Hey, didn't I just blog about this a week or two ago????
Here's Walter Williams in a column this AM: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/30/where_best_to_be_poor/page/2
He has some statistics to support this. Amazing, but you don't think anyone in the MSM would report like this, do you? How "mean-spirited!"
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Just Asking
Is education the only profession that doesn't take advantage of its best people, of the people with the best backgrounds/resumes? I suppose not, but it sure seems there are a lot of "not-so-bright" people making a lot of education decisions that seem awfully stupid, not conducive to quality education.
The Wealthy?
Why, when I was signing in here, did I find myself singing the old Paul Anka song, "I'm Just a Lonely Boy?"
Is this relevant or am I off-base? People are talking about tax-breaks for the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, greed, etc. But I have questions.
OK, I guess I accept that the rich are getting richer. (But with the financial, banking, and real estate, among others, bubbles bursting, is that really true? Can I believe the media and/or the government? Hmmm....) But, also, are the poor really getting richer, too? Perhaps the last year or so has been rough, but do truly "poor people" have cell phones, big screen televisions, video game systems, etc.? Do their kids wear the latest NBA, NFL, and Hollywood fashions? Before people jump all over me, I understand the very bottom of the economic ladder has it tough, very tough. Single moms, those laid-off through no fault of their own, etc., have my sympathies and prayers for better times. But don't the studies show that 97% or something of the people have cell phones, a great percentage than that have televisions, etc.? What about computers and the Play Stations and other video game systems? Does that, then, suggest only about 3% or 5% of the people are really poor? If so, then why do the media and "do-gooders" always cite much higher figures? Is there a standard percentage, say, the bottom 25%, who are always determined to be "poor," just because they are the bottom 25%? But, again, if they have cell phones, video systems, flat screen televisions, etc., who cares? What do I care if the top 10% of the US earns more this year than last as long as I have what I need and want? Let them make as much as they want or can, I guess.
And, I'm back on that "greed" thing. Why is it greedy for some folks to make as much as they can, even if it's an ungodly amount, but not for others who don't make as much? Is "greed" also measured by figures? If one makes more than a set amount and makes or wants to make more, is he greedy, while one who doesn't reach that level, but makes or wants to make more, isn't greedy? Why are the athletes, hippy-rock singers, Hollywood-types, hey, even doctors never cited for being greedy? Yet, the bankers, investors, "big oil," etc. always labeled "greedy?" Why is Exxon or BP or whatever big oil company, with a profit margin of under 5% called "greedy," but the local gas station owner who charges 9 cents a gallon more for credit card purchases instead of cash isn't? Granted, there might be some paperwork involved, even waiting a bit for delivery of the money. But why did this just start? Why do some stations still have the same prices? Why are some charging three or four cents a gallon for charging and others 9 cents or more? Isn't that greedy?
I'm glad Izzo is staying at MSU. But I have to laugh at some of the callers to radio stations, newspaper columnists, etc. OK, he turned down $10 million to go to Cleveland. That's a lot of money! But so is $5 million!!!! And that's what he makes in E. Lansing. Is that a sacrifice? Of course, it is. But it's still $5 million. I'm not saying he's not worth it or shouldn't get it. No, not at all. He should be able to get whatever he can get. But isn't taking $5 million for coaching a game just a bit "greedy?" Hey, Hey, of course, it isn't--this is sports! To put this in a bit of perspective, at dinner with 6 others a few weeks ago, someone brought up that an NFL QB is unhappy that he's not the highest paid, that he is threatening to hold out unless his contract is renegotiated, etc. Well, he's not the highest paid, but he still, according to the guys, makes $15 million a year!!!! $15 million!!!!!! (Yeah, yeah, I've heard the lame, "But our careers are so short, we have to make it while we can." What happened to that college education you received for free? What about investing/saving some of your money? How about getting a real job when you're done playing? Phooey!) Well, one of the math guys at the table confirmed what I was thinking, $15 million in a year is more than we made in our entire lives--all of us sitting at the table combined!!!! Again, I'm not upset that this guy makes that money--he demanded it and someone agreed to it, so more power to him. It's the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness our culture and people exhibit toward "greed."
Is this relevant or am I off-base? People are talking about tax-breaks for the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, greed, etc. But I have questions.
OK, I guess I accept that the rich are getting richer. (But with the financial, banking, and real estate, among others, bubbles bursting, is that really true? Can I believe the media and/or the government? Hmmm....) But, also, are the poor really getting richer, too? Perhaps the last year or so has been rough, but do truly "poor people" have cell phones, big screen televisions, video game systems, etc.? Do their kids wear the latest NBA, NFL, and Hollywood fashions? Before people jump all over me, I understand the very bottom of the economic ladder has it tough, very tough. Single moms, those laid-off through no fault of their own, etc., have my sympathies and prayers for better times. But don't the studies show that 97% or something of the people have cell phones, a great percentage than that have televisions, etc.? What about computers and the Play Stations and other video game systems? Does that, then, suggest only about 3% or 5% of the people are really poor? If so, then why do the media and "do-gooders" always cite much higher figures? Is there a standard percentage, say, the bottom 25%, who are always determined to be "poor," just because they are the bottom 25%? But, again, if they have cell phones, video systems, flat screen televisions, etc., who cares? What do I care if the top 10% of the US earns more this year than last as long as I have what I need and want? Let them make as much as they want or can, I guess.
