I was reading about Gallium metal, and got sidetracked by a debate about math software. The point that got my attention is the contention that civilization is based on an institutionalized principle that we all are incompetent in many important fields. The item being debated was the necessity of children…
It is striking that so many conservatives spend so much energy condemning gays. They don't just criticize gays; they condemn gays with intense passion. Nor does this process of moral judgment usually involve any sort of delicate weighing process. Too often it is a visceral and unrelenting moral harpooning delivered by the likes of Ted Haggard—or, at least, the sort of judgment previously delivered by the then-closeted version of Ted Haggard, whose name is now synonymous with “reaction formation.†Many of the people who condemn gays on street corners and pulpits remind me of steam boilers on the verge of blowing up. Anti-gay bigots are rarely if ever attempting to work through the details of any of the three main historical philosophical approaches to morality (consequentialism, deontology or virtue) when they condemn gays. No, there is nothing much philosophical about the way most people rail against the gays. They are not driven by any sort of philosophy. In my experience, they are primarily driven by disgust. What especially disturbs conservative Christians are images of men kissing men and men having sex with other men. Such images are so incredibly disgusting to those who hate gays that it has become a favorite insult on the streets and in the military to shout "You're GAY!" And when this insult is hurled in the process of casting moral judgment, it is done by people whose faces are contorted with utter disgust. Because such condemnations of gays are so visceral, this raises the issue of whether disgust is a valid basis for morality . . .
Howard Zinn, writing at Alternet:Â On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag,…
I just finished listening to a lecture by Carol Dweck at IT Conversations, Dweck, a Stanford psychologist, is the author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.
Dweck’s idea is straightforward, though widely applicable. She starts with the premise that there are two kinds of people, those with “fixed mindsets” and others with “growth mindsets.” Those with fixed mindsets see their lives as being about proving themselves and not making mistakes. It is important to them that they look smart at all times. Those with “growth mindsets” have deep-seated beliefs in cultivating and developing their own qualities. Their lives are about stretching and growing, a process that is not thwarted (and is sometimes actually enhanced) by making mistakes.
How do you tell which mindset you have? During the interview, Dweck offered this simple test: “True or false, you can’t change how smart you are.” If you think this is true, you probably have a fixed mindset.
This distinction important because there are adverse consequences to having a fixed mindset. If you have a fixed mindset, failures label you as a failure for the rest of your life. People with fixed mindsets develop inaccurate views of themselves. They block out negative information for the sake of their egos. Compare this to growth mindsets, where failures are not self defining, but merely bumps along the way. Failures are, indeed, opportunities for growth.  Those with growth mindsets actually crave negative information. They stay in touch with their own liabilities in order …
It is, indeed, time, according to Chris Hedges writing at Truthdig.com:
…Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel’s iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.Â
The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.Â
This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli