million in changes in health-care plans, and some $543 million in local savings documented by the media.

The school board president says the district saved $4 million as a result of last year’s reforms, including $2 million from pension reforms. Schools across the state saved an average of $220 per student because of the ability to introduce competitive building for health insurance. Unexpectedly, only 12% of Wisconsin voters say “restoring collective bargaining rights” is their priority.

The May 8 Democratic recall primary will determine who will run against Mr. Walker in the recall election on June 5. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the front runner, is focusing his campaign on jobs, education, the environment and safer communities. No mention of collective bargaining.  Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk is heavily supported by unions, but her she has made only passing reference to collective bargaining.

The union reaction was so ferocious because the reforms reduced the clout of Big Labor over state and local taxpayers and the lost ability to milk taxpayers year after year, unchallenged.

Democrats and unions liked to claim that Gov. Walker’s recall campaign was funded by a few wealthy donors.  The head of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that Mr. Walker’s “shady, under-handed and even downright criminal dirty tricks to deny democracy” are funded by “extremist groups.” The language doesn’t vary much across the country, does it?

“Unexpectedly” according to receipts filed by the campaign, the governor received contributions from more than 89,000 donors, and 87% of those individuals gave $100 or less.  22.000 of the donations were from Wisconsinites., but people all over the country sent in contributions. You can join them at ScottWalker.org  Political courage is all too rare, and should be honored.  Governor Scott Walker is a courageous man.



Free Enterprise Does Not Fit Into Obama’s Vision for America by The Elephant's Child

Once upon a time, in the first days of November of 2010, all that was right about the world was shattered by one of the biggest electoral swings in congressional history. Democrats are still trying to grasp what has happened.

Conservatives don’t particularly dislike Liberals, but they detest their ideas. Liberals detest Conservatives and don’t understand their ideas at all.

Conservatives believe that reality suggests we are all flawed human beings, who must be set free to learn from our mistakes and grasp for opportunity. We make a lot of mistakes, but we turn around and correct them, muddle through and do amazing things in the process. The great innovations usually originate in a single mind, not in a committee.

A transaction in the free market does not happen unless both parties find it to their advantage. Competition keeps prices low and fosters innovation. Competition increases the quality and choices of products and services. Competition is hard work for businesses, and they have to fight for customers. They  have to keep track of what their competitors are doing, and find ways to innovate. Because it is hard, they lobby lawmakers to constrain the free markets in which they originally achieved success.

The most effective way to control capitalists is through competition, not regulation. Liberals are sure that rapacious big business will cheat customers, abuse workers and charge too much if  uncontrolled. In the free market, who wants to be a customer of such a business? They’ll go where they’re treated well.

Liberals offer to control the forces let loose in the free market. But control is seldom evenly applied. Those in control will, because they are human, favor one business over another. Or they will favor the unions, or  pick winners and losers, and subsidize a favored business while ignoring the competition.

Liberals are suspicious of competition. They have tried hard to stamp it out in the schools, eliminating winners and losers. Everybody gets a medal and nobody is a winner— lording it over the others.  But if there are no winners, there is no point in trying to be best. It is failures that make us work harder to succeed.

President Obama said that “the free market is the greatest force of economic progress in human history,” but he didn’t mean it. No president in history has worked so hard to expand state control over health care, energy, the environment, the financial sector, education, and American business. If the free market fits into Obama’s vision of America, he hasn’t explained how.

Obama assumes that progress begins with the administration of government money to jump-start a business. Government investment will somehow foster innovation and create jobs and prosperity. “Government money” is not taken as seriously as is the money from the pockets of individual investors. If you run short, there is usually more government money to be had, because failure would make the giver of government money look bad. Individual investors do more due diligence in the first place, and monitor operations more carefully— it’s their money at stake.

Nobody ever said that the free market is easy. It’s hard, but it works. We have evidence over and over— from history, from developing countries, from our own successes and failures.

We are fallible human beings, yet we rise to opportunity. One fallible human being’s success opens doorways for many more. The United States of America has been a beacon to the world in demonstrating the freedom and possibilities of the free market, and more and more nations are growing and prospering because of it.

How very odd that in” the worst recession since the Great Depression,” we should forget the simple rules that made us Americans.



