Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Nobel Numbskulls

Two of our best presidents, Lincoln and Jackson, never went to college. Another great one, Harry Truman, attended only very briefly. Some of the most knowledgeable people I’ve met have no formal education beyond high school. I’ve known several from whom I learned more than I did from most of my professors. Excavators, loggers and well-drillers taught me more than my Earth Science courses did, and what I liked most was their lack of pomposity. Knowledge wasn’t something they used to impress others. It was for understanding, and they were willing to share it freely hoping to get more in return. Knowledge was its own reward.

There was a time college degrees impressed me, but that dissipated steadily during years spent on campus with people holding advanced degrees in what are aptly named the “soft sciences.” Fifty or sixty years ago, a Liberal Arts degree from an American college or university was good evidence that the person holding it had at least a basic understanding of philosophy, history, mathematics, literature, science, the arts, and was capable of rational thought, but that hasn’t been true for a while now.

The best illustration I can offer is from a project called “A Private Universe,” first published in 1987. Twenty-three randomly-selected graduates and faculty at a Harvard commencement were asked to explain what caused earth’s changing seasons, and only two could answer correctly. The rest confidently explained that as the earth gets closer to the sun in its orbit we get warmer weather, and as the earth gets farther away from the sun, we get colder weather. I was shocked when I first watched the clip. They didn’t realize their understanding is negated by the obvious fact that, while our northern hemisphere is experiencing winter, it’s summer in the southern hemisphere, so distance from the sun would be irrelevant. Twenty-one of twenty-three? Faculty as well as students? At our most prestigious university?

Scariest was how confident they were in their dubious understanding of climate. Now consider how impressed American voters are when a candidate has a degree from Harvard. Consider also that former vice president, Harvard man, and almost-president, Al Gore has convinced hundreds of millions that “our planet has a fever.” He further insists on restructuring our whole economy to reverse global warming. President Obama, another Harvard man, promises us that he will cut human-generated carbon emissions or our coastal cities will be flooded by melting ice caps - even if it means raising fuel costs for an average family by more than $1700 annually. All this while our economy is in deep recession.

Again, two Harvard-educated intellectuals are ignorant what should be obvious to any truly-knowledgeable, thinking person with only a cursory understanding of history: The earth has experienced at least four ice ages over hundreds of millions of years during which the Harvard campus was covered by glaciers a mile thick or more. Many times, those glaciers melted - because of what? Global warming. And what is the earliest evidence of human-generated carbon emissions beyond scattered camp fires? A few centuries? A few millennia at most? Those periods of acute global warming could not possibly have been caused by human-induced carbon emissions. It’s the height of hubris to think humans can reverse global warming in the 21st century - if indeed it’s occurring at all, which seems unlikely. As I write, it’s mid-October in New England and I’m watching the Patriots play the Tennessee Titans in a snowstorm. Sunday River Ski Area just opened for business twenty miles north of where I sit.

For this, Gore gets a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar? And what did Obama get the Peace Prize for? I give up.

I can only watch as these two Nobel laureate, intellectual, Harvard graduates lead half the world in a mass, global-warming psychosis reminiscent of Chicken Little and Turkey Lurkey. A quote from the late William F. Buckley is worth repeating: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.”

A highly-educated, intellectual, British leader is evidently caught in their hysteria. The BBC quotes UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown: “The costs of failing to tackle [global warming in the next 50 days] would be greater than the impact of both world wars and the Great Depression combined.”

That bad, huh Gordon? You remind me of what your late countryman, George Orwell, said about people like you and our two intellectual American leaders: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”


Anonymous said...

You are right on as usual, Tom. Some dauy I'd like to meet you and buy a cup of coffee. I'd like to get to know a man of your understanding of the times a lot better. Keep up the great work!

Harvey in North Baldwin

Anonymous said...

Great stuff Tom! You're the first person who has ever mentioned the ice age argument which I have always thought the best argument against global warming... and you're right! Gosh, it's unbelievable how easily duped everyone is. Oh, and from I hear, now it's 'global climate change' because they realize now that the earth is suddenly getting colder too. HAHA! All my best, and until soon. -Monroe Mann

Irregardless NH said...

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
[In regione caecorum rex est luscus.]

Erasmus (Adagia (III, IV, 96)
(1466 - 1536)

III-per said...


Great blog. Thanks for all you do.

One problem. You said "A highly-educated, intellectual, British leader is evidently caught in their hysteria. The BBC quotes UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown: “The costs of failing to tackle [global warming in the next 50 days] would be greater than the impact of both world wars and the Great Depression combined.”

