I value "learning" but I value "education" more. What is the difference? Well, learning is the result of studies in a very wide range of topics and fields. Education is learning that addresses specific needs that have been established by people whose wisdom we trust.
When I came to Harvey Mudd College in 1961, there was a required program of studies through the first two years called the Common Core. At the end of the second year, students could select a major course of study for their final two years. The major, needless to say, was also largely a required set of studies. In other words, all four years of study at Harvey Mudd was largely directed study in specific fields, a program of study that would educate young mathematicians, scientists, and engineeers.
As an example, the State of California, at that time, required undergraduate programs to include a course of study in US history. It seemed wise for students to go out into the world with an understanding of their own history.
What has happened at Harvey Mudd as well as at most other institutions, is that our confidence has been shaken. Fewer faculty are inclined to make a claim of wisdom with regard to learning. The US history requirement disappeared decades ago. Faculty backed up from specific fields and content to defend only specific techniques. So, as time went by, we were willing only to require that historical studies should be a part of one's program. As a consequence, students go out in the world understanding Asian history (for instance) but not their own history. I have no problem with the study of Asian history as such but I do have a real problem with the general ignorance of US history that has been a result.
In a similar way, the Common Core has been eroded and degraded over the years. The faculty is unwilling to stand up for it's beliefs and the general direction is one of pacifying student protests. After all, they are paying for their education. But that is very ironic because, if they really want an education, why are they unwilling to respect the wisdom of the faculty. The answer, I guess, is that respect has little to do with actions among many students today.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Saturday, July 15, 2017
On Government
I have often argued that government is the way in which we (the people) come together to solve our mutual problems. And I still believe that; however, government in that sense in our country has completely failed. Government as people coming together requires education and participation so that the people have an understanding of what their mutual problems are and try to find the best solutions. People in the US have largely ceased educating themselves and participation has fallen to ridiculous lows. So the result is that very wealthy people get elected to office by a small percentage of the population and these “representatives” take over “government” in their own interests and the interests of those who pay their way. In the US, government is an oligarchy that has little to do with what we like to call “the common good.”
Liberal democrats, like myself, continue to vote for candidates who, they think, will support the common good. Conservative republicans seem to vote in multiple paths that are not always logically consistent. One group seems to support “moral values” although they seem to have in mind merely a very limited number of issues such as abortion and gay/lesbian lifestyles while ignoring core principles of Christian faith. Another group seems merely interested in “law and order” and added to that a fear of world-wide terrorism. Yet a third group seems only concerned with the “free market” which translates into taxation and business regulation. The reality of this, it seems to me, is that both groups — Republicans and Democrats — believe in certain policies that politicians are expert at using to their advantage. The resulting government really fails to satisfy any of these goals.
What all of this seems to have brought us down to is a national movement that hates the Federal government and would prefer to just retreat into state-run societies. Having grown up in Illinois, I can’t say that I have much faith in state government. One might think this is just a resurgence of the Civil War but the movement is far larger than just a North/South matter. One might also think that it is a resurgence of the Articles of Confederation and anti-Federalism from the 1780s but few are well schooled in the Federalist Papers and other arguments with regard to the Articles. The only power of the Federal government that people seem happy about is defense, which may be why they are willing to pay almost half of their income taxes directly to the military.
The sad aspect of this movement to undermine Federal government and to inflate state governments is the loss of any “national character.” But perhaps a national character was an illusion sheltered by naive people like myself. Perhaps we have been ignoring the large differences in character that are evident as we travel around the country. What is happening right now is a backlash of those differences against a nationally motivated attempt to secure a common character.
Liberal democrats, like myself, continue to vote for candidates who, they think, will support the common good. Conservative republicans seem to vote in multiple paths that are not always logically consistent. One group seems to support “moral values” although they seem to have in mind merely a very limited number of issues such as abortion and gay/lesbian lifestyles while ignoring core principles of Christian faith. Another group seems merely interested in “law and order” and added to that a fear of world-wide terrorism. Yet a third group seems only concerned with the “free market” which translates into taxation and business regulation. The reality of this, it seems to me, is that both groups — Republicans and Democrats — believe in certain policies that politicians are expert at using to their advantage. The resulting government really fails to satisfy any of these goals.
What all of this seems to have brought us down to is a national movement that hates the Federal government and would prefer to just retreat into state-run societies. Having grown up in Illinois, I can’t say that I have much faith in state government. One might think this is just a resurgence of the Civil War but the movement is far larger than just a North/South matter. One might also think that it is a resurgence of the Articles of Confederation and anti-Federalism from the 1780s but few are well schooled in the Federalist Papers and other arguments with regard to the Articles. The only power of the Federal government that people seem happy about is defense, which may be why they are willing to pay almost half of their income taxes directly to the military.
The sad aspect of this movement to undermine Federal government and to inflate state governments is the loss of any “national character.” But perhaps a national character was an illusion sheltered by naive people like myself. Perhaps we have been ignoring the large differences in character that are evident as we travel around the country. What is happening right now is a backlash of those differences against a nationally motivated attempt to secure a common character.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Protecting Our earth
Global Warming is a scientific fact. Temperature readings from around the world and over a long period of time have been collected and analyzed. The average temperature of our earth is increasing. You cannot call that "BS".
Climate Change is more speculative. Rather than being a fact, it is a well developed theory, based on documented climate events.
The human origin of global warming and climate change is more speculative yet. Nevertheless, what other factors can we seriously propose as causes of these changes? Skeptics like to believe that human behaviors do not have that much effect on global phenomena. However, one of the classic examples of human impact is the presence of lead in the polar ice cap. When cores are drilled in the ice cap and analyzed, there is no lead found until around 1930s and then the amount of lead increases radically. It was in the 1930s that tetra-ethyl lead was introduced in motor fuels to solve the problem of "knocking". Auto engineers knew that it would be bad if the lead remained in the engines so they also introduced ethylene dichloride. Lead chloride is gaseous at high temperatures and takes the lead out the exhaust system of the vehicle into the atmosphere. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are definitely a major result of our behaviors as well.
Perhaps we can all live with global warming, but climate change, if genuine, is a major problem. Agriculture, as one example, is hugely dependent on climate. A large part of California's economy is based on agriculture, thus alteration of California's traditional climate could have a major impact on our economy. Climate change can potentially make some parts of the world unlivable and cause major disruption of human life. Rising ocean waters are already problematic in some coastline areas.
It seems obvious to me that, if we can avoid damaging the earth, which is our home, we should do so. We did do away with lead in our gasoline. Perhaps we can also stop throwing so much methane and carbon dioxide into our atmosphere as well. Eat less beef; walk more (it's good for us); and use green energy when possible.
Climate Change is more speculative. Rather than being a fact, it is a well developed theory, based on documented climate events.
The human origin of global warming and climate change is more speculative yet. Nevertheless, what other factors can we seriously propose as causes of these changes? Skeptics like to believe that human behaviors do not have that much effect on global phenomena. However, one of the classic examples of human impact is the presence of lead in the polar ice cap. When cores are drilled in the ice cap and analyzed, there is no lead found until around 1930s and then the amount of lead increases radically. It was in the 1930s that tetra-ethyl lead was introduced in motor fuels to solve the problem of "knocking". Auto engineers knew that it would be bad if the lead remained in the engines so they also introduced ethylene dichloride. Lead chloride is gaseous at high temperatures and takes the lead out the exhaust system of the vehicle into the atmosphere. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are definitely a major result of our behaviors as well.
Perhaps we can all live with global warming, but climate change, if genuine, is a major problem. Agriculture, as one example, is hugely dependent on climate. A large part of California's economy is based on agriculture, thus alteration of California's traditional climate could have a major impact on our economy. Climate change can potentially make some parts of the world unlivable and cause major disruption of human life. Rising ocean waters are already problematic in some coastline areas.
It seems obvious to me that, if we can avoid damaging the earth, which is our home, we should do so. We did do away with lead in our gasoline. Perhaps we can also stop throwing so much methane and carbon dioxide into our atmosphere as well. Eat less beef; walk more (it's good for us); and use green energy when possible.
Friday, May 12, 2017
The Absurdity of Trump's "Religious Freedom" Order
Some American Christians have been whining a lot about their religious freedom. Supposedly their religious freedom is being hampered because they are not free to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Of course, they are completely free to think what they like about gays and lesbians; but because we live in a "civil" society, they must conform to how we are expected to treat gays and lesbians. Comparable issues arise with birth control and abortion.
Our Constitution provides the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (or, for that matter, the freedom to practice no religion at all). So the real question at the bottom of all this is what actually constitutes "practice." It seems to me that practicing a religion means having certain beliefs and, perhaps, taking part in organized groups who share those beliefs. Many people would also suggest that sharing one's beliefs with others or even helping others to understand similar beliefs is part of practice. In my opinion, that can become a bit "edgy;" people who want to share their beliefs at my front door are really violating my privacy.
The problem with religious practice is that some groups seem to think that they should be allowed to treat others in our society consistent with their special beliefs instead of treating them within the norms of civil society. This, of course, amounts to a demand that their beliefs trump (excuse the pun) all the rest. That really means that others should not have the same freedom of religious belief.
The irony is that Christians are not at all ready to allow other religious groups to behave according to their own private beliefs in our society --- especially not Muslims. Freedom of religion depends upon being in a free civil society; but that means that many behaviors, especially toward other people, are controlled by the rules of that society and not by private religious beliefs.
Our Constitution provides the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (or, for that matter, the freedom to practice no religion at all). So the real question at the bottom of all this is what actually constitutes "practice." It seems to me that practicing a religion means having certain beliefs and, perhaps, taking part in organized groups who share those beliefs. Many people would also suggest that sharing one's beliefs with others or even helping others to understand similar beliefs is part of practice. In my opinion, that can become a bit "edgy;" people who want to share their beliefs at my front door are really violating my privacy.
The problem with religious practice is that some groups seem to think that they should be allowed to treat others in our society consistent with their special beliefs instead of treating them within the norms of civil society. This, of course, amounts to a demand that their beliefs trump (excuse the pun) all the rest. That really means that others should not have the same freedom of religious belief.
The irony is that Christians are not at all ready to allow other religious groups to behave according to their own private beliefs in our society --- especially not Muslims. Freedom of religion depends upon being in a free civil society; but that means that many behaviors, especially toward other people, are controlled by the rules of that society and not by private religious beliefs.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
It's a Mystery to Me
What I find truly appalling and beyond understanding is the Republican abhorrence for helping people. The whole discussion of our Affordable Care Act, from its inception to the present day, is a vast canvass of Republican attitudes strewn over the field of Democratic struggles to bring Americans up to the standards of the rest of the developed world. Even the nickname “Obama Care” is an attempt to defame the act by association with their racist hatred of our 44th President.
One could try to justify the Republican attitude by aligning it with their time-worn hatred of Federal government versus state’s rights. But Republican states are no more likely to advance health care legislation either. One could also suggest that it is a matter of budget control. Republicans hate what they like to call “entitlement programs” and will do anything to eliminate them supposedly because they want to control spending and reduce the national debt. But, in fact, the idea that Republicans want to reduce the national debt by lowering spending is pure fantasy. History shows that every Republican administration since Regan has spent large and put us deeper in debt while every Democratic administration has brought spending down and reduced the debt. The Republican abhorrence for helping people runs deeper than all of this. I believe it is an essentially anti-social attitude built on an extreme fantasy of independence.
What is mysterious to me is where in our history this attitude began. Looking at our origin documents, the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That is a basic belief that government is created to secure “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thirteen years later, our Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That is, one of the principal reasons for our government is to “promote the general welfare.” Nothing in all of this suggests that promoting the general welfare should detract from the “blessings of liberty” or other personal freedom and independence.
It seems obvious to me that taking care of our fellow citizens is entirely consistent with, indeed a fundamental part of, promoting the general welfare. Where are all those Republicans who adore the Constitution in all of its original words and notions?
One could try to justify the Republican attitude by aligning it with their time-worn hatred of Federal government versus state’s rights. But Republican states are no more likely to advance health care legislation either. One could also suggest that it is a matter of budget control. Republicans hate what they like to call “entitlement programs” and will do anything to eliminate them supposedly because they want to control spending and reduce the national debt. But, in fact, the idea that Republicans want to reduce the national debt by lowering spending is pure fantasy. History shows that every Republican administration since Regan has spent large and put us deeper in debt while every Democratic administration has brought spending down and reduced the debt. The Republican abhorrence for helping people runs deeper than all of this. I believe it is an essentially anti-social attitude built on an extreme fantasy of independence.
What is mysterious to me is where in our history this attitude began. Looking at our origin documents, the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That is a basic belief that government is created to secure “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thirteen years later, our Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That is, one of the principal reasons for our government is to “promote the general welfare.” Nothing in all of this suggests that promoting the general welfare should detract from the “blessings of liberty” or other personal freedom and independence.
It seems obvious to me that taking care of our fellow citizens is entirely consistent with, indeed a fundamental part of, promoting the general welfare. Where are all those Republicans who adore the Constitution in all of its original words and notions?
Sunday, February 19, 2017
That's the GOP
Between the GOP in general and Donald Trump we are in for a very rough ride. The Donald wants us all to believe that the media produces nothing but fake news and constantly lies. (Donald should know something about that since he lies constantly!) Meanwhile, the GOP Congress, aided by Trump's cabinet choices, has set about shutting down reporting to the public about everything from climate change to toxic spills in rivers and streams. Even NASA can't show us pictures of temperature gradients across the world.
So this is a government based on eliminating a free press and keeping hazardous news from the public. Do the 48% of Americans who voted for Trump really think that is a good idea? Do they really think a dumb and uninformed public is the best way to run a "democracy"? Actually, that is precisely the way dictatorships are run.
After the press is torn apart, they will turn to the universities and then the students. If you think this is not going to happen (can't happen here), follow the money. When the GOP starts re-routing the money (as they clearly can), the press and the universities will collapse.
So this is a government based on eliminating a free press and keeping hazardous news from the public. Do the 48% of Americans who voted for Trump really think that is a good idea? Do they really think a dumb and uninformed public is the best way to run a "democracy"? Actually, that is precisely the way dictatorships are run.
After the press is torn apart, they will turn to the universities and then the students. If you think this is not going to happen (can't happen here), follow the money. When the GOP starts re-routing the money (as they clearly can), the press and the universities will collapse.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Give Trump a Break? Really?
There are a few people out there who are actively telling us to give Trump a break. I'm all for that if we can see some kind of learning curve. But really, there is no visible learning curve at this point. Trump is going about business just as he did throughout the campaign period --- all kinds of disrespect for other people, childish name calling, and delusional claims of fake news and rigged electoral processes.
When the chief executive is a compulsive liar, doesn't seem to understand basic government, disregards the Constitution, wants to grasp complete power, and belittles anyone who dares to criticize him, you do not give him a break; you call him for what he is.
Believe me, I wish that Donald Trump would somehow grow up and become an intelligent adult and grow into the highest office in our government. I am waiting, but I am not optimistic.
When the chief executive is a compulsive liar, doesn't seem to understand basic government, disregards the Constitution, wants to grasp complete power, and belittles anyone who dares to criticize him, you do not give him a break; you call him for what he is.
Believe me, I wish that Donald Trump would somehow grow up and become an intelligent adult and grow into the highest office in our government. I am waiting, but I am not optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)