Education, Unions

I heard Bill Bennett talking on the radio this AM. Normally, I think he is level-headed and thoughtful. Today, he was talking about unions, with some specific talk about the teachers' unions.

OK, the teachers' unions are not necessarily good for quality education. Yep, they protect lousy teachers, making it hard to get rid of them. Of course, they can still be fired, but the process is so cumbersome (thanks to the unions) that lazy administrators, with little sense of integrity, have the heart to follow through on the removal. And unions, esp teachers' unions, most often support the very worst of political candidates, the very worst. It's obvious the teachers' unions are not primarily concerned with quality education, not at all. No, not every teachers is the greatest, most aren't even particularly good--but to listen to the unions, oh boy! All teachers are God's gifts to education. Sorry, not so, not by a long shot. But, I am thankful the unions were strong enough at one time to get tenure laws passed. I don't know if I was a great teacher or not, but I wasn't lousy. I didn't deserve to be fired. But I get the feeling that, without tenure laws, thanks to the unions, I would have been given the ziggy. For one thing, each of the four principals I worked under was not happy with the low grades given out in my classes. They wanted them higher so they wouldn't have to face angry parents (and for the big money they were getting, note I didn't say "earning," why should they have to do anything that makes them "uncomfortable?"). Each them stopped coming to see me about low grades when I said we'd compare my grades with those of other teachers and then matched the grades with test scores to see whose grades more accurately were reflective of students' progress. Yep, each of the four came to see me just once. For another, how many times, in public, did I stand up (or sit down) and criticize the silly programs and policies coming from the administrators? How much easier their jobs would have been to just have the bobbleheads agree to all the stupidity! And, as I've said a number of times, I don't tolerate stupidity very well and I just got sick of it. So, I see both sides to the unions and I don't know if I support them or not. Besides, our local teachers' union was pretty feeble. I often said the community and the school board should have been required to pay the same dues I did because the union often took their sides in apposition to that of members.

Bennett, a week or so ago, also made a statement I found terribly wrong, even naive. He claims to have visited "over 600 schools" in the nation. Yet, he has said a number of times that if we "raise the bar" in education, that is, require higher standards, students will rise up to reach it. What schools is he visiting? My experiences, in almost 40 years, is that many students, rather than striving to reach the bar, will just quit. That's in the high schools and the colleges (and I can show many examples of that right now!). I spoke with several teachers over the past 10 days or so and, without hesititation, they agreed. We know that most teachers won't hold students to those "higher standards" Bennett talks about. Teachers won't fail students. Rather, they'll give passing, even really good, grades to students so they don't have to face angry administrators and parents. OK, to call it what it is--many teachers lack courage and integrity. I remember Patrick Allitt, a history prof at Emory U, writing in his book. He said something like "8 student deserved to fail. They didn't do the work, showed little skill in historical method, couldn't write, etc.... They'll get the B-s." "B-s!?!?!" Yep, all too typical.

I've written before that many teachers have no concept of quality education and the rigor it demands--they just don't know because the schools of education are Mickey Mouse. Academically, to those outside of the schools of education, they are the jokes on the campuses. And, the biggest problem is with administrators. They could solve some of the problems with teachers, but can't or won't for a variety of reasons. Perhaps more about that later in the week.

Health Care

There was an interesting analysis of several states that have tried public option health care plans recently. Tenn, Maine, and Mass were highlighted. Two facts emerged. One, those covered by the plans fell far short of the goals. Two, the costs were far beyond those projected by the "experts."

Health care/coverage in these states fell in quality and in the numbers of those covered. And revenues designed to pay for this fell short in every instance. Worse, to pay for the public option, money was taken from the general fund, which put each of the states on the fast-track to bankruptcy. Tenn and Maine pretty much abandoned their plans to avoid bankrupting the states. Mass has been warned that, if it doesn't abandon its plan, it will go bankrupt.

It would be interesting to see how the federal elected officials in the House and Senate from these states voted on ObamaCare! I'm assuming it went straight party line. That, then, tells me something, that maybe some people aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

The whole episode reminds me of the story of the do-gooder who was strolling past a lake and saw a man drowning. The do-gooder looked around for a life preserver to throw the drowning man, found one, and tossed it out there. When the thankful man grabbed it, the do-gooder then dropped the line, leaving the drownee out there alone again, and walked off to do another good deed.

