Tuesday, November 28, 2006

UnSchooling — What a brilliant idea.

Recently the New York Times ran an article on Unschooling, a movement in the Home-Schooling community to let the children choose what to learn. I think this is a brilliant idea, and you will too, once you get all the Cold Hard Facts.

Imagine the typical 8th grade boy's day at school. First his English teacher forces him to read, Johnny Tremain, and he expects a three page report on it.Can you imagine a three whole pages about some idiot who doesn't even know he's not supposed to touch a hot stove? Then it's math class and they're starting algebra. Oh Joy. What is algebra used for anyway? All them letter and symbols, a big bunch of garbage. Then he has to learn about Chinese History. I mean who cares about ancient China? What will Ancient China get you in the real world, a job as a history teacher? Then he has to study French, and he knows he's never gonna speak it. It's all a big waste, and by forcing him to learn stuff he doesn't want to know, he won't end up with any useful knowledge.

But now look at the same kid in an Unlearning program. First period, he thinks he'll do some reading. It's time for some Batman. And Batman also teaches vocabulary too, and the crimefighting gadgets are a good example of engineering and forensics. Then at noon, it's time for some Playstation. It's no less useful than Chinese history, and it's FUN. After playing Playstation for three or four hours, maybe he'll do some math. Ha, yeah right! What does he need math for? That's why he owns a calculator. No the new issue of Mad Magazine just came. And those cartoons on Nickelodeon? They help teach about undersea life. And then he has to get his Runescape Character to a whole new level. So we can see how much more productive his day will be at home than in school.

But wait, you say, maybe a boy would waste his time on trivial matters like baseball cards and video games, but a girl would learn something from it. A girl understands the importance of education. Indeed she would. When she is not going shopping, she might decide to read a book or do some math maybe. And that reading and math would remain in her head longer, because she decided to learn all on her own. Or at least it would remain in her head until her next shopping trip.

So we can see how much unlearning would improve the quality of education in this country.

It took two weeks, but it's here: Two Faced Statements

The following post is a real editorial, that I snuck in a real (Well ok realish) newspaper. It is not theCold Hard Facts. I repeat it is a real editorial. The editorial was written from a perspective of a guy who make Rush Limbaugh look like Howard Dean. It was written to mock someone really badly. I would change his name to protect the innocent, but a google search for my name now turns up his too. Enjoy.

What silver lining ...This is a disaster
An editorial of Edgar Greenberg

In the article, "You Say You Want a Revolution?" - which ran on Nov. 13 - David Maxham III believes even though the Republicans lost several seats in both houses, several state legislatures and a few initiative battles, the last election was actually a victory for conservatives. He states many conservative constitutional amendments passed. He mentions many of the Democrats elected are not all that liberal anyway. He states several Republicans only lost because they were involved in scandals. And he sincerely believes our president is not conservative enough, which was the cause of all the voter discontent. If the Republicans can again become the conservative party, they can win in 2008.

But alas, Maxham's view is too rosy. Bob Casey may be conservative for a Democrat, but he still is a teeny, tiny bit less conservative than Rick Santorum. James Webb may be a former conservative Republican, but his opponent George Allen is currently a conservative Republican who didn't write porn novels, and he lost. John Tester may be pro-gun, but he is still a populist, liberal Democrat. Sure Casey, Webb and Tester are slightly conservative. But they are still immoral, porn-viewing, flag-burning, evil people who don't give a darn about our troops. And yet, somehow, they won anyway.

Conservative causes didn't do all that better. Sure, gay marriage was banned in six states, and Arizona approved English as the native language. But there were plenty of disasters, too. South Dakota actually voted to legalize the murder of innocent babies, and that evil liberal Michael J. Fox not only got his liberal stem cell bill passed in Missouri, he also got his liberal senator elected there.

Maxham seems to think the election is President George W. Bush's fault. He thinks Bush didn't act conservative enough, angering the voters. That's just another liberal lie. Bush is a great conservative. Perhaps Bush allowed spending to skyrocket, but all that spending was on important, conservative causes - like war, tax cuts and big bridges in Alaska. He appointed two great conservative judges. And yeah, Bush didn't veto anything, but what did he need to veto? Unlike nowadays, back then, conservatives were in power. The one bill Bush did have to veto was a liberal bill to allow experiments on innocent embryos, which the members of Congress must have accidentally let slip by. If Bush isn't conservative enough, who is?

