a proclamation of Queen Atomia-
Tonight I somehow managed (by default mostly) to watch part of the President's State of the Union address. As a general rule I find politics supremely dull namely because I am of the opinion that law makers know so little about the lives of their citizens, and I so little about the unique art of lawmaking. For the most part, my relationship with politics is founded on a mutual agreement of respectable distance. Tonight however, I caught glimpses of the President's speech and was simultaneously impressed and depressed by several statements. I did like the overall theme of the evening, namely a proclamation toward healing a country of partisianship...bravo on the environmental friendly innovations too (if i could, i'd buy a hybrid too...even from Ford). Also liked the anti-human, and hybrid human cloning campaign (who could handle two of you?) although i think it needed to be put in less ambigious terms....
Strongly did not like the way compassion was intertwined with competition. In the very same breath that our dear ol' President (and I'm not affiliated with any pariah tribe) argued for more math and science he misplaced the entire focus of education. Our students do not spend their lifetimes studying in order to compete in global technological advancement. Competition does not breed reconciliation. The President intertwined notions of compassion, idealism and peace with global markets, competition and economic monopolies. The educational system is already built on the corporate model, we already teach kids in a "bank deposit" method [information deposited into the vacant minds of our students]. Innovation cannot be constricted to the outrageous confinments of scripted lessons. That's right. So before you going jumping down my throat- think! Does this make any sense?! Our kids are being taught by scripted lessons, to join the work force with their "creative" and "innovative" ideas??!! major flaw of logic (and I am the least of rational people) total display of fallacious thinking... Our students must compete with other nations...for more mandated tests... oh my gd. The life of a third grader in NYC has become unbearable, we are unleashing plagues of tests on students who can barely manage to read! I am all for AP classes throughout school, yes, some students need to be on a more rigorous program, but why stop at math and science?! What about the humanities? Reading, writing, social studies?? Louis Armstrong was not only the name of the man who landed on the moon....
As far as technology is concerned I understand why our competition starved nation must pursue excellence in math and science, but do not de-emphasize our need for learning and reaching a deeper understanding through literature, social studies and the arts. It infuriates me beyond words when the scholastic focus is solely on math and science...
Because I do not care to understand the intricacies of politics (and i mean that humbly not indifferently) I see legislation only in its actualization. As in now...more tests, more tests, more test anxiety, more failing students, more stress, more regulated curiculums, less choices, and more kids who cannot read and write. more decontextualized learning.
How we have misconstrued compassion and competition. How about working together for a change? And i don't mean that as a bleeding heart liberal (which I am not.) but as a teacher- why can't we emphasize classroom community, global community instead of dog-eat-dog world? How can the President preach anti-partisanship while articulating a need for greater competition and social division? At one point in the speech I couldn't help but think of that line from Orwell in 1984 "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"....
In other news, college schedule has worked out remarkably well. Am taking a brilliant chemistry class that I am currently infatuated with (lab coat, goggles and all), when trying to help kids out with chemistry at the Superhero store always used this site: www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/ its really cool, basically it tells you when each chemical/element etc. was used in the history of comic books (really fun to surf) also taking a history of jazz class that has turned out to be superb, a poli-sci profess obsessed with Chomsky, and a modern-brit class which lo and behond is a semester of Joyce etc. etc.... very pleased with it all, thank the Lord of Hosts-
I guess in the macro/micro universe, things do have a way of working out...let's hope.
[oh and as a disclaimer: the above is simply an opinion, an assessment not an attempt at omnipotent judgment] namastaei.
posted by HindiK at 11:29 PM
21 Comments:
Here's to omnipotent judgement (and you should stick with it..) There is hope yet, with Justice Alito, strong State of the Union Address and all other positive newsmakers. If only we could perform lobotomies on some members of congress. Anyway Hindy, hope you are well.
adieu
chanale
ps its neil armstrong by the way. ole satchmo was but a singer....
