Education reform

Education is the key to the future. Most people will agree on this. But can be capitalize education and get the result we want. Like a previous post about why health care is so outrageous expensive in this country, capitalization of education fails for similar reasons.

The key problem with the dropping effectivity of education is that it serves the wrong customer. Colleges and universities serve the students. And the state and federal government encourages that for the same flawed logic. They demand certain graduation rates, or they cut the budget under the idea that low graduation rates means bad education. I argue that it is much more likely that the opposite is true. Let me explain.

When you measure universities and colleges by their graduation rates, there are two ways to achieve that. One is to do a better job at teaching (which is the hope), and the second is to lower the requirements for graduation. When two options to achieve the same arbitrary goal exist, what does a system do? It finds the easiest way to a solution. And in this case, that is often by lowering the requirements for graduation. Because if you lower the requirements by 1%, you will have instant increased graduation rates. Try doing that by improving teaching.

The core of the problem under all this is the wrong focus on who is the client. As I indicated above, the focus is on students as the client. And rule number one in business is to satisfy the client. So, what to do when too many students fail their class and become dissatisfied clients? Lower the requirements so they can graduate.

But this problem goes deeper. A standard aspect of teacher evaluation at universities is student evaluations. Sounds great. Let the students evaluate the teacher. The client gives feeback to the producer about the quality of the product. Perfect example of consumer driven evaluation. Very capitalistic! And it works. Bad teachers get bad evaluations. And that is how it is supposed to be. Right? really? Does it?

It doesn't. It doesn't because it focuses on the wrong client. Universities traditionally have as a task to produce people who can do certain professions in society. Whether this are public of private institutions, even the later receive most money from the government through grants and loans to students (independent of the student can actually pay those loans back).

So, why is the government paying so much for education? To subsidize the dreams of individuals? No. When dreams of students match up with their major, nice, but ultimately, governments spend money on education to educate people so they can contribute to society. And with that in mind, we should realize that the client the universities need to serve is society.

And what would that change? Well, if we take the needs of society as the benchmark for education, graduation rates as a primary measure of success are useless. Graduation rates are nothing if those students cannot find jobs at the level they are supposedly being trained for. But that should be the criteria for success.

This criteria contains two factors. One is the level at which they are supposed to be trained and the second is whether the university was successful in doing exactly that. Once we step away from student driven quality norms, and go to society driven quality norms, we get a handle to actually reform education and bring it to the level it needs to be at.

Instead of having teachers lowering their standards so they have 70% of the students pass the class, we have to get to setting a priori standard of what students should know, and if 80%, of the students fail for a class, so be it. The students that survive will at least know what they need to know. And once we measure universities by how well their students do instead of have they jumped the hoops in the proper order, maybe we can stop the gradual decline in oblivion.

PS, don't get me going about the practice of grade curving, which is the ultimate tool for students as a group to lower the standards for a class by collectively sitting back and do nothing. Because in the end, if you are just a tad better than the 20% losers, you have a good grade. Students don't compete against each other, they find the best strategy to passing grades that leaves most time for partying.

Paying through the nose for emergency room visits so that Americans can proclaim they have freedom of choice when it comes to health care insurance!

Last weekend, I had a wonderful discussion with one of my hard-core republican neighbors about health care insurance and Obama care. She was very much opposed to socialized health care because it was socialism. Eeeuuuwwwwww..... No, you should take care of that yourself, and if you are not working, tough luck, because everybody who can work can have healthcare insurance. Right...... (That's a blog post on its own, I leave that for another time)

Anyway, she was very much surprised when I told here that the socialized health care in the Netherlands was cheaper per capita than in the capitalized US health care 'system'. Of course she didn't believe me. O well.

But the most interesting part was the discussion about why the costs for health care per capita in the US are larger than any other country. There are of course a whole slew of reasons for that, but one that I like to discuss here is the use of Emergency Rooms as last ditch primary care. People without health care insurance often wait with going to the doctor when they are sick in the hope that it will go away with home remedies, over the counter medication, or that the body deals with it by itself. But when that does not happen, people end up in the room when the situation worsens and they need urgent care. That is were the costs come in, because a 100 dollar visit to a primary care physician has now multiplied itself to a 1,000+ dollar bill. A bill they cannot pay anyways.

