Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Tatoo day
Yesterday was officially Tatoo Day in New York. Tatoo day is the first day that it is hot enough, and you get to notice that there are all these people who have tatoos that you never would have suspected.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Orthodox Jewish Feminists
The world changes. Because of that, the institutions we form have to adapt. Those which cannot adapt die. They loose relevance and are no longer meaningful to their people. Orthodox Judaism may be at a crossroads with respect to the relevance of women. How can Orthodoxy adapt?
Unlike with Christianity, the locus of Jewish life has always been the home. Many of the holiday rituals, the Sabbath, the food laws, and some rites of passage (like weddings and circumcisions) all took place in the home, not the synagogue. These were not communal issues. Much of what Judaism was about was centered in the home. Much of childrearing too was a domestic issue.
Anything that was a domestic issue was firmly in the domain of women. The role of the woman of the house was to tend to all the vital religious functions while the man was off earning a living. Women had quite a bit of religious authority and responsibility once upon a time. Kosher was a full time job. So was preparing for the holidays, and raising children, especially daughters.
Unlike the case of Catholicism, Judaism has no hierarchy. There is no pope or head rabbi whose word is law, and can decide policy and outlook for all of Judaism. Each community did as it saw fit. Each was a bit different. Each household could have been slightly unique as well. The individual customs and traditions were preserved by those who ran the house, with some credence given to the community.
After WWII (roughly) things changed. Judaism became more communal. Food preparation no longer required real knowledge beyond not mixing milk and meat and being able to recognize the OU and OK symbols. Major organizations take care of this. The synagogue plays a larger role in community life; women no longer educate their sons or more importantly, their daughters. The transmit ion of knowledge is no longer oral. It is written, and becoming more and more uniform and homogeneous. People have more access and give more weight to the “big poskim” to determine Jewish law. These halachic decision makers have more and more sway over larger and larger groups of Orthodox Jews.
So what happens to the Jewish woman here? They have fewer and fewer religious roles to play. They are still needed as mother and such, but qua religious person, they are becoming obsolete. All their religious roles have been co-opted by men or the community. Given this, their power has also diminished. A man need no longer defer to his wife for food rules, child-rearing advice, or the proper time for the Sabbath. Without a role, they have less and less authority.
Hence, I am more and more sympathetic with the modern Orthodox Jewish woman who feels somewhat disenfranchised by her perceived lack of religious prominence.
What is the solution here?
I think that there are a few options available. The first option involves reinventing Orthodox Judaism to accommodate the women. To some extent this is being done. Judaism does keep up with the time, albeit not in real time, but in Jewish time – ie, with a severe lag. But the bigger issue is that I suspect it does not keep up enough. If they do not go far enough in reinventing Judaism they are left unsatisfied. This is the plight of most of or Orthodox Jewish women who are concerned about this. Other women do attempt to reinvent Judaism in their own image - so much so that that the brand of orthodoxy sounds foreign to many of their co-religionists. Egalitarian prayer services? Or worse, being >porush from the klall and having an all women’s service? That is no way to assert your place in Judaism – by showing you are now a separate faction – minyan and all.
No, the Orthodox woman does not need more rights. They do not need to reinvent Judaism. They need to reinvent themselves and make themselves relevant. Their skills, knowledge, and their very usefulness has been outsourced to cheaper and more efficient and centralized rabbis.
Judaism is a religion of action. The orthodox feminist agenda, at least the one which thinks that Orthodox Jews need some sort of revolution such that they play a larger role in Jewish life and achieve gender equity, will not be fulfilled by writing a few philosophical treatises and expounding on how women are and are not equal and how they should be. A real revolution will not take place after someone ordains the first female orthodox poseket, or whatever. That will just create a new faction of Jews. Change will come when Change will come when orthodox women do what orthodox men do – that is perform a necessary religio-social role. Men today build Jewish schools, give a lot of charity (THAT alone buys a lot of rabbinic clout), teach Orthodox children, and write stuff written for the frum community, (not the touchy-feely crap written for bored overly-pious women). Few Jewish mothers are capable of learning with their children after school. A fifth grader still has to wait for his father to review his Talmud. I can’t imagine there were too many women completed the daf yomi last cycle.
Until women can integrate themselves in to the wider community and serve the wider roles that men serve, or if not that, then find new roles that are useful to Orthodox Jews, they are fighting for privilege that they have not earned. Men have earned their place in Orthodoxy, in the olden days, women did too. Women who take the household to be paramount in Jewish life and feel bound to it religiously have also earned their place in Orthodoxy. Modern women who feel the household is not particularly fulfilling and feel shut out of the community, have not had an opportunity to prove themselves to the Jewish community. Orthodox Jews legitimately ask themselves “How are they relevant to religious life?” It may not be anyone’s fault; it may be the fault of the entrenched Jewish sociological infrastructure. But that is the reality. There are no short-cuts here, no affirmative action. Jews have to earn their right to have a voice. Jewish men who can’t speak intelligently about Judaism, can’t contribute to the religious organizations, or the overall religious life of the community have little voice. Jewish women are in the same position.
If women learn to walk the walk and talk the talk, that and only that will compel the community to take them seriously. But if everyone, including girls, can only learn with their fathers, then they will grow up thinking that it is their fathers that need to be taken seriously in Judaism. The feminist revolution in Judaism, if it is to happen at all, needs to be internal, that is is has to come from within the community, and it must be without tracts, or slogans, but a silent one that makes the phrase “ben torah” sound anachronistic.
This revolution will be democratic and free-market. If enough women can be convinced that this project will be worthwhile, then it will happen – with or without loud feminist complaints. If Orthodox Jewish women cannot be persuaded that this is in their interest, then the feminist push to change Orthodoxy will stay a loud and persistant, but very minority voice shouting at themselves.
Addendum: I came accross the following in Anderson and Zinsser'sA History of thir own, Vol I: Women in Europe from the Prehistory to the Present which parallels what I said about the fate of Orthodox Jewish women:
Unlike with Christianity, the locus of Jewish life has always been the home. Many of the holiday rituals, the Sabbath, the food laws, and some rites of passage (like weddings and circumcisions) all took place in the home, not the synagogue. These were not communal issues. Much of what Judaism was about was centered in the home. Much of childrearing too was a domestic issue.
Anything that was a domestic issue was firmly in the domain of women. The role of the woman of the house was to tend to all the vital religious functions while the man was off earning a living. Women had quite a bit of religious authority and responsibility once upon a time. Kosher was a full time job. So was preparing for the holidays, and raising children, especially daughters.
Unlike the case of Catholicism, Judaism has no hierarchy. There is no pope or head rabbi whose word is law, and can decide policy and outlook for all of Judaism. Each community did as it saw fit. Each was a bit different. Each household could have been slightly unique as well. The individual customs and traditions were preserved by those who ran the house, with some credence given to the community.
After WWII (roughly) things changed. Judaism became more communal. Food preparation no longer required real knowledge beyond not mixing milk and meat and being able to recognize the OU and OK symbols. Major organizations take care of this. The synagogue plays a larger role in community life; women no longer educate their sons or more importantly, their daughters. The transmit ion of knowledge is no longer oral. It is written, and becoming more and more uniform and homogeneous. People have more access and give more weight to the “big poskim” to determine Jewish law. These halachic decision makers have more and more sway over larger and larger groups of Orthodox Jews.
So what happens to the Jewish woman here? They have fewer and fewer religious roles to play. They are still needed as mother and such, but qua religious person, they are becoming obsolete. All their religious roles have been co-opted by men or the community. Given this, their power has also diminished. A man need no longer defer to his wife for food rules, child-rearing advice, or the proper time for the Sabbath. Without a role, they have less and less authority.
Hence, I am more and more sympathetic with the modern Orthodox Jewish woman who feels somewhat disenfranchised by her perceived lack of religious prominence.
What is the solution here?
I think that there are a few options available. The first option involves reinventing Orthodox Judaism to accommodate the women. To some extent this is being done. Judaism does keep up with the time, albeit not in real time, but in Jewish time – ie, with a severe lag. But the bigger issue is that I suspect it does not keep up enough. If they do not go far enough in reinventing Judaism they are left unsatisfied. This is the plight of most of or Orthodox Jewish women who are concerned about this. Other women do attempt to reinvent Judaism in their own image - so much so that that the brand of orthodoxy sounds foreign to many of their co-religionists. Egalitarian prayer services? Or worse, being >porush from the klall and having an all women’s service? That is no way to assert your place in Judaism – by showing you are now a separate faction – minyan and all.
No, the Orthodox woman does not need more rights. They do not need to reinvent Judaism. They need to reinvent themselves and make themselves relevant. Their skills, knowledge, and their very usefulness has been outsourced to cheaper and more efficient and centralized rabbis.
Judaism is a religion of action. The orthodox feminist agenda, at least the one which thinks that Orthodox Jews need some sort of revolution such that they play a larger role in Jewish life and achieve gender equity, will not be fulfilled by writing a few philosophical treatises and expounding on how women are and are not equal and how they should be. A real revolution will not take place after someone ordains the first female orthodox poseket, or whatever. That will just create a new faction of Jews. Change will come when Change will come when orthodox women do what orthodox men do – that is perform a necessary religio-social role. Men today build Jewish schools, give a lot of charity (THAT alone buys a lot of rabbinic clout), teach Orthodox children, and write stuff written for the frum community, (not the touchy-feely crap written for bored overly-pious women). Few Jewish mothers are capable of learning with their children after school. A fifth grader still has to wait for his father to review his Talmud. I can’t imagine there were too many women completed the daf yomi last cycle.
Until women can integrate themselves in to the wider community and serve the wider roles that men serve, or if not that, then find new roles that are useful to Orthodox Jews, they are fighting for privilege that they have not earned. Men have earned their place in Orthodoxy, in the olden days, women did too. Women who take the household to be paramount in Jewish life and feel bound to it religiously have also earned their place in Orthodoxy. Modern women who feel the household is not particularly fulfilling and feel shut out of the community, have not had an opportunity to prove themselves to the Jewish community. Orthodox Jews legitimately ask themselves “How are they relevant to religious life?” It may not be anyone’s fault; it may be the fault of the entrenched Jewish sociological infrastructure. But that is the reality. There are no short-cuts here, no affirmative action. Jews have to earn their right to have a voice. Jewish men who can’t speak intelligently about Judaism, can’t contribute to the religious organizations, or the overall religious life of the community have little voice. Jewish women are in the same position.
If women learn to walk the walk and talk the talk, that and only that will compel the community to take them seriously. But if everyone, including girls, can only learn with their fathers, then they will grow up thinking that it is their fathers that need to be taken seriously in Judaism. The feminist revolution in Judaism, if it is to happen at all, needs to be internal, that is is has to come from within the community, and it must be without tracts, or slogans, but a silent one that makes the phrase “ben torah” sound anachronistic.
This revolution will be democratic and free-market. If enough women can be convinced that this project will be worthwhile, then it will happen – with or without loud feminist complaints. If Orthodox Jewish women cannot be persuaded that this is in their interest, then the feminist push to change Orthodoxy will stay a loud and persistant, but very minority voice shouting at themselves.
Addendum: I came accross the following in Anderson and Zinsser'sA History of thir own, Vol I: Women in Europe from the Prehistory to the Present which parallels what I said about the fate of Orthodox Jewish women:
The nineteenth century marked the nadir of European women's powers and opportunities. In earlier eras, alternative authorities and customs , as well as regional, governmental, and religious variations, created a range of circumstances that enabled some European women to achieve relative independence and relative dominance. Gradually, however, the growing centralization, rationalization, and uniformity imposed in government, law, the economy, and religion worked to erode those options and further limited women's lives. (p xiii-xiv)For Orthodox religious women, this still holds. The uniformity, rigidness, and centralization of practice has all but made women irrelevant in the spheres which they used to dominate. Unfortunately, (at least not as far as I've seen yet) this theme is not picked up on by Anderson and Zinsser (which is a bit disapointing given their sensitivity to the notion of marginalization).
Pope of personality
When one looks at the last elections, it seems pretty clear that people care more about who is leading them than what that person stands for. We all live in cults of personality. No one who voted for Kerry voted for his policy, because he obviously had none, but they voted against Bush.
We recently had occasion to see the biggest proof of this: Look at the Pope. Most Catholics have no love whatsoever for Catholic doctrine. Most favor divorce and remarriage. Most have no problem masturbating, using birth control, and think that the Church ought to have female priests. American Catholics were not particularly staunch anti-Communists, like the Pope was. Nor were they particularly philosemetic, like the pope.
The Pope spent his whole career fighting this, yet all these same people were totally enamored of him – at least if the reaction to his death is at all telling. The Pope’s doctrine seems to suck, but people have no problem thinking he is great anyway.
Sad world we live in.
We recently had occasion to see the biggest proof of this: Look at the Pope. Most Catholics have no love whatsoever for Catholic doctrine. Most favor divorce and remarriage. Most have no problem masturbating, using birth control, and think that the Church ought to have female priests. American Catholics were not particularly staunch anti-Communists, like the Pope was. Nor were they particularly philosemetic, like the pope.
The Pope spent his whole career fighting this, yet all these same people were totally enamored of him – at least if the reaction to his death is at all telling. The Pope’s doctrine seems to suck, but people have no problem thinking he is great anyway.
Sad world we live in.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Winning friends in the Middle East
Rami G Khouri has a editorial in the LA Times a few days ago about how to win friends in the Middle East. With all due respect, that piece is mostly a crock of sh*t.
Here are some of the claims:
(1) Style is important. People in the Middle East do not like to be bullied, even for their own good.
This might have some truth to it, although operatively, the people in the Middle East are all now bullied, and it is rarely for their own good, it is for the good of their bullies. So I am pretty sure that our bullying is an improvement, though it is still not ideal. Moreover, it is always pathetic to see people who say yes, you are doing what we want, but not fast enough, not nice enough, not the way we would like it. . . We are doing the best we can. If you don't help out, we will do it the only way we know how.
(2) Credibility is important. The US backs Israel, and doesn't do much to help the Palestinians (read: does not militarily force Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands), so it looks hypocritical helping Iraq and Lebanon.
This is actually 100% true. The US Does help some countries in the Middle East and is not threatening to invade Israel. However here is a case where perceptions, however important, cannot be helped. The Arab world's failure to see reality for what it is cannot always be compensated for. The US has an interest in combating bizarre Arab perceptions of reality and the west. However, sometimes we naively hope that you are not as blind as your leaders know you are.
(3) Consistency in important.
This is just false. Arabs have no need for consistency. Any even cursory glance at Arab history will show that Arab allegiances change as often as preferred wives in a Persian harem. It is consistency that boggles the mind of most Arabs. They are asking themselves "Why does the US continues to support Israel even though now we seem to be more important?" This sticking with allies is bothersome, it is NOT the fact that we used to support a dictator and now we don't.
(For some historical examples: Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel after invading them a few years before. Syria first supported the Christians in the Lebanon Civil War, then the Muslims. Jordan first helped the PLO then they massacred them. Arafat was allied with every group in Lebanon's civil war, until he stopped. The Saudis sit around and love the US for a million reasons, mostly to do with oil, and they sit around and promote anti-US terrorism. The Ba'ath regimes of Syria and Iraq were started together. (That's why they have the same name.) Then they hated each other. . .)
(4) Motive. We appear to have too many motives for being in Iraq. That is not good.
Here, I agree. We should just go in and say that the ousting of the Ba'ath regime is in the US interest, so we are doing it. The motives we give are for internal consumption. We need the motives to placate Americans, not Arabs. Sorry that you overheard.
(5) Context. Human rights and freedoms take second place to protection from foreign armies and stable statehood.
This is true. This is how the Arabs see the world. The US should change that. If your highest goal is stability, then you are about as sane as the woman who says a stable marriage where I get beaten daily is better than not being beaten daily but with the possibility of a new husband. I have too much sympathy for the woman and the countries who are beaten daily by their leaders to care if their relationships are stable.
Stability is the luxury, not freedom. The Arab world treats freedom as a luxury that you get after you have the necessity of stability of government. But here in the west we realize that government is not something anyone needs, except to the extent that it perpetuates individual freedoms. Somehow in the Arab world Government is seen as a necessity, that is so important that it overrides freedoms. Our goal is to change this, not to see it your way.
(6) Legitimacy. The US does not have the international legitimacy to go ahead with what it is doing.
Since when did anyone in the Arab world care about international legitimacy unless it was to suit their own interests? Since when does anyone? The Arabs are NOT the people in the world who sit around worrying about how to implement UN resolutions, unless the resolutions are in their interest. How many Arab states recognize the State of Israel? The UN CREATED Israel in 1948. Of course the Same Arabs recognize that the state of Israel that they do not recognize and the same UN who they couldn't care less about have recognized Israel have a vital resolution about Israel resolving the Palestinian Issue.
Please, Mr. Khouri, don't feed us this crap about Arabs worrying about international legitimacy. They are worried about their interests.
(7) Militarism. Only Washington and Neocons (read: Jews) do things using military force.
I laughed as I read this. I cant believe that in the Arab world there is no understanding of militarism's ability to get things done. The Arab world INVENTED a hundred new methods of violence to get things done. Both ancient and modern terrorism was invented by the Arab world. Car bombs still resolve all sorts of political feuds. Honor killings still resolve family issues in most of the Arab world. No Arab country is immune from force as a way of life. What kind of false picture are you trying pass off to us gullible Americans?
(8) Relevance. People care more about their asabiyeh, their tribe, or their family or group then they do about individual freedoms.
I couldn't agree more. So? How is what we are doing counter to this? Parliaments allow for this sort of thing, and we knew that setting up a US style democracy would not take your particular tribalisms in to account, but setting up this sort of confessionalist government in Iraq, like they have in Lebanon, we are attempting to accomplish both ideals. Remember, that just because you Arabs prioritize the tribe over the individual, does not imply that you do not value individual freedoms, it just says that where you can't have both you'd sacrifice one for the other. I know, but no Arab in his or her right mind will tell you that he would rather have ONLY freedom for his group when offered freedom for his group and his person.
(Hat Tip: FOM.)
Here are some of the claims:
(1) Style is important. People in the Middle East do not like to be bullied, even for their own good.
This might have some truth to it, although operatively, the people in the Middle East are all now bullied, and it is rarely for their own good, it is for the good of their bullies. So I am pretty sure that our bullying is an improvement, though it is still not ideal. Moreover, it is always pathetic to see people who say yes, you are doing what we want, but not fast enough, not nice enough, not the way we would like it. . . We are doing the best we can. If you don't help out, we will do it the only way we know how.
(2) Credibility is important. The US backs Israel, and doesn't do much to help the Palestinians (read: does not militarily force Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands), so it looks hypocritical helping Iraq and Lebanon.
This is actually 100% true. The US Does help some countries in the Middle East and is not threatening to invade Israel. However here is a case where perceptions, however important, cannot be helped. The Arab world's failure to see reality for what it is cannot always be compensated for. The US has an interest in combating bizarre Arab perceptions of reality and the west. However, sometimes we naively hope that you are not as blind as your leaders know you are.
(3) Consistency in important.
This is just false. Arabs have no need for consistency. Any even cursory glance at Arab history will show that Arab allegiances change as often as preferred wives in a Persian harem. It is consistency that boggles the mind of most Arabs. They are asking themselves "Why does the US continues to support Israel even though now we seem to be more important?" This sticking with allies is bothersome, it is NOT the fact that we used to support a dictator and now we don't.
(For some historical examples: Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel after invading them a few years before. Syria first supported the Christians in the Lebanon Civil War, then the Muslims. Jordan first helped the PLO then they massacred them. Arafat was allied with every group in Lebanon's civil war, until he stopped. The Saudis sit around and love the US for a million reasons, mostly to do with oil, and they sit around and promote anti-US terrorism. The Ba'ath regimes of Syria and Iraq were started together. (That's why they have the same name.) Then they hated each other. . .)
(4) Motive. We appear to have too many motives for being in Iraq. That is not good.
Here, I agree. We should just go in and say that the ousting of the Ba'ath regime is in the US interest, so we are doing it. The motives we give are for internal consumption. We need the motives to placate Americans, not Arabs. Sorry that you overheard.
(5) Context. Human rights and freedoms take second place to protection from foreign armies and stable statehood.
This is true. This is how the Arabs see the world. The US should change that. If your highest goal is stability, then you are about as sane as the woman who says a stable marriage where I get beaten daily is better than not being beaten daily but with the possibility of a new husband. I have too much sympathy for the woman and the countries who are beaten daily by their leaders to care if their relationships are stable.
Stability is the luxury, not freedom. The Arab world treats freedom as a luxury that you get after you have the necessity of stability of government. But here in the west we realize that government is not something anyone needs, except to the extent that it perpetuates individual freedoms. Somehow in the Arab world Government is seen as a necessity, that is so important that it overrides freedoms. Our goal is to change this, not to see it your way.
(6) Legitimacy. The US does not have the international legitimacy to go ahead with what it is doing.
Since when did anyone in the Arab world care about international legitimacy unless it was to suit their own interests? Since when does anyone? The Arabs are NOT the people in the world who sit around worrying about how to implement UN resolutions, unless the resolutions are in their interest. How many Arab states recognize the State of Israel? The UN CREATED Israel in 1948. Of course the Same Arabs recognize that the state of Israel that they do not recognize and the same UN who they couldn't care less about have recognized Israel have a vital resolution about Israel resolving the Palestinian Issue.
Please, Mr. Khouri, don't feed us this crap about Arabs worrying about international legitimacy. They are worried about their interests.
(7) Militarism. Only Washington and Neocons (read: Jews) do things using military force.
I laughed as I read this. I cant believe that in the Arab world there is no understanding of militarism's ability to get things done. The Arab world INVENTED a hundred new methods of violence to get things done. Both ancient and modern terrorism was invented by the Arab world. Car bombs still resolve all sorts of political feuds. Honor killings still resolve family issues in most of the Arab world. No Arab country is immune from force as a way of life. What kind of false picture are you trying pass off to us gullible Americans?
(8) Relevance. People care more about their asabiyeh, their tribe, or their family or group then they do about individual freedoms.
I couldn't agree more. So? How is what we are doing counter to this? Parliaments allow for this sort of thing, and we knew that setting up a US style democracy would not take your particular tribalisms in to account, but setting up this sort of confessionalist government in Iraq, like they have in Lebanon, we are attempting to accomplish both ideals. Remember, that just because you Arabs prioritize the tribe over the individual, does not imply that you do not value individual freedoms, it just says that where you can't have both you'd sacrifice one for the other. I know, but no Arab in his or her right mind will tell you that he would rather have ONLY freedom for his group when offered freedom for his group and his person.
(Hat Tip: FOM.)
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
One way the Democrats are screwing up
I know nothing about parenting. Neither did my parents at one point. So I never learned anything about parenting. But I do have some intuitions about some things that children need. I was wondering if there are parents out there who can back me up. If I am way off then my analogy is flawed, and this is all wrong, but I think I am on to something.
I strongly suspect that children (and adults too) need to see that their caregiver is decisive. They need to see that their caregiver has rules, boundaries, and inspires confidence. Their caregiver cannot be wishy washy, should not waver, should motivate their children, etc.
I wonder what kind of child will be raised by someone who is unsure what their children should be doing, cannot decide when bedtime is, what they can eat, what clothing is appropriate, what constitutes proper sexual behavior, what their attitude should be toward alcohol, relationships, drugs, etc. Parents need to present a united and decisive front on most issues.
I would guess that when parents don't, their children loose faith in their parents. When children are very young they need to believe that their parents can handle all situations, and more over, know what to do at all times. I would not be very inspired by parents who had no social, intellectual, or moral, compass that they were motivated to pass on to their children.
Democrats seem to be in the same boat as parents from the 60's. Few convictions, few beliefs, and a hesitancy to speak up on any issue except how bad "the man" (ie, Bush) is. The Democrats need to grow up and start acting like responsible leaders. When there is an issue they need to take a stand.
The Republicans always take stands. Their stands might be stupid, arrogant, inconsistent, annoying and wrong, but they take stands. They will always let you know what they think, and what their moral vision is on any given issue. They may even change their minds from time to time. But at any given time, they have a view.
The Democrats lost the election because they had no position whatsoever on anything. Kerry, Moore, and moveon.org had no problem bitching and complaining about Bush and other authority figures. In that respect they were all acting like adolescents. Who the hell wants to have an angry teenager as your ruling political party, or your president. People want a leader who can lead strongly. People want decisions. People want a president who is given authority for four years because they have a vision of how the country should be and they agree with it.
No one in this country agreed with Kerry's vision for the future of America. Not because his vision was dumb, but because he either has none or he chose not to tell us what it was.
Most recently when Terry Schiavo was allowed to die, the Republicans had no problem telling us what they thought, and how it fit in to their moral vision for America. The Democrats probably believed the opposite, but you wouldn't know it from following the news. No protests asserting her right to die, no Major democrats getting up and holding press conferences, no Howard Dean telling us that anything. Where the heck is the Democratic leadership?
I suspect that there are a lot of Democrats out there who would vote for a Democrat if the Democrats would exhibit leadership instead of adolescent rage all the time. I very well might. Who is the person making sure that Democrats stay obscure? Who is making sure that everyone has beliefs about the Democratic party that they cannot verify?
The Democrats have to take a lesson from Republicans and good parents. Show that you are strong, show that you are leaders, and show that you care about the fate of the country and that you have a plan for its future. If they do so, the voters might treat them like leaders.
I strongly suspect that children (and adults too) need to see that their caregiver is decisive. They need to see that their caregiver has rules, boundaries, and inspires confidence. Their caregiver cannot be wishy washy, should not waver, should motivate their children, etc.
I wonder what kind of child will be raised by someone who is unsure what their children should be doing, cannot decide when bedtime is, what they can eat, what clothing is appropriate, what constitutes proper sexual behavior, what their attitude should be toward alcohol, relationships, drugs, etc. Parents need to present a united and decisive front on most issues.
I would guess that when parents don't, their children loose faith in their parents. When children are very young they need to believe that their parents can handle all situations, and more over, know what to do at all times. I would not be very inspired by parents who had no social, intellectual, or moral, compass that they were motivated to pass on to their children.
Democrats seem to be in the same boat as parents from the 60's. Few convictions, few beliefs, and a hesitancy to speak up on any issue except how bad "the man" (ie, Bush) is. The Democrats need to grow up and start acting like responsible leaders. When there is an issue they need to take a stand.
The Republicans always take stands. Their stands might be stupid, arrogant, inconsistent, annoying and wrong, but they take stands. They will always let you know what they think, and what their moral vision is on any given issue. They may even change their minds from time to time. But at any given time, they have a view.
The Democrats lost the election because they had no position whatsoever on anything. Kerry, Moore, and moveon.org had no problem bitching and complaining about Bush and other authority figures. In that respect they were all acting like adolescents. Who the hell wants to have an angry teenager as your ruling political party, or your president. People want a leader who can lead strongly. People want decisions. People want a president who is given authority for four years because they have a vision of how the country should be and they agree with it.
No one in this country agreed with Kerry's vision for the future of America. Not because his vision was dumb, but because he either has none or he chose not to tell us what it was.
Most recently when Terry Schiavo was allowed to die, the Republicans had no problem telling us what they thought, and how it fit in to their moral vision for America. The Democrats probably believed the opposite, but you wouldn't know it from following the news. No protests asserting her right to die, no Major democrats getting up and holding press conferences, no Howard Dean telling us that anything. Where the heck is the Democratic leadership?
I suspect that there are a lot of Democrats out there who would vote for a Democrat if the Democrats would exhibit leadership instead of adolescent rage all the time. I very well might. Who is the person making sure that Democrats stay obscure? Who is making sure that everyone has beliefs about the Democratic party that they cannot verify?
The Democrats have to take a lesson from Republicans and good parents. Show that you are strong, show that you are leaders, and show that you care about the fate of the country and that you have a plan for its future. If they do so, the voters might treat them like leaders.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Purim
So I started out with a sort of fast on Ta'anit Esther where I just had a lot of coffee. OK, so that technically is not fasting unless you are Catholic, but that is just how things worked out. I did not really have time to eat.
"A-" and I heard Megillah in the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue and then had some pizza and then did the Daf.
We then went to Crobar where there was this huge party with lots of people and an optional Megillah reading at midnight. "C" was there, as was "Y" and his wife. I met a former student "E" and a "A-"'s cousin "S". I mostly drank and danced. It was fun. I got home at around 5AM and woke up in the morning and went to a Purim meal at my parents' house.
Happy Purim.
"A-" and I heard Megillah in the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue and then had some pizza and then did the Daf.
We then went to Crobar where there was this huge party with lots of people and an optional Megillah reading at midnight. "C" was there, as was "Y" and his wife. I met a former student "E" and a "A-"'s cousin "S". I mostly drank and danced. It was fun. I got home at around 5AM and woke up in the morning and went to a Purim meal at my parents' house.
Happy Purim.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Review of Benyus' Biomimicry
Janine M. Benyus' Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature spends the whole book trying to make the following point: Nature has found some pretty clever ways of solving certain problems, and we would be wise to learn from them. I am very much in agreement with that sentiment. We need lots of things done, and we would be wise to learn from the way nature does things. The whole book is about examples of researchers who look to nature for inspiration and answers to our problems.
All that is fine and good. I am not sure why this is new, but she writes this with the verve of a manifesto, and not in a good way. We have to solve problems. Nature s efficient, and as soon as we can mimic nature, we can get the efficiencies that we need too.
He science is disappointing. One never gets the impression that she really understands what she is talking about, but that she is repeating the "oversimplified" formulations of the real scientists she interviewed. I was particularly annoyed with her 46 pages on "how we will conduct business" that displayed no evidence of speaking with an economist or businessperson.
Sometimes she simply fawns over the people she met along the way. This book is very flaky, or rather its author is. If I was in a related scientific field, I would assume that all the people working on topics in the book are cooks or flakes too. I would not be motivated to pursue these things for fear of having to be associated with the fringe of my profession. The book has the usual eco-touchy-feely science that you expect in junk science. Every few pages we are told of the native peoples and their "wisdom" that we are forgetting, as if this is somehow greatly superior to all we have accomplished. (If it was so superior, how come all the native peoples have disappeared? They were superior in that they were good at one environment, they could not adapt, so they all perished. Us people with technology can adapt to new environments, so we are still here. Whose wisdom is superior now?)
Mind you she doesn't bother telling us that nature is cruel, and we should start taking lessons there. Plants that are not as pushy as others die. No animal in the wild dies of old age. They get killed as soon as they are too slow to escape from their predators. They have many children that die in infancy of starvation, disease, and from local predators. Nature relies on these cruelties for its "sustainability". We are never told that this is necessary so that nature can do what it does. If it is not, we are never told how to get around it.
Many of the chapters of the book are really just analogies to natural processes. Nature "recycles", so we should recycle. Dull stuff.
I am of course sympathetic with the fact that we need to not destroy our planet. But there are very sensible free market ways to do, and they are hardly addressed. The author wants to promote an earth-harmony agenda, and not real solutions. Some sensible economic policies, like the internalizing of externalities (paying for polluting, etc) in CFCs, fossil fuel burning, and water pollution should take care of a lot of this.
I do not need a manifesto to tell me that it would be great if we can artificially make silk with the same input as spiders have. Which industry wouldn't want that? I am not sure I see her point.
This book is great if you love touchy-feely science, and being intellectually rigorous is not on the top of your list of priorities.
All that is fine and good. I am not sure why this is new, but she writes this with the verve of a manifesto, and not in a good way. We have to solve problems. Nature s efficient, and as soon as we can mimic nature, we can get the efficiencies that we need too.
He science is disappointing. One never gets the impression that she really understands what she is talking about, but that she is repeating the "oversimplified" formulations of the real scientists she interviewed. I was particularly annoyed with her 46 pages on "how we will conduct business" that displayed no evidence of speaking with an economist or businessperson.
Sometimes she simply fawns over the people she met along the way. This book is very flaky, or rather its author is. If I was in a related scientific field, I would assume that all the people working on topics in the book are cooks or flakes too. I would not be motivated to pursue these things for fear of having to be associated with the fringe of my profession. The book has the usual eco-touchy-feely science that you expect in junk science. Every few pages we are told of the native peoples and their "wisdom" that we are forgetting, as if this is somehow greatly superior to all we have accomplished. (If it was so superior, how come all the native peoples have disappeared? They were superior in that they were good at one environment, they could not adapt, so they all perished. Us people with technology can adapt to new environments, so we are still here. Whose wisdom is superior now?)
Mind you she doesn't bother telling us that nature is cruel, and we should start taking lessons there. Plants that are not as pushy as others die. No animal in the wild dies of old age. They get killed as soon as they are too slow to escape from their predators. They have many children that die in infancy of starvation, disease, and from local predators. Nature relies on these cruelties for its "sustainability". We are never told that this is necessary so that nature can do what it does. If it is not, we are never told how to get around it.
Many of the chapters of the book are really just analogies to natural processes. Nature "recycles", so we should recycle. Dull stuff.
I am of course sympathetic with the fact that we need to not destroy our planet. But there are very sensible free market ways to do, and they are hardly addressed. The author wants to promote an earth-harmony agenda, and not real solutions. Some sensible economic policies, like the internalizing of externalities (paying for polluting, etc) in CFCs, fossil fuel burning, and water pollution should take care of a lot of this.
I do not need a manifesto to tell me that it would be great if we can artificially make silk with the same input as spiders have. Which industry wouldn't want that? I am not sure I see her point.
This book is great if you love touchy-feely science, and being intellectually rigorous is not on the top of your list of priorities.
Monday, March 21, 2005
The New Purses
Anyone who has been in New York lately, say the past year or so has noticed that lots and lots of women now use the pretty little bags they get from Victoria Secret as a purse. It is not just that lots of people walk around a lot with their most recent underware purchases in their bags, but many women actually use these bags for weeks to carry stuff.
I am sure these are sturdy bags, and it is great to see them being used over and over (I am sure my enviornmentalist friends are somewhat happy here). But after a little while they get all creased, and it really makes many otherwise normal-looking women look homeless - when they rifle through their bags full of crap just to pull out their buried Metrocard or lipstick.
I am not sure what I actually think of this phenomenon. My gut tells me that there is something very kitchy about all this, but my gut has been very wrong about these things.
I am sure these are sturdy bags, and it is great to see them being used over and over (I am sure my enviornmentalist friends are somewhat happy here). But after a little while they get all creased, and it really makes many otherwise normal-looking women look homeless - when they rifle through their bags full of crap just to pull out their buried Metrocard or lipstick.
I am not sure what I actually think of this phenomenon. My gut tells me that there is something very kitchy about all this, but my gut has been very wrong about these things.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Selling candy on trains
I have been noticing for the past few months on the NY Subways that there are lots of kids selling candy. In the old days they would walk on with this spiel about how they needed money for uniforms for their basketball team or for some school trip. Now the new pitch is " My name is Jamal (or something), I am here selling candy. I am not seeling for my baskeyball team or for a school trip. I am selling candy so I can have some money in my pocket and stay out of trouble. Unfortunatly I only have peanut m&ms and Skittles. Would anyone like to buy some cnady?".
I find this pitch refreshinly honest. I rarely eat candy, or buy from them, but an appeal to good 'ole American capitalism and its ability to keep our cities a bit safer seems to work.
I have seen this done mostly by black males, but some black females too. Generally I see one or two people per train buy them. This is the same amount I saw when it was the seller announced that this sale was going for some noble cause.
Honest pitches generate trust. There is nothing more honest than admiting that you just want to make money. There is no reason not to trust the seller. I bet they don't loose money.
I find this pitch refreshinly honest. I rarely eat candy, or buy from them, but an appeal to good 'ole American capitalism and its ability to keep our cities a bit safer seems to work.
I have seen this done mostly by black males, but some black females too. Generally I see one or two people per train buy them. This is the same amount I saw when it was the seller announced that this sale was going for some noble cause.
Honest pitches generate trust. There is nothing more honest than admiting that you just want to make money. There is no reason not to trust the seller. I bet they don't loose money.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
Pi Day
Happy Pi Day everyone. Hopefully you are all out there celebrating Geek Culture, eating Pi, and rejoicing in the irrational.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Review of Berlin's The Hedgehog and the Fox
I have been lately having a discussion about the nature of history. E. H. Carr has a famous view that there are no historical facts. He seems to be making an ontological point, though I think that reading charitably, he may want to be making a methodological point about history or at worst an epistemological point.
One sees an epistemological version of this point in Isaiah Berlin's view of Tolstoy's view of history. In his now classic The Hedgehog and the Fox: an essay on Tolstoy's view of history Berlin analyzes the view that Tolstoy takes, both from the clues he gives up on War and Peace and also in other writings, of history.
A few salient points. First, Tolstoy rejected the Marxist view of history, and also almost every other view that breaks down history is to some manageable set of laws. Tolstoy claims that this cannot really be done because of the numerous things that go in to making up history. He also rejected the notion that it is the great figures who make (shape) history. The lives of ordinary people are important, significant, and relevant, but cannot, even when put all together, explain all of history.
The problem Tolstoy seems to have is epistemological. We cannot assimilate (integrate) everything that happened, and we cannot easily make a coherent picture of it.
The book also gives us a good picture of Tolstoy's intellectual debts, especially those to Maistre.
If you care about Tolstoy or philosophical questions about history this is a worthwhile book.
One sees an epistemological version of this point in Isaiah Berlin's view of Tolstoy's view of history. In his now classic The Hedgehog and the Fox: an essay on Tolstoy's view of history Berlin analyzes the view that Tolstoy takes, both from the clues he gives up on War and Peace and also in other writings, of history.
A few salient points. First, Tolstoy rejected the Marxist view of history, and also almost every other view that breaks down history is to some manageable set of laws. Tolstoy claims that this cannot really be done because of the numerous things that go in to making up history. He also rejected the notion that it is the great figures who make (shape) history. The lives of ordinary people are important, significant, and relevant, but cannot, even when put all together, explain all of history.
The problem Tolstoy seems to have is epistemological. We cannot assimilate (integrate) everything that happened, and we cannot easily make a coherent picture of it.
The book also gives us a good picture of Tolstoy's intellectual debts, especially those to Maistre.
If you care about Tolstoy or philosophical questions about history this is a worthwhile book.
Friday, March 04, 2005
What I like about Jew - you really know how to learn
Earlier this week the cycle ended. Many, mostly orthodox, Jews completed the 2,711-day cycle that is the reading of the Talmud. The Talmud is not a book that one reads, but rather a text that one studies. In about 7 and a half years many people complete the study of the whole talmud.
To celebrate there is a Party in Madison Square Garden and simeltaneously in some other places.
I think this is the largest gathering of Jews anywhere. It is quite remarkable that Jews can get together by the hundred thousand to celebrate the completion of an act of scholarship. Not everone who went completed the cycle, but that is what it was about. It is probably what I like most about Jews these days - they can all agree on the importance of learning.
This is like a whole percent of all Jews who showed up. I am glad Qaieda didn't know about this. I also wonder what the scalpers were charging.
To celebrate there is a Party in Madison Square Garden and simeltaneously in some other places.
I think this is the largest gathering of Jews anywhere. It is quite remarkable that Jews can get together by the hundred thousand to celebrate the completion of an act of scholarship. Not everone who went completed the cycle, but that is what it was about. It is probably what I like most about Jews these days - they can all agree on the importance of learning.
This is like a whole percent of all Jews who showed up. I am glad Qaieda didn't know about this. I also wonder what the scalpers were charging.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
ROTC
Today's Columbia Spectator had two pieces offering support to returning ROTC to Columbia. I think they are both very right headed, and I thought I could add to the discussion.
The ROTC program is a way to train officers for the US military. The officers take a regular curriculum of studies in college, and also classes that pertain to their military career. During the Vietnam era, many of the liberal campuses kicked ROTC off their campus. The government has been rather unsuccessful at forcing their way back on since then.
But it seems to me that liberal universities like Columbia ought to really want ROTC back on their campus. There are a number of reasons why. First, I think that by default a college ought to offer as many opportunities to its students as they can afford, providing they are within the bounds of what is legal and moral. If you think that having armies in general is immoral, then we really have nothing to say to each other. You may not like them, but sometimes we just need them. If you think a country can get on fine without one, . . . well, we are going to sit around and call each other naive. So ROTC seems like a wonderful opportunity for some students that want to see the military as a future career, or see being a reservist as a great opportunity.
So I think that it is incumbent on the anti-ROTC activist to defend why she is opposed to it. Here are the reasons commonly given.
1) The military has a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about homosexuals. Thus it does not promote the progressive dogmas that academics espouse. Thus it is a force to be barred from campus.
This is true. The military does have this policy. Perhaps it is old fashioned. Perhaps it is necessary. The British military just gave it up. Perhaps the US military will too. Clinton tried, and the higher ups in the military hated him for it, and he spent a bunch of his presidency not being taken seriously by the military. There is a belief in the military that homosexuals will be bad for morale and unit cohesion and will make the US military branches less effective fighting forces. This is partially a matter for empirical study (to see if it is true), and partially a decision to see if the military wants to attempt to make people get over their homophobia, in the same way that they made millions of southerners get over their racism by integrating blacks in to the military.
One thing is certain. As long as the military officer corps is made up of people with theology degrees from Bob Jones Christian Bible College in Alabama (or whatever) there will be no gays in the military. As long as the officer corps is kept free of people who had liberal educations, as long as they had very homophobic educations, the officer corps will stay homophobic.
I have no real belief about what is better for the military - to allow gays in or not. But if you do, you should want officers who went to liberal universities represented. If your liberal university refuses to host an ROTC program, then you are contributing to the problem.
2) A second challenge to ROTC is always that liberal institutions do not like the government or the military, and thus wants no part of it, and does not want to be involved in training the future soldiers of the US.
This is a silly argument. No one thought to shut down the economics programs or Public Administrations programs because they do not like the economic systems or politicians in the US. On the contrary, if you want to change an institution, you do not let other people train the people who are in it and think it will then change to suit your needs because you are ignoring it. If you do not like the way something is getting done, train your own people to do it. Tell them how you want it done.
The military will not get better if you keep well trained people out of it. The army will also not disappear just because you don't like it. You have to learn to compromise. Work with the Army, and the Army will have to work with you, whether they want to or not. Work against the Army, and they will ignore you, and you will be irrelevant when it comes to decision making. Thinking you can fight this from the outside is ridiculous. The army will exist as long as other countries have armies or weapons. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
3) There is also a fear that the ROTC will be used as government mouthpieces on campus. This may be true. But of course I really do not see what is wrong with a government mouthpiece. In a world where the government does represent a large (at least 50%) part of the people, should their voice not be heard in Americas leading institution. Of course ROTC must not be used as government thugs, and that goes without saying, but outside the Academic catechism of Faith, there is nothing that says that we should not hear voices that are unpopular.
4) There are many complaints about racism in the military. This is not the kind where blacks or whites or Jews are mistreated or anything like that. I am sure that happens, but the Army deals with that. I have never see it though. But what I am talking about is that blacks make up a proportionate amount of the enlisted personnel. That is good. But they make up a disproportionately small number of the officer corps. That is bad. So of the real decision-makers, they are disproportionately white, and of the people who die in combat, blacks are proportionately represented. That is unfair. The reason for this is now obvious.
To become an officer, you have to have gone to college. The liberal universities which try to recruit minorities are also so liberal that they do not have ROTC. So the opportunities for becoming an officer are closed to blacks, not because of the military, but rather because of the liberal institutions themselves. The ROTC needs to follow the minorities. But the liberal institutions close the military to their students. Bringing ROTC back will reopen officer doors to minorities.
Arguments for ROTC exist too:
1) A program like ROTC may be one of the few ways for some people to afford college. Keeping ROTC off your campus is perpetuating a classist system where only rich people can attend, and it is yet another barred against poor people at your school.
2) The diversity that those training with a military perspective brings should also be tempting. I can tell you that the military and the university is a study in contrasts. Where else will you have such a wonderful and important clash of ideas over such fundamental issues we face as a society.
Return ROTC because you want to be the one to have educated the next secretary of defense, not some racist, homophobic, religious fanatic college down south.
The ROTC program is a way to train officers for the US military. The officers take a regular curriculum of studies in college, and also classes that pertain to their military career. During the Vietnam era, many of the liberal campuses kicked ROTC off their campus. The government has been rather unsuccessful at forcing their way back on since then.
But it seems to me that liberal universities like Columbia ought to really want ROTC back on their campus. There are a number of reasons why. First, I think that by default a college ought to offer as many opportunities to its students as they can afford, providing they are within the bounds of what is legal and moral. If you think that having armies in general is immoral, then we really have nothing to say to each other. You may not like them, but sometimes we just need them. If you think a country can get on fine without one, . . . well, we are going to sit around and call each other naive. So ROTC seems like a wonderful opportunity for some students that want to see the military as a future career, or see being a reservist as a great opportunity.
So I think that it is incumbent on the anti-ROTC activist to defend why she is opposed to it. Here are the reasons commonly given.
1) The military has a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about homosexuals. Thus it does not promote the progressive dogmas that academics espouse. Thus it is a force to be barred from campus.
This is true. The military does have this policy. Perhaps it is old fashioned. Perhaps it is necessary. The British military just gave it up. Perhaps the US military will too. Clinton tried, and the higher ups in the military hated him for it, and he spent a bunch of his presidency not being taken seriously by the military. There is a belief in the military that homosexuals will be bad for morale and unit cohesion and will make the US military branches less effective fighting forces. This is partially a matter for empirical study (to see if it is true), and partially a decision to see if the military wants to attempt to make people get over their homophobia, in the same way that they made millions of southerners get over their racism by integrating blacks in to the military.
One thing is certain. As long as the military officer corps is made up of people with theology degrees from Bob Jones Christian Bible College in Alabama (or whatever) there will be no gays in the military. As long as the officer corps is kept free of people who had liberal educations, as long as they had very homophobic educations, the officer corps will stay homophobic.
I have no real belief about what is better for the military - to allow gays in or not. But if you do, you should want officers who went to liberal universities represented. If your liberal university refuses to host an ROTC program, then you are contributing to the problem.
2) A second challenge to ROTC is always that liberal institutions do not like the government or the military, and thus wants no part of it, and does not want to be involved in training the future soldiers of the US.
This is a silly argument. No one thought to shut down the economics programs or Public Administrations programs because they do not like the economic systems or politicians in the US. On the contrary, if you want to change an institution, you do not let other people train the people who are in it and think it will then change to suit your needs because you are ignoring it. If you do not like the way something is getting done, train your own people to do it. Tell them how you want it done.
The military will not get better if you keep well trained people out of it. The army will also not disappear just because you don't like it. You have to learn to compromise. Work with the Army, and the Army will have to work with you, whether they want to or not. Work against the Army, and they will ignore you, and you will be irrelevant when it comes to decision making. Thinking you can fight this from the outside is ridiculous. The army will exist as long as other countries have armies or weapons. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
3) There is also a fear that the ROTC will be used as government mouthpieces on campus. This may be true. But of course I really do not see what is wrong with a government mouthpiece. In a world where the government does represent a large (at least 50%) part of the people, should their voice not be heard in Americas leading institution. Of course ROTC must not be used as government thugs, and that goes without saying, but outside the Academic catechism of Faith, there is nothing that says that we should not hear voices that are unpopular.
4) There are many complaints about racism in the military. This is not the kind where blacks or whites or Jews are mistreated or anything like that. I am sure that happens, but the Army deals with that. I have never see it though. But what I am talking about is that blacks make up a proportionate amount of the enlisted personnel. That is good. But they make up a disproportionately small number of the officer corps. That is bad. So of the real decision-makers, they are disproportionately white, and of the people who die in combat, blacks are proportionately represented. That is unfair. The reason for this is now obvious.
To become an officer, you have to have gone to college. The liberal universities which try to recruit minorities are also so liberal that they do not have ROTC. So the opportunities for becoming an officer are closed to blacks, not because of the military, but rather because of the liberal institutions themselves. The ROTC needs to follow the minorities. But the liberal institutions close the military to their students. Bringing ROTC back will reopen officer doors to minorities.
Arguments for ROTC exist too:
1) A program like ROTC may be one of the few ways for some people to afford college. Keeping ROTC off your campus is perpetuating a classist system where only rich people can attend, and it is yet another barred against poor people at your school.
2) The diversity that those training with a military perspective brings should also be tempting. I can tell you that the military and the university is a study in contrasts. Where else will you have such a wonderful and important clash of ideas over such fundamental issues we face as a society.
Return ROTC because you want to be the one to have educated the next secretary of defense, not some racist, homophobic, religious fanatic college down south.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Snot-nosed kids in Park Slope
I am coming in to this story rather late, I know. But it has been on my mind a lot. Some sixth graders in Park Slope, Brooklyn (not all that far from me) were assigned, by their teacher to send letters to soldiers in Iraq. Somehow these letters made their way to Korea instead, and went to a young private from New Jersey stationed near the North Korean border. Many of these letters were filled with contempt for soldiers, President Bush, and the war. Moreover, they were insisting that the soldiers will be dieing by the tens of thousands, and few of them will come home. They also wondered why the soldiers sit around and shoot civilians and destroy mosques.
Now, I remember what it was like to be in sixth grade. I knew nothing about how the world worked. War was something on TV and in movies. Shooting civilians, insurgents, terrorists, etc were all the same to me. I coun't keep track of all these things. I could barely tell our guys from their guys. When I was in sixth grade the only way I could have said something that would have even resembled an opinion was if someone was feeing me lines that I could just repeat.
And I know that some kids in JHS51 in Brooklyn are not getting a much better education than I got in sixth grade.
All this means that we have teachers and parents who are too scared to send letters to soldiers in Iraq in their own name, so they indoctrinate their children, and have them write letters. Pathetic. Adults should not have to hide behind thier children to criticize a president by insulting and demoralizing a 20-year old who knows little more about what is going on than anyone else.
A democratic education starts when we educate children with facts. We don't feed them horror-story make-believe lines about how everyone is going to die, and how Americans sit around and burn-down mosques. We don't scare children in to believing something that is contrary to common sense in the name of educaating them.
The electorate in this country is getting dumber and dumber. The fault lies squarely with those who value ideology over education. The right does it with evolution and religion, the left does it with politics, religion, ethics, and rationality.
That teacher should be fired, not because he sits around and hates the system who provides him with the freedom to hate the system, but because he is violating everything important about human dignity. Humans should be able to look at the world and make up their own minds. If students have already made up their minds by sixth grade, it means that someone has done it for them. They have been intellectually raped. They deserve better.
Now, I remember what it was like to be in sixth grade. I knew nothing about how the world worked. War was something on TV and in movies. Shooting civilians, insurgents, terrorists, etc were all the same to me. I coun't keep track of all these things. I could barely tell our guys from their guys. When I was in sixth grade the only way I could have said something that would have even resembled an opinion was if someone was feeing me lines that I could just repeat.
And I know that some kids in JHS51 in Brooklyn are not getting a much better education than I got in sixth grade.
All this means that we have teachers and parents who are too scared to send letters to soldiers in Iraq in their own name, so they indoctrinate their children, and have them write letters. Pathetic. Adults should not have to hide behind thier children to criticize a president by insulting and demoralizing a 20-year old who knows little more about what is going on than anyone else.
A democratic education starts when we educate children with facts. We don't feed them horror-story make-believe lines about how everyone is going to die, and how Americans sit around and burn-down mosques. We don't scare children in to believing something that is contrary to common sense in the name of educaating them.
The electorate in this country is getting dumber and dumber. The fault lies squarely with those who value ideology over education. The right does it with evolution and religion, the left does it with politics, religion, ethics, and rationality.
That teacher should be fired, not because he sits around and hates the system who provides him with the freedom to hate the system, but because he is violating everything important about human dignity. Humans should be able to look at the world and make up their own minds. If students have already made up their minds by sixth grade, it means that someone has done it for them. They have been intellectually raped. They deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
