Higher Education Indoctrination

In recent years, we have been bombarded with admonitions that success in America is nearly impossible without a college education. The Federal Government has taken many steps to facilitate that education with student loan programs, tuition grants, monetary support of institutions, etc.

Now, however, we are learning that graduates from a four-year college are without jobs, (or working at multiple menial jobs which do not require a degree) while saddled, on the average, with a $20,000 student loan debt. All the while, North Dakota reports that scores of high-paying jobs, requiring training in mechanical skills - not a college degree - are going begging.

Some now say a college education, excluding a post graduate degree in the sciences, is a waste of time and money. I wish that were the end of the story.

The truth is, many graduates from a four year liberal arts college not only have no skills, they have acquired a mindset destructive to the American way of life.

In my local newspaper (the Las Cruces, New Mexico Sun-News, March 11, 2012), there appeared the following Letter To the Editor:

  "New Mexico State University's College of Education is aggressively teaching future secondary teachers a liberal agenda. I am a graduate student working toward a secondary teaching license through the Department of Curriculum and Education at NMSU, where it is mandatory to take a course called Exploration of Education. The course description states this class is an overview of secondary schooling, but instead, it is a platform to promote the Democratic Party and to nullify the white American male, American culture and Christianity.
  "The front cover of one of the required textbooks depicts President George W. Bush next to a picture of a monkey with a similar facial expression while President Barack Obama is pictured giving a speech in front of the American flag.
  "Through the class, I have been taught the white male is the opposition, and everyone who is not a white male needs to band together in order to succeed against them. One textbook further defines the opposition as white, male, Christian, heterosexuals. In some of the readings, the American citizenship of white American males is negated by calling them White Europeans rather than European Americans. All other male groups are called Americans, such as African Americans rather than Black Africans.
  The United states of America is never exalted; rather, I have been taught our American culture is deplorable because we are a capitalistic nation who loves football and owns guns.
  It was conveyed that in order to embrace freedom of religion, I must first put down Christianity. This is what future secondary teachers are being taught at NMSU, under the guise of critical pedagogy, and all secondary education teachers must pass this class in order to be eligible to be a secondary teacher. I contend that if these ideologies are not adopted, then failure is imminent.  -Brenda Bullard, Las Cruces

As a one-time news reporter, I understand this is thus far unverified. But surely Miss Bullard would not lie, since her assertions are easily proved or disproved with a trip to the NMSU bookstore to peruse the referenced textbooks.

Bear in mind, meanwhile, that this instruction is being offered at a high cost to each student, made higher by the interest they will surely pay on a student loan, and a high cost to taxpayers. Collectively, we are financing the destruction of our America by creating a generation of anti-American thinkers.

Defining bigotry
Many Americans, myself included, have decried the opposition to Mitt Romney based on his religion. We thought that position was forever laid to rest with the election of John F. Kennedy. Some had opposed JFK's election because he was a Catholic. Whatever you thought of Kennedy's presidency, his religion had no bearing on his performance.

So, we were appalled when people rose objections to Romney's Mormon faith.

We were likewise appalled when objections arose to Barack Obama's race. Never mind that he was more "white" than "black", by virtue of having a white mother and was raised by white grandparents while his black father deserted him before his birth, we objected to those who rejected him because he was "African American", which he indeed was.

Then, we learn that in 2012 Republican primary elections, 91% of Mormon voters in Nevada voted for Romney.

In 2010, Mormon Harry Reid - certainly one of the most unpopular politicians in America, was re-elected over Southern Baptist Sharon Angle, in heavily Mormon Nevada. Coincidence?

In 2008, black Americans went for "black" Barack Obama by 97% to 3% over white John McCain. Can anything but race explain that outcome?

So, if you oppose Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, or oppose Barack Obama because he is "black", you are a bigot. But Mormons who overwhelmingly choose Mormon candidates over non-Mormons, and blacks who overwhelmingly choose black candidates over white candidates, are not bigots?

Sorry.  I don't buy it.

A late business colleague of mine used to say "There is no part-time honesty". Be the subject minor or significant, your response is either honest or dishonest. You cannot be judged an honest person based on the importance of the subject.

Same with bigotry. A bigot is a bigot, no matter which side you're on.

Snail mail - idle minds

My wife picked up the mail and there among the ads and bills was a hand-written letter from our daughter in Omaha. We communicate with that daughter via email on almost a daily basis. Why would she send a hand-written note when she has a computer and knows how to use it? The answer was that she had undergone surgery on her foot, was confined to resting - not walking - and the computer was in another part of the house. But, there was a pen and note paper at hand so she wrote a chatty little note which our son-in-law mailed for her.

A slow U.S.P.S. note when a computer is available? Started my mind wandering. Why do people make a less reliable choice; jump to conclusions, resort to rumors, or guessing, or imagining, or .... whatever people often do as first response to anything, when access to the world's finest, fastest computer is available, right there between their ears? I am asking, why do people so often fail to think? Yes, think.

A year or two back, a friend in middle America wrote to tell me of an attempt by a group of investors to build a coal-fired power generating plant out on a Kansas prairie. Citizen protests against that "pollution belching monster" were so loud and sustained, the plan was vacated. My friend was happy.

I thought differently. Some 60% of America's electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants. We are not building new plants, and some existing ones are getting pretty old. That means they employ old technology which surely is more pollutant-producing than would be a modern, new plant. Populations have grown around some of the old plants, meaning people are living in very close proximity. Trainloads of incoming coal and outgoing ashes surely do not enhance their neighborhoods. Had the modern, new plant been built as planned, some distance from any residential area, perhaps it could have afforded the closing of one of the old, outdated plants. Wouldn't that have been a good thing? Maybe. Maybe not.

The point here is that I witness very few people looking for the "big picture" for any event.

General Motors' Chevy Volt is an interesting subject. The government promoted an electric car (recall the source of 60% of our electricity) which General Motors built. Building a new automobile is a costly experiment made possible only through massive sales of the vehicle. Turns out, nobody wanted to buy the Volt. Too small, too expensive, inadequate for most people's needs. Chevrolet made a "initial" run of the small cars - which they cannot sell - so they have had to suspend production until they could, hopefully get rid of some of their inventory.

A costly, failed (to date) experiment. But then, I guess you don't need to think when you are spending someone other people's money!