*

What is the truth? Is it sometimes just the latest opinion? Is it changeable? (By the way, that's an asterisk. Not an asterik or an asterix, which are common mispronunciations. But more on the symbol can be found in the dictionary. You probably have one somewhere around.)

What is history? Is it simply the testimony of the victor or the view of the best writer? Where does mythology end and a true representation of the past begin? Can we change the past if we don't find it agreeable? How can we indicate any differences we may have, or any changes that may have occurred?

One of the biggest arguments in baseball, though it's obviously of no consequence when considering all of the world's real problems, regards the record for home runs in a single season. For a long time the record was held by Babe Ruth who, in 1927, hit sixty. The record held for quite a while and was revered by those who saw the Babe as the greatest hitter baseball had ever known. Then came Roger Maris, who hit sixty-one in 1961. (This all happened in the “old days,” before Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998 and Barry Bonds hit seventy-three in 2001 – but we'll hold that discussion for now.) Ruth, however, hit his homers in a 154 game season, while the season, by 1961, had been extended to 162 games and it wasn't until after game number 154 that Maris hit his sixtieth and sixty-first.

Although the achievement was great (albeit fleeting – Maris soon disappeared from the scene), some sources chose to put an asterisk in their records to indicate that Maris didn't ”really” break the Babe's record. He just had more time. (Actually he hit sixty in fewer at-bats than Ruth.) The asterisk and explanation added some context to the information however, though it didn't affect the accomplishment. And that is the value of the footnote – however it is indicated. It offers the opportunity to comment on what is written without directly interrupting the flow of the text – and that can clarify what is written. For not everything written as history can be accepted at face value.

It's said that “History is written by the victors.” The concept is old, and the origin of the words uncertain. Some attribute it to Machiavelli, some to Nehru, some to Churchill, and others to a variety of authors. What it indicates, however, is that history is made by the one whose book you read. It's certain that Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” It would reflect his views and not those of someone with whom he disagreed. And that presents another reason for the inclusion of footnotes. In addition to context, such notes can offer some perspective on the reliability of the source and, perhaps, alternative understandings of the events portrayed, and why they are described as they are.

The stories about George Washington that Parson Mason Weems wrote in his Life of Washington weren't meant to be taken as the truth. They were “intended to provide a morally instructive tale for the youth of the young nation.” They still do. They are the fables we teach our children even today. But any reference on the subject will ensure that they are understood as “instructive tales” rather than fact. They're wonderful for “the youth of [our not so] young nation” as morality tales that would prove inspiring. But, though created from whole cloth (Parson Weems was a man of the whole cloth), fortunately their allegorical nature is well known.

Not so the work of Alex Haley. Only when his work on the origin of his family as slaves in the American south – a “history” that became a television mini-series – was shown to be a fabrication did he fess up. As Edward Kosner reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015), when confronted about his work “Haley staged a dignified retreat. 'I was just trying to give my people a myth to live by,' he took to saying.” The “truth” may be more than a set of facts, but the reader is entitled to know what's “true,” and what's true.

How much of the history we “know” to be true should be foot-noted? How much is reported by someone with an ax to grind? The problem is less that particular views may be favored and considered as truth, but that other views are not always preserved. The Talmud, the compendium of Jewish law, was careful to preserve the arguments and minority opinions on the subjects it discusses, giving future generations an understanding of the various views and possibilities. Some of what were considered minority views have survived as traditions of particular groups and others, after further discussion by more recent sages, have been accepted as normative. The views of the “losers” were not suppressed by the “victors,” but preserved as intercalated “footnotes.”

Though short lived, the asterisk provided such additional information. Who remembers that what was once a “dead” baseball was livened when, in 1911, there was a shift to cork centers for the balls, and that Home Run Baker, who played primarily before the “jackrabbit” ball was introduced, never hit more than twelve homers in a season? (Or, for that matter, that tennis rackets used to be made of wood.) Who considers the fact that Josh Gibson hit over eighty home runs while playing in the Negro Leagues because he was excluded from the white man's domain? Who entertains the notion that home run numbers have been affected by changes in stadium sizes and shapes to increase their likelihood and the profits of the owners? None of this information changes the past, but it gives us the opportunity to view it with added perspective.

Whatever the subject, context and perspective are valuable. You can ignore them if you choose, but their absence cheats you. It robs you of the opportunity to understand what you are considering. It's a shame they're not used more often, and that they're often ignored when present.ⁱ

I        Aye, there's the rub. I used to footnote liberally but, fearing that the notes were never read, I switched to inserting some of the information into the text by the use of parentheses, quotation marks, and other devices.

A Few Political Thoughts

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court and had served since 1986. He prided himself as being an “originalist,” one who considered the original intent and meaning of the Constitution as the principles by which cases should be understood and decided. It's a conservative view – one that frowns on the use of modern social concepts in the interpretation of the law. He was one of the conservative voices on a Court that alternated between liberal and conservative opinions with alarming irregularity. Its positions were not completely satisfactory to either constituency. Which was the cause of much anxiety among citizens whenever a case was to be decided about which they had strong opinions.

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. The President will now have the opportunity to nominate another candidate for the Court. He has already appointed two members – both staunch liberals reflecting his own political philosophy. Because they replaced one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative (though both had been appointed by Republicans) his appointments changed the nature of the Court. In all likelihood he will nominate another liberal to replace the conservative Scalia in an attempt to establish a firm liberal majority before his term in office ends. Because the Justices serve for life, such an appointment appointment would affect our society for many years.

President Obama will assert his right and responsibility to do so. It is his Constitutional duty. And he will contend that he is the only official elected by all the people and, thus, representative of their wishes. And he will remind us that it the duty of the Senate to pass judgment on his appointee. “Advice and consent” of the Senate are Constitutional requirements, and the Senators must not shirk their responsibilities. And if they do pass on his candidate, refusing to accept him or her, he will make a political year issue of their “obstructionism.”

President Obama will not mention that while he received 51.2% of the popular vote in 2012, he only had the approval of 43% of the population in 2014 (Pew). Any claim to his popularity and representativeness should be taken with those numbers in mind. And it is hard to ignore the fact that voters have since chosen Republican (conservative) majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The latter is more of a problem for the President who will challenge them to perform their mandated responsibilities as he performs his. He will not mention his end run around the Senate when he declared the treaty with Iran to be an “agreement” which does not require the Senate's consent. Indeed, he cajoled the Democratic minority in the Senate to prevent a vote there so he wouldn't have to veto Congress's will (and the will of the American people) which would lower his popularity still further. Put differently, he prevented the Senate from performing its Constitutional responsibility when it helped him to do so, but he will insist they perform it when he believes that this will be to his advantage.

It is my hope that they will remain firm and wait to see the will of the people in 2016 before making any decision on candidates put forth by the President.

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

For better or worse, the United States, which was, at one time, the leader of the “free” world, has abandoned that designation. We once thought of ourselves as the world's “policemen” with the responsibility for protecting the weak from the tyranny of their leaders (primarily, of course, ones who disagreed with our policies). Our stance now is to defer to the United Nations and the European Union, and to the leaders of countries we once viewed as enemies. We talk and discuss problems. Perhaps that is better than taking a stand or taking action. As Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war.” But the recognition by other nations that we will only “jaw-jaw” gives them reason not to take our threats, red-lines, and deadlines seriously. In many senses we have returned to the isolationism of our past. Perhaps that is wise, but it implies the acceptance of injustices which we will permit to exist irrespective of our proclamation of American ideals.

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

At the moment, the leaders in the race for the Presidential nominations are Donald Trump and Senator Bernard Sanders. Because they are both disliked by so many voters, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may enter the race. It would be an interesting lineup. In a country that spawned the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and numerous other similar crusades against the oppression by the rich of all of the rest of us, in addition to an avowed socialist our choice would be between two billionaires. And in a country with (according to the ADL) more than 10% antisemites among the adult population – a country that has always had a Christian President (we can debate about President Obama at another time) – two of the three candidates would be Jewish.

What a country.

