Tenure

Here is a good one concerning tenure. A teacher coaches for, say 10 years. He's had enough, is raising his own family, is tired of 12-14 hour days. So he quits, but stays as a good, solid teacher. Along comes a budget crunch and the school is looking for a coach. Hmmm...this guy doesn't coach any more. He's expendable. Forget that he's a good teacher; we need a coach. Bye Bye. Think that won't happen????? Think long and hard again.

Throw this one in, too. A guy's been teaching for a dozen years and does a yeoman's job. He's good, but at the top of the pay schedule. To save money, let's hired a kid right out of college (even though he likely gets his lesson plans from Wikipedia!). Quality? Who cares? Bye Bye. Think that won't happen????? Think long and hard again.

I heard a guy on the radio telling Bill Bennett about those scenarios just this AM. Bennett was shocked and dismayed. But, I wonder if he really thinks this stuff could happen or not happen. C'mon, administrators will get rid of people who make waves, even if those "waves" point out the ludicrous crap coming down from administrators. To save money (and administrative jobs?), don't think either of the above scenarios will happen? I have some ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you, real cheap.

Shame?

I heard a woman on the radio today or yesterday. She said, if she were a member of today's Congress, she'd "be ashamed." Well, I certainly would, too, just as I am pretty much loathe to identify myself as a former public school teacher.

But, as I think I took too long to recognize, this woman misses the point entirely. None of these people, in fact, likely very few people anywhere, are "ashamed" of anything. There is no "shame." Where does this come from, this lack of shame?

I know we're not supposed to blame anyone for anything any more. "Let's move on." "Let's get beyond that." "Let's not affix blame." So, if nobody is accountable for what they do, why would there be any shame? Of course, much of this crap started in the schools, yep. How many times would one hear, "Oh, let's not blame anyone" for yet another stupid, costly decision, policy, program? Certainly not...then some people might not get to make decisions any more.

Maybe it started in the '90s, when we had a President who, by all past sense of values, should have been starkly ashamed of his behavior with an unpaid intern, his rollicking sexual escapades while married splattered all over the media. But, no, there he was as large as day, bravado no false in that man. And the American people, rather than be shocked and ashamed that their office of the Presidency (which many Presidents, our best, from Washington to Eisenhower, did their best to prevent) was dragged through the mud, excused the behavior. "The economy is good." "It's a private matter." "They all did it" (which shows our woeful ignorance of history, because "they," meaning Presidents, didn't "all" do "it," meaning cheat on their wives, have affairs, etc.).

Let's toss in our corporate leaders, who drove companies into the ground, bankrupting them, costing thousands their jobs, their pensions, etc., while taking millions of dollars in bonuses. Nope, no shame in that.

How about our professional athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types? Caught using drugs, another sexpot of the day, go to jail, beat women--you name it. What do we do? "Build a jail in the end zone!" Make the rankest sex shows on TV the highest rated--every week a different character is in bed with yet a different character. Yet, we not only don't protest; we gobble it up.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars; the fault is with us.

Finally

Maybe it took me longer than it should have, but something is ringing a bell. I'm not certain I buy into the "class warfare" cries, but....

Can the message being sent by government and those who favor more of it be any clearer? Even I have managed, finally, to get it. If you are successful--through talent, hard work, ideas, willingness to take risks, etc.--"we" will take your money. If you are not successful--laziness, lack of effort, failure to take advantage of the free education offered, etc.--don't worry; "we" will provide for you. Now, "providing" means taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. I have zero problems with giving to those who need help; but far too many people who don't need help because of their own laziness, lack of effort, failure to take advantage of free education, etc. get handouts. What kid won't pick up this message? They already have in the schools. How can grades be so high when so many students know so little, do so little?

