RON PAUL: WHY SHOULD HE WORRY SOMEONE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?


Ron Paul won’t win the presidential election, or come anywhere near it. He will continue to be a Texas Congressman. I will continue to live in England, thousands of miles away from him. So why should I worry about him?


Some quotations from his own website indicate some of the serious problems with his views, from a progressive perspective:


'A Republic, If You Can Keep It’ by Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representatives delivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.
....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care. Despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage', (though he considers that these, like other government functions, should be carried out by individual states rather than the national government). He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.

Moreover, despite his support for his country’s Constitution, he seems to be a less-than-fervent supporter of his country’s democracy. Democracy, in the sense of allowing all adults to vote, was not a feature of American politics at the beginning, or specified in its original constitution, even if America was closer to democracy than England or most other places in the late 18th century. America’s constitution was amended to allow women to vote in 1920. It had been amended to allow African-Americans to vote in 1870; but this was frequently evaded in southern states until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Paul has gone on record as opposing this act, as contrary to ‘states’ rights’, even to this day. Should he really be trusted to uphold democracy?

However, most of the Republican candidates have worrying right-wing views; and some of them are far more likely than Paul to win their party’s nomination. What is specifically worrying about Paul is that some ‘progressives’ sympathize with him, and prefer him to some if not all of the Democratic candidates. This is predominantly due to his opposition to the Iraq War and to the Patriot Act: both of which are rightly important issues to liberals. But in addition some people support him because they are frustrated with the status quo, and he is seen as opposing it. Some people even describe him as ‘anti-corporate’ despite the fact that his extreme economic libertarianism, if ever put into practice, would undoubtedly increase the power of corporations.

Some argue in this connection that the old distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’ is no longer relevant. And it is indeed accurate to say that the right/left distinction should not be seen as a unitary dimension. People can be right vs left on a number of different issues, and different asp. Four important ones are: war/defence; economic/welfare; civil liberties; and social/ civil rights.

So here is where I would rate Bush, Blair and Paul:

Bush:

War/defence: Extreme right

Economic/welfare: Right

Civil liberties: Right

Social/civil rights: Right



Blair:

War/defence: Extreme right

Economic/welfare: Centre-right by British standards (i.e. to the left of Thatcher, but to the right of moderate Tories of the past such as Harold Macmillan)

Civil liberties: Right

Social/civil rights: Centre-left.


Paul:

War/defence: Left on Iraq war, but right on other aspects of world policies

Economic/welfare: Extreme right (could go no further right)

Civil liberties: Left with regard to Federal government infringements of civil liberties; Right with regard to such infringements by state governments or private organizations.

Social/civil rights: Extreme right.


So Blair overall is to the left of either Paul or Bush, but to the right of what I'd find acceptable. Paul and Bush are both thoroughly right-wing. Bush is right-wing on more issues; Paul is more extreme on the issues where he is right-wing.. If Bush is more dangerous than Paul, it's simply because he has more power.



What is frightening here is not so much Paul as a fairly powerless individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him. I fear that Paul and other of his ilk may appeal to disaffected progressives in a way that could get them to join a far-right movement without initially realizing that it *is* far-right.

Some of the original fascist organizations/ parties appealed to some left-wingers and lots of apolitical disaffected people at first, and this contributed to their success. And communism was and is of course 'left-wing' in its original impetus, but most Communist states ended up, according to the above classification: "War/defense: Right; Economic/welfare: Left; Civil liberties: Extreme right; Social/civil rights: Right".

I don't think that the particular form of right-wing movement that Paul represents is likely to lead to old-style fascism or other totalitarianism – though such things might be possible if different right-wing movements joined under one umbrella; but it could readily lead to a xenophobic scapegoating of ‘outsiders’ and to a far-right economic libertarianism that murders the poor or sick just as surely, if a bit more slowly, as an act of direct violence. It is important that progressives avoid getting involved, directly or indirectly, in such a movement. That is my real concern. Once the distinction between progressivism and far-right populism is blurred, dangerous hybrids could grow and readily spread to other parts of the world. I fear that an alliance between progressives and Paul supporters could be a step on a slippery slope to forming links with far-RW nationalist groups and individuals that oppose the war, such as Pat Buchanan; the British Nationalist Party; Jean-Marie LePen; even David Duke; etc. If that happens, and such groups gain respectability, especially in the eyes of people on the 'left', we may be sunk!


