To test whether somebody really believes in their own ideology or are just picking and choosing from different ideologies to suit and excuse their lifestyle choices or outright hypocrisies, you simply have to look at whether or not they apply their presumed ideology and its tenets universally.
For example the environmentalist types who claim nature should be untouched. Don't pick up that raccoon, if it was meant to die, it will die. Don't prune the deer population, nature will take its course. Of course when it comes to humans, we're not part of nature. And instead of letting us progress and advance as we would unopposed we have to "cut back on our consumption." "Stop emitting greenhouse gases." "Save the planet." Or, on the other side, if famine or plague occurs in some part of the world now we ARE to intervene (which I'm not necessarily against - just pointing out the double standard). We're not left to evolve like our woodland creature friends naturally. Oh no, we're different, we're special, we have to artificially stop our progress, evolution and advancement to the point "Idiocracy" is no longer a mockumentary.
Another example is religion and global warming. IN GENERAL leftists are usually anti-religion. They mock and ridicule it. Oh you fool for believing in a big bearded fellow in the sky. But they'll sure swallow whole all the global warming, environmentalism and "Gaia" BS - failing to note it's nothing more than a religion itself, if not, even worse, just a fad.
And then there's the "social liberal" argument (which I'm for) where we want MAXIMUM social freedoms. Don't tell us what to do and how to do it...as long as it pertains to abortion, smoking pot, and gay marriage. But if it comes to letting people own guns, having a heater in a bar, or driving a 12 cylinder, gas-guzzling sports car, by god, those aren't RIGHTS! Those are tools of fascism and tyranny!!! You can't have THOSE rights! Again, the hypocrisy shines through.
However, while doing a little philosophisizing whilst hiking in the mountains I had another epiphany. An observation of yet another instance of hypocrisy where a group of people advocate one thing, but then completely disregard their advocation when it comes to an issue personal for them. - the DESPERATE need to be "well-rounded."
In general (though not always) people who tend to be for forcing kids to take college classes they don't need under the guise of "it will make you well-rounded" tend to be of the liberal stripe. Not always, but most of the time. These same people, however, are also more likely advocate single-parenthood (mother or father, it doesn't matter, but we'll focus on single moms because that's where the majority of the hubbub is focused). They not only advocate it, but celebrate it and champion it.
But my little economist brain is having a hard time trying to reconcile something.
If you want to force children to take prerequisite college classes so you can milk them for more money...errr.....um..."to make them well rounded" wouldn't you also then be a strong advocate in recommending children be brought up with fathers in order to make them also "well rounded?"
I mean, if the purpose of becoming "well-rounded" is so you can interact and more fully engage society, you would think having a male role model early on in life so that you may effectively interact with half the population would be VERY important. That having SOME experience or knowledge about how the other half of the population acts dishes up more well-roundedness than the Marxist drivel in Uber-Mandatory Freshman English Lit? Additionally, why wait till you're 19 to get "well-rounded?" With a father in the household, BAM! Your lessons in well-roundedness commence immediately. And you get a much more diverse, more well-rounded education than what the colleges serve up. You can learn to change oil, develop a work ethic, self-supportation, independence, self-reliance, charm girls (or conversely) know what those young naughty boys are thinking. College prereq classes are so homogenous with their commie-centric horse-blinder focus, they can't hold a candle to the diversity and well-roundedness a father can provide..
Naturally of course I'm partially joking, but the hypocrisy still exists. And my target is NOT to criticize people who bring children into this world without fathers (or mothers, for that matter). But rather to shine a light as to what's really going on. Understand the majority of people who are forcing you kids to take college prerequisite classes do not do so because they truly believe "it will make you well-rounded." If they believed that and put so much importance and emphasis on it, then they'd also advocate not bringing children into this world in single-parent conditions. Because you want to talk about NOT being well-rounded? You want to talk about being maladjusted? You want to talk about a genuine disadvantage due to a genuine lack of well-roundedness? It isn't because a kid can't cite Dworkin or didn't read enough Noam Chomsky. It's because that kid didn't have a father and is completely dysfunctional when it comes to interacting in the real world.
No, the reason you're being forced to attend classes that are of no benefit to you is because they want your money. You look at the people who benefit most from billions of dollars being spent every year on worthless prereq classes, 9 out of 10 times it's a liberal academian who is deathly afraid of the private sector or working in the real world and has found a little fiefdom by forcing you kids to take his/her worthless and mind-numbing class. You also get the joy of buying his $300 38th edition book (because the 37th edition just won't do) "Post Modernity Social Dynamics Under New Rubric and Paradigm Analysis of Sexist Misogyny." It has nothing to do with your education or making you "well-rounded."
Besides, the truth is, if you have friends, interests, a cool father and just a curiosity in life, you are already well-rounded and don't need any "adjustments" by your collegiate indoctrinators.
No comments:
Post a Comment