Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category

The Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature by Thomas Henry Huxley

February 17, 2010

I take (borrow) the following from this interesting web site that I only today encountered:  “Spiritual Insights Quotations and the Faith vs Reason Debate”.

The Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature by Thomas Henry Huxley, published in 1863, was the first book explicitly devoted to the topic of human evolution, and discussed much of the anatomical and other evidence for the evolution of man and apes from a common ancestor.

Something of the nature and direction of Huxley’s work can perhaps be gauged from the fact that it featured the following frontispiece:-

Why is it that today, in the year 2010, nearly 150 years since Thomas Henry Huxley set about to make everyone aware of not the theory, but the fact of evolution, there are still a majority of our fellow citizens who have probably never seen this array of like skeletons, let alone come to grips with what they, the skeletons, are saying about us, all of us?

The Minaret Ban, “disgraceful” or highly appropriate?

December 1, 2009

“Uninformed,” that’s the only way to describe the NYTimes editorial opinion regarding the successful Swiss initiative to ban the construction of minarets. The Times editorial writer condemns the Swiss vote, calling it “bigoted and meanspirited.”

In order to hold his opinion the Times writer has to be totally ignorant of the thinking of the Swiss voters who supported the ban in large majorities. An equally uninformed reader of the editorial might very well say, yes, that was disgraceful and silly, for why object to a rather pleasant and attractive architectural feature of the mosque.

But the vote was not at all about minarets, in themselves unobjectable, innocuous symbols of a major world religion. The vote was about the proper place of Islam in modern day Europe.

I call the editorial writer uninformed because otherwise how could he not have seen that the minaret in the eyes of the Swiss voter was not just a harmless symbol of a major world religion. No the minaret was the harmful symbol of a major world wide religion still living in the past, still tied to a now totally rejected view of human nature as embodied in too many passages of the Quran and the hadith, and most particularly in the Sharia stemming therefrom.

For the voters were rejecting the view of man embodied in the Sharia, or Islamic law, and in that regard the minaret ban seems highly rational, highly moral, fully appropriate to circumstances in present day Europe, when Muslim immigrants are arriving in larger and larger numbers, readily taking for themselves all kinds of material goods and advantages, while rejecting the very things that created those goods and advantages, the scientific outlook, reason and the rule of law, democracy, and respect for the individual rights of all peoples.

The sort of thing that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld didn’t comprehend

August 7, 2009

(For if they did they would never have sent our young men to war with these people.) “Hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims left Karbala on Friday after celebrating the birth of Imam Mahdi, the Shiite saint who is believed to have gone into a state of hiding in the year 873 at the age of 5. Shiites believe he will re-emerge for the salvation of mankind.”

(from Attacks on Shiites Kill Scores in Iraq by Sam Dagher in today’s New York Times)

Kids are human capital

May 23, 2009

The problem is usually not a lack of knowledge. There is enough knowledge out there to solve most of our problems. The problem is getting the people in power to drink of the knowledge that is available. A case in point is our system of public school education.

Claudia Goldin, in a June 2001 article. “The Human-Capital Century and American Leadership: Virtues of the Past,” written for the Journal of Economic History, showed clearly how the United States in the early 1900s led all other developed countries in the development of its own human capital. The United States was first, and for a long time alone, to make a four year high school general education available to all.

Goldin enumerates a number of what she calls the “virtues” that characterized this development of the country’s human capital. Such things as public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum.

These “virtues,” she said, then gave rise to corollary virtues such as the use of property taxes, competition among school districts, and permitting students to repeat grades (what she refers to later as a kind of “infinite forgiveness”).

All this took us up to the 1950s, at which time the US lead in making a public school education available to all young people was indisputable. The lead was short lived however. The other developed countries quickly caught up with us, and now, today, the United States is no longer first and may even be well down the list of developed countries when it comes to making comparisons of the academic achievements of school kids up to and through high school.

What happened? Was it simply that others would inevitably catch up, and that there was nothing we could do to keep our lead? Or was it, as Goldin clearly implies, that the “virtues” were not longer virtues, but were now holding us back? And that we hadn’t adapted to the new times and new circumstances?

Each of the characteristics she lists — open, forgiving, small fiscally independent districts relying on local property taxes, academic, secular — was once a virtue, and most still are  to some extent, but the changing circumstances of our lives have made some considerably less virtuous, and others now appear to be vices. Not holding students more accountable for their own achievement, for example.

Instead of acknowledging the new situation, admitting the changed circumstances, instead of acting on what they surely must know, on the fact that things are no longer the same, our leaders continue to support an open, forgiving, and an academic or college preparatory education for all, when it’s clear that some 30% of our public school students (some 50% in the inner cities) are not going along and are dropping out of school, creating thereby enormous problems for themselves and for this country’s social safety net.

Instead of setting impossible goals, as in the proficiency requirements of No Child Left Behind, we should stop pretending that we can ever recover our educational leadership position of the past century. We can’t. There are no reforms that will enable us to do so. And as proof of this we have one very long history of failed reforms.

We need instead to question our original assumptions, in particular, that equality of outcomes was ever even possible. When it comes to education it’s not, unless of course the bar is set low enough for everyone to make it over. Or unless we make “infinite forgiveness” the general policy of all our schools. Or we define equality is just having everyone together in class, that which at one time may have been enough.

The knowledge that we have and that our educational leaders, including the teachers’ unions, the administrators, and even the kids, teachers, and parents themselves, ought now to acknowledge and admit, is that no education worthy of the name is appropriate for everyone.

What kids learn is different from day one, and first parents and then schools need to realize this. If they do they will quickly see that accepting inequality of methods and outcomes  is liberating, and that imposing equal methods and outcomes is stifling, let alone impossible.

When almost no one went to school it was apparently enough just to get everyone into a school and classroom. That we did well and in that respect, for fifty years, we led the world. Now however this is no longer enough, as anyone who has visited a public school classroom, and not only in the inner city, can clearly see.

For getting everyone into the school and classroom was only a first step. It may even have been a misstep. In any case we’re still struggling with second and third steps, let alone what comes afterwards, such as college, career, work experience, etc.

The result of all this is, of course, schooling. And we have a lot of that, more and more as our population grows. But in our public schools, if we look closely, there is very little education, or at least what was meant by education (math, history, foreign language etc.) taking place.

To use the language of Claudia Goldin we need a new list of virtues, many of which are already in sight and struggling to become established, such as accountability, no excuses schools, longer school days and longer school years, substantial place for vocational and technical education. And also there are any number of past reform efforts that were never given enough support, such as no school at all, home schooling, apprenticeships etc.

In short, we need to think more about learning, and less about schooling. When we successfully do that we may even once again take the lead.

Victor Hugo, le 21 août 1849

May 21, 2009

Le 21 août 1849, un congrès de la paix se réunit a Paris. Vicor Hugo en était le président et il y fit un discours où le grand poète se montre aussi un grand prophète. En voici la partie la plus célèbre:

Un jour viendra où les armes vous tomberont des mains, à vous aussi ! Un jour viendra où la guerre paraîtra aussi absurde et sera aussi impossible entre Paris et Londres, entre Pétersbourg et Berlin, entre Vienne et Turin, qu’elle serait impossible et qu’elle paraîtrait absurde aujourd’hui entre Rouen et Amiens, entre Boston et Philadelphie. Un jour viendra où la France, vous Russie, vous Italie, vous Angleterre, vous Allemagne, vous toutes, nations du continent, sans perdre vos qualités distinctes et votre glorieuse individualité, vous vous fondrez étroitement dans une unité supérieure, et vous constituerez la fraternité européenne, absolument comme la Normandie, la Bretagne, la Bourgogne, la Lorraine, l’Alsace, toutes nos provinces, se sont fondues dans la France. Un jour viendra où il n’y aura plus d’autres champs de bataille que les marchés s’ouvrant au commerce et les esprits s’ouvrant aux idées. – Un jour viendra où les boulets et les bombes seront remplacés par les votes, par le suffrage universel des peuples, par le vénérable arbitrage d’un grand sénat souverain qui sera à l’Europe ce que le parlement est à l’Angleterre, ce que la diète est à l’Allemagne, ce que l’Assemblée législative est à la France ! (Applaudissements.) Un jour viendra où l’on montrera un canon dans les musées comme on y montre aujourd’hui un instrument de torture, en s’étonnant que cela ait pu être ! (Rires et bravos.) Un jour viendra où l’on verra ces deux groupes immenses, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, les Etats-Unis d’Europe (Applaudissements), placés en face l’un de l’autre, se tendant la main par-dessus les mers, échangeant leurs produits, leur commerce, leur industrie, leurs arts, leurs génies, défrichant le globe, colonisant les déserts, améliorant la création sous le regard du Créateur, et combinant ensemble, pour en tirer le bien-être de tous, ces deux forces infinies, la fraternité des hommes et la puissance de Dieu ! (Longs applaudissements.) Victor Hugo

The United States and Russia, is it over between them?

May 21, 2009

[from everything2.com]

Alexis de Tocqueville only spent one year in the United States before he wrote “Democracy in America” (1835), which is still one of the best books about that country. The last page of the first volume describes the future evolution of the Russians and the Americans. The English translation is mine, so don’t blame its weaknesses on Tocqueville.

Il y a aujourd’hui sur la terre deux grands peuples qui, partis de points différents, semblent s’avancer vers le même but : ce sont les Russes et les Anglo-Américains.

