Two interesting things that seem to bolster my views on technology occurred yesterday. Now, before starting, I love my computer, the Internet, etc., but....
Why is it that those outside of education think that technology in education is "progress?" Of course, administrators tout technology, any technology, in schools, as improvements. It certainly isn't and I can provide many instances/examples. Finally, in yesterday's newspaper, a letter-to-the-editor writer expressed such a sentiment, not in so many words. Mention the word "technology" to school personnel and immediately it's "no thinking required," adopt it. That it doesn't work, duplicates effort, actually wastes time, and/or is not at all conducive to quality education/learning/results is rarely considered. Yet more evidence that those who make the decisions in education are those who shouldn't be allowed to make them.
I had an interesting conversation last evening with a guy who echoed those remarks, not in the field of education, but they translate nicely to it. It's as if technology has brainwashed the decision-makers. They rush to buy technology, which often isn't in the best interests of learning, then are stuck with it because to admit failure would, one, admit their own mistakes and, two, admit they wasted yet more money. Remember, it is always, always "for the kids." This guy's stories in another line of business reinforce the errors with technology in the schools.
And, of course, who is going to listen to anyone who says we have too much technology in the schools? That it is wasteful, both in terms of learning and finances? That it is, contrary to what seems to be obvious, but really isn't, not "progress?"
Just one man's lonely opinions.....
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I Want to Be Understanding...
...and sympathetic. I really do. I've studied Islam and have known Muslims. I would think I'd understand enough to be understanding and sympathetic in light of the "Islam/Muslim-bashing" in today's world of terrorism. But along comes an article relating yet another story of intolerance. Read it here: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/11/27/Sudan.British.Teacher/?cvqh=itn_teddybear
This seems to reinforce my belief that Islam and Muslims have not yet accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment--freedoms that the West seems to take as "self-evident." Equality, rights of "life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness," freedoms of expression, etc. haven't yet reached the psyche of Islam/Muslims. It's, to coin an athletic phrase from Sparky Anderson, "my way or the highway." That is, fundamentally in government and politics, anathema to Western thought. Women, the handicapped, gays--different people--as well as infidels are treated in inferior manners, even killed.
How can Sunnis embrace a religion that murders Shiites--and vice versa? How can they want to kill others for believing in a different temporal religious leader? I know, I know--Catholics and Protestants.... But almost all of that was ante-Enlightenment, 16th and 17th Centuries.
Is this really what Muhammad taught? Is this really what Islam stands for? Is this really Islam? If not, where are those Muslims who are allowing their religion to be co-opted in this manner? Why aren't they speaking up?
I want to understand. I want to be sympathetic. I look for ways to defend Islam and Muslims from the onslaughts of those who laugh at it and them as "the religion of peace" and its followers. But, I need some help and Islam and Muslims don't appear to be providing any.
This seems to reinforce my belief that Islam and Muslims have not yet accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment--freedoms that the West seems to take as "self-evident." Equality, rights of "life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness," freedoms of expression, etc. haven't yet reached the psyche of Islam/Muslims. It's, to coin an athletic phrase from Sparky Anderson, "my way or the highway." That is, fundamentally in government and politics, anathema to Western thought. Women, the handicapped, gays--different people--as well as infidels are treated in inferior manners, even killed.
How can Sunnis embrace a religion that murders Shiites--and vice versa? How can they want to kill others for believing in a different temporal religious leader? I know, I know--Catholics and Protestants.... But almost all of that was ante-Enlightenment, 16th and 17th Centuries.
Is this really what Muhammad taught? Is this really what Islam stands for? Is this really Islam? If not, where are those Muslims who are allowing their religion to be co-opted in this manner? Why aren't they speaking up?
I want to understand. I want to be sympathetic. I look for ways to defend Islam and Muslims from the onslaughts of those who laugh at it and them as "the religion of peace" and its followers. But, I need some help and Islam and Muslims don't appear to be providing any.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
C'mon....
This is getting tedious. I, deep down, thought that it was just MHS/HVS that was Neanderthal in its/their approach to education. I guess not, as I've posted.
You, no doubt, have read of the girl down South somewhere who was suspended for a "public display of affection." She was in the band at a competition; the band won some award; she was so excited, she hugged another band member in glee. SUSPENSION. According to the nitwit administrator, the rule was clear: NO PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION.
And, this was on the radio a few days back. An elementary class, somewhere around here, but not in Michigan, had a bully, a real jerk who the kids had had enough of. So, two of them decided not to talk to him, not to play with him, to have nothing to do with him. After all, it's a free country, right? Not so fast. The parents of the two kids were called in and the kids were threatened with suspension for, you guessed it, "bullying." Actually, the parents were told their kids were guilty of "conspiracy to bully." Yep, fourth or fifth grade kids. I suppose, now, that if some kid has a birthday party and doesn't invite everyone around, he's guilty of "conspiracy to bully."
And this one apparently is at a school in local Dearborn. The principal has mandated that all unturned in assignments be graded as "60%," not zeros. What a great concept! This will ensure that everyone gets good grades. Copy one assignment from the smart kid in class, don't bother with the next one and get a B, 80% average. Of course, the kids won't know anything, but they'll have good grades. And, after all, that's what parents are most concerned about--good grades, not knowledge or work habits, etc. What was it a couple of my colleagues in the math department always said about parents' desires from the public schools? "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it!"
