My son told me I had to read this guy’s essays – they were brilliant!
I have barely ‘scratched the surface’ – but I do agree with him. His ‘news’ feed is also interesting.
Enjoy!
Recent Comments
RSS feed
CodeSlinger: ‘The Comprachicos’ (Child Thiefs) by Ayn Rand
November 19, 2009 — xanthippaSome of the most popular post on this site are the guest-posts by CodeSlinger. Lately, I have been ranting on about the dangers of segregating school-aged children based on some ‘visible’ criteria: race, creed, sex, and the like. This intro is followed by a guest-post by CodeSlinger.
Since a race-segregated school has opened as a pilot project in Toronto, there have been calls for segregating boys out of ‘mainstream schools’ and into ‘boys-only’ classrooms or schools, run by male teachers (this latter part, of course, is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), where the ‘goals’ set for the students would be ‘more achievable’ for ‘boys’. In other words, ‘maleness’ was re-defined as a ‘physical disability’ for which specialized, dumbed-down classrooms were needed….
CodeSlinger has thought about this: and, while he asserts that the current atmosphere in our public schools is very damaging to boys, especially when they are young, he has come to agree that the same people who have entrenched ‘Cultural Marxism’ in our classrooms cannot be trusted not to use their position of power and influence to ensure the ‘b0ys-only’ programs are not designed to be even more ‘toxic’ to boys than the current variety is!
As part of this debate, CodeSlinger has offered the following:
The Comprachicos
by Ayn Rand
[emphasis added by CodeSlinger]
The comprachicos, or comprapequeños, were a strange and hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteenth, unknown today …
Comprachicos, as well as comprapequeños, is a compound Spanish word that means “child-buyers.” The comprachicos traded in children. They bought them and sold them.
They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry.
And what did they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To laugh.
The people need laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns; palaces require jesters …
To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small …
Hence, an art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; they took a face and made a muzzle. They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. It was a whole science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt. And, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it is the botched that was perfect …
The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression …
The comprachicos had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron mask, but that is an awkward means. One cannot populate Europe with iron masks; deformed mountebanks, however, run through the streets without appearing implausible; besides, an iron mask can be torn off, a mask of flesh cannot.
To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more ingenious …
The comprachicos did not merely remove a child’s face, they removed his memory. At least, they removed as much of it as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He could remember at most that one day he had been seized by some men, then had fallen asleep, and later they had cured him. Cured him of what? He did not know. Of the burning by sulphur and the incisions by iron, he remembered nothing. During the operation, the comprachicos made the little patient unconscious by means of a stupefying powder that passed for magic and suppressed pain …
In China, since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of a living man. One takes a child two or three years old, one puts him into a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque in shape, without cover or bottom, so that the head and feet protrude. In the daytime, one keeps this vase standing upright; at night, one lays it
down, so that the child can sleep. Thus the child expands without growing, slowly filling the contours of the vase with his compressed flesh and twisted bones. This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes irreparable. When one judges that this has occurred and that the monster is made, one breaks the vase, the child comes out, and one has a man in the shape of a pot.
– Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs [Ayn Rand’s translation]
Victor Hugo wrote this in the nineteenth century. His exalted mind not conceive that so unspeakable a form of inhumanity would ever be possible again. The twentieth century proved him wrong.
The production of monsters—helpless, twisted monsters whose normal development has been stunted—goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the comprachicos are smarter and subtler than their predecessors: they do not hide, they practice their trade in the open; they do not buy children, the children are delivered to them; they do not use sulphur or iron, they achieve their goal without ever laying a finger on their little victims.
The ancient comprachicos hid the operation, but displayed its results; their heirs have reversed the process: the operation is open, the results are invisible. In the past, this horrible surgery left traces on a child’s face, not in his mind. Today, it leaves traces in his mind, not on his face. In both cases, the child is not aware of the mutilation he has
suffered. But today’s comprachicos do not use narcotic powders: they take a child before he is fully aware of reality and never let him develop that awareness. Where nature had put a normal brain, they put mental
retardation.
To make you unconscious for life by means of your own brain, nothing can be more ingenious.
This is the ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators.
They are the comprachicos of the mind.
They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours.
They place him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society.
…
And what do they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To rule.
So begins Ayn Rand’s essay, The Comprachicos, written in 1970. Since then, the comprachicos of the mind have had almost another half century to refine their technique, broaden the front of their attack, and make sure, in their own words, that no child is left behind.
Download and read the whole essay here: Ayn Rand – The Comprachicos.
Then go do something about it!
Update: the link to a pdf version of Ayn Rand’s essay has been added
Kindergarten: why this is bad for kids – and for society
November 18, 2009 — xanthippaThis is not an easy explanation – please, indulge me. I promise to make sense of it at the end.
For a century or so now, many experts have argued about what is more instrumental in determining a person’s fate: their nature (genetic predispositions) or nurture (the environment in which they are raised). Many experts today agree that there is some sort of a mixture of the two. I am not attempting to determine where this balance lies: I am simply making some observation that when very different social expectations are placed on young people, their very sense of ‘self’ – as defined with respect to society, how they belong, and so on, will be very different. And, that these grown ups will have very, very different expectations of their role in society and the role of society in their lives.
