Imagine a World

Imagine a world where there is no homework.

Imagine a world where there are no tests.

Imagine a world where children are not pressured to get a 4.0 average, and where we don’t know what children’s test scores are because there are no test scores.

Does this sound too far out?

Would it work?

In our current system of education of course none of this exists.

But what if we chose to replace knowing with precision that our children do not know with not knowing that our children do know?

Would that be acceptable to you?

Is it better that children know information, or is it better that we know that they don’t know?

In our current system teachers spend a lot of time drilling facts into children which they promptly spit out on the test a few weeks or maybe a few months later in order to get grades that statisticians pore over, then wave around in the air.

Suppose that teachers didn’t teach in this manner.

Suppose that children didn’t learn in this manner.

Suppose that instead of drilling numbers and facts into children’s heads, teachers and students spent the day talking about the subject material at hand.

There would be no tests because the discussion would be the test.

Would this be workable?

Well, I am willing to bet that those of you who are reading these words here have not taken a test in English proficiency in a long time.

If that is the case, how can you possibly be qualified to understand these words?

Yet, you are.

You are all qualified to understand these words, and you are understanding these words.

How can this be?

Especially since I have no piece of paper to wave around in the air that proves that you can.

Well, it can be because because you speak English every day.

Yet to many of our leaders in today’s society, proficiency is determined by you taking a test.

And, of course, the higher you score on the test, the more proficient you are.

Correct?

Maybe.

Concomitant with this thinking is the idea that if you don’t take the test, you might not be proficient.

Yet you understand these words.

The point I’m trying to make is that a better way of education is to engage students in active discussion of the material at hand.

Engaged students are happier students.

As are students who don’t have to wheelbarrow home mountains of work.

As are teachers who have to grade less papers.

We waste time with these methodologies and decrease quality of life.

We also waste much time and energy on standardized tests which don’t test student’s ability to think or their true comprehension of the subject matter.

We do this in order to make statisticians feel good.

There is something comforting in being able to wave a piece of paper around that has numbers and statistics written upon it.

Numbers when written down are concrete and seemingly certain.

They look good.

But are we doing good, or are we just making ourselves feel good?

I suspect the latter.

In forcing students to take these standardized tests, local or national, we not only do not get a true understanding of how well children know the subject matter, we also place enormous stress upon the student.

Moreover we encourage the idea that some people are better than others because they score higher on a test.

We begin to pound slogans into their heads like “no excuses” and “failure is not an option.”

Such inordinate stress results in tremendous physical and psychological damage to children.

In time such stress takes its toll.

It can take its toll in medical illness, suicide, violence to others.

But, we have that sheaf of papers which tell us with certainty, or so we think, that these students don’t know the subject material.

Which prompts the question: is it better that we know that we don’t know, or is it better that we don’t know that we do know.

Well, did you understand everything that I said here? Do you need to take a test in English proficiency to prove it?

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2021 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Student Debt

What can we do about student debt?

Well, how about if we allow these students to work off the debt?

Why don’t we create a service corps where these students can serve in underserved areas either here in the United States or the rest of the world?

The government can match funds generously to help pay for living expenses and salaries.

The current student debt is about 1.7 trillion dollars.

Forgiving that debt for services rendered should be chicken feed in Obama money.

Our federal government can certainly afford that.

After all, we printed up trillions for the coronavirus crisis.

If these students chose to help out in Third World countries, so much the better. That would create a lot of Goodwill for the United States of America. It would do a lot of good for those countries too.

The students would benefit also; they would get a better idea of how the other half of the world lives.

They needn’t necessarily work in the area for which they were trained. They could help out in manual labor projects.

It could be a Civilian Conservation Corps of sorts.

There are a lot of projects that need to be done in the world. Even here in the United States we can do things that we haven’t yet done.

One of the things that we need done here in the United States is high speed rail. Given that other countries have invested in high speed rail, it might be a good idea to at least try to build one here.

To prevent the airlines from blocking the deal, they can be brought in on the operation.

As the population of the United States grows, it’s not going to be practical to be flying people hither and thither.

The airports are crowded enough as they are now.

Putting students to work in public works projects might be just the ticket to help them out of debt while helping ourselves at the same time.

All it takes is imagination.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2021 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Starstruck

Along comes a savior, named Helaine Olen, writing an article in the Washington Post decrying the benefits of remote education.

She states that it’s about time to admit that remote education is a failure.

Right on.

This is a nice article, Helaine, and I commend you for writing it, but sorry, you don’t get any credit.

The credit goes to the millions of Americans who tried to tell our leaders nine months ago, in vain, that remote education would not work.

These Americans were not listened to.

In fact, these people were ceremoniously ignored.

That they were ignored points out a flaw in our American system.