This is the same "highly-educated intellectual" who sold one-half of his country's gold at almost exactly the lowest point it reached between the high of the '80's and today.

He is tool of the World Elite and serves their interests. I'll bet "they" bought a lot of that gold at $400 and will be so happy when the world "reserve currency" with a "gold component" drives the price of gold to $5000.

I'm not even able to imagine the billions made from the whole global warming, er, ah "climate change" hysteria.

It's all planned, you see.

Anonymous said...

Well there is evidence that there is a certain amount of global warming, if you deny that you are truly naive. The question is what is causing it. And it is most likely a cyclical thing. But due to scientific advances we are more aware of it now than in the past. I am uncertain what all this really has to do witn Nobel Prizes and more likely is just an excuse for a rant. I was expecting a lot more than what I got from the column. However I will not be discouraged and will keep reading it.


Anonymous said...

We get it, Tom. You are a teacher who has little regard for intelligence. If I were as unintellignet as you I would probably feel the same way. You are probably helping your anti-intelligence crusade in your teaching - your students probably don't learn much and/or want to dropout after having your class. What a boring article - pure regurgitation of right-wing malarky.

I love how Obama's Nobel prize burns you up. You just don't understand the world today. We went from an obnoxious, uneducated, schoolyard bully reputation under Bush, to having our President being rewarded the Nobel peace prize.

President Shimon Peres of Israel sums it up best - “Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.”

True patriots are proud.

Anonymous said...

How scary that a teacher can be so naive.

While Tom is correct that the Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years or so due to orbital shifts, such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less. We are obviously speeding up the rate at a dangerous pace. A report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.
• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

But it seems that it is more important for some people to automatically be against anything that doesn't fit their Big Business agenda - even at the expense of the planet their grandchildren will inherit. Their philosophy is to let corporations pollute and ruin the environment all they want in the name of the almighty dollar. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Wow, it took about 5 or 6 postings before the air heads to start on their global warming crusade.

Maybe the steam (excuse the pun) is running out on Global Warming.

I usually abbreviate Global Warming as "GW", but air head leftists go into a frenzy with that as it reminds them of a great past president, GW Bush.


Oh, our Olympic ski hill here in Calgary opened last week, first time since 1988 so early.

- tomax7

Anonymous said...

Oh, sorry tomax, I didn't realize that that a ski hill opened up in Canada! What more proof could there possibly be that there is no such thing as global warming? Better send a memo out to those 2,500 scientists and let them know what ol' tomax figured out!

Are you for real?


Anonymous said...

Naw, just read the facts mam.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."


Anonymous said...

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

- tomax7

Anonymous said...

"Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most."

We can play "my scientist said/your scientist said" all day long. Some people are willing to gamble their grandchildrens future on believing the sceptics, others prefer to play it safe - there is WAY too much at risk.

But I guess I should have dropped this topic after I asked "are you for real" and you answered, "naw".

Now I'm done.

Dawn said...

My Dad used to say when I was growing up, the more educated a person was the more common sense they lost.

Now that I'm a grandmother and have observed all these highly educated supposedly "intelligent" people ripping us off and making some pretty bad decisions I have to agree with him.

A preacher once said if you take a common thief and educate him he will be an educated thief. Instead of stealing just a watermelon he would now be clever (really stupid) enough to steal the whole train filled with watermelons.

Is it no wonder today the price of watermelons has gone up?

Anonymous said...

Well I respect your opinions but it seems that name calling is the best that the conservatives can do and it is precisely this concept that turns people away. You dont make a lot of friends by being rude. Time to grow up and take the country back if you can.
If someone like Rush Limbaugh said that there was global warming you would be following in lockstep and looking for answers.

Steve said...

@ C and other Anonymous - "I am uncertain what all this really has to do *with* Nobel Prizes and more likely is just an excuse for a rant."

This was an article on people and education. Please reread the first paragraph and take note that the 'GW' was being used as an illustration to point out how the highly educated aren't as smart as we'd like to think! Their are several holes in 'GW' that can't be explained like where is all this data is coming from when the first weather satellite was sent in 1960?

sami said...

We get it, Tom. You are a teacher who has little regard for intelligence. If I were as unintellignet as you I would probably feel the same way. You are probably helping your anti-intelligence crusade in your teaching - your students probably don't learn much and/or want to dropout after having your class. What a boring article - pure regurgitation of right-wing malarky.

I love how Obama's Nobel prize burns you up. You just don't understand the world today. We went from an obnoxious, uneducated, schoolyard bully reputation under Bush, to having our President being rewarded the Nobel peace prize.