A conscious effort is going to be needed to save education. But, first, people are going to have to admit education is sinking and sinking fast--and it's not just the schools "over there," but even their own!
More to follow.
You, no doubt, have read of the girl down South somewhere who was suspended for a "public display of affection." She was in the band at a competition; the band won some award; she was so excited, she hugged another band member in glee. SUSPENSION. According to the nitwit administrator, the rule was clear: NO PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION.
And, this was on the radio a few days back. An elementary class, somewhere around here, but not in Michigan, had a bully, a real jerk who the kids had had enough of. So, two of them decided not to talk to him, not to play with him, to have nothing to do with him. After all, it's a free country, right? Not so fast. The parents of the two kids were called in and the kids were threatened with suspension for, you guessed it, "bullying." Actually, the parents were told their kids were guilty of "conspiracy to bully." Yep, fourth or fifth grade kids. I suppose, now, that if some kid has a birthday party and doesn't invite everyone around, he's guilty of "conspiracy to bully."
And this one apparently is at a school in local Dearborn. The principal has mandated that all unturned in assignments be graded as "60%," not zeros. What a great concept! This will ensure that everyone gets good grades. Copy one assignment from the smart kid in class, don't bother with the next one and get a B, 80% average. Of course, the kids won't know anything, but they'll have good grades. And, after all, that's what parents are most concerned about--good grades, not knowledge or work habits, etc. What was it a couple of my colleagues in the math department always said about parents' desires from the public schools? "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it!"
A conscious effort is going to be needed to save education. But, first, people are going to have to admit education is sinking and sinking fast--and it's not just the schools "over there," but even their own!
More to follow.
Simple Pleasures
This afternoon, because it was so cold, Bopper and I decided to make chocolate chip cookies. Yummy.
We had a mix, of sorts, but not the ready-made dough. We added eggs, vanilla, walnuts, butter, and motz.
Ashley, of course, was bent out of shape that Michael and I were doing something that she wasn't. So, I plopped her on a chair and let her watch--right up close. She was content, enough so to smack Bopper and me numerous times with the wooden spoon!
As we started, Bopper said, "Grampa, I'm your assistant." I roared. He did most of the work, breaking the eggs, pouring the motz, adding the nuts, etc. He mixed most of it and put the dough on the cookie sheet. And, if I do say so myself, they were quite tasty. But, even better as you might imagine, was the raw dough! Very yummy!
We ate some cookies today and Bopper has a special treat in his lunch at school tomorrow.
We had a mix, of sorts, but not the ready-made dough. We added eggs, vanilla, walnuts, butter, and motz.
Ashley, of course, was bent out of shape that Michael and I were doing something that she wasn't. So, I plopped her on a chair and let her watch--right up close. She was content, enough so to smack Bopper and me numerous times with the wooden spoon!
As we started, Bopper said, "Grampa, I'm your assistant." I roared. He did most of the work, breaking the eggs, pouring the motz, adding the nuts, etc. He mixed most of it and put the dough on the cookie sheet. And, if I do say so myself, they were quite tasty. But, even better as you might imagine, was the raw dough! Very yummy!
We ate some cookies today and Bopper has a special treat in his lunch at school tomorrow.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Books
Have you anything by Tess Gerritsen? Boy, is she good! She writes detective/murder mysteries. They are pretty gruesome, both conceptually and graphically. Think Thomas Harris and Silence of the Lambs. Her latest, The Bone Garden, is a bit different for her. I think I liked it more, not to diminish the earlier books. And, she's an anaesthesiologist who left to care for her kids and write. She is a friend of the wife of one of my college classmates who exhibits none of the strange traits of her characters.
I also like Harlan Coben. His books are much lighter, but equally entertaining. There's often a moral to the novel, but nothing too heavy. I've read about half a dozen of his Myron Bolitar sports agent/detective novels. I just started his latest, The Woods. Again, it's a bit different from the Myron books, but have really liked what I've read so far. And, he's AC, class of late '70s or early '80s--a young kid.
Good reading to you.
I also like Harlan Coben. His books are much lighter, but equally entertaining. There's often a moral to the novel, but nothing too heavy. I've read about half a dozen of his Myron Bolitar sports agent/detective novels. I just started his latest, The Woods. Again, it's a bit different from the Myron books, but have really liked what I've read so far. And, he's AC, class of late '70s or early '80s--a young kid.
Good reading to you.
Just Asking
Why is it that so many people are willing to accept gay marriages (or unions or whatever anyone wants to call them), yet I've not heard any great outcry for legalizing polygamy (polyandry)? If men and women are freely consenting....
Thanksgiving Musings
Somebody actually reads this! Thanks, Rob. Don't be afraid to add a comment.
Boy, do I like turkey! Call me weird, but I think I like it more than steak, crab, or even spaghetti. I don't care much for the white meat; even the Butterball is too dry for me. But the dark meat! Oh, yummy! The wings are scrumptious and, from way back when, I can't wait to bite on the neck! There's a lot of meat on it actually. Thighs--ooh! And real turkey gravy, not the canned or jarred variety.... I'm getting hungry all over again.
