YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #astrophysics #cosmology #blackhole #keckobservatory #plasma #galaxy #keckcosmicwebimager #kcwi #vv340a #jetprecession #radiojet
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2026 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2026 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Trending Tech
Trending Tech
6 w

What does it mean when Uncle Sam is one of your biggest shareholders? Chip startup xLight is about to find out
Favicon 
techcrunch.com

What does it mean when Uncle Sam is one of your biggest shareholders? Chip startup xLight is about to find out

You can imagine how this is all going over in Silicon Valley, where the libertarian ethos runs deep.
Like
Comment
Share
Country Roundup
Country Roundup
6 w

Craig Morgan Recalls Eating A Live Chicken While Military Training With Korean Rangers: “We Were All Taking Chews Out Of It”
Favicon 
www.whiskeyriff.com

Craig Morgan Recalls Eating A Live Chicken While Military Training With Korean Rangers: “We Were All Taking Chews Out Of It”

The kind of story you really can’t make up. Craig Morgan spent 17 years in the Army and Army Reserve, serving the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions as an E-6 Staff Sergeant and Fire Support Specialist. Since then, he’s remained an avid supporter of all of our service members. In 2023, Morgan publicly announced he would continue his service to our nation by re-enlisting in the US Army Reserve, where he’ll be assigned to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, as a Staff Sergeant and Warrant Officer candidate. When Morgan first enlisted, he was only 18 years old, and he became an emergency medical technician, which required extensive training to prepare you for battle scenarios and more. While Morgan was stationed in South Korea in the 1980s, he spent some time at Korean Ranger School, which put the soldiers through very intense scenarios, including a prisoner of war simulation. During a recent sit-down on Bunnie Xo’s Dumb Blonde podcast, Bunnie asked Morgan to recall a story he previously told on Tracy Lawrence’s TL’s Roadhouse podcast, where he shared he once ate a live chicken while stationed in South Korea. “In the Korean Ranger School, there’s a two-week portion of that nine-week course, I think actually ten days, where you go through a POW encampment scenario. So you’ve basically been captured, and they place you in the camp, and your objective is to escape from the POW camp. That’s what you’re told. And all you know, you don’t know anything except the experience you’re encountering right then, and you have a location as to your safe house, the place you’re trying to get to. So if you do get outside of the camp, you’ve got to get to there. But what you don’t know is all these little communities that you’re running through, all of those local Korean people are paid good money if they turn you in. So if they see someone from the camp, I mean, they’re literally… They do patrols to look for people that are trying to get out of the camp so they can get rewarded. And we escaped, myself, two other Americans…one other American and two KATUSAs, which weren’t Korean Army, they were, they’re what they call Korean Augmentation to the United States Army.” Morgan then explains to Bunnie Xo what a KATUSA is and how they support the United States Army. For those not familiar with the term, KATUSA stands for Korean Augmentation to the United States Army, and it consists of South Korean enlisted soldiers assigned to and serving within the Eighth United States Army. While this program began during the Korean War to augment US forces, it has continued as a permanent program since then. Morgan also explains that while he was in Korean Ranger School, KATUSAs also underwent US Army training and programs, which helped foster international relationships. He continues: “But we escaped, and we got out. Well, we’re running, we literally weren’t 200 yards from the little encampment, and we realized at this point that people were following us and they were trying to turn us in. So I told them, ‘We can’t stop.’ And it was about two miles from where we were. Now, mind you, we probably hadn’t eaten in four or five days. The only thing we had eaten was bugs that we caught and rice that grew up through the pins that we were being kept in. Anything that flew in there died. I can’t even tell you the kind of stuff that I ate. And I can tell you, it seemed like it tasted good. I just remember it tasting good.” Morgan then says that we were forced to do two hours of workouts in the mornings and evenings, which made them hungrier and led them to what some might deem the unthinkable once they had escaped the POW modulation. “We’re running through, and we come across these chickens, and one of KATUSAs yanked the chicken up. He grabbed it, and we just kept running, and while we were running, he was plucking this chicken, and he would hand it over to each of us. We were trying to get this chicken, and finally one of ’em got its neck rung. But I promise you, before that chicken’s heart stopped beating, we were all taking chews out of it. Eating on it, that’s how hungry…and it was good.”  Gnarly… I mean, it sounds unbelievable, but if you were on a day for our five of no real food, I can imagine many others would be desperate for some sustenance, and that poor chicken was the prey that day. Is eating a live chicken as risky as eating raw chicken? Something tells me it’s safer but I really have no idea… I have a feeling this is just one of many wild stories Morgan has from this experience, given they were trying to hide from locals as well while heading to their safe house. The story starts at the 14-minute mark. Check it out: The post Craig Morgan Recalls Eating A Live Chicken While Military Training With Korean Rangers: “We Were All Taking Chews Out Of It” first appeared on Whiskey Riff.
Like
Comment
Share
Country Roundup
Country Roundup
6 w