.

I think that there are differences between plausible and less plausible CTs, and also between a hypothesis that is rejected when the evidence does not support, and one which is held firmly in spite of the evidence.

There are indeed 'dangers of allowing fantastic, baseless ideas to morph into a belief that is perceived as a reality'.

I think that most of these CTs are neither right nor left in themselves. There are 'Truthers'; people who are suspicious of vaccines and other forms of modern medicine; and people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered, both on the right and left wing of politics, for example. There are differences in *how* these are expressed: for example, the left-wing anti-vaccinator is more likely to express suspicion of 'Big Pharma' and the right-wing vaccinator to express suspicion of government-run or mandated public health programmes. The left-wing 'MIHOP'-er is more likely to justify their beliefs in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of the Bush government in particular and the right-wing 'MIHOP'er to do so in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of all governments. It is among right-wing MIHOP-ers that accusations of involvement by Israel or 'Zionists' are likely to become most pervasive; just as it was among right-wingers that the idea that Iraq was somehow involved became most pervasive.

IMO, one of the dangers of certain CTs is that they can tempt left-wingers into an alliance with right-wingers. You don't need CTs for that. Progressives who are against the war, and against government encroachments on civil liberties, may become tempted to seek alliances with right-libertarians (and worse) who hold similar views on these specific issues. But strong beliefs that the government and large parts of the world are automatically 'out to get you', and that no mainstream information source can be trusted, can contribute to some (IMO) dangerous beliefs; e.g.:

(1) Icononoclasm and anti-establishment views are in themselves a good thing. The anti-establishment right is at least better than the pro-establishment right, and an alliance between the anti-establishment left and right might be a good thing. (LB: No, it might not! That's one way that fascist movements gained ground in the 1930s.)

(2) It may really be true that Jews or 'Zionists' are controlling the world, and that other countries are being forced or duped into fighting 'wars for Israel'. After all, such theories have been proposed by people who oppose the war and Bush, so there may be something in them! (LB: Do I really need to explain why that view is dangerous? And no, this has nothing to do with objecting to any criticism of Israel's internal politics or its treatment of the Palestinians. Being critical of the latter doesn't require one to subscribe to some 21st century version of the Protocols!)

(3) There is no real difference between right and left beyond some 'formalism' and 'mere words'. Some global elites are manipulating us, and using the left/right distinction to divide us. (LB: It is true that *party labels* may be formalistic; but there is a real difference between right-wing and left-wing attitudes to life. If someone is blaming racial minorities and foreigners for everything; proposing drastic cuts in public services and safety nets for poorer people; and attacking women's rights, then they are no allies, even if they support some of the same CTs as you do.)

(4) No source of information can be trusted fully, and therefore all can be considered equally valid. Right-wing CT sites, such as those of Alex Jones, WakeUpFromYourSlumber, and WhatReally(Never)Happened can be used as valid sources. On the other hand (as one now-TS'd DU-er once proposed), the Holocaust is only a 'purported' Holocaust as 'I don't trust the History Channel'(!) (LB: While it's indeed sensible to question all media sources, that does *not* justify plunging headlong into right-wing cesspools on the grounds that they are telling you what the government don't want you to hear!)

(5) All collaborations between countries, even for the most peaceful purposes, should be seen as actual or potential 'global conspiracies' and as steps in the creation of an evil 'New World Order'. (LB: Here lie all sorts of opportunities for justifying ultra-nationalism, racism and xenophobia. Indeed one of the surest ways of telling that a site or organization is anti-establishment-Right rather than Left is the serious use of the phrase 'New World Order')


I should emphasize once again that people can hold all kinds of CTs from the reasonable to the bizarre *without* supporting direct or indirect collaboration between progressives and the far-right; and people can attempt to validate the far right *without* having any of the usual CTs. But the two do IMO go together more often than would be expected by chance. That is perhaps the biggest danger of uncritical, single-minded support of certain CTs. And in the week of the Tiller murder and Holocaust Museum shooting in the USA, and the worrying rise of Right-wing parties in Britain and Europe - I think we should heed these wake-up calls, and shun ANY progressive/ right-wing collaborations that may lead us to tolerate xenophobia, hard-right economic 'libertarianism', and even forms of fascism.

that anyone who is against the establishment can't be all bad/ that the left-right distinction is artificial/ that temporary alliances between progressives and anti-war or anti-establishment right-wingers are acceptable in the cause of single-issue campaigns/ that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day' -


THIS is why I have alwaya so strongly argued against such views.