BTW, have you read where one of the major drug store chains in Washington State is no longer filling either Medicare or Medicaid prescriptions. The cost isn't covered or payment isn't timely or whatever reason. Maybe a sign of things to come!?!?

Columnists

Sometimes, I wonder how some columnists get their jobs. I mean, c'mon, many of them either have no ideas or have rotten ones. This goes for the right and left, conservatives and liberals.

It used to be, at least I thought so, that the Left had a monopoly on good writers, at least those who were able to make cogent arguments in favor of their positions. Whether I agreed or disagreed was irrelevant. The pendulum has swung. Now, without question, the best writers are on the Right.

I mention a few of the very best--Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hansen, Walter Williams are nationally syndicated. They always make sound defenses of their positions and reasoned criticisms of their political and economic opponents. Locally, although they are on different sides, Ron Dzwonkowski (Free Press) and Nolan Finley (News) are thought-provoking, insightful, and reasonable. I may or may not agree with either of them on a particular issue, but I can't argue with their logic. That can't be said for many of the other locals....

Which leads me to repeat--how do these obviously lousy writers and thinkers get their writing jobs? Nepotism? Affirmative action or political correctness? Who do they know? It's not hard to figure out who they are--just read.

Of course, esp on the national level, it's good to read the likes of Bill Press, EJ Dionne, and Harrop Froma, among others. They are reminders of how vapid, empty of ideas their side is. Compared to Sowell, et al, they can't carry a candlestick. I guess I'm glad they are still picked up by the local papers once in a while. But I fully understand why the liberal radio shows can't make a buck and go under.

What Are They Thinking?

I've always been curious to see people, mostly young ones, but not always, walking around with tee shirts having portraits of Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and even Lenin. Can you imagine someone wearing a tee shirt with a likeness of Hitler on it???? (Remember the brouhaha over the Walled Lake school building that was renovating and, in the process, tore up a rug only to find a swastika in ceramic tile underneath? In the end, the Walled Lake schools did the right thing, using it to teach--in so far as the ceramic floor had been put in almost 20 years before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.)

Do these fools who wear the Lenin, Che, Mao tees not know anything about them? Nothing? I hope not. I hope they are just fools, ignorant that these men were mass murderers, responsible for the collective deaths of tens of millions of people. But, if they are, what does that say about their education and their teachers? Learning about these men wasn't part of the history curriculum? History teachers didn't know about these men either? It all has to be something like this, but what? None of the possibilities is any good. Of course, perhaps I am missing the point. Maybe the tee shirt wearers support what these mass murderers did.

And remember the Christian Church, I think it was a Methodist one, that sent happy birthday greetings to Ho Chi Minh? How many people bought into that foolishness, that Ho was not a communist, really, but a Vietnamese nationalist who only wanted what was best for his people of Vietnam? How many still do? I suppose the millions in the South who were butchered by Ho's legions after the US left might have a question as to what was "best.

I read an interesting thing today and it got me to thinking. JFK was an average President, who accomplished little. LBJ was a more successful President, at least in terms of accomplishments (for better or worse, which I believe were worse). The "Great Society" programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, Head Start and Chapter 1, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, etc. were Johnson's, not Kennedy's. (I could argue, and I do, though, that the legacy of the martyrdom of JFK was instrumental in passing these programs, although they weren't his.) OK, knowing this, is there still any candidate out there, obviously a Democrat, who would identify himself as the reincarnation of LBJ instead of the ghost of JFK? I think not, not a snowball's chance in hell.

Excuse me, I have to go get my laundairy (sic). It's finished. I had to wash my tee shirts....

Little League

I know far too many kids play far too many video games, watch far too many movies and television, etc. It's a shame that adults have to set up leagues, with rules that suit the adults, not the kids (for one, in baseball, allowing 9-year olds to steal bases!), in order to get kids to play. Yep, there's a lot to criticize.