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

It's “silly season.” It's campaign time. That really started a long time ago and it's clear that some candidates for high office start planning their strategies many cycles in advance of their actual goals. Some countries limit the hullabaloo to a few weeks, but politics is an American obsession. We may not agree on anything else, but we love the time when we can argue. We all agree on that.

I'll probably discuss these issues again at another time, but I couldn't help commenting on them now. Silly season is contagious.

Ending LGBTQ? Bending Gender

According to (Dr. Ann) Moir and (David) Jessel, (“Brain Sex”), there are different phases in the formation of sex and gender identification. DNA controls underlying gonadal anatomy but (primarily male initially) hormone flows govern “brain sex” (the unchanging male or female “wiring” of the brain), attitudes, puberty, and gender identification, though these flows occur at different times and the hormones come from different sources (fetal gonads, adrenals, mother, exogenous).

Some of the mechanisms are known and are controllable or reversible. Some – especially exogenous hormones during pregnancy – have already been identified and addressed. It's also clear that the involved factors and changes begin at conception but many take place later, through pregnancy, childhood, and into the adult years. Some occur before pregnancy is even confirmed. Under ideal circumstances (at least “ideal” according to the view of most people) the various mechanisms and stages would be identified when they are occurring, offering the possibility of correction, but that's not always the case yet.

Exogenous hormones can be used to affect attitudes and gender identification, and can be used to lessen the frequency of homosexuality, trans-sexualism, and similar conditions. One thing seems clear: that nurture – whether societal values, parental pressures, the acts and temptations of others – play little if any part in the process apart from legitimizing it.  (Consequently behavioral modification is unlikely to be successful.)  Members of the LGBTQ community don't get there because they have been forced to by others, but because factors in their development made them what they are.

From the medical standpoint we can sometimes regulate what will happen. But ability is not license. Ability raises a different question: should such regulation be undertaken or does it suggest a sexist view that deviation from “normal” identification (and practice) is abnormal? And that question raises many others. For example, what are “disease” and “deviation?” And where does “normal” end and “abnormal” begin? When does a desire to prevent the “abnormal” imply a devaluing of those who are already (and unchangeably) “abnormal?” Does such a policy – to correct Nature's “errors” – further stigmatize those who may already feel marginalized?

We might also wonder about whether “perversion” – which now results in an individual being placed on a public list and being labeled for life as a sexual offender – is part of the spectrum. If it is, should we try to deal with it. Castration is practiced in some countries. It is a kind of hormonal therapy, though it is rightly viewed by many as too extreme. Exogenous hormones, which are sometimes used on these individuals, are a reversible alternative.

But the implications are never-ending, both in terms of philosophy and practice. We live in a world where determination of fetal sex is possible and abortion legal. In some countries, especially China, the practice of abortion so as to have a child of the desired sex is common. Is this moral? Is it sexism? If someday, by manipulating fetal genes, we become able to change race and the parents seek to have it done, would it be racism to do so? Is society's emphasis on youth a manifestation of sexism? And by treating and rehabilitating the disabled (or differently abled as is the current politically correct jargon) are we expressing a disdain for those who are afflicted?

Perhaps we should first consider the health professions in general. Are we permitted to treat the sick. By doing so we are not only opposing the “natural” – the actions Nature has taken – but also labeling members of our population as “deviants” from health. We are separating them from the rest of us.

And the issue is even more troublesome. Every procedure has risks. What chances are we willing to take? That is especially relevant when we consider fetal procedures. To what degree may we put our children at risk? (Actually the legalization of abortion has answered this question.)

The original issue can be viewed as a model to consider when confronting all of these questions. At least I view it as such. From my perspective our obligation is to future generations, not to our own. If there are some who feel threatened by therapies that suggest that they are other than we would wish them to be, so be it. They certainly recognize the prejudice that exists in society and, presumably, wouldn't want to impose it on others if it is preventible. Criteria will have to be found, however, to identify what represents “disease” justifying therapy. I recognize two.

The first criterion – and it is the one that has governed medicine for millennia – is “sickness,” which I understand to be any condition that shortens life or makes it difficult, for the individual suffering from it, to enjoy life. To a great degree it is internal. While there may be determinable criteria that can be recognized by others, that is not always he case. Pain and psychological suffering are only obvious to the victim.

The second criterion is external. For better or worse we all have opinions about right and wrong, about normal and abnormal, about desirable and undesirable. And we have to live with others whose opinions differ from our own. We live in a prejudiced world and that is not likely to change soon. We have to accept it. And for that reason I think that therapy to minimize the number of people who differ sexually from the average is warranted. The time will come when it is possible to identify and treat those otherwise destined to be members of the LGBTQ group, and I suspect they'll be more comfortable in “normative” roles than they would be otherwise. That view is not meant as a denigration of anyone who differs from the societal model, but as a recognition of reality.

Of course such therapy (and that to deal with other “isms”) should only be available as an option. Different societies have different “normative” patterns. That is certainly true of race. Even if someday it is possible to alter race genetically, such “normative” patterns in Norway, Nepal, and Nigeria will be different. And variety will remain an important feature. Many of those who differ from the majority will wish to remain as they are. Many will desire to retain their identities and their heritages, even recognizing the biases they'll face.

But that should be a choice, not a sentence. At least in terms of differing from the “norm” or suffering from a disease, that should be an available option. For them or for those bearing them. And we should give the matter thought now. Science has gotten ahead of philosophy and law and presented us with faits accomplis. It would be better to decide what we're willing to accept before we have no choice.

Happy Valentine's Day.

The Golden Fleece

Thirty or forty years ago – I can't remember precisely because memory and other things go as we age – Senator Proxmire initiated his Golden Fleece Awards. Perhaps it was primarily a publicity gimmick – it certainly attracted a lot of media attention – but he maintained that it was designed to showcase governmental wasting of taxpayer money. And it did that, too. Although there were others (eg the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, and many more) an important source or waste, he felt, was in the area of scientific research. So he “honored” the authors of papers on many important subjects who had received grants from, among other agencies, the National Institute for Mental Health and the Department of Education, for their groundbreaking work. As the Senator put it when discussing one of the studies,

I object to this not only because no one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn't get an answer that anyone would believe. I'm also against it because I don't want the answer.

I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don't want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.

The media also took note of the awards. A story published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune on August 22, 1975, supplied by the N.Y. Times News Service, and printed under the headline “Stewardesses' Shape Survey Just One Big Bust To Proxmire,” states

WASHINGTON – Uncle Sam has been measuring airline trainees' bosoms, buttocks – and who knows what all else at a cost of $57,800.

It's all supposed to be in the interest of safety, of course. But it caused Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. – the man who in March discovered a $465,000 federal study on why folks fall in love and called it an “erotic curiosity” – to fly off the handle again. ...

It's important to know that the value of money has gone up nearly four and a half times since 1975, so the latter grant, if made in in 2015, would be $2,118,500. Ya' gotta' love it.

Lest you question the significance of the projects he cited, here are a few listed by Wikipedia. (Don't forget that the amounts listed would be greater in 2015 dollars.)

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded project for $121,000, on developing "some objective evidence concerning marijuana's effect on sexual arousal by exposing groups of male pot-smokers to pornographic films and measuring their responses by means of sensors attached to their penises.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila to those that drink gin.
• National Institute For Mental Health (NIMH) for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, what went on in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy.
• Office of Education for spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television.
• United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire Sauce.
• United States Department of Commerce (Economic Development Administration) for spending $500,000 to build a 10-story replica of the Great Pyramid in Bedford, Indiana. Begun in 1979, the money proved insufficient and the site is currently abandoned.
• United States Department of Defense for a $3,000 study to determine if people in the military should carry umbrellas in the rain.
• United States Department of Justice for conducting a study on why prisoners want to escape.

Why do I bring this all up? It's because I'm one of the subjects in a study of mobility in aging funded (with our tax money) by the National Institute of Health. I just received a holiday newsletter from the program informing me that “... the study is currently in its 5^th year. We measure brain activity and walking at the same time. Our results demonstrate that both brain structure and function have an impact on mobility.” (It only took five years to figure that out.)

Who woulda' thought that the brain controls mobility. I always figured it was Orion. If I only had a brain. In medical school they taught us that we were controlled by the stars, so a study like this is certainly surprising and welcome. Indeed, the research is taking place in the same medical school, so I hope they'll update their curriculum.

Notwithstanding medical school, however, I always though that the brain had something to do with walking. I learned about it from the French Revolution. From what I understand, relatively few people who had been separated from their heads by the guillotine were able to walk after that. There are stories of chickens doing so after their heads were chopped off but that is apparently because the decapitation is too high and some of the brain remains (see http://theweek.com/speedreads/448290/why-chickens-live-heads-cut). The seminal work of ISIS, also suggests a relationship.

However even if the question is only about the effects of aging, I'm not convinced a study is needed. I, and many others, can assure the investigators that you get tired and achy and sometimes forget things. Perhaps I'm selling basic science short, but, at least in their own bragging, they don't always make a very good argument for the use of tax money. If a latter-day Proxmire were to suggest that this project was a boondoggle, I'd be hard put to defend it based on the information I have.

So why do I participate? I think I have a reason but I can't remember it. But I do know that it gives me something to do every now and then.

Two Roads Diverged In A Yellow Wood

We are threatened. By the past and by the future. Frost may have foreseen a different scenario in his time, but concerns have changed.

We're admonished that if we don't learn from the past we're condemned to repeat it. That would be a positive outcome, because it speaks to future possibilities, but our future doesn't look that hopeful – especially since history suggests that it's likely to contain some challenges that will be hard for us to meet.

Let me start with the past and then I'll get back to the future.

It is not fashionable – at least in centers of liberal thought – to note the threat of Radical Islam. It's “Islamophobia” and it's not politically correct. Yet it's hard to deny the rapid rise of Islam throughout the world. In the early seventh century CE, about the time of Muhammad's epiphany, when he was the sole adherent of the new faith, there were approximately 203 million people in the world. There are now more than 1.6 billion Muslims out of a population of 7.1 billion. Put differently, the Muslim population has risen 1.6 billion times while the world's population is only thirty-five times what it was in Muhammad's time. (Islam is now the world's second largest religion, behind Christianity, which it is expected to pass in about fifty-five years.)

How did Islam gain so many adherents? Natural growth, of course, was one of the factors. But however prolific Muhammad and his followers, that would certainly be a minor factor. Another mechanism was the proselytization of others – starting with those around him. The Qur’an attests to this being problematic. It certainly contributed to the number of believers, but the contribution doesn't nearly account for the numbers.

The new believers, however, were passionate and resolute. Muhammad had written in the Qur'an

“[F]ight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

Convert to Islam or die. It was a simple, and very convincing, argument. And the policy was carried out without mercy. To an alarming degree the new religion was spread not by the word, but by the sword. And, sadly, that medieval approach exists today among many – for just a small percentage of 1.6 billion is a lot of people, and many of them are ready, and even eager, to die for their beliefs. Their determination is evident from news broadcasts we hear daily. The sword threatens us today. Terrorism is rampant around the globe ("[t]errorism is rampant around the globe dozens of Swedish citizens received threatening letters with 'ISIS' signatures, calling for them to either convert to Islam, pay tax to the terrorist organization, or be killed – according to a Russia Today Arabic report") and, notwithstanding the struthious attitude of many, including world leaders, the vast majority of perpetrators of multi-victim terrorist attacks are “radical Muslims.” (Less frequently the insane and imitators.) The media also promote a head-in-the-sand approach: they decry prejudice by advertizing their own bias. And it's not just political correctness. It's bias.