Country Music Fans Sound Off On Their Favorite Country Christmas Songs
Favicon 
www.whiskeyriff.com

Country Music Fans Sound Off On Their Favorite Country Christmas Songs

There’s just something about a good, country music Christmas song. We’ve now reached the part of the calendar where it’s very much acceptable to listen to Christmas music. I hope you didn’t dive in too early, because you may have negatively affected your health if you did so (that’s according to a psychologist, not me). Christmas music has a way of getting us all in the jolly, holiday spirit. Listening to songs that sing about Santa, reindeer, gifts under the tree, and whatever else that’s associated with Christmas can be a much needed pick-me-up during this time of the year where you spend a lot of time with your family and it gets dark before 5 o’clock at night. But country music fans might not care for the pop or traditional Christmas music offerings that are generally played in stores and on the radio this time of the year. There’s a good chance that country music fans want to keep things country, even when it’s time to break out the holiday tunes. Luckily for them, some of the greatest country music artists in the world have kept that group of people in mind. There’s a musical smorgasbord of country Christmas songs out there, and just as no two snowflakes are alike, no two countrified-Christmas-songs are the same. Whether it be an original Christmas song, or a traditional one that’s given a country spin, there’s some holiday music out there for every country fan. Everyone can agree on that. The only thing that could stir up some disagreement is asking country music fanatics to choose the best country Christmas song of all time. We here at Whiskey Riff actually did that recently, and sent out this question on all social media platforms: View this post on Instagram That’s a tough one. Just like anything else, it can be hard to narrow down a favorite. There are so many great songs and phenomenal artists to choose from. But if you had to name one, it’d probably match up with one of these on the list below. Here’s how country music fans responded to our Christmas inquiry: “‘Merry Christmas from the Family’ by Robert Earl Keene.” “Alabama’s ‘Christmas in Dixie.'” “‘Let It Be Christmas’ by Alan Jackson.” “Koe Wetzel’s version of ‘Please Come Home For Christmas.'” “‘Hard Candy Christmas’ by Dolly Parton.” “‘For You For Christmas’ by Zach Top.” “‘Pretty Paper’ by Willie Nelson.” “‘Looking for Christmas’ by Clint Black.” “‘All I Want for Christmas is a Real Good Tan’ by Kenny Chesney.” “‘When It’s Christmastime in Texas’ by George Strait.” “It’s hard to beat ‘If We Make It Through December’ by Merle.” Shoutout our own Brennen Kelly for that last one… an excellent choice. What would I go with? First of all, thank you for asking. That means a lot. Though I’m tempted to side with my co-worker and say Merle Haggard’s classic Christmas song is the best, I’d actually go with this little tune from the great Randy Travis: “Meet Me Under the Mistletoe” I never get tired of that one. If you liked that list, then make sure to check out Whiskey Riff’s “Country Christmas Songs That Don’t Suck” playlist. It’s the perfect companion to your holiday party… if you want to make your Christmas country. And who doesn’t want to do that? Apple Music Spotify The post Country Music Fans Sound Off On Their Favorite Country Christmas Songs first appeared on Whiskey Riff.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

BREAKING: Trump threatens Honduras for trying to change their election results
Favicon 
therightscoop.com

