Just wondering....
I know I had wonderful college professors. They had immense knowledge of their specific subjects. The more I learn now, the more in awe I am of what they know/knew. But, I am wondering, are/were they specialists? That is, did my US History profs know enough (care enough?) to teach world or European history? Would my Russian or British history profs be able to effectively teach US history? Hmmm. Could the "specialists" (thanks to one of my students for coming up with that, "specialists," as opposed to generalists) run a course on, say, the classical ancient civilizations, Greece and Rome? Hmmmm.... My guess? Yep, they could.
I heard some shill for the Dems on the radio this AM. He masquerades as an impartial political reporter, but reading his stuff in the newspaper and listening to him unmasks him pretty easily. He was running down McC's choice of VP nominee. Now, granted, I don't know a whole lot about this choice. Likely, outside of Alaska, nobody knows much about her. But, this guy was rambling like an idiot. He said she has "no experience" running government, having been gov of Alaska for less than a full term. Wait a minute!?!? What "experience" does BO have at running anything? This isn't a stab at BO--I've already explained why he isn't getting my vote for President (and, likely, neither is McC). But if this Alaska gov is to be criticized because she is inexperienced and isn't likely to be able to run the government if something happens to McC, why is BO not equally criticized? And, nothing needs to happen to someone else for him to try to run the gov't--he, if elected (and, unfortunately for the US, I think he will be--of course, if McC is elected I think it's unfortunate for the US), will be Pres. Then this shill of a reporter remarked something else. He thinks McC is wrong to believe women will vote for his ticket merely because there's a woman on it. Wait a minute! Why were many women supporting HRC? It's not like she has accomplished anything other than getting elected as a carpetbagger in NY. What are 90% of blacks voting for BO, despite his dearth of specific ideas? Could it be women supported HRC because she is a woman???? Could it be blacks support BO because he is black???? I'm not denigrated such support out of hand. I don't necessarily identify with it because I think so very, very little of either HRC or BO, but it must be a powerful feeling for women to nearly get a woman nominee and for blacks to actually get a black nominee.
I read somewhere that a union official claims racism will cause whites to vote against BO. I don't doubt there are still some who will vote against him for that reason. But I resent anyone who thinks I won't vote for him because he is black. I won't vote for BO because he shouldn't be President!
Bill Clinton is a marvelous speaker. But, just wondering, is that what's become of Democrats (did you hear the ovation!?!?) that Slick Willy is their ideal? As the recent book The Leaders We Deserved notes, character does matter in the quality of a President. Clinton had/has no shred of it. Objective history (emphasis on "objective") will record him as a very mediocre if not worse President. One of the reasons for James Buchanan's poor record and ranking/rating as President was that he feel asleep on the job. He allowed things to happened that exacerbated future events. WJC, again, if history views him objectively, did the same thing. And, to keep with the theme of the current election, I think very little of the character of either of the two major party candidates. Our nation and, especially, our children and grandchildren will suffer because we were too busy watching Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, rooting for our teams, etc. to care, to pay attention. Shame on us....
Out to put Ashley down for a nap.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
"Negativity?"
I just wrote an article and noted how I rarely, if ever, use the word "boring." I certainly don't apply it to anything I do. Most people, I believe, don't know what "boring" means. If they don't like doing something, if something is difficult, if it is not what they want to do, well, they label it "boring." That is not what "boring" means.
Another word that attracted my attention over the past few days is "negative." I received an e-mail from a college classmate who remarked he enjoyed hearing from me because I am "so positive" about life. Within the past few months or so, I have received a number of similar comments (by e-mail, in person) about my writing about running. One dentist said, "You are always so upbeat, so positive." This was echoed by a woman I ran into at a race, a woman who has run more than 100 marathons. At the colleges where I teach, I hear very similar comments. I bring it up because, when I was teaching full-time, I had the reputation of being "negative," of harboring "negativity," of being "a bitcher."
Of course, the people who said such things fall into the same category as those who don't know what "boring" means. The people who said such things were public school administrators, so they can be forgiven for not being on the ball. It's in the nature of the being. (I've always maintained that administrators go to "dumb school.") They mistook "criticism" for "negativity." They, I guess, didn't understand that a person who really cares (Yes, I had two administrators tell me over the years, both the exact words, "Ron, you care too much." Isn't that a hell of a thing to say about a teacher? But, consider, they were administrators.) can only stand so much stupidity, so much lack of integrity, so much duplicity. And, they rarely, if ever, could defend what they were doing in light of the criticism (not "negativity") I offered.
