Thursday, February 24, 2005

"Educrats Leave Black Kids Illiterate"

Educrats Leave Black Kids Illiterate
By Onkar Ghate
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 8, 2005

The educational tragedy in Rockford, Illinois, now making national headlines, echoes a larger tragedy. At Lewis Lemon elementary school, with a student body described by The New York Times as “80 percent nonwhite and 85 percent poor,” third graders scored near the top in statewide readings tests. Their results were bested only by students at a school for the gifted. How were the results achieved? Teachers used reading lessons “heavy on drilling and repetition, that emphasize phonics--that is, learning words by sounding them out.” This approach, however, is deemed too extreme by the new school superintendent, who is phasing it out.

In discarding success, Rockford is following the demands of the still-dominant voices in the nation’s schools of education. They insist that phonics instruction be balanced with its antipode, the whole language “method.” Because “reading is such a complex and multifaceted activity,” explains Dr. Catherine Snow, professor of education at Harvard, “no single method is the answer.” This is like saying that because eating is “such a complex and multifaceted activity,” no single method can guide us, and that a proper diet must therefore contain a mixture of food and poison.

The controversy over how to teach reading is not a narrow, technical dispute. It is a broad, philosophic disagreement, with crucial educational implications. The phonics proponents maintain that human knowledge is gained objectively, by perceiving the facts of reality and by abstracting from those facts. These proponents, therefore, teach the child directly and systematically the basic facts--the sounds that make up every word--from which the abstract knowledge of how to read can be learned.

Supporters of whole language, by contrast, believe that the acquisition of knowledge is a subjective process. Influenced by John Dewey and his philosophy of Progressive education, they believe that the child must be encouraged to follow his feelings irrespective of the facts, and to have his arbitrary “opinions” regarded as valid. On this premise, the child is told to treat the “whole word” as a primary, and to draw his conclusions without the necessity of learning the underlying facts. He is taught this--in spite of the overwhelming evidence, in theory and in practice, that phonics instruction works and whole language does not.

In learning to speak, a child has already performed a tremendous cognitive feat. To read, he must now grasp the connection between the black marks he sees on paper--which to him are like hieroglyphs--and the spoken words he already understands. Systematic phonics instruction teaches a child to break the code of written language.

Spoken language is made up of discreet units of sound, called phonemes, like the b sound in “bat” or “boy.” Phonics teaches a child to break down spoken words into their phonemes and to symbolize them by written letters. The child learns how to sound out each word through its component letters. Reducing reading to a manageable set of rules quickly enables a child to read almost any word--and to experience reading as something easy and pleasurable and mind-opening.

This is what supporters of whole language condemn as “constraining” and “uncreative.” Analyzing language by abstract rules that connect phonemes to letters, one of them says dismissively, imposes “an uptight, must-be-right model of literacy.”

Instead, they argue that the child ought to focus on an entire written word, like “hospital” or “boomerang,” and learn it as the teacher pronounces it. Having no method to reduce the tens of thousands of written words to a manageable set of rules, however, the child must treat each word as a unique symbol to be memorized--an impossible feat.

What is the child to do when he encounters a word he has not yet memorized? He must guess. Here is what some whole-language advocates suggest the child do: “Look at the pictures” (what if the book does not contain pictures?); “Ask a friend” (is reading not a solitary activity?); “Look for patterns” (why not systematically teach him “patterns,” that is, phonics?); “Substitute another word” (is this teaching?). Conspicuously absent is: “Look in a dictionary”--because the child crippled by whole language cannot read a dictionary.

Whatever twisted mental processes the child is supposed to go through, it is a linguistic corruption to call this a method of reading.

The use of whole language results in nothing but illiteracy. (California, for example, which tried this approach in the late ‘80s, abandoned it after reading scores plummeted.) The seeming “successes” of whole language occur only when phonics is smuggled in--that is, when the child (on his own or with the help of teachers or parents) secretly decodes written language by discovering that, say, the words “banana,” “boat” and “box,” which he has memorized, have a similar initial sound and begin with the same letter.

What our schools need is not “moderation,” but phonics instruction. We would consider it child abuse to add contaminated food to a child's diet for the sake of “balance.” We should consider it the same when educators add whole language to reading instruction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Malkin's Defense of Internment

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2004

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Michelle Malkin, a syndicated columnist and the author of the New York Times best-seller, Invasion. She is the author of the new book In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror (available in Frontpage’s bookstore for a special offer of $19.95).

FP: Michelle Malkin, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Malkin: Thanks! A pleasure to be here.

FP: First things first, what motivated you to write this book?