Speaking of schools, I finally heard it! I don't know what radio show it was, but yesterday some lady said, "Why don't we go back to when the schools were successful and do the things that were being done then--or at least look at them?" Hurray! I think the "things" she's talking about were requiring hard work, establishing standards and sticking to them, getting rid of this "self-concept"/"self-image" crap, etc. That includes getting rid of a lot of teachers who are incapable of imposing rigor and quality in classrooms, forcing those who are capable to actually do this stuff, and recognizing those who already do by asking them to lead those who don't. Another person, a guy, had an interesting view. He thought schools went downhill when women entered the management level of the corporate world. He suggested it was a "brain drain" from the schools to business, taking good, intelligent, demanding women from the classroom. This, obviously, then opened the door for less capable teachers. Hmmm....

Just a thought: I think many of our problems and gripes have to do with envy; too many people covet what others have. How many folks complain about "the rich?" The wealthy are greedy; they don't pay their fair share of taxes. And so on. But, again, how much money is enough? How can anyone with, say, a big screen television, an SUV, a summer cottage or condo, every "I-toy" in existence, etc., who takes a couple vacations each year, be envious of anyone? How can so many people who have so much resent others who happen to have more? Hmmm.... I wonder if they can spell "G-R-E-E-D?" "No, No! It's others who are greedy, not us!" The politics of envy?

You know, it must be one of those days. I had a couple of these ideas better and more clearly formulated yesterday. I'm not sure they came out as well today.

Return

Interesting articles over the weekend. They came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both authors, I'm sure, have differing views, and each has something important to consider.

First, Walter Williams had this to say: There aren't enough "rich" to tax to pay for the deficit, of this year alone, not to mention the national debt! Even if corporate profits are taxed, there isn't enough money. Consider that--if 100% of the incomes of all the billionaires in the US and 100% of all corporate profits were taxed, that is, taken by the federal government, the revenue would only fund federal spending until mid-summer! If we can't put our fingers on gigantic figures like trillions, that example should be worth some thought.

Then, Leonard Pitts had more insightful words. It's been said before, but facts are inconvenient things. They get in the way of opinions. How often today people just ignore facts that don't measure with their views or, I suppose, make up "facts" that do. Only after reading and thinking about both articles did I encounter a guy who fit Pitts' article to a tee. After I pointed out Williams' findings, citing IRS figures that I checked last week after another discussion, the guy's retort was, "Yes, but..." and he proceeded to ignore the facts to pontificate on the right views about "the rich."

Hey, after a few weeks, I finally got a second retired teacher to admit he'd be willing to have his pension taxed! Hooray! Now, remember, I qualify this. I would only consent if the money went to fix matters, not to add to current spending. I don't want my money stolen by politicians to pay for/waste on more boondoggle programs.

I see school districts are thinking about cutting sports. Hmmm.... I think that would be a terrible thing to do. Before doing so, there needs to be a lot of thought about that. First, sports are an important part of education. OK, not all students participate in sports. But those who do benefit greatly, far beyond their school days. I maintain that my times playing sports, high school, college, all of them, were as formative as my academics. I don't say that lightly, humbly remembering my Amherst education and the influence of my professors, studies, etc. That, no doubt, extends far beyond just me, but to many other athletes, too. Those who don't participate, well, that's their choice. They can. Not everyone takes AP classes or physics or band or art classes--should we eliminate those (esp the AP classes!)? And, second, I would maintain that sports teams, at least the major sports, but all of them to some degree, have a positive impact on schools--spirit, attendance, pride, etc. Certainly, that's quantifiable, but it is apparent and can be felt. Pay to play, I think, is detrimental to all this. Why don't AP kids have to pay extra to take those classes? The classes are smaller, meaning more teachers have to be hired. Books and materials are different from regular classes--more costs. Can anyone demonstrate that AP classes have more of an impact on students than athletics (I won't yet touch the quality of the AP teachers--of course, such an argument can be made against some coaches, too). Of course, knowing who runs our schools tells us a lot about what decisions will be made.

BTW, talking about "the greedy rich," why don't some of these millionaire athletes take some of their millions and fund high school sports? Or hippy rock stars music programs? Or the Hollywood-types drama programs? The list goes on.... Yet, it's big oil, CEOs, Wall Street, bankers, etc. who are "greedy." Those retired teachers, union workers, etc. who might pay an extra $1000 in taxes, but are up in arms about the possibility, no--they aren't greedy.

I'm in no way suggesting that the government steal more and more money from the wealthiest of the wealthy, but, seriously, how much money does one need? OK, I'm very comfortable and have no financial worries. I am able to get anything and everything I really want. (Now, granted, I might not want much, but that's not the point.) But, I'm hardly independently wealthy. Teaching, I think my highest earning year was about $64K, I think. And, that's with a BA and three graduate degrees. I'm fine. But, how does one spend $12 million dollars a year? What, really, is the difference between $12 and $16 million? Can one not get along on $12 million a year? How much money does one need? No, the gov't shouldn't take the money, but there's nothing that says a person shouldn't voluntarily, without coercion, want to give money to help others.

Out until later....

Fri Musings

I still have this feeling of some impending dread/doom that's on the way. I can't shake it. It isn't a pleasant feeling. A little more than a week of it so far. All kinds of interesting things to read yesterday and all week. I see where the novelist S. King has said he makes so much money and "only pays 28%" of it in taxes, but "should pay more." I think he's trying to say that all rich people "should pay more." He's certainly entitled to his opinion; this is America (although to far too many people, it seems the only opinions to which one is entitled are those that agree with theirs). But, two things: one, he can certainly "pay more." He can voluntarily give more of his money to the government. Hmmmm.... I wonder why he doesn't just do that, pay more. He can, you know--and, no doubt, so does he. I wonder why he doesn't; wouldn't that be acting on his "principles?" I think I understand, which leads me to two. Just because he thinks he should "pay more" doesn't mean everyone--or even those as rich or richer--should. He shouldn't be able to say how other people spend their money. They earned it and should be able to do with it as they please. After all, this is America (oh, I forgot!). Great line in the WSJ about Obama's speech the other night about his "budget proposal." I write in quotation marks because he didn't really have a "budget proposal." The WSJ wrote, that even at the levels of dishonesty in Washington today, Obama's speech was as dishonest as any. And some columnist this AM, I forget which source, called Obama a "compulsive liar" and a "sociopath," giving definitions and examples. These remind me of a line I read a few weeks ago, from a column about Obama's chances at re-election (which the guy thought were pretty good because....) "there is no level of dishonesty to which the Obama adminstration won't stoop." And we sit and take it. Filling out my taxes, I just keep wondering. One form asked me to fill in income I earned in Flint. Then, a couple lines down it asked for income earned outside of Flint. Then, a couple lines down I had to subtract the income earned outside of Flint. Huh????? Interesting how, once again, one of the gurus of educational reform (a former state super of schools) had a lot of "ideas" about changes, but neglected some common sense, tried and true ideas. He was right on the money about the ridiculous levels of testing, that, he noted, only improve the bottom lines of test companies. (Need we go into the cheating, dishonesty in reporting, etc. by the schools?) And he prays to the gods of technology. I'm not at all convinced that technology improves education, be it online diplomas, virtual classes, or even things like BlackBoard. But he never mentioned attracting people who actually know what they are doing (obviously increased pay hasn't worked) or at least listening to them instead of the fools being listened to now. He never mentioned letting (or forcing) these good people to establish high standards (as opposed to the education establishment's "setting the bar high," since the ed est is "just kidding"). Until I hear people talking about the last two or three sentences, I will likely dismiss them as the last in a long line of loons. I continue to be amazed at how so many political "leaders" (and I say that fully tongue in cheek), esp on the Dem side, still insist on rewarding undesirable behavior and punishing hard work, effort, ingenuity, and success. Of course, they mostly talk the talk and never walk the walk. That is, they don't ever give up their own wealth. They just want to take others' money. I wonder if they even know what the word "hypocrite" means????? Out.

More Baseball

We were over other folks' house the other evening. A ball game was on the tube--I, by and large, no longer watch professional sports. A runner was on 1st base, being held. The hitter drilled a ball the first baseman just missed; he came close. The replay showed the first baseman never moved off of the bag until the ball was hit. That is, he didn't come off the bag when the pitcher delivered to the plate. Had he, it's likely, not only that he would have caught the ball, but wouldn't even have had to dive. Then, he would have started an inning-ending double play. At the least, there would have been a force at 2nd base. The next batter hit a fly which would have ended the inning regardless. But without catching the grounder, it opened the door to two runs, runs that wouldn't have scored. I don't know the final score or even what two teams were playing. I just know what passes for Major League Baseball isn't very good--or at least not as good as it once was. No doubt, the players are bigger, stronger, faster--better athletes. But they are not better baseball players. Of course, who even noted that play, other than I? Or the play I blogged about Sat? I heard a sports talk show on the way home from class the other night. The topic was baseball, namely how "boring" it is, esp for young kids. Au contraire! One thing baseball isn't is "boring." Now, people might have shorter attention spans, they might not understand or see the nuances of the game (and there are many on every play!), they might not be capable of foreseeing possible outcomes, etc. People might not even be smart enough any more to understand the intracacies of baseball. I don't know. But baseball isn't boring. Far from it. That's not why I don't watch it much any more.

Baseball and Other Thoughts on a Fri Eve

I'd much rather be at Sparkie's, hoisting a few 22-oz LaBatts, with the gang than here, but.... I have the ball game on and I have some views. A replay of the guy singing the national anthem was played. The singer, I have no idea who it was, sang the Star-Spangled Banner and, several times, seemed to say "Oh-merica...." Hmmm, I thought it was "America." Down 5-1 and a Royal gets picked off of first base in the 7th inning. Major League Baseball????? What is this guy doing? Is he a .400 hitter? If not, why is he up there? No doubt, somebody will say "He's young and needs to learn the game." Yep, but, might I ask, what has be been doing for the pat 20 years--in Little League, high school, college, the minors? Just asking. It's nice to be aggressive, but c'mon. The Tigers brought in a reliever, who retired the first two batters, then had three extremely cheap hits--nothing close to a line-drive in the bunch. So, the manager takes him out. Why? It's not as if the other team is lighting him up. Maybe it's to give the other team a different look? Maybe it's to make it look like the manager is doing something? Why take out a pitcher that the other team can't hit? As with everything else, what do I know? Not baseball, but I have really been down the past 4-5 days. I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the worst 4-5 days I've had since being retired. Maybe it stems from Mon eve. I was on the computer and went through my e-mail address book. I deleted about half a dozen addresses of people, hey--FRIENDS!--who have died fairly recently. Maybe that, subconsciously or otherwise, affected me. Grocery shopping today. I saved $90.36 with bottles/cans/coups. I spent only $19.36. And that includes $3.70 in returnable bottle deposits. Next week's ads don't look as inviting. Unless I have a lot of coups to use, I will likely not shop.

Schools and Education

I didn't catch the name of the school district yesterday, but a caller on a local radio show (it seemed like it was a teacher, unwilling to give a name--understandable in light of how close-minded and vengeful schools/school districts can be) claimed the administration has banned "time-outs" for students who misbehave. Yep, that's what the guy said. Now, I've never been a big fan of "time-outs." Let's see, would I be less likely to do something wrong if my dad smacked my fanny or if he said, "Take a time-out?" I certainly know the answer to that one--and it usually took only one smack! Who invented "time-outs?" No doubt he/she was related to the one who banned beano/dodge ball. (I just happened to be talking with a guy the other night about how much fun beano/dodge ball was.) It seems "time-outs" singled out, ostracized students--obviously having a negative impact on their "self-esteem." If this is true, what fools! First the loons employ "time-outs," then ban them for their silliest of reasons. These are the same folks who bring "diversity" to the schools, you know, "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." Of course, they become quite flustered when queried, 'What about the Nazis?" "How about the Taliban?" I haven't had a chance to talk to any of these ding-a-lings lately, but I think my next question is going to be, "How about the Tea Parties?" OK, technically, it's not a school or school district, but.... I believe Maryland just passed a law by which children of parents who aren't US citizens pay less tuition to state colleges/universities. I know about all the arguments concerning the bias and other problems such children face, but c'mon. It reminds me of the discussion I had with a guy once who favored letting inmates in prisons get free tuition to college courses taught in the slammer. Huh????? So, me, a US citizen who's never been in any trouble, have to pay full (and outrageous) tuition to send my son (who's never been in any trouble) to college. Hmmm, but there seems to be something very wrong with some people's thinking.

Paul Ryan

The more I see and hear of Paul Ryan, the better he looks. Perhaps he is Presidential timbre, the one we should draft and elect in '12. His budget proposal is tough, it cuts, but isn't draconian, despite what the opponents are saying. His plan, for instance, includes an annual 7% increase in Medicare spending. But opponents are calling that a "cut," I'd guess because they want larger increases than that. Hmmm.... When was the last time you received a 7% increase in pay in one year? Without having to think too hard, I can say, "Never!" Yet, these same people who yell about the "greed" of Big Oil, Wall Street, CEOs, etc. (and they might well be greedy), are unwilling to pay themselves to prevent their own kids and grandkids from having major financial difficulties in the not too distant future. Hmmm..... Paul Ryan is not only intelligent (look at his budget and decide for yourself), but he's articulate (very much more so than the media messiah Obama). Is Ryan a future President?????

Random Thoughts

I would love to have dinner with the recently resigned NYC public schools super. She was there only three months. Why did she leave so soon? She has no background in education and I wonder if, perhaps similar to Dennis Archer and Dave Bing as mayors of Detroit, she didn't have any idea what she was getting herself into. What might be frightening is that the incompetence and education-types might so firmly entrenched that the cause is lost (similar to Detroit being lost). Of course, she'd have to pay. I continue to be amazed at the people who get radio shows. How? How do they get their own shows on television? I was listening to a sports show the other day and the guy was an idiot. (Not all of them are; some, on occasion, I enjoy listening to.) I heard a political show and the guy and gal hosting it were blatant fools. They were blathering, mostly incomprehensibly, and showing how very ignorant they are. Now, it wasn't just these two of a particular political persuasion. I think some of the "superstars" of radio are extremely overrated, buffoons even, and certainly shouldn't be the beacons of political following. On the radio, I still like Bill Bennett a lot. It's too bad the station that carries him is so weak out here. Locally, Frank Beckmann makes a lot of sense. Those are two of my favorites. This week, in the car when they weren't on the air, I didn't bother turning on the radio. Greed? Ah, how greedy Big Oil is--or so I hear. But teachers and retired teachers aren't greedy for not wanting to contribute to their insurance premiums (to the tune of private sector workers) and pay income tax on their pensions. I'd like to have someone explain that to me. A few have tried, but, in the end, they come out as, well, greedy, wanting as much money (or benefits) as they can get. How is that, other than amounts, different? How about that President of ours? With gas approaching $4 a gallon, his pep talk to the American people was, "Sell your car and get another one." Yep, how about another White Houses party? Or, how about another vacation? The government is facing a shutdown and the man goes on vacation in NC! Now, I know the President never is on vacation, but it's the symbolism of it. We're facing some troubles, yet he's off having a good time. The man is an incredible hypocrite and quite the charlatan, who, I believe, will be re-elected next year. Speaking of the government shutdown, I see these same lamebrains in Congress who haven't come up with a budget, will still get paid! So, we may be inconvenienced, but they don't. And they are loons, so many of them. The one NY Congresswoman who said "the freshman elected last Nov have come to Washington to kill women!" I suppose that is because of their opposition to abortion. Why do my tax dollars go to pay for abortion? I may not consider it murder, but it's wrong, very wrong. Government should not be subsidizing wrong behavior, encouraging more of the same. Last Sunday there were a few photos in the newspaper of Hollywood actress. I received an e-mail photo of Liz Taylor. Very good looking women, all. But, you know, I know and have known many women who I have found and find just as beautiful. That's not a slam on the Hollywood women, not at all. It's just an observation and a compliment to those who aren't in Hollywood. Go ahead, try to tell me A. Lincoln wasn't the greatest President and the greatest American....

