Evolution and Vocabulary

Maybe the likes of Darwin and Spenser hand it wrong. Maybe evolution doesn't result from "the survival of the fittest." Specifically, I'm thinking about the recent evolution of vocabulary.

I know, over the years, English language usage has changed. Note reading, say, the letters of the Founding Fathers, merely 200+ years ago, to see the differences. Some of the changes have seemed good, others not so hot. I don't like what I am reading and hearing now. It seems like we are regressing in how we communicate.

Words are now used awkwardly. Often it appears we are trying to sound intelligent by using a word when an easier, more communcative, and specific form of the same word is available. And, most frequently, we use words so much, in so many trivial ways and situations, the words have become almost meaningless, even with the usage for which they were intended. Trite immediately comes to mind when hearing them.

I cringe when I hear people use them, sometimes retorting with a smart wisecrack. "Let's 'conference' about that tomorrow." Ooh, does that hurt? "Shall we reference the phone call?" How about referring to the call? And doesn't the trendy use of the word "grow" just grate on you? "How can we grow our business?" I thought trees and beans and grass and flowers "grow?" Ditto for the word "impact." Instead of "That impacted our efforts," how about "That had an impact on our efforts?"

"Totally," "absolutely," and "definitely" are thrown away in so much conversation, in ways that make little if any sense, that they've become almost useless in real conversation and writing. How about the overuse of the word "so?" "That jacket is so brown!"

Adults have joined right in on this. I don't know if they think talking like kids makes them cool or not. I wonder if these are the same people who frown on Eubonics. Beats me.

But, I will not use words such as these. I have resisted so far and never find having to catch myself because they are so banal, trite, and meaningless. I know, I know...language is always evolving. I suppose that means getting better and getting worse. But let's not mistake this evolution with "survival of the fittest."

Gee, do I sound like an old curmudgeon?

Schools

Two items stemming from schools have grabbed some national attention lately.

One, in Wisconsin I believe, suspended a kid, maybe even threatened to expel him, for writing an article for the school newspaper. The article opposed adoption of children by gay couples. The kid used his Christian principles to write the article. And, these are key, he was assigned to write the piece by his editor and/or teacher adviser and there was an opposing view printed on the same page, right next to his. A gay member of the community saw the article (but not both of them?) and complained to the principal, superintendent, and who knows who else. Anyway, the kid was called in to the office by both the principal and superintendent, missing a study session for a final exam and a final exam. He was, according to his lawyer, berated for the piece. One of the two administrators called him "ignorant" (for having Christian beliefs, I guess) and demanded an apology. Supposedly, the issue of "separation of church and state" was brought up. Huh? When the kid tried to defend his beliefs, he was again berated and threatened with action because he was a "bully." Hmmm.... There's a lot wrong here, none of which is surprising. First, administrators are involved. My views on most of them are no secret. Integrity, courage, intelligence, those sorts of principles are lacking. Second, who, exactly, is being "bullied?" Third, aren't schools supposed to be bastions of free thought, the marketplace of ideas, pro and con and in between? (But we know only the "right ideas" are allowed on campuses, both high schools and universities.) Fourth, if true, what administrator would call a kid "ignorant?" Fifth, there was no issue of religion being promulgated/inculcated in the schools. Shouldn't students learn about different religious beliefs? The kid only used his own religious beliefs to finish an assignment given by his editor/teacher. Sixth, the teacher adviser, one would presume, approved of the piece. If not, why not? The list goes on. Perhaps the school board should reconsider the employment of the principal and superintendent. Perhaps, even, a jury could make the situation a little more palatable, applying a little justice, although far too late.

And here in Michigan, a kid was suspended, again threatened with expulsion from his high school for having long hair. No, I'm not kidding. To begin, this is 2012!!!!!! And I'm not certain, but I believe it was a private school, maybe even a Christian one. But, again, I'm not sure. If it is, though, have any of the administrators seen the many paintings of Christ, you know, the ones with long hair? The kid is a cancer survivor, having lost his own hair years ago during chemo treatments. He was growing his hair long as a fund-raiser for other cancer victims. I don't know the rationale for the action against the kid other than the school has "rules" forbidding long hair. as an afterthought, I wonder if that "rule" applies to girls. If it does, hmmm, is there a gender-bias suit here waiting to happen? Again, perhaps the school board or whoever controls schools such as this might want to reconsider who it hires.

I don't know; I don't know. What ever happened to common sense in running our schools?

C'mon....

Apparently there's some flap about an NHL goldie (I don't know his name) who doesn't want to or won't go to the White House with his team for the ubiquitous meeting with the President. I guess the guy is opposed to Obama and is making some sort of statement. Critics cry that this is disrespectful and that he should go to honor, if not the man, at least the office. Supporters cite freedom of expression. Hey, it's only some athlete, so who cares?

Anyway, that's just the prelude to my thoughts. Some columnist this AM, in the News or Free Press wrote, "...White House team championship ceremonies are generally apolitical...." Who is this guy kidding? C'mon.... Democrat or Republican, like the President or not, the entire thing is political. Can this columnist be that dense?