Tous deux ont grandi dans l’obscurité ; et tandis que les regards des hommes étaient occupés ailleurs, ils se sont placés tout à coup au premier rang des nations, et le monde a appris presque en même temps leur naissance et leur grandeur.

    There are today on Earth two great nations that come from different points and seem to go forward to the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.

    Both have grown up in the shadow; and while everybody’s attention was diverted, they suddenly set themselves up at the first rank among the nations, and the world became aware almost simultaneously of their birth and of their greatness.

Tous les autres peuples paraissent avoir atteint à peu près les limites qu’a tracées la nature, et n’avoir plus qu’à conserver ; mais eux sont en croissance : tous les autres sont arrêtés ou n’avancent qu’avec mille efforts ; eux seuls marchent d’un pas aisé et rapide dans une carrière dont l’oeil ne saurait encore apercevoir la borne.

    All other nations seem to have nearly reached the limits that nature has set to them, and only need to maintain their current condition; but those people are still growing: while the others are stopped in their course or only advance with strenuous endeavor, only those walk quickly and easily on a path which term cannot be seen yet.

L’Américain lutte contre les obstacles que lui oppose la nature ; le Russe est aux prises avec les hommes. L’un combat le désert et la barbarie, l’autre la civilisation revêtue de toutes ses armes : aussi les conquêtes de l’Américain se font-elles avec le soc du laboureur, celles du Russe avec l’épée du soldat.

    The American struggles against natural obstacles; the Russian has to do with human beings. The former fights desert and wildness, the latter contests with civilization and all its arms. So the conquests of the American are made with the the countryman’s plow, the conquests of the Russian with the soldier’s sword.

Pour atteindre son but, le premier s’en repose sur l’intérêt personnel, et laisse agir, sans les diriger, la force et la raison des individus.

Le second concentre en quelque sorte dans un homme toute la puissance de la société.

L’un a pour principal moyen d’action la liberté ; l’autre, la servitude.

    To fulfill his goal, the former relies on personal interest and unlooses individual force and reason.

    The latter concentrates more or less all social power in one man.

    One makes use of freedom primarily; the other makes use of constraint.

Leur point de départ est différent, leurs voies sont diverses ; néanmoins, chacun d’eux semble appelé par un dessein secret de la Providence à tenir un jour dans ses mains les destinées de la moitié du monde.

[from  CAIRN.info]

Les deux messianismes, américain et russe, pouvaient-ils coexister sans se heurter ? Alexis de Tocqueville n’avait que trente ans quand, au retour d’un voyage aux États-Unis, il écrivit en 1835 la page célèbre de la Démocratie en Amérique dans laquelle il exprimait sa conviction qu’un « dessein secret » de la Providence amènerait chacun des deux peuples à « tenir un jour dans ses mains les destinées de la moitié du monde » [25]. Mieux, il prévoyait que l’un y parviendrait par les moyens de la servitude, l’autre par ceux de la liberté. Mais il s’en tenait là, ne se risquant pas à prévoir quelles pourraient bien être les relations de ces deux superpuissances en devenir. Napoléon était moins prudent qui, de Sainte-Hélène, prédisait que le monde serait un jour « république universelle américaine ou monarchie universelle russe » [26]. Bien d’autres, du baron Grimm qui, à la veille de la Révolution française, renseignait les cours européennes sur l’état du monde, à Michelet ou au Russe Ivan Kireievski, avaient eux aussi annoncé le partage de la planète entre deux empires que Thiers voyait voués à « se heurter dans des luttes dont le passé ne peut donner aucune idée, du moins pour la masse et le choc physique, car le temps des grandes choses morales est passé » [27].  Andre Fontaine

Freedom and Equality

December 24, 2008

In a column, from May of 2007, George Will makes the not unreasonable observation that conservatives and liberals are on opposite sides of the tension that exists between freedom and equality, in particular equality of opportunity. The implication being that by promoting freedom, and freedoms, equalities of opportunities will inevitably be diminished.

For when people are given the freedoms to choose, be it education for the young, health care, and where to live, the greatest numbers of choices will always fall to those with the greatest means or opportunities. For means, and opportunities are terribly unequally distributed to begin with.

To set this right, to redistribute means and opportunities to those with less of the same, will inevitably involve taking from those with more. But the argument is persuasive and in the past conservatives, or freedom lovers, have bit the bullet and gone along with government attempts to redistribute opportunities, aka wealth, to the classes without.

The result has been that we now have, throughout the developed world, as a kind of remnant of socialism, entitlements. And entitlements have meant huge increases in the sizes of governments.

But the inequalities that entitlements, and the accompanying huge government bureaucracies, were supposed to diminish, if not eliminate, remain, and in some respects are more imbedded in our societies than ever before.

Furthermore the tension between liberals and conservatives is greater than ever before. Hardcore liberals go on believing that the failure of entitlement programs up until now is the result of our being niggardly in our funding of these programs, be it education in the inner city, health care for the impoverished, job training for the out of school and out of work.