I find it interesting to have received all of these comments about "so positive," "so upbeat," etc. I have always received them--outside of the public schools. These came from coaching (both at the high school level and in little leagues and YMCA), from writing (some say I gush too much!), from my teaching at the colleges, from being Dad and Grandpa, from everything, everything, that is, away from the public schools. Maybe, just maybe, someone should have been paying attention. Of course, they weren't. But, consider, they were public school administrators.
First, I just finished a book, The Leaders We Deserved. It's about Presidents and their qualifications and characters. But the generalizations can and should apply to all people in positions of leadership. What does the author note? Hmmm. Willingness to accept criticism. Willingness to concede others have ideas better than yours. Integrity and honesty. Humility. Vision. I could go on, but you get the idea. Rather than exhibit these characteristics, it was easier for school administrators to throw out labels, "negative," "bitcher," etc. Shame on them, each and every one of them, and shame on the other teachers, each and every one of them, who sat by and saw this happen, sat by and let this happen without a peep.
Second, Henry Steele Commager, one of the History professors at Amherst, wrote a piece that the most valuable members of a society are its critics. I copied the piece and sent it to a number of people who had labeled me "negative," "bitcher," etc. Of course, it did no good. But, consider that these were public school administrators. Professor Commager's essay was certainly over their heads.
Third, I make no claims to brilliance. I am hardly God's gift to intelligence. The older I get, the more I learn, the more I learn I don't know very much. That said, I was lucky enough to have received the best of all educations at Amherst. My professors, for the most part, were brilliant. They knew their subjects. They knew the right questions to ask. We had prodigious amounts of reading and writing. One AC grad, a bit ahead of me in years, went to Harvard Law and admitted it wasn't as demanding as AC. I once met a PhD in Psych from Notre Dame (no mean school itself) and he told me, "I know you worked harder for your BA than I did for my PhD." Maybe; maybe not. This isn't bragging, not at all. But it's just an indication that I know what quality education is, what it requires from both instructors and students. That is, perhaps public school administrators should, at least, listen to me instead of calling me names???? (Of course, even my wife doesn't quite get this one.) One of the best books I have ever read is Teaching: What We Do. It was written by a group of AC professors, yes, some of mine! They outline how they prepare--teaching, assignments, etc. It is fascinating and should be required reading for all teachers, regardless of level or subject. But, what do I know? (As I have maintained for years, I'm just a piece of mung.)
OK, am a bit misleading here. Stories coming home from my wife the past two weeks (she works in a public school district) and from employees of public schools (at social gatherings) reinforce one of my major concerns--that people making decisions in the public schools are people who should never be allowed to make them. I worked for four principals over the years. None of them, NONE, should have been principals. They didn't have the characteristics demonstrated in The Leaders We Deserve, no integrity, no courage, no willingness to listen to opposing views, no ability to surround themselves with people of strong ideas (of course, remember, they are public school administrators), etc. Use that and consider the assistant principals! Board office administrators, including superintendents, were worse because they had learned to "play the game" better than others--and I've maintained for years that education is a serious business, not "a game."
OK, enough for now. Out to make dinner.
Another word that attracted my attention over the past few days is "negative." I received an e-mail from a college classmate who remarked he enjoyed hearing from me because I am "so positive" about life. Within the past few months or so, I have received a number of similar comments (by e-mail, in person) about my writing about running. One dentist said, "You are always so upbeat, so positive." This was echoed by a woman I ran into at a race, a woman who has run more than 100 marathons. At the colleges where I teach, I hear very similar comments. I bring it up because, when I was teaching full-time, I had the reputation of being "negative," of harboring "negativity," of being "a bitcher."
Of course, the people who said such things fall into the same category as those who don't know what "boring" means. The people who said such things were public school administrators, so they can be forgiven for not being on the ball. It's in the nature of the being. (I've always maintained that administrators go to "dumb school.") They mistook "criticism" for "negativity." They, I guess, didn't understand that a person who really cares (Yes, I had two administrators tell me over the years, both the exact words, "Ron, you care too much." Isn't that a hell of a thing to say about a teacher? But, consider, they were administrators.) can only stand so much stupidity, so much lack of integrity, so much duplicity. And, they rarely, if ever, could defend what they were doing in light of the criticism (not "negativity") I offered.