THIS is what a bully looks like! by American Elephant
April 29, 2012, 6:56 pm
Filed under: Education, Media Bias, News, Politics, Progressivism, Religion | Tags: , , , , ,

This is Dan Savage. Dan Savage makes me ashamed to be gay. Dan Savage is a vile [warning: when I say vile, I mean it], loathsome human being, far more hateful than any Christian I’ve ever known, and I know many.

Here, he proves that he does not seek to END bullying, but seeks TO bully. He also proves that he has no clue what the meaning of the word tolerance is, not to mention the words irony and hypocrisy.

He uses his position of power and authority over these high school kids, as an invited speaker with a stage, a microphone, and a very real “bully pulpit,” to bully those in the audience who dare to be Christian. He willfully misrepresents what the Bible says, knowingly lies about what Christians believe, dishonestly berates their religion (I know he knows better because I’ve seen and heard Christians explain to him exactly how he misrepresents their religion and beliefs, but instead of correcting his arguments, he keeps right on repeating what he knows to be lies.)

I am SO PROUD of all the kids, of every race & creed who got up and walked out on his bigoted, hateful tirade. I’m only sorry that the camera was zoomed in on Savage so that only one aisle could be seen. There were at least three aisles — probably 5 if you count the outsides, and I’m sure just as many kids were leaving via those aisles as well.

Tolerance does not mean that you must agree with people, or approve of what they do — that is the totalitarian leftist definition: “give us more money & control or you are a ‘H8er’.” If everyone agreed with one another, there’d be no need for tolerance. Tolerance means living in peace with people with whom you disagree — even strongly. Something Savage has never shown any evidence of doing. Something Christians do every day.

Tolerance is what these Christian kids did! (assuming they were all Christian, which may not be the case) –  coming to see him speak knowing who he was, knowing he was gay, knowing that he was a hateful, anti-Christian, anti-religious bigot.

And when he started berating them from his bully pulpit, they didn’t protest, they didn’t throw things at him and try to shout him down — as so-called “progressives” regularly do to conservative speakers. Quite the contrary, they let him speak, and quietly left, refusing to sit there and be bullied.

And when these throngs of kids left, what did this “progressive, enlightened, tolerant” man do? He pretended HE is the victim and called these high school kids (guilty of nothing) “pansy ass” (a little self-loathing, internal homophobia there Dan?) for leaving.

The most courageous people in that auditorium were those who stood up and left, in front of an auditorium full of their peers.

Dan was the least courageous. Dan was and is a coward. Bullying Christian kids, knowing full well that the very ‘worst’ thing they would do is possibly pray for him.

He has the GALL to accuse Christianity of teaching that women should be stoned (which shows he doesn’t understand a thing about Christianity Hey Dan! New Testament, Google it!) and to intimate that Republicans might want to do that much or more, cus ‘who knows where they’re going” as he put it — at the very same time his “progressive” president is sending millions to Palestinians who actually DO kill people for being gay.

He picks on high school kids whom he knows will do nothing,  but doesn’t have the balls to criticize the only religion on Earth that actually DOES stone, hang and burn gays to death in the name of their religion. You, Dan, are the “pansy ass”. The kids who laughed & applauded you at least have the excuse of being young and ignorant.

And lastly, I fervently hope it was more than just Christians who left!

I hope students of other faiths, and no faith at all, got up and left too. Most of all, I hope at least a few of those who left were gay kids who recognized the glaring hypocrisy of this “man” spewing hate and lies in the name of tolerance.

They were RIGHT to leave. Dan Savage is the bully. Dan Savage is the bigot.

[PS: He is supported & endorsed by Barack Obama & Democrats.]



Can We Stop the Spending, Or Is It Too Late? by The Elephant's Child
April 20, 2012, 11:38 am
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Education, Politics | Tags:

There is a magical process whereby a goodly percentage of the money earned by a citizen with his labor is confiscated by the federal government, and when it arrives at the IRS, it ceases to be taxpayer money and becomes — revenue. Of which, there is never enough. And when the legislators that we elect to Congress begin to deal with it, it has become, again by some magical process — government money.

The significance of this is that those who work for the government, in considering it as government money, feel free to spread it around. Government money is no longer made up of hundreds and thousands, as it was as part of your income, now it is consists of millions, billions and trillions.

