When I first started my blog, I intended to add two or three entries a day. That's proven to be a lot of work, and--unless I want to echo items from my favorite three or so blogs I check daily--I'm not as connected to the Real World as I'd like to think!
It doesn't help that during the last two weeks, I've been in Move Mode, and that this last week, my family has also had to deal with a bit of sickness (and the upset of having to adjust to a new place isn't exactly calming to my children, to say the least!).
Another factor that I'm trying to come to terms with: I tend to write long things, and I need to get used to writing brief entries, unless a topic calls for a lot of discussion.
It will be interesting to see what I can do in the future :-).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Little time for me to remember
On Saturday, I would have liked to put up a nice video, and perhaps share an anecdote or two, about the day we shouldn't forget...but I haven't had the time, and I didn't have access to a computer at the time, either. Instead, we rented a truck, filled it with almost all our furniture, and a lot of boxes, and moved them to our new place. In the next couple of days, we'll be boxing up loose ends, and cleaning up our old place.
I will say this, though. I remember tutoring someone who had a hard time concentrating, after 9-11. She explained that her sister was on the flight to Boston--one of the planes that hit the towers.
So, to those 9-11 "Truthers" who claim that the Government flew military planes without windows into the towers: what did the Government do to those who were "supposed" to be on those flights? Did the Government silently execute them?
I shouldn't egg anyone on. Although I dislike what our Government has become over the last few decades, I sincerely doubt anyone in that Government would have developed such a plot, just to grab more power. (And that's yet another subject that has such potential...)
I will say this, though. I remember tutoring someone who had a hard time concentrating, after 9-11. She explained that her sister was on the flight to Boston--one of the planes that hit the towers.
So, to those 9-11 "Truthers" who claim that the Government flew military planes without windows into the towers: what did the Government do to those who were "supposed" to be on those flights? Did the Government silently execute them?
I shouldn't egg anyone on. Although I dislike what our Government has become over the last few decades, I sincerely doubt anyone in that Government would have developed such a plot, just to grab more power. (And that's yet another subject that has such potential...)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Questions of Identity
We've seen a great increase in identity crime lately, and, as a result, we have heard people cry out for a Universal National ID. There is hope that, once we can definitively identify an individual, we can then ensure that only the individual will be able to act on his own behalf (excepting power of attorney, among other things).
In thinking about this, however, I wonder: is it really a lack of ID that's causing these problems? Or is it the increase of anonymity? And does government-issued ID re-inforce this increase of anonymity?
Consider a major source of identity theft: the obtaining of credit cards in someone else's name. This is largely made possible by the fact that credit card companies will send out pre-approved offers, and then finish the approval of those cards, without so much as a check of the person's credit score. (Who in their right mind ever thought it would be responsible to offer credit to the family pet (in some cases, literally)? Perhaps the best way to address this problem would be to convince everyone that offers of credit should only be made in person.)
Or another: the use of a Social Security Number, obtained who-knows-where, to pay taxes, or open bank accounts, or who knows what else. This is made possible by relying on an arbitrary series of digits as the identity of a given person. While efforts can be made to match the number with a name, certain factors--such as other forged identification--can be used to interfere even with this.
Now, consider this: Why does a bank, or a landlord, or a family, or a judge, or a restaurant, need to know who I am? Let's ignore the restaurant: the only concern is age, and even that's not a concern when alcohol isn't involved! But for the remainder, identities only matter because the individuals involved want to make sure that certain things--an account, a (possibly trashed) apartment, an inheritance, or a punishment--are applied to the right person.
If we limit our identities to "the person who opened this account", for example, then a bank really only needs to know a handful of things: a name (it doesn't even have to be a real one), a signature, a picture, perhaps a thumb-print, and an address of some sort to send bank statements and warnings. If "the person who opened this account" needs to pull money out of his account, then the bank can issue some sort of ID (a bank-card, possibly with a picture and a thumb-print) to make sure that the person is authorized to take money from the account.
Now, judging is a trickier matter: but again, the goal is to identify that a given person committed a crime. It doesn't matter who that person claims to be, so long as that person is clearly identified with that given crime.
What about Social Security Numbers? Obstencibly, the original purpose for this "ID" is to collect taxes, and to dole out welfare. Theoretically, I should be able to work under a number of names, though, and pay taxes under each name...and receive payments according to what I paid in. So long as I don't perpetrate fraud (claim I'm disabled, for example, when I'm not, or claim that I'm 65 when I'm really 40), this also shouldn't be a problem! (It furthermore wouldn't be a problem if government would just stay out of the retirement and disability insurance field altogether...but that's probably for another post.)
This is where we get to the heart of the matter, though: while obstencibly, our SSNs were intended to be only a Tax ID number, our government encouraged it to be much more than that: our government has encouraged us to use it as an ID number for all things...in other words, it was meant to be a precursor to a National ID. It is only recently, it seems--due to the explosion of Identity Theft--that our government has encouraged us to be more conservative with using our SSN as an ID.
Somehow, and I'm not sure how, just yet (this is, after all, a new line of thought for me), by relying on our SSN, and our governments in general, to establish our identifications, it has simultaniously destroyed, yet enhanced, our anonymity. It is destroyed, because it's difficult to walk into a bank, call myself "George Smith", and open a new account, one that could be used in emergencies (both moral and immoral--anonymity is a double-edged sword) where anonymity is required. Yet it is enhanced, because all we need to do to establish ourselves as someone else is to obtain a valid Social Security Number, and maybe furbish a forged ID card or two...or, in the case of our pets, perhaps to send for a free ice cream coupon in our dog's name.
This line of thinking definitely deserves more exploration....
In thinking about this, however, I wonder: is it really a lack of ID that's causing these problems? Or is it the increase of anonymity? And does government-issued ID re-inforce this increase of anonymity?
Consider a major source of identity theft: the obtaining of credit cards in someone else's name. This is largely made possible by the fact that credit card companies will send out pre-approved offers, and then finish the approval of those cards, without so much as a check of the person's credit score. (Who in their right mind ever thought it would be responsible to offer credit to the family pet (in some cases, literally)? Perhaps the best way to address this problem would be to convince everyone that offers of credit should only be made in person.)
Or another: the use of a Social Security Number, obtained who-knows-where, to pay taxes, or open bank accounts, or who knows what else. This is made possible by relying on an arbitrary series of digits as the identity of a given person. While efforts can be made to match the number with a name, certain factors--such as other forged identification--can be used to interfere even with this.
Now, consider this: Why does a bank, or a landlord, or a family, or a judge, or a restaurant, need to know who I am? Let's ignore the restaurant: the only concern is age, and even that's not a concern when alcohol isn't involved! But for the remainder, identities only matter because the individuals involved want to make sure that certain things--an account, a (possibly trashed) apartment, an inheritance, or a punishment--are applied to the right person.
If we limit our identities to "the person who opened this account", for example, then a bank really only needs to know a handful of things: a name (it doesn't even have to be a real one), a signature, a picture, perhaps a thumb-print, and an address of some sort to send bank statements and warnings. If "the person who opened this account" needs to pull money out of his account, then the bank can issue some sort of ID (a bank-card, possibly with a picture and a thumb-print) to make sure that the person is authorized to take money from the account.
Now, judging is a trickier matter: but again, the goal is to identify that a given person committed a crime. It doesn't matter who that person claims to be, so long as that person is clearly identified with that given crime.
What about Social Security Numbers? Obstencibly, the original purpose for this "ID" is to collect taxes, and to dole out welfare. Theoretically, I should be able to work under a number of names, though, and pay taxes under each name...and receive payments according to what I paid in. So long as I don't perpetrate fraud (claim I'm disabled, for example, when I'm not, or claim that I'm 65 when I'm really 40), this also shouldn't be a problem! (It furthermore wouldn't be a problem if government would just stay out of the retirement and disability insurance field altogether...but that's probably for another post.)
This is where we get to the heart of the matter, though: while obstencibly, our SSNs were intended to be only a Tax ID number, our government encouraged it to be much more than that: our government has encouraged us to use it as an ID number for all things...in other words, it was meant to be a precursor to a National ID. It is only recently, it seems--due to the explosion of Identity Theft--that our government has encouraged us to be more conservative with using our SSN as an ID.
