Adler on Education

They forget that individuals learn a great deal with little or no schooling. They forget that experience teaches, and that learning by any means is part of a lifelong educational process. Schools of all grades and kinds are only one group of means in the pursuit of education.

A much better question to ask is: Who is a generally educated human being? The negative answer is easy; certainly not any person who has just earned a diploma: a degree, or some other sort of certification.

Source: Education

99 Things to Do Instead of Watching TV

If you do not feel like you are accomplishing your goals in life, of if you are always short on time, stop to analyze how much you are sitting around all day watching TV. This could be a major roadblock to your success.

I’m no fan of TV. Haven’t watched it in almost twenty years. Reading is much better, whether for news or entertainment. Or even education.

Source: 99 Things to Do Instead of Watching TV

10 Essential Life Skills to Pass on to Your Kids

Yet, even outsourced education is severely lacking when it comes to critical life skills. Younger children are being forced to consume academics at tender ages from educators who struggle to impart basic social skills. Parents of older children often complain that high school students learn none of the basic life skills they once attained in public school: sewing, financial management, basic home and auto repair. College graduates who used to be able to establish successful careers with broad-based liberal arts degrees now struggle to find work. Trade school students have a better chance of becoming independent business owners than their more elite peers.

Source: 10 Essential Life Skills to Pass on to Your Kids

The Not-So-Secrets of Success

“Don’t be a weirdo”

… here is a short (and by no means exhaustive) list of things that parents should warn their children to avoid:

  • Communism

  • Heroin

  • Pornography

  • Canada

  • Canadian pornography

  • Herpes

  • Feminists

  • Feminists with herpes

  • Facial piercing

  • Tattoos

  • Anyone with an anime character as their Internet avatar

  • “Sexting”

  • Internet dating apps

  • Syphilis

  • Conspiracy theories

  • “Charismatic” cult leaders

  • Gender Studies majors

  • Chlamydia

  • Rape

  • Al Gore

  • “Social justice”

  • Gonorrhea

  • Murder

  • Anyone who has ever worked at Disney or Nickelodeon

Source: The Not-So-Secrets of Success

Trump: No more aid unless Palestinians talk peace; Jerusalem is ‘off the table’

“The hardest subject they had to talk about was Jerusalem,” he said. “We took Jerusalem off the table, so we don’t have to talk about it anymore. They never got past Jerusalem. We took it off the table. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.”

About time!

Source: Trump: No more aid unless Palestinians talk peace; Jerusalem is ‘off the table’

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

source: Popehat