Of course, this guy is free to write what he wants, just like this NHLer is free to do what he wants, unless he has something in his contract that stipulates otherwise. Let the columnist write this. I just wonder how this got by his editor. No, there's nothing grammatically incorrect about it. But as my college professors frequently wrote on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed!" And that's what this, "...White House team championship ceremonies are generally apolitical..." is, pure and simple, "sloppy thinking."

MLB

I've waited a couple of days before writing what I was thinking immediately upon hearing the news. Tue, driving home from class, I heard the Tigers signed some Prince guy to a 9-year contract for $214 million, yes, $214 million! That's about $24 million a year and almost $150,000 a game, about $17,000 an inning! That's not all that is....

That's obscene!!!!!! Before I start, it's the owner's money and he can spend it anyway he wants. I just question his morals/ethics/humanity. It's the player's money; someone offered it to him and he took it, like any/everybody would. Don't try to tell many any/all of the Wall Street Protestors wouldn't take the money--they all would. Remember, "greedy" is a term to describe the other guy. So, it is, in the end, none of my business how this transaction was made.

But in light of the economic situation in Detroit and all of Michigan, what are these people thinking? I know, I know--I heard it on the radio, not only the sports stations--this will win the pennant and World Series for the Tigers. Oh, boy.... Not a peep, not one, about the "greed" of either the payer or the payee.

Instead of helping people who really need help, the owner spends $214 million to win a pennant. Now, he might give a lot of money to charity, maybe even millions. But here are $214 million more that could be donated. And the player accepts the money. Now, he might also give a lot of money to charity, maybe even millions. But here are millions more that could be donated.

Wny do I hear so much about the "greed" of Big Oil, the CEOs (lumped together, of course), Wall Street, the banks, etc., but nothing about things like this? Instead of paying all these players all this cash, players who keep telling fans they are "the greatest," why don't players get less money (after all, how many millions does one need??????) and lower prices so families can go to games more than once or twice a year? Oh, they do go--the stadium is filled for every game. Hmmmm.... So where does that leave the argument about the state being in a depression? And, with so many people in dire straits, why don't those who go to all of these games stay home a few times and give the $100 a pop for tickets to St Jude's, Ronald McDonald House, Feed the Children, Operation Smile, etc.? Heh Heh...could it be there are other "greedy" people besides the aforementioned folks??????

Gee, $150K a game! That's more than twice the annual income I received after 33 years in teaching. Three hours an afternoon or evening vs 8 hours in a classroom X 210 days.... And, to emphasize, I don't begrudge the guys their money, neither one. I just, once again, question what's become of us that there is such selective outrage. Some rich people are greedy, but we get to pick and choose which ones.

So, it seems, the hypocrites are silent again. That was a tough one to call--NOT!

Equal Protection of the Law

An article I read this weekend offered something I hadn't considered before, but seems to be growing on me. The Constitution, Amendment 14, guarantees "the equal protection of the law." In recent decades it has been used, wisely and legally, to help correct long-time injustices regarding race and gender, among other things.

So, then, why and how isn't it also applied to the obviously discriminatory progressive income tax? Is it OK to discriminate on the basis of economic class, but not on race or gender? That's a very dangerous premise, that it's legal/Constitutional (ignoring the moral or the ethical question) to treat one person differently than another because he is "different." (That brings to mind the famous exchange between Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The rich are different!" "Yes, they have more money!") What, then, is to prevent a return to treating people differently on other bases, such as gender and race?

Of course, such laws, violating the 14th Amendment or not, are favored by politicians. They give the pols more power. Elected officials and their free-spending bureaucrats ("It's easy to spend other people's money.") get more money (or so they think, although history time and time again shows us that higher tax rates on the wealthy do no increase gov't tills nor do they do anything but create more unemployment--as Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."), but they don't alienate the vast majority of voters who don't pay the higher rates.

How "equal" is it that some people pay large amounts of their income as taxes while others pay little or, increasingly, nothing, all because of what elected officials mandate? Where is the Constitution when all of this is done? Or, as seems to be more and more the case in other issues, is it merely an old document that is followed when expedient and ignored when not?

Why not let people determine their own taxes and tax rates by taxing, not income, but consumption? Tax gasoline, airline trips, alcohol, tobacco, etc., so-called "luxury items." (OK, I'd also add things such as I-pods/pads, cell phones, and the like to that list of "luxury items," but that's just me!) People can then pay more or less tax by buying more or less of stuff. (I love the word "stuff.") Then, discriminatory taxes are taken out of the hands of self-serving politicians.

This is, potentially, a slippery slope. Most people, not being the rich, are easily swayed by the idea of a progressive tax. They won't pay the higher rates. Again and again we must remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, "First they (the Nazis) came after the Jews. But I wasn't a Jew so I said nothing. Then they came after the Communists. But I wasn't a Communist so I said nothing. Then they came after the trade unionists. But I wasn't a trade unionist so I said nothing. Then they came after the.... But I wasn't a.... so I said nothing. Then they came after me. But there was no one left to say anything." It doesn't seem such a stretch any more, does it?