But it's a lot of fun to work with these kids. I even hesitated to use the word "work." I really enjoy it. Oh, some are a pain in the neck, not listening, thinking they know everything. But most are just a lot of fun. And playing ball (or at least going through the motions!) is great.

Can anything be better than seeing the smile on a kid who, lacking some confidence, maybe facing another kid, instead of a coach or tee, pitching, gets a real hit? How about that kid who catches a ball cleanly and, without really thinking about it, throws to the right base--and then realizes he made the correct play? Today was fun....

Minimum Wage

I am familiar with Thomas Sowell's and Walter Williams' work about minimum wages, how detrimental they are and, esp, how they target, in very negative not positive ways, minorities. I was reminded of this in a story about American Samoa. Apparently, thanks to an act of Congress, increasing the minimum wage there to what it is here ($7.25 an hour?), the scenario is unfolding the same way again. Star Kist Tuna had a canning plant there, employing about 2200 Samoans. 200 of them got nice hefty raises, while 2000 of them got laid off--Star Kist moved much of the plant's production to another place. So, let's see, the do-gooders (or should we say the do-do gooders?) really helped 200 Samoans. I wonder what the other 2000 think of the minimum wage law???? And, my guess is that the $3.20 an hour the Samoans made at Star Kist was a pretty healthy wage for them and their circumstances. This has happened over and over again.

There's a reason the young adult unemployment rate is about 25%, with the unemployment rate for young blacks almost double that. Who wants to pay some surly, unskilled, lazy, unconscientious kid almost $8 an hour????? Obviously, not many. I don't know if you remember a few years ago, without any help from our know-it-all elected officials, "the anointed," a Burger Doodle counter job was in excess of the minimum wage. Flipping burgs earned more money than the minimum. Gee, I wonder why. More, I wonder why our representatives know--or if they even thought about it.

This reminds me of a definition of a "liberal" that I heard once. If a man is drowning and a liberal walks by, he hurriedly runs to the dock, finds a life buoy, and throws it to the drowning man. When the man grabs it, the liberal congratulates himself, lets go of the end of the line, and walks away to do another good deed. Of course, the conservative must also walk by. He, too, rushes to find the life buoy, but throws it 20 feet away from the drowning man and then encourages him to swim to the buoy "for your own good." Hmmm....if the man could swim, why would he be drowning?

And these are the Bozos, of both parties, making decisions that will affect, if not dominate, our lives--and we continue to let them, with nary a peep of protest.

Hypocrites

I see the Obamas and Bidens filed their taxes today. I have a few thoughts about that.

First, how the heck did the Obama's make $5.6 million???? Supposedly, the bulk came from his books sales. I find it hard to believe that many people bought his books. Second, I wonder who really wrote it, who the ghost writer was? He certainly couldn't have written it, I don't think. I don't think he is capable of it. Third, why, making so much money, did the Obamas give only 6% to charities? (Of course, he split the Nobel award to several charities, but I don't count that. He never deserved that in the first place, never.)

The Bidens were worse, of $336,000, they gave only 1.2% to charities.

I listened to how much each made (their AGI, not really their gross or actual income), then to how much each contributed. I used my calculator to figure out the percentages!

How typical? Dems love to spend money on other people, just not spend their money. How hypocritical they are! Who, in the media, the mainstream media, would be bold enough to suggest the above? I know a guy who calls the Reps (I'm certainly no shill for them!) "the party of greed." And who among us hasn't called Big Oil, Big Banking, etc. "greedy?" But how greedy is giving so little to charities when making so very much??? And people just sit on their thumbs and spin while all this goes on, buying the claptrap that the Reps and Big Business have a monopoly on greed.

I listened to a guy on a Flint station, I think, who feared that we can't work our way out of this mess. He thinks far too many people can't wait for the fat gov't checks to arrive, that they don't care that 50% of the people don't pay federal income taxes or that 60% of the people get more in federal handouts than they pay, to want to change things. "Give me my Obama money!!!!" I fear the guy is right. Woe, then, to our children and grandchildren.