On the trip in today, I became annoyed. And what else is new? Twice, before even hitting the expressways, we were stopped at traffic lights when there was no reason to be stopped. There was NO traffic coming from the other directions. We sat and sat and sat--at one of the stops, we waited through a green left turn arrow, with no cars turning either way, that was longer than our straight ahead green light! And, of course, we had to wait through the east-west green, too. How much gasoline do we waste on this--all those cars, all those wasted lights, all that idling, all over the nations? Now, what really compounded this was seeing the electronic information signs on the expressways. You know the ones, "9 minutes to M-10." Purportedly, they cost tens of millions of dollars to install--I wonder how much electricity they use and how much maintenance they require???? Now, as you also know, they are often way off the mark, esp during rush hours--"9 minutes to M-10" has taken as long as 30 minutes. After traveling, at the speed limit for 5 minutes, "9 minutes to M-10" has become "6 minutes to M-10" on the next sign. I would think (shame on me for that!) that the bureaucrats who came up with these (remember these messages, "Fuel Low? Fill up!" and "Raining? Use wipers.") could devise computers and sensors to avoid unneeded, wasteful stops at traffic lights. Not only would we save gasoline and money; we'd cut our contributions to the Middle Eastern nations that fund the terrorists. Instead of being concerned with gay marriages, bridges to nowhere, one would think our lawmakers would jump on this one.
Speaking of that, if we were really concerned about the terrorists and cutting off their funds, maybe the federal government would insist that states enforce speed limits. It can't be good for mileage for some Hummer or SUV cruising at 80 or 85 mph. I'm not one for more government at all, but driving isn't a right, is it? It's a privilege or so we are told.
Boy, do I like turkey! Call me weird, but I think I like it more than steak, crab, or even spaghetti. I don't care much for the white meat; even the Butterball is too dry for me. But the dark meat! Oh, yummy! The wings are scrumptious and, from way back when, I can't wait to bite on the neck! There's a lot of meat on it actually. Thighs--ooh! And real turkey gravy, not the canned or jarred variety.... I'm getting hungry all over again.
On the trip in today, I became annoyed. And what else is new? Twice, before even hitting the expressways, we were stopped at traffic lights when there was no reason to be stopped. There was NO traffic coming from the other directions. We sat and sat and sat--at one of the stops, we waited through a green left turn arrow, with no cars turning either way, that was longer than our straight ahead green light! And, of course, we had to wait through the east-west green, too. How much gasoline do we waste on this--all those cars, all those wasted lights, all that idling, all over the nations? Now, what really compounded this was seeing the electronic information signs on the expressways. You know the ones, "9 minutes to M-10." Purportedly, they cost tens of millions of dollars to install--I wonder how much electricity they use and how much maintenance they require???? Now, as you also know, they are often way off the mark, esp during rush hours--"9 minutes to M-10" has taken as long as 30 minutes. After traveling, at the speed limit for 5 minutes, "9 minutes to M-10" has become "6 minutes to M-10" on the next sign. I would think (shame on me for that!) that the bureaucrats who came up with these (remember these messages, "Fuel Low? Fill up!" and "Raining? Use wipers.") could devise computers and sensors to avoid unneeded, wasteful stops at traffic lights. Not only would we save gasoline and money; we'd cut our contributions to the Middle Eastern nations that fund the terrorists. Instead of being concerned with gay marriages, bridges to nowhere, one would think our lawmakers would jump on this one.
Speaking of that, if we were really concerned about the terrorists and cutting off their funds, maybe the federal government would insist that states enforce speed limits. It can't be good for mileage for some Hummer or SUV cruising at 80 or 85 mph. I'm not one for more government at all, but driving isn't a right, is it? It's a privilege or so we are told.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tues Eve 11/20
I heard Rep dark horse candidate Duncan Hunter this AM on the radio. He seems like he has his thoughts together. I particularly liked his stances toward world trade and the disadvantages the US faces in it. He was also pretty adroit concerning energy (gasoline) now and in the future. He warned of the dire consequences of allowing a very, very small minority to delay energy efforts aimed at the future--what we don't care about now because energy is still readily available, although more costly. He's worth researching.
And what is the fascination with Maya Angelou? To me, she is a second-rate poet. To some, just her name, "Maya!," conjures up images of "national treasure." Hardly. Those who compare her to Frost, et al are sadly mistaken--perhaps they've never read Frost?
Great new NEA study, that's National Endowment for the Arts. Our reading abilities suffer because we don't read as much any more. This is especially true for our children. Well, no kidding! Why do we think football players have practices every day? Why are musicians always practicing? And the NEA, for studies like this, get our tax money. Maybe those who a few years ago were calling for ceasing federal funds for the NEA were right. And, in this same vein, why not yet another shot at the public schools?!?! Let's see, students don't read as well as they once did because they aren't reading enough? Hmmmm. Let's show more videos/movies instead of reading. After all, reading is so tedious, while the videos/movies are entertaining.
And what is the fascination with Maya Angelou? To me, she is a second-rate poet. To some, just her name, "Maya!," conjures up images of "national treasure." Hardly. Those who compare her to Frost, et al are sadly mistaken--perhaps they've never read Frost?