People who attend regular schools are not listened to.

One only has to look at Ms. Olen’s resume to see why she is even being listened to now.

It’s right there in her pedigree.

She is a graduate from Smith College.

I refer to Smith College as one of many sisters of phony colleges that exist in the northeast area of the United States.

These schools like Vassar, Bryn Mawr, and of course the usual Ivy League suspects are phony in that they impart a false prestige.

Smith, along with Sarah Lawrence and Barnard, is a school whose name alone gives the impression that educated people are coming from there.

It’s just the kind of college that gives editors of the Washington Post and the New York Times an erection.

Why, someone must be intelligent if they graduated from Smith College.

Veto.

There was a writer once who came from Sarah Lawrence college. Her name was Lisa Schwarzbaum.

She wrote for Entertainment Weekly.

A fine writer, Lisa Schwarzbaum was one of these writers who would insert French phrases like fin de seicle in her writing in order to make herself seem more exotic and intelligent.

She would also use unusual words like cloying rather than syrupy-sweet so as to put the reader off balance.

Similarly a resume that includes either Smith College, Barnard or Sarah Lawrence will lead the unknowing reader into thinking that some intelligence must exist in the author’s mind.

In this case, though, an intelligent person from one of these schools did manage to sneak through.

Remote learning is a failure.

It is a colossal failure.

But why should we have had to wait from someone from one of these phony schools to sneak an article into the Washington Post to tell us?

I am glad that Ms. Olen wrote her article.

Where was she nine months ago?

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Let me be clear.

If a regular person from a regular school had written the exact same article, it would not have been published.

The only reason her article got published is because Ms. Olen graduated from Smith College. That’s it.

The editors of the Washington Post, like the editors of the New York Times are starstruck. They live within a good old boy bubble that only listens to someone from their clique.

Doctor after doctor, psychologist after psychologist, teacher after teacher spoke in vain about the limitations of remote learning.

They were not listened to.

Not only were they not listened to by the phonies at the Washington Post and the New York Times, they were not listened to by your local political leaders who are themselves starstruck.

When that condition of being starstruck changes, we will be better off and so will the children of America.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2020 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Winners and Losers

Why can’t our society improve?

Well, first things first, to improve our society, we must discover truth.

Yet, we are not interested in truth. Our attitude toward truth in this day and age rules against truth ever being discovered.

Welcome to America where truth is avoided assiduously.

In America, Dan Bongino can be heard stating on YouTube: You never ask a question that you do not know the answer to.

And I say to that: If you take that approach, you will never arrive at the truth; you will never better yourself.

Unfortunately Mr. Bongino’s belief is shared amongst the majority of the population.

Americans love machos.

Americans love winners.

Americans love people who ask questions that they know the answers to.

Only losers ask questions they don’t know the answers to.

Mr. Bongino’s dictum is shared amongst lawyers, doctors, and nearly everyone else in society who purchased their brain at K-Mart.

Why is it necessary to ask a question that you know the answer to?

Well, it is necessary if your goal is to win a debate or argument. Winning the debate is paramount in American society today.

Winning is everything in America.

Only losers discover information they did not previously know.

Americans loves winners.

This mindset is reinforced by the President of the United States.

Trump, apparently, at least according to Trump, is a winner.

Dan Bongino, I presume, is a winner also.

But what about the truth?

Would we be better off if we did ask questions that we didn’t know the answer to if it led to a greater truth?

Let’s put it this way: Would you rather win the debate and not ask questions that would lead to a greater truth, or would you rather lose the debate yet discover a higher truth even if it made you look like a fool?

In America today, it’s obvious that people prefer the former.

Americans prize perception over substance.

Yet are we better off by taking that approach?

Let’s answer this question in a different way by use of analogy.

John Wooden was a winning coach for the UCLA Bruins. He won many national championships.

At first glance, one might think that he was obsessed with winning.

Would it surprise you to know that Wooden was not obsessed with winning?

Would it surprise you to know that Wooden didn’t ask his players to win?

Would it surprise you to know John Wooden asked his players to give 100% spiritually, physically, mentally, and that if they did that the wins would take care of themselves?

Would it surprise you to know that John Wooden preferred that his players give 100% and lose than give 50% and win?

It wouldn’t surprise me at all because that’s exactly what John Wooden wrote in his book.

What this analogy illustrates is that process is important and that process is more important than the end result.

Applying this wisdom to truth and debating, one can only conclude that process is important when discussing important matters on television or in the living room.

Applying this wisdom to truth and debating, one can only conclude that we would be much better off by asking questions that we don’t know the answer to rather than avoid risking looking like a fool by not asking questions that we don’t know the answer to.

When we take a better approach to truth and wisdom, then America will be able to improve.

And not a moment sooner.

Ask questions that you don’t the answer to. You might look like a fool, but you and the world will be better for it.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2020 Archer Crosley all rights reserved.

The Harvard Virus

The real virus isn’t the coronavirus.

COVID-19 is a chump compared to the real virus.

COVID-19 we will eventually beat. COVID-19 is not something I’m worried about in the long run. 

What I’m really worried about is the real virus.

The real virus is of course the Harvard virus.

The Harvard virus has been with us for centuries. It is an endemic virus which has become part of our genome.

It has infected our system, and it is pervasive.

Because it has been with us for so long, it will be very difficult to eradicate. But it can be done if we can only start.

That is why I am writing this article.

What is the Harvard virus? We should always begin with definitions.

The Harvard virus is that concept which states that there exists a class of people who are the best and the brightest and that it is these people who should make the decisions for us in society.

The Harvard virus is not just restricted to Harvard University. It includes all the Ivy League schools and those schools that have gained the same status as the Ivy League in our modern day world. It can even include schools from other countries such as the United Kingdom. Obviously I am talking about Oxford and Cambridge.

This virus can easily go by other names such as the Yale virus, or the Oxford virus, or even the MIT virus.

However we choose to name it, we are talking about the same virus, and we were talking about the same process.

This is a pernicious virus because it exists in the software of the mind.  The good news is that it can be eliminated in a generation if only we start programming ourselves that the people who attend these institutions are not better than the rest of us and are not entitled to lead us and make the principal decisions for us.

Of course to eradicate this virus, we must change bad habits. We must ask the New York Times to stop announcing in their paper when Harvard graduates get married or have a baby.

We must ask Hollywood to quit depicting every genius in a movie as a Harvard graduate when we know full well that neither Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs received their principal education at a so-called prestigious university.

We must ask interviewers on television to quit pre-conditioning people’s minds by announcing a person’s pedigree before, during or after that person speaks.  An audience should judge a speaker’s value based upon what comes out of that speaker’s mouth and how he or she articulates those words rather than where he or she went to school.

We must ask Presidents to stop reflexively nominating Harvard graduates to the cabinet. We must ask Presidents to stop reflexively nominating Harvard graduates to the Supreme Court. 

There was a time in this country, not too long ago, when regular people from regular schools sat on the Supreme Court.

Admittedly these are hard habit to break, but it can be done.

We can also begin to decentralize the nation politically and economically so that other voices are heard.

It’s not a good thing to have your institutions dominated by a few schools, and this is what has occurred in the United States of America. And it has made us weaker for having done so.

Our huge death count in the coronavirus illness is directly related not to the coronavirus, but to the Harvard virus.

The Harvard virus has given rise to elites at the top who have an agenda for the nation, an agenda that many regular people do not share and were not asked to consult upon.

This agenda will be as misguided as their management for the coronavirus war has been here in the United States of America.

We will barely survive in the next ten years if the Harvard virus is not contained.

Oof course, the virus has already begun to cause damage in society. We are in the early stages of a fundamental cultural revolution which will cause great damage to our nation in the next ten years. We cannot stop this train at this point in time, but we can begin to see right now that this Harvard virus is the major cause of the problems we are beginning to experience.

The Harvard virus must be defeated. There is no other way around it.

To defeat this virus we must chop the legs out from beneath it. We must destroy the supremacy of the valedictorian. We must destroy the supremacy of the GPA. We must destroy the supremacy of the SAT.

We must unequivocally obliterate their supremacist, social darwinian dogma and junk science of which the Führer would be proud.

A higher numerical score on a test does not make you a better person.

A higher numerical score on a test does not make you a smarter person. It only means that you scored first on the test.

There are many other facets to intelligence besides scoring high on a test.

The supremacy of the test assumes that people care about the test. There are many intelligent people who do not care about the test. There are many intelligent people who do not care about going to Harvard University. There are many intelligent people who are not brought up to believe in the best and the brightest. There are many intelligent people who can not go to Harvard University for any number of reasons. There are many intelligent people who are traumatized in high school and who can not do well on tests if they even wanted to do well on those tests. There are many people who are denied entrance to Harvard University because of legacy admissions which preclude them being accepted at Harvard University.

Furthermore the number of intelligent people outside Harvard University far outnumbers the number of intelligent people who are in Harvard University. Ergo, the myth of the superiority of the Harvard graduate is just that – a myth. It is a pernicious lie.

This is a pernicious lie that has infected our society.

There is an over-preponderance of Harvard graduates in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, on the Supreme Court, and in the higher levels of Corporate America.

The Harvard graduate is killing the United States of America.

The Harvard graduate is killing the people of the United States of America.

We will not survive unless this Harvard virus is defeated.  

