Steve Colbert on Religion

Ann Althouse has an interesting set of comments and a few links on Steven Colbert's thoughts and comments on religion. She seems to have uncovered a serious side to the comic.

More on Boys and Education

The recent Glenn and Helen podcast interviewed Michael Gurian, author of The Minds of Boys. He argues that the industrial school is not a good fit for 30-40% of boys and 10% of girls. Last week, I reported my own findings from my experience. I found that a third of boys and a sixth of girls seemed unable or unwilling to stay on task in a classroom. Our numbers are pretty close together, and I am describing a behavior, so other causes might confound explanation of the Gurian thesis. Gurian on the other hand is describing a problem and its effect. Still the numbers are pretty close, and I think that's telling.

Those Beloved Judges

Hugh Hewitt was running audio of Sen Kenndey on the Alito filibuster today. Kennedy seems to have love only for the judicial branch of government. Only they solved the serious problems confronting America. The Founders were inadequate, so the Consitituion is no guide. The executive and legislative branches didn't do the specific things he mentioned, so they were inadequate. Only the judicial branch ensured progress for America.

Kennedy is in fact wrong, from Truman's desegreation of the Army in 1948, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclimation, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendements, it turns out that the other branches were active in advancing civil rights and freedoms in America. Further, one can argue pretty persuasivly that when courts have acted first (Brown v Board of ed, Roe v Wade) they have mostly pre-empted the other branches. Its pretty clear that in the various cases which could be pointed to, the courts were only a little ahead of the political branches, and had they not acted, the other branches would have. Further, the political branches typically avoid the excesses of the judciary (not always, but much more frequently) and where they do over-reach, its much easier to repeal bad legislation than it is to reverse bad decisions. Judicial actions, because they are non-political have much less support among the people. With the political branches, the people get to weigh in and possibly over-turn executive or legislative over-reach. As such, judicial cases cause a back-lash that political action doesn't cause. This is because when you fight in a legislature or in elections and lose, you had your say and you can wait to put someone of your mind in office soon. In a court case, the people are not consulted and checks on the courts by the people are nearly absent.

Kennedy is not only factually wrong about the role of the courts as the sole institution of progress, but he embraces the least democratic and most tyrannical branch of government as the one to vest the most power in.

Self-Discipline and Schools

A recent study finds that self-discipline beats IQ as a predictor of success in schools. Since being smart is actually a hardship in schools, that's hardly surprising. Bright kids find it so easy to skate through on native intelligence that they have no motive to develope self-discipline to succeed in school. For parents to teach discipline often means discipline outside of an academic context. As a result bright kids in college either push themselves and self-teach good study habits, or they a) reproduce skating by or b) end up leaving school.

If schools challeneged bright kids, and gave them the kind of assignments that they actually had to apply themselves to do well on, then they would benefit from smarts and discipline. As it is, we largely ignore the needs of our gifted kids and assume they'll just do fine. Learn they will, no doubt, but they will not on their own cultivate then habits of hard work and success.

Boys and Education

I was a fan of Christina Hoff-Sommers after Who Stole Feminism and was interested when I saw her War Against Boys. The War Against Boys argues that boy behavior is being labled as a problem. More recently, The New Republic has noticed the issue and this has sparked some comment in the blogosphere. This includes Ann Althouse, Stepping Stone, and Kirsten Mortensen. Ann's comments section is, as usual, abundant. As a boy who largely prospered under school and found typical school boy behavior disorderly enough that I joined the army after school looking for an orderly society, some of the suggestions for boys I think would work for some boys, but there also needs to be a middle ground between rambunctous school for energetic boys and dainty school for girls who can sit still for weeks on end.

I observed three catagories of students in the classroom. Those who sit still and remain on-task even with distractions, those who can remain on-task as long as there are no distractions, and those who simply don't remain on task. I found that 2/6 of girls and 1/6 of boys were nearly always on task. I found that 3/6 of both boys and girls could remain on task as long as distractions were eliminated. I found that 1/6 of girls and 2/6 of boys found remaining on task difficult under normal classroom circumstances. The things that distracted boys and girls wasn't neccesarily similar. Girls were more likely to be distracted by the opportunity to be social. But the always on task and the mostly on task students would seem to function well in the low energy and moderate energy enviroments. The other students I suspect will need a variety of strategies. Some need more discipline and regementation, some need a different teaching approach, some need more extenstive links to existing knowledge, and so on. 75% of students, however seem to be able to function well in some form of current school.

Blunt on Hugh

Last weekend I wrote my congressman, Roy Blunt and recommended he come out for all of the transparency issues and the sunshine. I also recommended he go on Hugh's show, and provided a link to Instapundit's join statement of bloggers. Whether my drop of water added to the filling of the bucket or not, Congressmen Blunt was on Hugh this Wednesday.

I admit to some favoritism of the native son variety, but I think Roy did fine.

Zawahiri

The New York Times called him "Top Qaeda Aide", but ExpressIndia has it better when they note, "Zawahiri is the brains behind Osama bin Laden". Many of the news broadcasts I am hearing refer to him as Al Qaeda's number two man, but I think that is an error. Zawahiri is in some ways more dangerous than bin Laden. He is the chief ideologist and propagandist of Al Qaeda. Since bin Laden has gone underground, Zawahiri is the one releasing the video tapes. Bin Laden was a financial and organizational leader, but what today is being financed or organized? Yet even from caves, a message is getting out and that is Zawahiri. He may well be the top man at Al Qaeda, even if the Times calls him an aide.

Tom Delay

Texas Tom is not my kind of Republican. Nevertheless, the baseless attack upon his PAC activity in Texas is stirring sympathy for him as far as I am concerned. If a PAC is a money laundering scheme, I think charities must also be money laundering schemes, not to mention the political parties. It certainly is possible to argue that PAC's as pools of money dilute the influence of any one giver (except in cases where the PAC is a front for a single person or interest). A PAC like Delay's was not a special interest PAC, and it wasn't beholden to a single donor the way MoveOn was to a certain currency speculator. It was performing the same function as the Republican Party, its purpose was to get Republicans elected in Texas. Some might be concerned with corporations donating money directly to candidates, though such organizations can still be influential when top officers all contribute anyway. But contributors to Delay's PAC were seeking influence with Delay (sort of) and not trying to do what was feared with direct corporate contributions. Since PAC contributions were legal, it should be obvious that this money laundering charge is a legal fiction.

All of this puts aside the notion that speech is protected, political speech more than commerical speech. Why can Company X run commercials advertising their product, but they can't take political positions? But that is a foundational question and won't be addressed in a court.

Delay's PAC is an example of a national politicial becomming a magnet for money because he is percieved as being effective. People who agree with him and find his agenda pleasing will send money to see Delay advance his agenda. As such its hard to see who was being corrupted by any of this.