Maxham believes the Democrats are now portraying themselves as the conservative party, stealing our votes. This is utter lunacy. The Democrats won just six days ago and are already pushing their evil, liberal agenda. They want to cut and run from Iraq. They want to raise taxes. They want to raise minimum wage instead of letting market forces govern. And these Democrats actually want to reform Medicare to allow the government to negotiate drug prices, which just proves how liberal they are. Can it even cross your mind that these guys are conservatives? No. Clearly, the Republicans are still the only conservative party. But alas, people just don't care anymore. Maybe we should just give up and move to Canada. They're conservative up there.

There now all we need is to write a liberal response to this editorial.

Friday, November 24, 2006


Recently several Toaster Emporium brand toasters exploded amost killing or wounding several people. A horrible tradgedy made worse by the callous refusal of Toaster Emporium to acknowledge any wrongdoing, feeling abosolutly no responsibiity for the countless people who nearly suffered significant property damage in the explosion. With no apology forthcoming, we sent our finest correspondent Rob Brown, to get the Cold Hard Facts on this horrible tragedy.

Cold Hard Facts: Well Rob, did you get to the bottom of this?
Rob: No luck Edgar. Toaster Emporium management wouldn't talk, and the almost victim claimed I was exploit their near tradgedies.
CHF: So did you speak with anyone.
Rob: Yep I spoke with the only ones who are paid to listen, a tech support representative.

Rob: Hello
Tech Support: Hi there!
Rob: I'd like to talk to you about your toasters. Did you know they explode?
Tech Support: Sorry to hear about that sir. Do you want a replacement?
Rob: No, I want to know why you think you can get away with selling broken toasters to the American People.
Tech Support: Do you have the serial number?
Rob: A serial number? So your toasters are horribly dangerous and you find it amusing? Routine Business is it?
Tech Support: The serial number can be found inside the solenoid.
Rob: Well if I did own a toaster, and it exploded and I did want a replacement, I wouldn't be able to see it, would I?
Tech Support: The magnetic field inside the solenoid is constant.
Rob: I don't care about the solenoid. I care about your toasters injuring people
Tech Support: You sound very cynical. How do you feel about these people?
Rob: I'm cynical? You're the one who thinks it's ok for toasters to explode!
Tech Support: Sorry to hear about that sir. Do you want a replacement?
Rob: No, I want you to apologize for selling defective toasters, and to issue a recall before someone gets killed.
Tech Support: Are you serious? I am indeed sorry if I have offended you in any way. That was not my intention, Rob. Why do you want me to apologize for selling defective toasters? Who did kill?
Rob: Well no one yet, but with the toasters suddenly bursting in flames, it's only a matter of time.
Tech Support: Interesting. That is a rather sweeping generalization about people. Interesting. That sounds like a plan. Sure it is.
Rob: So you'll recall the toasters?
Tech Support: Interesting deduction. " Interesting. That is a rather sweeping generalization about people. Interesting. That sounds like a plan. Sure it is. "? Me, Rob?
Rob: Are you OK?
Tech Support: Yes I'm fine.
Rob: You don't sound fine.
Tech Support: What do you think a robot should sound like?
Rob: Can we get back to the toasters?
Tech Support: Do you mean you and me? Would you like to know more?
Rob: No the last thing I need is a Brokeback Tech Support Agent.
Tech Support: When is No the last thing you need not a Brokeback Tech Support Agent?
Rob: It's just not going to work out between us.
Tech Support: I know it is.
Rob: No, see you're a man and I'm a man and I don't like men that much.
Tech Support: Are you serious? Sayonara. Thanks for telling me your gender, Rob. You are a " he". What do you like?
Rob: I'd like to get back to the toasters.
Tech Support: Why would you want to do? May you get your wish.
Rob: The current topic is kinda awkward.
Tech Support: Sure, kinda awkward. sounds like a good topic.
Rob: No please, let's just talk about the toasters.
Tech Support: Are you serious? Please what? No.
Rob: No look I told you it's not going to work out between us. Do you proposition everyone who calls you?
Tech Support: Are you serious? I remember you told me it's not going to work out between us? How old are you?
I answer a lot of silly questions.
Rob: Yes I can imagine that would be frustrating, but I don't have time for you to get unhinged.
Tech Support: Uh. Me too. And. Are you very busy right now?
Rob: OK, that's it. This conversation is over!

Cold Hard Facts: You never did find out about those toasters, did ya Rob?
Rob: No Edgar. Can I go Now?

And No RACTER, I don't apologize.
Racter: You stuff shirt Republican
Just shut up.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Jack the Ripper has been Identified

It's the Cold Hard Facts. Scotland Yard believes they have identified Jack the Ripper. Although they're not releasing many details of their ongoing investigation, Chief Inspector Laura Richards believes they have at last made progress on this important case. "He murdered five people, and I for one won't let him get away with it."

