Science and Math Must Not Be Debated

By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2018

Today discussing, much less debating, observable scientific and mathematical truths is not allowed by the political left, who seek to suppress critical thinking and science, if that science exposes objective truth that doesn't support a feminist/globalist/leftist agenda.

I taught high school chemistry for a few years. Of the hundreds of students I taught some were very smart, the overwhelming majority were average, and some were .. to be blunt ... dumb. There is no teacher, who's taught for any length of time, that can't identify the very bright and dumb from the overall pack of kids they teach. They also know the grades the kids earn don't always match the intelligence of the kids they teach. They all can tell you of students who were very bright, but got bad grades because they chose not to put in any effort, and they can tell of dumb students who chose to work hard and got good grades.

Although very few, there were some kids who basic chemistry was just beyond their intellectual ability. High school chemistry isn't that hard, but it does require critical thinking and application of abstract concepts. I can say that I had far more truly intellectually limited students, who shouldn't have been in a chemistry class in the first place, who were boys than girls. Probably 4:1 dumb boys to dumb girls.

I only taught high school chemistry for 3 years so only taught about 750 different students. There were a few, very few, truly extremely intelligent students, both boys and girls, but like the truly intellectually challenged not very many. To be honest there were more boys than girls that were at the top end of the intelligence spectrum, about 3:1.

No teacher, if honest, wouldn't tell you the same thing. The overwhelming majority of students are average, but at the extreme ends of dumb and super smart there are more boys than girls. This is a repeatedly observed and measured phenomenon that is not politically correct. It can and has been mathematically modeled and compared to evolutionary differences in other animals. Male mammals have far more variability in virtually every measured aspect than females.

This is a scientific fact but even discussing mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden if the results of such models might be interpreted as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy. As a leftist friend of mine once said "Why bother reporting scientific data, even if it is right, if the results are not politically acceptable?"

Feminists in the past couple of weeks have successfully been able to bully an obscure math journal, and have a peer reviewed paper, that is unquestionably solid in it's research methodology and application of mathematics, to be retracted after it was published because the results might be interpreted to support the idea that there are differences between men and women that might result in less women at the top of some professions.

It seems to me that an appropriate response of the bullying that resulted in obscure math journals pulling the research is to get the paper as wide a circulation as possible, and create a Streisand effect.

Here is the abstract:

An elementary mathematical theory based on "selectivity" is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.

Read the entire paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Portland Mayor calls for the End of Freedom of Speech.

by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2017

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.

In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.

Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.

The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?

Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.

Why the Divide in Politics will get Worse!

By Tom Rhodes, 5/14/2014

The reason America seems so divided is because it is. In big ways that polite society doesn’t talk about. That is because the country no longer has a set of shared goals. Specifically the left believes statism and control are more important than liberty, to the point that they would rather everybody universally poor than for there to be free individuals who the state doesn’t monitor and control. The idea that an average person outside of the ruling elite could become more successful and be outside of ruling elites control is not tolerable.

It’s not that they care if any individual is rich or poor, but that the ruling elite are in control. Consider California, where massive numbers of productive citizens are leaving in record numbers, the economy sucks and cannot support itself; 600,000 industrial jobs gone in the last 15 yrs; electricity 50% higher than national average; millionaires in 47 other states pay less income tax than a middle class worker earning $48K does in California; Public employee pentions are bankrupting the entire state; California has 25 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits, yet sends billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself; Twitter, Telsa, Toyota, Adobe, eBay, Occidental petroleum, ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, and Oracle, among other major California companies, have moved or announced they will move out of California to another US State. The laws and regulations of California are driving away people and business. Despite the humiliating economic statistics, California Democrats continue the same statist path.

The reason is clear jobs, companies, and individuals living in California are not the goals for those in charge. Prosperity is not important to the left. Power and control are their goals, in fact the worse the economy, the more people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the more control statists have over those people and more importantly more will vote for whoever promises more stuff from government, Democrats.

