Musings of the Great Eric

As one learns more about history, the shine tends to come off of a lot of its heroes. We learn that many of the historical figures we put on a pedestal were in fact human beings, who often made mistakes and came complete with moral failings. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, George Washington could and did lie, Thomas Edison was kind of a huge dick, and JFK had more foreign policy bungles than he had successes in his unfortunately short term in office.

Martin Luther King Jr., however, is an exception to that rule. The more I’ve learned about him, the more inspiring he’s become. He stood for what was right, without compromise, and spent his life fighting for those beliefs. His life was tragically cut short forty years ago today.

After the jump is the text from his last speech, delivered in Memphis Tennessee on April 3, 1968: (more…)

Explanation, via NASA’s Image of the Day. View it in its full size glory.

Every once in a while you just have to sit back and marvel at this age of wonders we live in. This incredible place exists nowhere on Earth. And unlike every similar photo from Earth you might see, there’s not a living thing to be found anywhere in this image. This is a photo taken on another planet, transmitted across space, and brought to your computer screen.

Amazing.

Via Dani Rodrik, this graph:

In a nutshell, under Republican Administrations, the richest see their incomes grow the fastest, and the poorest see it grow the slowest - inequality increases. Under Democrats, every income group gets richer faster, with the poorest seeing their incomes rise the fastest - five times faster than under Republicans. Wow.

The graph comes from Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels’ new book, soon to be released. Now quoting Rodrik:

Bartels shows in his book that this difference is not a statistical artifact or a fluke.  It is not the result of Democrats coming to power during better economic times, or of Republicans reining in the unsustainable excesses of Democratic administrations they replace. (It turns out that the same pattern prevails even when a Republican president is succeeded by another Republican.) These numbers are real and they are the outcome of partisan differences in policy. So if you are one of those who have bought the story that income distribution is the result of pure market forces and technological changes, with politics playing no role–think again.

I haven’t read the book, so for the moment I’m just taking the data at face value, and assuming that Bartels did his homework and controlled for all other variables. But the idea here isn’t new; Paul Krugman has argued often and convincingly that inequality is tied to public policy, especially under the Bush Administration.

The idea that the President has such an influence on policy, which in turn has such an influence on the economy and income distribution is a pretty profound one with some pretty disturbing implications - that’s an insane amount of power vested in one individual. But to be honest, I don’t have the faintest clue what might be done about that and consequently won’t say any more on it.

A more direct and obvious question though (which Rodrik asks) is why the hell do people vote Republican? Like, ever?

There have been a multitude of theories put out there. Thomas Frank put forward the most compelling theory in What’s the Matter with Kansas?, arguing that Republicans use social issues (like abortion and gay marriage) to get people to vote against their own economic interests. Krugman argued in Conscience of a Liberal that it comes down to good old fashioned racism. In my view there’s no silver bullet explanation - politics and voting behavior are complex beasts.

Given that the Republican party isn’t even able to significantly improve the economic outlook for the very wealthy compared to Democrats, it does beg the question of why even that group supports them, given economic history. They’ve got to be fooling themselves before they get around to fooling the lower classes that vote Republican - and that’s damn interesting.

As only Monty Python can explain it:

Remember that infamous 3 AM red phone ad Clinton played right before the Texas primary?

It was wrong on a number of levels, not least of which because the person people want to answer that phone is McCain rather than Clinton. As it turns out, it’s also pretty ironic, because the girl sound asleep at 3 AM in that ad is actually an Obama supporter and precinct captain, and has shot her own ad for Obama:

Thus teaching the Clinton campaign an important lesson about the dangers of using stock footage.

Obama’s speech yesterday, in full.

I didn’t have the chance to post this yesterday, because I’d wanted to say something more substantial than what was already being said about it. But since then I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t say anything to either add or detract to it. I can only encourage others to listen to it - in its entirety - and show our fellow Americans that we really are as good, as mature, as intelligent as he believes us to be.

RIP, Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008

It’s rare that the death of someone I never personally met affects me; but I read this headline and immediately felt sad.

His contributions to science, science fiction and literature are more than I’ll make any attempt to list here. I shall forever admire his creativity regarding what’s possible; and he was one of the authors who helped to ignite my own imagination as well as my love of science. He’ll be greatly missed.