THIS is what we are up against!

THIS is why progressives can NEVER make common cause with the anti-establishment right!

THIS is what we must all fight against in unity while it is still not too late!!!

Admittedly I have not read the Prager/Telushkin books on antisemitism, and I take your point that they're not about politics. However I would find it difficult to fully take Prager's views on antisemitism on board, when he is himself such a xenophobe and so culturally intolerant.

The word 'conservative' has many meanings. Often it is used to mean simply 'traditionalist', 'opponent of radical change of any sort', or 'economic conservative'. However, there is a certain strand of right-wing so-called 'conservative' opinion which places great emphasis on xenophobia and intolerance of diversity, whether regarding background, religion, or political viewpoint. To me, xenophobia - especially the sort that consists not just of a dislike of foreigners but of an intolerance toward suspected 'enemies within'; an insistence on a narrow system of values as defining one's culture or nation; and an equating of cultural or religious diversity with treachery or not being a 'true Briton' or 'true American' - is my 'bridge too far'; one of my strongest litmus tests for extremism. Someone who holds such values *is* an extremist, whether an Islamist 'Westernophobe'; a Europaean anti-immigrant bigot; or an American 'culture warrior'. The slurs that I ardently oppose against 'Zionists' being more loyal to Israel than to their own country are just different horses from the same stable as Prager's.

Prager's xenophobia is perhaps most clearly shown in his comments about Keith Ellison's taking his oath of office on the Koran, and its ramifications:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?...

'He should not be allowed to do so – not because of any American hostility to the Quran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism – my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book....
I'm afraid we are becoming a diverse, secular society without any roots, and this is symbolically an example of that. The Bible is the repository of our values, not the Constitution...'


In part, I have to admit, I hate and distrust Prager for the rather simple reason that, by implication, he hates and distrusts me. I am a secular Europaean left-winger. He considers people like me as a danger to civilization:

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART... - 29k

'The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secularism and socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by educated elites around the world.

...Western European socialists and their American (and Canadian, and Latin American) supporters are as passionate about secularism and socialism as believing Muslims are about Islam. And they want to dominate the world as much as militant Muslims want Islam to. Their vehicles are the United Nations, the European Union, international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols, and international institutions such as the International
There is no other country that claims to be Judeo-Christian and no other that has such strong support for capitalism and small government (the opposite of socialism). Therefore, while both the militant Muslims and the socialists/secularists have supporters around the world, American values have few. That is why America goes it alone -- with the partial exceptions of Israel and Britain, no other society has the same values as we do.
Second, neither Judeo-Christian nor capitalist values are secure in America. Many Americans, including almost its entire intellectual class, are as hostile to Judeo-Christian and non-socialist values as the militant Muslims and European socialists are.
Third, almost no one is teaching the next generation of Americans (as almost no one taught the present adult generation) what is unique, let alone superior, about American values. Our children are overwhelmingly educated by people who believe in Europe's values, not in ours.
As neither China nor the rest of Asia, nor Africa, nor Latin America are offering an ideology that can dominate the world, either Europe's, or the militant Muslims', or America's way of life will prevail.
But the American way can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military and ideological battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America. But with America's universities, unions, professional associations, mainstream news media, and one of its two major parties ideologically aligned with Europe, and with big businesses constantly undermining Judeo-Christian values, the battle within America itself for America's unique values is far from won. And given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secularism/socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future'


Another article:


o www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager03020...

begins:

'America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war – a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.
The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities.
America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. ...All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. '

Here we see not only an extreme hostility to secularists, but an accusation against significant numbers of people *within* America of being 'against American values' and indeed a threat to 'the survival of civilization'; an 'enemy' rightly subject to a 'war'.