BREAKING: Trump threatens Honduras for trying to change their election results

President Trump just threatened ‘hell to pay’ if Honduras attempts to change the results of their presidential election, which he says it looks like they are trying to do. Here’s the post: . . .
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
6 w

The band that put George Martin off “heavy metal” for life: “A culture clash”
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

The band that put George Martin off “heavy metal” for life: “A culture clash”

When worlds collide... The post The band that put George Martin off “heavy metal” for life: “A culture clash” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Persecution
Favicon 
spectator.org

Persecution

“Persecution,” editorial cartoon by Yogi Love for The American Spectator on Dec. 1, 2025.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

The Fiscal Folly of Handing Out $2,000 Tax Rebates

President Donald Trump has been talking about sending millions of taxpaying Americans $2,000 from the revenue that has flowed into the Treasury from the tariffs that Trump has raised. What the president is doing is politically clever and economically irresponsible. Ever since Mr. Trump became a serious presidential candidate in 2016, it has been clear that he is neither a traditional Republican nor a conventional conservative. He is rightly described as a populist, and as such, his strategy is exactly what we would expect of a presidential candidate in today’s democratic system: to gain popularity with voters. (RELATED: The Answer to Republicans’ ‘Affordability Problem’? Unleash Supply.) A populist will assiduously avoid pursuing unpopular policies, even when such policies might be necessary for the economic well-being of the country. A populist will assiduously avoid pursuing unpopular policies, even when such policies might be necessary for the economic well-being of the country. Foremost among such policies would be shrinking the national debt. Anyone who is not a financial illiterate knows that government debt cannot rise indefinitely without destabilizing our financial system, but any politician who pushes for the major spending cuts necessary to reduce the debt will alienate voters and be punished at the ballot box. Trump knows this, and so, in spite of some pious pronouncements about reducing the national debt, the debt has risen from the previous year in four of the five years that Trump has been president. Yes, when Trump replaced Barack Obama in the White House, the budget deficit went up (from $585 billion in 2016 to $665 Bn, $779 Bn, $984 Bn, and finally $3,123 Bn in 2020 when COVID messed up everything). Preliminary figures indicate a 2.8 percent decrease in the deficit in 2025 compared to Joe Biden’s last year, although that improvement could be erased if Trump’s tariffs are nullified by the Supreme Court and all those revenues have to somehow be refunded. On the positive side, there have been a number of highly publicized spending cuts under Trump this year, but the dollar total has been modest. (RELATED: The Forces Fueling America’s 45-Year Debt Addiction) Before the Trump loyalists call for burning me in effigy, let me credit our president for some much-needed economic sanity. The differences between Trump’s economic policies and those of the Biden administration are significant: Mr. Trump has championed supply-side tax cuts and gotten rid of harmful suffocating regulations; he has saved us from the U.N.’s socialistic wealth-transfer scheme masquerading as climate policy; he has scuttled DEI’s un-American quota nonsense in favor of good old-fashioned meritocracy; he has served notice to American universities that they should not take government subsidies for granted; he has stopped the ruinous, ridiculously costly flood of illegal immigration into our country. That being said, there are still serious shortcomings in