I recently blogged about a new book that is flying off bookshelves in the UK and US: The Dangerous Book for Boys. Christina Hoff Summers points to the wild success of this book as further evidence that boys and girls are intrinsically different — and that boys have been largely ignored by educators in recent decades.
Today’s teachers have been trained to regard boys and girls as cognitively and emotionally interchangeable. Common sense persuades most of us they are not, and now a rapidly growing body of neuroscientific evidence supports this conventional view.
There are many exceptions, but here are the rules: Girls tend to have better verbal skills and enjoy a clear cognitive advantage in understanding people and human relationships. Boys, on average, have better spatial reasoning skills and tend to be keenly interested in systems and in mastering the rules that make things work.
Educators studiously ignore all of this while they strive to avoid “gender bias.” But even after being educated in today’s gender-neutral schools, the career preferences of boys and girls continue to be markedly distinct. It is not social pressure that leads so many girls to become social workers, teachers and psychologists, and vast numbers of boys to be mechanics, carpenters or electrical engineers; it is their different innate propensities.
The sad lesson of this book’s success is how far our current education culture has drifted from the world of boys. The special art of teaching boys – once so well understood by educators everywhere – is at risk of being lost forever.
Society is awakening to the possibility that boys have been disadvantaged. In past decades, what it means to be a boy has been redefined, deconstructed, reconstructed, politically analyzed and mathematically modeled. In the process, the meaning of being a boy’s father has become jumbled as well.
In the midst of the confusion, The Dangerous Book brings non-political truths into focus. For example, most boys like rough-and-tumble. They are riveted by tales of heroism on blood-soaked battlefields. They will learn history eagerly if it is presented in a chapter on Artillery.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in an interview on NPR that he questions the role of humans in creating global warming, and in fixing it — or even defining it.
“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
Naturally, other scientists, including NASA’s own, took issue with Griffin’s comments.
That’s what it will cost to fill up the tank of the world’s first air-powered car. The Air Car was designed by a former Formula One racing engineer, and is being manufacturered in India. The car runs on compressed air — and at 4350 psi, it must have a pretty solid “fuel” tank. It can hit 68 mph, with a range of 125 miles. Unlike electric cars, it can be filled up (at a properly equipped refueling station, of course) in just a few minutes. Or it can be refueled in a few hours by the car’s own compressor pump. The car’s cost? $12,700.
Sound too good to be true? Unfortunately, it is, at least for Americans. The car’s body is glued together, so safety concerns will limit its market. But a number of other countries are lining up to get this vehicle into their fleets. Also, one reader commented that since the engine produces no heat or electricity, there is no simple way to produce onboard heat. Folks in Minnesota won’t like that.
Still, this has exciting possibilities for the future of automotive technology.
A&E apparently has no interest in pursuing the exciting (but terribly expensive) Horatio Hornblower television series. So the lead actor, Ioan Gruffudd, is contemplating moving forward on a big screen version of a full-length movie himself. It would be a remake of the 1951 Gregory Peck original.
If he thought playing the lead role in the TV series was tough, wait ’till he starts trying to obtain rights to the books, secure funding, set up a production company, etc., etc.
Of all the domestic responsibilities I took on when I got married, the one that still gives me the greatest irritation is going to the grocery store “to pick up a few items” for my wife. Almost without exception, I return from each trip frustrated, angry, and probably in trouble because I got something wrong.
Apparently I am not alone in this experience. According to a report just released from the consulting group TNS Retail Forward, authored by VP Mandy Putnam, grocery stores are missing out on a major market segment: men.
Many men have difficulty finding items, forego buying rather than risk purchasing a substitute for an item on the grocery list and hesitate to ask for help if they can’t find an item.
As with so many other aspects of male behavior that mystify women, it’s strictly a guy thing:
Unlike women, men tend to hone in on the specific thing they want to buy instead of surveying the entire aisle, consultants said. That can be a problem for manufacturers and retailers trying to promote new products that are the life-blood of packaged food companies.
