Showing posts with label Gore Vidal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gore Vidal. Show all posts

Friday, November 19, 2010

Layer 381 . . . Education, Children, Intelligence, Pedagogy, Gore Vidal, Michel de Montaigne, and the Art of the Essay

.
As I was saying , Ken Robinson speaks about the youngest children in our schools being the best at divergent and creative thinking, and he mentions there being clear evidence of the decline in these skills and abilities as children get older and move through the school system.

He might also have said something about the decline in children's curiosity and also in their willingness to ask questions as they move through 10 years of schooling, so that by the time they get to 15/16 (at the latest) all they really want to know at school is whatever they need to pass their exams. This is an appalling situation.

Some years ago Melvyn Bragg interviewed the wonderful Gore Vidal, and Gore said something very similar about schools and what our entire education system does to children's interest in learning.

"Our education system is designed to kill all curiosity. l seldom encounter a boring six year old. But I never get to see an interesting sixteen year old. What has the 10 years of our education system done?"

Oxzen originally wrote about this interview back in 2008, in Layer 41. See also Layer 104 - its encouragement to read Vidal's "Perpetual War" essays, and its concerns about what Obama can realistically do to change the intellectual climate and the culture of America.

Since then, of course, we've seen the rise of the Tea Party and the imbecilic influence of Fox News making things even worse, incredible as it now seems. To be sure, the majority of Americans deserve a lot better. It's clearly extremely painful for Mr Vidal to contemplate all this.

......................................

Montaigne
In another section of this interview Gore talks about his love of Michel de Montaigne, and of his essays. He says to Bragg that he now prefers reading and writing essays, and no longer feels so passionate about fiction. He explains that it's the writer's "voice" that he values in essays - which is the key to giving the writer real immortality.

"Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (February 28, 1533 – September 13, 1592) is one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance, known for popularising the essay as a literary genre and is popularly thought of as the father of Modern Skepticism. He became famous for his effortless ability to merge serious intellectual speculation with casual anecdote and autobiography - and his massive volume Essais (translated literally as "Attempts") contains, to this day, some of the most widely influential essays ever written.

He is most famously known for his skeptical remark, 'Que sais-je?' ('What do I know?'). Remarkably modern even to readers today, Montaigne's attempt to examine the world through the lens of the only thing he can depend on implicitly - his own judgment - makes him more accessible to modern readers than any other author of the Renaissance. Much of modern literary non-fiction has found inspiration in Montaigne and writers of all kinds continue to read him for his masterful balance of intellectual knowledge and personal story-telling." - Wikipedia

Montaigne himself said this about his work:

"For these are my own particular opinions and fancies, and I deliver them as only what I myself believe, and not for what is to be believed by others. I have no other end in this writing, but only to discover myself, who, also, shall, peradventure, be another thing tomorrow, if I chance to meet any new instruction to change me. I have no authority to be believed, neither do I desire it, being too conscious of my own inerudition to be able to instruct others."

And so should say all of us.

On the subject of children and education Montaigne said this:

"The greatest and most important difficulty of human science is the education of children. For as in agriculture, the husbandry that is to precede planting, as also planting itself, is certain, plain, and well known; but after that which is planted comes to life, there is a great deal more to be done, more art to be used, more care to be taken, and much more difficulty to cultivate and bring it to perfection; so it is with men; it is no hard matter to get children; but after they are born, then begins the trouble, solicitude, and care rightly to train, principle, and bring them up.

Cubs of bears and puppies readily discover their natural inclination; but men, so soon as ever they are grown up, applying themselves to certain habits, engaging themselves in certain opinions, and conforming themselves to particular laws and customs, easily alter, or at least disguise, their true and real disposition . . .

We often take very great pains, and consume a good part of our time, in training up children to things, for which, by their natural constitution, they are totally unfit . . ."

....................................................................

"Montaigne is a great French Renaissance thinker who took himself as the great object of study in his Essays. In studying himself Montaigne is studying mankind. He attempted to weigh or 'assay' his nature, habits, his own opinions and those of others. He is searching for truth by reflecting on his readings, his travels as well as his experiences both public and private."

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/montaigne.html

You can access all of Montaigne's essays here.

On Education:
"'Tis the custom of pedagogues to be eternally thundering in their pupil's ears, as they were pouring into a funnel, while the business of the pupil is only to repeat what the others have said: now I would have a tutor to correct this error, and, that at the very first, he should, according to the capacity he has to deal with, put it to the test, permitting his pupil himself to taste things, and of himself to discern and choose them, sometimes opening the way to him, and sometimes leaving him to open it for himself; that is, I would not have him alone to invent and speak, but that he should also hear his pupil speak in turn. Socrates, and since him Arcesilaus, made first their scholars speak, and then they spoke to them.

It is good to make him, like a young horse, trot before him that he may judge of his going and how much he is to abate of his own speed, to accommodate himself to the vigor and capacity of the other. For want of which due proportion we spoil all; which also to know how to adjust, and to keep within an exact and due measure, is one of the hardest things I know . . .

Such as, according to our common way of teaching, undertake, with one and the same lesson, and the same measure of direction, to instruct several boys of differing and unequal capacities, are infinitely mistaken; and 'tis no wonder, if in a whole multitude of scholars, there are not found above two or three who bring away any good account of their time . . .