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/archives.asp?AID=42106&StartList=111
watch parshas vayeira.
oh yeah, and lech lecha
Since you don't care for the intricacies of politics, I won't bore you with a line-by-line refutation, but people bored by politics shouldn't comment on it.
But here's one thought I can't withhold: Competition DOES bring out the best in people. Competition in countries with laws of conduct and ethics encourages progress. Your naive approach of "let's all get along and be nice" only breeds slothfulness and eventually will cause people to revolt or combust, and get very violent.
Hindy, I've noticed a general hesitance amongst lefties to acknowledge their classification as lefties. It's like Kennedy or Feinstein denying that they are liberals. Stop saying you aren't liberal, when you are a liberal, and worse, a socialist. Wear your stripes with pride, as I wear mine.
(P.S., mazal tov Alito. Mazal tov bush on the confirmation of Alito. Between Roberts and Alito, bush is making a great court! DRILL ALASKA!)
yeah- i also saw the presidents speech. i thought it was tooooooo long. also, it made grown men and women look like kids at color war- standing up and sitting down was their "weapon" how pathetic. rw( im signing my name so you know i can post on a topic other than get back to me:)
Humanities is a lost art in this dog-eat-dog-society...makes the future look really grim, but then again...ditch the politics, and just follow your heart...the most important goal in life is to be a MAN where there aren't any...
Great article...although it got a bit pretentious with your college schedule...I'll let you get away with it..this is by far the best article I've read on your blog thus far...
hindi-
you decry the emphasis on certain subjects, and the neglect conferred on others.
the emphasized subjects, math and sciences, in your opinion, are those that do NOT teach to innovate and create.
the neglected subjects, such as the arts etc, in your opinion, are those that DO teach one to innovate and create.
the emphasis on those subjects reflects a dog-eat-dog world, a "competition" world, in your opinion.
so far did i understand you correctly?
ok.
1) assuming all you say is true, the ability of one nation to innovate and create better than another would be the greatest tool when "competing". competition breeds innovation. so why are those subjects neglected?
2) the majority of luxuries in your life, ones which may be considered by now to be necessities, are the product of "competition", in one way or another. fact- the average person will enshrine mediocrity if his neighbor does so as well.
3) of what innovations do you speak? the printing press, steam engine, computer, car, telescope, nuclear energy, all inventions produced by the mathematical/scientific mind? or of the great books, printed on those very printing presses, but of no value to the many hungry? or of great paintings, using oils produced by those very steam engines, yet offering to balm to the suffering?
4) teaching, ESPECIALLY the sciences, does promote innovation. it gives one the tools needed, as well as trains the brain to think in the abstract.
nowhere is innovation and creativity enabled as in the exact sciences.
5) had you never had "scripted" lessons, would you be able to enjoy the chemistry class that you are "infatuated" with?
Wow Enoch you took the words right out of my mouth.
bravo!
and now the designated response:
Firstly while i am being accused of pretentiousness, I am wondering when liking to learn something enough has unbelievably become, an act of pretensiousness (how pathetic). Secondly, i've always respected science and math (tho' math is certainly not my forte) and have always liked science (particularly physics). so no, this is not an intellectual epiphany but rather an expression of thankfullness that my non-existent course load, managed to somehow work out (and attempting to find some good in what had potential to be a horrible situation).
I am very grateful for the scientific and technological breakthroughs that have become (as you so eloquently stated) so intrinsic in everyday life. My point was by no means an expression of ingratitude. I agree with you that competition seems to inspire the best, AND WORST in people. I ask myself, without the cold war would we have made such progress with nuclear energy? Without war breathing down our backs would atomic knowledge been so readily available? And yet, at the same time I am wondering if the only way to resolve WWII was by throwing two atom bombs on the Japanese?
Undoubtedly, competition has brought out the best and worst in people. Even if you don't believe in evolutionary science (which i hope most of you don't) we live a culture of survival of the fittest-one that is not essentially very encompassing to all people, nor one that truly addresses the things that matter most in life.
