I love Thomas Sowell’s Random Thoughts columns.

Here is a math problem for you: Assume that the legislation establishing government control of medical care is passed and that it “brings down the cost of medical care.” You pay $500 a year less for your medical care, but the new costs put on employers is passed on to consumers, so that you pay $300 a year more for groceries and $200 a year more for gasoline, while the new mandates put on insurance companies raise your premiums by $300 a year, how much money have you saved?

Answer: You’re paying $300 more.

In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate’s comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage “being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments.”

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush’s fault.

I have no doubt insurance and health care will disappear in America in a near future. The system just does not work. I realized the other day my new job is supposed to have some kind of temporary insurance benefits while qualifying for the real thing (if it exists) and I read through the information. The dental is worthless. The eye thing is fake and it says the program is only a discount. The medical I perused and gave up.

I remember I was in junior college when the big news arrived. Social security no longer existed. Many Americans had worked and believed social security and Medicare will retire them. The television just passively let everyone know the elderly relying on social security had to go back to work (flipping burgers was their example and was not a joke) to supplement income. Social security officially qualified as 25% of retirement income as officials put it and not 100% and that was that. Health care once existed. I have had so many different plans and never cared for the entire business of it but today it seems to be disappearing quickly.

I still have one last opportunity and that is association insurance. As a college alumni, I can get a good insurance package (or could) by paying my group premiums. I think that is my best choice until health insurance officially does not exist and we have to go to Mexico for annual checkups and treatment. I remember George Bush senior giving speeches defending ‘there are those who say America has lost its greatness.’ Yes. It has and continues to do so. A third world country is what America, with the exception of bicoastal economies of East and West coasts, has always been and now the entire country is joining mid-America. Sometimes I wonder if things are fixed to go this way.

When Clinton was in office, he talked about ‘prosperity for all.’ One of the jobs of government by definition is to keep the rich from getting too rich and the poor from getting too poor to keep balance in the society. Clinton, by all accounts, removed that so social trouble will result. Democrats are as great as Republicans in many ways. By the time George W. Bush arrived, everything was set to collapse and it did. The big surprise is the trend has continued non-stop since Clinton days. The rich have been getting richer to extreme numbers and there seems no end to that while the rest are getting poorer and poorer except for the ability to consume and buy consumer goods. A cynical person may say that is government policy and things are locked to go in that direction. The big bosses have decided whatever and the little people need not know nor have any explanation of why and what. Things are what they are and that is that.

Isn’t the health care also disappearing as social security once did? What is social security good for besides moving to a very cheap state, moving out of the country or being on welfare? The welfare system seems very popular and effective. The poor are maintained as poor very efficiently and effectively. What do you think? Do you think the decline of America is an accident or a natural decline or that some entity in government or industry decided it in best interest of someone or someones and policies were developed to such effect?

The government as we know and have it is worthless and has been getting worse. The traditional systems are no longer functioning and we need a new way of getting things going no matter what. Republican party and belief has been dead since George Bush senior was pushed out of office and everytime they have returned it has been to hurt America, the world and get richer. They have been pushed out again by Obama event but what will happen now?

The Clinton era was a huge violation of the basic standards of American life in the interest of the Clinton beliefs. The Obama era is same as George W. Bush era because he not only does not violate anything that was put in place during Bush era but also has nothing to offer. We basically live in Bush era indefinitely while Obama pretends to be a hot shot. If Bush had put 100 evil policies in place, Obama has not changed even 1 and has nothing of himself to show either. America is locked in a world of anti-social policies of Clinton era and anti-humanity (evil) policies of George W. Bush era with no hope in sight. When will health care be banished for good so we can stop pretending we have health care? Those policies are in place and railroading America lower and lower. How long before we crash again or the Federal system is removed so the damage stops?

*This post belongs to this week’s edition of Writing by Cush blog and published early in World of Cush also.

I saw a piece on 60 Minutes last night about the blood tainted gold from the Congo that reminded me of why I have such little regard for journalism.

The story: There’s gold and political instability in the Congo, which lead to heinous power struggles and gangster violence, rapes and other human rights violations.  The culprits?  It must be those darned gold dealers.  Walmart and such.  They don’t track the gold back to the source, so they buy (by some “best estimates” provided in the story, 1%) of their gold from Congo sources which fuels the bloody power struggles.

Typical journalism.  Blame the end user.  Here are some questions or data I would have provided  if I were the reporter on this story:

1) What is the form of government in this country that allows such human rights abuses (that would be the killing and rapes) and power struggles for mineral rights to take place?

2) What is ineffective about Congo’s government compared with the governments of countries that apparently supply the other 99% of the world’s gold that doesn’t appear to be subject to such chaos?

3) Why do people stay in the Congo if it’s so bad?  Why don’t they leave for a better a life?

4) How would a gold dealer be able to tell if gold came from the Congo or not?  Do they simply take the gold seller’s word for it?  Do you honestly think that would be an effective way to end the violence in the Congo?  Even if gold could be traced to the source, you don’t think a black market would keep that gold flowing?

As I’ve mentioned here before, I’m spending a fair bit of my professional time lately thinking in terms of argument, debate, and persuasion.

This morning, I introduced the concept of rhetorical argument to my high school juniors and seniors, and I’m fairly sure that they really didn’t get it.

