The Four Bacteria of the Apocalypse

Bacteria image from NIH
Howdy, little fellows! Now, behave… (Credit: NIH)

Looks like the fourth horseman continues his ride.

I was just reading my most recent copy of New Scientist (actually, may be one behind), and it has an interesting article about the growing crisis in antibiotics resistance. In particular, an inset report caught my attention with its catchy title: “Four Bacteria of the Apocalypse.” It concerned four particular bacteria that are apparently frightening health experts for due to their powerful resistance to antibiotics–in some cases, including “antibiotics of last resort.”

The four are:

  1. Multi-drug resistance tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Half of these cases are untreatable by current drugs.
  2. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The article points out that another staph bacteria has similarly developed a resistance to a last-resort antibiotic–this time, vancomycin. I suppose that means we’ll be hearing about VRSA, or VRS-something, in the near future.
  3. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). This is a gut bacteria, and carbapenems are another group of antibiotics of last resort.
  4. Gonorrhea. The magazine reports that untreatable cases of this sexually transmitted disease have emerged.
The entire article can be found online here (the insert appears to be on page two of the online version).

French children and ADHD

Hat tip to Mr. Albert Mohler and his podcast for pointing me to this article.

The magazine Psychology Today was the scene of a bit of a tiff concerning one professional’s opinion about ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The context, as I understand it, was the recent publication of the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — or the DSM — which is, essentially the “Bible” of mental disorder diagnosis. Mr. Mohler had much to say about it and, indeed, apparently it is a terribly flawed book. The principle that comes to mind is one I warn my kids about from time to time: If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. In the mental health professions, this philosophy does seem to reign to a certain extent.

But, in particular, it was Mr. Mohler’s pointing to an argument about ADHD that caught my attention and eventually led me to a statement that you rarely see in mainstream publications anymore, let alone a work like Psychology Today.

The title of the Psychology Today article was, “Why French Kids Don’t Have ADHD” by Dr. Marilyn Wedge (you can read it by clicking on the title).

It clearly began with punch:

“In the United States, at least 9% of school-aged children have been diagnosed with ADHD, and are taking pharmaceutical medications. In France, the percentage of kids diagnosed and medicated for ADHD is less than .5%. How come the epidemic of ADHD—which has become firmly established in the United States—has almost completely passed over children in France?

“Is ADHD a biological-neurological disorder? Surprisingly, the answer to this question depends on whether you live in France or in the United States.”

The point, of course, is that biologically, there is not so much different between an American child and a French child that 9% of American children should have a “biological” disorder that only 0.5% of French children do.

The debate then ensues: Is it that French children are actually different? Is it just that French doctors are ill informed? American doctors would be quick to say their French counterparts are too slow to recognize what is a true “disorder” (and responses in Psychology Today have, indeed, said as much), while French doctors would say that American doctors are far too quick to do so.

But what struck me was the common sense in Dr. Wedge’s article — that how a child is reared absolutely does have an impact on such things. Perhaps not 100%, but certainly not 0% and, in truth, far, far greater. In particular, the final section grabbed me with it’s information and advice that is sadly all too rare these days:

“From the time their children are born, French parents provide them with a firm cadre—the word means ‘frame’ or ‘structure.’ Children are not allowed, for example, to snack whenever they want. Mealtimes are at four specific times of the day. French children learn to wait patiently for meals, rather than eating snack foods whenever they feel like it. French babies, too, are expected to conform to limits set by parents and not by their crying selves. French parents let their babies ‘cry it out’ if they are not sleeping through the night at the age of four months.

“French parents, Druckerman observes, love their children just as much as American parents. They give them piano lessons, take them to sports practice, and encourage them to make the most of their talents. But French parents have a different philosophy of discipline. Consistently enforced limits, in the French view, make children feel safe and secure. Clear limits, they believe, actually make a child feel happier and safer—something that is congruent with my own experience as both a therapist and a parent. Finally, French parents believe that hearing the word ‘no’ rescues children from the ‘tyranny of their own desires.’ And spanking, when used judiciously, is not considered child abuse in France.

“As a therapist who works with children, it makes perfect sense to me that French children don’t need medications to control their behavior because they learn self-control early in their lives. The children grow up in families in which the rules are well-understood, and a clear family hierarchy is firmly in place. In French families, as Druckerman describes them, parents are firmly in charge of their kids—instead of the American family style, in which the situation is all too often vice versa.”

By the way, the “Druckerman” to whom she is referring is Pamela Druckerman who has appeared in these posts before. (“French Moms and Social Psychologist Silliness“, 2/7/2012.)

I was both shocked and delighted that a mainstream magazine like Psychology Today would allow someone to mention spanking in anything other than a negative light. But to focus on just that would miss the point. The idea of parents running a house, creating the “framing” and “structures” and not allowing the children to be the center and “pace setters” of that home was refreshing to see.

I’d write more, but I lack the time. (Actually, I lacked the time to write even this, but–hey–too late!) Just thought it was worth putting out there. And, for kicks, I will add a vive la france!

Sacrificing a child on the altar of Personal Preference and Convenience

Deleting a Twin
Deleting a twin for convenience... How wretchedly sad. (Image edited from an image of a beautiful set of twins by We El at nl.wikipedia, click for original and license.)

This article is rather popular on the website of Canada’s National Post, today: “When is twins too many?”

For those who have never heard of selective abortion as a procedure to voluntarily reduce unexpected multiple pregnancies, it may be an eye-opener. I have stated before (beginning here, I think, and in a Tomorrows World commentary here) that I think the pro-life crowd in America should consider whether it is being hypocritical, in that it frequently attacks abortion but seems to turn a blind eye to the practices of fertility clinics, which routinely create multiple pregnancies in which several of the developing babies are killed so as to reduce the pregancies to only one or two (not to mention leaving many in a frozen state of “limbo,” pretending that this is some sort of moral alternative to destroying them).

From the article:

“The very notion of a procedure that selectively eliminates fetuses, letting others live, is little known and almost never debated in the broader community, said Maxwell Smith, a University of Toronto doctoral student.

“‘While there is a lot of discussion in academic circles and lay circles about abortion, you don’t have these discussions happening so much around pregnancy reduction,’ said Mr. Smith, who spoke about the issues at a major U.S. bio-ethics conference recently.

“‘That puts a lot of patients and health-care workers in a situation where there might be a lot of moral distress, because they’re not sure what the ethical considerations are.'”


“There seems to be little ethical debate around reduction for triplets or more, when the technique clearly curbs the chances of a pregnancy being lost entirely or the babies born with serious health problems. Some experts, however, call even those cases a largely hidden symptom of a fertility industry whose work has helped increase the number of multiple births by over 40% in the past 20 years.

“Often, those multiples are conceived because clinics transfer a number of embryos into a woman undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment, boosting the chances of pregnancy.

“‘It troubles me a lot because it’s avoidable,’ Dr. Jon Barrett, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. ‘We are forcing people to make a terrible choice because we haven’t been sensible.'”

Dr. Barrett’s comments should be enlightening.

If killing a baby because one does not want it is wrong, then what makes it OK to seek medical help to have one baby if it will mean killing three others?

I know that life-or-death choices when there are real dangers is truly heartbreaking. And the effects of such choices are deep and long lasting. Also from the article:

“Medical professionals often do not recognize that fetal reduction can be traumatic, said Ms. Haddon. She knows of one mother who years after a reduction still watches her children in the playground, thinking ‘there should have been more.’

“‘These poor parents are caught between a rock and a hard place,’ she said. ‘They tried so hard to get pregnant and probably spent a lot of time, energy, emotion, money and now they have to kill some of them, now they have to reduce. Even though the child was lost through reduction, it lives on, in mind and fantasy.'”

These choices are sometimes faced even by those who are not seeking artificial help for their infertility. If this were the norm, then the discussion over these practices would be totally different. But as the article points out, this case is sadly not the norm in these situations:

“The classic twin-reduction case, however, involves a couple on their second marriage who have children and want just one more addition — and might end the whole pregnancy otherwise, Dr. Evans said. ‘In North America, couples can choose to have an abortion for any reason,’ he noted.”