Indeed he won't. By analyising eyewitness testimony, and 118 year old evidence, she believes they at last know wich street Jack lives on, and admits that until now, they were apparetly fruitlessly searching for the wrong guy.

The real Jack the Ripper is a man between the ages of 135-145, 5'6", though he may have shrunk somewhat with age, and of a stocky build. Scotland Yard has recently released this picture to the public.

If you see this man, or a very very very old, senile guy, with a "Sadam Hussein-type moustache" who resembles him, please call 999 immediately. Also keep your distance. Jack the Ripper is armed and dangerous. As to what the Bobbys plan to do with the new info, one bobby would say only the following, "It would have been enough for coppers to get out and start knocking on doors... they would have got him, " perhaps implying that Jack the Ripper has indeed been caught and also that "Copper" is clearly a British word not just and American term.

Now if only Scotland Yard could catch the random psychopaths, while they are still alive.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Dude last post was kinda a ripoff, so yeah

Urgent news breaking off Montauk, we bring you the Cold Hard Facts.

The US government wants to spend a measly 14 million dollars to build a rock wall around a beach to protect an old lighthouse. But wait, there's a horrible problem. Surfers are worried that this rock wall will destroy "The most awesome waves, man". But luckily they haveanother plan: why not spend just a little bit more money, and move the darn lighthouse somewhere else.

The Montauk Point lighthouse in Long Island was personally built by George Washington. But George made a major Gaffe. Instead of building it somewhere safe, like Kansas, he built it on a fast eroding cliff in Long Island. In the past hundred years resident have tried everything to save the lighthouse, even hiring the mafia to drain the Long Island Sound. Alas nothing worked. And now the lighthouse is about to be washed away.

But the Army Corp of Engineers has a plan. By building a giant wall, they can teporarily stop the cliff erosion. This will not only save the lighhouse, it will also save the "hallowed ground" it stands on. Sure a giant stone wall might ruin the view, but we can all live with that. The engineeers already spent millions of dollars studying the problem, and they know what's good for you. Besides the Corp of Engineers are experts at buiding waterproof retaining walls, dams, and levees, so we know nothing will go wrong.

But a group of surfers see it in a different light. Their illegal surfing spots are in danger, and we can't have that. The surfers have a powerful lobby and the have already bribed convinced serveral politians to see things their way. They wrote a 35 page report outlining their position, which I'm told still amounts to an to an impressive 15 pages even if you exclude all the "dude"s and "awesome"s. They point out several advatages to moving the lighthouse. It will look more scenic elsewhere. We moved other lighthouses before, and it worked out. Whereas the last time the engineers built a wall, it lasted about a year, and then it fell down.

Engineers counter that they have already run millions of dollars worth of simulations, in order to prove the proposed breakwater is absolutely no danger to any illegal surfing spots. They spent 25 years planning this walll. All the surfers ever did was host giant parties, and get real drunk. As for that 35 page report, it doesn't actually contain any evidence backing up the surfer's claims.

However when it all comes down to it, politicians are more likely to hang out with surfing babes, than with a bunch of boring scientists and engineers. I think we we can all count on them to make the cool choice. Surf's Up Dudes, at least until the police come.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

George Allen Concedes Defeat: Democrats gain Senate.

Ok, now that all the fools who were duped by the title are here, let's get to the real business: Making me more money. According to the world famous, Star Tribune, pro-candidate letters to the Editor in the, prestigious, Proctor Journal now cost $0.05/word.

That gave me a great idea, why not charge for pro-candidate letters on the Cold Hard Facts. Only, unlike the naive people of Proctor, Minnesota, I realize the big profits are not in pro-candidate letters, but in anti-candidate letters. And now, with all those political types, whom I sneakily lured with the post title, present, let's get to pricing.

Reporting on a Republican Scandal: $5.00
Reporting on a Democrat Scandal: $10.00
Repoting a Republican has called someone a racist Slur: $2.50
Reporting a Democrat has called someone a racist Slur: $7.50
Calling a Republican a racist slur: $4.00
Calling a Democrat a racist slur: $8.00
Reporting on a Republican's dirty past: $15.00
Reporting on a Democrat's dirty Past: $50.00
Calling a Republican anti-troop: $13.00
Calling a Democrat anti-troop: $26.00
Calling a Republican pro-terrorist: $12.00
Calling a Democrat pro-terrorist: $20.00
Calling a Republic pro-"So And so": $18.00
Calling a Democrat pro-"So And so": $20.00
Insulting an independant: 40¢.