Let me use some examples…
Imagine a life in a village. Life is not so easy, and ‘everyone’ has to pitch in to help.
Most childcare is done through family: depending on the birthrate, either through immediate (nuclear) family, or by extended family. In these scenarios, the children would (usually) be in a group of 5-10 kids, either siblings, or siblings and cousins – looked after by their mother or a close female relative. Within this group, there would be kids of varying ages: from infants on up. It would be unusual for this group to have ‘many’ kids of exactly the same age.
Because the kids are of varying ages, there are differing expectations placed on them: the older ones are expected to help/be protective of/mentor the younger ones. This is very important, for several reasons.
It set up a ‘natural pecking order’ – one that was clear, obvious and acceptable: the older kids were higher up the social ladder than the younger ones. The expectations of them were higher – but, this went hand-in-hand with their increased prestige and social status within the group. Yes, the kids were all expected to learn skills – from the adults, as well as from the older kids. Not wanting to be surpassed in skills by the younger ones was an important motivator for learning and perseverance…
But, and this is perhaps most important, there were small, incremental successes. Every time a child held a younger sibling or cousin to calm their crying, every time they would feed the younger ones, or change diapers, or teach them to throw pebbles at the birds eating the harvest, or how to make a whistle from a willow twig – this would be an accomplishment.
These accomplishments will each – taken separately – be very small. But that does not make them unimportant! Together, these accomplishments add up. And
It is precisely through these small accomplishments that the person will self-define: each one builds the child’s self-confidence, confirming their important role in their social group, giving worth to their membership in that group. It gives them a sense of ‘ worthy belonging’.
And let’s not kid ourselves – we all have a need to belong, we all feel better when we know we are needed!
Of course, if one’s skills in a particular field are great, that individual may ‘skip up’ a few rungs in the social order. And, some societies only open specific roles to boys or girls, which may be detrimental to specific individuals. I do not deny that, nor do I claim this system is ‘perfect’. I simply comment on it, observing that in a small social group of children of varying ages, the social hierarchy/order is relatively easy to establish and learn for a young child, and that one’s expectations of ‘how to live and fit in’ are in accepting help/guidance from those ‘higher up’ the hierarchy, and in being protective of and being expected to help those lower down on that ladder. This develops both a sense of worth and reciprocity towards the group, but also of empathy with the other kids who will grow up into one’s peers.
In other words, this child grows up expecting society where reciprocity is the social norm and each individual is expected to be an active participant in the giving and receiving and will have a healthy sense of self-worth and connectedness with their society.
Now, let us consider another child, growing up in a society which is structured very differently….
Parents are expected to work in a structured environment, away from home. From an early age, children go to nursery school/kindergarten.
There, in order to facilitate ‘learning’ at ‘age-appropriate level’, they are grouped by age: each group of 15-50 children of the same age are put together into a ‘class’ and assigned one or more ‘teachers’, possibly with several ‘assistants’ or ‘helpers’. Thus, the adult-to-child ratio may be only slightly higher than in the previous scenario (it may even be the same), but the group itself is homogeneously composed of ‘peers’.
This sets up a very different social dynamic…
They are all peers!
There is no ‘easy’ way to establish a ‘pecking order’.
This, in itself, is rather disturbing to even young kids who generally need to understand where they fit in, socially. Interacting with a large number of ‘peers’, introduced and maintained as equals, is not natural to our psychological development – at least, not at the age of 3-5 years! So, this can be very, very confusing and instead of ‘age’ or ‘achievement’, social order in such a group (and there is always a social hierarchy in every group of humans) is decided by innate ‘dominance’ or ‘aggression’.
In addition, ‘mentoring’ or any attempt at ‘helping’ from one student to another is actively discouraged by the ‘teachers’ and their assistants as ‘bossiness’, ‘interference’ or even ‘bullying’ – even if it is offered with the best of intentions, in the most positive manner.
Instruction – of every student, in every aspect – is the exclusive domain of the teachers and their assistants, usually at a ‘common time’ and in a ‘common way’. It is simply ‘not the job’ of any child to help another – and such empathy-building activity is discouraged or even punished. Only ‘the teacher’ is permitted to ‘teach’, only ‘the teacher’ or ‘assistants’ are allowed to help!
This creates an environment where each child is a passive recipient of care and instruction. They ‘receive’ – and are punished for any attempt to ‘give’. Their self-worth is derived exclusively from their obedience to the adults in authority and their completion of ‘assignments’. Even the skill level at which the assignment is completed is often not evaluated on the grounds that this would stigmatize the less-competent students and thus discourage ‘learning’: simple obedient completion of the task, even in a sub-standard manner, in complete compliance with authority, is rewarded in todays kindergartens.
What is more – due to fears of accusations of sexual improprieties, teachers and their assistants are now (in Ontario Public School Kindergartens) not permitted to touch the students – even if the child falls down and is bleeding – beyond slapping on of a band-aid. If the child is upset, no hug is permitted to help calm him or her down. It is truly ‘an institutional experience’!
How different an adult will this child grow up to be, from the one in the earlier example?
‘Common Sense’ is often defined as ‘everything we learn before the age of 16’. Similarly, ‘everything we learn before the age of 5’ defines our ‘self-perception’, especially with respect to the society we live in, and our expectations of the ‘proper’ way to relate to it.
Thus, as the child who could expect protection and help from his/her older siblings/friends/family members – but who was equally expected to help and protect the younger ones – grows up, he or she is, on some sub-conscious level, expecting that in order to be good members of society, he/she needs to both take and give. In return for this reciprocity, they feel needed and connected…they know how they ‘fit in’ – even if only on a deep, non-verbalized level.
Similarly, the child who grows up, from an early age, strictly as a passive recipient of instructions and who is expected to be rewarded for obedience, or ‘performing assigned tasks’ rather than actively interacting in a social give-and-take (often being severely punished for trying to establish a socially reciprocal relationship with other kids) has, at a deep, subconscious level an expectation that they have to perform the minimum – and nothing beyond the minimum – designed tasks and that all else will be done for them. This programming is so deep in the sub-conscious, it is not consciously perceived. Rather, these are the ‘natural expectations’ children raised this way have.
At least, most of them do.
Which is why children raised in ‘kindergartens’ do not have the same perception of what constitutes their ‘self-worth’ as children raised in family or extended-family-type settings. It is not that they are somehow bad or lazy: just that from their earliest age, they were taught that reciprocity is punished and doing the minimum effort and passively accepting having all their physical needs taken care of is what society wants them to do. And, being the social creatures we are, we get ‘primed’ this way – and it never even occurs to us that there is something to question….
To the contrary: we see all people who behave in other ways as ‘needing to be punished’. After all, when we tried to be different, to help others, to hug a friend, to be ourselves, to show we can do something better than everyone else around us – we were punished! We were punished for ‘showing off’ or for ‘being bossy’ or for ‘not obeying’ or, just, for ‘not being passive’!
Is is any surprise that we have grown up into a generation which has strong feelings of entitlement – entitlement to be taken care of, to be passive recipients of care – and of great resentment towards anyone who tries to ‘show everyone up’ and succeeds? And that we are not even aware that these are ‘programmed’ values, because they seem so ‘natural and ‘universal’ to us?
Yes, I have not expressed my meaning very eloquently, perhaps not even as accurately as I tried to.
Still, please, think about it….
Meep! MEEP!
November 16, 2009 — xanthippaOne of the most embarrassing episodes in the history of the USA are the ‘Salem Witch Trials‘.
The very home of one of the people executed for practicing ‘witchcraft’ , Rebecca Nurse, has been turned into a museum. It stands in today’s town of Danvers, MA, which was originally settled as ‘Salem Village’.
It seems that, once again, trouble is brewing in this quaint little town.
This time, it is not the Devil who is afflicting young people, but none other than the lovable-appearing Muppet, Beaker!
The affliction of the town’s young people – which causes them to exclaim ‘Meep!’ without provocation – has become so severe that the administrators of the Danvers High School have been forced to resort to banning the word, both written and spoken!
So, when such a posession by evil (?) Muppet begun to sweep through the youth population (some students even said ‘Meep’ AT a teacher!), how was the school to protect the students not yet infected into channeling this spirit? Obviously, the school had to take the strongest possible steps! According to news reports, the school instituted a rule (clearly communicated to all parents) that any student who utters this sound ‘Meep!’, or even wears an article of clothing with the word ‘Meep!’ on it, will face expulsion from school! Oh, and the police will be notified, too…
After all, what else could they do? Now, even MORE young people were affected than the LAST time – and they had to resort to ‘witch trial’ and executions then!!!
Could they learn a lesson from history?
Or, perhaps, educational professionals might have some of them ‘professional educational tools’ they could employ?
…don’t be ridiculous – that would mean actually doing their job!
They did what any authority in power these days seems to think is the ‘best’ way to deal with something they don’t like: BAN IT!!!
Of course, this hit the blogosphere pretty fast: I read about it on Dvorak Uncensored. They carry a quote from a lawyer who says she sent an email stating ‘Meep!’ (the address is publicly available on the school’s website, right margin) to the principal, vice principal and administrator, only to get a reply from the VP that her email has, indeed, been forwarded to the local police department….
This is serious matter: curbing the freedom of speech of students is nothing to Tinker with! The only circumstances – according to the US Supreme Court – that a student’s right to free speech may be abridged on public school grounds is if the ‘speech’ is ‘sexually explicit’ or if it ‘promotes the use of illegal substances’…. Of course, I am no lawyer, but, in my never-humble-opinion, the word ‘Meep!’ does not do either!
Despite the clear rules of law, the school leadership has deemed this offensive word, ‘Meep!’, to be such a danger and such a disruption, no amount of force is unjustified in getting rid of it!
Welcome to the Salem Muppet Hunt!
When I told my own kids about this situation, both my sons shouted out (simultaneously) “Reason!” and “Common Sense!” The point being, if the teens in Danvers High switched to saying ‘Reason!’ or ‘Common Sense’ in the same manner they are now using the term ‘Meep!’, would the school ban ‘Reason!’ and ‘Common Sense!’ ?
