(To be continued):

A collection of commentary, some that displays better on other sites:

• UnDumb Yourself Down

Source: My post, Jan 2010 – on the Educating of America (high-profit, sterile, captive audiences).

The cost of Moral Reconation Therapy and what the “Duluth Model” actually is… Know what the Kool-Aid actually is.

• Stop Subsidizing Crime, against women, children, or simply society

Source: Rights for Mothers Post, and commentary (3 comments so far, I have 4th in moderation)

• Did “Jim Crow” ever Go? Not really…

Put Yourself in TheLoop(21.com) for some Common Sense

Is the Black debt problem really self-inflicted?

A message of “financial responsibility” overlooks the historical and social factors that contribute

By: Jamelle Bouie | TheLoop21 (Add to your loop)
Mon, 10/25/2010 – 00:00

Rev. DeForest Soaries preaches that debt is a bigger problem for the black community than racism

In the middle of the 20th century, for example, when federal agencies provided billions in home loans, blacks intentionally were excluded. As such, millions of African Americans were kept from building equity and passing on wealth to their children and grandchildren. And this is to say nothing of the economic isolation and educational disintegration that closed most pathways to middle-class life for countless black people.

Unfortunately, the problem of debt is destined to get worse in the next few years. The recession has absolutely devastated African American families; nationwide, the unemployment rate for blacks has hovered at 15 percent for more than a year, while billions in savings have been wiped out by the financial crisis and collapse of the housing market. As of December 2009, according to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, median black wealth has dropped 77 percent to $2,100. Insofar that African Americans have made any gains toward closing the wealth gap, they have been virtually eliminated by the recession.

Pastor Soaries’ message of personal responsibility and uplift is understandable, and for some communities — maybe his own — absolutely necessary. But for the black community writ large, it isn’t enough to say “be more responsible” or “don’t spend your money on frivolous things.” No, when it comes to wealth and debt, the problems facing African Americans can’t only be ameliorated by individual effort.

In this world, it’s no shock that debt is a serious problem for African Americans; with so little wealth available, African Americans are far more likely to lack the assets necessary to survive during hard times. Indeed, according to the IASP, at least 25 percent of black families had no assets to turn to in times of economic hardship. And in the absence of assets, credit is often used as an emergency resource.

This stands in contrast to the image Pastor Soaries presents about African American debt. That is, he sees it as simple irresponsibility, “we still do payday loans, we still do rent-to-own, but you see, we’ll drive shiny cars and we’ll wear designer clothes, and we have all the appearances of doing well, but we won’t admit that we’re broke.”

But this isn’t true; the problem of African American indebtedness has its roots in Jim Crow, and the century-long effort to keep blacks from accumulating wealth and finding prosperity.

• Get a Grasp on How Hypocrisy Happens (Religion helps…)

• • Phyllis Schafly Lives (2002/2005). Yes, it IS possible with a straight face to protest VAWA funding and not mention fatherhood funding, of approximate same lifespan:

  “Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law”

• • If Congress is looking for a way to return to principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, or to help finance the expenses of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without raising taxes, a good place to start would be to reject the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). It’s a political mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers’ money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, to promote divorce, to corrupt the family court system, and to engage in anti-family political advocacy.

• Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush Administration, but there’s been no accountability or oversight for VAWA’s ten years of spending many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that VAWA has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on VAWA in mid-July, but no critic of VAWA was permitted to speak.

• VAWA was first passed in 1994 after the feminists floated such bogus statistics as “a woman is beaten every 15 seconds” and “80% of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer.” {{NOTICE: cite absent}}
• VAWA encourages women to make false allegations** and then petition for full child custody and a denial of fathers’ rights to see their own children. VAWA promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman’s say-so. {** see 2nd link from top for a great “false allegation” and theatrical imitation of blood in Dombrowski case — musta been a false allegation, right?} {{Family courts don’t typically issue those civil restraining orders, at least what I’ve sen. They help remove them, though…}}

• Stop Human Experimentation and calling it “Science” “Psychology” or even “Evidence-Based Practice”

NOTE: In Texas, one source I read said the HHS budget was one-third of the state budget. I think it’s time to change that.

No, I”m not going to talk about Daubert. I just like this explanation: Found at:

 

Why Theoretics?

Theoretics: the field of study which utilizes creative thought, disciplined logic, and the current knowledgebase to develop credible scientific theory.

by Dr. James P. Siepmann, Editor-in-Chief

Though there are many courses at our colleges and graduate schools to teach us how to undertake and perform experiments for the various realms of science, there is a notable lack of courses to teach us theory development.

Theoretics is a field separate (albeit integrated) with experimentation, not only because good theory development is actually quite complex and intricate, but also because the people who make good experimentalists rarely make good theoreticians and visa versa. Theoreticians usually possess a more creative and unbound mind (e.g.. Einstein) while the experimentalist maintains a more meticulous and practical mindset (e.g. Edison).¹ Rarely are the creative theoretical mind and the meticulous experimental mind contained within the same skull. So what we currently have are experimentalists trying to do theory development, and (excuse my candor) not very well.

Not only do most science journals require the focus of a paper to be an experiment or a statistical analysis of data, but about half of all the scientific articles published today contain at least one error of theory, either in logic or form. This is not acceptable. The implementation of Theoretics’ principles need to be done prior to any experimental undertaking, not only because it puts the “cart before the horse” but it will also help to determine the experimental methodology that should be used.

{{In Social Science, Psychology, etc. areas – errors of form can be seen in language, or grammar.  One of my pet peeves is calling all the children of the nation “our children” — when the “our” present are a select group of policymakers, and many parents of the nationa are unaware of this group’s existence.  This defies biology…}Or repeatedly asserting factoids as if they were scientifically data, when the studies supporting that have identifiable funding interested in obtaining certain conclusions.  Is Psychology Science?  NO, it is not!  It’s labeling plus deduction plus a bit of prophecy, and eliminates per se  factors that many people consider real (and act on as if real), to wit, spirituality. A scientific theory that has repeated exceptions is not a valid one unless those exceptions are accounted for, etc.  AND, this aturho is very likely not talking about the judicial realm — but stateing that in so-called “scientific” realms, there are still errors of theory, in logic or form, about 50% of the time.  What he’s saying is, the publication of an article doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a valid theory.}}

Theories also change over time, and are occasionally proven invalid later, and discarded.    When theory is used to support forced POLICY, then we have problems — big ones.  People who had “theories” to support their policies included Hitler, racists, and others.  In case you wondered, yes I AM referring to “fatherhood.gov” and associated paraphernalia.

Theory can also be the subject of a paper by itself, and I would submit that such “papers of theory” advance Science* much more than “papers of experimentation”. In order for a theoretical paper to be worthy of publication though, it must be able to remain valid in light of current scientific evidence and also be able to explain such data at least as good as the theory that is currently accepted.

Most of today’s journals consist of papers where an experiment is undertaken in order to validate a single argument hypothesis.** Such papers are undertaken to define or redefine some minuscule aspect of a sub-sub-sub-(and so on)-division of Science. Worse yet is that the more encompassing new theories are usually shunned unless they fall within the special/general relativity and quantum theory realms and are written by someone whom academia deems acceptable (papers today are usually accepted based upon who wrote it, rather than its merit)

**Parental Alienation, anyone?