Filed under: Education
I heard about this on Bill Bennett this morning. A quick Google search didn’t turn up too much. But tonight when I sat down tonight to do my evening blog-skimming as per the usual routine I found that Sister Toldjah had stumbled upon the story.
To sum up the findings, according to a new study, college students think they’re the big shit:
Today’s college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.
[...]
“Kids are self-centered enough already.”
Is anybody really surprised by this? When teachers are trained to praise kids for actions and outcomes that really aren’t all that special. This sort of action falsely props up children. Further more it sets them up for future failure and disappointments when a professor fails an essay or research paper because it’s not based on fact, it’s poorly written and it, to boil it right down, really isn’t college material. While the student could say, “hey, I’m really not all that interesting or important and I really didn’t do that great of a job on this essay…I should try harder,” many instead say, “that professor hates me (or is such a bitch, or is such an idiot, or doesn’t know what she’s talking about…)” passing the blame from themselves (because their high-school teacher gave their paper a B+ even though it didn’t meat 4 of the 5 requirements for a good paper. It’s just idiotic.
Here’s more:
“Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others,” he said.
The study asserts that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.”
So in addition to the academic decay that this is resulting in, it could also be linked to the moral breakdown that our society is experiencing at the ands of college students who have no self control or constraint. The moral deterioration of this country is a topic for another time though…
Sister Toldjah has some thoughts too:
You mean like telling a child or teenager in no uncertain terms that what they’ve said/done is wrong, and punishing them if they don’t listen might actually be beneficial in the long run? And ingraining in them that while trying to achieve a goal is important, making sure you achieve it is the most ultimately satisfying and rewarding personally (oftentimes professionally) – that might help them succeed when they grow up?
My Way News is covering the attempted assassination attempt on Dick Cheney:
A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people and wounding a dozen more. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target.
Cheney’s spokeswoman said he was fine, and the vice president later met with President Hamid Karzai in the capital, Kabul, before leaving the country.
The remainder of the article discusses the details: what was going on when the attack happened, a dispute over how many were killed or injured and so forth. I suppose it should really come as a surprise that the Taliban would have made such an attempt. But the question that I’d like to pose is a hypothetical one: what kind of emotional or mental impact does such an attempt have on the one whose death was planned? In other words, how does Dick Cheney have to feel about the fact that these people hated him enough to try to take his life?
I suppose that the Vice President is a tough guy with thick skin, so I doubt that he has been emotionally crushed. Still, you have to think that it hurts to think that you’re hated that much, doesn’t it? I realize that there are people in the world who don’t like me as an individual (rather than they hate me for being American, i.e. Muslim extremists), but I can’t imagine being hated for who I am so much that somebody would target me with an assassination attempt. Thank God VP Cheney survived and is doing well.
technorati tags: VicePresident, DickCheneyAssassination, Taliban
People who make statements similar to those made by America Ferrara at the ‘Spirit Awards‘ are bad for our country. Here’s what she said:
Braff: “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?”
Ferrera: “Well, you know, I mean I guess I’m a free-spirited person and America’s supposedly the ‘land of the free,’ right?”
Braff: “Well, I guess.”
Ferrera: “Or at least we will be in 2008.” [loud applause]
Aside from being a stupid thing to say, these sort of statements hurt our country. Here’s why: President Bush is not perfect, I acknowledge that, and I think a majority of even his most trustworthy supporters would agree. However, when an unjustified, ignorant personal attack such as this is launched, we (Bushies) feel that we have to defend him at all costs. So while her hatred of Bush may be for legitimate reasons (although I wouldn’t count on it), she is totally ignored by those who just dont’ want to see the president attacked in such a manner. This need to defend our President from idiotic attacks like this stifles debate and prevents any sort of level headed discussion of the facts. It is disgusting and it is dangerous.
technorati tags: AmericaFerrara, SpiritAwards, Bush, Hollywood
Filed under: Funnies
My brother commented that he missed the Friday Funny so here, after the Week in Review, is this week’s funny.