Do I think Prager should be banned or suppressed? No; that would in itself be extremely RW, intolerant, and bordering on totalitarianism. However, I do consider that his value system is so fundamentally different from mine and opposed to everything I value - in ways that go well beyond what's commonly meant by 'conservative' (e.g.: I dislike our Tory leader Cameron and would never vote for him, but I think that fundamentally Cameron and I have far more in common with one another than either of us does with Prager) that I would have a very hard time taking *any* of his ideas seriously, and would need a lot of convincing that they don't form a part of his very dangerous RW agenda.

Firstly, I agree that one cannot/should not 'eradicate' conservativism, as that would require totalitarianism.

Also, there are many 'conservative' individuals and parties in various parts of the world that are conservative just in the sense of distrusting radical change, and preferring to stick to tradition/ the status quo. While I would not vote for this position, I accept it as valid, and think it in fact quite useful for left-wingers to have to *justify* the changes they support, rather than just run headlong into them. In that sense, the conservatives offer a potentially useful brake.

The more liberal Conservatives can in fact be moderate progressives. (To give an example from an area that I know well, in the UK, some Conservative Education Secretaries have been much more progressive than some Labour ones, for example.)

However, I do consider the extremes of free-market libertarianism to be dangerous. I would guess that far more people worldwide have been killed by the poverty resulting from extreme free-market ideology than by any terrorist group, for example!

Also - and this is perhaps really my biggest concern about Roberts in particular - I think that there is EXTREME danger in anyone promoting xenophobia; pandering to racism; promoting the concept of 'enemies within', of certain ethnic or religious groups not being true citizens or needing to prove their loyalty more than others. My perception of Roberts is that his views would correspond more to those of the far-right parties in Europe - the BNP in England or the National Front in France - than to mainstream conservatives in these countries. The BNP and the National Front are also opposed to the Iraq war - and they are probably NOT overall as economically RW as someone like Roberts! But they have the same exaggerated preoccupation with 'national identity'; with the evils of multiculturalism; with the dangers of Jews, Muslims and immigrants having influence over our countries. It is this sort of attitude that seriously worries me, and which I think it's important for progressives to repudiate under all circumstances.

There were other people who helped to earn those children their desks.

Most directly, the people who paid for them. The taxpayers. Republicans and their RW equivalents elsewhere regard it as a patriotic duty to fight for your country (even if they often think it should be someone else's patriotic duty rather than theirs). But oddly enough, they don't seem to regard it as a patriotic duty to pay for one's country. So let all of us, who are fortunate to live in countries with extensive state education, thank the taxpayers who pay for it.

And let us thank the dangerous left-wing politicians (including the centrists and moderate conservatives who would seem left-wing to the likes of Huckabee) who set up and later extended systems of state education. In the UK, state primary education didn't begin till the 19th century; and became universal in the 1870s. Universal state secondary education was established by the 1944 Education Act. I believe that the USA anticipated us in the provision of universal state education. Let the children thank the progressive Americans who ensured this.

Of course, it's not much use having schools if you can't attend them because you're labouring all day. Let us all thank the interfering activists, and the evil trade unions, who ensured that children *could* go and sit on those school desks, instead of spending all day working in fields or mines or factories. Some of these trade unionists suffered imprisonment, even death, to ensure that their descendants would have a right to those school desks. Give a moment to remember and thank them. And let's thank the politicians who set down laws to ensure that no children would have to go out and work instead of attending school. In America, I believe that FDR and his colleagues and supporters had a certain amount to do with this! Eeeevil leftists again.

And I note that this was in Little Rock. The school desks of those children who were not white were earned through the blood of the civil rights activists who dared to defy the right-wing racists, such as another conservative Arkansas governor, Orval Faubus.

The school desks of the little *girls* in the class - and in such classes in many other countries - were earned in part by evil left-wing feminists, who thought that females might deserve a place in society, and the right to pursue their own ambitions. Let us all pause to thank them. And perhaps these girls could also thank America's founding fathers for making sure to establish separation between church and state. Theocracies and girls' advanced education tend not to mix very well.

Yes, there are a lot of people who helped to those desks!

While there are plenty of genuine criticisms one can make of Israel, they are not the reason for anti-semitism which long predated the State of Israel. One could as well say that racism is caused by people's objections to certain African leaders.

Moreover, I feel that there is a certain type of hostility to Israel that does have roots in antisemitism: not necessarily personal antisemitism by the people who express it, but in old antisemitic traditions that have found modern expression on some websites and other info sources that may at first seem convincing. The type of hostility that I mean does *not* principally involve criticisms of Israeli internal policies, or their treatment of Palestinians, except as fodder for the main theme: Israel is 'controlling' the politics and media of America or other countries. Currently this tends to involve accusations that Israel caused the Iraq war, and may get America (or Britain/Europe) into other wars. This does not stand up to logical scrutiny (among much else, the current Israeli government is barely able to maintain any power *at home*, let alone in faraway countries); but has roots in long traditions of accusation of Jewish groups of controlling other countries - going back at least as far as the 'Protocols', and certainly long before the creation of the State of Israel.

The types of people who hold such views often have other xenophobic views as well. Racism of all sorts; blaming 'immigrants' for everything; assuming a vast Muslim conspiracy; intense hatred of international groupings such as the UN or EU - are all aspects of the same sort of attitude, and may well be held simultaneously. Certainly, organizations such as the BNP, National Front, and Stormfront tend to combine lots of these views.

www.axt.org.uk

www.searchlightmagazine.com

but I think that the *reality* of liberty *for all* can only come from the left, or at least from outside the real right.

As I said on another thread, one cannot do without *either* civil liberties *or* humane social and economic policies that protect people from discrimination, poverty and hardship. Economic protection without civil liberties leads either, when opposed to big government, to a right-wing populism that tramples on minorities, or, when combined with big government, to the pseudo-left authoritarianism of Communist countries. But civil liberties without economic protection are *no* civil liberties. Coercion by poverty and hardship can be as harsh and indeed murderous as coercion by state police.

Paul Craig Roberts is right on this particular issue, and I don't know enough about him to know whether he's moved to the left in general. So I'm not saying that we shouldn't listen to him on this. But I am saying that we cannot compromise on social and economic liberalism,, any more than we can compromise on civil liberties.

Here is an interesting article by Elizabeth Spelke on (lack of) intrinsic gender differences in maths and science: particularly interesting for its report on steady reduction over the years in gender differences in science and maths.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/sexsci /

Here's a debate on the subject between Spelke and Steven Pinker

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/d...



Here are a few extracts from a chapter I wrote:



'"Are males better at mathematics than females?

The folk wisdom is that males are better at mathematics than females. In fact, this statement needs considerable qualification. Males are more likely to be extremely good at mathematics. Certainly, the large majority of professional research mathematicians are men. At the other end of the scale, serious mathematical difficulties seem to be equally common in males and females (Lewis, Hitch and Walker, 1994; Gross-Tsur, Manor and Shalev, 1995).

Findings tend to show that any male advantage in arithmetic does not usually appear until the age of 10 or later (Benbow, 1988; Hyde, Fennema and Lamon, 1990; Lummis and Stevenson, 1990).

Studies of preschool and early primary school children generally show no gender differences in arithmetic. For example, Lummis and Stevenson (1990) found no gender differences in arithmetical calculations in kindergarten, first grade and even fifth grade (10-to-11-year-old) children in the United States of America, Taiwan and Japan. Fifth-grade boys in the Asian countries did, however, show an advantage in word problems.

Gender differences in mathematics have decreased overall (TIMSS, 1996, 1999) over the years. For example, Delgado and Prieto (2004) found no significant gender differences in arithmetic, word problem solving or geometry even in a group of (non-mathematician) university students.


Spatial ability and gender

Spatial ability has frequently been suggested (e.g. by Casey, Nuttall and Benbow, 1995) to be an important factor in mathematical performance in general, and in gender differences in mathematics in particular.

.... the evidence that differences in spatial ability are a major cause of gender differences in mathematics is quite weak. This weakness can be seen on two grounds: (1) differences in spatial abilities are small, and confined to only some forms of spatial skill; (2) the relationship between spatial and mathematical skills, other than geometry, is tenuous.'

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyscalculia....

You might also be interested in the e-mail discussion group about mathematical difficulties and interventions:

www.numeracyintervention.net

in Pipes expressing concern that the Muslim immigrants will take over, and destroy Europaean values, when he himself (or at least people whom he endorses) seem to want nothing more than to destroy Europaean values themselves!

Mark Steyn, with his approval, argued that: 'freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications...• The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change, while feminizing the males. .. It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions. ...• It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion,...leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways. (Americans should)...
.avoid the "bloated European welfare systems," declare them no less than a national security threat, shrink the state, and emphasize the virtues of self-reliance and individual innovation.'

A great endorsement of the best in Europaean values - NOT! In his other article, Pipes quotes, with apparent sympathy people who call Europe the 'Dark Continent' due to its secularism (I assume he doesn't mean AlQuaeda here, though they do share this view, so does he mean the Pat Robertson/ James Dobson crowd)? He complains of lack of Christian observance, just as one of his hated Islamists might despise the Europaeans for not following the true religion of Islam. (BTW, one thing that puzzles me: is Pipes Jewish? I thought he was, but these remarks make me think that either I was wrong, or he is indulging in a very dangerous form of the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' syndrome.)

You know, maybe I do have a teeny bit of good old British xenophobia after all. I don't like people coming from the outside and attacking the best things of my culture that took years to build, and suggesting that it all be smashed. My country, and my region of the world, may have many faults, but we have some really good things too: our religious tolerance and secular democracy, even in countries that don't have official separation of church and state; our relative gender equality and in particular reproductive choice for women; our relative tolerance for a variety of ways of life and acceptance of eccentricity; our social safety net; our valuing the protection of the vulnerable and the prevention of severe poverty over 'individual self-reliance'. And I'm *not* taking any threat to these great aspects of our way of life lying down. Not from an Islamist, and not from a Christian fundie, and not from followers of Pipes or Steyn either. I realize that Pipes and Steyn probably don't and won't have much real influence (fortunately!) on what happens in Europe. But I will certainly fight against any influence that they, or those whom they influence, do try to have.

As regards your arguments about 'liberal narrative' vs. 'conservative narrative' - well, to some degree I agree with you, but isn't it overall a bit reminiscent of the right-wingers who argue that by allowing gay marriage and reproductive choice, liberals are forcing a secular religion on righties? I will certainly admit some personal bias: as a secular, Jewish, second-generation- immigrant(on one side), slightly disabled, career woman, with elderly relatives who benefit from the health service, I do have plenty of personal interests in preserving liberalism against any resurgence of right-wing values in my country! But in addition I think the right-wing values are potentially truly damaging to so many, and against so much that is good in our culture.

Boys and girls within a family can be treated very differently.

It's not news that *overall* males tend to be closer to the extremes in all sorts of tests. If there's a genetic basis, it would presumably be due to the fact that unusual recessive genes on the X chromosome will usually be suppressed by dominant genes on the other X chromosome in a woman, and won't be expressed. A man has only one X chromosome, so unusual recessive genes are more likely to be manifested. This is why men are more likely than women to be colour-blind; and why haemophilia is almost exclusively found in men. There are some disorders that specifically affect the brain and cause low IQ, such as fragile-X syndrome, which are caused by an abnormal gene on the X-chromosome, and which are much commoner in males than in females. In theory, it's also possible that unusual genes on the X-chromosome could cause outstandingly *high* ability, and this would be commoner in males. However, there's no real evidence for this, and it seems a bit unlikely, as variations in ability in the normal and gifted range seem to be due to multiple genes interacting with environmental factors, rather than to any one single gene.

Two important reasons for males being more 'extreme' than females are likely to be that (1) it's more acceptable for males to stand out from the crowd, whereas females are more likely to wish to conform and not appear too noticeable; (2) men are more likely to take risks, which, in the case of tests, tends to mean that they are more likely to come up with a brilliant idea that raises their score *and* more likely to fail completely, whereas women tend to play safer.

As regards specific abilities, it is generally found that females are a bit better verbally and males are a bit better spatially, though the differences are not huge. There are very conflicting findings about gender differences in arithmetic, with lots of variations over time and place, which suggests a strong influence of social factors. Gender differences in arithmetic and other aspects of maths are much smaller now than 20 or 30 years ago. Elizabeth Spelke published an interesting article about this in 2005.

A few British variants, with a great deal of interbreeding and cross-fertilization:

Taxophobius Thatcheritus: Obsessed with the evils of taxes, and would much rather see all public services run to the ground than pay a penny more in tax. Considers that if people are poor it's their own fault for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and becoming entrepreneurs. Worships the memory of Milton Friedman. Closely related to the American species Taxophobius Reaganomicus.