Our minds work only upon trust, when bound and compelled to follow the appetite of another's fancy, enslaved and captivated under the authority of another's instruction; we have been so subjected to the trammel, that we have no free, nor natural pace of our own; our own vigor and liberty are extinct and gone . . .

Our masters stick [knowledge], full feathered, in our memories, and there establish them like oracles, of which the letters and syllables are of the substance of the thing. To know by rote, is no knowledge, and signifies no more but only to retain what one has intrusted to our memory. That which a man rightly knows and understands, he is the free disposer of at his own full liberty, without any regard to the author from whence he had it or fumbling over the leaves of his book. A mere bookish learning is a poor, paltry learning; it may serve for ornament, but there is yet no foundation for any superstructure to be built upon it, according to the opinion of Plato, who says that constancy, faith, and sincerity, are the true philosophy . . .
Conversation with men is of very great use, and travel into foreign countries; not to bring back (as most of our young monsieurs do) an account only of how many paces Santa Rotonda is in circuit; or of the richness of Signora Livia's petticoats; or, as some others, how much Nero's face, in a statue in such an old ruin, is longer and broader than that made for him on some medal; but to be able chiefly to give an account of the humors, manners, customs and laws of those nations where he has been, and that we may whet and sharpen our wits by rubbing them against those of others. I would that a boy should be sent abroad very young, and first, so as to kill two birds with one stone, into those neighboring nations whose language is most differing from our own, and to which, if it be not formed betimes, the tongue will grow too stiff to bend.

Let his conscience and virtue be eminently manifest in his speaking, and have only reason for their guide. Make him understand, that to acknowledge the error he shall discover in his own argument, though only found out by himself, is an effect of judgment and sincerity, which are the principal things he is to seek after; that obstinacy and contention are common qualities, most appearing in mean souls; that to revise and correct himself, to forsake an unjust argument in the height and heat of dispute, are rare, great, and philosophical qualities.

In this conversing with men, I mean also, and principally, those who only live in the records of history; he shall, by reading those books, converse with the great and heroic souls of the best ages.

Human understanding is marvelously enlightened by daily conversation with men, for we are, otherwise, compressed and heaped up in ourselves, and have our sight limited to the length of our own noses. One asking Socrates of what country he was, he did not make answer, of Athens, but of the world; he whose imagination was fuller and wider, embraced the whole world for his country, and extended his society and friendship to all mankind; not as we do, who look no further than our feet.

A scholar shall be taught to know . . . what it is to know, and what to be ignorant; what ought to be the end and design of study; what valor, temperance and justice are; the difference between ambition and avarice, servitude and subjection, license and liberty; by what token a man may know true and solid contentment; how far death, affliction, and disgrace are to be apprehended . . . by what secret springs we move, and the reason of our various agitations and irresolutions: for, methinks, the first doctrine with which one should season his understanding, ought to be that which regulates his manners and his sense; that teaches him to know himself, and how both well to die and well to live. Among the liberal sciences, let us begin with that which makes us free . . .

After having taught him what will make him more wise and good, you may then entertain him with the elements of logic, physics, geometry, rhetoric, and the science which he shall then himself most incline to, his judgment being beforehand formed and fit to choose, he will quickly make his own.

The way of instructing him ought to be sometimes by discourse, and sometimes by reading, sometimes his governor shall put the author himself, which he shall think most proper for him, into his hands, and sometimes only the marrow and substance of it; and if himself be not conversant enough in books to turn to all the fine discourses the books contain for his purpose, there may some man of learning be joined to him, that upon every occasion shall supply him with what he stands in need of, to furnish it to his pupil.

And who can doubt, but that this way of teaching is much more easy and natural than that of Gaza, in which the precepts are so intricate, and so harsh, and the words so vain, lean, and insignificant, that there is no hold to be taken of them, nothing that quickens and elevates the wit and fancy, whereas here the mind has what to feed upon and to digest. This fruit, therefore, is not only without comparison, much more fair and beautiful; but will also be much more early ripe.

'Tis a thousand pities that matters should be at such a pass in this age of ours, that philosophy, even with men of understanding, should be looked upon as a vain and fantastic name, a thing of no use, no value, either in opinion or effect, of which I think those ergotisms and petty sophistries, by prepossessing the avenues to it, are the cause.

And people are much to blame to represent it to children for a thing of so difficult access, and with such a frowning, grim, and formidable aspect. Who is it that has disguised it thus, with this false, pale, and ghostly countenance? There is nothing more airy, more gay, more frolic, and I had like to have said, more wanton. She preaches nothing but feasting and jollity; a melancholic anxious look shows that she does not inhabit there.

Demetrius the grammarian finding in the temple of Delphos a knot of philosophers set chatting together, said to them, "Either I am much deceived, or by your cheerful and pleasant countenances, you are engaged in no very deep discourse." To which one of them, Heracleon the Megarean, replied: "'Tis for such as are puzzled about inquiring whether the future tense of the verb Ballo be spelt with a double l or that hunt after the derivation of the comparatives cheiron and beltion, and the superlatives cheiriston and beltiston, to knit their brows while discoursing of their science, but as to philosophical discourses, they always divert and cheer up those that entertain them, and never deject them or make them sad."