Great new NEA study, that's National Endowment for the Arts. Our reading abilities suffer because we don't read as much any more. This is especially true for our children. Well, no kidding! Why do we think football players have practices every day? Why are musicians always practicing? And the NEA, for studies like this, get our tax money. Maybe those who a few years ago were calling for ceasing federal funds for the NEA were right. And, in this same vein, why not yet another shot at the public schools?!?! Let's see, students don't read as well as they once did because they aren't reading enough? Hmmmm. Let's show more videos/movies instead of reading. After all, reading is so tedious, while the videos/movies are entertaining.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Grades
"In an ideal world I would give about a quarter of them [students] Fs. Why? Because they have no aptitude for history, no appreciation for the connections between events, no sense of how a historical situation changes over time, they don't want to do the necessary hard work, they skimp on the reading, and they can't write to save their lives.... Most of them will get B-."
So writes Patrick Allitt in his book, I'm the Teacher, You're the Student. (I think Allitt must be a very good teacher, judging from his knowledge and the lessons he describes in his book. My concern is not with the quality of his teaching, but with his evaluations of students. The book is worth reading, especially to get tips on good teaching.)
I was reminded of this earlier this week, when thinking of a past student's request for an incomplete grade in a class. (The time frame is within the past two years.) Among many other things, the student said he/she couldn't stand/afford to get a C in a class. I suggested that a "C" was a pipedream, that the student's grade was going to be considerably lower than that. OK, it was an F. No incomplete, but the student could withdraw from the class and the college wouldn't accept the F grade.
I don't blame this student for the attitude, although the lack of work and, what little there was, it's poor quality, the absences, and so on fall squarely on his/her shoulders. No, I have no doubts he/she really believes that a C was his/her grade at the time. No, I have no doubts he/she really has few if any C grades. And, no, I have no doubts that he/she has done as little work in other classes as in mine--with higher grades, of course. After all, Patrick Allitt is alive and well in K-12 schools and colleges throughout the country.
In my 33 years in the public schools, in one way or another (orally or in e-mails) each of the principals under whom I worked questioned my low grades, low, that is, compared to other teachers in the department and building. (I make no claims of being Attila the Grader; in fact, except for the last year, when I decided to go back to standards, I think I was embarrassed by how easy my class and grading had become--although still, apparently, much more stringent than others.) Rather than approach others for grading much too leniently, assigning work that was much too easy, the principals came to me for low grades. And why do I think the others were too easy and I not too difficult? I learned the very first time I was questioned about this when I asked the first principal to compare the grades students get in my classes with their state and college entrance test scores, then to compare the grades given in other classs with the standardized tests--then, see whose grades match up best, that is, are more accurate. Each of the principals backed off and never came to see me again. It took the hiring of new principals before the game was started anew. (The good news is that in my 13 years at the colleges, nobody has questioned my grades/grading.)
Why do we do this? Is it the silly self-esteem garbage that grew out of the '60s and '70s and blossomed later? Is it that teachers no longer know their stuff and, to keep that from becoming known, give high grades? After all, high grades never (as evidenced by my own experiences) attract the attention of the administrators? Is it that they are afraid, of parents, of administrators, even of students (read Allitt)? What good is an A if everyone gets an A? I guess an analogy might be redefining a "marathon" to be one mile. Then, many more people can claim to have run a "marathon." Wow!!!!!
My dean told me a couple years ago that the average grade at the school was "a little higher than a 3.0," that is, a bit better than a B. I was floored! I don't understand. Essays? Despite homework assignments leading up to them, despite repeated caveats that they'd have to write about a page or more per essay, despite getting questions in advance with instructions to "be detailed, complete; use examples," despite all this, student, maybe a majority of them, turn in "essays" of 4 or 5 lines (often not even sentences). Others write maybe 10 lines. Often, I can't tell what question is being answered (I've had to tell them to write out the question or at least the number). How do these students earn 3.0 or better? Again, I am not, at least in my own mind, a hard grader.
And, that is one thing that ticks me off about one of our governor's pet plans, "Everybody goes to college!" Oh, you have to be kidding me.
More as time....
So writes Patrick Allitt in his book, I'm the Teacher, You're the Student. (I think Allitt must be a very good teacher, judging from his knowledge and the lessons he describes in his book. My concern is not with the quality of his teaching, but with his evaluations of students. The book is worth reading, especially to get tips on good teaching.)
I was reminded of this earlier this week, when thinking of a past student's request for an incomplete grade in a class. (The time frame is within the past two years.) Among many other things, the student said he/she couldn't stand/afford to get a C in a class. I suggested that a "C" was a pipedream, that the student's grade was going to be considerably lower than that. OK, it was an F. No incomplete, but the student could withdraw from the class and the college wouldn't accept the F grade.
I don't blame this student for the attitude, although the lack of work and, what little there was, it's poor quality, the absences, and so on fall squarely on his/her shoulders. No, I have no doubts he/she really believes that a C was his/her grade at the time. No, I have no doubts he/she really has few if any C grades. And, no, I have no doubts that he/she has done as little work in other classes as in mine--with higher grades, of course. After all, Patrick Allitt is alive and well in K-12 schools and colleges throughout the country.
