Into the face of commonsense, two of Greg Mankiw's chums recently concluded that watching television enhances academic achievement:
...children who lived in cities that gave them more exposure to television in early childhood performed better on the tests than those with less exposure.
The economists found that television was especially positive for children in households where English wasn't the primary language and parents' education level was lower.
The idiot box helps ESL minorities the most? So I guess taxpayers should be subsidizing all those satellite dishes we see in the projects - after all, it'd be *for the children* and for their *education*.
And, it's got to be cheaper to buy $100 televisions than to pay unionized bureaucrats and educators, right?
Go to the Wall Street Journal and read the full article. It's one thing to waste taxpayers money with a vapid study and erroneous conclusions, but these Harvard clowns also posited a most disgusting point.
They tried to argue that television lowered fertility in Brazil.
During the 1970s and the 1980s, when television expanded rapidly in Brazil, fertility rates declined dramatically, to 2.8 children per woman in 1990 from 5 children in 1970, according to the World Bank.
The disgusting presumption, of course, is that fewer children is somehow an ideal worth striving for.
This *too many kids* garbage I hear from Harvard and Cambridge types ALL THE TIME. In fact we heard it just last week from one of them at a dinner party. All these clowns do is project.
Deep down they know they shouldn't reproduce; they know they'd make horrible parents....
So they just assume the rest of us are the same!
The supreme riposte to these Morons, as I've said before, is:
Yeah, I totally agree. YOU really shouldn't have too many kids.
Cynics of yesteryear argued that pornography and television were elitist devices to dampen the reproductive output of the wretched lumpen masses.
Now as a fail-safe we have a what, $500 million annual subsidy to the abortion industry?