Consider guns. The facts are pretty clear, all of the dire predictions have proven to be false. More guns and more people allowed to carry guns rather than result in increased crime as proven to reduce overall violent crime to levels not seen in a century (you wouldn’t know that reading the statist MSM). The hatred over guns is not that you might use them for self-protection, or that they might be used in crime, but that the people might successfully stop the increase in state power. Bundy in Nevada proved exactly what the left fears; that an armed society can and will stand up to an oppressive over controlling government. The second amendment severely restricts the power of the ruling elite, it’s hard to control an armed population.

Consider Freedom of Speech and the entire Bill of Rights. The statist LA Times won’t even allow dissenting opinions on subjects used to control the people to be printed. The left loudly cheered the NFL chastising and forcing Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who dared tweet offense at the faggot kiss of the first openly gay NFL player, to pay a fine and be forced go to indoctrination camp to learn how to think correctly. Soon the statist gay mafia will declare it illegal to be a Christian and publicly read the bible. Look at how Tebow was treated compared to the new NFL fairy.

Rule of law – statists believe they aren’t subject to the same rules, and can ignore the representatives of the people. Obama changing Obamacare dozens of times without legal authority is proof enough. But claiming that he can execute US citizens without due process means that we know the government no longer plays by the rules so We the People don’t have to either. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Because the statists in Washington are not able to control everything and every body, they are openly violationg the constitution; Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is openly and purposefully proposing what he clearly knows to be unconstitutional ex post facto legislation, saying "I don't approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won't profit from abandoning the US..." Power is more important than the rule of law.

The reason we are seeing such division and strife in American politics is because we the statist left, does not share the American Dream, in fact they want to “fundamentally change” the country to rule by elite oligarchy. It will only get worse prepare for it.

Ivy League view of Freedom

By Tom Rhodes, 2/25/2014

If you read or hear about any ideas from Ivy League school, like Harvard, or any graduate from those schools you should consider such ideas as intellectually dishonest, and devoid of thought, but most certainly doubt them. The demonstration of how current Ivy League students and professors think is summed up in the writings of Sandra Korn, a Harvard senior, and columnist at the Harvard Crimson. She writes and boldly proclaims that dissenting opinions should be banned. That’s right she believes that freedom of speech and academic freedom are an impediment to justice.

She out right says that Harvard should not put up with research if the results don’t support her goals. Truth be damned. She concluded her ‘If you don’t agree with me Shut Up!’ diatribe with “I would encourage student and worker organizers to… use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

So we are supposed to give up Academic Freedom; an interesting but misguided position. First let’s consider what Academic Freedom is:

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008, Academic Freedom is the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure. Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate. For students, the basic elements include the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions.

According to The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Academic Freedom is The right of teachers and students to express their ideas in the classroom or in writing, free from political, religious, or institutional restrictions, even if these ideas are unpopular.

Basically Academic Freedom is freedom of speech and thought for both teachers and students. The principle is that the government or other institutions don’t have the power nor authority to control what information teachers and students share nor what conclusions they make from what they learn. So Harvard Crimson approved and published an article that says we can consider what is just only if; we give up on freedom of speech, silence ideas that are not politically correct, censor research that doesn’t deliver the politically correct results, and not allow students to reach conclusions that are not politically correct can? WTF?

If that’s the kind of thinking that results from an education at Harvard and other Ivy League schools, then all I can say is forget an Ivy League education, it is worthless. That the Harvard Crimson would even consider publishing such totalitarian ideas promoting censorship shows the counsel of Harvard Professors on the same level as the publishers and editors of Mad Magazine (my apologies to Mad Magazine, at least it knows it’s satire, foolishness, and humor). Harvard’s vision taught to its student’s as expressed in the student paper the Harvard Crimson, is a vision that forbids research and discussion and ideas that whomever is in charge find objectionable is the same vision totalitarians have had and instituted throughout history.