The soul that lodges philosophy, ought to be of such a constitution of health, as to render the body in like manner healthful too; she ought to make her tranquillity and satisfaction shine so as to appear without, and her contentment ought to fashion the outward behavior to her own mold, and consequently to fortify it with a graceful confidence, an active and joyous carriage, and a serene and contented countenance. The most manifest sign of wisdom is a continual cheerfulness; her state is like that of things in the regions above the moon, always clear and serene.

It is [philosophy] that calms and appeases the storms and tempests of the soul, and who teaches famine and fevers to laugh and sing; and that, not by certain imaginary epicycles, but by natural and manifest reasons. She has virtue for her end; which is not, as the schoolmen say, situate upon the summit of a perpendicular, rugged, inaccessible precipice: such as have approached her find her, quite on the contrary, to be seated in a fair, fruitful, and flourishing plain, from whence she easily discovers all things below; to which place any one may, however, arrive, if he know but the way, through shady, green, and sweetly flourishing avenues, by a pleasant, easy, and smooth descent, like that of the celestial vault.

'Tis for not having frequented this supreme, this beautiful, triumphant, and amiable, this equally delicious and courageous virtue, this so professed and implacable enemy to anxiety, sorrow, fear, and constraint, who, having nature for her guide, has fortune and pleasure for her companions, that they have gone, according to their own weak imaginations and created this ridiculous, this sorrowful, querulous, despiteful, threatening, terrible image of it to themselves and others, and placed it upon a rock apart, among thorns and brambles, and made of it a hobgoblin to affright people.

If this pupil shall happen to be of so contrary a disposition, that he had rather hear a tale of a tub than the true narrative of some noble expedition or some wise and learned discourse . . . I see no other remedy, but that he be bound prentice in some good town to learn to make minced pies, though he were the son of a duke; according to Plato's precept, that children are to be placed out and disposed of, not according to the wealth, qualities, or condition of the father, but according to the faculties and the capacity of their own souls.

Epicurus, in the beginning of his letter to Meniceus, says, "That neither the youngest should refuse to philosophize, nor the oldest grow weary of it." Who does otherwise, seems tacitly to imply, that either the time of living happily is not yet come, or that it is already past.
And yet, for all that, I would not have this pupil of ours imprisoned and made a slave to his book; nor would I have him given up to the morosity and melancholic humor of a sour, ill-natured pedant; I would not have his spirit cowed and subdued, by applying him to the rack, and tormenting him, as some do, fourteen or fifteen hours a day, and so make a pack-horse of him.

Neither should I think it good, when, by reason of a solitary and melancholic complexion, he is discovered to be overmuch addicted to his book, to nourish that humor in him; for that renders him unfit for civil conversation, and diverts him from better employments. And how many have I seen in my time totally brutified by an immoderate thirst after knowledge?

I have heard men of good understanding say, these colleges of ours to which we send our young people (and of which we have but too many) make them such animals as they are.

'Tis not a soul, 'tis not a body that we are training up, but a man, and we ought not to divide him. And, as Plato says, we are not to fashion one without the other, but make them draw together like two horses harnessed to a coach. By which saying of his, does he not seem to allow more time for, and to take more care of, exercises for the body, and to hold that the mind, in a good proportion, does her business at the same time too?

As to the rest, this method of education ought to be carried on with a severe sweetness, quite contrary to the practice of our pedants, who, instead of tempting and alluring children to letters by apt and gentle ways, do in truth present nothing before them but rods and ferules, horror and cruelty. Away with this violence! away with this compulsion! than which, I certainly believe nothing more dulls and degenerates a well-descended nature.

The world is nothing but babble; and I hardly ever yet saw that man who did not rather prate too much, than speak too little. And yet half of our age is embezzled this way: we are kept four or five years to learn words only, and to tack them together into clauses; as many more to form them into a long discourse, divided into four or five parts; and other five years, at least, to learn succinctly to mix and interweave them after a subtle and intricate manner: let us leave all this to those who make a profession of it.
..................................................................

"From the moment of his birth, Montaigne's education followed a pedagogical plan sketched out by his father and refined by the advice of the latter's humanist friends. Soon after his birth, Montaigne was brought to a small cottage, where he lived the first three years of life in the sole company of a peasant family, 'in order to', according to the elder Montaigne, 'draw the boy close to the people, and to the life conditions of the people, who need our help.'

Music was played from the moment of Montaigne's awakening. An épinettier (playing a zither original to the French region of Vosges) constantly accompanied Montaigne and his tutor, playing a tune any time the boy became bored or tired. When he wasn't in the mood for music, he could do whatever he wished: play games, sleep, be alone - most important of all was that the boy wouldn't be obliged to anything, but that, at the same time, he would have everything in order to take advantage of his freedom.

His fame rests on the Essais, a collection of a large number of short subjective treatments of various topics published in 1580, inspired by his studies in the classics, especially Plutarch. Montaigne's stated goal is to describe man, and especially himself, with utter frankness. Montaigne's writings are studied within literary studies, as literature and philosophy.