Some clever people (sorry, I lost the link) have suggested that, perhaps, the students might stop saying ‘Meep!’, but each and every one of them could, say, accidentally drop a textbook at 10:45 each and every day…. accidents DO happen….
Personally, I think they ought to continue the behaviour, but change ‘Meep!’ sound to ‘Baaaaaaaaah!’ After all, if the school WANTS them to behave like sheep, they might as well SOUND like sheep!
Now, I did not grow up with the Muppets: right generation, wrong continent. But, my husband did. And, he likes Beaker! He has the audacity to think that Beaker, contrary to the Danvers High administrators, is not actually evil! He asked me to send them this message (I recommend you turn the volume down – the music is seriously ‘wussy’, to the point of ‘ear-bleed-causing’, but the video does make the point): DON’T FEAR THE BEAKER!!!
Of course, there are those conspiracy-minded folk who think that the reason that the school had banned ‘Meep!’ is because during the 2008 US Presidential election, the Muppet Show endorsed Beaker for President – against Obama-Kermit! And that this is just political payback by Obama-Kermit cronies… Personally, I don’t believe a word of that! Though, if you would like adirect confirmation that this ‘conspiracy theory’ is ludicrous, perhaps you could ask the Danvers High School principal, Thomas Murray, directly. His email is murray@danvers.org )
All I have to say to the pedagogues of Danvers High:
TEACHER! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!!!!
Oh, and: Meep! MEEP!
Segregating boys in schools will do more harm than good
November 9, 2009 — xanthippaA while ago, I wrote a post opposing sexual apartheid as the solution proposed to ‘fix’ our educational system.
To recap: the ‘problem’ – as it is presented to us: there are too many female teachers, so the classrooms are geared towards ‘girl learning’ and the boys are falling by the wayside….and the proposed fix is to establish boy-only classrooms or schools, staffed preferably by male teachers, so ‘boy learning’ can take place.
On the surface of it, this sounds like a relatively reasonable solution. One of my wisest readers/commenters, CodeSlinger, thought it might be and said so in the comments. And, we also exchanged a few lively emails on the topic, too… because, frankly, I think segregating boys in schools will do more harm than good.
Don’t misunderstand me, please. I agree that our education system is broken and the way it is failing is more quickly and easily visible when one looks at the ‘statistics’ of our ‘boys’…. but I think these stats are just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg. I propose that ‘our boys’ are the ‘canaries in the mine‘ and that moving them into a ‘canary-only tunnel’ will not help things.
Where to begin….there are so many reasons!
For the sake of the discussion (and to keep this post at least somewhat focused), let’s put aside the facts that:
- Segregation of a specific segment of our population has never, ever, in human history, resulted in ‘a good thing’ (for the segregated segment, that is).
- Some ‘girls’ have more ‘male’ brains and way of thinking/learning than many ‘boys’, and vice versa – and these kids would really become victims in a segregated educational system: not just of not being able to learn in the manner presented, but also through social ostracism of ‘being like the other’ which is so different, it must be segregated. Again, boys would suffer greater damage from being considered ‘effeminate’ or ‘girlie-boys’ than girls would for being considered ‘tom-boys’.
- A segregated system focuses on ‘gender-specific’ subjects (the expert-designed plans even boast of it),necessarily leaving out others, which denies students opportunities bef0re they are even discovered…
- It hides the problem, instead of fixing it.
- It is unconstitutional! And just plain wrong, immoral and ( insert a strong derogatory word of your choice here)!
Instead of re-stating my position, I’d like to quote from an email I sent to ‘CodeSlinger’ when he – quite rightly – pointed out we must do SOMETHING to help ‘our boys’! I wrote:
The only thing that strikes me about this is that it makes you appear a little idealistic: do you think that the very same people who have so successfully and, I think, quite intentionally marginalized boys in the integrated classrooms – and it WILL be the SAME people who will be in charge of the segregated system – do you think they will not use the opportunity the segregated system will provide them to even further damage our sons?The goal is to marginalize anyone who would have the backbone to stand up against ‘the system’. If the boys are segregated, in the name of ‘helping them’, they will be given ‘physical activity’ to help them ‘burn off their energy’, but not the skills to become educated enough to be listened to if they speak out. It will be the beginning of creating an underclass of men: either too whipped to dare stand-up, or effectively indoctrinated to think they are not competent to pay attention to anything beyond sports. It’s their nature, you see….
Can you see what I mean?
Do you not see how ‘segregating’ boys would be an incredibly useful way to ‘weed out’ any who have the backbone to ‘stand up’ for ‘themselves’ or for what they think is ‘right’ – to more effectively marginalize the very people most likely to stand up to an oppressive authority? In a society which is completely reliant on listening to ‘experts’ and pays little heed to self-taught or self-educated individuals, or people who are not academics, this would prevent any such ‘independent voices’ from being given any credence.
There has already been talk that ‘boys’ would likely ‘benefit’ if, from early on, their education were geared towards ‘trades’, because ‘boys’ are ‘better’ with ‘hands-on’ learning than ‘book learning’…
Can you not see how this would be the first step to creating an underclass? As if my point needed further proof, one of CodeSlinger’s own links (in the comments) is to an article which sums up a Dr. Spence’s document, which he prepared for the Toronto school board to engineer these ‘all-boy-learning-environments’:
His vision document calls for a “less is more” approach to goal-setting …
How much more proof do we need that this is – whether by design or error – going to result in raising a generation of boys to be our society’s underclass?
