Friday, November 06, 2009

Affirmative action for men?

A reader (thanks!) sent me a WSJ article entitled, "The Lost Boys" written by Richard Whitmire, author of a forthcoming book, Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That's Leaving Them Behind. The article discusses universities admitting men with lower qualifications than women, and why guys might need these preferences:

This week, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that it will investigate whether colleges discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. It will strike many as odd to think that American men would need such a leg up. From the men-only basketball games at the White House to the testosterone club on Wall Street, we seem surrounded by male dominance....

In theory, the surge in the number of educated women should make up for male shortcomings when we're looking at the overall prospects for the economy. But men and women are not the same. At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs. Revenue generated by women-owned businesses remains less than 5% of all revenue. And while the number of women taking on economically important majors is rising, women still earn only a fifth of the bachelor's degrees granted in physics, computer science and engineering.

Why males don't seem to "get" the importance of a college education is a mystery, especially considering the current collapse of jobs that traditionally don't require post-high-school study.

What is a mystery to me is why so many schools and colleges don't "get" that they are anti-male, pro-female (liberal only) and designed to teach in ways that are not conducive to attracting men but that is another post. This one is on affirmative action for men.

Typically, I would not be for any type of affirmative action. I think people who are qualified, regardless of race and gender, should be admitted to these universities, end of story. But in today's PC world, that is not possible. If we admit people based on their gender and race, then we must do it in an equitable way. Men should be represented at colleges in equal numbers to women since they comprise roughly half (a little less these days) of the population.

What do you think?


Shrinkwrapped: Psychological Aspects of the "Lone, Psychiatrically Deranged" Terrorist

Why wasn't Hasan Investigated?

After reading about the horrific Ft. Hood shootings, I was rather puzzled when I read the following:

Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed homicide bombings and other threats. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author.

One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates homicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

They say an official investigation was not opened.

Hasan was working with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood after being transferred in July from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had worked for six years before recently receiving a poor review.

This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?

Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?

The public deserves an explanation.

Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Scared of Flying? There's an App for That

This is kind of cool:

People scared of flying can now press a button on their iPhone to help them deal with their panic.

Long-haul airline Virgin Atlantic Airways has launched an application, or app, for its Flying Without Fear course which boasts a success rate of over 98 percent....

A spokesman from Mental Workout said an estimated one in every three adults were scared of flying.

The Flying Without Fear app has an introduction by Branson, a video-based in-flight explanation of a flight, frequently asked questions, relaxation exercises and a fear attack button for emergencies with breathing exercises.

I could use that. Or if you are like me and don't have an iPhone, you can get the book with the same name, Flying Without Fear 101 questions answered.


Monday, November 02, 2009

Gambling with our health care system

I saw that Dr. David Gratzer's new book, Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster is now out. Glenn received a copy last week and I read it in one sitting as it is small, compact and full of great information on free-market health care reform. He is also the author of The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care that I read when it came out last year.

Gratzer, a psychiatrist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He uses examples from his experience with the failures of the Canadian system to show why socialized medicine doesn't work. He was born and raised in Canada and at one point, believed that government health care was "compassionate and equitable." He soon learned that this was a crock, after a relative and other patients couldn't get the care they needed and were left to suffer.

Most notable about his current book is that he disputes many of the arguments in favor of government-controlled health care and uses facts to back up his statements. For example, Gratzer points out that "some argue that countries with government-run health care have found a way to tame the health-inflation problem. They claim that while costs spiral up in the US, there countries are doing better." He found that the cost of health care in socialized-care countries like France, Canada, and Ireland is growing at roughly the same rate as in the United States. "Between 2000 and 2006, the OECD average real annual growth rate for health spending was 4.9 percent; the US rate was 4.95 percent. Despite the rationing and central government control, these countries haven't stopped the trend of rising costs."

The book is quite good if you want a handy, compact book that succinctly makes the argument against universal health care and for free-market reform. I have used it several times in discussions with others on the topic. But if you want more detail, I suggest you read Gratzer's book, "The Cure."

Labels: ,