Malkin: A few things compelled me to write the book. Ever since I questioned President Clinton's decision to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Japanese-American soldiers based primarily on claims of racial discrimination in 2000, several readers have urged me to research the topic of the "Japanese-American internment." World War II veterans wrote to say they agreed with my assessment of Clinton's naked politicization of the medals, but disagreed with my unequivocal statement that the internment of ethnic Japanese "was abhorrent and wrong." They urged me to delve into the history and the intelligence leading to the decision before making up my mind.

I was further inspired by some intriguing blog debates last year between Sparkey at Sgt. Stryker and Is That Legal?. After reading a book by former National Security Agency official David Lowman called MAGIC: The untold story of U.S. Intelligence and the evacuation of Japanese residents from the West Coast during WWII, published posthumously by Athena Press Inc., I contacted publisher Lee Allen, who generously agreed to share many new sources and resources as I sought the truth.

The constant alarmism from Bush-bashers who argue that every counter-terror measure in America is tantamount to the internment was the final straw. The result is a book that I hope changes the way readers view both America's past and its present.

FP: Your book exposes many myths regarding the Department of Justice’s “internment camps”. Could you briefly tell our readers about a few of them?

Malkin: One myth is that all the enemy aliens who were interned were ethnic Japanese. Almost half the people in the internment camps were European or of European descent. The larger myth is that the internment of ethnic Japanese--as well as the evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast--was based solely or primarily on wartime hysteria and racism. As I show in the book, there were in fact legitimate national security concerns. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with what the Roosevelt administration did, but my book leaves little doubt that the principal decision makers were honorable men who were trying their best to protect the country under extremely difficult circumstances.

FP: Tell us a few legitimate national security concerns that motivated the Government to do what it did vis-à-vis the ethnic Japanese at this time.

Malkin: Decision makers at the top levels of the Roosevelt Administration had bona fide concerns about Japanese espionage on the West Coast. These concerns were strongly reinforced by the “MAGIC messages”—that is, top-secret diplomatic communications to and from Tokyo that had been surreptitiously intercepted and decrypted by America’s signal intelligence officers.

FP: You show that the $1.65 billion federal reparations law for Japanese internees and evacuees was a total disaster. Tell us why.

Malkin: The popular perception is that the evacuees received nothing until President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. In fact, Congress had already provided a reasonable remedy to affected evacuees. The American-Japanese Evacuation Claims Act of 1948 authorized payment of more than $37 million to ethnic Japanese who made any claim for damage to or loss of property because of evacuation or exclusion.

Unlike the 1948 Act, which considered each individual claimant's circumstances, the 1988 Act doled out money based on ethnicity alone. An evacuee who refused to take a loyalty oath, an evacuee who renounced his American citizenship, an evacuee who resisted the draft, and an evacuee who volunteered to serve in the U.S. military were all equally deserving of an apology and a check. A disloyal evacuee who terrorized other camp residents or a camp resident who renounced his American citizenship received the same payment as a patriotic evacuee who assisted military authorities in the relocation and war efforts.

Japanese enemy aliens individually arrested by the FBI immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack received compensation. But their German and Italian counterparts, many of whom lived side-by-side with their Japanese counterparts in Justice Department-run internment camps, did not.

The worst effect of the reparations law has been its effect on current homeland security policies. Civil liberties absolutists have invoked the “racist” World War II evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese to attack virtually every homeland security initiative, large and small, aimed at protecting America from murderous Islamic extremists. When every detention of a Middle Eastern illegal alien is tantamount to the “unjustified” internment of ethnic Japanese, there is no room for rationality. This absolutist resistance to wartime threat profiling, based on falsified fears of repeating the mistakes of World War II, reduces the security of our nation.

FP: You demonstrate how both Japanese American and Arab/Muslim American leaders have united to weaken America's security. Give us the highlights please.

Malkin: Virtually every homeland security initiative implemented or contemplated by the Bush Administration has been opposed by Japanese-American, Musliam-American, and Arab-American leaders intent on preventing a replay of the events of 1942.

Within weeks of the Sept. 11 attacks by 19 young male Islamic terrorists, Japanese-American activists rushed to comfort Arab and Muslim Americans who felt unfairly targeted by the War on Terror. “War on Terrorism Stirs Memory of Internment,” the New York Times decried. “Japanese Americans Recall 40s Bias, Understand Arab Counterparts’ Fear,” read a Washington Post headline. “Japanese Americans Know How It Feels to Be ‘The Enemy,’” the Seattle Times reported. “Japanese Americans See History Repeating,” a Yahoo headline warned. “Reaction Reopens Wound of WWII for Japanese Americans,” the Los Angeles Times noted.

