I'm a "character" voter, not an "issues" voter. But the way you reveal your character is by grappling with issues, not by grappling with yourself. Anguish is easy. Isn't it time for Obama to start being ostentatiously reflective about policies? That's what you want from a Harvard Law Review type.
And on the issues, what's Obama done that's original or pathbreaking? I don't know the answer. But compare his big speech on immigration reform with failed Dem Senate candidate Brad Carson's article on immigration reform. Carson says things Democrats (and Republicans) haven't been saying; Obama's speech offers an idiosyncratic veneer of reasonableness over a policy that is utterly party line and conventional, defended with arguments that are party line and conventional.
OK, that's just one example. Maybe I'm an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem. But I'm not swooning until I hear Obama to tell Democrats something they maybe don't want to hear. Did I miss it?
I don't think so. In any event, doing so on Obama's part ought not be rare.
Is he the narcissist candidate of 2008? By that I mean, shifting the attention from, as Kaus writes, grappling with issue, in favor of grappling with his own self. I'm not sure that he is; but I'm not sure that he isn't, either. I hadn't seen this analysis before. There is certainly something to it.
It is the one thing Hannah and I are most asked, when we even mention the possibility we will home educate Twyla (though it is a pretty good probability at this point).
In truth, it is something we thought about, and were concerned about, until we actually looked into the matter. So I understand why people ask, "but what about socialization public school provides?" (Or private, for that matter.) But that doesn't make it any less tiring. One solution would be to not mention that we plan to home educate. But I don't like doing that because I actually think talking about it is my way of trying to disembed the "faith in public education" that is essentially a religion of so many.
In any event, here's a good perspective on "the socialization question", from the fantastic Well-Trained Mind, the book that functions as a primary guide through understanding the value of classical education. It is a long excerpt, but this is an important topic. Not only to understand why I think the premise of the question is misguided, but because, simply, so many people bring it up.
The most convicing proof that home-educated children develop normally is a conversation with a home-educated child who's bright, engaged, polite, interesting, and outgoing. Home-school graduates get into college and do fine; they get jobs and excel.
But it's important to understand what socialization means. According to the dictionary, socialization is "the process by which a human being, beginning in infancy, acquires the habits, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge of his society." In other words, you're being socialized when you learn habits, acquire beliefs, learn about the society around you, develop character traits, and become competent in ths skills you need to function properly in society.
Who teaches all of this? Agents of socialization include the family (both immediate and extended), the religious community, neighborhoods, tutors and mentors, the media (TV, radio, films, books, magazines all tell the child what's expected of him, for better or worse), clubs (social or academic), the arts (both in observation and participation), travel, jobs, civic participation. And formal schooling is an institution.
Taking the child out of school doesn't mean theat you're going to remove him from the other "agents of socialization" that surround him. Furthermore, think about the type of socialization that takes place in school. The child learns how to function in a specific environment, one where he's surrounded by thirty children his own age. This is a very specific type of socialization, one that may not prove particularly useful. When, during the course of his life, will he find himself in this kind of context? Not in work or in family life or in his hobbies. The classroom places the child in a peer-dominated situation that he'll probably not experience again.
And this type of socialization may be damaging. Thirty years ago, Cornell Professor of Child Development Urie Bronfenbrenner warned that the "socially-isolated, age-graded peer group" created a damaging dependency in which middle-school students relied on their classmates for approval, direction, and affection. He warned that if parents, other adults, and older children continued to be absent from the active daily life of younger children, we could expect "alienation, indifference, antogonism, and violence on the part of the younger generation."
Not that any of that has happened in the last thirty years, or anything.
Peer acceptance is dangerous. When a child is desperate to fit in — to receive acceptance from those who surround him all day, every day — he may defy your rules, go against his own conscience, or even break the law.
Nor this, ever.
We live in an age in which people think a great deal about their peers, talk about them constantly, and act as if a child's existence will be meaningless if he isn't accepted by his peer group. But the socialization that best prepares a child for the real world can't take place when a child is closed up in a classroom or always with his peer group. It happens when the child is living with people who vary widely in age, personality, background, and circumstance.
The antidote for peer-centered socialization is to make the family the basic unit for socialiation — the center of the child's experience. The family should be the place where real things happen, where there is a true interest in each other, acceptance, patience, and peace, as far as it possible.
Socialization in the family starts when very young children learn that they can trust adults to give them answers, to read books to them, to talk to them, to listen to music with them....
Socialization continues as the child learns to fit into the lives of his parents and siblings, to be considerate and thoughtful of other people, to be unselfish instead of self-centered. A two year old can learn to play along for a few minutes while the parent teachers a ten year old; an eight year old can learn not to practice the piano during the baby's nap time. It's the real world when a child learns to play quietly because Daddy is working on his income taxes....
In our society, children, taught by their peer gropus, learn to survive, not to live with kindness and grace. Exclusive peer groups — cliques — start forming around age five. Even in kindergarten, children are accepted or rejected on the basis of what they wear, what toys they own, what TV programs they watch. Even when adults are supervising, these cliques survive — and strengthen — as children grow. And only the strongest flourish.