Presidents

Recently asked to rank Barrack Obama as President, here is my current assessment. He is bad, very bad. He might well rank as a failure, but that remains to be seen. The characteristics he displays are not good ones: dishonesty, arrogance/elitism, lack of courage, lack of vision, hypocrisy. Other characteristics he doesn't display are essential for good Presidents: leadership, ability to choose quality subordinates, empathy. Of course, history might well rank him differently, for several reasons. One, historians later assessing the Obama Presidency will come across primary material/sources that wrongly fawn over Obama. Two, historians have, traditionally, been politically on the side of those like Obama. Three, perspective is necessary. Remember the contemporary views of Lincoln unti late in the Civil War. But, I can't see any reasonable (I guess that's the key word) historian ever ranking him as a good President--he clearly is not. That said, I also think very little of George W. Bush. In many ways I think he was insecure, afraid of being called names, of what posterity might say of him, etc. He strayed from principles he said he had, caving in instead of standing firm in "the good fight." I would rank him as a poor President, too. Now, this might not at all be fair because my standard for excellence in a President is A. Lincoln. I am currently reading yet another book about Abe and he, despite what I know of him, despite having read about three dozen books about him, continues to awe me. No, No, I don't think he's "St. Abraham," but, I laugh, I almost do. I think our last good Presidents were Truman and Eisenhower, for different reasons and in different ways. I'm not a big Kennedy fan, although my views of him have improved in recent years, due, largely, to my convictions that words/motivation can lead Americans to good things. I don't care at all for Johnson. He, of course, was responsible for the debacle called Vietnam and the deleterious effects of the Great Society, which, I think, has seriously damaged the fabric of American society. He was also a despicable person, from his treatment of individuals to how he used some events (such as the Detroit race riots) as weapons against opponents (George Romney). (How many more dead, how much more damage came due to LBJ's dallying--playing politics--in bringing in federal troops?) Nixon was a brilliant man, esp in foreign policy. But his personality faults led him to failure as a President (in many ways exactly the mirror image of JFK's positives). Ford was handed a losing hand. He was a good man put in an untenable position. He was courageous enough to do the right thing (pardon Nixon) in the face of almost universal opposition. He was right, but it cost him the '76 election. Carter was out of his league. He was just plain lousy. What made him even worse than that he was clueless, was that he was an arrogant elitist (which he remains). I'm not a big Reagan fan, although I loved his message. What he stated as his principles didn't always translate into commensurate actions. He wasn't bad, though, but not a good President. Bush Daddy was OK, not great (although his resume would have indicated he should have been). But, I think Reagan said it best, Bush "doesn't seem to stand for anything." No doubt history will be kinder on Clinton than I am. I think character counts and the messages that he sent about rotten personal conduct has resounded since. When we needed someone to lead a life of good moral example, he did the opposite--and he continues to give us the symbolic smirk about that. (I turn to history and the first Roman Emperor, Augustus, who recognized that Rome needed a kick in its immoral past and did so, establishing a moral society that held firm for a couple of centuries, despite Caligula and Nero.)