Spinoza has a number of compelling arguments for the freedom of expression. One is based both on the natural right (or natural power) of citizens to speak as they desire, as well as on the apparent fact that (as in the case of belief per se) it would be self-defeating for a government to try to restrain that freedom. No matter what laws are enacted against speech and other means of expression, citizens will continue to say what they believe (because they can), only now they will do so in secret. The result of the suppression of freedom is, once again, resentment and a weakening of the bonds that unite subjects to their government. In Spinoza’s view, intolerant laws lead ultimately to anger, revenge and sedition. The attempt to enforce them is a “great danger to the state.” (This would certainly have been the lesson gleaned from recent history, as the Dutch revolt originated in the repressive measures that the Spanish crown imposed on its northern territories in the 16th century.)

Spinoza also argues for freedom of expression on utilitarian grounds – that it is necessary for the discovery of truth, economic progress and the growth of creativity. Without an open marketplace of ideas, science, philosophy and other disciplines are stifled in their development, to the technological, fiscal and even aesthetic detriment of society. As Spinoza puts it, “this freedom [of expressing one's ideas] is of the first importance in fostering the sciences and the arts, for it is only those whose judgment is free and unbiased who can attain success in these fields.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/spinozas-vision-of-freedom-and-ours/

Britain’s University of Warwick and Australia’s Monash University have formed a partnership aimed at pushing them “well into the first 50 institutions” in the world as they anticipate similar moves by rivals in a globalized higher ­education ­market.

Warwick and Monash say that the link responds to employer and student demands for internationalized education and will increase their appeal to overseas students – particularly those from Asia, where Monash has established branch campuses. The partnership also strives to increase the universities’ research presence in “world-relevant and strategically important” areas, and to capitalize on international research funding opportunities.

It will start with £2 million ($3.2 million) in seed funding for 10 joint senior academic posts, plus new dual master’s and joint doctoral degrees in areas of “strategic importance.” Nigel Thrift, Warwick’s vice chancellor, said: “This is probably the first time that two large and significant universities have tried to cooperate on this kind of scale.”

Ed Byrne, Monash’s vice chancellor, said that in future the partnership could include ventures in online learning; “research opportunities with international bodies that are interested in global activities that go into every continent,” such as financial agencies; and “degrees that are particularly focused on high achievers throughout Asia.” Byrne, a former vice provost of University College London and director of private healthcare firm Bupa, said that globalization and technological change meant that higher education “is really going to become a global marketplace”, a process that will “alter the traditional university model.”

He echoed an airline analogy previously used by Thrift to highlight the potential development of global university partnerships. Byrne said that in the Star Alliance that includes Lufthansa and United Airlines, independent brands had realized that “to cover the globe” they “needed to come together to form a different type of partnership.” The two vice chancellors believe that global “university systems” will be needed to respond to future demands in education and research.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/02/british-university-and-australian-university-team#ixzz1lFZa3hdx

Evolution has kept a check on unsustainable developments. “Cognitive traits have evolved under both ecological and physiological constraints… all known evolutionary trajectories inevitably run up against constraints that prevent such runaway selection. The costs eventually outweigh the benefits.” In general Darwinian ideas about evolution suggest that animals adapt to their environment the best way that they can, given the constraints of that environment. Giraffes evolved longer necks to reach higher trees but also had to develop stronger hearts and deal with increased blood pressure. Therefore evolution produced a giraffe with a successful balance between neck length and blood pressure. Too long a neck and/or too high a blood pressure and the giraffe wouldn’t have survived to pass these traits on to the next generation and the traits would not have been beneficial to the species.

Similarly, there’s a trade-off in humans and their infants. “You can’t just make a bigger brain without having consequences,” says Dr Hills. For example, for a woman to successfully give birth to a bigger-brained child, she would need a larger pelvis. As Dr Hills says, evolution has curtailed a baby’s brain size at the optimum point for both the baby’s developmental needs and the mother’s bipedal locomotion: having a larger pelvis would affect a woman’s walking ability. Focusing on the trade-off, a bigger human brain would also require more nutrition and teaching and learning time. “We are essentially evolutionary products of the constraints created by our environmental and bio-genetic histories. As living organisms, we are product of trade-offs made in response to these constraints.”

“The categorical more-is-better assumption is false in relation to cognition,” concludes Dr Hills. Too much or too little focus causes harm. “It can’t be true that more focus is always better and increasing it will solve everything. The mind is making this trade-off all the time… although the empirical possibility of a domain-general, cognitively enhanced ‘supermind’ remains – perhaps in response to cultural evolution – evolutionary theory would suggest it is extremely unlikely.”

