Say Again!?

An interesting exchange with a friend on Facebook.

It started with a meme containing a partial quote from Thomas Paine.

L:  “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead...”

(The complete quote is as follows, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”)

Me:  I know. But I do care about America so I keep trying to talk to conservatives and Republicans anyway. It’s a bad habit but at least I try.

L:   so the turn towards socialism doesn't bother your heart for our grandkids? Common Core, learning the Quran and condom races in the 5th grade here are fine with you?

— Picture of an eagle wrapped in a flag banner—

Me: Common core is not in and of itself a bad idea but I haven’t studied in it in sufficient detail to know how effective or ineffective it is. 

Socialism is extremely effective all across all of Europe. Please note that socialism and capitalism are working together there in a mutually cooperative situation. It’s not an either or forced choice false dichotomy as you present it.  I am opposed to mindless cutthroat capitalism that lets children die for lack of medication because they can’t afford to buy it. And equally opposed to any extreme form of socialism which ignores the powers of capitalism.  

I know of no public school system that is learning from the Koran. That is simply a really bizarre statement. But I do know many school districts down south using A very limited interpretation of the Bible as lesson plans. Jefferson was right, there must be a wall of separation between church and state.

I have never heard of anything so insane as condom races in the fifth grade. Where do you get this information? Please state some sources. If you state the sources I will check them out. But without sources for such weird statements I simply cannot credit them.

More to come? If so I will add them to this post or to the comments below.

A Diatribe With A Side Of Recommendation

 https://quillette.com/2019/12/01/when-disruptive-students-are-coddled-the-whole-class-suffers/

I have two rather different responses to this article.

First, I have a response which, while it is based on my factual knowledge and experience, is profoundly emotional. It provides an excellent example of my attitude that both rationality and emotionality need to work hand-in-hand in order to create a balanced view of the world and, indeed, of reality itself.

Second is my own response to the problem; and it is a very real problem with which every educator has dealt to one degree or another. That is, how to deal with disruptive students.

I will begin with a set of excerpts which I found to be emotionally triggering. (Please forgive me for borrowing a term from those I refer to as the woking brain dead, but it is an effective descriptor in this case.)

> The worst-behaved students effectively are taught that the rules don’t apply to them in the same way they apply to others. <

And > ...where a single agitated student has the power to seize control of any classroom he pleases.<

Finally, > And to the extent that student misbehavior is seen as being a product of trauma, anyone who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating that trauma. <

I tried to find evidence of the author’s source of his presumed expertise. I didn’t find any evidence that he ever taught in the classroom or worked with emotionally disturbed children.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply profoundly ignorant of reality.  Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that he, like so many who made comments on this article, simply believes in magic punishment. Personal responsibility is of course one essential element of proper emotional development for all human beings.  However, to dismiss the fact that children who are this emotionally disturbed are often victims of horrific abuse including being burned, beaten, and otherwise abused with the statement that one “who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating the trauma” is an appalling attack on the needs of the most damaged and vulnerable members of our nation.

Most disciplinary action normally taken against a healthy, emotionally sound student, if taken against such children, would in fact be exacerbating the trauma. Stating a fact is not making an accusation.

I find the author’s opinion, which appears largely to be let us discipline these individuals as if they were not traumatized children, to be morally repugnant.  I note in the comments a cold, callous and inhuman response on the part of many. The conviction that the way to handle brutalized, traumatized children is to punish them more effectively is inappropriate even in the last century. These children are not being taught to “seize control”.  They are desperately acting out their terror and their fear of being placed in a situation where they feel profoundly threatened. No child wishes to have other children laugh at them, or fear them, or condemn them for being strange. assuming that these so troubled youngsters simply need discipline or isolation indicates something is very very wrong with a person who expresses that opinion.   The spread of civilization and the advance of our culture should have gone beyond this.

So many who have never been in a classroom except as a student, so many who have never worked with the emotionally traumatized, so many who know nothing of the reality of these situations are so ready to make their arrogant, smug judgments. I spent much of my professional career dedicated to working with the poor, the traumatized, the wounded children of our society.  At least when I open my mouth, you know that I have some experience upon which to base my opinions and my judgment.

End diatribe. Begin recommendation.

One of the points which I found irritating is the suggestion that suspension is some sort of magic solution.  Suspension works only when parents respond appropriately to it. One of my students was a particular problem. Although I knew that it would inevitably follow its normal course there were times when I simply had no choice but to suspend him.  The  problem was that once he was suspended,  he went home, took off his shirt, got on his bike, and then would ride around across the street from the school laughing at all the children who were denied his freedom. Then he was off to whatever adventures he wished, since his parents took no action in response to his discipline.

In short, any disciplinary action can be effective if it is appropriate to the child and if the parents are supportive of the school. Any disciplinary action can also be counterproductive and damaging to discipline if it is inappropriate to the child and the parents do not support the school.

As a few commenters pointed out there are very effective programs which can actually help troubled children.  Obviously, they should be utilized. However, I must acknowledge that the author makes one excellent point which must be implemented for the benefit of all, including the troubled children.  

When the policy of placing children in the “least restrictive environment“ was first adopted in California, I was a young teacher. I was asked by our district psychologist to attempt placing such a child in my class.  I thought the idea was an excellent one and gave it a try. To some extent it was successful. Although he did require a great deal of my attention, he was certainly not disruptive or a problem.  I found, however, that the other students tended to take advantage of him. 

So in a sense it was not a success. The least restrictive environment for this youngster was an environment in which he was not in a position where other students would take advantage of his trusting nature. This is the point to be made. Students who are truly emotionally disruptive and may throw a tantrum in which they endanger themselves and other students are not being indulged when they are not suspended. The abuse that is occurring is not abuse by that child. The abuse is being accused by a system which has placed them in an environment in which they are emotionally incapable of functioning.

To repeat for the sake of clarity , a least restrictive environment is an environment in which both the child and those surrounding the child are sufficiently secure that they can function effectively. The mistake the overly liberal are making is thinking that least restrictive is a term which simply means placing the child in a normal classroom. But that is extremely restrictive for a traumatized child. It is in fact in itself a form of abuse.

The problem is complex and difficult. Simplistic solutions will not be effective. There are many ways in which children can be at least partially integrated into the normal school environment. These should be employed. But magic punishments have never worked. They never will.

Restore Factory Settings?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/opioids-pot-criminal-justice-reform-helped-undermine-decade-s-war-ncna1108231

An interesting article, but it doesn’t seem to clearly make the point that the war on drugs was a guaranteed failure from the very moment it was conceived. (With the exception of its suppression of racial minorities elements, which I will not address here.) Quite a number of us knew this at the time and asked, isn’t this just Prohibition all over again? Didn’t that do no good at all but in fact made the mafia great and powerful? Won’t this just do the same? And it did. Obviously.

The biggest question is, why do we do such stupid self-destructive things?

Isn’t it possible that we human beings could actually do things that are rational and sensible instead of things that are hysterical and self-destructive? It’s possible. But we rarely seem to do it...or at least all too often we go for the hysterical and self destructive.

Why?

Because our emotional default setting, our factory setting, is emotionalism. It’s clear why emotions evolved. They allow us to act without thinking. They guarantee behaviors that might rationally be rejected in favor of evolutionary preferments. For example, an individual might logically choose to save himself at the expense of his children. Emotions will direct him to save the children, which saves the passing on of his genes. It might be argued that you can always have more children, but that may not be true. Furthermore, how many children would survive childhood if we didn’t feel an emotional need to protect them and care for them? Ignoring the issue of a life-and-death situation, we all know the horror stories of children who have been killed by their parents either Through neglect or physical abuse and that’s even with emotions working in the child’s favor.

To repeat one of my favorite default phrases, we are facultative rational beings but we are obligate emotional beings. That is to say, we can think rationally, but we must feel emotionally. This is not a condemnation. This is simply an acknowledgment of reality. If you discover that you have a tendency toward alcoholism, this does not mean you may as well give up and become a drunk. It means that you must spend the rest of your life being very careful not to fall into that trap. The same applies for tendencies toward cancer, Alzheimer’s, or any number of other debilitating diseases. It follows that if we humans have a tendency to be emotional to the point of self-destructiveness, we must struggle very hard to develop protections against that fate. We must learn to think rationally. We must learn to think objectively. We must simply learn to think.

It is important to note again that we should not give up on emotions. They are essential to our existence. A non-emotional being is a psychopath, if it can even manage to survive. Rather than eliminating emotions, we must learn to control them and to direct them.

This is easy to say; and very, very difficult to accomplish. Yet, in a world in which we are more and more capable of inflicting mass destruction upon ourselves, we must learn to do this. It is a matter of our survival.

Which is an excellent emotional reason to learn to think effectively and clearly.

Bloodletters Unite!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/12/28/the-end-of-education-reform-or-a-new-beginning/amp/

I don’t agree with every point in this article but I do agree with most. It was obvious the moment the great “reforms” were proposed that they would fail miserably and only make things worse. So why did all the experts think the plan was so great? In fact, why are many of them still praising them? Because so many of the experts have never taught a child anything in a classroom. They display high degrees and endless hours of studying about how to do things which they have never actually done. Imagine if, in World War II, instead of pulling our aces out of combat and taking them back to train new pilots we had those recruits trained by experts had never actually flown a plane but had studied and studied how to do so and knew all the theories of how to do it right.

I’m on record as saying and I will repeat again, these modern educational experts with their endless testing and competition theories are the exact equivalent of you going to a doctor with the flu and he declares, “Thyne humors art in imbalance. I shall bleed thee!”

Whose Song Of The South?

https://www.news10.com/news/the-jim-crow-film-that-just-wont-die-song-of-the-south/

An extremely mixed situation. On one hand the Uncle Tom element of the story is undeniable and repulsive. On the other hand, Brer Rabbit is clearly a descendent of Anansi and the other tricksters African folklore has handed down. I find the movie to be both a celebration and honoring of some powerful elements of African/slave culture AND an ugly affirmation of racism. I do not find it surprising that one can find elements of both. Today we tend to insist that everything must be polarized into rigid absolutes. In reality, the situation is often much more complicated.

The film would make an excellent teaching vehicle. I wouldn’t recommend it below fifth grade at the lowest, middle school is probably a more effective venue. The point being that it serves two significant educational functions.

First, a discussion of Jim Crow and thus of slavery. It is a horror of America’s past which is far too often ignored in our schools. I always made a point of dealing with it honestly at an appropriate level for the children I was teaching, but I was a rarity. We did have teachers who dealt with the issue quite openly, including teachers I worked with. But most teachers are uncomfortable with the subject and simply veer away from it.

Second, it opens up the whole of folklore, including trickster tales from many cultures. How these immigrants, whether willing or unwilling, contributed to American culture is a fascinating topic and one which promotes understanding of other cultures and even of our own, which is an amalgam of these many disparate elements.

It would not be an easy topic to teach, and would require preliminary work with the community and administration, but it is one which I think would be of great importance in helping our youngsters to understand our own history and the culture in which they are embedded.

You With Us Or Agin’ Us?

A Facebook discussion. D’s original post:

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2019/09/26/im-not-the-radical-left-im-the-humane-middle/

D: I think I'm just middle of the road. But somehow I'm an agitator in my postings according to some people. This sums it up for me.

A: Me too Dan. Don't feel all that radical but I am pissed off.

J: Yes!

R: Thanks for sharing. Remember, when we thought the world we were entering promised a brighter future? How did that work out?

“You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one”

RK: This is by far an excellent example of what should be described as a human being.

K: I’m right there with you Dan! I don’t feel far left either! I care for other people!

T: I’m with you, Daniel. You are not alone!

L: I was taught that to far to the right can be as dangerous as to far to the left:

Me: Reminds me of an editorial I read some years ago.
A young man reported that he was basically a political moderate. Because of his religion, he had been attending a Christian college. Obviously, his political attitudes were not in line with those around him. Seemed everybody else at the college was extremely conservative. He got really tired of having to explain that he wasn’t a radical left wing nut, he was just a moderate. So he switched to a public college.
But things didn’t work out for him that well. At the public college, he found he was constantly being accused of being a radical right winger, an ultraconservative. He couldn’t find a solution, so he just put up with it until graduation.
People love to categorize everyone around them. The most radical people think that everyone who isn’t in complete agreement with them must belong to the opposite and equally radical group.
It’s a sad fact about the way the human mind works and the way our culture is pushing us. Compromise and moderation just aren’t very popular, even though the great majority of us are moderates who are willing to compromise. The extremists of both polarized opposites dominate the media, the discussion, and our politics.

Anti Evangelicals

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/millennials-are-leaving-religion-and-not-coming-back/



Again, a brief post, but in the light of the previous comments I have made on the subject it is simply confirmation of what I have been saying for decades.

The more churches become secularized and politicized the more they drive away their future members. Just as happened in Europe in the past two centuries, it is coming to pass in America. In many ways this is sad, but all in all I believe we will be a much healthier nation as a result.

Inevitably as churches lose more and more ground, they will become more and more fanatic and more and more political. They will become more and more determined to create an atmosphere in which their particular sect is the law of the land in a desperate attempt to ensure their survival. This is a positive feedback loop. It inevitably leads to self destruction.

> ...”we came to see all of this negativity from people who were highly religious and increasingly didn’t want a part in it.” This view is common among young people.

...research has suggested that the strong association between religion and the Republican Party may actually be fueling this divide. And if even more Democrats lose their faith, that will only exacerbate the acrimonious rift between secular liberals and religious conservatives. <

Come Nineveh

Very brief post but I’ve covered this topic so many times over the last few decades I don’t really care to add repetitive commentary. I started complaining about it in the days of Ronald Reagan. Still, here is more evidence that what I said would happen is actually happening.

> For the first time, China has taken the Nature Index crown as the biggest producer of high-quality research in chemistry, knocking the United States down to second place. <

Once Chinese science was the greatest in the world. Then the fundamentalists and the China First/China Only groups took over. China was quickly surpassed by much tinier nations who had stayed on the science road. Eventually those tiny nations bullied China any way they wanted to as China descended into Third World status. Now the United States, long the producer of the greatest science in the world, is turning to fundamentalism, America 1st/America Only belief while China turns back to science. We are slipping. They are gaining.

Is anyone really surprised?

https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/these-ten-countries-top-the-ranks-in-chemistry-research?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=bf160736fb-briefing-dy-20191212&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-bf160736fb-44635989

Cry 'Havoc!,' And Let Slip The Dogs Of War!

As conservatives once again freak out about the imaginary war on Christmas in the last few decades that never actually happened, it pays to ask a serious question. Who has actually waged a war on Christmas in America?

The answer is:

The Puritans.

You know. Those evil, liberal, atheist, latte loving, avocado eating, socialists. Wait a minute. Weren’t the Puritans ultra conservative, ultra religious, ultra Christians? They could not have been the ones to ban Christmas…could they?

May 11, 1659
The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the following order.
For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals, as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offense to others:
It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that whomsoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labor, feasting, or any other way upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offended, shall pay five shillings as a fine…”

(FYI: They also banned Easter.)

Why? Because God said only the Sabbath should be kept holy and they thought that it should be honored with solemn, long, grim church services. Anyway, people are notorious for doing fun things at Christmas. I mean they played games! So wicked! Not to mention they drank!

Cotton Mathers’ father declared, “The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonorable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend these holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, and playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, In mad Mirth.“

To enforce these restrictions the authorities, “… dispatched town criers on Christmas Eve to shout "No Christmas, No Christmas" through the streets of Boston.” (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/54131/time-boston-banned-christmas)

Great! But it gets better. Although the law was repealed, the attitude that Christmas was a bad thing lasted for a very long time.

All the way up to the year before Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas a national holiday (1869), school children in Boston who decided not to attend public school on Christmas Day were severely punished. They were punished by up to expulsion from school for such a heinous offense.

I’ve known about the banning of Christmas by the Puritans for decades but I want to give thanks to the Internet channel Today I Found Out for these details.

So if you do insist on making declarations about the war on Christmas please remember that war was waged by ultra conservative, ultra religious, ultra Christians. Not by liberals. In fact it was liberals who overturned the law and declared Christmas a national holiday.

The war on Christmas? Yes there was one. Because the Liberals won, we can all still joyfully say, “Merry Christmas!”

Wanna Bet?

From Rational Wiki:
Pascal's original text is long-winded and written in somewhat convoluted philosophy-speak,[2] but it can be distilled more simply:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hellforever: thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain.

My comments: The wager is a very popular point of discussion. I remember thinking about it when it was introduced to me in high school class. It sounded false and nonsensical. It didn’t seem right to bet on the existence of God in order to make a gain for yourself.
My current responses are a little more complex but can be summed up in the following scenario.

An atheist, a true believer, and a skeptic who has made Pascal’s wager by making an effort to believe in God just in case all die at the same moment when a meteor crashes into the TV studio where they are having a debate. To the surprise of two of them, they find themselves in the presence of Jesus who is about to judge them.

Jesus looks at the true believer and says, “Not only did you believe, You just happened to believe in the right God and not only that, but also in the right sect. Go straight to heaven!”

Then he turns to the atheist. “OK. You didn’t believe in me but your beliefs were honest and you lived a really decent, good, moral life. I have to respect someone who makes an honest effort and really works hard define the nature of reality and seeks the truth as best he can. You go to heaven too.”

Then he looks at the man who made the bet. “I really hate hypocrites. Do you really think I was stupid enough to think you were sincere when you were just trying to hedge your bets? You disgust me! Go to hell!“

Maybe Pascal’s wager isn’t such a good bet after all. You know what they say about race track touts...if they know the winning horse, why don’t they just bet their own money on it?

Memories

From my Facebook post.


Hey, Bobbie! Remember when the war was being planned and I said to anyone willing to listen that the day would come when Americans would all ask, “How did we get into this mess,” and I added, , “Just look into the mirror. That’s how.”?

I forgot to add, and we are being lied to by our leaders.

A war as pointless and unwinnable as Vietnam for many of the same reasons. This is why we “lost” China. I learned that when I was an undergrad, in the 60’s. The world is not full of middle class Americans who want exactly what we want.

L: yes indeed and on and on it goes... smh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

Self Denial To The Max

There is a reason that a proposed scientific conclusion, however firmly based in evidence it may seem to be, is invariably subjected to a long dip in a tank of hungry piranha. Critics of science simply do not understand just how savagely scientists attack each other’s findings. Even Einstein’s theories are subject to constant questioning and are repeatedly tested. The primary reason is that this is the only way to be certain that any data,or conclusion based on any data set, is in fact correct. There are many reasons it might be incorrect, but one of the main ones is that scientists are, after all, only human.

I’m pleased to learn from this article both the flaws of this highly touted experiment which is so loudly declared to conclusively prove something that I absolutely believe to be false, but also the long standing criticism which has always been obvious to me. What is the psychology behind highly intelligent individuals being almost bitterly determined to prove that they have no consciousness and no free will? What drives a person to want to be a conscious-less, mindless robot? I’d really love to see an in depth psychological study of the advocates of this peculiar position.

I would like to ask these individuals the following question.

I recall reading, I believe it was as far back as high school, a story about a boy in a psychiatric institution. He suffered horribly for reasons I cannot recall. In order to avoid the pain and suffering his emotions caused him, he decided he was a robot. He would walk about during the day carefully aligning the imaginary wires which plugged him into the wall, telling people not to step on those wires as they might accidentally disconnect him. I do not recall what caused his condition or if he was ever able to recover. However, it is very interesting that this child wanted to be an unconscious and unfeeling being to avoid the horrors of his suffering.

I recall a Star Trek episode of a similar theme in which a boy wanted to become Data and avoid feelings because he felt guilt over what he thought was a terrible crime he had accidentally committed.

So, what is it which drives you to wish to be an emotionless, non-conscious object? Why do you feel this compelling need to be a bio-chemical robot? What trauma drives you? Why are you so afraid of being responsible for your actions?

> ...why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”) <

Scientific American

How a Flawed Experiment "Proved" that Free Will Doesn't Exist

https://apple.news/AhCXobNpkTnaR4KHC1RBTRg