Geez, not familiar, at all. Nope.
The trend in our culture is to devalue — even bypass — the family as a basic unit of socialization. But it's within the family that children learn to love by seeing love demonstrated; learn unselfishness both through teaching and through example (choosing to teach a child at home is unselfishness at work); learn conflict resolution by figuring out how to get along with parents and with each other.
The family unit — the basic agent of socialization — is itself a place to communicate with people of different ages. But socialization doesn't stop there. As a family, you should make a wide range of friends of various ages. Home-school parent and lawyer Christopher Klicka points out that home-educated children are continually socialized through community activities, Little League, Scouts, band, music lessons, art classes, field trips, and the numerous events sponsored by local home-school support groups.
There's more (this is from chapter 36), but this is enough for now. So, to recap, the premise that lack of formal school (via public/government/socialized school, or via private school) necessarily means diminished socialization is misguided, narrow thinking. The main assertion is that the family ought be the primary "agent of socialization". Is this something people dispute?
Well, if you do dispute it, you ought know what "in loco parentis" is (see here, if you don't), and that formal schools cite this for means of asserting their own importance. The ironic thing is that this doctrine (Latin for "in the place of the parent") compells one to come to the conclusion that, ultimately, the family is the primal importance in education is something largely acknowledged (if veiled in our current age). Even the formal schools advocates know, in their hears, that this is true, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thus what is needed, at the root, is courageous parents. Willing to follow what deep down they feel (I would argue, are programmed by virtue of human nature) is right — namely that they, and no one else, ought be the primary educators of their children. And, naturally, that Family Is Number 1.
That's the conclusion I draw from this blog entry by Iain Murray, which plenty of links. Including one with this quote:
And now we’re wondering if we didn’t create a monster. We’re wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we’ve oversold the science. We’re wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as “skeptics.”
Uncertain! Oversold!
Look, it seems the planet is warming. The real question is why. Are the causes man-made? Are they part of a natural planetary cycle? Some combo?
And, given the track record of so many on the progressive-left, being in various ways anti-capitalism, anti-big business, anti-free enterprise (sometimes subtley, sometimes not), given that, to my ears, the loudest advocates for "it's man-made!" tend to come from the progressive-left, I've long been skeptical. But I'm not a trained scientist, and so I've kept an open mind. So, ultimately, it is quite interesting to hear scientists saying that there is pressure to conform to a certain view of the causes of global warming.
I mean, I understand it. Doing so is part of human nature, and human nature never changes.
Stepping even further back, even if all the causes are ultimately found to be natural/planetary, I think some good will come out of all the deception by the man-maders. What do I mean? This story ought illustrate. I was buying a new cellphone for Hannah a couple weeks ago. We are Sprint customers, and so there's a Radio Shack across the street from where I work in the Loop. When I was about to leave, the salesman asked me if I need a bag for the cellphone. I said, "no thanks, I have one." (I had my bag I use to and from work.) He said, "cool, for global warming, and stuff". I thought, "that's weird, but whatever". And kept quiet, besides saying "thank you" and leaving.
And then I thought about it — if people think not using plastic bags will help decrease the planet's temperature, even it it won't at all, at least our streets will be cleaner, our landfills less full, etc. In other words, the silver lining of the man-mader's deception (if it turns out that way) might mean a less wasteful society.
Is the deception (if it is that) worth these sorts of non-planet temperature benefits? They just might be. Besides, it isn't worth my time (or the salesman's) to have a discussion about this, especially since I'm no scientist. Thus in this case as with so many — this too shall pass.
Many people forwarded me the recent article in the New York Times, about the trend of "unschooling". My response is that unschooling offers some benefit, if seen in the big picture as "learning everyday life skills". But it is hardly enough for a well-rounded education. In fact, if the aim is to nourish children's minds over the long haul, unschooling strikes me as the thinnest of soups.
Our guide instead for classical education, The Well-Trained Mind, offers a good summary of the difference between the two approaches. From ch 35:
Classical education is diametrically opposed to "unschooling", which is immensely popular among many home schoolers. "Unschooling" is child-centered. It assumes that the child will learn all that she needs to know by following her natural impulses and that any learning that is "imposed" on the child by an authority figure will prove unproductive.
Classical education is knowledge-focused, not child-focused. It attempts to teach knowledge in a way that awakens the child's interest, but the child's interest is not the sole determining factor in whether or not a subject should be followed. How does a child know whether something will interest and excite her unless she works at unfamiliar (and perhaps intimidating) material to find out what it's all about?
Unschoolers also tend to denigrate "book" learning in favor of "real" learning. Many unschoolers claim that the day-to-day realities of family life provide plenty of opportunities for learning. For these unschoolers, taking care of the house, grocery shopping, cooking, car repair, working the family business, writing thank-you notes, and so on provide enough opportunity for children to learn real-life skills without "doing school" in a formal way.
While this may be true, a child's education shouldn't be limited to "real-life skills". Classically educated children should be able to cook, write thank-you notes, and tie their shoes. They also know where their country came from, how to construct a logical argument, and what puella means.