In my 33 years in the public schools, in one way or another (orally or in e-mails) each of the principals under whom I worked questioned my low grades, low, that is, compared to other teachers in the department and building. (I make no claims of being Attila the Grader; in fact, except for the last year, when I decided to go back to standards, I think I was embarrassed by how easy my class and grading had become--although still, apparently, much more stringent than others.) Rather than approach others for grading much too leniently, assigning work that was much too easy, the principals came to me for low grades. And why do I think the others were too easy and I not too difficult? I learned the very first time I was questioned about this when I asked the first principal to compare the grades students get in my classes with their state and college entrance test scores, then to compare the grades given in other classs with the standardized tests--then, see whose grades match up best, that is, are more accurate. Each of the principals backed off and never came to see me again. It took the hiring of new principals before the game was started anew. (The good news is that in my 13 years at the colleges, nobody has questioned my grades/grading.)
Why do we do this? Is it the silly self-esteem garbage that grew out of the '60s and '70s and blossomed later? Is it that teachers no longer know their stuff and, to keep that from becoming known, give high grades? After all, high grades never (as evidenced by my own experiences) attract the attention of the administrators? Is it that they are afraid, of parents, of administrators, even of students (read Allitt)? What good is an A if everyone gets an A? I guess an analogy might be redefining a "marathon" to be one mile. Then, many more people can claim to have run a "marathon." Wow!!!!!
My dean told me a couple years ago that the average grade at the school was "a little higher than a 3.0," that is, a bit better than a B. I was floored! I don't understand. Essays? Despite homework assignments leading up to them, despite repeated caveats that they'd have to write about a page or more per essay, despite getting questions in advance with instructions to "be detailed, complete; use examples," despite all this, student, maybe a majority of them, turn in "essays" of 4 or 5 lines (often not even sentences). Others write maybe 10 lines. Often, I can't tell what question is being answered (I've had to tell them to write out the question or at least the number). How do these students earn 3.0 or better? Again, I am not, at least in my own mind, a hard grader.
And, that is one thing that ticks me off about one of our governor's pet plans, "Everybody goes to college!" Oh, you have to be kidding me.
More as time....
Friday, November 9, 2007
Yet Again....
Yet again...I will, apparently, talk to myself.
Yet again, they are at it again. The newspapers are trumpeting Congress's override of a Bush veto, of a "popular" water bill. Well, they wonder why they (newspapers) lose readership. Why don't these people examine the whole story? The Army Corps of Engineers asked Congress for $5 Billion for a project. The House considered and came up with $13 Billion. Not to be outdone, the Senate found $14 Billion. The conference committee "compromised," fixing the final amount at $23 Billion!!!! There's a compromise, all right--one side says $13 Bill, the other $14 Bill, and we meet in the middle, $23 Bill!!!! There were 19 earmarks in the conference bill, adding to the cost. The Army Corps of Engineers asked for $5 Billion. Remember folks, it's easy to spend other people's money. Oh, I forgot, Governor Jenny just scolded us, "They (voters/taxpayers) have to get over it, thinking it's their money." Silly us.
Shame on the media. Shame on Congress. But is anyone really surprised? Of course not. The real shame lies with us--we'll just sit and take it, paying more and more taxes to greedy and thoughtless people.
And, of course, the price of gas is headed to new highs, some say over $4 a gallon in Calif. I ran past a station today listed at $3.23 per. Pelosi and Clinton are calling on Bush to release some of the national strategic reserves to lower the price (by creating more supply). But, two things, neither of which has apparently dawned on our illustrious leaders. One, what good is depleting our strategic reserves going to do--for two or three weeks????? Silly. Silly. Silly. Two, the federal excise on gasoline is 19 cents/gallon. Michigan's gasoline tax is 19 cents/gallon. In Michigan, gasoline buyers also pay a penny per for some "environmental cost." And, to top it off, we also pay the 6% sales tax, not only on the gasoline price, but also on the gasoline taxes! So, right now, we are paying taxes of upwards of 45 cents a gallon. Is it really stupid of me to ask why the taxes aren't lowered, you know, to ease taxpayers burdens?
I suppose that that guy in the Free Press guest column last week might have been right. We should feel "privileged" to pay more taxes, to share our good fortune--to what? A bloated government? School districts that spend on boondoggle after boondoggle?
The good fight is being lost because nobody cares....
Yet again, they are at it again. The newspapers are trumpeting Congress's override of a Bush veto, of a "popular" water bill. Well, they wonder why they (newspapers) lose readership. Why don't these people examine the whole story? The Army Corps of Engineers asked Congress for $5 Billion for a project. The House considered and came up with $13 Billion. Not to be outdone, the Senate found $14 Billion. The conference committee "compromised," fixing the final amount at $23 Billion!!!! There's a compromise, all right--one side says $13 Bill, the other $14 Bill, and we meet in the middle, $23 Bill!!!! There were 19 earmarks in the conference bill, adding to the cost. The Army Corps of Engineers asked for $5 Billion. Remember folks, it's easy to spend other people's money. Oh, I forgot, Governor Jenny just scolded us, "They (voters/taxpayers) have to get over it, thinking it's their money." Silly us.
Shame on the media. Shame on Congress. But is anyone really surprised? Of course not. The real shame lies with us--we'll just sit and take it, paying more and more taxes to greedy and thoughtless people.