Of course, there will be a group of boys who will be ‘protected’ from this psychological destruction: Muslim boys. They will be the only males in our society who will be insulated from this psychological destruction from kindergarten on – and they will be the only males who will dare to speak up and affect the evolution of our society. But, that is a different story…
Yes, our educational system is broken.
Yes, it is failing boys more than girls.
But we ought not presume that co-incidence implies causality – or, that change for the sake of change will be a good thing! We could make things much, much worse…. and that is a gamble we cannot afford to take. Not with our sons….
Race, religion and gender: the new apartheid in Ontario’s Education System
October 22, 2009 — xanthippaThis issue has me so angry, I apologize ahead of time for the inevitably undisciplined rant I am about to unleash on you!
Why?
Because MY Canada is colour-blind, when it comes to race!
MY Canada is gender-blind, when it comes to sexism!
AND – MY Canada is all inclusive, when it comes to children!!!
And, in my Canada, religious affiliation is irrelevant when it comes to judging a person’s record as a human being! Thank you very much!
During the last Ontario election, I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservatives…. Their leader, John Tory, proposed a public education system which was fully segregated on the basis of religion!!!
The very suggestion that a child’s religion – or any other ‘protected grounds’, as per our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to determine what school that child may or may not attend is so offensive and un-Canadian that it makes me see red!
The Conservatives lost that election: and rightly so!!!
Aside: Of course, before the election, I emailed my local Conservative candidate (now my MPP – Member of Provincial Parliament), Lisa MacLeod, asking her if she was indeed in favour of religious apartheid in our schools. I still have her reply: it angered me to no end to read that if her leader said so, she totally backed it… (Perhaps this is the source of my dissatisfaction with my MPP – the ‘first impression’ she made on me, is rooted in this blatant sell-out of our most cherished freedoms, taking our precious children and sorting them by the accident of their birth! I cannot trust anyone who would sacrifice our children to a doctrine or political party policy!)
And now, the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is planning to segregate our schools by sex! You know, like they do in Saudi Arabia!!!
OK – I need to calm down. Perhaps it’s ‘definition time’:
Apartheid:
Any policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
Separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
Do I need to go on?
Yes. Ever since the British North American Act, there has been a religious apartheid in Ontario’s education: one system for the Catholics, another for the Protestants. Still, over the years, the ‘Protestant’ system has morphed and become secularized, separating the State from the Religion and keeping it out of the classroom. The story is quite different when it comes to the Catholic system: it has become known in Ontario as the SS – Separate Schools!
In my never-humble-opinion, the initials tell the story. The very first public protest/demonstration I ever participated in was to protest the existence of the SS in our schooling!
Even the corrupt UN had recognized – and ruled – that the SS system in Ontario was in breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Predictably, the people of Ontario would not be complicit in this enslavement of our kids to their parent’s religious heritage. The Liberals did not ‘win’ the election – as unbelievable it was that the universally reviled Dalton McGuinty could be re-elected, the Conservatives carefully and systematically LOST IT!
So, now, Dalton McGuinty (whose kids attend SS schools, and whose wife was a teacher in this corrupt system where government-funded religious indoctrination pollutes the minds of our children) is in power. Complete control. And, in no uncertain terms, he is instituting apartheid in our schools! Apartheid of HIS own choosing!!!
Yes, he is very clear: religious apartheid has no part in his plan. That is how the Conservatives LOST EVERYTHING!!!
Instead, on his ‘watch’, we have seen the institution of religious apartheid in at least one school – a ‘pilot project’.
More like a ‘Pilate project!”
Unfortunately -yes.
Our school system now has – and enforces, as its ‘core policy’ – racial apartheid!!!
Here, in Ontario!
I wonder what would people like Martin Luther King, Jr. say about this policy of ‘Equal, but separate‘!!!
But, that is not evil enough for Black Boss McGuinty!
Now, he has decided that sexual segregation ought to become the norm in our schools!!!
OK – I had better stop now – I am just so angry, I cannot put a coherent sentence together. Let me just say: fixing our broken school system – but for boys only – is so evil, I don’t know where to start my chain of insults!!! Sorry.
Still …
A person’s a person – no matter how small!!!
Or, how female!!!
To work, vaccines have to make you sick. Really.
October 20, 2009 — xanthippaRecently, I found out that a lot of people are not aware that unless a vaccine actually made you sick, it did not work!
This is due to great sloppiness: among the media, who report on ‘medical stuff’ without bothering to inform themselves on even the bare basics of the topic they are ‘reporting on’, among the educators (including Medical-school level), many of whom do not bother to actually understand the very things they are supposed to teach (or pretend not to, because of funding), and especially among the practicing medical professionals, who seem to think we are all so stupid that it is necessary for them to manipulate the information they permit us to have, so that we’ll make ‘the right choice’!
This is right out of several ‘pages’ of my ‘pet obsessive peeves’ book: the ‘misrepresentation of science’ book, ‘bad/ignorant reporting’ book, ‘dumbed down education’ book, ‘state fascism’ – and a few more. And, it makes me very, very angry. Sorry if I am ranting too much…. So, what is the cause of my rant?
Recently, many Western news outlets (MSM, of course) carried the story that giving babies Tylenol (or, indeed, any other fever-reducing/anti-inflammatory medication) right before/after they get a vaccine greatly reduces the vaccine’s effectiveness.
OF COURSE!!! THAT IS THEIR FUNCTION!!!
Why in the world would medical professionals – the very people who ‘cracked’ this amazing and life-saving process called ‘vaccination’ – need a study on something as obvious as this? If you understand the process of how vaccines work, it is clear that taking analgesics and anti-infammatories will necessarily interfere with the very way vaccines work!
Doctors don’t know this?!?!? D-ughh!!!
At this point, I am shaking my head and wondering where to start….
Let me walk you through the steps in process through which vaccines are supposed to work:
1. ‘Controlled Infection’
A dead or weakened version of the virus (or viruses, in case of vaccines which protect against multiple pathogens) is introduced into the body of a healthy person. This is usually done by directly injecting the vaccine into the body or by applying them to the mucuous membranes and allowing them to permeate through there.
2. Immune system response
The immune system finds the ‘intruders’ and begins to fight them. The methods our immune system employs in this include fever (most viruses do not reproduce effectively at higher temperatures – hence, fever is a potent weapon our immune system uses), hot-cold spells/chills (most viruses cannot handle sudden temperature changes, which is why our immune system uses this weapon to kill them…actually, this is also how the whole sauna/steam-room thing works, if performed properly: people go get hot, then cool off extremely suddenly by rolling in snow or swimming in freezing water – and repeat this process 3x or more times within one hour: most germs will not survive these sudden temperature changes), inflammation (among other reactions, mucuous membranes try to trap germs, so this form of immune system defense may involve significant mucus generation), and so on. In other words, the immune system will evoke all the symptoms we associate with ‘being sick’ in order to ‘learn’ this ‘germ’.
3. ‘Creating a memory’
The immune system, during this fight, ‘takes notes’, so to speak. It creates an ‘entry’ in its ‘dangerous thingies memory bank’, where it records everything it has learned about each germ: how to identify it (by the pattern of proteins on its ‘skin’) and how best to fight it (this may include specific antibodies the immune system ‘learned’ to produce, and the ‘systemic symptoms’ like fever, which are unpleasant but kill the germ way faster than they kill us, and so on).
4. Future protection
A healthy immune system will keep this ‘record’ for many years, sometimes up to three decades: the more dangerous the immune system judges the germ to be, the ‘deeper’ the ‘entry’ and the longer it will ‘remember it’ and recognize the germ, should it ever infect the body again. This is important: the germs which attack us will reproduce inside our body at an exponential rate. If the immune system ‘recognizes’ the germ, it does not have to spend valuable time (sometimes days) trying to figure out how to fight it – time the germs would use to increase their number and, perhaps, overwhelm the immune system. Instead, it can compare the ‘germ’ to its ‘database’, retrieve the information about what destroys ‘this germ’ most effectively and start fighting it very shortly after the germ first enters the body. This means the germ does not have time to produce millions of copies of itself before the immune system effectively destroys it – and the person is protected from a serious infection.
5. The Trick!
Because the pathogen which was introduced through the vaccine was weakened or killed, it is not capable of reproducing (or, reproducing effectively) in the host (you). That means that it cannot overcome your immune system while the immune system is trying to figure out how to fight it.
To sum it up:
The pathogens in the vaccine must be strong enough to make our immune systems ‘take them seriously’ and fight them (and thus ‘learn’ how to fight the full-strength germ, if it ever infects that person), but harmless enough so that they cannot overcome the immune system while it is trying to figure out what works against this germ.
This means that a vaccine which does not make your immune system go into high gear (make you ‘sick’) has not given you any protection!
So, if you get a flu shot – and you do not get ‘mild flu-like symptoms’ – the vaccine did not work!
And, if you take medication which suppresses fever, and so on, you will be directly interfering with the immune system’s ‘learning process’. As in, the immune system will mistake the reaction to the pill for the reaction to the last thing it did to try to fight that germ!
Is it any surprise, then, that it does not ‘learn’ how to fight this pathogen effectively?
Doctors are said to still be taking the Hippocratic Oath: ‘Do no harm’. In a person with a healthy immune system, a vaccine will produce the symptoms of the harmful illness it is to prevent, but prevent the ‘harm’ that an actual full-strength infection would cause.
Vaccination is an important weapon in fighting disease.
But, like everything else, it can do more damage than good if it is not used properly. If it is misrepresented and misunderstood, then people may sabotage the very process the vaccine is inducing, without knowing it. Then, thinking they are protected, they will not act as cautiously as they might otherwise…
And that, in my never-humble-opinion, is a bad thing.
No Guide Dogs Allowed!
October 10, 2009 — xanthippaSchool is supposed to be a place for learning.
A place where kids feel safe.
A place where all possible care is taken to make learning possible.
Yet, at least one school had set up a committee to decide whether or not to allow a disabled child’s guide dog to accompany her to school.
What?