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/health/smarteralready

http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2012/01/25/this-college-president-is-a-game-changer/

As far as I can determine, the Department of Education has no track record of positive accomplishment-nothing in the national numbers on educational achievement, nothing in the improvement of educational outcomes for the disadvantaged, nothing in the advancement of educational practice. It just spends a lot of money. This brings us to the practical question: If the Department of Education disappeared from next year’s budget, would anyone notice? The only reason that anyone would notice is the money. The nation’s public schools have developed a dependence on the federal infusion of funds. As a practical matter, actually doing away with the Department of Education would involve creating block grants so that school district budgets throughout the nation wouldn’t crater.

Sadly, even that isn’t practical. The education lobby will prevent any serious inroads on the Department of Education for the foreseeable future. But the answer to the question posed in the title of this talk-”Do we need the Department of Education?”-is to me unambiguous: No.

http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=16693

The Arab Spring raises numerous issues in political philosophy such as the justification of the state, the nature of the state, and the role of the state, liberty, and property. All of these concepts are evident in these monumental series of events. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques-Rousseau are believed to be the foremost political philosophers of Western Civilization. However, the 17^th century British philosopher, John Locke, holds a special place in American political thought. His views had a great impact upon the Founding Fathers of our country, particularly James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and served as the philosophical foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Like Hobbes and Rousseau, Locke believed in the social contract theory. This theory states that there exists an arrangement among the governed to submit to a common authority. As a result, the governed surrender themselves to a sovereign authority. This theory is an attempt to answer the question, “What justifies the existence of the state?” Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke were avid proponents of the social contract because they felt that the existence of the state was necessary for the flourishing of mankind. Locke is famously known for his emphasis on individual liberty and personal autonomy. This emphasis served as the principal philosophical catalyst for the independence of our country.

Locke believed that human beings are naturally free and equal. They are not naturally under the authority of another person or persons. Unlike Hobbes who argued for absolute power to the sovereign authority and argued against resistance against the sovereign, Locke argued that the governed do not surrender all their rights simply because they participate in the social contract. The governed retain their basic freedoms and these freedoms place limitations on the power of the governing authority.

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/01/28/The-Arab-Spring-For-Lockes-Eyes-Only.aspx

The influence of Metroversities extends beyond teaching and research. They have evolved into the role of community and business partner, positively contributing to the quality of life for all who work, live, and study there. This is especially true as many metropolitan economies have experienced significant downturns in business, financial, and manufacturing activities while becoming home to larger numbers of students, now living and spending money in cities across America, who have become what Dobelle calls “permanent tourists.”

Metropolitan policy experts agree. “In providing an empirical look at higher education expenditures and their multiplier effect, the Metroversities study helps to confirm the huge impact colleges and universities have on metropolitan economies,” says Jennifer S. Vey, fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution.

Specifically, Dr. Dobelle examines the metroversity economic effects in annual per capita higher education expenditures as well as the economic multiplier effect of those expenditures within a given metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and/or metropolitan division (MD). The economic multiplier is the amount spent by an institution’s employees, students, etc. who buy enough goods to support additional numbers of other local jobs. Dobelle also breaks out annual business and finance expenditures as well as production expenditures.

Ranking of Top 10 Metroversity-Impacted Urban Areas:

Boston, Raleigh, Baltimore, San Jose, Philadelphia, San Francisco/Seattle (tied), Nashville, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

MarketWatch link

Volatility

Because of their direct links to factors of production, FDI is generally presumed to be less volatile in comparison with FPI. By taking a direct and controlling stake, FDI allows the investor to overcome information and control problems between managers and owners. On the other hand, FPI is viewed at times as “ownership without control.” Although this feature may not reduce the information and control problems of the FPI investor, it has important implications for the resale of the investment. Should the need arise to resell the investment, a well-informed FDI investor faces a classic lemons problem in attracting potential buyers. In contrast, the FPI stakes are relatively easier to sell-a rationale for their high volatility.

As evidence of higher volatility, we look at the trends of inflows of FDI and FPI in four prominent emerging markets from 1992 through 2010. These are Brazil, Russia, India and China, popularly denoted by the acronym BRIC. (See Figure 3.) Noticeably, both FDI and FPI have witnessed strong growth since 2000 in BRIC countries. Clearly, flows of FDI slowed considerably after the U.S. financial crisis of 2007-2008, largely due to a reduction in growth projections. Importantly, a sharp reversal of FPI resulted in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Although the FPI flows have returned once again to their precrisis levels, Figure 3 shows why it is not difficult to see why FPI is considered the more volatile segment of capital flows.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2194

Nietzsche seems formidable from a distance but turns out to be surprisingly easy to read. That’s deceptive, because understanding him is hard. He’s endlessly, infuriatingly contradictory. One day he leaves us in despair about the future of humanity. On another he says the potential for liberated humanity is limitless. His tone ranges from insistent to hysterical.

Not everyone likes it. In fact, he’s as often despised as adored. Casual cruelty runs through his work, above all in his belief that most people don’t count. He callously described the common “herd” of humanity.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/01/24/fulford-carving-a-nietzche/

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions/field-test/sartore-biodiversity/photo-gallery?source=email_inside#/9