Say Anything Blog

Welcome to the world of Liberal Education. I remember writing a paper supporting the death penalty in a Criminal Justice class during the 1990’s and getting a “C” on it. So I decided to write it from a treatment perspective and got an “A”.

It’s called the liberal indoctrination of young minds.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

“No literal reading of the US Constitution acknowledges any right to heath care.”

There is the entire paper.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I’ve done a class or two like this; the goal is more or less to learn to work from the data provided, not necessarily to indoctrinate (though that can be the case). 

One thing that someone who objects to the idea can do is to take a serious look at the logic and analysis provided; what questions are NOT answered by the data?  What conclusions follow, and which do not, from the initial premises and evidence?

I’ve often found that by taking a look at “the questions not answered,” you can ironically use sources that “promote” a point of view to emphatically reject it.  Walter Williams is famous because of this ability, as is Rush Limbaugh.

Call me crazy, but I don’t really see this as a lib v. conservative issue.  When I was in high school, we used to have debates on a regular basis as part of English class.  The teams would be chosen at random and then you would draw for sides.  THEN you would find out the topic.  Sometimes you were happy, sometimes you weren’t.  I had to argue AGAINST the death penalty and FOR a handgun ban in the same year.  Did I cry about it?  Not once.  I did what this kid needs to do:

Suck it up.  It’s no sense arguing that the teacher’s trying to change your opinion on the subject because if you are big enough to go to college, you are old enough to have and keep your own opinions.  Do the assignment.  I recommend arguing for the other side because if you are too scared to do that, you obviously don’t hold a lot of confidence in your initial opinion of the matter.  In fact, consider the benefits of arguing the other side: reaffirmation of socialized medicine’s looniness, the possibility of finding new arguments against socialized medicine for use in everyday life, and walking away the bigger person.

Call me crazy, but I don’t really see this as a lib v. conservative issue.  When I was in high school, we used to have debates on a regular basis as part of English class.  The teams would be chosen at random and then you would draw for sides.  THEN you would find out the topic.  Sometimes you were happy, sometimes you weren’t.  I had to argue AGAINST the death penalty and FOR a handgun ban in the same year.  Did I cry about it?  Not once.  I did what this kid needs to do:

Suck it up.

Debate class is a little different, I think.  Learning to play devil’s advocate is an important skill.  A big part of critical thinking.

Here, though, the student is tasked with taking a side on an issue - for or against universal health care - but then is given sources that are overwhelmingly for universal health care and is told that he can only use those sources.

I guess that’s the problem I have.  It’s like telling the kid that he can only be for universal health care.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s no sense arguing that the teacher’s trying to change your opinion on the subject because if you are big enough to go to college, you are old enough to have and keep your own opinions.

I think the student who emailed me was more amused about the absurdity of the assignment than anything else.  It was a “look at these idiots” type of email, not a “I’m the victim of a liberal professor” email.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, it would be interesting to see the sources give for the assignment.  did the student who emailed you give you the actual sources?  When he writes “And all of the information supplied to me is basically FOR government sponsored health care”, that word “basically” raises a few questions.  Was there information provided against national health care or not.

Something seems to be amiss here.  How about a followup email back to the student with the following questions:
1.  What information were you actually given with which to complete the assignment?
2.  was the only information given anti-national health care simply the constitution says there is no right.

Before I call the professor an idiot I would like all the information the student has in front of him.

Honestly from going to college for my BA and MA I don’t need to hear the question to know that if your not spewing the liberal line your papers are going to reflect it. While the professor will denie it, I know it is true I have seen it in my college experience.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Socialize medical insurance.  That is where the money is wasted.

Perhaps, in their economics class, they will be tasked to do a little creative writing about where the money will come from to pay for it. Maybe they can create a new Big Bang Economics theory where some metaphysical singularity spews out paper money that is worth something until the universe is filled.

If you tightly stack 10 trillion dollars one on top of the other, they will only reach 700,000 miles out into space so, they’ve got a ways to go.

Shouldn’t students be finding their own sources?  Or would that be too dangerous?

Bingo, you win the prize....

I’ll copy/paste what I wrote to RNS:

“I honestly think that using examples of failings of state-sponsored health care is sufficient. I work in a writing center, and I see these papers all the freakin’ time. Someone arguing for state-sponsored health care would use examples of instances where someone used the system successfully (they’re only arguments, after all - no source is perfect), so why not use instances where someone has not been successful in a state with gov’t health care? I KNOW there are articles about it. If Michael Moore can get half-assed arguments for it in Cuba, then you can find full arguments against it in Canada.”

I’ll add that those sources, when provided to a student, have to have a counter-point somewhere.  If that student does a little digging on those figures, he’s bound to find more than what he was provided in those same articles.  You can get by with a lot on a technicality.

Also, as someone pointed out, the “literal reading of the Constitution” comment can be the thesis, and everything you say after that just has to support that thesis.

If you get a bad grade, take it up with the Dean.

Use the paper to fisk the snot out of all the “sources” provided.

Shred them mercilessly.

Prove the point by attacking the source documents themselves.