For those of us who believe that the best government is that which is closest to the people it serves; the government in Washington DC has grown far too big and bloated. Yet in spite of the objections of the public, government has continued to expand. Obama is a determined expander of government because he believes that government does things better. He just remarked that he Apple and Google exist because of the government.

He believes now that he is, through his efforts to promote clean energy, saving the planet; and it is through the government’s new investments in old-fashioned technologies that the 21st Century clean economy will come about. It doesn’t matter if some ventures do not succeed, that’s the cost of reaching  for a better future.

Obama clearly has nothing but contempt for Republicans and Republican ideas. I suspect that he has never been exposed to Conservative thought before. In spite of all claims for his superior intellect and vast intellectual accomplishment, he seems remarkably lacking in information. He doesn’t know much about either history or economics.

But he has that in common with many of the Democrats in Congress. They pass laws with little understanding of the consequences that are the inevitable result. They have never understood that if you take a patient, an insurance company, and a medical establishment, add several thousand pages of complicated rules and over 100 different new agencies to manage it all — the brilliance of their rules is not going to make it cost less. The cost will be astronomically higher, and the medical establishment will necessarily be focused on recompense for their work rather than patient care.

The government frequently passes a law to correct a specific problem in a specific place that, applied nationwide, causes enormous problems. A few years back, Congress became concerned about arsenic in the water. Regulations required costly water purification plants to be built everywhere. Most communities had no arsenic.  I don’t know how that one turned out. The recent regulation requiring all swimming pools to become accessible to the disabled at enormous cost, will accomplish nothing except to put many out of business.

The National Automobile Dealers Association says that the NTSA’s proposed 2025 fuel economy standards will cause 7 million car buyers to be pushed out of the market by fuel economy rules. If the cost of a vehicle goes up by government estimates of about $3,000, millions of people will no longer be able to finance a new car. The government’s Cash for Clunkers debacle helped a lot of people already in the market for a new vehicle to get a handout, and stripped the marketplace of both used cars and used auto parts.

Because what is involved is only government money, these huge failures are of no moment. Lives may be ruined as people are put out of business, but it doesn’t change government behavior. The EPA has lost a whole raft of lawsuits this spring because of overreaching regulation, yet it doesn’t even slow them down. Obama has spent $5 trillion in Government money in just three years, and shows no restraint whatsoever.

Can we actually reduce the size and cost of government? Or are we doomed to allowing it to grow and expand like some great noxious bubble of swamp gas until it collapses? We’ve been complaining about the growth of government for so many years that there is a danger that no one will take the problem seriously and assume that once again we can just muddle through.



Wow! I Didn’t Know Africa Was So Big! by The Elephant's Child

(Click to enlarge, you have to see this big)

This handsome graphic representation of the continent of Africa gives us a whole new understanding of the size and potential of the continent in a way that verbal descriptions cannot. Many kinds of graphic representations become easier on the computer and more shareable. The right combinations of visual and text can add to learning in new ways that we don’t understand well yet.

For example, there is a YouTube video that is a representation of wars throughout history and the change that the wars bring about, that really impressed me. It is much too brief, and too fast in the speed-up of centuries, to be very useful; but there is a tantalizing glimpse of the potential for a new and better understanding of history in seeing visually the sweep of armies and population shifts. Bill Gates is involved with something like this, but the little I have seen is different but interesting.

When my youngest was in high school world history, the teacher called everything to a halt and inserted a class in geography. He found his class was clueless about basic geography which made any attempt to explain history meaningless.

We were being transferred frequently, and my oldest missed telling time completely.  He left his old school just before they reached that section, and the new school had already completed it. Took ages for us to discover that he had no idea how to tell time.

In any given group, we do not know what knowledge is missing unless some accident exposes the missing information. If we know a thing, we assume that those around us do as well, and it is not always apparent that they do not. Kids especially have lots of missing knowledge, but as they are unaware of it, cannot tell anyone that they don’t know.  And we don’t think to ask.

If you have school age kids, have you read their books to see what they are learning and what is missing?



Obama’s House Of Czars by The Elephant's Child

Law Professor Glen Reynolds tackles the mystery of all those Czars in the White House. There are a lot of them, and they manage mysterious aspects of the American economy without the usually required confirmation by Congress. Why are they there and what do they do? At least two — Carol Browner and Van Jones— self-identified as a socialist and a communist respectively, have departed. Are the Czars just advisers or do they make policy? Very curious.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,787 other followers