ark

How many of each animal did Moses take on the ark?












Suggestion--think twice.

the center of the universe

     I have asked this of several people--"where is the center of the universe?"--but didn't get the response I expected. The idea is that you are the center of the universe is not exactly philosophical. It isn't religious, either. It's scientific--or logical, if you prefer. Stay with me--the universe is infinite in all directions, correct? So its center, if infinity has a center, would be the observer--that is to say you--to you; or me--to me.
      Philosophy should be practiced with caution.

amateur philosophy

     I have been told, by amateur "philosophers" that crime is the will of God, and that this is God's way of, among other things, punishing the wicked. A "Miracle on 34th Street" moment for you--according to the government and laws of the United States, which can be seen in the workings of our insurance industry, God does not underwrite or sponsor crime.
     Most standard insurance policies exclude from coverage what are legally termed "acts of God'. That is why our government occasionally steps in and offers flood insurance to people living in areas where floods are common--because floods are an "act of God" not covered by a standard insurance policy.  This is because a widespread natural disaster would bankrupt any insurance company, not because the insurers are afraid to thwart the will of God by offering insurance against  divine retribution.
     You can, however, buy insurance against crime. Both car insurance and  homeowner's policies cover theft and vandalism, and life insurance pays if someone is murdered. So, according to our government and legal system, crime is not an "act of God".

the need to reclassify oneself

     Ask a female black student when she would have been first able to vote--in history--and you will probably get the answer "1865". Which is, of course, utter nonsense. She would have first voted in 1920, when American women were given the vote. Look for the "enfranchisement of women", or "women's suffrage". Try to tell your female black student this, and you may get a denial and an argument, even if you tell her to  look for the "enfranchisement of women", or "women's suffrage".  Did these young women need a public school lesson to tell them that not only are they black, with black skin, but that they are also, 1. women;  2. Americans; 3. people., 4. students? Surely they need to learn to reclassify themselves when occasion warrants--as something other than a skin.

hooray for Hollywood

      Hollywood makes some interesting historical epics. But some of the members of the audience believe that everything Hollywood makes is pretend. They may have been taught this at home, by parents who were sure they were keeping them from flying away on flights of fancy.  Unfortunately, they believe that Henry the Eighth, or the ancient Romans, are just as fictitious as tales of dragons and wicked witches. A teacher standing in front of a classroom trying to teach them medieval history may get a roll of the eyes--because they're sure the teacher doesn't know any better.

Suggestion--label movies fiction and non-fiction, or words to that effect.

no ifs ands or buts

     I watched a crime drama TV show recently, in which the detective didn't get to ask questions of the psychoanalyst. In this show the detective was probably trying to get around the psychoanalyst's "blocking" and "defensiveness" by going along with his "professional" refusal to co-operate, but it nearly made the show ridiculous. And at least one viewer wondered how true-to-life the scenario was. I hope it was very fantastic, but perhaps it wasn't.
    As far as I understand it, there are no legal exceptions to the subpoena power--the legal power to force someone to appear in court. No one gets to "just say no". When on the witness stand, we have the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no one may be forced to testify against him or herself (which at one time would have been arranged with torture, or threats to family members). Today this means that as long as a witness makes it clear that his or her refusal to co-operate (to answer a question on the witness stand) is based on a refusal to incriminate him or herself, that he or she will not be charged with contempt of court.
     Suggestion--everyone else who refuses to testify is in contempt of court, just as the law says--be it a priest, a psychoanalyst, a reporter, or anyone else.

where did the "learn" meme go?

     I sat down to read a month's worth of articles on education I had saved for later--these from the new York Times. The word learn wasn't used once.This is part of a trend sorely in need of correction. We have those who believe that children are either "gifted" academically, or not "gifted". We have those who believe that educational success is genetically determined. We have those who believe that answers to factual questions will come to them through meditation and prayer--not because they are trying to calm down and remember what they learned, but as a substitute for the learning that didn't happen. Not the learning they didn't do. The learning that didn't happen.
     The only sense in which education is hereditary is that educated people tend to insist that their children do their schoolwork--and they know that there is work involved. Absent this notion, every attempt to provide an adequate education to every American is bound to fail.