And, of course, the price of gas is headed to new highs, some say over $4 a gallon in Calif. I ran past a station today listed at $3.23 per. Pelosi and Clinton are calling on Bush to release some of the national strategic reserves to lower the price (by creating more supply). But, two things, neither of which has apparently dawned on our illustrious leaders. One, what good is depleting our strategic reserves going to do--for two or three weeks????? Silly. Silly. Silly. Two, the federal excise on gasoline is 19 cents/gallon. Michigan's gasoline tax is 19 cents/gallon. In Michigan, gasoline buyers also pay a penny per for some "environmental cost." And, to top it off, we also pay the 6% sales tax, not only on the gasoline price, but also on the gasoline taxes! So, right now, we are paying taxes of upwards of 45 cents a gallon. Is it really stupid of me to ask why the taxes aren't lowered, you know, to ease taxpayers burdens?
I suppose that that guy in the Free Press guest column last week might have been right. We should feel "privileged" to pay more taxes, to share our good fortune--to what? A bloated government? School districts that spend on boondoggle after boondoggle?
The good fight is being lost because nobody cares....
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Treat
If you haven't heard the winner of the British version of "American Idol," treat yourself to this. It's terrific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k08yxu57NA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k08yxu57NA
Schools
For a long time, years in fact, I have maintained that the schools are run by people who shouldn't be allowed to run them. Even though most people don't pay attention to my views on this, the evidence continues to pile up.
I heard these two this AM. One parent claimed that a couple of fourth graders (including her own son) were being treated poorly by another boy. On their own, they opted to ignore the other boy, pay him no attention, not invite him to play with them, refrain from talking to him, etc. When the principal of the school heard about this, the parent was called in and the two fourth graders were threatened with suspension for "conspiracy to bully." Huh? So, does that mean every school kid must talk with, play with every other kid? Do moms/dads have to make sure every kid gets invited to the birthday parties? After all.... Reminiscent of my own kid who was suspended in 8th grade (it was kept secret from me until several months after the fact, during the summer). Some kids were playing keep-away with one of those 5-pound flour bag baby dolls (oh, so trendy! writing and reading and math be damned!) from the girl who "owned" it. My kid intercepted the doll and gave it back to the girl--the girl admitted that my son did just what he said, came around the corner of the hall, was tossed the doll, and returned it to her when she claimed it was hers. Well, a teacher saw the very end, just the tail end, when my kid had the flour bag. She turned him in and he was suspended for, hold on to your hats, "endangering the lives of students." Yep, those 5-pound bags of flour are lethal! When I did find out, although it was too late to do anything about it, I sent letters to the superintendent and director of personnel stating my disbelief at this stupidity. I also sent a copy to the principal, who issued the suspension. Of course, I received no response. Later, when some other parents were up in arms over this same principal, the director of personnel told the local newspaper that there had never been any complaints about this principal before. I wrote him saying, "This isn't exactly true, is it?" At least he responded to this letter, pretty much saying, "Oh, yeah."
And, in another story elsewhere, a 5-year old, a kindergartner, was suspended for sexual harassment of a classmate.
If these are the decisions these people make, what kind of people do you think they are hiring to teach? What kind of curricula and policies do you think they have?
Don't think this goes on only in other schools and school districts. Well, you can think that if you want to--it's still a free country. But who knows for how long?
I heard these two this AM. One parent claimed that a couple of fourth graders (including her own son) were being treated poorly by another boy. On their own, they opted to ignore the other boy, pay him no attention, not invite him to play with them, refrain from talking to him, etc. When the principal of the school heard about this, the parent was called in and the two fourth graders were threatened with suspension for "conspiracy to bully." Huh? So, does that mean every school kid must talk with, play with every other kid? Do moms/dads have to make sure every kid gets invited to the birthday parties? After all.... Reminiscent of my own kid who was suspended in 8th grade (it was kept secret from me until several months after the fact, during the summer). Some kids were playing keep-away with one of those 5-pound flour bag baby dolls (oh, so trendy! writing and reading and math be damned!) from the girl who "owned" it. My kid intercepted the doll and gave it back to the girl--the girl admitted that my son did just what he said, came around the corner of the hall, was tossed the doll, and returned it to her when she claimed it was hers. Well, a teacher saw the very end, just the tail end, when my kid had the flour bag. She turned him in and he was suspended for, hold on to your hats, "endangering the lives of students." Yep, those 5-pound bags of flour are lethal! When I did find out, although it was too late to do anything about it, I sent letters to the superintendent and director of personnel stating my disbelief at this stupidity. I also sent a copy to the principal, who issued the suspension. Of course, I received no response. Later, when some other parents were up in arms over this same principal, the director of personnel told the local newspaper that there had never been any complaints about this principal before. I wrote him saying, "This isn't exactly true, is it?" At least he responded to this letter, pretty much saying, "Oh, yeah."
And, in another story elsewhere, a 5-year old, a kindergartner, was suspended for sexual harassment of a classmate.
If these are the decisions these people make, what kind of people do you think they are hiring to teach? What kind of curricula and policies do you think they have?
Don't think this goes on only in other schools and school districts. Well, you can think that if you want to--it's still a free country. But who knows for how long?