Hangmannicus Nostalgicus: This person has a simple explanation for crime: we don't punish people violently enough. Locking 'em all up to the tune of the last Tory government's favourite expresssion "Prison works!" is OK, but really nothing like as enjoyable as hanging 'em all and flogging 'em all. Since Britain formally abolished the Rope 40 years ago and the Birch even longer ago, this is difficult to achieve nowadays, but its still possible to daydream about it, and talk nostalgically and with alarming relish about how the Rope and Birch would vastly improve modern society. Nothing like enjoying sadistic fantasies AND feeling virtuous about them at the same time!


Xenophobius Bigotticus. This is our most venomous native species, and 'native' is the key word. To such people, there is nothing worse than an Immigrant, and Immigrants include some people whose grandparents were born in this country. They hate all people who aren't white, and many people who are. Their main wish in life is to Send 'Em All Back Where They Came From. According to them, Immigrants and Asylum Seekers are responsible for all the country's problems, except for a few that can be blamed on The Evil Europaean Union. Their delusions are fuelled by the dangerous and addictive drug commonly known as Dailymailium.

is largely the old antisemitism, changing as always in detail to accommodate new contexts.

There has always been antisemitism in Britain. George Orwell wrote an interesting essay on the subject in the 1940s:

www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Brit...

My view is that it is part of the general xenophobia which has always disfigured our 'right little, tight little island' to quote a 19th century song. Foreigners and their descendants are too often treated as at best 'Not Quite One of Us'; at worst sinister villains.

I agree with MacShane that the problem is worse in some other Europaean countries, especially those of Eastern Europe, though there are neo-Nazi and other far-right movements everywhere.

I don't think there have been so many changes in antisemitism as such, though there are worrying increases in antisemitism (and in anti-Muslim prejudice too) every time that there are hard economic times or wars that involve the Middle East. One change, however, is that the Internet now makes it far easier for larger numbers of people to access vile antisemitic propaganda - it's easier to click on an antisemitic site (probably one that screams that it's telling you the TRUTH!!!!!) than to go and attend a demagogue's speech.

Market-style competition in the public services, whether between individuals or between institutions (as in our 'league tables' of schools in the UK), may sound like a good idea, but tends to prove disastrous. Schools become factories, teachers become assembly line workers, and children become processed peas.

Merit pay and league tables in education are usually based on test scores, sometimes supplemented by school inspections. This encourages 'teaching to the test'; the neglect of subjects or parts of subjects that are not tested; undue pressure on children who are seen as close to a test grade boundary; neglect of children who aren't; and reluctance to teach children who have special needs or are for other reasons unlikely to perform well in tests. And while some school inspections are necessary, lengthy school inspections, on which a teacher's or a school's funding depends, are likely to distract from actual teaching and prove counter-productive. A study in the UK showed that children did worse *on the government-required standardized tests* during and just after OFSTED inspections than at other times.

If test scores are not to be the criteria, then what are? The only likely alternative is ratings by pupils, parents or superiors - any of which can be corrupted easily.

At the beginnings of state education in the UK in the 19th century, teachers in state schools were paid by 'results'. This almost strangled state education at its beginning.

Here are some fascinating excerpts from the 1867 'General Report' by Matthew Arnold, well-known English poet *and* school inspector, referring to the effects of this system, introduced in 1862. (Part of the report was reprinted in Stuart Maclure's "Educational Documents"; Chapman, 1986.)

'The mode of teaching in the primary schools has certainly fallen off in intelligence, spirit and inventiveness during the four or five years after my last report. It could not well be otherwise. In a country where everyone is prone to rely too much on mechanical processes and too little on intelligence, a change in the Education Department's regulations, which by making two thirds of the Government grant depend on a mechanical examination, inevitably gives a mecahnical turn to the school teaching, a mechanical turn to the inspection, and must be trying to the intellectual life of a school...

More free play for the inspector, and more free play, in consequence, for the teacher, is what is wanted.In the game of mechanical contrivances, the teacher will in the end beat us... by ingenious preparation (of children for tests).'


Some things never change!