When the Justice Department began requiring young men from 25 high-risk countries simply to check in with immigration authorities during their temporary stays on tourist, business, and student visas, San Francisco Chronicle writer Annie Nakao wrote ominously of the program’s “haunting echoes of Japanese internment. John Tateishi of the Japanese American Citizens’ League told Nakao: “It echoes something from our own experience in 1942. It is really about racial identity, racial profiling.”

When immigration officials began allocating scarce detention space to political asylum seekers from high-risk countries rather than those from low-risk countries, Tateishi again played the internment card: “As one segment of the population that has gone through this before, we are determined that it won’t happen again.”

When immigration officials detained 762 illegal aliens (mostly Middle Easterners) being investigated by the FBI for ties to terrorism—a common sense step in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks—legal scholars Susan M. Akram and Kevin R. Johnson wrote that “the September 11 dragnet carried out by the federal government resembles the Japanese internment during World War II.” Georgetown University Law School professor David Cole lamented that the post-Sept. 11 response involved “the same kind of ethnic stereotyping that characterized the fundamental error of the Japanese internment.”

The confinement of American citizens José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi and the imprisonment of foreign jihadists at Guantanamo Bay also evoked contemptuous comparisons to the World War II evacuation and relocation. “One of the darkest and most painful chapters of American history is repeating itself,” proclaimed law professor Jonathan Turley. Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley called the administration's plan to try some enemy combatants in military tribunals "one of the most extraordinary assaults on civil liberties" in American history since internment. (The constitutionality of military tribunals has since been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

One of those who filed petitions on behalf of Hamdi and the Guantanamo Bay prisoners was Fred Korematsu, who was the subject of the 1944 Supreme Court case that upheld the exclusion of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast.

FP: Where do we draw the line between protecting civil liberties and national security?

Malkin: One of the themes of my book is that civil liberties are not sacrosanct. While we should never be contemptuous of civil liberties, we ought not make a fetish of them either. When we are at war, certain infringements (e.g., military tribunals for suspected al Qaeda operatives), while regrettable, are justified.

FP: President Bush calls you tomorrow and asks your advice on homeland security policy aimed at protecting America from Islamic extremists. He asks how you think his administration is doing and also what it should do. What would you say to him?

Malkin: I would tell him he is doing a fine job waging the War on Terror overseas but that his efforts here at home are seriously deficient. I would advise him to fire Norm Mineta and replace him with John Lehman or someone else who supports racial, religious, and nationality profiling in airport screening. It is long past time to get serious about border security. I would tell him to fire Tom Ridge and replace him with Tom Tancredo. Above all, I would advise him that if he is re-elected he should re-appoint John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Bush should go out of his way to praise Ashcroft. Often.

FP: Ms. Malkin thank you, it was a pleasure.

Malkin: Thank you Jamie.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

A piece on the Nazis and the Middle East

"“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'”
- Former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini in his post-WWII memoirs. [1]

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."
- Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) in his Nuremburg Trials testimony. [2]"

Here`s the piece.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Two quotes from Fatah`s constitution

"Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

"Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."

If one wishes to read the whole constitution it is available online here.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Paternity Fraud

"Researchers conducting a study into inheritance of blood groups in America in the mid 1900’s discovered that 1 in 10 babies blood types could not be explained by hereditary factors alone. The results of this research were kept secret for many years.

“In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers.

"The classroom was, of course, not the ideal place to find out this information," said Prof. Dickens, who is often consulted on ethical issues by geneticists at the Hospital for Sick Children”
(Mommy's little secret by Carolyn Abraham, The Globe and Mail. December 14, 2002

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1995, “Blood Grouping Tests in Undisputed Paternity Proceedings”, using the A-B-O blood typing system, it was found that 18% of the men who had voluntarily admitted paternity, were not the actual fathers of the children.

The use of blood groups for testing for paternity is not very accurate, as O and A blood groups are the most common."

"Data from the American Blood Banks Association shows assumed fathers requesting the use of DNA that 30% are found not to be the child's biological father and this is just from males who have a doubts about whether they are a child's father or not.

A research paper Prenatal paternity testing with deoxyribonucleic acid techniques published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1996 found in postnatal testing 37% of alleged fathers were excluded from being the father of that child. Prenatal testing excluded 53% of alleged fathers. 753 postnatal paternity tests were performed and in the study each mother admitted that the paternity of her baby was ambiguous."

Here`s the whole of James Hickey`s piece in Kitten News.