If you haven’t had much experience with them, allow me to explain that, in general, teenagers are a very sensitive and emotional lot. Further, they are very often prone to the exaggerated and the dramatic; if it’s worth doing, it seems, it’s worth doing BIG.

I probably should have remembered this when I tried the same tactic with them that I did with my L.U. kids; I came into class and wrote “arguing” and “fighting” on the board, then I asked them to discern a difference. Not only did they have trouble keeping their consideration grounded in the rhetorical (they wanted to explain that “fighting” necessarily involved some sort of physical altercation), but they had a tough time drawing a distinction between what one does when arguing with someone and what one does when fighting.

It took a while, but I managed to get them around to the ideas that my favorite LU kid came up with in terms of the goals of the different activities; the CHS kids were able to comprehend that, in this scenario, anyway, the goal of argument is agreement, where the goal of fighting is power.

They’re still firmly in the realm of fighting, though, so my aim for this week is to get them to understand the difference between reasoned and careful argument and, well, ranting.  To that end, their homework assignment for tonight is to go online and find a couple of different rants; one with which they agree and one with which they don’t (I gave them some suggestions for where to look).  Their task is to work through an analysis of each of these presentations; to determine the message and the intended audience, to see and explain the organizational structure of the piece, to recognize and respond to the way the opposition is addressed (and characterized), and to evaluate the piece as a whole in terms of its efficacy.

Tomorrow’s class will be about the structure of argumentative pieces and the ethical use of information.  The kids are going to go out of their minds in this unit, I think; I’m fairly certain they’ve never been pressed to present their thinking – especially about things they feel strongly about – in ways that are organized, careful, and logical.  Keeping them from rolling their eyes at each other and engaging in ad hominem attacks is going to be my biggest challenge, I think.  Wish me luck.

Somebody asked me to write in my blog an alleged anecdote that the President of India (or whoever that guy is visiting the Whitehouse) has asked Obama to come to India. Apparently the Indians plan to make Obama the President of India also. The President of India (or the guy in the photos) has explained to Obama that people nowadays have two citizenships and there is nothing wrong with Obama being both citizens of India and United States. Furthermore, Obama is the only world leader that looks alike Indians and will be received well there. Indians are very advanced and think if double citizenship is possible why not doublt Presidency? Obama was assured as President of India he absolutely has nothing to do nor to worry about. All he has to do is go around and act like he is the President. That is what is expected of leadership in India and the Indians think Obama is world reknown for doing just that in the United States. They are also excited that United States will be as mess of a country as India in a few years thanks to Obama’s ‘leadership’ thus qualifying Obama for the job even more. Obama has thanked the Indians to discuss the offer with his advisers. I told this person I cannot write this stuff about our beloved President and I was asked if I am really the guy who writes the ’shit blog?’ I told him I really don’t write ’shit’ about anybody unless that person is already it so technically no I am not. I promised I will think about his story.

*This post belongs to this week’s edition of Writing by Cush blog and published early in World of Cush also.

My Aikido sensei (teacher) was discussing Aikido with us after class last week, and he shared some thoughts on the translation of Aikido as “the art of peace.” Although some do translate Aikido this way, the literal definition is open to interpretation. The word breaks down this way: AI – harmony, KI – spirit, mind, or universal energy, DO – the Way.

My sensei pointed out that as a martial art, Aikido is based on the reality that life includes conflict. After all, we can only practice Aikido when someone initiates an attack of some kind. What makes Aikido unique among martial arts, however, is how the Aikidoist responds to conflict. Although an Aikidoist could easily harm an attacker by meeting conflict with force and aggression, those trained in Aikido choose to use the energy of the conflict to dispel it. The Aikidoist neither allows herself to be harmed nor harms her attacker. In my sensei’s interpretation, Aikido may be more accurately understood as the art of responding well and wisely to conflict rather than as the art of peace.

But if one translation of peace is the absence of conflict, and if the elimination of conflict is impossible, then peace must be understood as a perpetual process, not a static endpoint. We may strive for peace (both inner and outer), but conflicts continually arise. How we meet those conflicts ultimately determines whether or not we create peaceful outcomes.

Seen this way, Aikido can be viewed as the art of peace as long as we recognize that conflict underlies its existence and understand that Aikido is the art of creating the most peaceful, healthy, and kind response to that conflict. In my mind, Aikido is a MOGO martial art – a way to meet conflict by doing the most good and the least harm.

Like my sensei, I do not believe we can put an end to conflict. The MOGO principle, to do the most good and the least harm to ourselves, other people, animals and the environment, provides a philosophy replete with tools – like Aikido techniques – to create the greatest possibility for peaceful, harmonious, healthy, and humane outcomes over and over again.

And as with Aikido, we must practice to become adept at MOGO choicemaking. It takes many years and much commitment to practice to become a good Aikidoist, just as it takes a great effort and commitment to the MOGO principle to truly manifest its potential in our lives and the world.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education

Image courtesy of marius.zierold via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Go beyond the textbook, students!

More than just as tribute to the victims, more than just a disaster story, the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. fire, and the following events including the trial of the company owners, lay out issues you can see clearly.  I think the event is extremely well documented and adapted for projects.  Theses events lay a foundation for understanding the great issues of the time.

