But of course.

After all, these organisms called liberals won’t have it any other way, especially, it seems, those in and around the education system whose PC contributions help revise history so as to raise the next generation(s) in their dubious “image”.

in discussing the 9/11 attacks, the textbooks typically fail to mention the perpetrators were Muslims or that they acted in the cause of Islamic jihad. In one book the terrorists are portrayed as people fighting for a cause.

Read on.

What a sad state of affairs!

Of course, mentioning Islam in the same breath as 9/11, despite the religion’s prominence in the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon using hijacked airplanes full of innocent passengers would be (shudder!) Racism!

Chuck here, “the boss man” put me back to work. No sweat, friends, I really enjoy this.

So, honesty and liberals.

Apples and oranges. Rocks and books. Pterodactyls and aardvarks. Paper clips and fish.

In today’s Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto writes about some emails industrious hackers wrenched from the hallowed files of your garden variety liberal academics whom, no doubt, would be the first to become outraged/ indignant/ majorly offended (take your pick) if accused of even considering anything like that which Mr. Taranto describes in Settled Science?

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E.
Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)

The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

Yes, honesty and liberals, rifles and feather dusters, automobiles and coral reefs, steel and rhubarb…

Just a few observations.

While quite a few (an understatement) people drive their personal vehicles in New York, most Manhattanites don’t even own cars because a) N.Y.C. has an excellent public transportation system, arguably the best in the country, b) a guaranteed parking place costs thousands of dollars a year and there are often long waiting lists for same and c) who wants to spend half ones time in traffic gridlock, anyway?

To make up for the usual car owner’s status pecking order, there are…Baby strollers.

A $70.00 Combi might replace a Saturn, while a $900.00 Bugaboo might be another woman’s (and baby’s) Mercedes. A lot is based upon design, storage space (yes, a house wife or her husband might need to pick up a few things, maybe some groceries or whatever, and take baby along for the “ride”, so places to stash the purchases aboard the toddler’s personal vehicle are a plus, as opposed to having to carry a grocery bag and control the stroller at the same time).

I can just imagne the conversations that take place:

Barb: Oh, did you see the new Stokke Xplory Marilyn just bought for little Davey? Eleven hundred dollars!

Harriet: Yes, it’s a dream! And right after Connie picked up that $900.00 Orbit Baby Travel System. Just in time for spring, too.

Barb: I hear Fred’s out of work, and it shows. Mabel’s been pushing Deanna around in that same old $400.00 McLaren she bought two years ago.

Harriet: Oh, that’s so dreadful! How embarrassing that must be for poor Mabel!

******

From a recent column by Mona Charen,

Administrators at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis had seemed to be vying for the title of most ludicrous educators in America. The story began when a student, Keith John Sampson, who worked in the university’s janitorial department, was seen reading the book “Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan” in the break room. Sampson was notified by the university’s Affirmative Action Office that he had committed the offense of “racial harassment.” He protested that the book lauded the Notre Dame students who had taken on the Klan in 1924. Never mind, said Lillian Charleston, the AAO director. By “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject,” he had violated university policy.

The university has since reversed itself and expressed “regret that this situation took place.” But consider the fascist environment the PC police have created. That the student felt constrained to defend the book’s content as politically acceptable is an outrage in itself that goes to the heart of academic freedom. Welcome to an America where you must glance over your shoulder to wonder whether your co-workers will inform on you for reading forbidden matter!

Read the entire column here.

******

Go to Chinatown. Ask for Cane. He can help.

He sure couldn’t have helped one hapless little Italian fashion photographer and the model with whom he was doing a shoot yesterday, in the late afternoon rain at the intersection of Chinatown’s Grand and Christie Streets.

I was passing by on my way to the B and D trains’ subway station over there and had to stop and watch.

The model, a tall, thin (aren’t they all!), attractive woman with a familiar face (I’ve seen her picture someplace before, but not being one to care one way or another about such celebrities, I haven’t the faintest idea who she was), was wearing a slinky, silver silk dress and holding up a grey fur coat. The photographer wanted her to walk towards him across the street, but only while there was a walk sign so she could be moving along with the pedestrian flow.

Obviously, he didn’t know Chinatown.

Chinatown here in N.Y. is a densely crowded, fast moving, busy place whose denizens have no brief but for their own day-to-day activities, and no one paid the slightest attention to the model. Everytime the walk sign appeared, she began crossing the street and was immediately engulfed in throngs of other pedestrians headed the same and opposite ways, jostling her, cutting in front of her and generally making it impossible for the photographer to get the shots he wanted.

But he was determined and they kept trying over and over, to no avail.