The concept is that any ideas or philosophies that Sandra Korn doesn’t like are inherently immoral, unworthy, and don’t deserve to expressed, and those who hold philosophies or ideas she doesn’t approve don’t deserve the same freedom that allows her to publish such twaddle. She must have zero faith in what she believes because she will not tolerate having to compare her ideas to others. She must have a very shallow idea on what justice means, if she cannot “consider more thoughtfully what is just” when ideas she doesn’t approve of are rationally included in the discussion.

Besides ignoring the First Amendment to The Constitution all she is asking us to do is to disavow Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

All I can say is if you’re a parent considering sending your child to an Ivy League School, Don’t. It’s hard to believe that after 12 years of schooling in the USA, and 4 years at Harvard, a person could consider and promote the idea that censorship is a valid path to justice.

To Sandra Korn, all I say “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But make no mistake, Ms. Korn, you better be willing to fight to the death to force us to give up “our obsessive reliance on the doctrine academic freedom.” Or do you propose to send others to fight to the death in your stead? We will not give up our “obsessive reliance” on freedom, you and your ilk will have to take it, and that you can’t do. In order to take our “obsessive reliance” on the doctrine of freedom, including academic freedom, you’re going to have to kill us. Is that what you call just?

Multiculturalism vs. Critical Thinking

By Tom Rhodes, 10/3/2013

There is a drive in education to teach “critical thinking,” not to just teach students how to memorize dates and words and formulae. Teaching our children how to use the knowledge they have to solve problems and truthfully understand what they see, hear, and read. Teaching critical thinking is a great and noble goal. Except. . . . .

Statists and liberals in teaching don’t actually want our students to actually use critical thinking; because if they did then students would reject much of what they are being taught. That’s why our education pays lip service to teaching critical thinking but never quite gets there.

Our laws reflect and our schools now overwhelming teach that females are equal to males, and should be treated no differently. Girls can do anything boys can do. It’s wrong for a husband to strike his wife, it’s wrong to not allow a woman to do something a man can do, etc. Women deserve equal protection under the law and that because of past oppression; Title IX laws are fair to give women some advantages until we achieve true equality. More than that we have enshrined the idea and belief that individually and as a nation all people “will not be judged by the color of their skin,” or sex, or religion, or natural origin, “but by the content of their character.” We have ingrained into our culture these values.

The same schools and liberals are also teaching that all cultures are equal and that we should not be judgmental of other cultures. We actively teach that being judgmental of other cultures is bad. The goal is to understand and equally value cultures other than our own. Our schools embrace the idea of multiculturalism and diversity; teach our children that although all cultures are different one isn’t superior to another. In fact our teachers are taught specifically that even thinking that Western culture is superior to any other culture is racist and biased.

How does a student who has been taught to think critically reconcile the ideas being presented which clearly contradict each other? If we expect our children to accept “diversity” as a value, and we teach them to think critically, then if they choose to own slave, or beat their wife, or slay their enemy, we cannot be surprised nor say it is wrong. It is only accepting and honoring other equally valid cultures. To accept the idea that all cultures are equally valid is to reject the values of our culture.

We can’t have it both ways, we can’t ask our students to accept our cultures values and accept that other cultures values are equal to ours and then ask them to think critically. If equality for women is good, and treating them unequal is evil, then how do they respect and equally value cultures which openly claim a husband has the right to beat his wife, that women can be restricted from certain jobs or even driving? How can we teach freedom of religion and teach to respect and value a culture that says those who don’t share a specific religious belief must pay an extra tax and submit to having their rights reduced? Much less teach the value of equality under the law.