I find it interesting to have received all of these comments about "so positive," "so upbeat," etc. I have always received them--outside of the public schools. These came from coaching (both at the high school level and in little leagues and YMCA), from writing (some say I gush too much!), from my teaching at the colleges, from being Dad and Grandpa, from everything, everything, that is, away from the public schools. Maybe, just maybe, someone should have been paying attention. Of course, they weren't. But, consider, they were public school administrators.
First, I just finished a book, The Leaders We Deserved. It's about Presidents and their qualifications and characters. But the generalizations can and should apply to all people in positions of leadership. What does the author note? Hmmm. Willingness to accept criticism. Willingness to concede others have ideas better than yours. Integrity and honesty. Humility. Vision. I could go on, but you get the idea. Rather than exhibit these characteristics, it was easier for school administrators to throw out labels, "negative," "bitcher," etc. Shame on them, each and every one of them, and shame on the other teachers, each and every one of them, who sat by and saw this happen, sat by and let this happen without a peep.
Second, Henry Steele Commager, one of the History professors at Amherst, wrote a piece that the most valuable members of a society are its critics. I copied the piece and sent it to a number of people who had labeled me "negative," "bitcher," etc. Of course, it did no good. But, consider that these were public school administrators. Professor Commager's essay was certainly over their heads.
Third, I make no claims to brilliance. I am hardly God's gift to intelligence. The older I get, the more I learn, the more I learn I don't know very much. That said, I was lucky enough to have received the best of all educations at Amherst. My professors, for the most part, were brilliant. They knew their subjects. They knew the right questions to ask. We had prodigious amounts of reading and writing. One AC grad, a bit ahead of me in years, went to Harvard Law and admitted it wasn't as demanding as AC. I once met a PhD in Psych from Notre Dame (no mean school itself) and he told me, "I know you worked harder for your BA than I did for my PhD." Maybe; maybe not. This isn't bragging, not at all. But it's just an indication that I know what quality education is, what it requires from both instructors and students. That is, perhaps public school administrators should, at least, listen to me instead of calling me names???? (Of course, even my wife doesn't quite get this one.) One of the best books I have ever read is Teaching: What We Do. It was written by a group of AC professors, yes, some of mine! They outline how they prepare--teaching, assignments, etc. It is fascinating and should be required reading for all teachers, regardless of level or subject. But, what do I know? (As I have maintained for years, I'm just a piece of mung.)
OK, am a bit misleading here. Stories coming home from my wife the past two weeks (she works in a public school district) and from employees of public schools (at social gatherings) reinforce one of my major concerns--that people making decisions in the public schools are people who should never be allowed to make them. I worked for four principals over the years. None of them, NONE, should have been principals. They didn't have the characteristics demonstrated in The Leaders We Deserve, no integrity, no courage, no willingness to listen to opposing views, no ability to surround themselves with people of strong ideas (of course, remember, they are public school administrators), etc. Use that and consider the assistant principals! Board office administrators, including superintendents, were worse because they had learned to "play the game" better than others--and I've maintained for years that education is a serious business, not "a game."
OK, enough for now. Out to make dinner.
Apocalypse
Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:
Riding down the street on his bike was a kid, maybe 11-12 years old, in that range. Holding the handle bar with one hand, he had a cell phone in the other. 11-12 years old?!?!
Riding down the street on his bike was a kid, maybe 11-12 years old, in that range. Holding the handle bar with one hand, he had a cell phone in the other. 11-12 years old?!?!
Friday, August 8, 2008
Politicians/Elected Officials
Watching Kwame Kilpatrick's circus this afternoon reminded me that most politicians and elected officials are arrogant and shameless. How can this guy do this to himself and, more important, to his family? Where is his shame? About the only thing I can figure is that holding on the the mayoralty is his last playing card, the last holding he has to make a deal.
Shame? As I've blogged before, there is none. Look at the professional athletes, the so-called "stars of entertainment," and, of course, the politicians. Check out John Edwards today, too. Hey, I'm sometimes very embarrassed to admit I'm the father of....at least in certain situations and/or company. Yet, these guys...?
