Andrew J. Coulson
The great popularity of TED talks is one of the most encouraging signs that, despite our fossilized school systems, humanity still wants to learn. No one is assigned to watch TED talks. We watch them because they often present a compelling learning experience that excites and entertains. While such experiences sometimes occur in “the dominant education culture” of modern schooling, they occur “in spite of that culture, and not because of it.”
Those quotes are from the final segment of a series of TED talks on education that aired this week on PBS thanks to the New York member station, WNET. The speaker was Ken Robinson, and if you’ve never seen one of his lectures, you’re missing out.
Some highlights of the show:
Management consultant, turned teacher, turned research psychologist Angela Lee Duckworth on the prime importance of Grit in academic and life success. Duckworth explains that Grit is in fact a stronger predictor of such success than IQ—which is interesting because it echoes some very old and it seems mostly forgotten research by Edward Webb, a doctoral student of the intelligence measurement pioneer Charles Spearman. Spearman coined the term “g factor” for the strong intercorrelation that each individual shows across a diverse range of mental tests. It is this g that IQ tests attempt to measure. To make a long story short, Webb went looking for a bunch of personality traits that were also correlated with g. He failed. Instead, he found a completely separate set of intercorrelated traits, which he called w (for “Will”), that basically amount to what Duckworth refers to as Grit. Four of the those w traits were: perseverance, kindness on principle, trustworthiness, and conscientiousness. [For more on this, see Arthur Jensen’s “The g Factor”.] Duckworth’s segment begins at 13:30.
Geoffrey Canada is eloquent about the need to simultaneously encourage innovation and abandon failed approaches; and Ken Robinson is equally so on the failure of the dominant approach to schooling to promote a diversity of methods and curricula, or to stimulate curiosity and creativity, due to its excessive reliance on centralized command-and-control. Of course both of the preceding observations are consistent with the fact that markets are better than monopolies in providing products and services, in education as in other fields, but it’s not clear that either speaker would put the matter in those terms.
And for the artistically inclined, there’s a quite good young poet, 19-year-old Malcolm London, at the 35 minute mark, and a lovely rendition of Cyndi Lauper’s “True Colors” by the host, singer John Legend, at 41:58.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
There’s NOTHING that comes close to a SILVER Bull Market!
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:57 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Second Asian Financial Crisis comes into view as exports slump
Posted on 20 September 2012
Chinese manufacturing slowed down for the 11th consecutive month and could actually now be in recession while the once powerful Japanese export machine is breaking down with output down eight per cent in July and 5.3 per cent in August, the third successive month of contraction.
It increasingly looks like the Second Asian Financial Crisis is almost upon us. To make matters worse there have been riots in China targeting Japanese manufacturing plants and bellicose nonsense from some quarters about how China could do without Japanese foreign direct investment.
Japan is the largest foreign investor in China with huge interests and such nationalism from economists is stupid and arrogant. In fact, there is nothing like a trade war to turn a business slowdown into a deep depression, that last happened in the 1930s.
In China the preliminary reading was 47.8 for a new purchasing managers’ index by HSBC and Markit Economics. That compared with a final 47.6 last month and marks the longest run of readings below 50 in the survey’s eight-year history. A reading above 50 indicates expansion.
The HSBC/Markit survey is generally accepted as more reliable than the official statistics that often reflect political rather than economic reality. Chinese stocks dropped sharply on this news as did key industrial commodity prices. If the workshop of the world is in trouble so are its suppliers.
How Japan has managed to keep its economy afloat all these years with labour costs ten times higher than Mainland China is a mystery to many in the economics profession. But it has seemed to come seriously unstuck this year with the nationwide closedown of its nuclear power stations coming at a time of very high oil prices, and imported oil has been the main substitute for nuclear power.
The Bank of Japan joined the Fed and ECB yesterday with a giant money printing exercise of its own but then in a world of competitive currency devaluation it really had no choice or its exports would have taken another hit.
Asian Financial Crisis
Both Japan and China are powerful drivers of the Asian region’s economy as a whole. Australia supplies industrial raw materials to both Asian economic super powers. Countries like Vietnam and Cambodia do work outsourced from China at even cheaper labour costs.
In fact, the Chinese advantage in labour costs has been erroding rapidly and in Shanghai modern Western lifestyles are supported by similar wage packets. Some observers say China has passed the stage of easy and rapid growth and now needs to go through a recession and consolidation period.
That’s not going to be good news for the rest-of-the-world either as China kept the global economy moving in the 2008-9 crisis. Asia could actually get the worst of the downturn this time round. China is a massive bubble economy about to implode and will bring Japan down with it.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:05 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Something’s happening to President Obama’s relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I’m referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.
It’s not due to the election, and it’s not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn’t happening.
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it’s his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it’s a big fault.
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You’re kidding me. That’s not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it’s not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.
What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who’d been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.
Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he’d been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president’s response were, "If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon" At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history’s time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.
The high court’s hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.
All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.
I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I’m only saying he’s made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.
In terms of the broad electorate, I’m not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.
From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?
That’s what the American people were thinking about.
But the new president wasn’t thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn’t know it was so bad, didn’t understand the depth of the crisis, didn’t have a sense of how long it would last. They didn’t have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.
The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the ‘Is America over?’ part.
And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they’ve read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns
click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace
If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It’s hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn’t seem to like his job that much. As a former president he’d be quiet, detached, aloof. He’d make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans’ fault. They didn’t want to work with him.
He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O’Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.
An American president has to make cooperation happen.
But we’ve strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.
Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:42 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com