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Poverty. Now, before you read the rest of this, think. When "poverty" comes to mind, what is it that you think of? Give it some thought.
Is "poverty" a condition or a statistic? Is there always "poverty?" Are the lowest 20% in the economic pecking order always poor? So, then, no matter how well off some people may be, even at the bottom, they are poverty-ridden?
What brings this to mind are a couple of recent articles in the newspapers. According to a couple of recent studies, today, 97% of people below the poverty line own color televisions! 76% have air conditioning! (Hey, we only got it three years ago!) Similar statistics show for autos, microwaves, and other necessities. Hey, more than half of them have cable television!!!! This coincides with recent claims of "the poor" using their state aid for cigarettes and booze. I know, I know, "Why should the poor be deprived of cigs and color TVs and...?" http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams103107.php3
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4519
This reminds me of hearing about a dentist who owns a home in Bloomfield Hills (and how many of us can afford a home there?). He "can't afford" health insurance for his family, according to the story. Huh? Is he a rotten dentist? Can't he sell his home in BH and move out here with the rest of us peons? No, he certain can afford health insurance. He is just unwilling or too selfish to do so. It's more important for him to live in BH than to see that his family is covered.
Certainly there are poor people, people who are struggling to make it. No, this doesn't include those who bought homes, SUVs, and other toys beyond their means because credit was cheap and available. And, we must examine the situation of the poor. What causes their poverty? Is it because there is no father in the house, one-parent families? Is it because they opted not to take advantage of the multitude of educational opportunities available? Is it because they had children early, unable to care for them properly, and continue to have them? These and other questions need to be answered.
Those who, through no fault of their own, are poor deserve help. (Think about a donation this Christmas season rather than giving/getting gifts--but thoroughly research the charity first.)
At least, though, let's be honest about poverty.
Is "poverty" a condition or a statistic? Is there always "poverty?" Are the lowest 20% in the economic pecking order always poor? So, then, no matter how well off some people may be, even at the bottom, they are poverty-ridden?
What brings this to mind are a couple of recent articles in the newspapers. According to a couple of recent studies, today, 97% of people below the poverty line own color televisions! 76% have air conditioning! (Hey, we only got it three years ago!) Similar statistics show for autos, microwaves, and other necessities. Hey, more than half of them have cable television!!!! This coincides with recent claims of "the poor" using their state aid for cigarettes and booze. I know, I know, "Why should the poor be deprived of cigs and color TVs and...?" http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams103107.php3
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4519
This reminds me of hearing about a dentist who owns a home in Bloomfield Hills (and how many of us can afford a home there?). He "can't afford" health insurance for his family, according to the story. Huh? Is he a rotten dentist? Can't he sell his home in BH and move out here with the rest of us peons? No, he certain can afford health insurance. He is just unwilling or too selfish to do so. It's more important for him to live in BH than to see that his family is covered.
Certainly there are poor people, people who are struggling to make it. No, this doesn't include those who bought homes, SUVs, and other toys beyond their means because credit was cheap and available. And, we must examine the situation of the poor. What causes their poverty? Is it because there is no father in the house, one-parent families? Is it because they opted not to take advantage of the multitude of educational opportunities available? Is it because they had children early, unable to care for them properly, and continue to have them? These and other questions need to be answered.
Those who, through no fault of their own, are poor deserve help. (Think about a donation this Christmas season rather than giving/getting gifts--but thoroughly research the charity first.)
At least, though, let's be honest about poverty.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Here We Go...
A few things have me riled today. First, the number of grammatical, spelling, etc. errors in today's newspapers should have reporters and editors ashamed. "Then" for "Than." "Four plays was..." And others.
The other day, a guest editorial berated us for not being happy to pay more taxes, to show our gratitude for living in this great country and state. We (and I'm one who opposes new taxes) should be ashamed for not wanting to share our wealth and good fortune that the US and Michigan and others before us allow us to have. And, today there were a number of letters supporting this writer and his views. HUH!?!? First, other than our military, never has it been government that has been responsible for the prosperity of this nation. Prosperity has occurred in spite of government and the road blocks it throws up. Second, who in their right mind thinks that government makes better decisions with our money than we do? Third, who says we don't share our prosperity? Americans are and have been the most generous people the world has ever seen. Individual charity is always more efficient, reaching more needy people than government handouts. Third, if this guy and his supporters want to pay more taxes, why don't they make contributions to the state? Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Why should I have to pay for your pet projects? Why should I have to do what you want? Why can't you do what I want? Individual freedom, not government's concern with the "collective good," is what allowed this nation to be the greatest ever.
Finally, some people, even the taxers-and-spenders at the Free Press have figured it out. There were no cuts in the budget this year. There was actually an increase of more than $700 million! Gov Jenny has lied again, talking about the cut of $143 million. That's just the amount cut from her proposed budget that was more than $1 billion greater than last year's budget. Why do these people who favor more taxes call those who oppose them "greedy," "selfish," etc.? They are like the people in public schools, who can't really justify the stupid things they call policy, can't engage in dialogue, so they just call opponents names. And exactly who is being greedy, selfish, etc. in wanting to take more of others' money?