President Shimon Peres of Israel sums it up best - “Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.”

True patriots are proud.

Nathan Pitts said...

Tom. You used the argument that my dad always used re the glaciers. He was trained in weather forecasting during WWII at the US Naval Academy so knew a thing or two about the subject.

Accurate weather records have not been kept for more than 150 yrs or so if that. So how the warmers profess to know what happened thousands of yrs back is beyond me.

My dad used to say this place was covered by a mile of ice thousands of yrs ago before the industrial age was even a glimmer. So what melted it all? Of course the Algors of the world who deal in feelings as opposed to logic just skip right over that question.

Much of science today is funded by grant money. Money is more often than not granted to scientists who have a pre ordained conclusion. I believe it near impossible these days to find good science that is unbiased. It certainly does not come from the golbal warministas!

This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race. If Algor, the man who was born to be "almost" president, would just shut his mouth that would help the climate to cool down a bit and help my disposition a lot.

Have read the comments of the past few weeks and am amazed at the folks who fire with both barrels at what you write and hide behind "anonymous".

Takes all kinds I think.

Anonymous said...

When Nathan Pitts says " the warmers profess to know what happened thousands of yrs back is beyond me" speaks volumes. He admits science being beyond him, yet folds fast to his belief that global warming is a "hoax". What is he basing this on? It is an opinion. The reasoning stated in an earlier post makes a ton of sense - what if it is NOT a hoax? I am NOT willing to gamble the world my grand children will live in because I don't like liberals and environmentalists.

By the way, my name is Stephen Casper...I don't want to give Nathan an excuse to whine about anonymity.

It does take all kinds. I wish there weren't so many of the kind that have no consieration for future generations.

pinko said...

Brilliant! A teacher explaining how little value there is in education. Many of your former students feel that way about your teaching.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Casper has been successfully frightened by liberal scare tactics to believe that absent massive new taxes and government control (cap and trade) on everything that emits carbon then his grandchildren's world will be in jeopardy.

Ignorance really is bliss.

DAWN said...

to Pinko...

and you know this for sure? Many? How many?

Anonymous said...

Even if large scale pollution and carbon emmissions does NOT cause "global warming" it does not take a scientist to know that it is still having bad effects on our environment which will adversly effect future generations.

Ignorance to this fact may be "bliss" for you, but it son't be for your grandchildren.

Anonymous said...

"liberal scare tactics"?

And what would those tactics be - relaying the message contained in scientific reports?

"Massive new taxes"?

Could you be specific about what new massive taxes will result from curbing pollution?

Anonymous said...

...i take it Pinko didn't pass.


Anonymous said...

"large scale pollution"

Is this opposed to small scale pollution like China or India?

I think if we ALL, spent the energy on reducing pollution - whether, smoke, liquid, or verbal, things would more agreeable.

I mean, giving China freedom to smog up the world, (think for a second where all that smog goes - earth spins east to west) while taxing the US is a prime example that the GW is a naked cash grab.

The US and Canada have a lot of anti-pollution laws in place already.

Why not make it a global standard instead of carbon credits?

Anonymous said...

The whole global warming agenda is the basis for a political power grab by the international Left. The IPCC is a political panel, not a scientific one. I recommend watching the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The dvd is available at amazon, Youtube carries it in 6 parts.
CO2 has NOTHING to do with warming. Evidence is clear that CO2 TRAILS the warming, WHEN it occurs. Which is not even the case right now.

Anybody who is still on Al Gore's GW train is either an accomplished idiot or a commie. Come to think of it: probably both!

If you're concerned about the world you leave to your grandchildren, leave them a world without big government.

Check THIS out! And go from there. Stop the power grab of the UN!

Nathan Pitts said...

When Mr Casper and the other "warmingistas" can offer a plausible explanation for what melted the glacial ice that covered this place thousands of years ago, not blaming it on man and his greenhouse gases as man was pretty scarce back in those times, maybe I might be inclined to believe a bit of it.

Until someone convinces me otherwise I will continue to believe it is bogus science. In fact to call it science is to use incorrect terminology. What your global warming is Mr Casper is not science but a political idea, one designed to get control of our country and put it into the hands of people like Al Gore, The Harvard Faculty and many other intellectuals that are just so darn smart, well, we just have to believe everything they say. Proof? Dont need any when your as smart as those people claim to be.

Talking about our children's future as you mentioned in criticism of me needs a reply.

No one who has ever been in the White house in the 62 years I have been on this planet has done more in less time, along with his apparatus, to put our children's future into debt that they never will be able to repay than the One has.