Seeing the amused grin on my face and having himself picked up on what was going on, a young Chinese man smirked at me and said, “This guy doesn’t seem to know he’s in Chinatown.”

Finally, I shook my head and continued on to the subway station, wondering how many dozen additional attempts it would take before the photographer finally gave up and relocated to Broadway or someplace…

First, I will say that I actually tried to post on this yesterday, but the hotel I’m presently staying at in New York, only the second I’ve ever stayed in that featured free Internet access – this one’s being wireless only – has a few kinks in the system.

When I first checked in, it seemed like all was just fine, but I have found that it can’t handle video – a bummer as I’ve tried to watch video at other blogs and, well… I’ve also had a few comments I’ve endeavored to make come up: Internet Explorer cannot display the web page. Likewise, my last endeavor to post this got the infamous “Internet Explorer cannot…” and the post disappeared.

This hotel only has 250 rooms, and when you figure that it’s at nowhere near full occupancy just now (I’ve had no trouble adding nights at the last minute, and parts of the hotel are supposedly closed due to renovation and upgrades – I’ve neither seen nor heard any evidence of this, but that’s the going story), there shouldn’t be so many people connected to the wireless network that it would be overtaxed.

However: The hotel’s wireless network is unsecured, all you have to do is go to “Connect To” and click on their network, and you’re there.

Now, this is smack in the middle of the upper west side, surrounded by apartment buildings. I wonder how many zillion people in the myriad apartments hereabouts are using the hotel’s network for free wireless access.

Somewhere in the management sector of this hotel exists a pinhead who hasn’t figured out that all they have to do is secure the network and supply guests with the access information needed to connect.

So now I’m composing posts in MS Word, then copying and pasting them to my blog. Let ‘em look that up in their Funk & Wagnall’s! If I lose it again, I’ll still have it saved in Word to try again.

At any rate, what caught my attention was this piece of news, which defines an issue that should have constituted a dialogue conducted in the light of public awareness a long time ago, rather than dumbed down by liberal academics and the mainstream media in the interests of covering up the formers’ Marxian practice of indoctrinating our youth into the column of left wing political dogma rather than encouraging them to learn how to think for themselves.

An advanced textbook on American government is drawing criticism from scholars for alleged errors concerning climate change and separation of church and state.

American Government (Houghton Mifflin) and was authored by James Q. Wilson and John J. Dilulio, Jr. Associated Press reports that a New Jersey high school student pointed out apparent errors in the textbook to the Center for Inquiry, which then released a “scathing report.”

Scathing, no less!

Under criticism are statements that cause students to question whether the debate over “global warming” is really over, and whether the issue of “separation of church and state” is being correctly interpreted. Critics also accuse the textbook of having a conservative bias on a number of other issues.

Their actual kvetch, expressed in more honest terms, would be, “Hey! This text book is raining on our parade! If these kids learn to draw their own conclusions rather than accept us as the masters of all they think and all they believe, they might well grow into voting adulthood without views that we endorse, those we demand that the rest of society endorse. This is an outrage!”

The executive director of Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) disagrees with the critics. “I don’t think it’s the job of our public schools to indoctrinate children to tell them what they should believe about global warming,” says Finn Laursen, “but let’s educate them; let’s let them [think] like great minds of the past did, and let’s let them openly discuss the issues. And if we don’t let them know that there are two sides, that discussion won’t happen,” he contends.

The CEAI leader fears that the advanced students are no longer being as academically challenged as they have been in the past and are also being taught one-sided arguments.

“I think that most would agree that we [as a nation] are not as competitive as we once were, and I personally believe that one of the reasons is that our advanced students are not being challenged to higher levels of thinking,” the Christian educator argues. “They’re being given one side of topics, told to memorize that and to believe that — and that does not create great minds, and great thinkers, and problem solvers,” he points out.

Very well put, Mr. Laursen.

Another major cudo is due an official in Arizona.

In Arizona, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has said he will not remove the textbook from schools. Horne is quoted by KTAR.com as saying, “the claims made for conservative bias are very mild compared to the liberal bias that I see in most textbooks.”

Emphasis mine.

I would so like to see this argument find its way into the public domain, wherein the American people can decide whether they want their children to be educated as socialist zombies or as individual thinkers capable of making their own decisions.

While mainstream Democrats are by no means a significant minority in this country, the far left elements that have been steering their party, which includes the portside academics and the liberal media that smoke-screen the actual menace they pose to the future of our society via the indoctrination of our youth, certainly are. The media shapes public opinion, and in this instance, among others, has been quite successful in its dubious endeavors where Democrats who should know better are concerned.