Arrogance? They have as much of that as they have none of shame. They all know better than you--how to spend your money, what laws you ought to obey, where you can smoke cigarettes, how many fast food outlets can open up where, etc. I hope Chucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's know I don't buy some of their products now because of the change in taste thanks to no trans-fats in their frying. I know trans-fats are not healthy and I didn't eat KFC or McD's daily or even weekly. But it was my choice to buy and eat them and now, frankly, I don't because I don't like the taste as much.
All of these blowhards ought to be forced to take in studies of people who preceded them, those folks like Washington, Lincoln, and even the Roman emperor Augustus. Civic responsibility comes first. Once they are elected today, they think they've become Mensa members. Ha! Far from it.
I sent a letter to each of the local school board members in June. How many responses did I receive? Good guess--NONE! I guess these jokers think they know more about quality education than the rest of us. I guess, too, maybe they didn't like my suggestion that they think about getting rid of some of the people they hired to run the schools--because the people they hired are incompetent. But, since they are elected representatives, at least they should reply, if even to say, "Go jump in the lake!"
In this specific case, I remember the words of Mark Twain: "In the first place, God made idiots; that was for practice. Then he made school boards." I think that thought can be expanded.
Shame? As I've blogged before, there is none. Look at the professional athletes, the so-called "stars of entertainment," and, of course, the politicians. Check out John Edwards today, too. Hey, I'm sometimes very embarrassed to admit I'm the father of....at least in certain situations and/or company. Yet, these guys...?
Arrogance? They have as much of that as they have none of shame. They all know better than you--how to spend your money, what laws you ought to obey, where you can smoke cigarettes, how many fast food outlets can open up where, etc. I hope Chucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's know I don't buy some of their products now because of the change in taste thanks to no trans-fats in their frying. I know trans-fats are not healthy and I didn't eat KFC or McD's daily or even weekly. But it was my choice to buy and eat them and now, frankly, I don't because I don't like the taste as much.
All of these blowhards ought to be forced to take in studies of people who preceded them, those folks like Washington, Lincoln, and even the Roman emperor Augustus. Civic responsibility comes first. Once they are elected today, they think they've become Mensa members. Ha! Far from it.
I sent a letter to each of the local school board members in June. How many responses did I receive? Good guess--NONE! I guess these jokers think they know more about quality education than the rest of us. I guess, too, maybe they didn't like my suggestion that they think about getting rid of some of the people they hired to run the schools--because the people they hired are incompetent. But, since they are elected representatives, at least they should reply, if even to say, "Go jump in the lake!"
In this specific case, I remember the words of Mark Twain: "In the first place, God made idiots; that was for practice. Then he made school boards." I think that thought can be expanded.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Musings
I love writing for myself.... And, I love beer!
Leonard Pitts had a wonderful column this week on the "stupidification of America," esp the young. He was, as he often is, right on the money. I don't always agree with Pitts, but he is always thoughtful, insightful, and reasoned. He wrote, "I am less concerned with what they think than 'that' they think." "They" referred to a commencement audience he addressed recently. He continued, "Because we are losing that skill." Yes, we are. And, we are concerned that the young people don't vote?!?!? Why?
Why is it that Congress receives a 10% approval rating, yet 90+% of them are returned election after election after election? Can it be H.L. Mencken was correct: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I think so. Good book out now, The Leaders We Deserved. Do we "deserve" Kwame, Jennie, and W., not to mention the entire Congress? I think so. Far too many people are not paying attention. Blame, in large part, the schools, which have dumbed down education so far that this is the result.
OK, enough for now....
Leonard Pitts had a wonderful column this week on the "stupidification of America," esp the young. He was, as he often is, right on the money. I don't always agree with Pitts, but he is always thoughtful, insightful, and reasoned. He wrote, "I am less concerned with what they think than 'that' they think." "They" referred to a commencement audience he addressed recently. He continued, "Because we are losing that skill." Yes, we are. And, we are concerned that the young people don't vote?!?!? Why?
Why is it that Congress receives a 10% approval rating, yet 90+% of them are returned election after election after election? Can it be H.L. Mencken was correct: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I think so. Good book out now, The Leaders We Deserved. Do we "deserve" Kwame, Jennie, and W., not to mention the entire Congress? I think so. Far too many people are not paying attention. Blame, in large part, the schools, which have dumbed down education so far that this is the result.
OK, enough for now....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