What about the future – a future in which the number of Muslims (including radical terrorists) will increase? Humanity will become even more dehumanized than it already is. Robots will increase. In a sense, the history of robots is a long one, dating back to several centuries before the Common Era. But for most of the time what was theorized, drawn, or built were little more than toys. They were non-moving or moving statues that served no practical purpose. The first such construction that actually did something was built in 1865. John Brainerd created the Steam Man which apparently was used to pull wheeled carts and other objects. And their existence was literary in 1921, as noted in robotshop.com, “[T]he term 'robot' was first used in a play called 'R.U.R.' or 'Rossum's Universal Robots' by the Czech writer Karel Capek.” The plot was simple: “man creates a robot to replace him and then robot kills man!” And while there were other tales of robots, R.U.R. raised a serious problem dealt with by Isaac Asimov in his laws of robotics.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But scientists, good and bad, don't accept limitations. There are robots now and it is certain that sooner or later there will be others programed to go about on their own without any intervention or limitation by human beings. H.A.L., in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” defied human control in fiction, and, as is so often the case, science imitates science fiction, and this ability will probably be installed in some future computers and robots. And along with that will come the ability to produce additional examples of themselves. Horrifying as it might seem, it is not difficult to imagine the ultimate control of humans by those machines.

Muslims who live in the past or robots likely to be created in the future? Neither is an especially attractive prospect. And the answer? There is none I can imagine. I may not be around to see it, but one or the other seems likely to me. I'm not sure what we can learn from the past. I'm not certain what we can do to prevent the challenges we face from overwhelming us. It's up to the politicians and the generals to find a solution if one exists. We're in trouble if we have to rely on politicians and generals, but I fear that that's the reality.

9 AM And Education

A new, national survey released by the University of Michigan has found that 50 percent of parents who have teenage children would support later start times for high school. Makes sense. The primary responsibility of education is to educate. And if learning is more effective at an hour later than is now the case, it is logical to tailor school schedules to fit. Scientific studies have confirmed the improvement in learning with later start times. The circadian rhythms of teens have shifted, possibly due to staying up late to watch television or to call or text friends, but whatever the cause, they aren't able to learn as well in early morning as they were before.

In addition to the dispute about optimal learning times, here has been a sobering debate over the content of the curriculum, with Federal Government “experts” professing to believe that one “size” fits all and there are standardized examinations that can be used to assess and substantiate that view. Generally such an approach involves elementary school curricula, but authorities believe that there are certain facts and principles that they can delineate which are correct and which they can identify. And those principles are true at all levels.

Not all parents feel that way however, and there have been protests against both the curriculum and the examinations, with many localities rethinking the policy. Parents have a lot to offer. They may not have a union, but their numbers are huge, and when they agree about a policy their view merits serious consideration. That's not to say that they're necessarily right, but their eye is on their children first – before societal concerns. Some changes may need to be made – school bus times, methods of teacher evaluation, and the content of the education for example – but, rightly, they place their children's education first.

And that's the way it should be, not just for them but also because we, as a country, have come to realize that other nations are getting ahead of us in many ways. And some of them can be traced back to the education we have provided for our children. The parents' goal is – and our nation's should be as well – to make whatever changes will ensure a better education for the next generation, and beyond.

The problem is that not everyone agrees with this idea. For some it is more important to “mainstream” our students, to introduce them to the world in which they'll be living, than to give them the tools that will bring them success in that world. That world will, most likely, be in the United States, although with the frequent movement of our citizens around the country, and the inability to guess where any individual may wind up, the most prudent course is to prepare every child to be able to live in a world that contains the average distribution of all American citizens.

The University of Michigan study, however, suggests two things, though: that this is not the best way to educate, and that parents know it. Perhaps the world in which they'll be living won't tailor work hours to fit the sleep patterns of individual workers, but with a better education students whose learning schedule has been optimized will be better prepared for their jobs. And perhaps we are making the same mistake with other groups.

For example, boys and girls learn differently. As one teacher put it:

“For years I sensed that the girls and and boys in my classrooms learn in gender-specific ways, but I didn't know enough to help each student reach full potential. I was trained in the idea that each student is an individual. But when I saw the PET scans of boys' and girls' brains, I saw how differently those brains are set up to learn. This gave me the missing component. I trained in male/female brain differences and was able to teach each individual child. Now, looking back, I'm amazed that teachers were never taught the differences between how girls and boys learn.”

That's not a unique view. The real world may have both men and women, but perhaps classrooms should have one or the other. And perhaps they should have teachers who have been trained in the teaching of the different sexes. If there are different needs we should cater to them. If the goal is education rather than social fashion, greater consideration should be given to the different teaching styles and to separate education for boys and girls. Neither style is better and neither is worse, but they are different.