Somehow, and I'm not sure how, just yet (this is, after all, a new line of thought for me), by relying on our SSN, and our governments in general, to establish our identifications, it has simultaniously destroyed, yet enhanced, our anonymity. It is destroyed, because it's difficult to walk into a bank, call myself "George Smith", and open a new account, one that could be used in emergencies (both moral and immoral--anonymity is a double-edged sword) where anonymity is required. Yet it is enhanced, because all we need to do to establish ourselves as someone else is to obtain a valid Social Security Number, and maybe furbish a forged ID card or two...or, in the case of our pets, perhaps to send for a free ice cream coupon in our dog's name.
This line of thinking definitely deserves more exploration....
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Confirmed: We'll need to move. :-(
It's confirmed: we need to move. Our landlord is going to have to make major structural changes to the addition of the place we're currently renting. He gave us the option to be let out of our contract without penalty, and since we're not sure that the fixes he has planned will completely eliminate the smell (and the asthma attacks), we decided to accept the offer.
We've been able to find another place. It's smaller and a little farther away from work, but we made darn certain this time that it wouldn't have any potential mold problems! It's a little less in rent, as well, so we'll be better financially, too.
I'll go into more detail of the situation a little later.
We've been able to find another place. It's smaller and a little farther away from work, but we made darn certain this time that it wouldn't have any potential mold problems! It's a little less in rent, as well, so we'll be better financially, too.
I'll go into more detail of the situation a little later.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Freedom to Be Small Act
Severa months ago I read an interesting book: Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, by Joel Salatin, a libertarian, Christian, semi-organic farmer who just wants to be left alone. A great read. I highly recommend it!
One of the things that really stuck in my mind, though, was a comment that individuals need to have the freedom to explore new possibilities, but are prevented by numerous regulations. If I wanted to try to make and sell cheese, for example, I can't just make a small batch in my kitchen, and then take it to the local farmer's market...in the (largely mythical) interest of Public Safety, I need to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stainless steel vats, precise thermometers, and whatnot, and be prepared for the various fines I might face when a random bureaucrat tries to enforce some obscure law.
As a result of thinking about this, I decided it would be fun to write up a "Freedom to Be Small Act", that would go something like this:
Now, if only I could find a sympathetic representative...
One of the things that really stuck in my mind, though, was a comment that individuals need to have the freedom to explore new possibilities, but are prevented by numerous regulations. If I wanted to try to make and sell cheese, for example, I can't just make a small batch in my kitchen, and then take it to the local farmer's market...in the (largely mythical) interest of Public Safety, I need to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stainless steel vats, precise thermometers, and whatnot, and be prepared for the various fines I might face when a random bureaucrat tries to enforce some obscure law.
As a result of thinking about this, I decided it would be fun to write up a "Freedom to Be Small Act", that would go something like this:
WHEREAS individuals need to have the freedom to experiment with new ways to do things, in order to explore possible career paths, and
WHEREAS every small business has the potential of growing into a large one, and many of our largest businesses started out in someone's garage or kitchen, and
WHEREAS bureaucrats, regulations, and zoning laws interfere with this process,
BE IT ENACTED that any small business (defined as a business that has the equivalent of six full-time employees for every 1/6 acre on which that business resides, up to thirty-six employees):
- Shall not be subject to local or State zoning laws, except those that limit noise, fumes, or other noxious behaviors that will interfere with neighbors' enjoyment of property, and shall not be required to obtain a license to pursue business, and
- Shall be free from local and State regulations, and be required to state clearly to their customers, either by sign or by label on their products, that they are not subject to said regulations, and
- Shall not be required to insure themselves against sickness or injury that may result from their product, but may still be held liable for such sickness or injury.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that any such small business, so long as its products are kept within State boundaries, are not subject to the various regulations passed by the United States Congress, nor its many regulatory agencies.I feel as though I've left something out, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment--the napkin I originally wrote this on is still packed away, somewhere...but even if I had the napkin, I still would liked to have taken steps to "bullet-proof" the law. For example, I didn't want "retaining a lawyer" or "contracting an accountant" or even "hiring a plumber" to count as "employing" someone, for purposes of this law, except where it's a clear part of the business model. In any case, this is the gist of it!
Now, if only I could find a sympathetic representative...
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Why am I hostile to public education?
In discussing home schooling with my wife, she asked me: why do I oppose public schooling so much? I've had to think about this a bit, but I think I have the answer.