Here is the crux. My neighbor, who vehemently opposed ObamaCare because it was ugly socialism, really really agreed with the statement that we could not let people die. At the same time, she really really didn't want to have socialized health care because it is evil socialist yuckyness.... This dual choice results in lack of primary care (which is cheap) for many people and racked up emergency room bills (which is really expensive) for those waiting too long in order to avoid large health care bills. So, who is paying those emergency room bills? Well, not the people who tried to avoid using the health care system in the first place because they don't have the money to pay for it. They are more likely to go bankrupt because of it. Wna when that happens, who pays the bill? Exactly, the taxpayer.

In short, her choice to have 'freedom' in whether to have health care insurance resulted in higher costs for society because we were not consistent with our mantra that everybody should take care of themselves. Because when it comes to the point of letting someone die, society at large has decided that letting someone die of a curabvle medical issue is not accaptable, hence we allow gthem to flock the increadible expensive emergeny rooms, but we refuse to provide them with a cheaper option because it infringes on the perceived 'freedom' of choosing yourself whether you want to have health care or not. This inconsitency results in far mo0re tax payer dollars to go to health care then when we would be consistent in our choice. Either we choose to have the freedom to be insurced or not buit we let people die who do not have health care insurance, or we provide a meaningful option so that everybody can have affordable health care. This hybrid system of denying health care when you are not yet almost dead but allowing to use the emergency room as a last ditch effort to prevent someone from becoming a carcass is the most expensive compromise you can imagine. But try to tell that to someone who listen only to the republican propaganda channel to Fox News.

Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

Judge orders Rekers rectification: He is bisexual

George Rekers wants to go after the various media outlets that reported that he was gay. Well, I think he actually will have a good change that he is awarded a rectification. Unfortunately, I also think it might be worse than not fighting it. Because I think the court-ordered rectification will be something along the line of:

Rectification: Our reporting of the George Rekers case and the male escort was erroneous. Dr. George Rekers is not homosexual, he is bisexual.

Security breach in US military

Rick Santorum (Repukeian) thinks that the US military commanders have been indoctrinated to support the repeal of the discriminatory "Don's ask, don't tell" policy.

Take a minute to let that sink in.






I repeat what he is saying:






US military officers indoctrinated

Really. I think if that is true, that the US defence is incredible vulnerable. Why, because it means that any foreign nation or terrorist group can indoctrinate these people. And some of them have far better indoctrination techniques available than the average gay with an agenda.

Reality is, they are not indoctrinated, but actually people who see that the policy is discriminatory and want it removed. They are the people who have to worry about losing Arabic translators because of the policy. They see it is hurting the US defence to kick people out because of their sexual orientation.

The twisted logic of the personhood initiatives

The personhood movement wants to redefine what is a person. They want to define it as from the moment of fertilisation till death. Yes, you read it right.

This person:



has the same rights as you and me.

Really.

Yes!

So, lets look at this. A woman gets accidentally pregnant because the condom breaks. The resulted fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as the woman. Same right, but clearly incapable to take care of itself. Humm, what do we do when parents cannot take care of their child? They can give it up for adoption. If the kid is lucky. So, if I get pregnant unwillingly, can I give my fertilized egg up for adoption?

Probably not. No, most likely, the mother will be forced to function as an incubator for the parasitic person inside of her that she does not want. However, that might raise some very interesting issues. One issue that needs to be raised is which person is in charge of the body of the woman? The woman? Or the parasitic person insight of her that she did not choose to be there? And if the judges declare that the woman looses her rights to the other person, does that mean that other people can parasitize a random other person as well, in a similar matter?

Oh, but most importantly, would it reduce the number of abortions? No, study after study already has shown that the only aspects of the abortion that changes is whether it is a legal or an illegal one, and the risk to the woman. Because if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she wil get rid of it, one way or the other.

Upping the stakes

The right wing anti-gay groups are upping their stakes. They now want to get homosexuality being recriminalized. And that makes sense. For a long time, they would just yell the most outrageous claims, and they were able to get away with it because nobody had done research on it. Now that more and more studies show that their claims are just bogus, they have to change tunes. And so they move away from masking their moral crusade by bold false claims that are easier and easier refuted to a moral crusade itself.