Inspired by his consideration of the lives and ideals of the leading figures of his age, he finds the great variety and volatility of human nature to be its most basic features. He describes his own poor memory, his ability to solve problems and mediate conflicts without truly getting emotionally involved, his disdain for man's pursuit of lasting fame, and his attempts to detach himself from worldly things to prepare for his timely death. He writes about his disgust with the religious conflicts of his time, reflecting a spirit of skepticism and belief that humans are not able to attain true certainty. The longest of his essays, Apology for Raymond Sebond, contains his famous motto, "What do I know?"

Montaigne considered marriage necessary for the raising of children, but disliked strong feelings of passionate love because he saw them as detrimental to freedom. In education, he favored concrete examples and experience over the teaching of abstract knowledge that has to be accepted uncritically. His essay "On the Education of Children" is dedicated to Diana of Foix.

In 1571, he retired from public life to the Tower of the Château, his so-called "citadel", in the Dordogne, where he almost totally isolated himself from every social and family affair. Locked up in his library, which boasted a collection of some 1,500 works, he began work on his Essais ("Essays"), first published in 1580. On the day of his 38th birthday, as he entered this almost ten-year period of self-imposed reclusion, he had the following inscription crown the bookshelves of his working chamber:

'In the year of Christ 1571, at the age of thirty-eight, on the last day of February, his birthday, Michael de Montaigne, long weary of the servitude of the court and of public employments, while still entire, retired to the bosom of the learned virgins, where in calm and freedom from all cares he will spend what little remains of his life, now more than half run out. If the fates permit, he will complete this abode, this sweet ancestral retreat; and he has consecrated it to his freedom, tranquility, and leisure.’  -  Wikipedia
...................................................

We could all benefit from asking ourselves simple existential questions every day, and through meditation open ourselves up to exploring our inner landscapes. A simple starting point might be, for example, what are our goals and purposes in life? And how do we become more self-actualised and more highly evolved?
.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Layer 380 . . . Education, Obama, the Coalition, and Royal Wedding Madness

.
Every single national newspaper had on its front page today a huge photograph of William and Kate. They were obviously expecting sales to go nuts, and they probably did.

...........................................................

I'm still thinking about the section of the Ken Robinson video (mentioned in the last blog) where he talks about the decline in children's curiosity and willingness to ask questions as they move through 10 years of schooling.

I have a video somewhere in which Melvyn Bragg interviews the wonderful Gore Vidal, and Gore says something very similar about what schools and our education system do to children's curiosity. I'm now going to find the video and quote from it here.

....................................................................

Fiona Millar wrote this column about Katharine Birbalsingh and Tory education policies in Education Guardian:

Our schools do not need foreign solutions

Alarm about our state schools is largely unfounded, argues Fiona Millar, and looking abroad for solutions is a mistake

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/09/state-schools-gove-policies

I have been in two minds over whether to write about Katharine Birbalsingh, the south London deputy head whose scathing attack on state schools was lapped up at the Tory party conference. Over my several decades as a journalist, I have seen several Katharine Birbalsinghs come and go. They emerge from nowhere; catch the media's attention, often because of the way they look. Would she have made the same impact if she had been white and middle aged?

Around 1% of what they say is true; the rest is usually eye-catching propaganda that plays into the prejudices of the audience. In my experience these characters usually inhale too much of their own publicity, get over-promoted and vanish as quickly as they appeared.

Birbalsingh is only one of the players Michael Gove has hired to bolster his flagging flagship policies. Arne Duncan, Obama's education secretary and Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, have also been recruited for more rhetoric about broken systems and intransigent teachers.

The selective use of overseas educationalists as witnesses is particularly hazardous.

It is barely a year since the Swedes performed this role, but they have been quietly dropped now. Why? Because too many other people popped up to testify that their system was not working. Now the Swedes have introduced a new law that brings free schools under the same regulatory framework as local municipal schools. Don't expect to hear much more about them in a hurry.

Similar doubts are now seeping out about US charter schools. The Credo study from Stanford University suggests that less than a fifth of charter schools outperform US public (state) schools, most are about the same and two-fifths are worse, often because they are incompetently run. Some are mired in financial scandals.

The most devastating critique of US school reforms comes from another former education minister, Diane Ravitch, an early charter devotee who now writes books and articles and tours the US to warn against the dangers of faddish piecemeal reforms that aren't "scalable". Ravitch is now in favour of public education and high-quality teaching rather than privatisation.

It is a shame she didn't see the light earlier, but there is still time for us. Every day in this country, hundreds of thousands of children go to schools that are generally orderly and disciplined, they make progress and pass so many exams that we now can't afford to send them all to university. The cogs that keep that system working are hard-working teachers and heads who bear no resemblance to the caricatures in the repertoires of any of Michael Gove's celebrity guests.

There are schools, often in challenging urban areas, without the strong leadership required to make a difference and they need to be confronted. But they do not mean that an "excuses culture" is rife, that our system is an international disgrace or that we need to absorb, wholesale, policies that may be only partially successful in their home countries, however captivating or charismatic their advocates may be.

...............................................................

In the London Review of Books this week there's an excellent essay called The Matter With Obama. Well worth a read.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n22/david-bromwich/the-fastidious-president

..................................................