Unschoolers claim that students who aren't forced to learn the mathematics tables in third grade can pick them up in a day once they hit sixth or seventh grade and get interested on their own. In our experience, the student who doesn't learn the math tbles in third grade will never be confortable enough with math to get interested in sixth or seventh grade.
For the Illinois Presidential primary. Not a big surprise, in the big picture, Daley being a Democrat. The curiousity of it, though, is that a) Obama hasn't formally declared yet, b) Daley rarely does this, and c) the primary is waaaaaay off.
Anyway, a good place to pay attention to for Obama scuttlebutt is the Chicago Sun-Times. Who, along with the Daley endorsement, report that Obama plans to announce his candidacy next month, meaning January. Not far off!
NAJAF, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. forces ceded control of southern Najaf province to Iraqi police and soldiers, who marked the occasion Wednesday with a parade and martial arts demonstrations.
Lots of hard work left. Man, it will be fantastic when U.S. troops hand over control of the 18th and final Iraqi province. I'm praying for that day.
I am thrilled to have found out about the blog maintained by Robert Godwin. I got to it through random links a couple days ago. Check it out. Godwin is an author, an avowed classical liberal, and in depth. He even critiques Ken Wilber with ease (some positive, mostly negative). It feels like home. (UPDATE! — Read this critique, for starters.)
I also commented on a blog maintained by a reader of One Cosmos; this blog is called "dicentra's garden". You can read the short bit I wrote there, if you click here. It has to do with the idea of human nature, and whether it is impacted by external forces (I believe it is not).
From a Q & A with the author, Arthur Brooks, who's work brought the topic into the public sphere:
Kathryn Jean Lopez: So, conservatives really are compassionate?
Arthur Brooks: Yes, especially when it comes to private charitable giving. This, for much of America, is the "surprising truth" in my book's title. For a lot of folks, this contradicts an entrenched stereotype that conservatives are stingy and venal because they tend to be against a lot of government income redistribution. According to one ham-handed (but amazingly popular) campaign sign in upstate New York before the 2004 presidential election, "Bush Must Go! Human Need, Not Corporate Greed." When we look at actual private charity, however, we see conservatives do just fine. For example, conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while (in these data, at least), earning 6 percent less income.
BRINGING CONSERVATISM TO THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Boy, that would be something for students to chew on. Such is the conclusion from this good article by Mark Bauerlein, called How Academe Shortchanges Conservative Thinking. The kwote:
...the conservative tradition remains a vital resource of ideas and theories, a heritage that claims world triumphs. To gain it the full measure it warrants — and to bring it to bear wisely on the issues we confront — we need more than conservative pundits on television or in the blogosphere, more than conservative publishers or think tanks. We need to subject it to the full analysis — critical and appreciative — of the academy, to bring conservative works into the classroom and onto the syllabus. It would be healthy for everyone if the academic curriculum broadened its scope, if the lineage of conservatism were consolidated into a respectable course of study — that is, if Hayek won one-tenth the attention that Foucault receives.
These two words came together in my head this morning, because thinking about how to integrate whatever I have of a Lutheran religion with my deep interest in the Humanities is something I'm wont to do.
In any event, Google provides. In this case, a very interesting article with more links for suggested reading about "Christian humanism". Here's a teaser:
Christian humanism is a faith-informed worldview that considers all things in the light of the redemption wrought by God in Jesus Christ. Like any humanism, it has the human person as its principle focus, the human person created in the image of God, wounded by sin, redeemed by Christ and called to eternal life in communion with God. The redeemed human person, in turn, cooperates with God in extending this redemption to all creation, "summing up all things in Christ."
Thus, for me, perhaps a "Lutheran Humanism"? The H in Humanism capitalized because God/theology plays a central role, along with the arts, classics, philosophy, history, languages.
This article by Mark Levin is both radical ("at the root") as well as at times extremist ("at the fringe"). Obviously, I prefer the former to the latter. Sorting through his article on how to reform the U.S. Supreme Court, here's the radical stuff, which actually sounds like two really good ideas. One is putting term limits on justices. The other is allowing a veto of Supreme Court decisions with a 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress.
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed as an institution. It needs systemic solutions. Two I favor are limiting the terms of justices and giving Congress the power to veto a Supreme Court decision with a super-majority vote in both houses. Both reforms would require constitutional amendments.
... Putting term limits on justices ... would actually help restore the balance the Constitution envisioned between the three branches of the federal government. With term limits, the Supreme Court would remain an independent body, but they would allow for the replacement of justices on a timely basis, rather than waiting for them to die or set their own retirement date. And if justices are going to use their positions to set policy and, in essence, participate in the political process without the benefit of standing for election, there really is no reason for them to serve for life.
Giving Congress a veto over Supreme Court decisions would also help restore the balance between the court and the legislature. If it took a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to veto a decision, such vetoes would not happen often. But it does allow the people, through their elected branches, to have the last say. For example, I believe the horrendous Kelo v. New London decision, which said local governments can seize private homes and turn them over to private developers for the purpose of raising the tax base, may have garnered the bicameral two-thirds needed for a veto. Were the court to misuse the 14th Amendment to create a right to same-sex marriage, as I suspect it might, that, too, might secure the two-thirds votes necessary for a congressional veto.
Basically, this is "checks and balances". Given the U.S. justices have, for over a half century, made it a rule (rather than exception) to read new rights out of the U.S. Constitution that plainly aren't there, these reforms would check a judiciary in those moments when it became unbridled.
That's a quote from this extremely depressing article from Brussels Journal. Here's another:
In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist" author Oscar Van den Boogaard...says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."
"Never learned to fight"! "Only good at enjoying it"! There's no better critique of secular socialism (which infects many countries in Europe, and has a toehold in America) that those simple words.
The Western mind is of two poles: Pagan Humanism (Greek/Roman) — which is the source of the idea of liberty — and Judeo-Christian — which is the source of responsibility. Thus, the most solid way to protect the Western-style civilization is to base our education (of children, of adults) around the seminal works making up each pole. Since I don't live in Europe, I advocate for America. And Americans, in order to defend our way of life (which contains multitudes, of course) need to reeducate ourselves about our own history.
The principle of "traceability" is more important than ever. People understandably like to know where their food comes from; they want to know its "traceability", back to the farms that provided the veggies and meat.
For those that haven't done so, that same principle needs to be transferred over to our cultural history. I venture to say too many people don't understand how America was the "dream of Europe"; how "liberty" in large part meant "freedom from government"; how there's a long lineage of thinkers through time, going back to ancient Greece and Rome, that planted the seeds that blossomed into America.
We need to make this knowledge our daily bread. Else, how can do anything but submit to those who want to take liberty away? Who don't believe in liberty? If it isn't important to us, we won't fight for it, will we?
SACRAMENTO -- For years, activists in the marijuana legalization movement have claimed that cannabis is America's biggest cash crop. Now they're citing government statistics to prove it.
A report released Monday by a marijuana public policy analyst contends that the market value of pot produced in the United States exceeds $35 billion--far more than the crop value of such heartland staples as corn, soybeans and hay.
The report estimates that marijuana production has increased tenfold in the past quarter-century.
AYAAN HIRSI ALI, ON MUSLIM DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST
Her entire new op-ed is kosmic from start to finish. Here's but one kwote, a retelling of when she first moved to Holland to study:
On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish.
I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book.
With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."
She was not saying anything new. As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust.
Never informed!
She concludes:
The world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust — not only in the interest of the Jews who survived and their offspring but in the interest of humanity.
For solo piano, a work of three short pieces I recorded one year ago that I recently remastered. These were for a film, but for cinematic reasons, the director chose not to use these for the film (a decision I agree with). In any event, these live on, here. The timings are, respectively, 1:47, 0:58, and 1:11 (that's minutes:seconds).
The first is Stepping into the Poetic Mind, a book review by Bill Harryman of the Camille Paglia Break, Blow, Burn collection of poetry and commentary.
The second is most recent installment of the Salamone/Dallman meeting of the arty-farty minds, a slice of our discussions that happen via instant messaging.
Economist Alan Reynolds (of Cato Institute) has written a new book (Income and Wealth, cited by National Review’s Rich Lowry) that includes the stunning revelation that the poverty rate among full-time, year-round workers above the age of 16 is a minimal 2.6%. In other words, if you’re over 16, and you get a full-time job, and hold it for a full year, there’s a better than 97% chance that you won’t be poor.
Meanwhile, among those households that occupy the bottom rung of the economic ladder (the lowest one-fifth in terms of annual income), the majority (an astonishing 56.4%) contain no one in the home who’s working.
REFLECTIONS ON MY FIRST QUARTER IN THE BASIC PROGRAM
This last Tuesday was my last meeting for this term. For those who don't know, I started study through the Basic Program for Liberal Education of Adults this fall, a 4-yr program offered by the University of Chicago. I have previously written about it here. For the four-yr reading list, click here.
I'm still amazed at how bleeding obvious it is that the setup of this class is precisely how great works of the Humanities ought be tackled. I mean, it is just great. A bunch of adults, enrolled in the class entirely because they want to be there (the program offers no credit towards anything), with no papers to write, or assignments at all, besides simply reading the works assigned, and coming to class with (preferably) questions about the work, or (at least) their thinking and listening caps on, so as to be able to participate constructively in the discussion. All moderated by someone from the Basic Program faculty, who artfully tends to the conversation, adding perspective when necessary (such as, what other translations of particular words might be, or contextual background), encouraging as many questions as people have, sometimes letting the students carry the conversation themselves, and changing topics when the moment required. All we do is closely read the texts, and talk about them. Simple as pie.
To refresh, each class is split in two. On half, the seminar, is devoted to several works read in succession; the other, the tutorial, to one work studied the entire quarter. For this first class (dedicated to the question, "what is virtue?"), the seminar was a succession through, in turn, Sophocles' Antigone play, Plato's Apology and Crito dialogues, and then Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment novel. The tutorial was dedicated to Plato's Meno dialogue. The tutorial and the seminar were moderated by different teachers.