VAT

Hold on to your hats and wallets, Sports Fans! Talk emanating from DC is of a VAT, a value-added tax. Generally, that's a national sales tax. It's not a bad concept and, I think, much better than an income tax. A sales tax targets purchases while an income tax, wrong, targets effort, success, labor. With a sales tax one can pay fewer taxes by spending less. An income tax penalizes success, hard work, etc. The more one earns, the more tax one pays. Not cool....

The national sales tax has been talked about for quite a while. Some suggest that a 9% VAT would allow gov't to take in more money than the income tax, obviously allowing for the elimination of the income tax. Yeah, right. Who, Dem or Rep, is going to get rid of any tax?

The fear is that the self-congratulatory elites, the anointed, are going to continue to follow their paragon, their ideal--Europe--on this. Now as misguided as this seems (hey, how many times did we hear these lamebrains laud the "European health care systems," despite its many flaws and inferiority to ours?), that is their goal. The anointed want us to be like Europe. Why, I have no idea. Haven't they noticed Europe's lack of production/productivity, initiative, and achievement in the last 50 years? Europe reflects the French malaise of the 1930s--and we all know what happened to the France of the 1930s! Fools, all of them, just fools!!!!!!

Looking at our "paragon," Europe, we see VAT rates at almost 20%!!!!! Imagine a sales tax of 20% (OK, you NY folks don't have to stretch your imaginations all that much).

When are we going to stop these fools? When are we going to say, "Enough!" and really mean it? Or are we going to be content to continue to focus on the important things, like the NFL, American Idol, etc? Yep, that's a good idea...let's just do that and let our kids and grandkids take care of the mess we are leaving, that is, if it can be fixed.

If you ever get a chance, read about Marcus Aurelius, the last of the The Good Emperors of Rome.

Third Party

I really think we need a new party. The Dems are certainly wrong for the country. Their ideas are not American. They want to change the nature of the US. I don't understand why they want us "to be like Europe." Look at Europe of the past 60 years or more, since the end of the Second World War. What has it done except devolve in a shell/shadow of its former self? Productivity is down. Initiative is down. Freedom and liberty are diminished. Of course, their will to succeed has virtually disappeared. It's as if all of Europe has developed the same attitude and air that France had in the 1930s--and we know what happened to France!

The Reps are caught up in the culture of spending--other people's money. Last week's revelation of the few thousand dollars spent at the LA strip joint was just another confirmation that Reps have to go, too. It doesn't matter that it was a strip joint. They are spending money just like the Dems. Note the spending/deficits run up under the W. Bush administration. No, they, too, are not what's right for America.

Which then leaves us with the formation of a new major party. Note I said "new." The current minor/third parties have the stigmas of being just that, "minor." I doubt they'd ever be able to attract voters.

Who, then, will lead us?

Random Tue Eve Thoughts

Little League practices go well. The kids are trying hard. Whether or not they'll win many games is another question with an as of yet unknown answer. But, as those who know me, winning and losing the kids' games is the least of my concerns out there. I want them to realize they must practice/work hard to get better, to learn the game a bit, and to have fun. These are not at all mutually exclusive. Working hard at something, achieving a goal, can be fun and very rewarding. Bopper seems to be having fun and I have no complaints with his effort and hustle. He's helping to make it fun for me, too.

A co-worker had to leave class because her father-in-law was taken to the hospital earlier today. The prognosis from the phone call didn't seem good she said. I asked how old her father-in-law was and swallowed hard when she replied, "63." Gulp!

I was tired of political and sports talk on the radio on the drive home today so, for a change, I tried to find some music. I came across a Bob Dylan tune, Positively 4th Street, and listened to it. But, instead of singing along, I found myself listening and laughing, right out loud, to the words and what was passing as singing. Maybe I'm all wet, but I don't think he has/had much talent.

Speaking of hippy rock singers, who cares if Bruce Springsteen might have had an affair? I certainly don't. But, of course, I don't have a cell phone either.