Our society is rightly supportive of disabled people, and doubly so for those who work hard to succeed despite their disability. Since different people have different needs and preferences, we have developed a myriad of tools to aid them.
One such ‘tool’ – perhaps ‘the classical one’ – is the guide dog.
These canines are not just some loving pets. They go through a screening process which permits only the most intelligent, non-aggressive animals to be entered into a rigorous training program. And only the best of the best ever graduate to become certified guide dogs.
And that is not the end. Now that the dog has become a highly trained professional, it is carefully matched with the person whom it is to assist, to ensure compatibility. And there are courses to teach the disabled person and the dog how to communicate with each other, as well as to teach the dog the skills which it will require to aid this specific person.
That is doubly so in the case of a guide dog assigned to a child!
Cargo made it through all that training! Fully trained, graduated and certified as an official guide dog, Cargo was assigned to a young girl named Annika Merner. A ‘feel good’ story, right?
Except that,Colchester North Elementary School in Essex, Ontario, where Annika is a grade 4 student, will not permit Cargo to enter school property!
Why?
Well, some kids might be allergic to dogs…
Please, do not misunderstand: I am not making light of allergies, especially serious ones. They could affect a child’s ability to learn – no question about it.
But, surely, in a civilized society, we can figure out a way to accommodate both! The school and the parents of all the affected kids could sit, talk, figure out a workable solution based on the level of allergies of the individual students that were affected and their relative location in the school.
Could they not?
Why wouldn’t they?
But that did not happen. Nothing like that. Just a simple ‘No dogs on school property – no exceptions for guide dogs!’
Only after Annika’s parents pointed out that this is not only unfair to their child, but actually against the law – guide dogs are exempted from ‘no dog’ rules – the Greater Essex County District School Board formed a committee last November to examine the issue…
Now, eleven months later, they have still not come up with any decision – and little Annika is still going to school without her guide dog.
Good news: in two weeks, the committee might come out with a decision which might permit the use of a guide dog on school property.
Ah, the mighty ‘might‘!
How grand of them!
This – in my never-humble-opinion – is indicative of a much greater problem in our society. We have lost the ability, desire – or both – to get along with each other amicably without long and convoluted sets of rules, whose application often blurs the line between accommodating a real, physical disability and frivolous grievances which are a matter of choices and opinions.
It is precisely to deal with situations like Annika’s that the Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals) (HRCs) were formed! Their whole ‘raison d’etre’ was making sure that people were not discriminated against based on things they had no control over, like their race or disabilities.
After all, one cannot simply choose to no longer be disabled. A person cannot become a member of a different race by changing their opinion or belief. These are not a matter of choice!
To discriminate against someone because of something one cannot change, one cannot choose to change, to deny a person the best possible chance to start out from ‘ as level a playing field as physically possible’ – that is wrong! And we, as a society, must not tolerate it. Ever.
Of course, we can never overcome a disability someone else has for them – but we should and MUST do our best to permit disabled people the tools to help them overcome it as much as possible. Even if it means allowing their guide dogs access to places where pet dogs are not permitted. Like, say, school…
That is a reasonable accommodation!
Instead, we – as a society – have lumped ‘accommodation’ based on ‘choices, opinions and/or beliefs’ and given them equal or greater importance than accommodation because of real disabilities.
In 2006, Canadian Supreme Court unanimously decided that even though knives of all kinds are banned on school property, a Sikh boy can carry a 10cm blade because he believes his religion requires it. This, despite the testimony of Sikh religious leaders who stated that carrying a picture of the ceremonial dagger is sufficient to satisfy the religious requirement.
In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada said that religious belief is sufficient grounds for weaponizing our schools!
Please, contrast the two cases: one child, based on ‘belief’, is permitted to bring weapons to school… while a disabled child’s certified guide dog is banned!
We have, with the HRCs acting as enforcers, elevated people’s choices and opinions into a place which is supposed to be reserved to stop discrimination based on things people have no control over!
Certainly, we must tolerate other opinions and personal beliefs – but we should not be obligated to accommodate them to as high a degree as if they were something the person could not exercise a choice over. Like, say, one’s race or physical disability…
Aspies and careers
July 20, 2009 — xanthippaMany parents of kids with Asperger Syndrome worry about what will happen to their child once they have to go out into the great, wide world and fend for themselves.
Ok, so all parents worry about this!
But parents of Aspie kids have some very particular concerns: we tend to be ‘anything but middle ground’ people!
And, let’s face it: our school systems are teaching a series of skills (a sort of a skills ‘tool set’) which will enable ‘middle ground’ kids to succeed. And that is understandable – aiming at the ‘middle-ground majority’ will definitely provide a statistically successful outcome in that the most kids will learn how to succeed the most; the old ’80/20′ rule (80% of results are obtained by 20% of the effort, but the remaining 20% of results will demand 80% of the effort to get them ‘right’).
This is not at all helpful when you (or your kid) falls outside the proverbial ‘2 standard deviations from the mean’… and need to learn a very different set of tools in order to succeed in life! Many Aspies have a difficult and frustrating time in school and they are not ‘getting as much’ out of it as their peers do. Therefore, many parents worry.