Hardcore conservatives, on the other hand, go on believing that people can not be made whole by government, that only people can change people, be it by individual initiative or by the efforts of one or more voluntary organizations, those very groups of individuals working together to improve their lives together that so impressed Alexis de Toqueville while visiting our country nearly 200 years ago.

So where are we? Are we at an impasse? For more entitlements have not meant fewer inequalities of opportunities. And no one now believes that more freedoms would promote more equality.

At best there is a line to be drawn. For some entitlements are good — social security payments to the poor and the aged,  compensatory programs for the handicapped and impoverished young, among others.

And some freedoms are essential — the freedom to travel, to live where one wants, to start a business, above all the freedom to take risks when one puts only oneself at risk. Our best hope is that a line, between to what extent we help people and to what extent we leave them alone, can be drawn. So far we just haven’t been very good about drawing that line.

Jason Riley’s Let them In: The Case for Open Borders

September 5, 2008

This book expounds on two general themes. The first is that, contrary to received wisdom, today's Latino immigrants aren't "different," just newer. the second is that an open immigration policy is compatible with free-market conservatism and homeland security. I explain, from a conservative perspective, why the pessimists who say otherwise are mistaken. I argue that immigrants, including low-skill immigrants, are an asset to the United States, not a liability. Immigrants help keep our workforce younger and stronger than Asia's and Europe's. As entrepreneurs, they create jobs. As consumers, they generate economic activity that results in more overall economic growth. By taking jobs that overqualified Americans spurn, they fill niches in the workforce that make our economy more efficient and allow for the upward mobility of the native population.
An immigration policy that acknowledges these economic realities would provide more, not fewer, legal ways for immigrants to enter the country.
(Jason Riley, Let Them In, 2008 p.12)

Intellect vs. Intelligence

September 4, 2008

We would vote for the one for his intellect, the other for her intelligence. The other two candidates are simply creatures of the past, and have little or nothing original to tell us. We have much greater expectations of these two kids, still in their mid forties. It's too bad they're not competing for the same office and that we could decide between them. That would be thrilling.

ObamaetPalin

Why thrilling? Because neither one is burdened by the past and when appropriate would probably have no problem adopting new and innovative solutions to old problems.  And they would learn on the job, and it would be thrilling to watch them.

But should, you ask, the offices of the president and the vice president of these United States, ever be given to the inexperienced? Well it has often happened in the past that the winning candidates were not well qualified for the job, while there were always plenty of others not running who were. Furthermore, has it ever been shown that those not qualified, probably most of them, turned out better or worse in office than those few who were?

I don"t think so. But most important, these offices, and especially that of the president, will always require that the office holders, say Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, surround themselves with excellent advisers. The office holders will then base their own actions on the advice they get, so that the critical factor is the advice they obtain, not the job experience they come with.

We blame the last President Bush for the three greatest mistakes of his presidency, the Iraq war, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, and his actions, or lack of actions in response to Katrina. But we should blame his advisers. They gave bad advice, or no advice. OK, you'll say, he did choose these advisers, but is there any valid preparation for choosing the right people? You're able to do this sort of thing or you're not. Bush wasn't.

Obama by his great intellect, Palin by her obvious intelligence, do seem capable of choosing the right people. In Obama's case if he is elected we will learn whether or not this this is so. In Palin's case, as the vice presidential candidate, the best she might do in office would be to influence the choices of that old and good man she's running with. In the circumstances let's hope she does.

Intellect vs. Intelligence

September 4, 2008

Although the difference between the qualities of intelligence and intellect is more often assumed than defined, the context of popular usage makes it possible to exact the nub of the distinction, which seems to be almost universally understood:
Intelligence is an excellence of mind that is employed within a fairly narrow, immediate, and predictable range; it is a manipulative, adjustive, unfailingly practical quality—one of the most eminent and endearing of the animal virtues. Intelligence works within the framework of limited but clearly stated goals, and may be quick to shear away questions of thought that do not seem to help in reaching them. Finally, it is of such universal use that it can daily be seen at work and admired alike by simple or complex minds.
Intellect, on the other hand, is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of mind. Whereas intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, adjust, intellect examines, ponders,wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines. Intelligence will seize the immediate meaning in a situation and evaluate it. Intellect evaluates evaluations, and looks for the meanings of situations as a whole. Intelligence can be praised as a quality in animals; intellect, being a unique manifestation of human dignity, is both praised and assailed as a quality in men.
When the difference is so defined, it becomes easier to understand why we sometimes say that a mind of admittedly penetrating intelligence is relatively unintellectual; and why, by the same token we see among minds that are unmistakably intellectual a considerable range of intelligence.
(Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Richard Hofstadter, 1962)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.