The video is his last message to Earth, from about three months ago on his 90th birthday:

The most appropriate obituary I can imagine is credited to a comment on Reddit:

The death of any sufficiently brilliant man is indistinguishable from immortality

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. - Wall Street, 1987

Of course, the Reagan-era economy  that Michael Douglas’ character summed up so well here looked positively sane and egalitarian compared to the Bush economy now imploding around us.

I honestly don’t know enough about financial markets to comment intelligently upon what’s happening today, other than observing that words like “emergency” and “crisis” are being tossed around by many commentators, joining the talk of “recession” that’s been present for the last few weeks. But I thought it would be worth revisiting the fundamental idea that got us into this mess, which obviously has yet to change in the minds of some on Wall Street.

Greed is not good. Maybe this time we’ll actually learn that lesson.

Lyrics are mine, but with a hat tip to the excellent Tom Tomorrow and this classic Onion article for the inspiration, as well as the original Spider-Man theme song.

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Does whatever 9/11 can
Makes bold claims, every size
Just like Bush, they’re all lies
Look out! Here comes 9/11 man.

Is he dumb? Listen man
Now he wants to bomb Iran
Can he be that corrupt?
Take a look, there’s Bernard Kerik
Hey there, there goes 9/11 man!

In the chill of night
On the city’s dime
With the help of NYPD
His mistress is right on time…

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Friendly crossdressing 9/11 man
The FDNY, he’s ignored
9/11 was his reward

To him, life is a big terror attack
Even when it comes to Iraq
You’ll find the 9/11 man!

The Daily Show writers on the writer’s strike:

An observation: This clip is a little rough, but remarkably entertaining, and manages to capture that Daily Show goodness.

A further observation: This clip got from the writers brains to my eyes (and now yours) completely without the aid of a producer, distributer, cable network, or giant media conglomerate.

It seems clear to me what Viacom need writers for - clearly, its overpaid CEO isn’t capable of stepping up and churning out anything that anyone would want to watch, let alone pay money for. What the writers need Viacom for… that’s less clear. Especially given that this strike is primarily over residuals for internet revenues, which the writers have proven here that they’re more than competent enough to get on their own.

Now, the last time the writers struck, Viacom (and its equivalents) were providing a critical service to anyone with talent - they were the only entity capable of distributing media to a wide audience. Now, they’re just a middle man between the talent and the audience, offering a service that’s fast being commoditized. I wonder if any of the writers will figure that out, and look to cut them out of the equation for good?

When asked who my “hero” or “role model” is, my answer is and shall forever be “none” - but Einstein has always ranked a close second. He’s always been an individual that held a particular fascination for me, and someone in whom I’ve always found a lot to admire. So it was with a lot of interest that I picked up the biography Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, and I’m happy to say it does justice to my almost-hero. It really is an engaging account of his life, and shows why Einstein is such an iconic figure of science.

For those who might be wondering, the book does include a great deal of scientific discussion and explanation, as it’s impossible to separate from Einstein’s life and key to understanding him. Suffice to say that I think that Isaacson does an excellent job explaining it in an accessible matter and integrating it into the larger story. His descriptions of Einstein’s insights are among the clearest that I’ve ever read, effectively explaining both the ideas and what made those ideas revolutionary. Most interesting to me was that the author placed the theory of relativity in context - both the historical context of scientific thought at the time, and more importantly perhaps, the context of Einstein’s life. The theory is explained not as an end in of itself, but for what his methods and insights reveal about his thought processes and character.

(If you’re curious about the science, Einstein’s own book on the subject Relativity: The Special and General Theory was written for the layman and is very readable.)

After all, the book is a biography first and foremost, and the main thrust is to study the human being rather than the physics. And it’s the descriptions of Einstein the person that make it such a wonderful read. As I said above, I’ve always been fascinated by Einstein - he’s a remarkable individual, and this biography illustrates why.

Naturally, the most fascinating aspect of Einstein is his genius. This is a man who in 1905 revolutionized our understanding of the universe, while working as a patent clerk. The author makes clear that though this was his crowning achievement that was never quite matched by anything later in his career, his unparalleled genius is still ever present throughout his life and work.