A couple of good websites crossed my browser recently, and you should go investigate.

• From Cornell University’s Institute for Labor Relations, a site the features writings of some of the victims, headlines of the times, and several other documents suitable for classroom use or in building a Documents-based Question for an AP class.  Read accounts from survivors of the fire, and stories from some of the victims.  This is a good place to get a feeling for what people thought, then.
• From the University of Missouri-Kansas City, the home of the Douglas Linder’s “Famous Trials” page, the story of the trial of the owners of the company (they were acquitted).  This site is rich in information and images, a real gold mine for in-class slide presentations and student projects.  Just browse it, and it will make you smarter. Spend some serious time looking at, studying and analyzing, the photographs and drawings.

Events around the fire illuminate so much of American history, and of government (which Texas students take in their senior year):

• Labor issues are obvious to us; the incident provides a dramatic backdrop for the explanation of what unions sought, why workers joined unions, and a sterling example of a company’s clumsy and destructive resistance to resolving the workers’ issues.
• How many Progressive Era principles were advanced as a result of the aftermath of the fire, and the trial?
• Effective municipal government, responsive to voters and public opinion, can be discerned in the actions of the City of New York in new fire codes, and action of other governments is clear in the changes to labor laws that resulted.
• The case provides a dramatic introduction to the workings and, sometimes, misfirings of the justice system.
• With the writings from the Cornell site, students can climb into the events and put themselves on the site, in the courtroom, and in the minds of the people involved.
• Newspaper clippings from the period demonstrate the lurid nature of stories, used to sell newspapers — a working example of yellow journalism.
• Newspapers also provide a glimpse into the workings of the Muckrakers, in the editorial calls for reform.
• Overall, the stories, the photos, the cartoons, demonstrate the workings of the mass culture mechanisms of the time.

Use the sites in good education, and good health.

This post is adapted with permission from Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

Allen Shore: That’s what troubles me; this notion that we have to take sides in this country now. You’re either with us or against us, Republican or Democrat, red state or blue state -

Denny Crane: I can’t believe I live in a blue state.

Allen Shore: No one looks at an issue and struggles over the right position to take anymore. And yet our ability to reason is what makes us human. Lately we seem so willing to forfeit that gift of reason in exchange for the good feeling of belonging to a group. We all just take the position of our team. I’ve certainly done it and hated myself for it.

Denny Crane: I’ve never heard you make so much sense.

Allen Shore: I make sense all the time. You just listen intermittently.

Denny Crane: Could be.

One of the remarkable privileges you experience when you do find that partner is getting to translate your love for certain series and movies to someone else. Such is the case that Heather and I have been watching Boston Legal from beginning to end. I grew up a huge David E. Kelly fan, first as a young teen watching Ally McBeal and the Practice, onto Boston Public, and then ultimately, Boston Legal; the pinnacle of his career.

The genius of the dialogue; the intelligence that was entrusted to the viewer in hopes that we would be able to reciprocate… It is something that almost pains me to watch nowadays, as the DVD stops and the channel switches gears to Tom Delay on Dancing with the Stars.

It’s one of the few series that, if we still had it today, might really benefit society. It started conversations around dinner tables or out at the bar that were thought provoking, instead of brain draining. The subjects, narratives, and characters were so well orchestrated, unrelentingly complicated, and offered something quite different than the soul coughing that is allotted in prime time venues now, where you can pick up and leave off wherever you want (ironic, given that now the bulk of cable viewers have the luxury of DVRs, so that we can always rewind if we missed Kim Kardashian get something sucked, or in case Tiger Woods runs into something else).

In light of this weekend’s story regarding “Fetal Personhood,” and with Americans continuing to bitterly divided ourselves between the Fox camp and reality, I thought this clip as pertinent as it was prophetic. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it as well, and if you’ve never seen the show, then please allow me to humbly recommend it.

 This is a new blog, so I’m still trying to sort out and categorize at least some of the stuff I’d like to get into.

One of the troubles, of course, is that categories are simply not always mutually exclusive. There is a lot of overlap that naturally presents itself here.

Of course, that’s the beauty behind the use of all the Categories and Tags, as used on a blog. It gives me a way to address that overlap, while allowing you to pick your own path to the stuff that’s of interest to you.

Here’s a short-list of some of the categories I’ve been toying with (and please, feel free to make suggestions here):

• Iconoclasm – It’s a Dirty Job, and Why I Like To Do It.
• People who choke at the 1st mention of Creation Theory (notice I said “theory”), and those who should really cutback on their own self-gratification, before they go blind.
• Why Have We Let Iraq Have All The Fun – People Who Should Be Brought to Trial and Hanged for War Crimes.
• Dipped ‘n Rolled, and Wrapped in a Flag
• People I’d like to beat with a stick.
• People Apparently Appalled at the Current Able Administration.
• Acerbic Pals ‘O Mine – A Blog Roll

Also still under consideration:

• Ass-holes On The Air
• Pee-holes In Public Office
• The Dumbing-Down of the Republican Party

Come on people – Help me out here.

- Rushhumble

After having been made aware of this film – containing an extensive debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson – I found the internet correspondence which prompted its recording. The issue concerns the question of whether Christianity is, in Wilson’s words, “good for the world”. The internet communication contains a number of arguments and counters which will be broken down and presented by my particularly analytically skilled, and as I’m continually informed, small head… Ok, maybe it’s just small.