the president’s economic policies. He simply is not a budget hawk, or at least, he has no stomach for making deficit- and debt-reduction a core pillar of his policies. This is not a new development. In his first term, in the summer of 2019, he made a quiet deal with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to suspend the debt ceiling for two years — long enough to get him through to the election without having to fight for deficit reduction. In making this deal, Trump consented to a $320 billion spending increase over previously negotiated ceilings. (RELATED: America’s Trade Deficits Are Not Innocuous) Another indication of how uncommitted the president is to deficit reduction occurred during his presidential campaign in 2024. Trump proposed eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. While I personally would benefit from such a policy, I oppose it as fiscally irresponsible. We all know that the Social Security System faces serious funding shortfalls within the next decade. Taxes on Social Security benefits are earmarked for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, so to reduce that source of income into the funds at a time when they already are underfunded is fiscally reckless. It is no different from when President Obama reduced Social Security withholding from paychecks by 2 percent to increase working Americans’ take-home pay. Reducing the government revenues that fund a vitally important government program that is chronically underfunded only exacerbates the problem. Why did Trump propose this? To curry favor with voters, of course, just like Obama did. Sad. (RELATED: A 50-Year Mortgage Is a Financial Narcotic) Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I see Trump’s current tactic of dangling $2,000 checks before Americans as a political maneuver, skillfully played. Trump and the Republican Party are hurting at the polls as more and more Americans fret about the cost of living. What better time to propose giving them $2,000? Trump has put himself in a can’t-lose situation. If the Supreme Court disallows the Trump-imposed tariffs on the plain-as-day constitutional grounds that trade policy and “imposts and duties” on imports are congressional prerogatives, then the president can tweet to millions of American taxpayers, “You would all have an extra $2,000 except but for that nasty Supreme Court, which has kept me from helping you.” (Of course, Mr. Trump will use more colorful language and more capital letters than I did, but you get the point.) And if the tariffs are allowed to stand, Trump looks like Santa Claus (to the envy of Democrats who want to monopolize the Santa Claus role of government). (RELATED: Aristotle on a Balanced Budget Amendment) In regard to the national debt, however, Trump’s tantalizing talk about $2,000 handouts is as economically unwise as it is politically clever. It is proof that reducing the national debt is a low priority for him. Like St. Augustine, who prayed, “give me chastity, but not yet,” Trump may indeed like the idea of spending reductions, but not so much as to give up the political gain of using government funds to buy popularity. Once again, the debt “can” would be kicked further down the road. The bottom line is that our populist president’s debt reduction talk is not backed up by serious debt reduction action. The ultimate blame for our ongoing national debt fiasco, of course, lies not with Trump, but with the American voter. Too many Americans are so addicted to the concept of a Santa Claus government that they won’t elect anyone as president who is serious about significantly shrinking the federal government. READ MORE from Mark W. Hendrickson: Abusing Border Patrol Agents: Echoes of Vietnam The 1960s: Baseball’s Golden Decade The Cynical Talk About a ‘Constitutional Crisis’
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Trump Critics Unintentionally Elevate His Successor