“They were great at picking out the stuff that they bought before. It’s the new stuff, or something new and different that a manufacturer is trying to promote, that they have trouble with,” said Putnam, who walked along with men as they shopped as part of her study.
Men also tend to bristle at the overwhelming number of choices in grocery aisles, with the cereal aisle being one prime example.
Somehow, after reading this article, I feel vindicated — it’s not just me. Of course, that won’t help much the next time I’m sent to the store “to pick up a few items.” It will be same pain, all over again.
A couple of articles recently crossed my monitor, illustrating the wide gap between the profession of objectivity in science, and the reality of bias.
First, this article on dark energy in Parade Magazine by Dr. Meg Urry, incoming chair of the Physics Department at Yale University. The article provides a glimpse into the fascinating advances in our understanding of the role of dark energy in our universe. As an aside to the story itself, Dr. Urry notes that the changes in our understanding of this topic illustrate the nature of science itself.
Science is not a set of beliefs that one constructs. Instead, scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.
As new facts emerge, scientific theories can be proved wrong or in need of modification, but scientists cannot ignore them. Eventually the facts will lead to the right theory.
This is an excellent summary of how the scientific method is supposed to work. But there is a dark side to science that belies this “search for truth” label.
Consider this article by Ken Connor at Townhall.com bemoaning the fate of Guillermo Gonzalez. Dr. Gonzalez, an astronomer at Iowa State University, has been denied tenure, despite a distinguished and productive academic career. Why? Despite denials from the university, the only plausible reason is because he is an advocate of intelligent design, having co-authored a popular book on the subject, The Privileged Planet. As Connor laments,
What is the state of academic freedom when well qualified candidates are rejected simply because they see God’s fingerprints on the cosmos? Isn’t the Academy supposed to be a venue for diverse views? Aren’t universities supposed to foster an atmosphere that allows for robust discussion and freedom of thought? Dr. Gonzalez’s fate suggests that anyone who deigns to challenge conventional orthodoxy is not welcome in the club.
The reality is that, despite Dr Urry’s lofty description of how science works, scientists can and do ignore the facts of nature, for all the same reasons that religious zealots ignore them. For all their pompous protestations of objectivity, the evidence indicates that scientists—especially in academia—are just as susceptible to the ravages of prejudice as the rest of us.
With our kids and grandkids becoming more spread out, holiday weekends take on a more traditional let’s-get-together-with-the-family role. This Memorial Day weekend, the Texas contingent came. It was a packed weekend.
Saturday was spent at Wild West World, the new theme park that just opened in Wichita. Here are Mimi and Poppy with the little munchkins:
The weather was cloudy and gloomy, with an occasional strong shower. At least it kept the crowds small and the lines short:
But no amount of rain could affect the bumper cars, which got a lot of action:
On Sunday afternoon, Poppy took the kids on an adventure they never get to experience in the city. We took some plaster of paris to the pond behind the back pasture, found some good deer tracks in the mud, and made some plaster casts of the tracks. Now they have some Kansas souvenirs for show-and-tell:
I got a chuckle out of this response from a reader of Dr. Helen’s blog, commenting on a discussion involving a feminist law professor in a university Women’s Studies Department:
Women’s Studies Department?
We need a Men’s Studies Department where I can get tenure for writing tedious papers about the history of logo placement on NASCAR vehicles.
David LaGesse, technology writer at U.S. News & World Report, has compiled a list of lessons learned from Microsoft’s handling of its release of its new flagship operating system, Vista. One lesson: Listen to the blogs.
New versions of Windows have always drawn gripes, but this time the volume of sneering is amplified, partly because of blogs and Internet forums that hardly existed when Windows XP appeared five years ago.
. . . The Web’s blogs and forums give new transparency to anecdotal problems; Microsoft must cut down on the anecdotes.
Elsewhere, LaGesse describes the five biggest problems associated with Vista upgrades.