And, I'm back on that "greed" thing. Why is it greedy for some folks to make as much as they can, even if it's an ungodly amount, but not for others who don't make as much? Is "greed" also measured by figures? If one makes more than a set amount and makes or wants to make more, is he greedy, while one who doesn't reach that level, but makes or wants to make more, isn't greedy? Why are the athletes, hippy-rock singers, Hollywood-types, hey, even doctors never cited for being greedy? Yet, the bankers, investors, "big oil," etc. always labeled "greedy?" Why is Exxon or BP or whatever big oil company, with a profit margin of under 5% called "greedy," but the local gas station owner who charges 9 cents a gallon more for credit card purchases instead of cash isn't? Granted, there might be some paperwork involved, even waiting a bit for delivery of the money. But why did this just start? Why do some stations still have the same prices? Why are some charging three or four cents a gallon for charging and others 9 cents or more? Isn't that greedy?
I'm glad Izzo is staying at MSU. But I have to laugh at some of the callers to radio stations, newspaper columnists, etc. OK, he turned down $10 million to go to Cleveland. That's a lot of money! But so is $5 million!!!! And that's what he makes in E. Lansing. Is that a sacrifice? Of course, it is. But it's still $5 million. I'm not saying he's not worth it or shouldn't get it. No, not at all. He should be able to get whatever he can get. But isn't taking $5 million for coaching a game just a bit "greedy?" Hey, Hey, of course, it isn't--this is sports! To put this in a bit of perspective, at dinner with 6 others a few weeks ago, someone brought up that an NFL QB is unhappy that he's not the highest paid, that he is threatening to hold out unless his contract is renegotiated, etc. Well, he's not the highest paid, but he still, according to the guys, makes $15 million a year!!!! $15 million!!!!!! (Yeah, yeah, I've heard the lame, "But our careers are so short, we have to make it while we can." What happened to that college education you received for free? What about investing/saving some of your money? How about getting a real job when you're done playing? Phooey!) Well, one of the math guys at the table confirmed what I was thinking, $15 million in a year is more than we made in our entire lives--all of us sitting at the table combined!!!! Again, I'm not upset that this guy makes that money--he demanded it and someone agreed to it, so more power to him. It's the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness our culture and people exhibit toward "greed."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
I Have Returned!
Did I just originate that phrase? Maybe someone before used it, maybe? Ha Ha....
Just a quick note:
I've spent quite a bit of time the past two or three weeks with teachers, college, high school, and elementary all. I am struck by two things: one, how universal the dislike and lack of respect shown toward administrators and, two, how many teachers seem to turn their backs on stopping the idiocy.
It's no secret of my disdain for administrators--I don't hide it. And, I suppose, it's no surprise that teachers feel toward them as teachers do; after all, administrators deserve it due to their lack of honesty, integrity, courage, and, in case, intelligence. So, I'm not stunned. But how many choose, "to just close my classroom door and teach" or some other such comment has irritated me. How can these people then follow that with "we're there for the kids" or "we're doing what's best for the kids," etc.? Again, I make no secret that I think that's a bunch of hooey. Teachers are not there "for the kids." But that's an issue for another day (and the one or two people who might actually read this are welcome to reply, positively or negatively--even telling me I'm full of dog doo-doo).
How can they just sit there and let all this crap happen in the schools, just close their eyes to it, while either "just closing the door" or "accepting the crap" while complaining away from school and administrators and then say "We're here for the kids?" More hooey! I told one teacher the other night, in a discussion about another's competence (I said "lousy teacher," the other said "very good teacher"), "Stupid people can't be good teachers." I mean it and I also think teachers who lack courage and integrity can't be very good either. At the very least, what about standards, rigor, etc.? But, again, fodder for another post.
What I am reminded of here, yet again, is Pastor Niemoller: "First they came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Communists and I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the...and I wasn't a..., so I said nothing. Then they came after me and there was nobody left to say anything." Certainly not to trivialize the history behind this, not at all, but apply this to education--curriculum, hiring, standards, and much, much more.
Out....
Just a quick note:
I've spent quite a bit of time the past two or three weeks with teachers, college, high school, and elementary all. I am struck by two things: one, how universal the dislike and lack of respect shown toward administrators and, two, how many teachers seem to turn their backs on stopping the idiocy.
It's no secret of my disdain for administrators--I don't hide it. And, I suppose, it's no surprise that teachers feel toward them as teachers do; after all, administrators deserve it due to their lack of honesty, integrity, courage, and, in case, intelligence. So, I'm not stunned. But how many choose, "to just close my classroom door and teach" or some other such comment has irritated me. How can these people then follow that with "we're there for the kids" or "we're doing what's best for the kids," etc.? Again, I make no secret that I think that's a bunch of hooey. Teachers are not there "for the kids." But that's an issue for another day (and the one or two people who might actually read this are welcome to reply, positively or negatively--even telling me I'm full of dog doo-doo).
How can they just sit there and let all this crap happen in the schools, just close their eyes to it, while either "just closing the door" or "accepting the crap" while complaining away from school and administrators and then say "We're here for the kids?" More hooey! I told one teacher the other night, in a discussion about another's competence (I said "lousy teacher," the other said "very good teacher"), "Stupid people can't be good teachers." I mean it and I also think teachers who lack courage and integrity can't be very good either. At the very least, what about standards, rigor, etc.? But, again, fodder for another post.
What I am reminded of here, yet again, is Pastor Niemoller: "First they came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Communists and I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the...and I wasn't a..., so I said nothing. Then they came after me and there was nobody left to say anything." Certainly not to trivialize the history behind this, not at all, but apply this to education--curriculum, hiring, standards, and much, much more.
Out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