And what's this push to justify the "First Gentleman?" Oh, he claimed last week, that he has brought more than $500K in for various programs over the past 6 years. Hmmmm. OK. He doesn't draw a salary, but what about his two or three aides? Let's see, over 6 years, they would have to earn just about $30-40K a year just to break even. I don't think they earn that little.
I enjoyed reading the sports folks this AM. How typical! It's pretty well conceded that UM has a better football team, better athletes, a better program, etc. Instead of congratulating the underdog, undermanned MSU Spartans for being oh so close, the columnists--who likely never played anything in their lives except video games--dumped all over them. How easy to be a writer with no pressure other than some deadline.
BTW, I never received a response from either sports writer/editor concerning my letter last week. This was the one where I questioned their direct quotation of a Lions player who used a curse word--in a so-called family newspaper, a sports section that how many kids read? I asked how they would like it if someone used that word, or if they did, in front of their mothers or wives? Apparently they swear in front of their mothers and wives. Pretty classy guys.
And, in my running (now over) battle with the IRS.... My Congressman, McCotter, actually took an interest. He had me sign a waiver to allow him to see my returns. He questioned the IRS and sent me the response. It (the IRS reply) was what I expected, but at least he did something. My two US Senators, Levin and Stabenow, also sent me letters. Theirs were big helps, directing me to the IRS Web site. They both had the nerve, however, to end their letters with something like, "...if we can be of more help, don't hesitate to write." "More help?" They weren't of any help. Of course, they are both Dems who obviously want the IRS to take more of my money.
Out for the evening....
The other day, a guest editorial berated us for not being happy to pay more taxes, to show our gratitude for living in this great country and state. We (and I'm one who opposes new taxes) should be ashamed for not wanting to share our wealth and good fortune that the US and Michigan and others before us allow us to have. And, today there were a number of letters supporting this writer and his views. HUH!?!? First, other than our military, never has it been government that has been responsible for the prosperity of this nation. Prosperity has occurred in spite of government and the road blocks it throws up. Second, who in their right mind thinks that government makes better decisions with our money than we do? Third, who says we don't share our prosperity? Americans are and have been the most generous people the world has ever seen. Individual charity is always more efficient, reaching more needy people than government handouts. Third, if this guy and his supporters want to pay more taxes, why don't they make contributions to the state? Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Why should I have to pay for your pet projects? Why should I have to do what you want? Why can't you do what I want? Individual freedom, not government's concern with the "collective good," is what allowed this nation to be the greatest ever.
Finally, some people, even the taxers-and-spenders at the Free Press have figured it out. There were no cuts in the budget this year. There was actually an increase of more than $700 million! Gov Jenny has lied again, talking about the cut of $143 million. That's just the amount cut from her proposed budget that was more than $1 billion greater than last year's budget. Why do these people who favor more taxes call those who oppose them "greedy," "selfish," etc.? They are like the people in public schools, who can't really justify the stupid things they call policy, can't engage in dialogue, so they just call opponents names. And exactly who is being greedy, selfish, etc. in wanting to take more of others' money?
And what's this push to justify the "First Gentleman?" Oh, he claimed last week, that he has brought more than $500K in for various programs over the past 6 years. Hmmmm. OK. He doesn't draw a salary, but what about his two or three aides? Let's see, over 6 years, they would have to earn just about $30-40K a year just to break even. I don't think they earn that little.
I enjoyed reading the sports folks this AM. How typical! It's pretty well conceded that UM has a better football team, better athletes, a better program, etc. Instead of congratulating the underdog, undermanned MSU Spartans for being oh so close, the columnists--who likely never played anything in their lives except video games--dumped all over them. How easy to be a writer with no pressure other than some deadline.
BTW, I never received a response from either sports writer/editor concerning my letter last week. This was the one where I questioned their direct quotation of a Lions player who used a curse word--in a so-called family newspaper, a sports section that how many kids read? I asked how they would like it if someone used that word, or if they did, in front of their mothers or wives? Apparently they swear in front of their mothers and wives. Pretty classy guys.
And, in my running (now over) battle with the IRS.... My Congressman, McCotter, actually took an interest. He had me sign a waiver to allow him to see my returns. He questioned the IRS and sent me the response. It (the IRS reply) was what I expected, but at least he did something. My two US Senators, Levin and Stabenow, also sent me letters. Theirs were big helps, directing me to the IRS Web site. They both had the nerve, however, to end their letters with something like, "...if we can be of more help, don't hesitate to write." "More help?" They weren't of any help. Of course, they are both Dems who obviously want the IRS to take more of my money.
Out for the evening....
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Pasta?
When did it become "pasta?" It used to be "spaghetti." Mostaccioli , rigatoni, ziti, squigglini were all "spaghetti." Even spaghetti was "spaghetti."
Maybe calling it "pasta" makes it taste better? Or perhaps more can be charged for it? Hmmm. I wonder if "pasta" is healthier than "spaghetti."
Regardless, I loved it as a kid and I still do. Thanks to Marco Polo for bringing it from China.
Maybe calling it "pasta" makes it taste better? Or perhaps more can be charged for it? Hmmm. I wonder if "pasta" is healthier than "spaghetti."
Regardless, I loved it as a kid and I still do. Thanks to Marco Polo for bringing it from China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