I didn't like the teachers equally. Part of it I chalk up to simple personality/chemistry. But the one I preferred allowed the discussions to be a bit more free-wheeling. The one I didn't prefer seemed to want to drive the discussion a particular direction, come hell or high water, and also seemed less interested in alternate interpretations of certain passages (not entirely uninterested, mind you, just less so).
But the savior for moments of frustration were always the works. The material is so good, especially when approached the way the Basic Program encourages. That is expressed simply: see how the works speak to each other. See how ideas raised in, say, Crito address themes raised in Antigone. I found those connections were usually not immediately clear, but are there if you ponder with an open mind, and reward returned thinking about the ideas. In other words, not only the works themselves, but their relationship to other works, reward the time you let them live with you, and you with them.
In particular, I found the theme "inside the mind/thinking of a person who acts in a way they feel right while knowing others think them wrong" to be in all the works. The characters of Antigone, Creon, Socrates, and Rosnolnikov all act, in various ways, that they feel is morally justified, even when they also realized others profoundly disagree. So their heads are not in the sand, but at the same time, they are demonstrating something that Socrates suggested true about human nature — no one actually chooses to do evil, in the sense that even when one's choices are seen (after the fact) to have been wrong, the original decision to make that particular choice was on the grounds that the person truly thought it good.
Thus I was reminded how difficult (and, even, impossible) it is to really impugne someone's motives (as we see so often in criticism, say, of politicians). I think people are really trying to do the right thing, even if a choice of theirs leads to catastrophe. All of which is another way to say, "people don't wake up in the morning and ask themselves how much evil they can do that day".
I'm sure my thoughts will deepen in sophistication as time wears on, I return to the works, and read others that bring forth the ideas raised in this first quarter's offering.
I should point out that Meno was particularly helpful to me, at this point in my life, because its question "can virtue be taught?" directly impacts my decision about whether I'll enroll in art school next fall (where I was accepted to an MFA program in film scoring, but deferred one year to make up my mind). The dialogue in particular helped me sharpen my understanding of what knowledge is, what the relationship of student and teacher is, and the importance of being a motivated learner, no matter what. Also, I'm surprised I haven't heard more of the fans of Ken Wilber (or, even Wilber himself) cite Meno for the "state vs trait" distinction Wilber uses in his work. It is all in Meno, using the terms "opinion" and "knowledge", and how opinions fly away, and only become knowledge when they are tethered using reason.
Anyway, here's the course description for the next quarter, which I've signed up for. It starts first week of January.
In the winter quarter of the first year, the seminar juxtaposes key works from the West’s Greek and Judeo-Christian heritages: Herodotus’ History and the Bible. Traditionally considered the first history, Herodotus’ text explores the world-shaping conflict between the Greeks and the Persian Empire, addressing as well the moral and political aspects of empire building. From the Bible, we will consider Genesis, Job, and Matthew. The readings chosen explore the nature of history, the foundation and conflicts of nations, peoples, and faiths, and the position of human beings with respect to the larger universe (considered diversely through God, history, and fate).
The tutorial is devoted to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, best known for considering virtue in terms of the character human beings give themselves through their habitual choices and for considering the good choice to be an appropriate mean between possible extremes. Comprehensive in its scope, the Nicomachean Ethics also contains rich and challenging discussions of justice, friendship, and pleasure.
The Wall Street Journal, summarizing Kofi Annan's now-ended tenure as Secretary-General:
Mr. Annan came to power at a moment when it was at least plausible to believe that a properly reformed U.N. could serve the purposes it was originally meant to serve: to be a guarantor of collective security and a moral compass in global affairs. Mr. Annan's legacy is that nobody can entertain those hopes today.
From the (in my view) eminently sensible Peggy Noonan, writing in her column today. I think this might be pretty close to the truth:
It seems to me that our political history has been marked the past 10 years by lurches, reactions and swerves, and I wonder if historians will see the era that started in the mid-'90s as The Long Freakout. First the Clinton era left more than half the country appalled--deeply appalled, and ashamed--by its series of political, financial and personal scandals. I doubt the Democratic Party will ever fully understand the damage done in those days. In reaction the Republican Party lurched in its presidential decision toward a relatively untested (five years in the governor's office, before that very little) man whom party professionals chose, essentially, because "He can win" and the base endorsed because he seemed the opposite of Bill Clinton. The 2000 election was a national trauma, and I'm not sure Republicans fully understand what it did to half the Democrats in the country to think the election was stolen, or finagled, or arranged by unseen powers. Then 9/11. Now we have had six years of high drama and deep division, and again a new savior seems to beckon, one who is so clearly Not Bush.
We'll see what Sen. Obama has, what he is, what he becomes. But right now he seems part of a pattern of lurches and swerves--the man from nowhere, of whom little is known, who will bring us out of the mess. His sudden rise and wild popularity seem more symptom than solution.
The Chicago Tribune picked up the Washington Post piece about "non-notables" in Wikipedia. The article includes a quote from yours truly. And an update on that — my Wikipedia page was deleted. Ah, well. More grist for the mill.
From an interesting article in today's Chicago Tribune (emphasis mine):
On the Republican side, Obama said he considered Arizona Sen. John McCain to hold a position similar to Clinton as the early GOP frontrunner based on name recognition and resources, though he called former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney an "attractive candidate."
Also, points to Obama for recognizing what I think is close to the truth, that his popularity right now as "a stand-in for a lot of America's desire to turn the page and see a new kind of politics."
I'm holding to my prediction that it will be Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in the 2008 Presidential election. Fresh faces, fresh politics, fresh thinking in both men.
It is a fascinating back and forth between these two men. Lots of ideas, lots of charges of bad faith (ironically), lots of claims. I end up agreeing with Prager that agreement is not nearly as important as clarity — that is, clearly understanding what the arguments are. I further think Harris suffers when he doesn't understand how fundamental belief is, not only for religion, but for his own views. Thus Prager's underscoring of the importance of belief makes a lot of sense, though Harris doesn't acknowledge it. But be all that as it may, the real nut of the exchange (or any believer/athiest exchange) is captured by Prager, quite kosmically:
The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.
Again, whenever I read or hear "God", I translate it as something like, "that mysterious force of human interaction". The reason people worship this force is that it is so elusive of intellectual grasp, yet it tantalizes when we are seemingly least prepared to grasp it. Depersonalizing this force into "God" "gods" or the like is a way to worship something more tangible. But, at least as far as Christianity goes, an enormous part of the worship is that towards spirit. Or, put another way — the worship is of a particular kind of state of being, everyday in one's life. Harris argues of one kind of "state of being"; Prager another. Seeing this is important, for clarity.
The other thing I wonder about is the sources of moral authority. Inevitably, these form a kind of dogma in Christianity. But, honestly, so what? Dogma means "seems right". Moral codes based on the notion that following them "seems right" strike me as perfectly acceptable. And, interestingly, when Harris attempts to create his own "religion", what does it use for its tenets but dogma? Its use, like religion, is inescapable for humans.
War is like water, its recent manifestation like a pump that delivers more of it more quickly but does not change its essence, which is entirely human — and human nature is fixed.
Watch an interview here. Very insightful, these soldiers. There should be much more of these — more informative than anything I've seen on this war, yet. Strong statement, I know. But true.
This is helpful, towards putting together a classical education approach for our family that makes sense to us — it is an essay that makes distinctions between four kinds of classical education. Read the descriptions of each here. In turn, a "Secular-Intellectual Approach", a "Religious-Devotional Approach", a "Religious-Intellectual Approach" and "a distinctly Christian approach". So much of this has to do with the simple question — how much God? More specifically — how much of God as the moral authority?
The Secular-Intellectual approach is a lot of humanities/classics but little to no God (thus possibly leading to moral relativism). The Religious-Devotion approach is little to no humanities/classics and is God/Bible-exclusive for moral authority (and thus is reasonably called "narrow"). The last two are somewhere in the middle of those extremes — the Religious-Intellectual leaning more towards the humanities side; the Christian approach leaning more towards the God/Bible side.
A couple of premises/facts undergird our decision-making.
One is that, at root, humans are religious creatures. Thus it is not a question of religion or not (that is impossible), but rather what kind of religious outlook. Secular/atheism, after all, is a religion with its own beliefs. So it is silly to think one has an option about religion in their life. Myself, I hold the Bible to be profoundly allegorical poetry.
Both Hannah and I were brought up Lutheran (ELCA), stopped going regularly to church after age 18, for years went only for Christmas and a couple other Sundays, have considered starting to go to church again, and have also chosen to expose ourselves to not just Biblical scripture, but also religious ideas from Buddhism, Islam, ancient Greece/Rome, and others. We would never hang out hat on any of those, but we are decently-read when it comes to comparative religion.
I generally define God as that mysterious vital, organic force that animates human to human environments of all scales. It cannot be defined precisely, must be believed in, only traced in echoes, and has been historically depersonalized. Whenever I read anything having to do with God, I attempt this quick translation, and if it makes sense, I go with it; if not, I discard it. Surprisingly, most of what I've encountered of God can be translated successfully, resulting in insights more than a little interesting. The most concrete reflection of God, to me, is through good music.
We are big believers in the value of music and movement (dance, yoga) for Twyla, all throughout pregnancy and from the first days after birth onward. We've taken mama/daughter and papa/daughter classes/workshops galore, at one of our favorite places in the world, Chicago's Sweet Pea Studio.
We are big believers in mixed-age education, not the lumped-by-age approach of public/socialized education. Mind you, this means both learning from other children of a variety of ages, but also learning from adults of a variety of ages.
We are big believers in the "attachment parenting" approach, which for us means co-sleeping, never letting Twyla "cry it out", holding her as much as possible, tending to use slings rather than strollers, breastfeeding on demand, and trying to decode Twyla's early language cues from the beginning.
We are big believers in the use of rudimentary sign language for basic communication -- "more", "eat", "all done", "music", "hello", "goodbye", "toilet", "home", and slowly, more and more signs.
So, we are looking at some kind of hybrid of approaches to classical education. The overall developmental template of the trivium will hold in any case — grammar, logic, rhetoric (or, in other parlance, knowledge, understanding, wisdom). I've already mentioned our desire to integrate Waldorf education into the classical template. The question is how much God, to put it plainly. We know we want some — after all, God and Jesus Christ are just going to come up (in song lyrics, in readings, at church), so it would be silly and ignorant of the learning/paideia potential, to pretend these are just no big deal.
I've talked a lot on my blog about classical education. I'm constantly researching the approach, trying to gain more and more perspectives on it, to ensure we are doing the right thing when we choose to teach Twyla classically.
Here's a long excerpt, but one nonetheless very illustrative of the sustainable value of classical approaches, vs. more contemporary approaches, lumped here under the umbrella, "outcome-based education". This is very much a "teach a man how to fish" rather than merely giving him one:
O. B. E. is "outcome-skills based." It teaches "rhetoric" level skills without teaching the basic "grammar" and "logic" level skills. Here is an illustration:
Let's say we're going to teach you to play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on the piano by the O. B. E. method. We'll call this the "whole music" method. We'll sit you down at the piano and begin with the Moonlight Sonata. We'll tell you where to put your fingers, and we'll take you rotely through the piece. We may break the piece up into smaller and simpler portions at first, and we may introduce some "look-play" flash cards along the way. Eventually you will learn to play the Moonlight Sonata. It is likely you'll get your "certificate of mastery" for the Moonlight Sonata sooner than if we had taught you by the Trivium method.
What if you want to learn another song? That's where the difference in methods becomes noticeable. You'll have to come to us, and we'll have to teach you. We are the trainers, and you are the trainee. We are the masters, and you are the slave. You will be dependent upon us for everything you learn.
Of course there will be a few students who will "learn by ear" and who will "catch on" to the technique after a few songs. (Just as there are a few who figure out much of the English phonetic codes, and spelling and grammar rules on their own.) But most students will not figure it out on their own.
That is the Outcome Based Education method: You get good looking results faster, but they are shallow, and they don't last long. But most important of all, they create intellectual cripples who depend upon the educational system. Why? Because you never master the basics! You only master the outcomes! Creativity is tremendously stifled, because the student is never given the tools with which to create.
Now let's say we're going to teach you by the Trivium method. First we'll teach you how to read music. (That's the knowledge or grammar level.) Then we'll teach you the proper fingering. (That's the understanding or logic level.) Then we'll teach you the proper technique and expression. (That's the wisdom or rhetoric level.) After you've mastered these three levels, then we can begin to work on the Moonlight Sonata. Using the Trivium method will take you longer to master the piece than the O. B. E method. But the long term benefits are significantly different. Let's say you want to learn another song? You can teach yourself! In fact, you can write your own music! You don't need us anymore! You've mastered those arts which liberate you from your teacher so that you can learn on your own. That's why Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric are called "the Liberal Arts."
It's the same thing with teaching reading and writing. If you're taught by the "look-say" or "whole language" method, you're taught the "outcome" — you memorize the "look" of the words, but you never learn the basics. First you must master the alphabet and phonetic code. (That's the Knowledge or Grammar level.) Then you must master the spelling and grammar rules. (That's the Understanding or Logic level.) Then you must master style and composition. (That's the Wisdom or Rhetoric level.) Then you end with "whole language" — you don't begin with "whole language."
This last paragraph really ties it all together. Another way of thinking about classical education is that it starts with parts, and works over time towards wholes. Not the other way around.
A top-ten list, taken from here. Nos. 2, 4, and 5 don't jive with me particularly, though I find them interesting and not particularly bothersome. The others definitely feel right on.
1. The parents directly exercise their original jurisdiction in education.
2. The homeschooling model fits most closely to the model for education in Scripture.
3. Homeschooling is the only model which does not interfere with and abuse the moral instruction and accountability between parents and children.
4. The family is designed by God to educate children and it functions best when it is engaged in that task.
5. The direct parental instruction and modeling is best fitted for establishing Biblical values.
6. The daily family model of interaction with children and adults of various ages is best fitted for positive socialization and character building.
7. The one-on-one parent-child model of education is best fitted for academic excellence.
8. Children grow up in a "greenhouse" environment under those persons most interested in their physical, mental, and spiritual development and protection -- their parents.
9. Children are given the time and opportunity to experience and participate in real day-to-day culture and to genuinely develop their own interests.
10. The homeschool experience is well fitted for the mental and spiritual development of the parents.
Is public education -- the kind funded by tax dollars, the kind most common today in how we educate children -- really the best name? Because it is government-based and government-directed (federal, state, and local), isn't the most accurate name socialized education?
If so, ought we not recoil from it, as socialism, like we recoil from socialism as a political and economic philosophy, antithetical to liberty -- none other than freedom/liberty from state control of the stuff of life?