I wish I could say that I identify with this aspect of the man, but alas, I don’t - it’s people like him that make me feel deeply humbled and highly aware the limits of my own mind and intelligence. What I do identify strongly with is his humanity. I share (or at least, hold a respect for) many of his ideas about politics, religion, and his philosophy of science and beliefs about nature. Einstein was a fierce individualist, nonconformist, as well as a kind, humble, and thoughtful human being. He’s at least as notable for his idealism and political beliefs as he is for his science (Einstein’s essay Why Socialism? is another good read). This biography captures all those traits, as well as offers a path to understanding how and why they manifested in him as they did.

What I perhaps liked most about the biography itself was simply the humanizing treatment of its subject. Einstein was a real person, and like all people he had his personality flaws. He was not infallible, and certainly not when it came to his interpersonal relationships. The author did not portray him as a hero, a God of science, or perfect genius, but as a complete human being. I feel that discussing these human weaknesses helped to underscore his strengths. More historical figures should get such a treatment, as it makes them far easier to identify with. It’s much easier to aspire to greatness when we realize that even the greatest among us were far from perfect.

Overall, it’s readable, enjoyable, and interesting, and comes with a high recommendation from me.

A prophecy:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.’ The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun, July 26 1920

Come true:

Q: Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the line on taxes –

THE PRESIDENT: Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the actual grade point average. (Laughter.) I remind people that, like when I’m with Condi I say, she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C-student, and just look at who’s the President and who’s the advisor. (Laughter.) But go ahead.

- George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

It’s interesting to hear Bush sum up exactly what Mencken said in so many words. Look who’s the President, indeed.

And one other quip about his own intelligence from that same press conference:

Q: Do you think there’s a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low — (laughter) — and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money. We’ve submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced by 2012, so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance the budget without raising taxes. - George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

(Actually, he was more correct in the first quote; he was a C student through and through. And the quip about getting an A in fiscal responsibility… I won’t even dignify that comment with further acknowledgment.)

Of all the peculiarities of human nature, anti-intellectualism is the one that confounds me the most. What is it about being a moron that makes you want to be governed by fellow morons, rather than someone who’s more intelligent? Why would one actively and enthusiastically subvert yourself to that? Yet it seems even more true today than when H.L. Mencken penned that first quote 87 years ago.

There’s simply no other way to explain it.

Shiver me timbers! Since ’tis september 19th, and in me continuing effort t’ combat global warming, to be sure, I demand all me readers talk like a buccaneer t’day, I’ll warrant ye, t’ be sure, or else I’ll have ye walk th’ plank, I’ll warrant ye, arrr.

Here’s some resources fer those o’ ye who need help: buccaneer glossary, t’ help ye learn t’ speak like one, aye, ye scurvey dog. A list o’ buccaneer laws, t’ help ye properly behave. And o’ course, to be sure, th’ official Talk Like a Pirate Day web site.

Morality has always puzzled me; not least of which because it seems to dwell so much on individual sexual behavior, rather than how we treat our fellow humans. In a world with such suffering, where so many wrongs are committed by human beings against each other… it’s just mind boggling that what two consenting adults do with each other can be of any concern others. Yet this is the front and center issue of morality crusaders, and in their minds takes precedence over suffering, poverty, violence, the environment… all things that strike me as being of far greater moral concern than who’s boinking whom. Why is that?

The answer seems to have come in a fascinating article in the New York Times yesterday (now without a pay wall!), which examines the biological basis for morality and is titled Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) began his research career by probing the emotion of disgust. Testing people’s reactions to situations like that of a hungry family that cooked and ate its pet dog after it had become roadkill, he explored the phenomenon of moral dumbfounding — when people feel strongly that something is wrong but cannot explain why.

Dumbfounding led him to view morality as driven by two separate mental systems, one ancient and one modern, though the mind is scarcely aware of the difference. The ancient system, which he calls moral intuition, is based on the emotion-laden moral behaviors that evolved before the development of language. The modern system — he calls it moral judgment — came after language, when people became able to articulate why something was right or wrong.

The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously — they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already arrived at through moral intuition.

In a nutshell, evolution shaped the things we’re disgusted by. Those who felt disgust at the mistreatment of others in their tribe were more likely to survive and pass their genes on, because they could participate in a society and reap the benefits of belonging to that group. But so to did evolution program us to feel disgust at certain sexual acts - homoeroticism and female promiscuity being chief among them. Again, because those who didn’t were less likely to pass their genes on.