True you cannot give a starving man a book, a painting, or a computer to fill his belly. All we could do is provide the tools, the skills and the ability to live. However, I will argue that even if the arts and the humanities seem to be of so little value to you, think of what dimension of life you are sacrificing with such categorized dismissal. Why is the artist less acknowledged than the scientist? True, everyone today is set on making a business of science, but what about the kids that excell in art? in writing?
To completely reject thousands of years of passion, culture and thought in favor of a mono-dimensional technological existence is cataclysmic to the human spirit. And I am not fighting a binary argument- simply, and perhaps naively, why can't we promote both? Why can't science (which once upon a time was so linked with art and creativity) be one? Why can't we promote more Leondardo Da Vincis instead of Bill Gates (a judgmental statement but a point nonetheless)?
Why can't we promote a more well-rounded student that comprehends him/her self and the world they live in? Why must the focus always be so "other-conscious".
Yes, history has proven that we seem to be the most inspired when at war, when in the throes of conflict and hate- but why can't we promote a change of mind? Why can't we alter that archaic perception? Why can't we compete to make the world a better place as oppose to killing one another?
I don't care if that sounds 'unrealistic', reality is only what you make of it
Hindy,
We missed you (and your cookies) tonight.
Why can't we compete to make the world a better place as oppose to killing one another?
And isn't that exactly what the president said in his speech??
http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?17273
clearly we are our own worst enemies-
may gd help us all.
In your response to enoch you seem to have discovered that actually competition and compassion are not opposites, and can be uttered in the same breath.
I guess when you're put on the defensive , you see the truth.
The beauty of competition.
Those thousands of years of thought, culture and imagination didn't get the world very far.
Science can only be objective, so it should not be influenced by the personal experience, regardless of how deep it is.
what are you talking about?
i think you missed the point entirely, shame really.
but welcome to the discussion nonetheless.
hindi- i think we actually agree on most points, correct me if im wrong.
1) we should be competing to make the world a better place. 100%.
2) art, culture, and thought (you dont mean scientific thought) do have some significance. youre preaching to the choir.
3) competition brings out the best and worst. thats true of any character trait which forces man to drop pretenses. that doesnt condemn the trait per se, though; see #1.
4) the wars were catalysts for scientific development. see #3.
(though to say "competition = bringing out the worst" is the same as "wars = scientific developments", and thus conclude, euclideanly, that "worst = scientific developments", is a logically flawed paralell. i dont think you were insinuating that comparison.)
noone says wars are good. rather the catalyst should be via #1. its not, because "making the world a better place" has no palpable incentive.
5) you wonder if hiroshima and nagasaki were really necessary. well, what do you think, were they? (i actually just finished writing a whole paper for college about hiroshima.) whether you condone or condemn, whats your premise?
Der Fuhrer- stop it already. please.
will comment-
i'm sorry things have been tedious but time-consuming nonetheless.
be back...wish i could fish
Enoch-
I'm glad to see that you understood my argument and no, it's not
x=y
y=z
ergo x=z
you got it. I am just analyzing the motives behind innovation. Why is the catalyst of change so often self-destructive?
Whether Hisorshima and Nagasaki were necessary...well my knowledge on the entire subject is entirely text-book (nebach.), a book called Hiroshima and an etymological paper on the words Enola Gray (a character in an untraceable Victorian novel by the by). I still feel confident enough to say that I believe that our civilized, progressive, freedom-hungry nation could have found some way to end the war besides dropping two atom bombs on heavily populated cities.
I'm sure most of you will argue against this, with a they kill us so we kill them tactic. While I agree that we usually tend to respond with that 'tit for tat' methodology, I'd like to think that human civiliaztion can progress beyond that, reach for a higher sense of communication... and realize that we are only answering voilence with more voilence... right right...but in a state of war- were there any other options??