I think that is a good thing, because it will clear the air. I encourage those people to say that they think homosexuality should be criminalized. It makes it much easier to spot the bigots, and it will drive away the sensible conservatives who actually have enough of a brain to think for themselves.

Marriage and Gay Reality Check

Someone can only control you if you let them to. If we gays and lesbians hide away, that is what they want. They do not want to see us, and that is why they try to deny us access to as much as possible. But if we look at it, does it really change reality?

So, a reality check about gay and lesbians:

1. We exist. Whether we can marry or not, we exist and your children will hear about us. Weather you like it or not. because we exist. Unless you patrol EVERYTHING your children hear, read and see. Yeah, that is right, you home-school them, transport them in a blinded car to and from church and the parents of friends have to go through a solid vetting process so that the tender souls of your first born is not affected by knowing about those evil homosexuals.
   
2. We have sex. Does anybody really think you can prevent people from having sex. We have sex, and even when the sodomy laws where in place, sodomy occurred. And better, lesbians could just fuck each other anyway, and they do not commit sodomy in the first place. And yes, we know that you really would like to have that threesome with us, but sorry, you first have to chop of your dick before I even start contemplating whether I have you in my bed.
   
3. We have relationships. Duh. Ever tried to tell your kid they cannot see their boyfriend because you don't like him? Did it work? Really, you checked when she was at school, hanging out with friends etc? Yes, you did? Whow, I am sure you think you are a good parent. I think you are a despot.
   
4. We live together. Duh again.
5. We have children. Really, it is not that difficult to score some sperm somewhere, and in the worst case scenario, I think I could manage to get laid by a guy in a different city. Okay, I need a drink or 5 (2make me tipsy, 3rather drunk, 4 I about pass out, and 5, he can have fun) but heck, father unknown (I was to drunk) and me happy. And the child, s/he will have two of the most awesome mommies in the world. Unlike those from fighting, abusing, divorced, alcoholic, addicted and/or absent heterosexual parents. They should be happy if they have one parent to take care of them.
6. We marry. Well, maybe not legally in the state we are living in, but we marry anyway. Legally in either another state or country, and religiously in any church that doesn't follow your particular brand of hateful interpretation.

So, what happens when you are successful in forcing a gay or lesbian to play heterosexual? Get this:

1. We exist. That we live a lie in a heterosexual prison called a 'loving' marriage does not change the fact we exist.
   
2. We have sex. Only when we really have to, and using some tricks so that we do not want to kill ourselves immediately after you are done. We might try to make a list of groceries we have to get later at walmart, or think about the cute blond chick at work that accidentally rubbed my hand and made us wet between the legs when we were waiting for her to be done with the copier, or think about the muscled construction worker at the corner of the street how he takes you from behind on a role of electric wire, etc. etc. etc. You get the gist, we won't be there with you, we will be there where we feel better than with having sex with you. But heck, I guess you won't care as long as you can fuck someone without having to pay for it.
   
3. We have relationships. Really, why do people cheat within a relationship? Guess? Because they do not get what they need? Well, that is one of the reasons. Think. Think harder, think harder what happens when someone is gay and forced to enjoy heterosexual torture? You get it. Just think about all those conservative 'heterosexual' men who were caught with a guy..... Just think what they were doing with those gays.... huh guys.
   
4. We live together. You got us there. Darn.
   
5. We have children. Of course, the heterosexual marching orders include that you have a child. Or two. Or three. And with a bit of luck, we only need one time sex for each child. But the best of all, we get to spread our GAY GENES! Thank you for helping us to pass on those gay genes! I know, you think that it is a choice, and as long as that you think that, we get to spread our genes. So, please, you think it is choice, and we spread the genes. Sounds like a good deal to me! At least, if we have to endure hetero sex, it is at least not for nothing.
   