According to Dr. Haidt, this forms our most basic level of morality - an emotional reaction of disgust towards certain acts. After we evolved language, we rationalized and codified this emotion, thus forming the basis for morality, religion, and social norms. And so non-moral issues like sex got grouped together with truly moral issues like theft and murder.

Of course, this just raises a question about results produced by that second mental system discussed in the article. People, once we evolved language and reason, naturally enough, began to question why they felt such disgust at certain behaviors. But rather than correctly reason (as I did above) that an aversion to homosexuality is an adaptation to guide us towards lots of heterosexual sex and therefore grandchildren, our ancestors made a rather astounding leap of logic and assumed it to be a universal law, enforced by a diety. “God wants it that way”. This impulse towards religious explanations over rational ones is another thing that’s always baffled me, but it’s something the article fails to explain.

The article also begs the question of why this seems to be something less than universal. Why do some people (such as myself) have such low regard for authoritarian morals and social norms, and instead hold to an ethic driven by a respect for individual rights and freedom? Dr. Haidt touches on this question. He describes five categories of morality, and notes that liberals essentially disregard three of them - these happen to be the three that sexual morality could conceivably fall into. Overall I find this explanation lacking though. I disagree with several of the points he makes - most notably an assertion that conservatives are better able to understand liberals than vice versa (anyone who’s spent any time dealing with the religious right or who’s listened to right wing talk radio would beg to differ). Mostly however, I think it just lacks explanatory power; it describes the thinking of liberals and conservatives, but doesn’t attempt to explain from where those differences emerge.

Overall it’s a thought provoking piece though.

Even the most basic explanations of the fall of the Roman Empire never fail to include “reliance on mercenaries” in the laundry list of reasons. I think about that every time contractors and Blackwater’s name in particular come up in the news.

Link.

Without any reference to their cover story of a few weeks ago that spawned my post Our Idiocratic Education System, there appeared this blurb in the current issue of Time magazine which briefly discusses groups that are trying to change the No Child Left Behind act to track the smart kids as well, and offers some statistics relating “giftedness” to socioeconomic status. It’s short, but it should of interest to anyone interested in the topic.

I can’t claim a deep understanding of what happened with Shinzo Abe that led to his resignation last week as Prime Minister of Japan. There’s unfortunately a language barrier between myself and the kinds of primary sources that I utilize to gain an understanding of English language politics.

What I gather from the international press is thus: He took office a relatively popular guy with high approval ratings, suffered a series of scandals, events, gaffes, and outright screw ups that led to a dramatic reversal of his approval ratings that hurt his party this past July and forced his resignation this last week. I won’t comment upon the precise nature of any of those events because, as I said, I lack the deep understanding necessary to say anything intelligent on the matter. Instead, I’d like to offer what’s to me the most striking thing about his tenure as Prime Minister, from my American perspective: he resigned.

I can’t help but observe that in many respects, the story of Shinzo Abe mirrors the political decline of another world leader, George W. Bush. But whereas Abe is now out of office and Japan has a chance to correct itself under new leadership, the US is stuck with Bush for another 15 months. Unfortunately, Bush lacks the integrity and honor of Shinzo Abe - or Richard Nixon, for that matter - so it seems a deeply unlikely thing that he’ll just do the right thing and resign before the end of his term in 2009. Further, the Democrats in congress lack the integrity and spine to do the right thing and impeach him. The American people, meanwhile, are left with no other option to remove him from office - which means we’re stuck with him.

The world is at a crossroads, and the US is in a critical state. We’re in desperate need of able, competent, and effective leadership, who can see us through this difficult time of military conflict, an imminent energy crunch, global environmental damage and climate change, and shifting economic fortunes. The notion that we have to wait at least another 15 months before any of the critical issues of the day are truly addressed is disturbing. Somehow, some way, the US needs a mechanism that can make what happened in Japan happen here - the removal of a President from office mid-term, when his continued presence becomes so antithetical to the public interest. We could learn a serious lesson from Japan in this regard.