The documentary Islam vs. Islamists was produced by, among others, conservative columnist Frank Gaffney, Jr., originally as one feature in a six-part series by PBS. However, PBS eventually pulled it, touching off howls of protest from conservatives who claimed the network was stifling a point of view that deserves to be heard.
The often-disquieting 52-minute film explores the struggles of moderate American Muslims at the hands of their radical brethren and gives details about a “parallel” Islamist society that is slowly but surely developing within the U.S. borders.
PBS has finally yielded, and will offer the film on a stand-alone basis to any affiliate that wishes to air it. Look for it in your area.
A few weeks ago, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was killed when he rear-ended a stopped tow truck on a St. Louis freeway. Now, his father has filed suit against (1) the restaurant that served him drinks that evening, (2) the tow truck company and driver, and (3) the driver of the stalled car that was being assisted by the tow truck. Other defendants may be added to the list.
Oh, one other little tidbit of info in this story:
Authorities said the 29-year pitcher had a blood content of nearly twice the legal limit for alcohol in his system when he crashed into the back of the tow truck. He was also speeding, using a cell phone and wasn’t wearing a seat belt, Police Chief Joe Mokwa said after the accident. Marijuana also was found in the SUV.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country??
Victor Davis Hanson argues that the current despair among Americans on the left and the right over the nation’s future is really a good sign.
In the last 60 years, we have been warned in succession that new paradigms in racially pure Germany, the Soviet workers’ paradise, Japan Inc. and now 24/7 China all were about to displace the United States. None did. All have had relative moments of amazing success — but in the end none proved as resilient, flexible and adaptable as America.
That brings us to the United States’ greatest strength: radical self-critique. We Americans are worrywarts, always believing we’re on the verge of extinction. And so, to “renew,” “reinvent” or “save” America, we whip ourselves up about “wars” on poverty, drugs and cancer; space “races;” missile “gaps;” literacy “crusades;” and “campaigns” against litter, waste and smoking.
In other words, we nail-biters have always been paranoid that we must change and improve in order to survive. And thus we usually do — just in time.
In celebration of the 30th anniversary of the original Star Wars, LucasFilm, Ltd., is showing all six of the Star Wars films in a marathon screening at the L.A. Convention Center today. Let’s see . . . at this writing, the tired fans are probably into the fifth film. Just one more to go . . .
No word on whether they are showing the films in the order they were released, or in the order of the story line. Either way, I’ll bet the survivors of this grueling event won’t want to see another one for a long time.
Smithsonian.com traces the history of an exceedingly rare — and good condition — 1909 Honus Wagner baseball card since it mysteriously surfaced in 1986. From an initial sale price of $25,000 to its last sale price of $2.35 million. Now THAT’S an ROI.
Hmmm. I think we still have our sons’ baseball card collection laying around here somewhere. . . .
Ashley Herzog points to evidence that today’s young coeds are finally figuring out that the sexual revolution long trumpeted by their older feminist sisters is a bum deal.
As feminists assail traditional moral standards for sexual behavior as “oppressive,” they ignore the fact that the sexual revolution has created a culture in which men win and women lose. While women bear the unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and emotional pain wrought by casual sex, men are free to move on to the next bedmate. . . .
If the article in my school’s paper is any indication, others are catching on to the truth: the hook-up culture is more oppressive than traditional morality ever was.
Paul Kengor recalls the “debate” between Ronald Reagan and Robert F. Kennedy before a crowd of young radicals in 1967, broadcast on CBS. Kengor notes that Kennedy got his clock cleaned by Reagan, but that was not the most memorable part of the evening. Reagan, then newly elected governor of California, handled the hostile questions from the students with deftness and clarity.
Reagan and Kennedy ended up debating the group of students, not one another. And it was there that Reagan was so effective, whereas Kennedy was passive, meek, and apologetic. Alarmed viewers looking for a defense of the United States as anything other than history’s greatest purveyor of global misery were frustrated by Kennedy’s lame responses but buoyed by Reagan’s strong retorts.
When 35% of Democrats believe that President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26% are not sure if he did or not, you have to wonder what’s happening to the intellectual foundation of the party.