Hitchens’ first argument:

Although Christianity is often credited (or credits itself) with spreading moral precepts such as “Love thy neighbor”, I know of no evidence that such precepts derive from Christianity. To take one instance from each Testament, I cannot believe that the followers of Moses had been indifferent to murder and theft and perjury until they arrived at Sinai, and I notice that the parable of the good Samaritan is told of someone who by definition cannot have been a Christian.

To these obvious points, I add that the “Golden Rule” is much older than any monotheism, and that no human society would have been possible or even thinkable without elementary solidarity (which also allows for self-interest) between its members. Though it is not strictly relevant to the ethical dimension, I would further say that neither the fable of Moses nor the wildly discrepant Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth may claim the virtue of being historically true. I am aware that many Christians also doubt the literal truth of the tales but this seems to me to be a problem for them rather than a difficulty for me. Even if I accepted that Jesus—like almost every other prophet on record—was born of a virgin, I cannot think that this proves the divinity of his father or the truth of his teachings. The same would be true if I accepted that he had been resurrected. There are too many resurrections in the New Testament for me to put my trust in any one of them, let alone to employ them as a basis for something as integral to me as my morality.

The Logic Police’s Reconstruction:

• P1. If moral behaviour predates Christianity then Christianity is not a necessary condition for moral goodness.
• P2. Moral behaviour predates Christianity.
• Conclusion. Christianity is a not a necessary condition for moral goodness.

Hitchens is also making the claim that:

• P3. The existence of a Human Society is a sufficient condition for the existence of some moral goodness.

This is good news for Hitchens since if Conclusion and P3 are true he has denied Wilson the possibility of claiming that Christianity is a necessary condition for moral goodness.

Wilson’s first counter:

Your first point was that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that “Love your neighbor” stuff, not to mention the Golden Rule, and the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society. You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are “incredibly immoral.” In your book, you make the same point about other religions. Apparently, basic morality is not all that self-evident. So my first question is: Which way do you want to argue this? Do all human societies have a grasp of basic morality, which is the theme of your first point, or has religion poisoned everything, which is the thesis of your book?

The Logic Police’s Reconstruction:

Notice that although Wilson alludes to Hitchens’ first argument he does not address it directly. Wilson avoids doing so because he believes that two of Hitchens’ premises are in logical contradiction:

• P3 (Wilson’s altered version). The existence of a Human Society is a sufficient condition for the existence of moral goodness.
• P4. Many Human Societies are incredibly immoral.

By accusing Hitchens of believing both these premises, Wilson makes it seem as if Hitchens is claiming that a society’s existence guarantees its moral goodness, which, in turn, rules out the possibility of it being ‘incredibly immoral’. Since this involves a contradiction, either P3 or P4 must be false and Hitchens must decide which to abandon.

However, and here is the logical sleight of hand, Wilson can only make this accusation after removing Hitchens’ existential quantifier in Premise 3 — the word ‘some’. Without doing so P3 and P4 are not in direct logical tension since an ‘incredibly immoral’ society may contain some moral goodness. Of course, this is precisely what Hitchens believes. In removing the requisite quantifier Wilson has violated the principle of charity and either intentionally misrepresented Hitchens’ argument or committed a relatively shabby logical error. The contradiction is spurious and, as a consequence, provides no legitimate challenge to Hitchens’ original argument.

As it stands the score is as follows:

• Hitchens: 1   Wilson: 0

Make sure you check back for the Logic Police’s second installment of the Wilson Vs. Hitchens debate!

No, I’m not talking about the social bookmarking site.

I’m talking about education and food. That’s what this blog is supposed to be about and in a Twitter response to my last post, @ToughLoveforX remarked that high schools should have teaching kitchens.

I disagree.

All schools should have teaching kitchens. Maybe even all classrooms.

The earliest lesson that I remember from my schooling was when, in first grade, we shook heavy cream for what seemed like forever to make whipped cream and butter.

The next lesson I recall is when we made applesauce.

There was a time not that long ago when most high schools and middle schools had classroom kitchens. Most were removed shortly after Russia’s first space shot galvanized American educators to get serious about science and math because we had to put a man on the moon.

Been there. Done that.

Now its time to reexamine that decision to remove those kitchens.

Kitchens are the perfect venue for teaching middle and high school students.

Those students have an abundant interest in food and eating, so there is incentive to show up for class.

Each of the major disciplines can be addressed in the process of completing the task of planning, preparing and reflecting on the flavors of a menu.

Researching dishes to include on a menu involves language arts, social studies and nutrition science,

Scaling the recipe of a dish for a smaller or larger number of servings is measurement math and multiplication or division.

Costing the price of the ingredients, creating a budget and doing the purchasing incorporates various math concepts and skills.

Cooking and baking involve chemistry, physics and nutrition science.

Invitations, dish descriptions and critiques all involve writing.

And so on.

And why stop there? Sewing classes, woodworking shop, and other venues of practical skills are rich with academic possibilities.

Every day I have students coming to me and asking for food. Every student in my school is eligible for free breakfast and lunch, but I hear stories about how mom works two jobs and doesn’t come home until midnight and then starts to prepare supper.