I heard someone mention this other day, and finally remembered to look it up - it’s pretty remarkable. Emphasis is mine, but other than that here’s the platform of the 1872 Republican party reprinted in full:

The Republican party of the United States, assembled in National Convention in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th and 6th days of June, 1872, again declares its faith, appeals to its history, and announces its position upon the questions before the country

First. During eleven years of supremacy it has accepted with grand courage the solemn duties of the time. It suppressed a gigantic rebellion, emancipated four millions of slaves, decreed the equal citizenship of all, and established universal suffrage. Exhibiting unparalleled magnanimity, it criminally punished no man for political offenses, and warmly welcomed all who proved loyalty by obeying the laws and dealing justly with their neighbors. It has steadily decreased with firm hand the resultant disorders of a great war, and initiated a wise and humane policy toward the Indians. The Pacific railroad and similar vast enterprises have been generously aided and successfully conducted, the public lands freely given to actual settlers, immigration protected and encouraged, and a full acknowledgment of the naturalized citizens’ rights secured from European Powers. A uniform national currency has been provided, repudiation frowned down, the national credit sustained under the most extraordinary burdens, and new bonds negotiated at lower rates. The revenues have been carefully collected and honestly applied. Despite large annual reductions of the rates of taxation, the public debt has been reduced during General Grant’s Presidency at the rate of a hundred millions a year, great financial crises have been avoided, and peace and plenty prevail throughout the land. Menacing foreign difficulties have been peacefully and honorably composed, and the honor and power of the nation kept in high respect throughout the world. This glorious record of the past is the party’s best pledge for the future. We believe the people will not intrust the Government to any party or combination of men composed chiefly of those who have resisted every step of this beneficent progress.

Second. The recent amendments to the national Constitution should be cordially sustained because they are right, not merely tolerated because they are law, and should be carried out according to their spirit by appropriate legislation, the enforcement of which can safely be entrusted only to the party that secured those amendments.

Third. Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and effectually maintained throughout the Union, by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Fourth. The National Government should seek to maintain honorable peace with all nations, protecting its citizens everywhere, and sympathizing with all people who strive for greater liberty.

Fifth. Any system of the civil service under which the subordinate positions of the government are considered rewards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing, and we therefore favor a reform of the system by laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage, and make honesty, efficiency, and fidelity the essential qualifications for public positions, without practically creating a life-tenure of office.

Sixth. We are opposed to further grants of the public lands to corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain be set apart for free homes for the people.

Seventh. The annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal and that revenue, except so much as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco and liquors, should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and to promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country.

Eighth. We hold in undying honor the soldiers and sailors whose valor saved the Union. Their pensions are a sacred debt of the nation, and the widows and orphans of those who died for their country are entitled to the care of a generous and grateful people. We favor such additional legislation as will extend the bounty of the Government to all our soldiers and sailors who were honorably discharged, and who, in the line of duty, became disabled, without regard to the length of service or the cause of such discharge.

Ninth. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers concerning allegiance—”Once a subject always a subject”—having at last, through the efforts of the Republican party, been abandoned, and the American idea of the individual’s right to transfer allegiance having been accepted by European nations, it is the duty of our Government to guard with jealous care the rights of adopted citizens against the assumption of unauthorized claims by their former governments; and we urge continued careful encouragement and protection of voluntary immigration.

Tenth. The franking privilege ought to be abolished, and the way prepared for a speedy reduction in the rates of postage.

Eleventh. Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the Republican party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, and for labor—the creator of capital—the largest opportunities and a just share of the mutual profits of these two great servants of civilization.

Twelfth. We hold that Congress and the President have only fulfilled an imperative duty in their measures for the suppression of violent and treasonable organizations in certain lately rebellious regions, and for the protection of the ballot-box, and therefore they are entitled to the thanks of the nation.

Thirteenth. We denounce repudiation of the public debt, in any form or disguise, as a national crime. We witness with pride the reduction of the principal of the debt, and of the rates of interest upon the balance, and confidently expect that our excellent national currency will be perfected by a speedy resumption of specie payment.

Fourteenth. The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration.

Fifteenth. We heartily approve the action of Congress in extending amnesty to those lately in rebellion, and rejoice in the growth of peace and fraternal feeling throughout the land.

Sixteenth. The Republican party proposes to respect the rights reserved by the people to themselves as carefully as the powers delegated by them to the State and to the Federal Government. It disapproves of the resort to unconstitutional laws for the purpose of removing evils, by interference with rights not surrendered by the people to either the State or National Government.

Seventeenth. It is the duty of the general Government to adopt such measures as may tend to encourage and restore American commerce and ship-building.

Eighteenth. We believe that the modest patriotism, the earnest purpose, the sound judgment, the practical wisdom, the incorruptible integrity, and the illustrious services of Ulysses S. Grant have commended him to the heart of the American people, and with him at our head we start to-day upon a new march to victory.

Nineteenth. Henry Wilson, nominated for the Vice-Presidency, known to the whole land from the early days of the great struggle for liberty as an indefatigable laborer in all campaigns, an incorruptible legislator and representative man of American institutions, is worthy to associate with our great leader and share the honors which we pledge our best efforts to bestow upon them.

The historical irony is almost painful.

Of course, as a historical note, it should be noted that the Ulysses S. Grant Administration was one of our most corrupt in history, so take this platform with a grain of salt.

It should further be noted that the Republicans had basically become the party of big business by the early 20th century, and the parties basically flipped positions in the 1960’s. The party of Abraham Lincoln would not find themselves welcome in the south until the dixiecrats merged with the Republicans in the latter half of the 20th century.

Still, it’s a pretty amazing transformation. Yes, any student of history knows that the Republicans were once pro-liberty, pro-civil rights, and pro-labor, and that parties evolve and change over time. But here we find that on almost every count the modern Republican stands for the exact opposite of what it stood for at its founding. And this particular document almost reads like the party’s founders reaching through history to smack the Bush Administration - it’s impossible to read some of these points without thinking of “Brownie”, Walter Reed, and the Patriot Act, among other things.

Recently, I read this article in Time Magazine which discusses one my biggest gripes with our education system:

To some extent, complacency is built into the system. American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn’t even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs. But it can’t make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.We take for granted that those with IQs at least three standard deviations below the mean (those who score 55 or lower on IQ tests) require “special” education. But students with IQs that are at least three standard deviations above the mean (145 or higher) often have just as much trouble interacting with average kids and learning at an average pace. Shouldn’t we do something special for them as well? True, these are IQs at the extremes. Of the 62 million school-age kids in the U.S., only about 62,000 have IQs above 145. (A similar number have IQs below 55.) That’s a small number, but they appear in every demographic, in every community. What to do with them? Squandered potential is always unfortunate, but presumably it is these powerful young minds that, if nourished, could one day cure leukemia or stop global warming or become the next James Joyce–or at least J.K. Rowling.

In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts. Odd though it seems for a law written and enacted during a Republican Administration, the social impulse behind No Child Left Behind is radically egalitarian. It has forced schools to deeply subsidize the education of the least gifted, and gifted programs have suffered. The year after the President signed the law in 2002, Illinois cut $16 million from gifted education; Michigan cut funding from $5 million to $500,000. Federal spending declined from $11.3 million in 2002 to $7.6 million this year.

It’s astounding to me that we spend $8 Billion dollars educating the mentally retarded. It’s not really surprising to hear that the number is that high, given that the “special education” classes I’ve seen usually enjoy highly trained teachers, small class sizes, and a large degree of individualized attention - so at least it seems to be money well spent. What makes it astounding is that it stands as a very stark contrast to the educational resources everyone else gets.

Typical students are usually thrust into classes whose size often approaches thirty that are hosted by teachers who far too often came to the profession because they couldn’t get any other job. And there’s an even starker contrast to what we provide our very best and brightest students - we usually just throw them in these same classes with the other students, and are forced to learn at a pace consistent with the lowest common denominator. (Here I have to note that classes aren’t even taught to the middle. Rather, they’re taught to the bottom. It’s only when everyone or minimally the vast majority have achieved proficiency that the class ever moves on.)

This state of affairs, what the article refers to as the no-child-left-behind conception of education, is simply ass backwards wrong.

Are the mentally retarded really worth $8 Billion? Well, yes, especially if we can help these people to achieve independence in life. And nothing in this post should be construed as an indictment against them or that spending. Rather, what I find remarkable is that society gives such resources to them but not to others, given the prospective return on investment. Realistically, even in the best case scenario, their contribution to society will be minimal - they’ll never rise above the level of a Wal-Mart greeter or some equivalent position. It sucks, but that’s reality.