By continuously vilifying him, Trump’s critics elevate his successor by default. Their intensifying and increasingly irrational attacks make them look extreme. Solely focusing on Trump also eclipses the development of any positive agenda to counter his. Finally, their continuing attacks will make his successor look good in comparison to the caricature they have created. Donald Trump’s critics have attacked him relentlessly for a decade. Increasing in intensity and virulence during his first term, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of his State of the Union address on the podium behind him; his administration was investigated continuously, and he was impeached twice. By 2024, Trump was being called a fascist — not just by backbencher attack dogs, but by President Biden and then seconded by Kamala Harris when she became the Democrats’ nominee. Still only in his second term’s first year, Trump is the object of “No Kings” rallies and calls from congressional Democrats to members of the military for disobedience to the orders of their commander in chief. Recently, the New York Times ran a piece about Trump’s age and its impact on his schedule: This from the flagship of establishment media that ignored the obvious frailties of the older Joe Biden, until these could no longer be denied, and now fall over themselves confessing they knew about Biden’s failures all along. (RELATED: ‘Don’t Give Up The Ship’? Seriously?) As Trump’s critics spiral ever deeper into their invectives, they court mounting collateral damage from their exercises in self-gratification. For one, Trump’s critics give increasing credence to charges of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Ever more emulating their accusation of extremism, histrionics cast them as ideologues with only a single goal in mind: Destroy Trump. Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination. For another, excessive focus on Trump eclipses focus on anything else — including formulating a positive agenda. Recent gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey showed Democrats running more against the president in Washington than their opponents in the state. However, running exclusively against Trump — as they undoubtedly will in 2026 and 2028 — means not articulating what his critics are for. National races, especially the presidency, are about steering the ship of state. Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination. Absent that, they are unlikely to get on board. For Trump’s critics, their attacks’ most important fallout is the most unintended: the de facto elevation of Trump’s successor. By demonizing Trump down to caricature, they make anyone else look good in comparison. Having made “not Trump” the standard, any Trump successor will meet that, solving the primary problem Trump’s critics have defined. Trump’s critics fail to realize that the president’s successor is more important to their future than Trump is. (RELATED: The Curious Candidacy of JD Vance) Trump’s successor has a good chance to appeal to a wider group of voters than Trump does now. In 2024, Trump’s divisiveness cost him 9 percent of conservatives, 40 percent of moderates, and 49 percent of Independents. Trump’s successor has ample room to grow in all three groups, adding significantly to Trump’s 2024 vote total — a vote total that swamped Harris in the electoral college. If victorious in 2028, Trump’s successor could also hold the presidency for two consecutive terms, taking Republican presidencies into 2037. Such a scenario is hardly unusual. Elected presidents winning second terms are the historical norm: Between 1933 and 2024, Carter (1976), George H.W. Bush (1992), and Trump (2020) are the only elected presidents to lose reelection. And holding the presidency for three consecutive terms is not out of the question; in the last century, both parties have done so: Republicans twice (1920, 1924, and 1928; 1980, 1984, and 1988) and Democrats once (1932-1948). The animosity of Trump’s critics prevents them from seeing Trump’s comparatively high floor of support. According to Real Clear Politics’ December 1 average of national polling, Trump’s 42.6 percent job approval is higher than Obama’s in 2013 (40.1 percent) and George W. Bush’s in 2005 (40.4 percent). Yes, Trump’s favorability rating is just 43.2 percent; however, the Democrat Party’s is just 34 percent. The upshot is: Trump’s successor could have an even higher ceiling of support.  Trump critics’ virulent attacks only enhance that potential. If Trump’s critics succeed in establishing “anyone but Trump” as the acceptable standard — something they are well on the way to doing — with Trump constitutionally term-limited, Republicans are guaranteed to meet it. Republicans can also do so with a policy agenda that got Trump elected in 2024, so long as Democrats refuse to go beyond their visceral anti-Trump opposition. And Republicans can do so as they look more moderate than Trump critics and Democrats, who now look like extremists in their blind pursuit of Trump. READ MORE from J.T. Young: The Price of Democrats’ Extremism What Did Professional Sports Expect? A Time for War and a Time for Peace J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing. Follow him on Substack.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Bad Presidents or Bad Government?