That kind of reasoning is highlighted by one couple from Burlington, Ontario, featured in the article in more detail (emphasis mine):

“Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s — and their first son just over a year old — when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins. ‘It came as a complete shock,’ said the mother, who asked not to be named. “We’re both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. … All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen.’

“…The Burlington woman, however, says she has no regrets, and believes the option should be openly available to all parents expecting twins.

“‘I’m absolutely sure I did the right thing,’ she said. ‘I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn’t feel any of that. Not that I’m a cruel, bitter person … I just didn’t feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to.‘”

Another child sacrificed on the altar of Personal Preference and Convenience.

What happens if a child develops a condition two years later which prevents his or her parents from living life as they “like to lead them” or which prevents them from caring for the child in the way they “wanted to”?

Just how close are we to a culture in which a newborn child can be legally killed a month after birth, as envisioned by controversial (though not controversial enough) bioethicist Peter Singer? After all, some conditions do not develop until after birth — if mere convenience, socio-economic considerations, or even simple personal preferences are the chief deciding factors, why stop at “reducing” fetuses? If only the law prevents us, what prevents the law from being changed?

What a horrific mentality this society is developing towards human life, and the God who forms us in the womb (Psalm 139:13) is watching. More than that, He will bring a reckoning.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(I’ve quoted the article profusely, but it does have much more. Give them some well-earned traffic and click on through to read the whole article: “When is twins too many?” I appreciate that they have covered the negative side of an industry that does not receive enough attention and a practice that is talked about too little.)

Are Wind Turbines Hazardous to Your Health?

I’d like to develop this into something for the Tomorrow’s World magazine or website, but for now a bit of undisciplined blogging will have to do.

There is an article today on the Wall Street Journal online by Robert Bryce titled “The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power.” (Those without a subscription — like me, now that it has lapsed — can read the article at the author’s website:

I am familiar with the issue it brings up: many are complaining about health-related problems (headaches, insomnia, dizziness, et al.) they are experiencing and which they attribute to living near “green power” wind turbines.

While it is my understanding that causal relationships have not yet been established between these things and living near clusters of wind turbines, it is very feasible due to the persistent generation of low frequency vibrations.  And the anecdotal evidence is mounting across the globe.  From the article:

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter’s property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. “We tried everything — earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night.” Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter’s story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories — most of them published in rural newspapers — have documented the problem.

Far from isolated incidents, organizations have sprung up in many nations to combat the encroachment of wind farms due to the growing fear of health-related problems associated with them.

The article captures my attention for at least two reasons.

One, the environment and attempts to “green” our approach to living are a hot button topic these days.  Those (few) of you who visit here with any regularity know that I’ve commented several times on the ongoing drama of Climategate and the growing questions surrounding the “settled science” of anthropogenic global warming.  On this topic, you must read the new Tomorrow’s World article on the topic, “Here Comes the Sun?” by Mr. John Meakin.  It’s an excellent article that discusses much of what has been said here (though more concisely!) and which stresses the true concern of the age: eventual theogenic global warming, and its root cause.

But the article also struck a chord with me because it touches on a topic that I find fascinating and a sign of how man needs God: We are too shortsighted.  Even if these wind turbines aren’t generating all of the health issues many believe they are causing, the fact is that — as best we know — there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (the TANSTAAFL Principle).  We may, now, think that many of these “green” energy producing alternatives are “problem free” but, of course, they are not.  And mankind’s horrifically limited ability to look down through the corridor of time at all the factors that influence such things is always a concern.  What is today’s wonder gadget is tomorrow’s health-destroying menace.

While we have a hard time understanding at the consequences of our actions 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years down the road (see “Rabbits in Australia”), God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).  Lack of sufficient foresight will be an element in man’s undoing, and stories like this one remind me of just how shortsighted we really are.

Thankfully, Christ is coming — and His vision of the future is much better than 20/20.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Death penalty for children

I am currently pressed between tasks, but just noticed this and thought I could post it quickly.  It seems that an old commentary I had written for Tomorrow’s World and the Living Church of God has been re-posted today.  Here are the first three paragraphs — for the rest you can click the link at the end:

Most states in the U.S. practice a programmed sequence of events to execute their most violent convicted criminals. There is an injection to anesthetize and take away pain and consciousness, a second injection to paralyze the body, and a third to stop the heart of the unconscious individual –- a process designed very carefully to give the condemned offender an opportunity to die pain-free and with dignity, as one who had died in his sleep.

That said, the efforts are continuous by some to have this method done away. Focusing on the fact that the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, some argue that even if the procedure is performed properly there is a possibility, however slim, that the criminal may still feel pain before he dies. These groups argue, essentially, that if there is even a remote possibility of a sensation of pain or suffering, then the procedure should be declared “cruel and unusual” and be banned.

Yet many of the very same individuals pressing for an end to the death penalty and for absolute guarantees that convicted, violent criminals are able to leave this world pain free show no regard for the life in the womb, and the pain that unborn child may feel in the process of abortion.  [To read the rest, Click Here…]

The commentary is straightforward and a bit graphic, and it may offend some, but I believe it is a point worth making.

If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to commentaries from the Tomorrow’s World program and the Living Church of God by clicking on the link provided on the commentary page and receive new commentaries several times a week by e-mail.  There are also buttons at the bottom of the page that allow you to share the commentary with others on Facebook, Twitter, StumbleUpon, Digg, etc.  (Actually, the same thing that the buttons below do.)

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Actuaries of WellPoint in the news

Regular readers of this blog (all two of you) know that I tend to take notice when actuaries are in the news, since I was an actuary, myself, before I became a minister.

Well, he actuaries of the insurance company WellPoint Inc. have been in the news today, having published an analysis based on their own company’s experience of what result some current health care reform proposals will have on insurance premiums in private markets across 14 states in which they have relevant experience.  One would expect this to be a very helpful and enlightening study to help turn possibilities and conjectures about the future into real numbers.

For those interested, it’s worth reading in today’s WSJ opinion section: “The WellPoint Revelation: Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.”

As the subtitle says there, the results aren’t pretty.  But I must say that, as a former actuary, it was nice to see an article that mentions and quantifies the things that have come to my mind in all of this back-and-forth debate.

For instance, it has been a mystery to me how anyone could expect premiums to could go down when an insurer is forced to do such things as accept applicants with pre-existing conditions and those who apply only when they know they are sick, and equal premiums across the board, regardless of various, natural distinctions that should be considered.  The result would be monstrous antiselection (noun, the tendency for insurance to be sought only by those who have greater than average need which thereby raises a plan’s cost and reduces its benefits –  The only way to combat this would be to force those who don’t need health insurance to purchase insurance as well (say, at legislative “gun point”), though this is, of course, a questionable act on many levels — moral, constitutional, economic — and wouldn’t necessarily fix the problem, at that.

Yet, one certainly has to have sympathy for those with pre-existing conditions, given that we have allowed the medical industry to become such that insurance is virtually a necessity when it really shouldn’t be.  Of course, the reason for that is debated:  Corporate greed and profit maximizing?  Overreaching and incompetent government regulation?  A little from Column A and a little from Column B?

Hence, this mess of a “discussion” that we currently see around us.

Anyway, the purpose of this post is not to take a political side (and I hope you see no side taken above, as I have tried to stick to facts) — rather, I simply seem to get a kick out of seeing actuaries mentioned in the news.  It’s a great “behind the scenes” career, and many in the public are not even aware of it.

And I must say that — if it is true — it is a shame that the White House and the Senate Finance Committee would attack the character of those who created the study less than two hours after its release, which would not be nearly enough time to review the findings and determine their soundness.  Actuaries certainly aren’t immune to the Jeremiah 17:9 quality of human nature (I’ve never given scientists a pass on this, so I can’t give actuaries one, either!) and can’t always control how their findings are used, but the pool of actuaries I have known have been quite a mix when it comes to political opinion and the “liberal vs. conservative” sides of things.  In fact, towards the end of the “Clinton years” the CEO of the insurance company I used to work for — a former actuary, himself — once stood in the giant atrium of our building during a company-wide gathering and expressed his frustration that the U.S. did not yet have universal health care.  Not the most conservative position, right?