Now on the other hand, look at the Very Smart. Unquestionably, society needs Very Smart people. These are the people who advance our understanding of the universe, fuel the economy, solve our problems, produce art, innovate, create new technologies, and handle complex jobs. And as the full article notes, Very Smart people need special education themselves - minimally the freedom to skip grades (as the article seems to advocate), if not their own “special education” programs (which I’d strongly favor)[1].

Yet not only do we fail to provide these things, we hardly do anything extra for them. We expect them to sit quietly while waiting for the rest of the class to “get” trigonometry, despite the fact that the other students will likely never need any form of math more advanced than basic algebra. As a result, we hold them back to the point of boredom (the worst thing you can do to a smart person). Even worse, current popular educational paradigms dictate grouping smart and dumb kids together for “group work” rather than segregating them or letting them work independently in a classroom. The theory is that the smart kids will teach the dumb kids they’re grouped with. The flaws with this idea are so many and so obvious that I won’t dignify it by going into it further.

To me, it seems only natural that any decent educational system would give priority to our best, brightest and most capable, and carve out programs designed to suit their needs first. Imagine if every kid genius could enjoy the same kind of environment as the mentally retarded - classes of no more than a dozen, teachers trained to deal with their specific learning style and educational needs, and the individual attention that’s inherent to that. But I’ve never heard of such a program in any public school.

At a minimum, the curricula and pace should be designed for the smartest kids, not the dumbest. Sorry little Johnny, but if you haven’t gotten long division yet, too bad. Try again next year - we need to move on for the benefit other kids. Realistically, you don’t need it anyway - learn to use a calculator and you’ll be fine. But the smart kids, who will go on to solve the world’s problems and create the next generation of innovative technologies, they need to know things beyond long division in order to compete in a globalized marketplace of talent. We need to stop worrying about passing everyone and instead worry about whether everyone has reached the highest level they can. And unfortunately that probably means leaving some kids behind.

For the record, I’m a strong proponent of equal access to education. I believe that everyone deserves one, and society should make educating everyone a top priority, and have everyone go as far as their abilities will take them. But given that we don’t have infinite resources to devote to it, then we do need to allocate them more intelligently than we’re doing now - which begs the question of why we’re not.

At the root of the problem is the deep anti-intellectualism strain that runs through our culture. Despite our collective dependence on Very Smart people, they’re largely despised by society. Youth culture celebrates jocks and is unforgiving of nerds[2]. We scorn the know-it-all. Politicians freely use the word “elite” and “academic” as an insult. And because of our culture’s ostensible egalitarianism we have a bias towards treating all opinions as equally valid, even though they rarely are (see: creationism vs evolution for the most extreme example). The “average joe” scorns anyone that tells him that his prejudices are wrong and the the things he does have ill effects that aren’t immediately obvious. And most of all, we refuse to believe the notion that someone might, in fact, know better than us or be smarter than us.

Of course, no discussion of education can possibly be complete without pointing the finger at the biggest culprit for pretty much all the problems it faces - parents. Primarily because they largely abstain from their own responsibility and role in the educational process of their children. They’re also quick to blame anyone but themselves or their child for poor performance, and insist that the teacher or the school are at fault for every poor grade. This attitude is at the core of the NCLB act - the onus is on the school that every child should earn a passing grade (by any means necessary).

The result is that it’s the smart kids - by all logic and reason the people we should be devoting the most resources to - who get an unfair shake. Schools and teachers are forced into a position of devoting disproportionate resources to the students at the bottom and neglecting those at the top. Those kids, who could pass the NCLB tests in their sleep, aren’t a threat to the school’s funding, so the school has no incentive to pay them any attention. It’s quite literally the rule of the stupid. Idiocracy indeed.

[1] And no, the hideous travesty of education that is the AP Curriculum doesn’t count. It’s an unholy lovechild of the testing and college industry, and it shows. It manages to offer an even less flexible one-size-fits-all curriculum than what schools normally offer, with instruction that’s dictated by a bureaucratic group rather than student’s own interests, learning styles, and pace. See The Sin of High School English Class for one example, where among other things I discuss how the curriculum manages to kill a love of reading and interest in literature.[2] On the bright side, this seems to have turned around somewhat, ever since nerds became the people that fixed the non-nerds computer.