No matter where one looks these days, there is an explosion of anger over the decline in political ethics and the dominant role now played by moral relativism in American governance. Consider two of today’s more serious commentators. Rahm Emanuel is a former White House chief of staff, ambassador to Japan, congressman, Chicago mayor, and is a reasonably moderate Democrat. Still, in assessing President Donald Trump and his administration today, he perceives a “permissive culture of self-dealing in public and private-sector finance” that is absolutely “nefarious.” To him, Trump’s friends and family “simply use the president’s time in office to enrich themselves.” On policy, he finds that Trump has been “peevish and nasty — a man driven by a revenge” that “looks, from a distance, a lot like graft.” One “can quibble over whether smoking guns tie the president personally to any corrupt act,” he concludes, but he “cannot hide” “the enrichment of the president’s family and friends while he’s in office.” Emanuel concedes that earlier scandals have occurred, but they were subjected to “pounding” congressional and media scrutiny. “That’s no longer the case” in this “scandal-a-day environment” when it is not necessary “to convince the public that there is corruption” but only requires the opposition to make the political case for a return to earlier standards. Or consider an analysis from the other side of the political spectrum by Gerard Baker, a 30-year journalist who was editor-in-chief and now is a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal and writer for some of the world’s most pre-eminent news organizations. He chides his own Republican party, which “once liked to think of itself as committed to values and principles” but now has become the most cynical exponent of the “idea that everything is relative.” When confronted with evidence of “some new infamy by their president,” many Republicans choose to “avoid the unrewarding path of moral consistency.” Such moral relativism allows one to establish the moral value of everything by “judging not on the basis of whether they are intrinsically right or wrong, but by the lesser standard of whether someone in a similar position might have done something similar.” And this allows allies to avoid censure for not criticizing one of their own. “Over time it dulls the conscience to any moral hierarchy” of values, which is “never a legal defense and shouldn’t be a moral one.” Moral relativism by public figures “is as old as time itself,” Baker concedes, but when it becomes “the controlling ethical architecture of public behavior, we are in serious trouble.” Just consider the so-called justice system, “in which the president essentially gets to decide who should be in prison. If you’re a political enemy, we’ll come up with a crime to fit your punishment. If you’re a friend, we will annul you.” How high up the moral hierarchy are today’s actions? Emanuel specifically charged: 1) “some” among “Trump’s friends, family and acquaintances “enrich themselves.” 2) Retribution determines who Trump will “sic the Justice Department” upon. 3) Trump’s actions generally support what looks “from a distance a lot like graft.”4) His presidential pardons free influential people, from crypto to foreign sources who can “gift” him and his family in return. (RELATED: Karma Comes Calling for John Bolton) Baker is more concerned with the general relativism of Trump supporters’ moral equivalence, the “influentials” who make excuses for their party and friends. He specifically mentions the Binance chief executive’s pardon, followed by a “lucrative financial partnership for the president and his family.” He is concerned with the president “selling” the East Wing of the White House and the president “making personal laws and dispensing arbitrary justice.” (RELATED: Burisma, Meet Your Brother Binance) How do these charges compare historically? Chester Arthur was a president known for reforming a spoils system that sold governmental appointments to political and financial allies. In judging the moral hierarchy for presidents then and today, his biographer Zachary Karabell noted that in the Gilded Age, what has been charged against Trump today seems qualified or even relatively tame, mostly then considered legal, and was considered “honest graft.” Today, he says, the “bulk” of the Trump money “appears to have come from various cryptocurrency enterprises launched mostly by his sons” and “hundreds of products — Bibles, guitars, perfume and more — for sale at the Trump Store and other outlets.” A jumbo jet gift to the presidency from the Qatari government and “allegations” about pardons would fit right into the early-day picture. What about more recent history? Lyndon Johnson’s closest assistant was caught in a “Bobby Baker Scandal.” Richard Nixon had a Watergate scandal that led to his own resignation. George H.W. Bush had several sons and a brother accused of improper family business dealings. Bill Clinton had his Whitewater, Lewinsky, Travelgate, Filegate, and Impeachment scandals. George W. Bush had his Halliburton, Blackwater, and attorney general resignation scandals. Barack Obama had Internal Revenue Service actions against conservative political organizations. Admittedly, there were also the relatively straight Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, but even the former had an out-of-control brother and the latter a largely divided White House. It is now simply impossible to keep private parties out of government decision-making. Gerard Baker is certainly correct that government should be judged by objective rather than relativist standards. But government is also different, especially today’s nationalized, centralized, bureaucratized, complex system that dominates any major private social activity. It is now simply impossible to keep private parties out of government decision-making. No one can fully understand what the enormous bureaucracy does, including other bureaucrats. The only internal government oversight process is an appraisal system that does not and cannot work. And any employee can go to the media to undermine their political superiors. Even Trump critic Fareed Zakaria concedes that the “finely tuned mechanism” of the Constitutional separation of powers and the limited presidency “had seized up” “by the 1960s,” culminating in “the constitutional crises of the Vietnam War and Watergate.” “Wars, economic crises and the media’s tendency to nationalize and centralize attention created a one-way ratchet for increasing, unchecked presidential power.” So, should one not conclude that the problem today is not President Trump, but the apparatus handed over to him by decades of progressive policies? The real solution today is to go back to the Founders and limit what the national government does. Government today basically influences every major business and social act. As long as this is so, there will be deals and favoritism and power. The only solution is the Founders’ one, for the government to do less, which will result in better decentralized government decisions and their greater moral consistency. One might start with the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8. READ MORE from Donald Devine: What Does the Great Gold Spike Signify for the World Economy? Artificial Intelligence Requires Human Understanding Trump on Tariffs, Trade, and Pragmatic Populism Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles, and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