It is a long stretch between an 11:30 or noon lunch and a midnight or 1:00 AM supper. Even if there were no academic benefits to having teaching kitchens, doesn’t it make sense to give these students the ability to prepare a nutritious meal or two?

There is a big push right now to introduce more and more technology into classrooms and I’m all for that. But the technologies most classrooms need are not interactive white boards or hand-held computers; what classrooms need are stoves, ovens, chopping blocks and refrigerators.

The investment for a classroom full of computer-based technology and a teaching kitchen are roughly the same but kitchen equipment is far more durable, more easily maintained and far less likely to become obsolete within a few years of purchase.

Critics of my proposal, and I expect there to be many, will say that classroom kitchens don’t teach 21st Century skills, or that I’d just prepare kids for flipping burgers.

Nonsense.

Writing a recipe is pure concept mapping.

Planning a menu requires the accumulation and integration of information from a variety of sources and the creation of a cogent new document. Its a process of planning, drafting, gathering feedback, revising, proofing and publishing. Sound familiar?

Well run kitchens require collaboration, planning, critical thinking, problem solving, adaptation to changing circumstances, the ability to gather and evaluate information, mutual respect, attention to detail, and the ability to apply principles learned in the synthesis of new concepts.

Those sound like 21st Century skills to me.

Is there some risk in giving your average high school student a cleaver and 10″ chefs knife? Absolutely, but far less than giving that same student a car.

The fact is, the technology most classrooms need is not an interactive white board or hand-held computers; what they need are stoves, ovens, chopping blocks and refrigerators.

OK, maybe a computer or two to access recipe sites and to write the class blog.

There is something that most religious parents who indoctrinate their children into their own religion have in common. These parents usually teach their children that fictional characters such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real. This kind of parenting can only be characterized as sub-standard.

If parents should teach their children anything it should be critical thinking. Children need to learn how to properly evaluate the things they encounter in life. They need to know how to ask the right questions and be able to analyze information to come to rational conclusions. Teaching them that imaginary characters are real will only make them more susceptible to unfounded claims in the future.

There is also the problem of lying to children. Teaching them something which you personally know isn’t true is morally wrong. And for you Christians, it violates the 9th commandment. There is also an element of idol worship involved (violation of the 2nd commandment), especially for Santa Claus whom children basically pray to for presents.

The Santa Claus myth also promotes doing good for the sake of reward and avoid doing wrong out of fear for punishment (i.e. coal) because you are being watched by an omniscient supernatural being (sounds familiar). This teaches children an unjust system of morality. Children should learn that good has intrinsic value and should be done for its own sake.

Moreover, for many of these myths the child’s belief of the supernatural entity involved is required in order for them to receive the reward. This teaches children that it is okay to believe in something without proper evidence. And even when children begin to ask questions parents will continue to lie to them in order to keep them believing in the myths as long as possible (to not spoil their fun). The result is the discouragement of healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, it seems like teaching kids about these more softer versions of religion makes it easier to push the hardcore religion down their throats. The step from Santa Claus to Jesus is not that far. I guess it is all just part of the religious program of indoctrination.

I read a very short blog post with an excellent point about writing. Why is it that some people can write on while others have trouble writing anything? I have a relative who cannot write even a sentence and he almost went to graduate school. Some people write for a living and others are forced to write and they do it. I can write easily on some topics and really have nothing to say on others. I think the bulk of the people who write professionally are forced writers. I have been told by so many people that most professional journalists (at least in San Francisco) are really professional employees. They specialize in remaining hired and the whole profession revolves around this essential need. Their writing does not fall into any of the categories that a person would assume most writing falls into. They simply write not because their training and experience qualifies them as the better people for that function but because they are employed and it is a requirement of employment.

I used to get much praise for my blog for being a discovery blog. Discovery blog posts can be great source of content start for professional journalists by their originality of ideas. The topic of a discovery blog post can be anything and as long it engaged the writer’s mind, something possibly valuable could appear in the writing about the idea. That is the true criteria for what makes a discovery blog post. I was told last week by one of the great San Francisco journalists (who used to encourage this blog a lot) that my blog ought to be called the ’shit blog’ because all I do is talk shit about everyone. I see nothing wrong with that since the purpose of a discovery blog post is to write what the writer has to say about what has engaged the mind. If all there is to say is ’shit’ about someone or something so be it. I still hear from others that discovery blog posts are valuable in principle and more such blogs should exist.

What is the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? So if Newsom is the enemy and I am no friend of his that makes me their friend? I guess that is subjective. They decide if that cliche is the truth and for how long it is valid. If they are not getting laid off anymore, then the f…. with everyone including the enemies of the enemies because the enemy failed to get them closed down or am I wrong?

And what of the professionally employed journalists of San Francisco? I heard in the grapevine (which is only accessible by a few) that their parent corporation has finally figured out what is the future for a daily paper written page after page by professionally employed people. The future is worse than past. I hear the axes that were not to fall by end of the year are swinging again and the bean counters now want to close down the whole paper and say maybe someday begin with a whole new staff who are not professionally employed people but real journalists. I personally would have to say the difference between a publication of forced writing and genuine writing is the latter will be received by its audience and can survive financially.

What a weird week I had hearing strange things happening next month!

*This post belongs to this week’s edition of Writing by Cush blog and published early in World of Cush also.

Have the appendix from forthcoming book 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein handy. Presented on the Edge Foundation’s web site along with an excerpt of the novel’s first chapter, the appendix identifies the many flaws in 36 arguments that a supernatural being exists.

Edition 22 had over a dozen posts of reflections and short pieces and worked out well so I expect for follow this format.

Time has arrived for the public libraries and other large size book carriers to separate the outdated texts from the uptodate and valid texts to save us some time and ebooks are now a must. UC raised the price on its brand last week resulting in riots. How much will a college logo on the back of a person’s head will finally cost in the future and do we have a chance of living in the society with only an education but not the actual brand label? And twitter got blamed again for something it did not do. The first decade of 21st century is aptly named George W. Bush Decade (of evil worldwide and domestic) but I made too many people angry for calling a spade a spade. Michael Jackson has some company since last week. And did you know not all celebrities are human according to very credible psychics? Twitter scam is ending and celebrities are ordered not to use it before s..t hits the fan. There is nothing I would want more to see everywhere starting 2010 than inexpensive vertical computer monitors (or at least ones that swivel with a motion) for reading texts (fast) by enlarging the ebook pages. And people used to worship Saints at one time until celebrities took their places. Could a celebrity be no more than a common criminal with much protection from the law? I found another explanation why Yelp shilling does not work. And TV is to be banned sooner or later for the sake of our lives.

*This post belongs to this week’s edition of Writing by Cush blog and published early in World of Cush also.

Edition 22 had over a dozen posts of reflections and short pieces and worked out well so I expect for follow this format.

Time has arrived for the public libraries and other large size book carriers to separate the outdated texts from the uptodate and valid texts to save us some time and ebooks are now a must. UC raised the price on its brand last week resulting in riots. How much will a college logo on the back of a person’s head will finally cost in the future and do we have a chance of living in the society with only an education but not the actual brand label? And twitter got blamed again for something it did not do. The first decade of 21st century is aptly named George W. Bush Decade (of evil worldwide and domestic) but I made too many people angry for calling a spade a spade. Michael Jackson has some company since last week. And did you know not all celebrities are human according to very credible psychics? Twitter scam is ending and celebrities are ordered not to use it before s..t hits the fan. There is nothing I would want more to see everywhere starting 2010 than inexpensive vertical computer monitors (or at least ones that swivel with a motion) for reading texts (fast) by enlarging the ebook pages. And people used to worship Saints at one time until celebrities took their places. Could a celebrity be no more than a common criminal with much protection from the law? I found another explanation why Yelp shilling does not work. And TV is to be banned sooner or later for the sake of our lives.

*This post belongs to this week’s edition of Writing by Cush blog and published early in World of Cush also.

Do you grimace when Sarah Palin’s name comes up in discussions?  Do you think that might  have to do with her evident disregard for facts?  With her encouraging a right-wing flight into fantasy? 

Or could it be this personal, as Lisa Belkin in the NY Times maintains:

If life is like high school, then today’s educated, ambitious women, on both sides of the aisle, are the student-council presidents and the members of the debate team — taught that if they work hard and sacrifice something along the way, their smarts will be rewarded.This makes Sarah Palin the head cheerleader. (Though, in reality, she was the captain of the basketball team.) Pretty and popular, with no apparent interest in studying, she’s the one who industrious girls were tacitly promised would not succeed in the real world. Whether we voted for Hillary or not, we weren’t about to let Palin breeze in, with her sexy librarian hair and her peekaboo-toed shoes, conforming to every winking, air-brained stereotype, and sashay to the front of the line.

This observation, I’m inclined to say, is utter bull.  It is wrong about our take on success in the world, and it is wrong on why we dislike her.  But can I speak for “we”?  What do you think about the explanation?

Let’s have a poll!  In fact let’s have two.  The explanation the NY Times article looks like it comes from a particular view about psychological explanations.  That view says that the most basic explanations of your beliefs, desires and actions will turn out to be very narrowly self-regarding and even pretty petty, if not fundamentally very erotic.  E.g., you may think that you oppose Palin because she further taints politics with vicious lies, but really you feel she just shows you aren’t pretty and sexy enough.

So let’s start with this poll:

And then go to this one:

Let’s say you go see a movie.  You get to the theater, buy your ticket, and grab a seat, maybe after a quick stop by the concession stand for an $8 bag of popcorn.  The previews drag on for about ten minutes, and then the movie finally starts.  You sit on the edge of your seat throughout the whole showing, totally engrossed in the story that flashes in front of you on the silver screen.  After about an hour and a half the film comes to an end, the credits start rolling, and you make a beeline for the nearest restroom.  Then you head home.  However, what you may not have realized is that for the entire hour and a half that you sat in a sedentary daze, a philosophy about life was being drilled into your mind.  What’s more, it may have been absorbed without even being challenged.  That is, unless you were thinking critically.

When a person thinks critically about something, he doesn’t just take it at face value.  The goal isn’t to swallow it in one bite, but to break it down and analyze it, making careful judgments about everything that is said and done.  For Christians, critical thinking is, well, quite critical to their faith.  No matter who says something, no matter where it was seen, every message that is heard must be dissected and carefully examined in order to distinguish truth from lies.  According to Scripture, Christians are called to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5), as well as being “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).  How can this be accomplished if we turn our minds off to what we read, watch, and listen to?  To be honest, we’re never really immune to the messages.  Whether we realize it or not, we absorb them without a challenge when we fail to think critically and take them captive for Christ.  When this happens, our worldview is gradually overtaken not by the truth of God’s word, but by the lies we fail to detect and destroy.