6. We marry. And we are sooo happy. NOT. But thank to those men and women who have been carefully brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality can be cured if they are willing to marry one and help them overcome their abomination, we marry. And I know, you do not care if those selfless heterosexual souls get hurt sooner or later when their partner whon is really gay and not heterosexual cannot longer stand the heterosexual prison marriage and leaves her for a homosexual partner. Really, if you after 20 years of a love free, sex-free, passion-free marriage think he does not have passion, love etc, just wait till he does not have to deny himself any more. And please, no complaints please, you did it for God and Country. He will reward you in heaven. Isn't that wonderful.

Have a nice day!

Deserved loss in Massachusetts

Really, the democrats do not deserve to have 60 seats in the senate. If you cannot work together, you deserve to loose.

Change was coming. Yeah right. I still think Obama was the best choice, but it is obvious that change was not coming. And change is not coming because the democrats do not want it. As someone wrote, Washington is from the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists. It should have been obvious what was going to happen as soon as the campaign promise on the revolving door for lobbyists was broken.

Anyway, with the repukeians filibustering pretty much everything just to show who is boss, and the democrats giving in to that with compromise after compromise, it would be just plain better to elect a retard to start with.

It is now time to wave goodbye to Universal Health Care. Like a mirage in the desert that fades when you get closer.......

The good thing is that in the next months till the midterm election, we can sit back knowing nothing substantial will happen in Washington, our rights will be eroding more and more, and the democrats will roll over and become the lapdogs of the repukeians once again.

Gay revolution

I have been following the federal court case against the Californian Proposition 8 that define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The more I hear about it, the more it get clear to me that it is not just prop8 that is at trial, it is homosexuality itself that is at trial.

"Protecting California Children"! Which California children? Those well adjusted kids with gay parents against their own parents? Who will have their mummies or daddies anyway, regardless whether their parents are married? Really, those kids are only negatively affected by it. But heck, those kids do not count. Because they are losers anyway because they have gay parent. No, it is not to protect those children, it is to prevent children from being exposed to alternatives of their parents heterosexual marriage. Because "Oh My God", TRADITIONAL marriage is under fire. (I will go into the canard of the so-called "traditional marriage" another time)

But really, ultimately, they do not want their kids to know that we exist. Because this is not the only way homosexuality has to be removed from sight. For example, they do not want homosexuality be mentioned in sex-ed. Homosexuality is a choice, and you can fix them (like a dog). etc etc Effectively, they want us out of sight, so that they can bread their next generation of bigotry and prejudice.

I think it is time that the gays stop hiding. The more they try to push us out of sight by denying us fundamental rights, the more visible we should become. Really, once they get that providing us with our fundamental rights is the best way to minimize their exposure to us, they will be at the front lines lobbying for it. So, we have to become more visible, and this means adopting the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are so in your face about their message. I really think it would not be a bad idea to go with groups of gays and demonstrate in front of especially fundamentalist schools during pick-up of the kids, same with fundamentalist churches, etc. Expose them to our existence. In short, No More Mister Nice Gay.

Jonathan Wells shows his ignorance. Man bites dog at page 75645

Jonathan Wells, a fellow of the Dishonesty Institute posted on the "Evolution News and Views" website the following in a post attacking Donald Prothero, someone who actually does know his shit:

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesn’t work, because a two-winged fly hasn’t simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop “halteres,” or balancers. The halteres are located behind the fly’s normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gain—not loss—of an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book "Icons of Evolution"). (Emphasis mine)

Really?

Well, Jonathan Wells, tell me, why is this large and complex gene found in other insects than Diptera?

Does Ray Comfort genuinly not understand evolution?

Ray Comfort, an easy target for anti-creationists because of his incredible obvious ignorance when it comes down to understanding evolution, has apologized for not knowing where he talks about:

I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females.

And he then cointinues to state that he:

I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe.

Well, we (evolutionary biologists) could help out here. But the problem is not the evolution of the sexes, it is:

It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution.

I give him that. Yes, it is impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal interpretation of the bible. And this is also why nobody until now has been able to talk sense into him. And further, nobody will, until he is willing to look at evolution as a process by itself and see what it explains. And he knows already, you can read that between the lines of his own posts, that once he tries that, he will see the power and beauty of evolution and it will become even more difficult to reconcile with his religious perspective.