America’s Universities: A Multi-Generational Perspective

I recently passed my 85th birthday, having been born on a now constitutionally prohibited event in American history (the Election Day victory of FDR to a third term) in 1940. Old age can be annoying, filled with aches, pains, and memory loss, but it does confer a sometimes useful longish historical perspective. I have now passed two-thirds of a century directly involved in America’s colleges and universities, first as a student, then as a professor, and even as a public policy guru offering commentary on the state of higher education at the bequest of politically powerful potentates. I was teaching class the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and participated in a PhD in history final examination very recently. What are the big changes over my career (which was preceded by growing up in the shadow of a major research university, the University of Illinois, in the 1940s and 1950s)? Learning has declined per student even as the number of them has grown. Actually, this proposition is a bit hard to prove, since universities, in the business of disseminating information, try hard to keep the public from being informed on how much their students actually learn. Government time use data suggests the typical student spends perhaps 30 percent less time on academic activities today than in the Golden Age when I was in college, mid-last century. (RELATED: The Outrageous Scandal That Should Be Rocking Higher Education) Grade inflation. The declining work effort of students reflects the fact that at most schools today, including virtually all the elite ones, grades below “B” are rare, and a large percentage of students get an “A.” Personally, typically in a big principles of economics class in the 1960s, maybe 5 to 10 percent of my students got A grades, the most common grade was “C,” and large numbers (at least 20 percent, often more) got “D” or “F” grades. Today, an untenured professor giving those grades might lose her job — we can’t damage the delicate self-esteem of today’s youth. (RELATED: The Poisonous Fruit of Youth Worship) The faculty, always moderately liberal, has become more so, and generally less tolerant of divergent points of view, jeopardizing robust civil debate of issues of the day. Conservative faculty and students increasingly self-censor, worried about negative effects of expressing views that are actually in sync with those of a majority of the American populace. The pronounced leftish orientation of campuses has probably contributed importantly to a radicalization of American politics, including such phenomena as New York City electing a hard-left socialist as mayor. (RELATED: Bowdoin College: Finishing School for a Socialist) Frenetic growth has been replaced by enrollment stagnation or even decline, and additionally reflects a flight to quality by students. New or rapidly growing state universities of modest reputation booming in the mid-20th century are usually now facing falling or precariously stable enrollments, while the top schools, especially private ones, have record numbers of attendees, although perceived excesses of the past few years have significantly hurt some elite schools, especially in the Ivy League. Administrative bloat has become very real, very expensive, and very disruptive to promoting an atmosphere devoted to learning and discovery. The faculty can be loony and impractical, but they are mostly scholars primarily devoted to teaching and research, typically worrying at least somewhat less about, say, the racial composition of their students, or campus efforts to promote climate change or sustainability than their own research and teaching. In many schools, the faculty has declined in its influence in determining the priorities and resource allocation of the university. An often highly leftish jihad of administrators has gained increased clout. Partially to counteract that, faculty unionization has shown some increase. (RELATED: Higher Education’s Triple Crisis: Finances, Integrity, Leadership) College has become more costly, one of the very few things financially more burdensome on family budgets than two generations ago. Buying a new car, taking a week-long cruise, or buying a loaf of bread or a bottle of beer takes far less work effort today than six decades ago because of rising productivity in the general economy. But it takes more, not fewer, employees to educate a college student today than in the middle of the last century (implying college productivity may have fallen), and, despite some recent moderation, tuition fees have soared. Residential campuses have become more upscale, with better facilities than prevailed during the mid-20th century. As living standards have generally risen, they have improved for students too, with somewhat nicer living facilities, more recreational options (e.g., climbing walls, even lazy rivers). North Carolina’s High Point University, for example, has a booming enrollment, and lets its students occasionally take their dates to a filet mignon dinner in a university owned gourmet restaurant. (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 168: University Prioritizes Hot Tubs, Steak House, and ‘Life Skills’ Over Traditional Academics) The vocational advantages of a college degree, which generally rose throughout the late 20th century, have now stabilized and are probably now in decline. Whereas