Let’s take a second to address the issue of worldview and how it relates to critical thinking.  (If you don’t know what a worldview is, check out a previous post on this topic by clicking here.)  In essence, your worldview is the lens through which you view all of reality.  If your worldview “lens” is blurry, you will likewise view reality in a blurry and misinformed way.  The Christian’s job is to always be examining and “touching up” his worldview, feeding himself with the truth of Scripture. As he does so, he will be able to see reality in an increasingly clearer light.  This clearer vision will enable him to become more effective at locating messages that are contrary to or in correspondence with reality.  As he learns to apply this vision in all areas of his life and carefully examines them, he becomes a better critical thinker.

 That’s a quick look at the importance of critical thinking.  Critical thinking, like many other worthy pursuits, is not an easy thing to do.  However, when it is faithfully and methodically employed in our thoughts and reasoning, our minds — and judgments — will become increasingly stronger and prudent.  This post is just a brief overview of the value of critical thinking.  If you would like to learn more about critical thinking in general and how to develop and apply it to your life, you can check out this link from Summit Ministries here.

New Scientist magazine profiles one of my favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, the University of Minnesota biology professor who writes Pharyngula. Key quote:

In Pharyngula, Myers campaigns for evolutionary science, takes aim at creationists and proselytises for atheism while ridiculing religious beliefs with a sharp virtual tongue. In one blog post, for example, he wrote, “There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid… And nothing makes them stupider than religion.”

In person Myers says, “Religion in this country is protected by a wall of silence. You cannot argue with religion. As an atheist I try to teach people that you don’t have to respect religious differences or ideas. This is something that I would like to get across to people: disrespecting ideas is a good thing.”

Or, as I put it recently, ridiculing the ridiculous.

Are You a Paperclip or a Balloon?  Do you like things organized and logical, or would you prefer to be a free-thinker?  Pushing the balloon in all of us is critical in fostering deep thinking in your classroom.  Here are a few ways you can integrate creative thinking.  If they take away too much from your routines, think about ways you can incorporate creative thinking in do nows or homeworks.

Metaphorical Expression (Creative)

• Carousel brainstorming
• Direct and Personal Analogies
• Compressed Conflicts

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves logical thinking and reasoning including skills such as comparison, classification, sequencing, cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deducting and inductive reasoning, forecasting, planning, hypothesizing and critiquing.

Creative Thinking

Creative thinking involves creating something new or original.  It involves the skills of flexibility, originality, fluency, elaboration, brainstorming, modification, imagery, associative thinking, attribute listening, metaphorical thinking and forced relationships.  The aim of creative thinking is to stimulate curiosity and promote divergence. 

Metaphorical Expression Strategy

The Metaphorical Expression Strategy uses direct analogies, personal analogies, and compressed conflicts to teach new concepts or to deepen students’ understanding of already known concepts.  Using these three types of metaphors to look at content gives students a new/and or different perspective on the material.

Metaphorical expression is the rich use of metaphors in communicating with others.  We use metaphors in school to help students gain a greater insight and deeper meaning by seeing content in new and different ways. 

    Typically in schools, we teach to the strengths of the left hemisphere: the analytical side, which responds best to verbal, abstract, and sequential material.  The right hemisphere deals with spatial relationships and pictorial, holistic and nonverbal cues.  Metaphorical expression engages both sides of the brain.

CAROUSEL BRAINSTORMING

Purpose:

1.    to brainstorm (gather and grow) in a group and within the whole class in order to generate as many ideas as possible in the pre-planning stage

2.    to think outside the box in order to create a thesis for an open-cycle compositionthat’s original and would hook the audience

Carousel brainstorming provides an alternative to traditional brainstorming by allowing participants to move from one area of the room to another and to work in groups.  It provides an opportunity to generate lots of ideas in response to different prompts as well as to the thinking of others in the group.

The carousel begins with groups positioned at different stations around the room.  At each station a different idea or question relating to a general topic is posted.

A signal is given.  Each group brainstorms responses at its assigned station.

After an appropriate amount of time, groups rotate to new stations and generate responses to the question or idea posted at that station.  The group can generate new responses, expand upon previous groups’ responses, or provide support for ideas already generated.  Groups continue to move until all groups have visited each station.

At the end of the session, groups participate in a “walk around the gallery” reading of the final list of responses.

• How is intelligence like love?
• If creativity were a machine, what would it look like?  Draw your idea below.
• If you were a salad, what type of dressing would best match your personality?
• How would you feel if you were a great book that was never read.
• What are some things that are both trapped and free?
• Generate as many ideas as you can for each of the following: helpful anger and sensitive strength.
• Generate as many ideas as you can for each of the following:  speedy procrastination and simple complexity.