If you agree that a husband beating his wife to discipline her is wrong, then you are making a cultural judgment against other cultures, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that polygamy is wrong then you are making a cultural judgment against many other cultures, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree slavery is wrong, then you are making a cultural judgment against many non-western cultures that actively allow and participate in slavery today, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that eating meat is wrong than you are making a cultural judgment against most of the world, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that stoning a rape victim to death because her inappropriate attire caused the men who raped her to sin is wrong, you are making a cultural judgment against Islamic cultures, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that arresting and punishing homosexuals is wrong, then you are making a cultural judgment against many non-western cultures that actively punish and execute homosexuals today, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that imprisoning, fining, or otherwise punishing, those who speak against their rulers is wrong, then you are making a cultural judgment against most other non-western cultures, and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns, or be severely limited in the guns they are allowed to own, then you making a cultural judgment against about half the adult US population and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

In fact if you agree or disagree with the Bill of Rights then you are making a cultural judgment and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

If you agree that all people should be free to own property and use it as they see fit so long as that use does not infringe upon the same rights of another then you are making a cultural judgment against almost every existing and historic culture in human history and have rejected the idea of multiculturalism.

When we teach our children to think critically, they will reject multiculturalism. The very concept that “diversity is strength” fails any rational BS test and is only accepted because today in the USA not accepting such a provably false idea is so politically incorrect it’s toxic; even in the Libertarian Party.

Respected Atheist

By Tom Rhodes, 12/19/2012

Christopher Hitchens, an atheist worth respect. Unlike the current crop of panty-waste, wimpy, spineless, cowardly, pusillanimous, atheists whose feelings are so fragile the mere site plastic doll in a toy manger at the city park sends them into a funk so deep that they must petition the government to protect their fragile egos. The Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation, demanded that a nativity scene in Texas be taken down because Jesus was an "insult to human nature" because He taught that "men were sinners" and would one day be held accountable for their sins if they didn't repent and would be sent to forever simmer over the flames of Dante's House of Pain. This action is a far cry from the style and substance of the late Christopher Hitchens.

Christopher Hitchens rather than cry, whine, complain, and sue when he heard about carolers sharing “Silent Night” in a far away public place, would instead argue his point, engaging his fellow man without the shrill baby like crying and crocodile tears of today’s atheist. He would then trust the audience to decide. Even when he had his butt handed to him ,as when he debated Dinesh D’Souza, he remained civil, and showed a robust character worthy of respect. (Watch the debate here and decide for yourself)

I would think that atheists being willing to stare death in the face, mock God, and be completely willing to live their lives with no thought of the hereafter would be a tougher lot. But when a plastic doll in a poorly decorated cardboard box set to look like a Bronze Age feeding trough is enough to cause such anguish that they must petition the government to have such odious imagery removed from their vision. What next, is the atheist going to petition the government to stop the playing the overt Christian works of Bach, Handel, and Mendelssohn on NPR or in any public owned place? Atheists are stupid to think that the Christian stamp on the arts in the public will ever be eliminated. Unless, like the Islamists, they are willing to destroy all the temples, statues, and great works of art throughout history, what do the atheists propose to do to keep themselves and the world from being exposed to the Sistine Chapel, the works of Di Vinci, Angelo, or any of the other artists whose works so clearly display a Christian Worldview? Atheists will fail in erasing Christian influence in the public sector.

Atheists who want to ban Christian symbolism because they can’t accept what it represents, deserve no respect. They should be grouped with Islamists, and any others who think censorship of ideas they don’t like or approve is a viable means of promoting their beliefs. The impudence of atheists’ ideas and methods to eliminate Christianity from the public space is harmful to any who value liberty, and freedom. This kind of thinking has lead to our government to try and hold Christians accountable for the evil acts that other commit don’t like what Christians say. Imagine that in protest to a speech by Dinesh D’Souza talking about “What’s So Great About Christianity” that atheists riot and vandalize the building, and then the police hold D’Souza, not the rioters or those who promoted the riot, accountable for the damages done by the atheists?