There's also an essay on the coalition's economic and social policies:

Nothing to do with the economy
Ross McKibbin

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n22/ross-mckibbin/nothing-to-do-with-the-economy

‘Business now has certainty,’ the chancellor said at the end of his statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review; but that is the one thing business doesn’t have.

Much of the government’s budget strategy is dependent on consequences which might be favourable, on premises which are almost certainly wrong, on sheer fantasy, and on that will-o’-the-wisp, ‘confidence’.

 It is pretty clear that those on benefits of whatever kind will suffer, however the cuts are interpreted. Anyone disabled, or partly disabled and on employment support, or dependent on housing benefit, or in need of social housing, or reliant on local authority care – indeed anyone on a low income – will lose.

 And women will lose more than men. They are more likely to be made redundant by local government and the cuts in child tax credit are more likely to keep them out of work.

As for the rich, there has been no serious attempt to drag any of them into the circle of suffering – the bankers least of all. Their good fortune is the inevitable result of the decision to fund the deficit primarily from cuts in expenditure rather than from taxation, and the belief, in the face of all recent evidence, that the future of the economy depends on them.

In so far as the spending proposals are ‘fair’ and the ‘rich’ are affected, this is largely due to the efforts of the previous government, whose 50 per cent tax on incomes of over £150,000 a year the coalition had no option but to accept. That the poor do comparatively badly and the rich do comparatively well is not a surprise. Budget cuts that fall disproportionately on welfare programmes must be unfair.

I doubt that the cuts have very much to do with the economy: if they did they would have been more plausible and less risky. It is very unlikely that Osborne, if asked, could give any economic rationale for them. Nor could the Conservative MPs who cheered and waved their order papers when he had finished telling them that everything was going to be made significantly worse. The importance of the cuts is not economic but political and ideological.
First, they restore an apparently coherent, specifically Conservative and politically useful identity to the Conservative Party, distinguishing it from Labour. For the last 20 years or so the Tories have not had such an identity . . . But the ‘deficit’ gave them an opportunity; and the bigger the cuts the bigger the opportunity.

The crisis allowed the Conservatives to transform a crisis of the banks into a crisis of the welfare state. This, they hope, will enable them to restructure government and ‘shrink’ the state and its welfare systems once and for all, something they have been trying to do for the last 30 years.
.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Layer 104 Gore Vidal, New Approaches to Politics, and Instinctual Intelligence.

.
The Guardian’s New York Review of Books supplement yesterday carried a review by Jonathan Raban of a new collection of Gore Vidal’s essays (chosen by Jay Parini), under the headline ‘The Prodigious Pessimist’.

In the review Raban points out that the phrase “goré vidal” in Russian means ‘he has seen great grief!’, and sometimes colloquially, “fuck you!”. Synonyms for ‘goré’ include disaster, calamity, misery, anguish, woe, melancholy, depression and yearning.

Vidal actually changed his first name to Gore when he was 14 years old - from Eugene - supposedly on account of the fact that his maternal grandfather was Senator T.P. Gore of Oklahoma. However . . . who’s to say such a precocious wit didn’t know exactly what he was doing?

As Raban goes on to say, “Grief is his speciality as an essayist, most particularly grief over the decline of the United States from the best hope of the Enlightenment, via its disreputable adventures as a land-grabbing imperial power . . . to its present sorry condition of mass functional illiteracy and corrupt and bloody-handed government . . .”

Some years ago a Guardian reviewer wrote, “Gore Vidal is the most elegant, erudite and eclectic writer of his generation”. That’s about a good an epitaph as any writer could aspire to.

An Observer reviewer said, “Vidal’s combination of learning, wit and distain gets into your blood. He can change the way you think.”

Melvyn Bragg put it like this: “Vidal is the outstanding literary radical of America.”

For many years Vidal exiled himself to southern Italy, and lived in a villa near Sorrento. It’s crazy that he’s so little known or appreciated in this country.

The most recent book of his essays that I have in my collection is one published in 2002 - “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, subtitled “How We Got To Be So Hated - Causes Of Conflict In The Last Empire.”

Those essays focus on the destruction caused by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City in 1995 and by Osama bin Laden in NYC and Washington in 2001. A key paragraph in the introduction says,

“Things just happen out there in the American media, and we consumers don’t need to be told the why of anything. Certainly those of us who are in the why-business have a difficult time getting through the corporate-sponsored American media, as I discovered when I tried to explain McVeigh in Vanity Fair, or when, since September 11, my attempts to get published have met with failure.”

Clearly it’s not helpful to finding an American publisher when he writes paragraphs like,

“Since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of “preemptive” state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled. Besides the unexceptional subversion and overthrow of governments in competition with the Soviet Union . . . Washington has resorted to political assassinations, surrogate death squads, and unseemly freedom fighters (e.g. bin Laden). It masterminded the killing of Lumumba and Allende; and it unsuccessfully tried to put to death Castro, Khadafi and Saddam Hussein; and vetoed all efforts to rein in not only Israel’s violation of international agreements and [U.N.] resolutions, but also its practice of preemptive state terror.”

Bearing in mind that this was written before Bush and Cheney really got going in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s no wonder that so many of us are now looking at Barack Obama and wondering what the hell’s going to happen to him, and asking what he can realistically do to change the entire culture and the values of a country (and in particular its political establishment) that was once “the best hope of the Enlightenment”.