The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”
The right response to the Rosie O’Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is “It’s just make-believe.” But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the “reality-based” party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61% of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, “blame America first” doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it?
Via the Drudge Report today, two items that put the global warming debate in a new light:
Marc Morano documents the growing number of global warming scientists who have now become global warming skeptics, because the scientific evidence has forced them to that conclusion. “Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. . . . Review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.”
And we’re not talking about compact fluorescents (CFLs) either. LED technology has already made a big impact in the flashlight market, and could be challenging standard household lighting within a few years.
AP reports that the big four television networks have 2.5 million fewer viewers this spring than last. Several reasons are suggested: awful programming, earlier Daylight Savings Time, or the impact of technology on the measurements, as people access their favorite programs via non-conventional ways, such as delayed recordings and internet feeds.
Whatever, this is bad news for the networks, whose advertisers are no longer willing to shell out the bucks for ad time.
Personally, I checked out of television when The X-Files went off the air five years ago. Since then, nothing on the tube appeals to me anymore. Now, I find everything I need on the internet. I suspect that’s where a lot of those missing 2.5 million viewers went, too.
A 19-year-old storm chaser barely escaped as the tornado ripped through Greensburg, then returned minutes later to help in the first search and rescue efforts. He handed his video camera to another rescuer, who filmed the desperate rescue of a man trapped under piles of rubble.
This is the real deal, not staged drama by a news reporter in blue jeans.
Earthwatch Institute is sponsoring field studies this summer on Alaska’s Bering Glacier, “the largest alpine surging glacier in North America.” One of the objectives of the studies is to find clues to past climate changes, which will provide a means of measuring the impact of more recent anthropomorphic (man-made) global warming. From page 5 of the expedition briefing:
Dynamic glacial processes at work along the ice margin of Bering Glacier offer an opportunity to monitor conditions that serve as modern analogs for past glacial events. All glaciers are in a constant state of adjustment to conditions responsible for their formation and those leading to their demise. Global warming and its effect on glaciers, and the possible link to an anthropomorphic influence, is a common topic of media attention. The study of glacial deposits is the key to understanding the climate of the past. By gaining insight into pre-civilization climate change, the current human influence may then be judged. Known for uncommon surging activity involving active ice front advance in the past (most recently in 1993-95) and for surge-ending outburst floods of water trapped in the subglacial environment, Bering Glacier offers a unique opportunity for field studies.
Actually, the Bering Glacier has already provided a pretty strong clue to past climates in the area. The briefing also mentions that a previous retreat of the glacier in the 1990s revealed the remains of an ancient forest. An earlier report from a BLM workshop on the glacier describes the remarkable find:
Here, a fossil forest of full grown spruce and hemlock trees initially stood on foreland outwash before being inundated by lake sand, then overridden by advancing ice that sheared them off at a common height of about 2 m and depositing the Grovemower till. [page 18]
Another section of the report mentions that this forest existed from 200 BC to AD 600 [page 24].
You can see pictures of the remnants of this forest here, and a more complete description here.
In other words, the climate was once warm enough to grow a forest where a glacier now moves. If the glacier is melting, then the climate is merely returning to an earlier norm.
That glaciers are melting today is not disputed. What we object to is the simplistic conclusion that human activity is causing it; therefore, we must severely alter our footprint on the planet to avoid catastrophe. The truth is that our planet has always been cooling down and heating up, long before our presence was felt.
Studies like this one, if conducted without bias or a pre-determined agenda, can restore sanity to this discussion.
What would have happened if the detonator on Richard Reid’s shoe bomb had not malfunctioned on that American Airlines flight in 2001?
The FBI ran a test on a grounded airplane to find out, and has released a video of the results. “What this video shows is the ingenuity and the ruthlessness that these people possess.”
We came within a hair’s breadth of losing another 197 people.
UPDATE: A reader at LittleGreenFootballs.com reports that this video is a test explosion from 1998, that has nothing to do with shoe bombs.