Permanently. 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley, MD

McAllen, TX 

Friday, July 31, 2020

Copyright 2020   Archer Crosley   All Rights Reserved

The Real Coronavirus

Hello,

Palo Alto was behind the lockdown. 

Something this nutty, this ill-conceived, this antisocial, this Marxist, could only have come from the mind of a geek steeped in mathematical purity.

Bill Gates is the poster boy and the spokesman for this movement.

In addition to that, he is a very sick, greedy man. His greed knows no limits.

What you are witnessing is a takeover of the economy on education and healthcare.

His company Microsoft should have been called the United States Government Computer Company. For over 40 years Microsoft ripped Americans off with endless upgrades. To no one’s surprise the United States government did not protect us from his predatory behavior.  Indeed the government was in league with him.

Regarding coronavirus, it is one of Bill Gates’s companies that provides tel-education to students who no longer go to regular classrooms because of the lockdown.

Gates is heavily into telemedicine also.  

This is Bill Gates’s vision for the future – people sitting at home.

It is Bill Gates’s companies who will spearhead the movement to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus.

Anthony Fauci is one of his friends.

Remember, Anthony Fauci was the man who scared the nation into a lockdown.

Even if one of Gates’s companies does not invent the coronavirus vaccine, his company will get in on the action somehow.

If Gates’s vision for the future was good and decent; I would be the first on board to help him, but it is not a good vision.

From a  pediatrician’s perspective, telemedicine is a vastly inferior methodology for practicing medicine. If we turn to this methodology, your health care will suffer tremendously. There is no substitute for a face-to-face encounter. This is a position that is not negotiable.

Even for simple problems, telemedicine is a bad idea. First of all, there is no such thing as a simple problem in healthcare, and the doctor who thinks such is a fool. Oftentimes patients come into the office with simple problems that reveal more complex issues. Additionally, if the regular pediatrician has his bread-and-butter – that being colds, sore throats and conjunctivitis –  siphoned off by the Greedy Gates Telemedicine Service, he’ll have to close shop. And then who will manage the more complex problems? Who will detect your child’s appendicitis?

Can you see the bleak future if Gates prosecutes his vision?

When patients come into the office I ask the mom and the child how their tel-education is working out. They say it is difficult.

Of course.   What’s missing is human interaction.  A smile, a word of encouragement means so much more in the flesh.

Human interaction makes kids feel better; a person who feels better, learns better.

Kids enjoy school.  Bill Gates thinks schools are obsolete.

His virtual schools will manufacture standardized, algorithmic, disconnected automatons unable to work empathetically together as a creative, cohesive team.

The Führer would be proud.  These are just the type of units a fascist leader requires to wage war and keep people in line.  

Obey.

What you are seeing today is a classic case of eagerly taking a new technology and applying it to every aspect of human endeavor – with disastrous effects. It does not necessarily follow that a new technology can be applied to everything with good results.

If Bill Gates had been educated broadly and properly he would have understood this. Think Week – during which Bill goes off to ruminate –  isn’t going to cut the mustard.

What happened to Bill Gates was that he dropped out of college in order to pursue a career in business. What he missed out on was the value and human interaction that a human professor can impart to your education.

Someone can be intelligent but poorly educated. Education is a series of building blocks that allows you to climb upon a platform and see further.

Bill Gates did not receive that education at a formative age.

Yes, he ultimately received a degree from Harvard, but this was an honorary degree.  He did not go through the rigorous course work that would earn him a legitimate degree.  Nor did he receive the wisdom and perspective a kind teacher can provide.

We are therefore in trouble because what we have is a very rich and powerful man who is exerting exorbitant influence upon our lives.

We need to step back and think.

We need to identify the real coronavirus – Palo Alto, and its crown prince, Bill Gates.

Palo Alto and Bill Gates will snuff out of all significant human interaction on the planet.

Our lives, our education, our health,  what goes into our minds and bodies will be obsessively monitored and controlled by the state.  

This is what we need to immunize ourselves against.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley, MD

McAllen, TX 78501

Saturday, May 2, 2020

 

PS  When I was in college I could not grasp the importance of ex-communication. One fine day, in history class, we discussed the Pope’s use of ex-communication as a weapon against subversives.  I raised my hand and asked the professor, “Who cares about ex-communication? So what if you are ex-communicated?”  I was evaluating ex-communication in terms of the society that we have today. The professor responded: “Oh, no, ex-communication was a big deal. If you were ex-communicated, you had no voice.”   The professor’s further amplification helped me round out my views of truth, speech, and the separation of church and state.  It helped me understand that ex-communication then was tantamount to being banned on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter today in a secular world controlled by a secular church whose popes are people like Bill Gates.

 

Copyright 2020   Archer Crosley   All Rights Reserved