As it happens the lead story on the front page of the Observer today is

Obama's revolution on climate change

Barack Obama ushered in a revolution in America's response to global warming yesterday when he appointed one of the world's leading climate change experts as his administration's chief scientist.

The president-elect's decision to make Harvard physicist John Holdren director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reveals a new determination to draw a line under eight years of US policy that have seen George Bush steadfastly reject overwhelming evidence of climate change.

News of the appointment was hailed by scientists around the world, including former UK chief government scientific adviser Sir David King. "This is a superb appointment," he told the Observer.

Revolutionary stuff indeed. And it goes on:

In one telling remark, he added that respect for the scientific process was not "just about providing investment and resources. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted nor obscured by politics nor ideology."

So here’s a U.S president-elect telling the world that ‘politics’ and ‘ideology’ are not going to be allowed to get in the way of solving the world’s problems, and that henceforward policy and programmes in the United States are going to be formulated with reference to facts, to science, and to truth. Which is nice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/obama-climate-change-john-holdren

It also leads into the next item, which is:

“Any Questions?”

A very interesting edition of the programme went out on Radio 4 yesterday - the panel was completely politician-free. And it contained Shami Chakrabarti (CBE) and Joan Bakewell (DBE), who are always good value, and pretty wonderful human beings.

Shami was shortlisted in the Channel 4 Political Awards 2006 for the "Most Inspiring Political Figure" award. The award was voted for by the public and she came second to Jamie Oliver - beating Tony Blair, David Cameron and George Galloway. Not a lot of people know that.

Shami made a point of saying on air that the show was so much better for the absence of Parliamentarians. And so it was. The quality of discussion was excellent - intelligent, respectful, insightful and enlightening. No dumb-ass political posturing on fixed positions spouted by political robots who’ve been prepped and briefed to death by Party apparatchiks prior to the programme.

Clearly the majority of our elected ‘representatives’ are incapable of doing any thinking that’s in any way creative, unbiased, not self-serving or otherwise enlightened. There’s always calculation in everything they say - or at least 90% of it, which amounts to the same thing since it’s not reasonable to expect the rest of us to even bother with trying to work out which bits just might be worth believing.

After the broadcast you couldn’t help but ask yourself what Parliament would be like if it was full of enlightened Independents with integrity like Shami and Joan. I for one would like to see both of them in Parliament, but not (out of pity for them) in Parliament in its present form.

And certainly not through having to join either New Labour or the Tory party and having to suffer all the party political bullshit that MPs normally go through as they climb the greasy pole towards becoming a Parliamentary candidate. What a destructive, desperate waste of their time and talent that would be. And what a waste of time once they actually got there, as I’m sure the fast-tracked Glenda Jackson would agree.

In an anarcho-syndicalist system of representation every MP would be elected as an Independent, standing on account of their own views, ideology and characters, and not needing to pretend to agree with the views of a party hierarchy. On entering Parliament they would group together in syndicates both large and small in order to pursue agreed political programmes and agendas.

A system of proportional representation would at least be a small move towards this, since it would allow small parties that have a decent level of support nationwide to get access to the Commons. But it wouldn’t change the nature of our system, which is about individuals and coalitions we call ‘parties’ vying for power, instead of enlightened individuals coalescing around ideas and policies.

-----------------------------------------------

Instinctual Intelligence

Guy Browning’s columns in Guardian Weekend are always good value. Yesterday’s was “How To . . . Be Instinctive.

Quotes:

The iPod is the enemy of instinct . . . Instinct can make itself heard only in silence, which is why it's almost completely unnoticed and unused in the modern world.

Instinct acts as a kind of behavioural satnav. It's a quiet and reassuring inner voice that will always give you guidance, provided you can be bothered to tune into it.

Instinct is the accumulated wisdom of a thousand generations of human beings hard-wired into our little heads. Sadly, this is then very quickly obscured by the formal process of education.

This irony-filled column would be quite amusing if it’s wasn’t so tragically true that the formal process of education never addresses the need to cultivate and nurture instinctual intelligence, and in fact wipes out any possibility of developing it.

Listening to inner voices and inner feelings is not what instinctual intelligence is all about. As the ironic Len Cohen says,

“I don’t trust my inner feelings,
Inner feelings come and go.”

It’s the perennial problem of differentiating between feelings, emotions, thoughts and instincts, and it’s crucially important that we’re educated into being able to do so. Which is quite a difficult thing to do in a world where teachers and professors aren’t themselves able to do it, or even see the need to do it - to make it central to what goes on in schools, if we really want kids to have a 3-D all-round array of intelligences - intellectual, emotional, social, physical, spiritual and instinctual.

Schools need to teach the theory and practice of sitting (or walking) in silence - to cultivate our readiness and our ability to let what’s within come to the surface of our consciousness, and develop our readiness and ability to focus on what’s within.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/dec/20/ipod-instinct
---------------------------------------------

Review of Childcare Protection

The NSPCC has become involved in the great debate about the quality of our childcare services.

A damning indictment of childcare services has been made by the NSPCC, accusing both the government and local authorities of abandoning vulnerable children in "extremely dangerous situations".