Sound farfetched? That is exactly the new standard that our government is trying to impose upon all Americans by UN treaty (because they could never get a law passed that allowed such an abridgement of the First Amendment). This December, is highlighted by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, negotiating a UN treaty that will put a “test of consequences” on speech and expression exercised in the USA. To put it succinctly, if a non-Muslim says something about Islam that Muslims don’t like and then Muslims proceed to riot or bomb or assault or kill, the non-Muslim will be held responsible for the damage and the crimes. Just imagine a local college newspaper publishes a cartoon showing Mohamed with a bomb in his turban in Walla-Walla Washington, and some Islamists riot and cause damage in Afghanistan because they saw it on the web, and the college student in Walla-Walla is held responsible for the murders in Afghanistan. If the US signs and approves a UN treaty with a “test of consequences” on speech and expression then the reporter covering the murder and genocide of Coptic Christians in Egypt, will go to jail when the local Muslims in Egypt riot over the images and story that show them murdering women and children. Even if the accounts are true and factual, the reporter will be held accountable for the actions of the rioters.

Christians have a distinctly different worldview. It is this worldview that upsets atheists and non-Christians to such a state that they would deny basic rights to freedom of expression those who have such a worldview. Modern apologist Dinesh D’Souza sums it up succinctly, saying, “Christianity makes sense of who we are in the world. All of us need a framework in which to understand reality, and part of Christianity's appeal is that it is a worldview that makes things fit together. Science and reason are seamlessly integrated in a Christian framework, because modern science emerged from a Christian framework. Christianity has always embraced both reason and faith. While reason helps us to discover things about experience, faith helps us discover things that transcend experience. For limited, fallible humans like us, Christianity provides a comprehensive and believable account of who we are and why we are here.”

The Christian world view allows Christians tolerate and accept those who don’t believe, and accept and promote the idea that all speech should be protected equally, even the speech of atheists. They don’t buy into the notion that there is some sort of right not to be offended, or right not to be made feel uncomfortable, or right to not have your beliefs challenged. This tolerance does not mean that they won’t criticize those whom they disagree, nor attempt to expose the moral depravity of some atheistic beliefs. This tolerance is however, what atheist uses to attack and attempt to remove the influence of Christianity from public spaces. If atheists are so fragile that the mere presence of Christian symbols in public around Christian holidays is grounds to bring the full force of government to bear against any who would not accept a secular humanistic belief system, how can they, with any credibility, fight for freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of assembly, or freedom of thought in general? I long for the day that atheists, like Christians, defend the rights of all beliefs to express their beliefs in public, and debate them openly as Hitchens did; allowing people individually to decide for themselves the value of such ideas.

Most of today’s atheists like the Islamists cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. Their actions clearly indicate that they have no faith in the validity of their ideas. It is obvious that they must believe that atheist ideas would be damaged if subject to debate, criticism, or ridicule. Like Islam, their ideas fall flat when compared to Christianity, so they seek to silence Christianity. What is so bad about the Christian Message that they cannot tolerate it, or let others be exposed to it? If there is no God, then why do the actions and symbols of Christians, who in no way force or insist that others believe as they do, matter or impact atheists to such a point that they seek to censor and silence Christians? Is it the idea that God not man dictates what is moral and just? Is it the idea that we as individuals, not as a society, will be held accountable to be charitable to our fellow man? Is it the idea that God not man will hold each individual accountable for sin? Is it the idea that we are all sinners, and that repentance and acceptance in Christ, not the actions of man, determines our place in the hereafter? How do any of the basic tenants of Christianity do any harm to atheists?

Obviously many if not most of today’s atheists have no character, no conviction, and fear being challenged. Many if not most of today’s atheists cannot tolerate others having a worldview different than their own. One can disagree with, but still respect an atheist like Christopher Hitchens, he never called to have any Christian symbol removed, and openly and publicly debated and promoted his beliefs, and more importantly never tried to silence those who disagreed with him. Although I repeat myself, regardless of what you believe, atheists who want to censor Christian symbolism, deserve no respect.