I’m beginning to become more and more of the opinion that it just might be a good idea to segregate boys from girls in public school, at least up until junior high or high school. That way there’d at least be the potential of teaching kids in ways that are actually appropriate to them, and, much as it’s become popular to believe otherwise, boys and girls *are* inherently different in may important ways.
Take the source (“Prager U”) for what it’s worth, but there re some interesting points raised here:
I’ve long held the view, and expressed it on this blog, that standardized education isn’t for everyone. I don’t believe that society is best off by forcing everyone to stay in the same classes all the way through 12th grade. Some students would simply be better off if they were allowed the leave school some years earlier and be sent into some sort of trade; if nothing else, the *other* students wouldn’t need to be subjected to their bullying, criminality and stupidery. But as the video points out, there are good cases to be made for separating male from female lesson plans. Years ago I wrote about how some of the books I was forced to read in school damn near turned me off reading forever, because they’re just the wrong damned kind of books for me. But I do recall that at the same time I was struggling to give the very slightest of damns about “Sense and Sensibility” and “Little Women” and “I remember Mama” and “Wuthering Heights,” a lot of the girls in the class seemingly couldn’t get enough of it. But did we read Heinlein? Wells? Verne? Sun Tzu? Rand? Lovecraft? Oh, hell no.
Some might argue that it’s important to cram the “classics” into kids in order to “expose them to a wide range of literature blah, blah, blah.” But if the stuff you expose them to is stuff that they’ll *hate,* stuff that they’ll get little to nothing out of, what good are you doing? Chances are good you’re doing *negative* work. Not only are those students getting nothing out of the assignment and thus wasting their time and the teachers, they are also probably so bored that they’re kicking up a fuss that’s ruining the experience for those students who *can* get something out of it. So if there is a simple way to at least get a *crude* semblance of optimization out of the process – like, say, segregating boys from girls and letting boys be aggressive energetic little shits while the girls are, well girls – then huzzah, everybody is better off.
One common refrain is that at some point in the edumacation process, boys become aggressive in class. Not in the beating the tar out of people sense, but in the “Oooh, oooh, call on me, teacher, I know the answer” sense that modern progressives liken to “mansplaining” and “manterrupting,” while girls are less aggressive in that way. Well… fine. Then wouldn’t it be better to separate them? Teach them in the ways that’s best for ’em?
There are certain actors, actresses, actrons and acting units who you know aren’t *really* *good,* as such, but they’re just damned entertaining to watch nonetheless. Dwayne Johnson, aka “The Rock,” is one such… largely because you can tell that he’s generally having a blast doing whatever goofy thing he’s doing.
The forthcoming “Jumanji” movie looks like it’ll be one such entertaining flick. But perhaps even more so, the movie “Rampage,” due out in April and based on the old arcade game and directed by the director of Johnson’s disaster extravaganza “San Andreas,” looks like a hoot and a half. The addition of Neegan to the cast sure can’t hurt either.
I’m a boring man, I admit if. I’d love for someone to (legally) give me a supercar… because I could sell it and pay off my mortgage. The idea of such cars is appealing, but the reality is that you have *lot* of power packed into a small volume that has relatively low mass, meaning that it accelerates *really* fast. Which sounds cool till you realize that you’re not running on rails and that the world is not set up to allow you to drive unimpeded. So… I prefer simpler, more rational cars. Something with good gas mileage, a good safety rating, fair amount of cargo space, a ring mount and good grippy tires is really all I need.
Especially after watching this video of supercars (largely Lambos, if i read them correctly) being driven by fookin morons.
I was corrected on just what qualifies as “too much gun.” The .460 S&W revolver could at least actually be carried and fired without the shooter suffering sudden structural damage. But the two-bore rifle? 12,000 foot-pounds of recoil, even from a 44-pound rifle, just sounds a tad painful.
Even though the 2-bore rifle *looks* like an antique, it appears that it is a modern product that you can buy, made and sold by Stolzer & Sons Gunsmithing. I wonder if the pieces being auctioned off above are actually those shown below…