New Study: 58% of Republicans say Colleges and Universities are Bad for Our Nation

The facts reported in this new study are absolutely the most important facts that have come across my desk in awhile.  The facts I’m talking about come from a new study by the Pew Research: Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions.  Republicans increasingly say colleges have negative impact on U.S.

The study reported that 58% of Republicans, and 65% of Conservatives, believe colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country.  This is very important to understand.

Why do they believe that colleges and universities are bad?  Easy, Colleges and Universities produce new learning, and for this 58% that is negative, because they believe the Bible is the last word and no new learning is necessary.  And, in fact, any new learning that counters the Bible is negative.

A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year. By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

Wide partisan differences over the impact of major institutions on the country

Across educational groups, Republicans give colleges & universities low ratings





GOP attack ad twists Ossoff donation sources in Georgia race

Another example that truth is a casualty of our current political environment.

But, a more important question for me is why does it matter where support comes from?


The Conservative Leadership Fund is running an ad that says “Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff’s campaign than people in Georgia.” In fact, based on data available through mid April, people in Georgia have given Ossoff twice as much money as people in the Bay Area.

Donald Trump’s petty speech to NATO was an ugly surprise even to his own team

If this is true, and I believe it is true, it is important.

If you support Trump you probably don’t believe this true. That it is “fake news!” Right?

So there are two questions: 1) Do you believe that Trump’s top national security officials were surprised he did not include the Article 5 language? Or Not?   2) Independent of your belief on the trueness of this, what narrative does this data support?  Does it support the narrative of: 1) Fake News, 2) Trump is an idiot, 3) Trump is purposefully realigning our alliances.


Trump’s decision to dump the speech and instead dump on NATO shocked even his own team.

It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.

Instead of the speech that had been carefully written, vetted, and approved in advance, Trump decided to deliver an insulting demand for payment even as a relic from the World Trade Center was being installed to remind the member states of the one time they had been called on to spill blood together—in defense of the United States.

Article 5 is the heart of NATO. It’s the section of NATO’s founding treaty where all the nations that participate in the alliance promise to come to the defense of any member under attack. Article 5 has been invoked exactly one time—by the United States following 9/11. In response […]

Interesting New Term – Streaming Analytics

I just learned a new term – Streaming analytics. Apparently streaming analytics is the application of analytics to data while it’s in motion, and before it’s stored – and includes data manipulation, normalization, cleansing and pattern of interest detection. Streaming analytics affords insights into: Social networking activities Data streams […]

Religious Lessons from the Handel-Ossoff Campaign

I find this post from a Christian Media Outlet to be very important. I particularly thought the following quote interesting.

Political candidates have proven they are able to motive their colleagues to strategize, work, and give to accomplish their goals more than the church has proven its ability to motive the saints of God to reach lost people and serve the living Christ.

It seems to me author is correct; developing and implementing public policy is easier then trying to convince 21st Century people to believe and follow a 1st Century world view that becomes more out of date every day.