I'm reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg now. It has much to debate, but much wisdom, too. It's not very readable, at least not to me, so I'll struggle through it. I read a good Imprimus article from Hillsdale College today, too. It was by A. McCarthy and was a good analysis of the legal treatment of prisoners of war, criminals, and terrorists. And, once again, the Obama administration has no sense of history or Constitutional meaning. I scanned an Atlantic article, too, lauding Sec Treas Geithner. It cited all his attributes/achievements, but didn't include tax cheating. It's hard to get all exciting about a guy who becomes a Cabinet member while, had any of us peons had done what he did, we'd be in jail or heavily fined. Which leads me to my brief additional post of today....

Fouls?

Let's get this straight from the start. MSU makes its free throws and doesn't make as many lazy passes and it wins, despite the hammers that weren't called fouls.

I'll mention one and only one, although I could cite directly half a dozen or more. The MSU guy was underneath and just was levelled, his entire body going almost parallel with the floor. No call at all. The replay showed the opponent's arms and upper body just smashing the Spartan across the head and shoulders. Down he went and down the court went Butler with the ball.

Now, at least, I won't have to give up 3 hours of my Mon eve to watch the champ game.

We've dumbed down officiating now, too.

Greed

I see the NCAA is seeking to expand its basketball tournament to 96 teams. At least I heard that on the radio and saw it in the newspaper. There can be only one reason. After all, it can't be for the benefit of the "student-athletes" (what a joke of hypocrisy there!). The NCAA can't have one extra football game (not that I at all am in favor of a college fb tournament; I'm not, but I don't really care) because of the time that would take for the "student-athletes."

Obviously, it's a money grab. The NCAA sees another way to make money, adding 50% more teams, more television, more advertising, more money. Can you spell "greed?"

This is all fine and good. I don't care much for the NCAA and don't watch much college stuff on the tube at all. (I will watch MSU tonight, if I remember, but if the Spartans aren't in the final game, I'm sure I won't watch. I don't care. These are not "student-athletes" and I choose not to participate in the charade. Others can and that's fine. I choose not to be hypocritical.)

But where are the protests from those so quick to label the oil companies, the banks and lenders, the insurance companies? Big oil, big banks, big insurance are all equated with, yep, you guessed it, "GREED." Why is it OK for the NCAA to be greedy, but not oil, banking, insurance companies? For that matter, why does the MHSAA charge students $5 to get into its tourney games? Adults, fine; but students?

Ah, it's great to be so inconsistent in our beliefs. Is this what situational ethics, relativity have created?

I Don't Understand

K was watching one of her LSU-Miami shows last night and one of the forensic/science-types quit the show (the character did) because he said something like, "I don't understand anything any longer. I can't make sense of it." That resonated with me. I don't understand anything any longer and I can't make sense of it.

Take, for instance, how we honor, reward, etc., well, practically everyone. There are no standards, no benchmarks (oh, how I hesitated to use that word!). We just give our honors and rewards. It's as if we give out such things to make ourselves feel better. Look at all of the schools that are "National Exemplary Schools" or "Blue Ribbon Schools." If there were that many such schools, there wouldn't be an education crisis. (And, to be honest, a teacher from one of those schools, when I asked how this came about, honestly replied, "We did the paperwork." Yep.) Note that it's usually the most mediocre teachers who get the "teacher of the year" awards. The best science teachers, the best math teachers, etc. that I ever worked with, all heads and shoulders above the others, never received anything, diddly. Halls of Fame? Where to start, with the big name halls or the local ones? We have dumbed down those, too.

A week or so ago, we were playing a game one evening at a social gathering. I had played the game before, but this had a new twist to it. When we played it last week, the rules made it so, on any given hand, there might be no losers. Originally, when I played it before then, each hand had at least one person who lost. That added a dimension to the game. But not last week, when into the game I noticed that the number of tricks claimed equaled the number of cards dealt (so there would be no losers) the others told me that was the way it was supposed to be. When I explained the above, "Oh, no. Oh no." I was told. I just burst out, among teachers, "Oh, everybody wins!" They all nodded and said, "Now you get it." After a few seconds another caught on to my sarcasm and then another and then....

This is what we've become. Rewarding mediocrity. Demanding that their be no losers. Etc. And don't forget gov't. It rewards bad behavior and, in fact, encourages it. And those who have behaved well? They are punished for it by paying the ill-behaved.

Of course, all of this is done in the name of being "fair."

Isn't all this great?