And just as there are both sexes in the “real world,” there are people of different races, abilities and disabilities, ages, and, whether we want to admit it or not, different levels of intelligence. It makes no educational sense to treat them all alike, with identical teaching methods, curricula, and content. Teaching to the lowest common denominator is neither fair nor educationally sound. And depriving some students of specific content because it will not benefit all, cheats them. Targeted education should be the goal – with the emphasis on education.

It will be expensive. More money will be needed for teacher training, smaller class sizes and thus more teachers, better equipment, educational environments and resources aimed at the targeted groups, and a host of other accommodations to student needs. And higher salaries for good teachers are certainly warranted if we are to attract the best candidates to educate our children. But where will the money come from? I'd leave that to the parents. They're smarter than we are. Whether we'll have to delay our Mars landing by a few years, begin Social Security payments a year later, or take some other steps, I'd trust the parents more than the politicians and government experts. And I don't need a university study to reach that conclusion.

What Would You Do?

OK. Pop quiz.

Get out your number two pencils. (Do they still use number two pencils? Do they still make pencils?)

Over the past few years there's been plenty of news coming from the Middle East, accompanied by extensive invective. It's been hard to separate the problems and to decide what we, and the participants, should be doing. In order to clarify everyone's thinking on the subject I've prepared a set of questions that may illuminate some of the issues. This is an open-book test and you're encouraged to use any publications of the United Nations, the European Union, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. No other references will be permitted. The examination will consist of the presentation of realistic situations – some already experienced – followed by possible responses. You are expected to be fair to all participants and to follow moral guidelines. Two subjects are covered: proportionality and moral equivalency. Since it is often difficult to separate them, no attempt has been made to do so. But in all instances you should look for the proportional and morally equivalent action.

You are a soldier, standing in a crowd at a bus stop. An automobile heads directly into the crowd running over, and possibly killing several people. The car stops and the driver exits with a hatchet. He then starts running after bystanders.

Do you

a. shoot the man with the hatchet,

b. protect the man from the enraged crowd,

c. help the man escape from the mob, or

d. run home, get your car, and look for a crowd in his neighborhood?

Three Israeli soldiers are approached by a civilian Arab family. The mother pulls a pair of scissors from under her clothing and stabs and kills one of the soldiers. The other family members (including four children) reach into their clothing.

Should the remaining soldiers

a. flee,

b. shoot the woman,

c. shoot the entire family, or

d. run home and get a pair of scissors?

An Israeli soldier comes under attack by a mob that corners him. He is armed with an automatic weapon. The mob begins throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at him.

Should his response be to

a. advise the mob that their acts are illegal,

b. fire at the advancing crowd,

c. pick up some stones and throw them back, or

d. consult his procedure manual for what would be approved?

Jihadists in Gaza send unguided missiles into Israel. They are aimed in the vicinity of a school but land in an adjacent field.

An appropriate response by Israel would be to

a. ignore the attack since no one was killed,

b. use the Iron Dome system to prevent future attacks,

c. remove any guidance systems from their missiles in order to ensure a level playing field if they return fire, or

d. target and attack the site from which the missiles were launched?

If in the previous scenario the attack came from a United Nations hospital which the terrorists were using as a military base, and if children in the school in Israel were killed

Should the response be to

a. consult the United Nations about the incident,

b. use the Iron Dome system to prevent future attacks,

c. return fire upon the source of the missiles irrespective of collateral damage, or

d. attack a nearby school in order to kill children and even the score?

BONUS QUESTIONS

a. Which of the above instances merits a UN or EU condemnation of Israel?

b. Which Israeli(s) should be brought before the International Court for war crimes?

c. In which cases are BDS actions not warranted?

d. Wouldn't all of the world's problems disappear if there were no Israel?

Think about these questions and answer them. The answers are obvious, but you have to reach them yourself – although the permitted references will certainly guide you to the truth. After all, we've known for millennia how to bring morality, pea,ce and goodwill to the globe on which we live.