the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago hurt the uneducated and unskilled who were replaced by machines, the AI Revolution could well lead to educated college grads losing their jobs to a new generation of machines. The vocational attractiveness of, say, being a plumber or welder compared with a math, finance, science, or computer-oriented college major, declined in the late 20th century, but seems to be rising lately. (RELATED: The AI Employment Apocalypse Is Only a Few Years Away) The Federal role in education has dramatically increased, reducing the institutional autonomy of universities. Affirmative action programs and federal rules about using humans in research projects became part of 1970s campus life, and regulation continued to grow after the creation of the U.S. Department of Education in the 1980s, culminating in decrees such as the 2011 “Dear Colleague letter” mandating harsh Star Chamber justice for males accused of sexual misconduct. Increasingly, until very recently, college resource allocation decisions seemed often to be more determined by “diversity” criteria reflecting national and campus identity politics than pure academic merit. Federal student financial aid was modest in the mid-20th century but exploded with new student loan and grant programs. These programs have had profound and often profoundly negative unintended consequences, including sharp increases in tuition fees and an actual probable decline in the proportion of college graduates coming from lower-income groups, frightened by soaring tuition fees. Although initially slow to evolve, new approaches to computer-based distance learning gained acceptance in a dramatic way after the COVID epidemic erupted in 2020. More students now rarely personally interact with a professor. Mass forms of lecturing at low tuition fees to students using superstar professors through MOOCs (massive open online courses), which 15 years ago was thought to hold great promise, has not become dominant. And the COVID crisis showed both the possibilities but also the grave limitations of online learning. (RELATED: Timeless Education in an AI World) A traditional emphasis on the humanities, social sciences, as well as education training has waned, while some vocational-oriented areas such as business, communications, and some STEM disciplines have grown in importance. (RELATED: Academia’s Most Lucrative Con) The list above is far from exhaustive. For example, college sports have become big business at many schools, with increasingly tenuous ties to higher education. Even at smaller liberal arts colleges, collegiate athletic opportunities are considered a major student recruiting device.  Medical education has also changed a good deal, with dozens of schools operating vast clinical and hospital facilities at which student training itself sometimes seems to be a distinctly second-tier emphasis. For a long time, federal research funding was growing rapidly, again increasing campus dependence on federal support. New PhD programs were also abundant, but now doctoral enrollment is in decline at some schools. On balance, international interactions have grown over time, with foreign student enrollments generally growing and study abroad programs more popular for U.S. students. Closer to home, campuses were heavily dominated by white males when I started teaching, while today that is definitely not the case, even to the point that perhaps there is a strong anti-male bias on some campuses today. (RELATED: Reclaiming America’s Graduate Pipeline) As the French say, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Change is the norm. In some ways, however, things have not changed too radically. Classes today still bear considerable resemblance to those in the mid-20th (or even 18th or 19th) century, with students listening to professors lecturing much of the time, although today’s students do far less reading of supplemental materials or textbooks. The social life of students has evolved and expanded, with social media today playing a role non-existent even a generation ago, although there is also some very recent evidence of a decline in the once growing, more hedonistic forms of campus social life, with less drinking and even more church attendance at some schools. Is the “bottom line” one of continual improvement? As a practitioner of what one sage once called the “dismal science” of economics, I am highly skeptical. I long posted in my office a saying inspired by Winston Churchill: “Never have so many spent so much for so long learning so little.” Perhaps, however, another Churchill-inspired plagiarism is more appropriate: “American universities are the worst form of higher education, except for all the others.” You be the judge. READ MORE from Richard K. Vedder: Aristotle on a Balanced Budget Amendment Promoting Campus Viewpoint Diversity: A Modest Proposal Concierge Service for Favored Universities? Richard Vedder is distinguished professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, senior fellow at Unleash Prosperity and the Independent Institute, and author of Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 5148 out of 106088
  • 5144
  • 5145
  • 5146
  • 5147
  • 5148
  • 5149
  • 5150
  • 5151
  • 5152
  • 5153
  • 5154
  • 5155
  • 5156
  • 5157
  • 5158
  • 5159
  • 5160
  • 5161
  • 5162
  • 5163
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund