And back in the spotlight again... School Cleared in Teacher-Sex Case (washingtonpost.com)
I find it absolutely inconceivable that any woman would find a 12 year old boy sexually appealing. I also am appalled that this boy's mother would sue the school district for responsibility in the situation, when she and her son both pleaded for mercy on Letourneau's behalf. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Letourneau didn't do anything that bad in one breath and scream at the school for not protecting your child in the other.
Showing posts with label Scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scandal. Show all posts
Friday, May 17, 2002
I could have been a liberal...
... well, strike that. I could have liked liberals, and maybe even supported some liberal policies, if it weren't for the breathtaking dishonesty I see in a lot of liberal politics. The Bellesiles controversy is a perfect example. Here we have an academic who publishes what is supposed to be a factual book, exploring gun ownership prior to the civil war. Gun control advocates all praised the book on both its research and its theme. Gun rights advocates, of course, criticized it heavily. The difference?
The gun rights advocates had facts on their side. Bellesiles' book was full of fradulent research and twisted facts. He claimed to use records in Vermont and California that simply did not exist. In every tally of probate records his book cited, no other researcher was able to reproduce his numbers, and they all slanted towards his theory: that guns, prior to the civil war, were not widely owned, and therefore, the second amendment was really about a collective right to bear arms. So when the story broke, what happened? Did his former supporters chastise him for his lack of honesty? No. Instead they rushed to his defense with comments like "its not the numbers that are important here... the concepts explored in the book are what's really important."
What? I wish I could have used that as a defense when I missed questions on my math tests. I would think it is really really obvious that: Bellesiles attempted to prove his theory using the numbers. Therefore, if his numbers are false, his theory remains unproven. Especially in this case, where he is claiming to state historical fact.
... well, strike that. I could have liked liberals, and maybe even supported some liberal policies, if it weren't for the breathtaking dishonesty I see in a lot of liberal politics. The Bellesiles controversy is a perfect example. Here we have an academic who publishes what is supposed to be a factual book, exploring gun ownership prior to the civil war. Gun control advocates all praised the book on both its research and its theme. Gun rights advocates, of course, criticized it heavily. The difference?
The gun rights advocates had facts on their side. Bellesiles' book was full of fradulent research and twisted facts. He claimed to use records in Vermont and California that simply did not exist. In every tally of probate records his book cited, no other researcher was able to reproduce his numbers, and they all slanted towards his theory: that guns, prior to the civil war, were not widely owned, and therefore, the second amendment was really about a collective right to bear arms. So when the story broke, what happened? Did his former supporters chastise him for his lack of honesty? No. Instead they rushed to his defense with comments like "its not the numbers that are important here... the concepts explored in the book are what's really important."
What? I wish I could have used that as a defense when I missed questions on my math tests. I would think it is really really obvious that: Bellesiles attempted to prove his theory using the numbers. Therefore, if his numbers are false, his theory remains unproven. Especially in this case, where he is claiming to state historical fact.