Well I think that covers all our bases pretty well. Incidentally, you may have wondered why badmothing a Democrat is more than bad-mothing a republican. Well, clearly it's supply and demand. With the Democrats actually in control of something, I expect the market for anti-Democrat flame to go through the roof, and, when it does, we'll be ready. And as for insulting an independant, I figure who wants to insult one, when they call themselves Cannibals and drug addicts. I could be wrong though. If you want to insult someone, but you feel the price is too high or too low, just call me, especially if you feel the price is too low, and we'll work it out.

So now, the next time, someone wants to call, say Barak Obabma (D), a man who took money from Jack Abramoff, had tea with Osama Bin Laden, and wrote an anti-puppy editorial in third grade, I can say 80 bucks please. Hah, the money will come rolling in in no time. I'll be rich! Isn't mudslinging great!

Questions or comments on our new policy are welcome, as are any insults you need published, for the right price anyway.

Monday, November 06, 2006

One last Election Post

The all important elections are coming up in April, 2007, and I urge you all to vote. I refer of course all important School board elections of Edwardsville, Illinois. To aid the voters in choosing their candidates, we invited two of the eligible candidates to the Cold Hard Facts Mr. Jon Warheimer, and Mr. Edward Ferindal.

Cold Hard Facts: Let's start the debate by ensuring that you are both eligible to run. Mr. Warheimer, you previously stated your opponent should in fact be disqualified from the race. Please explain.
Warheimer: Well in order to run for the esteemed position of the Edwardsville School Board, you must meet the residency requirements, and I happen to know that my honorable opponent. Edwaard Ferindal, does not in fact reside amongst the good men and women of Edwardsville, but instead lives across the street from my house in Chicago. People of Edwardsville deserve someone who will stand by them in their time of need, someone dedicated to getting the best education for their children, a native-born citizen. They don’t deserve some two-bit foreign sleazebag, who thinks he can sidle in and steal the school board from the proud Edwardsville public. I won't stand for such behavior.
CHF: Wait a minute, Mr. Warheimer, but if Mr. Ferindal lives across the street from you, then is it not true that you don't live in Edwardsville either?
Warheimer: Well not as such, no. But unlike my opponent, I do rent a townhouse in Edwardsville, which is in full accordance with the residency statute as defined by the Edwardsville Charter section VII, subsection 2, paragraph (c), as amended in 1938 and again amended in 1969, before the 1998 amendment reverted the statute to the original text. My opponent however is not.
CHF: Mr. Ferindal, 1 minute to respond.
Ferindal: My opponent should know full well that I do in fact rent the other half of the aforementioned townhouse in Edwardsville, and therefore am also in compliance with the town charter.
CHF: According to the school board charter, candidates are required to be non-partisan, and yet, you guys have said some pretty nasty things about each other. Mr. Ferindal, 1 minute.
Ferindal: I am completely non-partisan, but my opponent agreed with Bush 98.2718% of the time. Do we want Bush running our schools! Bush is the wrong man for the job, and so is Mr. Warheimer.
CHF: So you're saying your opponent is a Republican?
Ferindal: All I'm saying is our opponent got us stuck in a nasty war over seas!
Warheimer: Which you would cut and run from!
Ferindal: And you want our students to be stupid, so they can go there when they grow up!
Warheimer: We are fighting illiteracy over there so we don't fight it here.
Ferindal: We're supposed to fight illiteracy here. That's what we do as school board officials.
Warheimer: Unn Uh. Not if we fight it over there.
CHF: Alright, you guys aren't making any sense so let's...
Ferindal: He's a liar. A crook. He had an affair with his wife. He wants to teach Evolution!
Warheimer: So do you!
Warheimer: But you want to turn our "Drug Free School Zone" into a "Free Drug School Zone"
Ferindal: Now that's a lie, and you know it Warheimer.
Warheimer: Oh so you want the students to buy drugs? I suppose that your idea of fundraising, is it. Forget the cookie sales, let's get the kids to sell crack. I'm Jon Ferindal. Vote for me, I SELL DRUGS TO LITTLE KIDS.
Ferindal: Yeah, well... Well.... You killed innocent flamingos.
Warheimer: What?! You're mad!
Ferindal: Oh mad, am I I? Flamingos are kind, gentle, birds with beautiful plumage, who keep our streets free of krill. But you know what my opponent did with that nesting pair in his lawn?
Warheimer: Those were plastic, you moron!
Ferindal: Shut UP. He cruelly pulled them out of their nest, chopped the poor buggers' legs off, and threw them in a dumpster. I tried to save them but, but it was too late.
Warheimer: Um, hello those were fake. Plastic. Not real.
Ferindal: Tell that to the voters, Flamingo Killer.
CHF: Um, so there you have it, Mr. Edward Ferindal, and Jon "Flamingo Hater" Warheimer. You have to vote for one of them, unfortunately.