Here are some brief comments about some items I would have written about if my blog hadn't been down for a few days.
Rich Lowry comes down hard on the AARP and old people in general for being so selfish and screwing the younger generation. I've written similarly on the topic of responsibility, and I think it's disgusting how our supposedly most mature citizens do their utmost to live off the sacrifices of their children.
Stuart Buck writes that many of the fancy -- and useless -- new education paradigms are the result of bored teachers who get tired of using the same method over and over again, even though it works. I've thought the same thing. It's a shame the kids have to suffer for it, and there's not much worse than going through life illiterate.
David Brooks tries to explain to blue-staters one of the mechanisms whereby Republicans are taking over the country. Hint: birds and bees. Not that the Dems don't appear to have plenty of sex... it's just to no effect.
The always excellent Mark Steyn chastises the English for giving up their liberty and making themselves victims in their own homes.
Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.
One thing that struck me about the advice to cooperate is that the subject's been studied and it's simply not true that passive cooperation is the best solution to escaping from such situations with the least injury to yourself. Active resistance is much better, with a firearm preferably, and it is criminal that the expert didn't note it, along with how many injuries and deaths a change in the law permitting such resistance would prevent.
TML: My impression was that he was saying that, given the laws in England, the homeowner was safest if he did nothing. Don't forget that if he resists he risks imprisonment after the fact. So, it's smart to resist if you're going to be killed, but if you're "only" going to be injured it may be better to take the hit than go to jail for murder later. Which, yes, is sick.