Some people think of war as the answer. My theory is that war is the ultimate multiplier of misery. The formula is simple - "A" does something evil, like gassing civilians. "B" punishes "A" by delivering high explosives via missile or bomb. Many more die, both military and civilian, because bombs and missiles are almost as indiscriminate killers as poison gas. "A", to prove his manhood, shouts "down with the evil empire" and gasses more civilians or even takes a poke at "B". Of course we know what happens next - "A" finds himself needing to double down on the bombs and missiles and the body count starts going up in geometric progression. Eventually one evil becomes many and that's why the mathematics of war is and always will be a multiplier of misery with illogic as it's only product.
Click the link below for the real value of war. You can thank Erwin Starr for doing the math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
Do we love children - What shall we teach?
The "Common Core" - The set of school standards promoted and supported by the Obama Administration is off to a rocky start. Tea Party activists decry it as federal interference in the duties of parents and individual states. Some parents say the testing provisions are too hard and worry that children will fail.
What I worry about is whether parents and other adults are well enough educated to know if the new standards will be good for children. At the risk of sounding smarmy and smug , many of us have not been trained in the one thing The Common Core is designed to teach - Critical Thinking. If we were, we might first educate ourselves in the new standard. For your edification, here is the link to the site: http://www.corestandards.org. Then if we thought the ideas had merit we could try them for a long enough period to discover their usefulness. That is the scientific way to discover truth, or at least usefulness. Why don't we try it?
Perhaps we don't really love children? Maybe what we want from children isn't critical thinking and the ability to act creatively, but to have them be just like us. Maybe what we really love is ourselves and our own prejudices reflected in the next generation?
If we want to believe in progress and the proposition that our children will be better and better off than us we can't kill new methods before they bear fruit. Let's love our children enough to test the new for a little while before we retreat into our caves.
What I worry about is whether parents and other adults are well enough educated to know if the new standards will be good for children. At the risk of sounding smarmy and smug , many of us have not been trained in the one thing The Common Core is designed to teach - Critical Thinking. If we were, we might first educate ourselves in the new standard. For your edification, here is the link to the site: http://www.corestandards.org. Then if we thought the ideas had merit we could try them for a long enough period to discover their usefulness. That is the scientific way to discover truth, or at least usefulness. Why don't we try it?
Perhaps we don't really love children? Maybe what we want from children isn't critical thinking and the ability to act creatively, but to have them be just like us. Maybe what we really love is ourselves and our own prejudices reflected in the next generation?
If we want to believe in progress and the proposition that our children will be better and better off than us we can't kill new methods before they bear fruit. Let's love our children enough to test the new for a little while before we retreat into our caves.
Monday, August 12, 2013
If Addiction is a Disease, Why is Addictive Behavior a Crime?
The US Attorney General is talking about finding ways to reduce the number of our sons and daughters in jail for possession of dangerous drugs. I can only applaud his actions even though his reasons seem to revolve around saving money and not the lives of addicts.
The consensus of the scientific and medical folks is that addiction is a disease. Addicts have the same chance of recovery, if untreated, as they would have of recovering from cancer untreated. The evidence is that dangerous drugs act on addicts in ways that change their bodies and minds for the worse.
There's a feeling in the larger community that if addicts just changed their behavior they will be cured. Doesn't work for cancer or the common cold and the evidence is that it doesn't work for addicts either. Regardless, we still feel that addiction is the fault of it's victim and that it's an offense against the community. As a result, we incarcerate instead of treating these victims of disease.
A cynic might point out that the rich, white addict does usually get diverted into treatment and that the poor and black and brown almost never do. That's a larger problem and probably not amenable to medical treatment. We can certainly do something about helping addicts of all stripes; however.
If we overcome the mistaken idea that the disease of addiction is the fault of it's victim we can surely treat it at a cost less than the cost of incarceration. As a sop to the Tea Party, I would suggest that we might get more bang for the buck if we expand the private sector treatment that is already in place. That combined with additional research into treatment and prevention might solve the problem without the high cost associated with prisons and the justice system.
The consensus of the scientific and medical folks is that addiction is a disease. Addicts have the same chance of recovery, if untreated, as they would have of recovering from cancer untreated. The evidence is that dangerous drugs act on addicts in ways that change their bodies and minds for the worse.
There's a feeling in the larger community that if addicts just changed their behavior they will be cured. Doesn't work for cancer or the common cold and the evidence is that it doesn't work for addicts either. Regardless, we still feel that addiction is the fault of it's victim and that it's an offense against the community. As a result, we incarcerate instead of treating these victims of disease.
A cynic might point out that the rich, white addict does usually get diverted into treatment and that the poor and black and brown almost never do. That's a larger problem and probably not amenable to medical treatment. We can certainly do something about helping addicts of all stripes; however.
If we overcome the mistaken idea that the disease of addiction is the fault of it's victim we can surely treat it at a cost less than the cost of incarceration. As a sop to the Tea Party, I would suggest that we might get more bang for the buck if we expand the private sector treatment that is already in place. That combined with additional research into treatment and prevention might solve the problem without the high cost associated with prisons and the justice system.
The slaughter goes on...
I've already said just about all I want to about guns and violence. From The New York Times here is a summary of the last weeks gun deaths and incidents:
Weekend Gun Report: August 9-11, 2013 A weekend in the life of armed America.
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/weekend-gun-report-august-9-11-2013/?smid=pl-share
Weekend Gun Report: August 9-11, 2013 A weekend in the life of armed America.
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/weekend-gun-report-august-9-11-2013/?smid=pl-share
Friday, August 2, 2013
They Still Don't Get It, Do They?
The Tea Party and their friends in the US Congress are "still not getting it". The old saw attributed to everyone from Albert Einstein to Alfred E. Newman that says "If you hope for a new outcome - don't use the same old actions" is still true and the Tea Party still doesn't believe it.
Let's face it, if you have 30 million poor folks and you take away their food stamps you have 30 million folks poorer and hungrier. Our friends in The Congress seem to think that's a good thing - or maybe I misjudge them and they haven't thought about that 30 million folks at all? Let's remember that most, if not all, of our friends in Congress are at least well enough off that they have no need for the tax payers help at the grocery store.
Social scientists have studied those who are better off than you and me. You may be surprised to learn, as the scientists have, that with wealth you get a change of attitude. Oddly the well off start to feel that they have earned the right to be selfish. They feel that helping others isn't as important as gaining and retaining wealth.
This is not how the rich like to be portrayed. It is: however, the truth about many of them and it is certainly true for the Tea Party Caucus in our Congress. They are not like Warren Buffet or Andrew Carnegie - they take but they don't give anything back. If the poor want their share they must find ways to get it for themselves.
Of course, there is a paradox here, you and I have acted as if the same old actions will dig us out of the same old hole as well. Let's be clear here - If we go on allowing those with the money to convince us that $7.50 per hour is an adequate wage and that the bosses vacation in Antigua is his due while the workers go hungry, then we are the crazy ones.
As you know, I am a Socialist at Heart and have a preference for actions that equalize wealth distribution across class and ethnic boundaries. I'm calling for the revolution to start now. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in non-violent action. We have no need for bloody or destructive methods unless they are thrust upon us by wealth and power of the Capitalist Minority. The social sciences have taught us ways to win through the ballot box and the picket line and the sit down or through economic boycott.
Let's not fall into theTea Party trap. We can not do the same old thing and expect a new and different outcome.
Let's face it, if you have 30 million poor folks and you take away their food stamps you have 30 million folks poorer and hungrier. Our friends in The Congress seem to think that's a good thing - or maybe I misjudge them and they haven't thought about that 30 million folks at all? Let's remember that most, if not all, of our friends in Congress are at least well enough off that they have no need for the tax payers help at the grocery store.
Social scientists have studied those who are better off than you and me. You may be surprised to learn, as the scientists have, that with wealth you get a change of attitude. Oddly the well off start to feel that they have earned the right to be selfish. They feel that helping others isn't as important as gaining and retaining wealth.
This is not how the rich like to be portrayed. It is: however, the truth about many of them and it is certainly true for the Tea Party Caucus in our Congress. They are not like Warren Buffet or Andrew Carnegie - they take but they don't give anything back. If the poor want their share they must find ways to get it for themselves.
Of course, there is a paradox here, you and I have acted as if the same old actions will dig us out of the same old hole as well. Let's be clear here - If we go on allowing those with the money to convince us that $7.50 per hour is an adequate wage and that the bosses vacation in Antigua is his due while the workers go hungry, then we are the crazy ones.
As you know, I am a Socialist at Heart and have a preference for actions that equalize wealth distribution across class and ethnic boundaries. I'm calling for the revolution to start now. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in non-violent action. We have no need for bloody or destructive methods unless they are thrust upon us by wealth and power of the Capitalist Minority. The social sciences have taught us ways to win through the ballot box and the picket line and the sit down or through economic boycott.
Let's not fall into theTea Party trap. We can not do the same old thing and expect a new and different outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)