- First we review the Half Hour News Hour
- Next we discuss the XM/Sirius merger
- Then we cover primary election reform suggestions
- After that, we discover one more reason NOT to support Obama
- Then Don Surber explains how Britain is setting the bar
- Finally we cover the “draft Fred” movement yet again
And now for the funny. I stumbled on this week’s funny on accident. Darth Vader illustrates the importance of setting a good example for your kids…
It’s not what I wanted to post, but I A) thought was funny anyway and B) couldn’t find what I wanted to post. Maybe I’ll find it next week.
More blogs hinting at the possibility of a Fred Thompson 2008 Presidential bid. KnoxNews blog:
Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee Republican senator who’s now a Law & Order prosecutor and regular replacement for radio host Paul Harvey, is being urged by supporters to consider entering the presidential race, according to associates.
“The draft Fred movement is growing,” says one ally. They say that Thompson is flattered by the suggestions, but it is unclear if he is turning away their appeals. The effort is growing among conservative blogs, where several boards are pushing the folksy straight-talker to get in.
One associate who has worked for the administration and on previous presidential campaigns said that while the GOP field is crowded, it is still dominated by candidates like Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who are viewed skeptically by conservatives, opening up a potential avenue for Thompson to join.
As I’ve noted here and here I would certainly seriously consider tossing my support in for Fred if he were to declare. But I find it highly unlikely nonetheless…
More at http://www.draftfredthompson.com
technorati tags: FredThomspon, 2008Election
Don Surber has some interesting thoughts on Prince Harry’s service:
Lt. Wales fought the brass and won an assignment to Iraq as part of the British forces there.
Lt. Wales in civilian life is known as Prince Harry. He could be gallivanting about in the Britney-Paris-Lindsay world. Instead he is doing his duty: Serving in an unpopular war.
[...]
It is leadership. Yes, they are to the manor born. But unlike the American princes and princesses, they serve. They serve someone other than themselves. They do not presume at age 40 to be fit for politics and run for office, but rather they put in their time.
[...]
and on the “rich and famous:”
when I look at this raft of celebrities and rich people, I ask myself who the hell are they?
Maybe instead of rehab, Brit should enlist. Have Mom take the kids. To be sure, she would need a waiver, but if a hitch in the military was good enough for Elvis, why not Miss Spears? The threat of a random piss test would sober her ass up.
It sure would. I a week in Iraq would sober a lot of us up, wouldn’t it? I don’t think it takes military service to understand the importance of seeing that sometimes there are more important things that just us. Britney–and so many others–could most definitely benefit from such a lesson.
technorati tags: Iraq, PrinceHarry, BritneySpears
Filed under: 2008 Election
I found just one more reason not to support Obama’s bid for the 2008 Election: Tom Daschle is supporting him. From The Politico:
Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle has committed his support to Barack Obama, two Democrats with knowledge of Daschle’s decision said.
“I certainly expect that he will be supporting Barack,” said Leo Hindery, a Daschle friend who backs John Edwards. “Senator Obama could have no better ally and advisor than Tom Daschle.”
Many of us remember Daschle as the receipient of the anthrax laced envelopes in the months just after 9/11 (I’m not entirely sure he didn’t send those to himself just to get attention…just kidding). Here’s what Wiki has to say about him:
In 1986, Daschle was elected to the Senate in a close victory over incumbent Republican James Abdnor, becoming the nation’s 1,776th senator. In his first year, he was appointed to the powerful Senate Finance Committee, an unusual honor for a freshman. In 1988, then-Senate Democratic Leader George J. Mitchell named Daschle the first-ever co-chair of the Democratic Policy Committee, making him the first South Dakotan ever to hold a Senate leadership position.
[...]
In past Congresses, he has served on the Veterans, Indian Affairs, Finance and Ethics Committees. From January 3, 2001, to January 20, 2001, Daschle became Senate Majority Leader for the first time, as the Senate was evenly divided with 50 members from each major party, and as long as Al Gore was Vice President of the United States, this gave the Democrats the majority in that chamber. Upon the swearing in of the George W. Bush Administration on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney became Vice President and the Democrats returned to being in the minority and Daschle reverted to being Senate Minority Leader.
[...]
Daschle has not made intentions clear as to whether or not he will run again for office; however, he has signed on as a Senior Policy Advisor to the law firm Alston & Bird LLP and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
In late September of 2005, Daschle caught the attention of the media by reactivating his political action committee, changing its name from DASHPAC to New Leadership for America PAC and procuring a speaking slot at the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. He has continued to keep a relatively high profile among Democratic interest groups. These moves were interpreted by the media as an exploration of a potential 2008 Presidential candidacy. Daschle has ruled out any future bid for the United States Senate and on December 2, 2006, announced he would not run for President in 2008. [2].
One more little Wiki tid-bit which I did not know about:
On February 13, 2006, Daschle became one of two Democrats (with Rep. Jane Harman of California) to endorse a controversial domestic surveillance program conducted under the authority of President George W. Bush by the NSA.
That still doesn’t win me over to his side!! Down with Daschle. Down with Obama.
technorati tags: 2008Election, Obama, TomDaschle
I read an interesting post via Instapundit on Bob Krumm’s site regarding Tennessee’s proposal to move forward the states presidential primaries. He argues the following:
I’m not in favor of early primaries. They don’t give us enough time to see the candidates. Sure, we political junkies have seen quite enough of these guys already, but most people will not have by the time of a February primary.
[...]
I’d rather see a handful of states take the opposite approach to the early primary trend, and create a late “super primary” day. Leave enough primary delegates in play until then to swing the nomination if one of the leaders falls flat on his face. That would also force the leaders to campaign through what is now the dead time between March when it’s decided and August when it’s official.
Now Krumm makes a good point. His idea would force primary candidates to campaign in places that aren’t associated with the early primaries i.e. Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple of other select few who, in essence, make all the decisions for the rest of us.
On the other hand, I think the bigger issue regarding primaries was but forth yesterday by Newt Gingrich in his appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Via the TV transcript:
I think there may be a market out there for somebody who has enough sense not to run two years early, that if you think about it, these candidates are running for an entire year — to get into a campaign to run for an entire year to get sworn in in January of 2009.
And I just think the average — this is going to be like watching bad reruns of Survivor. People are going to say get them off the island, I don’t want to see this anymore. You watch. Mark my word.
I’ll come back this summer at some point, if you’ll have me, and we’ll talk about how bored people are with this campaign.
I really think Gingrich makes a strong point here. I don’t’ know how many others feel this way, but personally I am already growing tired of the anti-Obama jokes, the anti-Mormon (Mitt Romney) jokes and the anti-Clinton hysteria. I don’t want to hear about how Romney is a flip-flopper over and over again. I watched just a few minutes of Romney’s appearance with George Stephonopolis on Sunday morning and, while I think ole George was a bit of an ass, I must say I saw the same questions being asked and the same answers being given. It is February 19, 2007. The primaries are a year away. The general election is a year and a half away. Can’t we have a break from campaigning? Apparently not.
Technorati tags: 2008 Election Primary Elections
The New York Post is reporting this morning that the long speculated merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio will be announced soon, possibly this afternoon:
February 19, 2007 — Satellite radio operators Sirius and XM are expected to announce their long-awaited merger today, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The two sides were locked in negotiations over the weekend trying to hammer out a final agreement with an eye toward going public with the merger today in Washington, D.C., where XM is based, this source said.
A quick Google search (let me just say one more time: God Bless Google) shows that as early as January 2005, the Post was reporting on just such a rumor:
Satellite radio rivals Sirius (SIRI) and XM (XMSR) have been cozying up to each other, The Post has learned.
While talks have not advanced far, executives from both sides have been meeting lately to discuss the possibility of a merger, according to several sources close to the matter.
Today’s story suggests that government anti-trust hearings may make the deal as late as 2008 before it goes into effect. Other estimates suggest up to 15 months of hearings before we truly see the result:
Gaining regulatory approval “could take up to 15 months; hence, we think any proposed deal needs to be announced by the end of March to close by mid-2008,” Peck wrote.
So we may ask ourselves, why is are these two companies contemplating such a move?
Combining Sirius and XM would result in a single satellite radio operator with more than 12 million total subscribers. A deal would also marry Sirius content, such as Howard Stern, Frank Sinatra and Nascar with XM’s Oprah Winfrey, Bob Dylan and Major League Baseball.
More important, analysts widely predict that a deal would also save the two companies nearly $7 billion annually.
But how will it effect the customer? Well, the report doesn’t go into detail about how the merger could/would impact current subscribers to either service, nor how it might effect future customers. I wonder, though, if we will have to swap out equipment? I won’t really mind the upgrade, especially if i don’t have to do it until March 2008. by that time my equipment will be well over 2+ years old.
I first subscribed to Sirius in the early spring of ‘06. The intial start-up cost of $130 (I bought a special they had at Costco for about $100 plus the $30 activation fee) was well worth it, probably one of the better $100 I’ve ever spent. I am consistently complaining to folks who don’t have it whenever I have to ride with them, “You know, your life really would be better if you just broke down and got it…”
For Christmas this year, my mom and I went in together to buy the equipment for my father. She and I already had it and I think he was jealous. At any rate, we all have it, and the channel line up greatly suits our personal needs. For example, while all of us enjoy FoxNews Radio, FoxNews talk, Super Shuffle (an eclectic mix of the old, the new and the different…) and (Dad and me more than Mom) Hannity on ABC News Radio, Mom also enjoys the MetOp (Metropolitan Opera) Station. Meanwhile Dad keeps his radio, for the most part, tuned to the Classic Rewind station, which plays “later classic rock” tunes (i.e. Van Halen, AC/DC etc.). I enjoy “the Bridge” which plays “softer classic rock” (i.e. Bob Dylan, James Taylor, etc.), Classic Vinyl (the older classic rock) and the Outlaw Country station. The Christmas stations were a big hit this year, too.
It will be interesting to see if this is true and if so just how we–the consumers–will be impacted. While competition is always a good thing, a combined force can sometimes be beneficial, too.
I watched (what I think was) the series premier of “The 1/2 Hour News Hour” on FNC tonight. Hmm. Different.
The video of President Limbaugh was quite interesting. Are there two more hated conservatives in the world aside from Limbaugh and Coulter? Even Bush isn’t hated quite to the extreme that these two are:
The Washington Post does a nice job of summing up just about exactly how I felt about the show:
[The] ” 1/2 Hour” definitely has its moments. Anchors “Jennifer Lange” and “Kent McNally” (Jenn Robertson and Kurt Long — why didn’t they just use their real names?) sit at a simple desk and deliver the facetious items without any of the dreadful, overboard mugging and mincing of “Daily Show’s” obnoxious Jon Stewart.
[...]
But those on the left anticipating, and probably hoping for, some kind of ghastly disaster will be disappointed — and may even feel like joining in the (apparently canned) laughter more times than they’d expect. In a nutshell: It isn’t terrible.
I don’t really know how I feel about this show. On the one hand, it would be nice to have a conservative answer to the Daily Show. On the other hand, I hate the Daily Show and I think it truly is a dangerous thing. Oh I know, I know, I’m just another one of those snooty conservatives who doesn’t know how to laugh. But my problems with that show go deeper than that. Aside from the fact that I honestly do not find it humorous and aside from the fact that I think Jon Stewert is a smug, overrated comically illiterate man, The Daily Show scares me because of the fact that so many teens (and an increasing number of 20-something college folk) see this as their sole source for news. Now that’s not fault of the show, but it’s still something important to consider. Did anybody else watch the show? Feel free to leave a review if you did.
technorati tags: HalfHourNewsHour, Media, FoxNews, RushLimbaugh, TheDailyShow