Want to see whose hocking your grandchildren's future, better look into your own group of believers who think spending money we don't have is the way to prosperity.

At the rate he is "changing" things a US paper dollar won't be worth what one square of toilet paper is worth here shortly.

Just watch.

I can't wait to read the news every morning to see what idiotic thing he has done today.

Nathan Pitts

Tom McLaughlin said...

Interesting to watch the interplay with the Chicken Little crowd and the regular conservative readers here. Obama and his minions are in panic mode, trying to ram health care "reform" through and then Cap and Trade before too many voters wake up and realize what's going on.

The local minions are striking out in venues like this because they sense the great unraveling as well. Guess that's why Obama is going after Fox, the internet, and talk radio as hard as he can. He's figuring that if he can shut them up, he can proceed with his big-government, redistributing, save-the-polar-bear, abort-the-babies agenda unobstructed.

It's only going to get more intesting as the polarization continues.

Ralph: thanks for the link. Very interesting. Very disturbing. The Senate still has to ratify the Copenhagen treaty and its constitutionality can be challenged in the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land still. What do you think as a Constitutionalist?

Anonymous said...

Before watching the recommended film I took a moment to check out the reviews to see if this was something to be taken seriously. It turns out to be a bloated piece of propaganda. Here are some excerpts from the reviews:

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” does not pretend to be neutral or fair-minded. This controversial British documentary, first aired in March on Britain’s Channel 4, is a one-sided attack on the predominant scientific consensus on global warming. Its producer, Martin Durkin, has a reputation for producing controversial films. The bias of this producer and his film is blatant and unmistakable.”

“…it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the IPCC”

“The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists. Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation, and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality”

“…alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?”

(Because that is the only way that lock-step partisan clones can operate when the facts and evidence are not on their side)

“deeply deceptive”.

And here is my favorite, which points out how such garbage is likely to turn around and bite the people spewing it!

“Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.
But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers” did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.
Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.”

Anonymous said...

The argument that scientists are siding with man made global warming just to make money is inane. They could make money by siding with the interest groups wanting to obfuscate the science supporting the reality of GW.

the 'cult' of denial are making lots of money spreading false information in an attempt to confuse everyone. The oil companies are very generous to anyone with a degree or a dog in the fight that spreads the 'urban legends' of how climate change is some sort of huge conspiracy or hoax being put over on the world by all the scientists in the world,in order to make a buck off of grants,or to raise taxes. Then of course there is the snarky hatred of Al Gore and all things liberal. Face it…you don’t understand the science and are simply siding with “your side” for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming.

Manipulating Politics and the Public…

Global Warming Deniers and ExxonMobil…

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science…

Senators to Exxon: Stop the Denial…

The Denial Machine:…

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anonymouse! Yes the one in the comment before this one:

"Before watching the recommended film I took a moment to check out the reviews to see if this was something to be taken seriously. It turns out to be a bloated piece of propaganda."

I see, you adhere to the scientific method to remedy your symptoms of buyer's remorse.

Instead of WATCHING a movie and forming your own thoughts, you read its "reviews" in leftist rags or in communiques of the communist Ofcom or BBC. That's smart. That way you will never step into the real world.

Like a hamster in a running wheel ...

DAWN said...

To the one who read the reviews first and bought what they said hook, line and sinker *shakes head at him* objective are you?

there are objections to every answer don't you know that Anonymous? Whenever you want truth in any area of life you must always go to the source, the foundation not to the ones objecting.

It's like gossip. Do you go to the last person in the line of many or to the first to get the truthful answer?

and as always...follow the money trail.

Anonymous said...

The global warming hoax is just the latest scare tactic in the laundry list of liberal environmentalist power grab schemes.

To name a few...
- Acid Rain
- Deforestation
- Depletion of the Ozone layer
- The coming Ice Age in the 1970's
- The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich predicted the mass starvation by the 1980's)
- Ted Danson told us back in the late 1980's that we only had 10 years to save the oceans.

All these hoaxes have the same solution. More taxes, more government control, and less liberty for the individual. It's unfortunate to see otherwise intelligent people get duped by the fear mongering of people like Al Gore.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I wouldn't eat at a restaurant in which most reviews called their food feces and lied about the ingredients. Sometimes you don't have to bite into a feces sandwich to know what it is.

Out here in the real world people choose not to eat that stuff.

Anonymous said...

I read a review of Algore's Inconvenient Truth that was merely a two word review and simply read, "Sh!t Sandwich."

You'd better disqualify that film too.

Anonymous said...

I just went on the "Rotten Tomatoes" website which collects reviews from all over about movies. They have a meter which shows how many reviews were positive - in this case 93% positive for Gore's movie! Right up there with "Gone With the Wind"!!

Sorry, I must have missed the
"sh!t sandwich" review - the site does not include imaginary reviews I suppose. And how lame was that comment anyway- can't you think of something other than simply stealing my comment and turning it around? "I know you are. but what am I"? Childish.

Anyways, I didn't see Gore's movie either. It sounded too boring, like watching a documentary on the dangers of ingesting lead.

I wonder how many of you feigning indignation that someone will refuse to watch a movie the critics say is crammed full of nonsense and propaganda have watched Gore's movie? Can anybody say "hypocrite"?

Dawn said...

Unless you see it for yourself in the case of the movies or eat at the restaurant yourself you are STILL taking someone's word for it. Why is this preferable than going to the source and making up your OWN mind? Can't reviewers be subjective like the rest of us?

Sure, we all listen to reviews. However, there have been some reviews I found to be baseless and really enjoyed the movie or restaurant after weighing what the review said and what others said who ACTUALLY went to the movie...or restaurant!

So now I have to ask you...have you ever gone to a movie that didn't get steller reviews and then enjoyed it immensely?

To get to the real truth, we must always first go to the source itself. Otherwise we are not using the God given brain we are meant to use and instead are saying we would rather be indoctrinated to what others wish for us to believe.

Anonymous said...

Before postulating on my previous post go back to Rotten Tomatoes and search for a movie titled, Spinal Tap. You will find that this hilarious movie received a 96 rating. HIGHER than even Gone with the Wind! I suggest you watch this near perfectly reviewed movie after which you'll see just how funny my last post really is.

You'd better hurry though, because according Gordon Brown you only have about 40 days or so before disaster strikes!

Anonymous said...

...somewhere in the conversation about movies, we forget to state the notion that Rotten Tomatoes grades it on an entertainment basis.

Meaning, how entertaining was the movie.

Simply put, I too would rather watch a comedy than a mushy musical.

Anonymous said...

None of us here knows enough about science to determine for ourselves who is best relaying the scientific data on global warming. We do not know when we are being lied to and manipulated in cases like this. We therefore have to rely on experts, critics and other filters to help us determine what to trust. The VAST majority of reviews I could find pointed out the extreme levels of biased propaganda in this film, while the vast majority of reviews said Gore's movie was great. I am not going to waste my time listening to somebodies lies, spins and twists for 90 minutes, just like I wouldn't go eat in a restaurant in which MANY critics have said they've found maggots in the food. My god given brain says that the evidence points to it NOT being worth it.

And yes, Dawn, I have enjoyed movies in which many critics didn't like, but when I do so it is only a matter of differences in opinion and taste and NOT in facts and figures. Would a waste my time reading a text book that has been shown to be inaccurate? Would a read a biography that most book reviews says has it's facts all wrong? NO! You, on the other hand, would read those books. I guess that is why you seem to have picked up so much msinformation.

Anonymous said...

I'm missing the point on the Spinal Tap movie. Yes, I agree that it was a VERY funny movie...but what is your point?

Rotten Tomatoes rates movies on how GOOD they are - all factors included. They simply take the percentage of reviewers who rate the movie positively.

I don't know Gordan Brown.

Dawn said...

About the reviews with maggots in the food...puh-leeze! I've read many reviews and have never heard of such a thing. First of all had there been such a problem the health department or whoever is in charge in regulating such things would have had that restaurant closed way before there were any reviews printed for us to read!

Face it, restaurant reviews as well as movie reviews are very subjective. What's pleasing to one may not be to another.

You're really going out on the hypothetical limb here to mask the fact that you don't have a mind of your own to use and would rather use other's opinions instead... especially when it furthers the biases you hold dear and near to your heart.

oh...and for the record...I love musicals! Phantom of the Opera is my favorite!

Anonymous said...

That movie was rated by most critics to be the equivalent of maggot covered food.

How did you like an Inconvenient Truth, Dawn?

I like musicals too Fiddler on the Roof is my favorite.

hjmoore said...

My husband and I wish to thank you for your common sense approach to teaching your pupils. We are from MA. and have a residence here in Lovell, ME. We always look forward to reading your editorials in the Conway Daily Sun. It is refreshing to see that some of our educators still believe in the Constituiton and are willing to so enlighten our children to their God given rights to choice/free thinking. I (like many of my conservative friends) fear for their future.

God Bless...and Thank You!!

Lou and Heather Moore