Just today I was talking to a mom of an Aspie who is worried about his future. She can see the potential in him – he is truly very, very intelligent! But, his school marks are not reflecting his intelligence, he often gets sad and sometimes he becomes withdrawn. To my untrained eye, that sounds like the Aspie (10 years old) might be slipping into depression: it is very common for even child-Aspies to become clinically depressed when they see they are more intelligent and know more than their peers, yet they are not succeeding and people (parents, teachers) are disapointed in them (or their peers mock them for it).
This very intelligent mom (herself an educator) saw the potential in her son, both on the ‘good’ side as well as on the ‘bad’ side: she could see him as either a professor or scientist – or homeless and destitute… depending on whether he learned to ‘fit in’ to the school system, or not!
That is not so! Of course, Aspies could end up without marketable skills, poor and homeless! But then again, everyone could…
There ARE non-academic careers where Aspies DO excel!
All kinds of artisans, or any kind of ‘specialists’ – skilled in a very particular thing – those are all things that Aspies can shine in! Or, in the least, make a name for themselves and make a living at it.
Think about it: if an Aspie finds a field in which they are interested, they will not stop before they learn everything there is to know about it, refine their knowledge, build specific rules and procedures which they have extensively tested and found to be most optimal. They often see ‘solutions’ where others do not. And, they are (usually) not afraid to tell people how to ‘do it right’…
From goldsmiths who craft the most beautiful jewelry to blacksmiths who make old-fashioned swords and armour (actually very popular these days), true to the ‘old methods’ – or who can make custom metal railing and chandeliers. From chefs, who specialize in a narrow field of cooking and become most sought out for their skill and knowledge in how to prepare the best tasting bits of food to clothing designers, who look at a garment and see the pattern of how it was made. From cabinetmakers who can replicate period pieces using traditional tools and methods or make the best quality, modern pieces of furniture that ‘works’ or those who can make the most specialized custom kitchen cabitnets to landscapers who feel the best way to pattern interlock bricks and flowerbeds!
And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
Don’t get me wrong, many Aspies do succeed in the world of academics: I suspect that more Math/Physics/Linguistics/Engineering professors are Aspies that not. That is why ‘Aspergers’ is often called ‘the little professor syndrome’! But academics are not the only options open to Aspies when it comes to careers!
We just have to find a field – and we CAN ‘own it’! We just have to be told that we can…when we are young and before we give up trying to find ‘our field’. Once we know we can, we WILL succeed: after all, that IS ‘the rule’!
If we can stick with just one field long enough…
Cross-posted on ‘Xanthippa on Aspergers’
McGuinty’s ‘all-day schooling’ harms low-income women
June 23, 2009 — xanthippaThis rant is a follow up to my State is Mother, State is Father… and Why young kids should not be ‘institutionalized’.
Why the rant?
There are many motives for doing this: McGuinty’s announcement said that he would begin implementing this program in areas where school enrolement was falling, and in economically depressed areas.
In other words: Canadians are having fewer children, so the school enrollment is falling. That means fewer jobs for teachers – like the premier’s wife! So, he is doing something about it: if you have fewer children going to school, then to keep the number of teaching jobs up (or even raise it), you must increase the number of hours the kids are kept there!
This is a make-work-for-teachers program! Nothing more!
The kids are just pawns!
What will be the impact on our society? It will make it more and more difficult for parents to look after their children themselves… It will be another nail in the coffin of the ‘nuclear family’!
Please, consider the following:
Our tax system penalizes families which choose to have one parent stay at home to raise their kids. These families are taxed at a much higher rate than those who choose to use daycare (the cost of which is, in many cases, also subsidized from taxpayer dollars).
In order to make ends meet, many young mothers (it is mostly mothers) who choose to stay home to raise their young children will start a small, home-based daycare. They’ll take in two or three other kids, pick them up from the schoolbus and care for them after school in their home. I have seen these home based daycares – several of them.
They are loving homes and, in most cases, the care-giver and the child develop strong bonds. This is good: small, home-based daycares mimic the ‘extended family’ scenario in which children have traditionally grown up and which, in my never-humble-opinion, is the best social setting for the healthy social growth of a young child.
What will happen under the newly proposed McGuinty plan?
McGuinty will have destroyed thousands of small, women-run business!
McGuinty will take away their jobs and give them to the teachers!
Because now, parents will not pay a neighbour or a friend to look after their child: it will be cheaper and more ‘convenient’ to just put them into school for 10.5 hours! And the taxpayers will pay for it all – so, why not?
And the women whose daycare income (now gone) used to allow them to stay at home will have to pay higher taxes, to pay the salaries of teachers (who get paid much, much more per hour than the caregiver was) who stole her job from her!!!
These women will be forced to work outside of home to make ends meet….and their own children will end up in the educational institution as well…because they will no longer be able to afford to look after them themselves.
In one punch, McGuinty has destroyed the ability of many parents to raise their kids themselves by depriving them of income and raising their taxes all at once!
People do not get rich running small, home-based daycares! Their income is pretty low – just enough to let them ‘make ends meet’, so they CAN raise their children themselves, with the love their children deserve!
Taking away from low-income women and giving to the fat-cat unions! That is ‘education – McGuinty style’!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 