I don't know. I don't have all the answers and i don't claim to. But it bothers me how causual the decision was- how swiftly not one, but two atom bombs were dropped on men, women and children.
i'd love to read your paper (excerpts or what not) it's a rare pleasure of mine to read other people's academic and creative work. (see one of the same ;) )indulge me if you'd like.
hindi- if i would've had more time, the post would be shorter:)
(it was more like this:
x=y
a=b
x=a
ergo.....y=b.
euclideanly, that works. the flaw here was that x doesnt =a.
but anyhow, i think we both get the point.)
1) "why is the catalyst for change so often self-destructive"?
a- its not. light bulb, car, computer, printing press, alphabet, paper-clips(?), electricity, telephone, etc, were all invented/discovered more as an amicable end in itself than as a means to destruction.
b- those inventions that were a means to destruction, are the types of inventions whose nature makes them much more prone to being invented in a war environment (nuclear energy, weapons, etc)
c- those inventions that were a means to destruction, werent "self-destructive". (harping on term usage. sue me.) they were meant to destroy others. if they ended up reflexively harmful, thats a fluke.
d- and even when war does induce innovations of destructive nature, its natural; the desire to win is a very powerful motivator.
2) the plane was called Enola Gay, not Gray. and it was named after the mother of its pilot, Paul Tibbits.
3) "But it bothers me how casual the decision was- how swiftly..." thats not fair of you to say. how do you know? on what grounds do you call the decision "casual"?
(if the bomb is ultimately to be dropped, then every second of delayed decision is perforce a "swift" decision for more americans to die needlessly.)
4) but the decision was made, granted. youre right that the whole tit for tat game is often counter-productive. but as you said, once the war is underway, do we have options?
5) youre confident we could have ended the war some other way.
a- how?
b- is that way better than the two bombs?
WARNING: this discussion can go on forever. ill try to get my paper your way.
I apologize- i wish i had more time to read up a little before i respond (in this sort of hop-flop way.)
firstly you're 100 percent right... my equation was off, algebraically x would equal z... ha (i apologize for that horrific mathematical error but yes, we established the point)...
to clarify what i meant- enola gay (as in the mom) was named after a character in a Victorian novel (that is what i researched) meaning my experience with Hisorshima and Nagaski is only thru more literary (as oppose to poli-sci/factual/historical) books.
clearly our approaches are different, and yes, we can argue this either way. while you may feel that my argument in this particular subject is somewhat lacking in informative knowledge (and you are right to a certain extent), i truly believe that the core issue is simply a matter of approach.
i appreciate your response (it's nice to engage in a dialogue) but straight up- having done an in-depth research analysis on the subject, you are clearly far more informed than i am. while the subject of the scientific intention behind greater invention can be heavily debated (and i think there is ample evidence to support both arguments) you are correct that this discussion can go on forever...
and i did not mean casual in semantic terms, rather; casual in the sense that it was considered a viable option at all. casual that human life was weighed (which i guess you would argue against more human life) and judgment was passed. i suppose that war presents a particular circumstance, however; even without the weight of world war conflict, america has never had trouble imposing itself whether by might or dollar...
I'm not saying that civilization, and particularly those in power, should not pass judgments, au contraire, rather it surprises me that in all our intellectual and scientific capacity we are simply developing more sophisticated sticks and rocks that our Neanderthal forefathers first employed (in borrowed terms).
and as a general rule i take issue with our whole 'win-win' culture. culturally everything associated with 'american' is discussed in terms of war and sports.
oy... you're right this conversation could go on forever.
just wanted to add to the reading list:
Why Unhappy? They Dropped the Atom Bomb
By: Paul Fussel
Listen, i'm not passing judgement on whether or not it was appropriate at that time to drop an atom bomb on Japan, simply because after so many deaths America just wanted to get even, it was a quest for venegence. that's what i hold issue with the escalation of voilent venegence thru scientific advancement.
k, we'll consider the convo closed...been a pleasure.
Post a Comment
<< Home