Apart from the bullying, which I mostly ignored, I enjoyed my time in public education. Yet, even during this time, I started to develop a desire to home-school my children. I think part of the reason was that I liked the idea of being semi-nomadic, moving once every two or three years...and home-schooling is a way to stabilize education over vast shifts of geography.
Even during this time, though, I think the seeds were planted to distrust public education for a second reason: Public Schools are inflexible. They are designed to push people down into lesser education.
Allow me to give three examples of this:
Exhibit A. I was in "7X" English--the level between "Gifted and Talented" and just plain old 7th Grade English. Although I got straight A's in this class, my teacher took one look at a test score, and signed me up for regular 8th Grade English...and the first day, I was bored, and felt out of place. Thus, with my mom's encouragement, I went to the office and asked to be placed in the "8X" English class; the next year, I was invited into the "Gifted and Talented".
I came to realize that my teacher arbitrarily tried to stick me in a lower education track, based on a single test score.
Exhibit B. I had a friend who didn't do well in a certain math class (I can't remember if it were geometry or algebra). Although he spent some effort to make up for it during the summer, this effectively derailed him from the "Calculus" track in mathematics. Between this, and the realization that high school only requires two years of this precious skill (as opposed to four for English), I had the sense that something was wrong. Now that I'm older, I can explain it: rather than have a flexible system where you can pick and choose math classes, you're stuck on a track. If you get derailed, it's very difficult to get back to a higher track.
Exhibit C. Grade advancement, to the extent that it prevents students from progressing, holds back the student as a whole. If a student is bad at math, but good at reading--or vice verca--he is expected to be held back a grade. Or, alternatively, a student is often pushed forward, despite being bad at both, to avoid the stigmatism of being "held back".
In either case, this is the direct result of a rigid system, arbitrarily dividing the students up by age, rather than by ability, and arbitrarily tying math and reading together.
Now, I have never been one to believe in "elite classes". The one thing I despise about a lot of our mythmaking is the idea that there is a certain, small, group of people, who are born into greatness, and everyone else is doomed for the mass of sameness. You can see it in the likes of Star Wars and the Force; Harry Potter and magic-users (the masses, there, are called "muggles"); and even "X-Men" and other Superheros. I've always had the sense that anyone has the ability of greatness, if their potential is unlocked.
One work that decidedly is decidedly not in this camp is Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings. The main characters--arguably the most important characters--are common, everyday farmers, who pop out from nowhere and change the world for the better. Tolkein makes it clear that, while Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippen are up to the task, almost any hobbit could have done what they did! And this, because hobbits like to do the right thing.
It is my feeling that anyone could learn calculus, and learn linear algebra, in high school. I'm an ordinary person, and I at least learned calculus in high school! All I did was dutifully do my homework; and when I decided to become a mathematician, I dutifully did my homework until I earned a doctorate. Of course, because I liked mathematics, I read up on mathematics whenever I could, above and beyond what I learned in school. But then, that's a side effect of passion...and it's also key to getting students to work.
But in our rigid school systems, teachers have limits of time, space, and bureaucracy, that keep them from teaching children to their greatest potential. To achieve that, students need one-on-one attention...and they aren't likely to get that, even in a class of fifteen, or twelve, students. And they certainly won't do that in a system designed to push students down, and even provides schools with monetary incentives to place as many students as possible in "Special" Education!
As I've read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education, I've received confirmation on my suspicions, and I've learned a lot more besides. I have concluded that I am likely wrong about having my children learn Calculus and Linear Algebra, and being able to read The Lord of the Rings, by the age of eighteen: I ought to expect my children to be able to do these things by the age of twelve.
And my children will likely be able to do these things, not because they are gifted, but because they are human.
Apart from the bullying, which I mostly ignored, I enjoyed my time in public education. Yet, even during this time, I started to develop a desire to home-school my children. I think part of the reason was that I liked the idea of being semi-nomadic, moving once every two or three years...and home-schooling is a way to stabilize education over vast shifts of geography.
Even during this time, though, I think the seeds were planted to distrust public education for a second reason: Public Schools are inflexible. They are designed to push people down into lesser education.