Hopefully the actuaries of WellPoint did their jobs according to the standards of their profession, as it could be one of the most enlightening analyses on the real effects of certain health care reform provisions done to date.  And, if this is the case, hopefully those in Congress and in the White House will actually look at the results to inform their decisions.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

OK, just one  more thing.  This isn’t really “actuaries in the news,” per se, but it certainly a walk for me down actuarial memory lane…

The same WSJ online opinion section had an article titled “Efficient Market Theory and the Crisis” in which University of Pennsylvania professor of finance Jeremy J. Siegel defends the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) against a recent attack that claimed the theory was a key factor causing the global financial crisis.  This brought up many memories, as I had spent much time with the EMH many moons ago when I was studying for the last exam I ever took in my pre-ministerial life as an actuary: Course 6 — the final obstacle standing between me and my Associate of the Society of Actuaries designation.

For those not familiar with actuarial exams, they involve a lot of memorization (though they have probably changed since then, since the exam system was — and surely still is — constantly being tinkered with).  Of course, there was much more to the exams than memorization, but the the vast lists of information one had to have stored in his or her brain was a key feature.  Consequently, one tended to develop his own techniques for remembering the items of those lists, and one of my favorite techniques was using odd mental visuals or imaginary scenes.  In particular, to memorize the elements of the assumptions behind the Efficient Market Hypothesis I envisioned a football game in which various individuals (players, fans, etc.) make comments or take actions — including an imaginary President Bill Clinton who flew in to see the game wearing a rocket pack on his back.  An odd visual, to be sure, but it helped me remember part of the list!

And I must say that it wasn’t the oddest memory-helping visual in my collection at the time.  That honor probably belongs to an imagined scene in which Liberace descends from the ceiling of a grocery store whilst playing a piano — which helped me to remember the LIBOR market as an element of a list related to fixed income security options.

Ahhh, studying for actuarial exams.  Good times.  And horrific times.  It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  (Hmmm… that sounds familiar.)

Anyway, it was nice to see the EMH defended, when clearly there was more human error involved in the crisis than simply trusting the time-honored model.  And the walk down memory lane was nice, too — however shudder-inducing it might have been.

For those who could care less about the actuarial profession, my apologies!  This entry must have been a total waste of your time, huh? 🙂  But for the small population who want to see past posts of mine concerning actuaries or the actuarial profession, just go to the search box above and type in “actuary” for a start.  I’ll warn you: It might be an eclectic mix…

Just hearing it gives me the creeps

Australia 7 News recently reported on the fact that British scientists are making impressive ground in the effort to create artificial blood, eliminating the need for donors.

Sadly, embryos are used for the manufacturing of this product.

Specifically, the embryos being destroyed are “discards” that are created in the course of the in vitro fertilization process.  Ironically, they are being discarded by individuals seeking to be parents and to raise a child.

Just listening to the news report turned my stomach at places.  To hear the word “embryo” used in such a cold manner sent a shiver down my spine.  In particular, the statement made by the reporter about how they hope to improve the process so that only “small numbers of embryos” would be needed to begin the process really got to me.  I wonder if the reaction of viewers would be different if she had said that only a “small number of infants” would be needed.  Amazing the difference a word makes. (Discussed here, too.)

If you’d like to watch the video yourself, you should be able to see it here:

Embryonic stem cell research decision: Absolutely vomitous

I do not participate in politics, and I do not vote about how my tax money is used.  I did not vote for President Obama, nor did I vote for his opponent.  My non-participation is not out of apathy, but, rather, because I believe that God has called me to a different role in life before the return of Christ.  However, that role does involve pointing out sin and describing where this nation is headed, and the March 9th change in American embryonic stem cell research policy is a horrible sign of an atrocious attitude toward human life.  Really — absolutely vomitous.

First, the idea that revoking the previous administration’s ban on federal funding of such embryo-destructive research is somehow “removing ideology” from science or “restoring integrity” to science is so ludicrous that it would be laughable if it weren’t so horrific.  It’s almost as if one is saying, “By this taking this ideologically driven action, I hereby remove ideology from playing any role.”  The stand that destroying human life for the sake of scientific research — embryonic or otherwise — is acceptable is just as much an ideological stand as saying the opposite, and to think otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and political theater (unless it is profound ignorance, which is always a possibility, I suppose).