DIRECT ANALOGIES

1.    Choose an analog that provides conceptual distance (two objects that are not usually similar)

2.    Explore connections between the subject and the analog.

3.    Communicate connections made.

4.    Reflect on how the analog doesn’t fit.

Sample Activity:

         Place bags of common household objects on each table.  Give each student a card with the name of a concept, process, social issue, or problem on it.  Instruct each student to pick an object from the bag.  Then have them make connections between the idea on the card and the object selected from the bag.  For example, if the card selected has the word “multiplication” and the object selected is a book of matches, the student should explore ways in which multiplication is like a book of matches.

PERSONAL ANALOGIES

Have you ever felt like a doormat or a rug?  A wet blanket?  A wallflower?  Many times we compare ourselves to inanimate objects in order to express our feelings.  Personal analogy, defined as “the description of how it feels to identify with a concept, process, or living or non-living thing, gives feelings and emotions to both animate and inanimate objects by treating the object as if it were human.”  Using personal analogy is an indirect way to develop a new context for familiar content and for getting a better understanding of the content.  They are appropriate for all grade levels and content areas.  They are particularly useful for content normally viewed as far removed from the human experience.

In personal analogy, students involve themselves by empathetically identifying with the concept or process being studied.  The personal pronoun “I” is used in personal analogies, and the concept of process is personified by giving it human feelings and characteristics.

Personal Analogy Example:

Pretend you are someone’s favorite old shoe.  What makes you a favorite?  Why would someone put you on instead of a shiny shoe?  What do you like?  How do you make the foot that you’re on feel?

COMPRESSED CONFLICTS

A compressed conflict is a type of analogy that is rich with paradox.  Compressed conflict is a metaphor that describes an object or concept using two words that contradict or fight each other.  It usually takes the form of a noun modified by an adjective or adjectival noun.  The modifier is the element that causes the strain or conflict.

Some compressed conflicts are more subtle than others.  “Imprisoned freedom” is an example of a compressed conflict where the two words that constitute the phrase are in conflict or opposition.  “Passive violence” is a compressed conflict that describes pollution and suggests more than just conflicting descriptive words.  There is the sense that violence cannot be passive, yet we know that the results of pollution are destruction, death, and disease, words that connote violence.  At the same time, pollution is passive in the sense that it does not occur on its own but occurs as a result of human activity.  It appears impossible that these two words, passive violence, could be used together to describe one concept, but they can.

Conceptual strain is built in to compressed conflict.  The two words that make up the compressed conflict oppose or fight each other.  The present contradictory yet descriptive dimensions of the concept of process.   It may provide broad insight into a subject.  It is developed by a process that is essentially analytical.

Introductory Activity for Students Unfamiliar with Compressed Conflicts

State the following to the students:

Have you ever felt happy yet sad?  Confused about something yet sure about what to do?  Angry because a loved one was late yet relived that he or she arrived safely?  Life is filled with contradictions and paradoxes.  Problems, solutions, situations, even people have contradictions.  Contradictions help us see the complexities in life.  They help us recognize the duality in life and the need to keep things in perspective and balance.

Think about your own personality.   Think of one word that best describes many aspects of your personality.

Now think of another word that describes your personality yet is in conflict with or fights the first word.

Now, put the two words together to form a phrase and explain it to your neighbor how the phrase describes your personality.

Phrases such as cheerful pessimist, flexible determination, or warmly aloof are examples of compressed conflicts that might describe a personality.

Resources to Check Out:

http://members.tripod.com/~ozpk/000create

http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook1.htm

http://www.infinn.com/creative.html

http://www.creativitypool.com/

What are my issues with pseudoscience? With antiscience? Why bother with promoting science and skepticism? What’s the harm in believing what just feels good? Who cares whether or not it’s true?

We live in a world where science and its applications have given us amazing abilities, in the process making us the most powerful species on Earth, the only one at this moment of history that can potentially preserve or destroy it, or at least ourselves.

The problem is this: Not only do we have incredible potential as a result of science and technology, more than we’ve had in over 99% of our history as humans, not only does the vast majority of the population have easy access to this potential, but we’ve put real understanding of the relevant science and its implications into the hands of a comparative tiny handful of people.

This is a hazardous combination of often willful ignorance and power that is very likely to get us all killed in the next hundred years or so if not abated.

Even if not, especially when promoted for ideological reasons or those of personal gain, the spread of pseudoscience, because real science is sometimes difficult and pseudoscience is superficially more appealing, causes the bad science to crowd out the good.

Because many pseudoscientists and antiscientists promote their agendas using force or deception, since they do not have evidence or logic on their side–if they did, they’d be scientists–and often have a need to control others using dishonest tactics, ‘lying for the Greater Truth™’ rather than letting others come to their way of thinking by way of full understanding and freewill, aside from any apocalyptic considereations, the unchecked spread of irrational beliefs results in the spread of fear and confusion in a society, which potential dictators and theocrats delight in, for this keeps the people from thinking, and allows easy control over the masses.

Tyrants don’t like it when people can think for themselves, and people who try to keep you from doing so are never your friends.

I live in a country where the current Adminstration, after eight years of incompetence with often failed attempts at secrecy and suppression of civil liberties by the previous one, has once again permitted debate and dissent to be patriotic, as should be the case in a free nation.

I think that these are more than adequate reasons for the existence and purpose of this blog, and I challenge anyone to show me otherwise…hello?…hello?

I thought not.

(Last Updated 21:58, 11/27/2009, Grammar Correction)