Feminist professor Camille Paglia has identified the exact moment Britney Spears "jumped the shark" (a reference to the "Happy Days" episode that marked the start of the series' decline). "A great promise was contained in the moment when Madonna kissed Britney at the MTV Awards," Paglia told Us Magazine's Web site. "She in a sense was saying, 'I'm passing the torch to you.' It was a fabulous moment. Britney looked toned, in control of her career . . . Literally from that kiss, from that moment onward, Britney has spiraled out of control. It's like Madonna gave her the kiss of death."
THINGS YOU FIND OUT WHEN YOU RESEARCH HOME EDUCATION BOOKS
You know the term, "off the grid"? As in, a home owner generates his own electricity, so he takes his home "off the grid" of the regular electricity? While I've never lived in such a house, I imagine that doing so feels a little like what I feel as Hannah and I figure out our strategy for home educating Twyla. We are "off the grid", in this case, of the "regular education" path, of the public/government school approach.
I mention all this because in poking around, I just found out that Noah Webster (yes, that Webster, of dictionary fame) published as one of his first books a phonics spelling/reading guide. It had various names, but it came to be known as the The Original Blue Back Speller (Vocabulary of a Warrior), (of a "warrior"!) and it is America's third most selling book, ever. And it is still in print.
From the amazon.com description:
The great American educator Noah Webster first published A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, otherwise known as the Blue Back Speller, in 1783. His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. Little did he know that this remarkable gem would become the staple for parents and educators for more than a century and would help to build the most literate nation in the history of the West. Many of the Founding Fathers used this book to home school their children, including Benjamin Franklin who taught his granddaughter to read, spell, and pronounce words using "Old Blue Back."
America of the 18th and 19th centuries sure seems like a more interesting place when you think of people like Noah Webster. Is it possible to acknowledge its creation at a time in American history where people did not have the rights of citizenship they ought have had, and still see this book's inherent merit, such as for continuity as an American, living today in a country with a rich but seemingly hidden past?
UPDATE: Wonder of wonders, you can download the entire Speller (scroll down to about the middle of the page).
From a reader who works in the social service sector:
I saw on your blog you recommend reading In Our Hands. I hadn't heard of the book before but maybe I will pick it up. Mostly because through the job I have now, I have become convinced that while in theory welfare and other public assistance programs are good things, the actuality is that I feel it only promotes negative behavior and low self-esteem among my clients. I don't think we should do away with all public assistance programs, however -- I think the solution lays in a more revolutionary idea of giving individuals the feeling they have a place in society and are useful.
It is hard because I have always had the abstract notion that the system is flawed, blah blah blah, because that is what I heard ever since I was young. But to actually deal with it on a day to day basis has convinced me that it never really worked in the first place as the inherent premise is quite degrading to individuals and communities.
That letter says quite a bit, doesn't it?
I'm still fishing for interest in a book-club blog about Murray's book (and the larger implications of his ideas within). So far, three people confirmed, with another thinking about it. I'd like to get to ten people, besides myself, to allow for a free-flowing conversation. The only requirement (besides having the book handy) is reading the book with an open mind. Plus, of course, the desire to have a fun, collegial, and honest discussion about it. Comment to this post or send me an e-mail -- md -at- matthewdallman -dot- com
...because if we get enough people talking about reform, it might just happen.
The world is a dangerous place for those in whom much hope is invested, and that's a heap of expectation piled on Obama's plate. If he decides to make a run, he will have his spirit tested.
Results of a chilling analysis (for the actual report, click here, PDF) of how United States campuses don't protect constitutionally-protected free speech, courtesy Hot Air:
Public colleges and universities are disregarding their constitutional obligations. More than 73% of public universities surveyed maintain unconstitutional speech codes, despite numerous federal court decisions striking down similar or identical policies.
Most private colleges and universities promise free speech, but usually do not deliver. Unlike public universities, private universities are not legally bound by the First Amendment. However, most of them explicitly promise free speech rights to their students and faculty. For example, Boston University promises “the right to teach and to learn in an atmosphere of unfettered free inquiry and exposition.” Unfortunately, it also prohibits speech that would be constitutionally protected in society at large, such as “annoying” electronic communications and expressions of opinion that do not “show respect for the aesthetic, social, moral, and religious feelings of others.”
Overall, the report reveals that more than 68% of the colleges and universities surveyed maintain policies that “both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.” Overbroad and vague speech codes from the 2005-2006 academic year include:
* Macalester College bans “speech that makes use of inappropriate words or non-verbals.”
* Furman University bans any “offensive communication not in keeping with community standards.”
* At the University of Mississippi, “offensive language is not to be used” over the telephone.
* The University of North Carolina-Greensboro prohibits “disrespect for persons.”
Without freedom of speech (besides the "yelling fire in the theater" kind), the capacity for a widely-shared sense of liberty, itself a state of being is wickedly diminished. Perhaps the best advice for parents who care about this is to cross of the list of potential colleges for their children any that have speech codes on campus. Which means 27% of American universities make the cut. Any keepers here?