Allow me to give three examples of this:
Exhibit A. I was in "7X" English--the level between "Gifted and Talented" and just plain old 7th Grade English. Although I got straight A's in this class, my teacher took one look at a test score, and signed me up for regular 8th Grade English...and the first day, I was bored, and felt out of place. Thus, with my mom's encouragement, I went to the office and asked to be placed in the "8X" English class; the next year, I was invited into the "Gifted and Talented".
I came to realize that my teacher arbitrarily tried to stick me in a lower education track, based on a single test score.
Exhibit B. I had a friend who didn't do well in a certain math class (I can't remember if it were geometry or algebra). Although he spent some effort to make up for it during the summer, this effectively derailed him from the "Calculus" track in mathematics. Between this, and the realization that high school only requires two years of this precious skill (as opposed to four for English), I had the sense that something was wrong. Now that I'm older, I can explain it: rather than have a flexible system where you can pick and choose math classes, you're stuck on a track. If you get derailed, it's very difficult to get back to a higher track.
Exhibit C. Grade advancement, to the extent that it prevents students from progressing, holds back the student as a whole. If a student is bad at math, but good at reading--or vice verca--he is expected to be held back a grade. Or, alternatively, a student is often pushed forward, despite being bad at both, to avoid the stigmatism of being "held back".
In either case, this is the direct result of a rigid system, arbitrarily dividing the students up by age, rather than by ability, and arbitrarily tying math and reading together.
Now, I have never been one to believe in "elite classes". The one thing I despise about a lot of our mythmaking is the idea that there is a certain, small, group of people, who are born into greatness, and everyone else is doomed for the mass of sameness. You can see it in the likes of Star Wars and the Force; Harry Potter and magic-users (the masses, there, are called "muggles"); and even "X-Men" and other Superheros. I've always had the sense that anyone has the ability of greatness, if their potential is unlocked.
One work that decidedly is decidedly not in this camp is Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings. The main characters--arguably the most important characters--are common, everyday farmers, who pop out from nowhere and change the world for the better. Tolkein makes it clear that, while Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippen are up to the task, almost any hobbit could have done what they did! And this, because hobbits like to do the right thing.
It is my feeling that anyone could learn calculus, and learn linear algebra, in high school. I'm an ordinary person, and I at least learned calculus in high school! All I did was dutifully do my homework; and when I decided to become a mathematician, I dutifully did my homework until I earned a doctorate. Of course, because I liked mathematics, I read up on mathematics whenever I could, above and beyond what I learned in school. But then, that's a side effect of passion...and it's also key to getting students to work.
But in our rigid school systems, teachers have limits of time, space, and bureaucracy, that keep them from teaching children to their greatest potential. To achieve that, students need one-on-one attention...and they aren't likely to get that, even in a class of fifteen, or twelve, students. And they certainly won't do that in a system designed to push students down, and even provides schools with monetary incentives to place as many students as possible in "Special" Education!
As I've read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education, I've received confirmation on my suspicions, and I've learned a lot more besides. I have concluded that I am likely wrong about having my children learn Calculus and Linear Algebra, and being able to read The Lord of the Rings, by the age of eighteen: I ought to expect my children to be able to do these things by the age of twelve.
And my children will likely be able to do these things, not because they are gifted, but because they are human.
My Daughter's First Day
It's my oldest daughter's first day in kintergarden...and I'm not pleased.
It's mostly my fault that she's attending school today, because my wife didn't understand how serious I was, and I didn't take the time and effort to express how serious I was until she handed me some paperwork to review, about two weeks before my daughter was supposed to start school.
The misunderstanding is mutual, though: I didn't understand how invested my wife was in the tradition--one only about a hundred years old--of sending children to school, and having the days to herself.
As a compromise, we've decided to send my daughter to kintergarden this year, and during this year, figure out what we would need to do to homeschool our children.
It's mostly my fault that she's attending school today, because my wife didn't understand how serious I was, and I didn't take the time and effort to express how serious I was until she handed me some paperwork to review, about two weeks before my daughter was supposed to start school.
The misunderstanding is mutual, though: I didn't understand how invested my wife was in the tradition--one only about a hundred years old--of sending children to school, and having the days to herself.
As a compromise, we've decided to send my daughter to kintergarden this year, and during this year, figure out what we would need to do to homeschool our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)