I wonder…  If it ever becomes necessary to place a ban on federal funding of involuntary experimentation on the comatose, elderly, or infirm, will that ban be derided as “ideological” or “lacking scientific integrity”?

Secondly, it occurs to me that when politicians consider such issues as when human life begins as being above their pay grade, it is all the more remarkable how willing they are to carelessly pass legislation concerning such matters as if they have all the answers.

Of course, there is Someone for whom the issue is not above His pay grade.  And this country’s attitudes towards its most innocent and vulnerable have already garnered His attention.  I doubt that this has escaped His notice, either.

Don’t get me wrong.  I believe that the other side of this national debate (or non-debate) is guilty of its own hypocrisy, and I cannot understand those who believe that creating embryos to be eternally frozen in pursuit of having children is somehow a pro-human life position.

But I try to call it as I see it, and Monday’s change in policy represented another black eye for this nation’s respect for humanity, which God created in His own image.  Will it help us along to a fulfillment of Revelation 18:13 (trading in the “bodies and souls of men”) in the economy of the Beast power — which is not the U.S., by the way —  that is as yet unfathomable?  Interesting idea, but I certainly don’t claim to know.  But I guarantee you, the consequences will not be good.

I’d love to write more about this, but the time escapes me (and, frankly, if I did have more time I would be more tempted to create a cleaner essay for use as a Tomorrow’s World commentary).  But for now, let me content myself with refering you to some earlier posts on the subject (some of which, after a bit of cleaning up, did become TW commentaries):

Gender-differentiated education being “rediscovered”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a nice article today about the growing popularity of separating boys and girls into different classes to teach them with an eye toward inherent gender differences.  You can read it, too: “Dividing boys, girls grows exponentially” — Currently, it is the cover story on the website and includes a gallery of photos showing scenes from the boys’ and girls’ separate classrooms.

Given that we have four boys and zero girls here at the Smith Academy for Boys, we are, of necessity, gender-differentiated.  While it is an old idea, it is exciting to see that more schools like Carmen Trails Elementary are giving it a shot.  The fact is that boys and girls are different.  When God said that he made them “male and female” it is because he really did make them differently.  Boys are boys and girls are girls, and trying to cram them into the exact same educational setting seems an absolutely ludicrous idea if you really hope to give them the best.

Having been on both sides of the public education scene, I know how difficult it can be to provide truly individual education to students.  Really, it’s impossible when one considers the inherent “assembly line” nature of the school systems.  As valient, talented, and dedicated as a teacher may be — and I have known many who are valient, talented, and dedicated — given a mob of kiddos one can only “individualize” so much.  (One of the many reasons the Smith family homeschools, by the way.)  Yet, in the differences that naturally show up between boys and girls, it would seem to me that there is a huge difference that can be taken advantage of — that is, by at least recognizing the difference between how boys and girls tend to learn and think, once can get an enormous bang for the buck.  I would suspect, actually, that more potential benefit can come from recognizing this easy to make distinction and actually acting on it than most other steps toward individualizing education an institution might take.

The fruit of these schools’ labors is still being examined, but I anticipate good things.  The idea that there are no real, significant differences between the brains (and minds) of boys and girls — and men and women — is a ship that fills its sails with the most ignorant of winds and that falters against the rocks of both common sense and scientific study.  If it is headed toward the dust bin of history, may its journey be a swift and permanent one.

American Thinker: “Roe Is Only the Beginning”

I’ve no time to post much, but I couldn’t help but pass on an article passed on to me by LD on abortion and the mentality of its supporters.  (OK, one additional comment: Planned Parenthood’s slogan “Every child a wanted child” is simply vomitous on so many levels.  Makes about as much sense as “Every senior citizen a wanted senior citizen” — and sadly the argumentation supporting abortion could be extended that far if its proponents were honest.)

Here it is:

American Thinker: “Roe Is Only the Beginning”

Christ must simply ache to come back and take care of business…