In a submission to Lord Laming's Review of Child Protection, commissioned by the government after the case of Baby P, the charity paints a devastating picture of childcare services in the UK. Its report reveals a lack of high-level political leadership and calls for substantial changes to the law.

It goes on to condemn local authorities and the government for "losing focus" on child protection issues and criticises a "rule of optimism" among frontline child protection professionals, including social workers. This attitude, the charity says, frequently blinds professionals to the truth of child abuse by families and carers.

The submission denounces the government's lack of focus in child protection issues and reveals a frontline culture paralysed by a lack of trust between professional agencies. It also reveals that social workers are struggling to meet "absurdly" high government thresholds for intervention and allocation of services.

"The NSPCC has been keen to avoid adding fuel to the public outrages generated in recent months, but we are extremely concerned about the fragility of the system," said Wes Cuell, the charity's acting chief executive. "Organisations are struggling to cope with the number of new initiatives to implement and the workforce, which has a number of vacancies and is relatively inexperienced, is being overwhelmed by the complexity of what it is being ask to do."

But the NSPCC's report reveals that, far from improving the system, the Climbié inquiry reforms have weakened local authorities' focus on protecting children. "This has, tragically, been the inadvertent consequence of the inquiry's emphasis on a broader safeguarding agenda, with its emphasis on prevention, early intervention and the supporting of vulnerable parents," said Cuell.

Maggie Atkinson, president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, said she found the NSPCC's criticisms of leadership "harder to accept" than those of the system."

Well Maggie would, wouldn’t she? As for me, I say - did any of the Directors of Children’s Services whom she’s trying to shield from criticism ever stand up and denounce the ‘system’ she’s actually willing to criticise? And if they haven’t stood up and put their heads above the parapet then they’re complicit and therefore guilty of a failure of leadership - for that alone, let alone the ineffectualness of their departments.

What are you actually saying, Maggie? They were just following orders? Is that what we pay these people to do?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/21/nspcc-childcare-services-laming-review
.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Layer 41 National Treasures, Great Thinkers and Failed States.

.
There are some things that we Brits have to give ourselves credit for. Electing a socialist government in the aftermath of World War Two. Setting ourselves against any form of fascism. The creation of a national health service. The BBC and the concept of public service broadcasting with a mission to ‘inform, educate and entertain’.

On television over the weekend it was possible to watch the following on free terrestial channels:

The FA Cup Final (never mind that it was a rubbish match with a John Motson commentary so predictable, dull and boring that it’s not surprising the BBC have had the FA Cup broadcasting rights taken away from them. They should have given Motty the boot some years ago.)

Have I Got News For You. (Hislop & Merton - national treasures) (BBC)

Andrew Marr’s History of Modern Britain. (BBC)

The Comedy Map of Britain. (BBC)

Wild China. (BBC)

Doctor Who. A special Agatha Christie edition.(BBC)

Agatha Christie: A Life in Pictures. (BBC)

Coast (BBC)

Russia: A Journey with Jonathan Dimbleby. (BBC)

Bremner, Bird & Fortune. (National Treasures) (Channel 4)

The South Bank Show: Gore Vidal. (ITV1)

Various movies, including a TV premier of Brokeback Mountain (a dismal, depressing film if ever I saw one.)

All of the above (- a single weekend’s output) with the exception of the movies, are made in Britain or made by British companies shooting in China, America, etc, - an incredible creative effort that adds enormously to the culture of the nation. This is something we have a right to be proud of as a nation. I have no time for people who moan about there being nothing on TV worth watching. The fact that we can now access Catch Up TV On Demand is something else worth celebrating.

Not that I have anything against the best of American TV either. Down the years there have been some amazing programmes - too many to remember. Twin Peaks. The Simpsons. ER. Murder One.The West Wing.

Though nothing can ever surpass our very own Green Wing, which I miss very badly.

The BBC did very well to recruit Andrew Marr from the Observer, though I really miss seeing him in print. A friend’s son, who is by no means politically sophisticated or astute, happened to see him on an interview programme and remarked that he should be Prime Minister. Too good for that, I’m afraid, laddie.

His History of Modern Britain is a masterpiece of clear, concise and well-judged historical analysis, made vivid with some very well chosen clips from the film archives, which carry the viewer along and maintain interest throughout. Superb TV.

Melvyn Bragg is another national treasure, who has contributed to the culture enormously down the years, making very few dud programmes either on ITV or BBC radio. We will just have to forgive and forget his madness in making a programme about the pathetic and laughable ‘The Darkness’ - possibly one of the silliest bands of all time.

Gore Vidal, born on my daughter's birthday and a Libra Ox, is one of the USA’s national treasures. Bragg’s programme on him this weekend remarked that at 83 he’s the last surviving member of a brilliant generation of American writers - with Saul Bellow, Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller and Norman Mailer all being sadly departed.

Vidal makes the point that the USA’s education system (like ours) kills curiosity. He says you can no longer meet interesting 16 year olds who have real individual voices, whereas at the age of five or six they still do.

The New York Times for years tried to persuade readers not to read Gore Vidal or Norman Mailer. Vidal still feels that it’s possible to have a positive impact on society through literature and fiction. His instincts are to still to ‘intervene in the affairs of a sad country’.

He’s old enough to remember America in the time of the New Deal, pre neo-conservative America, in the era of liberal intervention and federal policies to reduce poverty and unemployment. The era before the USA’s spending on ‘defence’ went completely crazy. He spent decades living in self-imposed exile in Italy, but he’s still a great patriot, in that he still believes in the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Marr’s programme quite rightly gave a heavy emphasis to John Maynard Keynes, who was a brilliant economist, a liberal interventionist, and an incredible guy. He literally worked himself to death on behalf of Britain trying to persuade the American administration to give proper support for reconstruction in Britain in the aftermath of World War Two.

What did the Americans really think about a Britain governed by Socialists? Why did they play such hard ball over financial help? It was pretty obvious they wouldn’t have wanted State socialism to succeed in Britain - national health service and all. They still don’t, but then neither do New Labour. We’re living in the American Era all right.
Read more about Keynes at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last book by Gore Vidal that I bought is ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace’ (How We Got To Be So Hated - Causes Of Conflict In The Last Empire) [2002], which should be on every student’s reading list. The Guardian’s review of the book called Vidal "the most elegant, erudite and eclectic writer of is generation". The Times said, "There is no one quite like him, and if you do not know his work, you should".

Melvyn Bragg is quoted as saying, "Vidal is the outstanding literary radical of America". The Observer said, "Vidal’s combination of learning, wit and disdain gets into your blood. He can change the way you think."

So some Quotes from Vidal:

"Our rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never told the truth about anything our government has done to other people.

[Our government] masterminded the killing of Lumumba and Allende; and it unsuccessfully tried to put to death Castro, Khadafi, and Saddam Hussein; and vetoed all efforts to rein in not only Israel’s violations of international agreements and U.N. resolutions but also its practice of preemptive state terror.

George Bush booms, "Either you are with us or you are with the Terrorists". That’s known as asking for it.

His predecessors also assiduously served the 1 per cent that owns the country while allowing everyone else to drift.

Clinton, in his frantic pursuit of election victories, set in place the trigger for a police state that his successor is now happily squeezing.

We are no longer even remotely the last best hope on earth but merely a seedy imperial state whose citizens are kept in line by SWAT teams and whose way of death, not life, is universally imitated.

Once we meditate upon the unremitting violence of the United States against the rest of the world one begins to understand why Osama struck at us from abroad in the name of 1 billion Muslims whom we have encouraged, through our own preemptive acts of war as well as demonization of them through the media, to regard us in - how shall I put it? - less than an amiable light.

These guardians of our well-being have sternly, year in and year out, refused to allow us to have what every other First World country simply takes for granted - a national health service.

At the first suggestion that it was time for us to join the civilised world, there began a vast conspiracy to stop any form of national health care. It was hardly just the "right wing", as Mrs Clinton suggested. Rather, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies combined with elements of the American Medical Association to destroy forever any notion that we be a country that provides for its citizens in the way of health care.

Although drugs are "immoral" and must be kept from the young, thousands of schools pressure parents to give the drug Ritalin to any lively child who may, sensibly, show signs of boredom in his classroom. Ritalin renders the child docile if not comatose. Side effects? "Stunted growth, facial tics, agitation an aggression, insomnia, appetite loss, headaches, stomach pains and seizures."

For Americans morality has nothing to do with ethics or right action or who is stealing what money - and liberties - from whom. Morality is SEX. SEX. SEX.

This is just plain old-fashioned American stupidity where a religion-besotted majority is cynically egged on by a ruling establishment whose most rabid voice is The Wall Street Journal.

More than 50% of the national budget goes for war. Fifty years ago Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, cold, hot and tepid.

Representative government of, by and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congresses and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase.

Although we regularly stigmatise other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honour no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues. We complain of terrorism, yet our empire is now the greatest terrorist of all. We bomb, invade and subvert other states.

Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine. We the unrepresented people of the United States are as much victims of this militarised government as the Panamanians, Iraqis, or Somalians. We have allowed our institutions to be taken over in the name of a globalised American empire that is totally alien in concept to anything our founders had in mind. I suspect it is far too late in the day for us to restore the republic tat we lost a half-century ago.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This theme of the USA behaving like a rogue state is taken up by another great American writer and thinker, Noam Chomsky, in his 2006 book, ‘Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy’.

The book’s blurb says, "Offering a comprehensive and radically insightful examination of America past and present, Chomsky shows that this lone superpower - which topples foreign govenments, invades states that threaten its interests and imposes sanctions on regimes it opposes - has stretched its own democratic institutions to breaking point. And how an America in crisis places the world ever closer to the brink of nuclear and environmental disaster."

Gore Vidal is a great thinker whose family background and circle of friends have given him intimate connections with the highest levels of government, so he has every right to see himself as an ‘insider’ with a clear understanding of how power operates in the USA. Noam Chomsky, a professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, was recently named the number one public intellectual in a poll by Prospect magazine. We, and the people of America, ignore these people at our peril.

But as Gore Vidal says, truth-telling can drive people crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chompsky

(note to Wikipedia - dreadful spelling error in web address!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcO4WD5Z81c Gore Vidal - www - well worth watching

http://www.chomsky.info/

http://www.zmag.org/

http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/chomsky.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvyn_Bragg

.