Good Teaching?

Nicholas Kristof, of the NY Times, has written a good column on "good teachers." Here is a link to it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/opinion/kristof-the-value-of-teachers.html?_r=1 I think it's a first-rate article, citing an impressive study that followed more than 1 million students through to adulthood.

The premise is that "good teachers" make big differences in people's lives. There are advantages of having "good teachers" that show up in marked increases in lifetime earnings. That isn't as impressive to me as it might be to others. Yet, there are other advantages, too. One is attendance at colleges. But, the study was conducted by economists, so I see where the income is the focus. I'm pretty sure, though, that other good things can be extrapolated.

It's a timely and thoughtful column, but leaves me with one question: What is it that makes a "good teacher?" Kristoff and the study seem to imply "test results." I still have a lot of problems with such reliance on "test results." I was remarking to students yesterday how every day I thank my lucky stars that I went to Amherst, where I encountered so many outstanding teachers. Oh, there were some dogs, but the number/percentage of really great ones is, in itself, astounding. I imagine it's hard for some folks to picture/realize that, but I do. And, I recognize that without any "test results." In fact, often it's not "what" they taught me, but "how" they taught me. How measurable is that? And, that instilled in me a love of learning that may or may not have been in me, but is now and has been for 40+ years. How testable is that?

Conversely, according to Kristoff and the study, having a "bad teacher" is the equivalent to an absence rate of 40%! While parents should have bake sales, car washes, or just chip in for $100,000 to keep a good teacher from leaving when their kids are in that teacher's class, they should also raise $100,000 to get a bad teacher to leave. That says a lot! And, the "investment" in terms of long-range gains by students is well worth it, more than paying itself off.

So, then, what makes a "good teacher?" I'm finishing up my 41st year in this business and have thought a lot about it. I'm still not certain, but have some ideas. Here are a few thoughts.

First, I think all teachers or prospective teachers should read "Teaching: What We Do." It's a compendium of essays written by Amherst professors (there I go again!) of several decades ago. One essay in particular, written by one of my physics professors, Prof Romer, is nothing short of brilliant. It's a lesson plan for a physics lesson, yet spelled out so clearly it's a model for thinking about how to teach in any discipline. I think that highly of the book and, particularly, Prof Romer's essay. I've read the book more than once!

Not every teacher, despite what the teachers' unions and their lackeys and the schools themselves constantly tell us, is good. There are some rotten ones out there. I think they can be identified, but that would take some attributes not often found among administrators, unions, or other teachers. And, that's not the scope of this posting (thanks, Aaron!).

And, let's differentiate "good teachers" from "favorite teachers." I once had a discussion with a guy who's "best teacher" was not really "best," but "favorite." He wasn't going to graduate without a passing grade in this second-semester senior class. He didn't deserve, by his own admission, to pass because he had done nothing. Yet, the teacher let him write a report, copied right from an encyclopedia, and he passed and graduated. That constituted "best." I guess I strongly disagree, although, obviously, others don't. I have often said I don't really care if I was students' "favorite" teacher; I wanted to be their "best" teacher. Again, I am not saying I was either; I'm just making my point.

Good teachers must know their subjects. How can one teach, say history, and not know history? Well, of course, that happens and far more than many people, including parents and administrators, realize. Obviously, a teacher can't know everything (although I'm pretty sure my Amherst professors did!), but should have a firm knowledge of it. "It" does not mean merely the "facts." Teachers also need to know the nuances, again to use history as an example, the hows and whys and that answers often have to be speculated.

Good teachers must also have standards, demanding a modicum of work and effort. What many don't or refuse to realize is that standards also require achievement. Of course, it's not enough to merely say this, but to enforce it. That requires that teachers actually know their subjects. How can they judge/evaluate if they don't? And it requires courage, courage to stand firm in the face of students, parents, other teachers, and, yes, administrators. They have to reject what one of my colleages, a good teacher!, used to say of parents, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it." That, too, is echoed by students, other teachers (who often give out easy grades--note grade inflation at all levels of education), and administrators. (On a personal note, each of the four principals under whom I worked, at one time or another, in one way or another, questioned me about my overall low report card grades. Why do I suspect those teachers who gave all As and Bs--"A+, 1, J"--were never questioned, but, conversely, won the "teacher-of-the-year" awards?)

There is a place for compassion, but care must be taken in that regard. For instance, some of my current students have full-time jobs, are parents, etc. They may be struggling, not only academically. Working hard, trying in these circumstances might well deserve some compassion. But, to repeat, "A+, 1, J" is not compassion. The ubiquitous "We're there for the kids" of "It's for the kids" is misunderstood and misapplied. Teachers are not there "for the kids." They are employed by society and that's who they are "there for." To best serve students and thereby society, they need to teach them, demand effort and achievement. Giving students easy grades is not in students' best interests; it's an even bigger disservice to society. Education, as the Founding Fathers held, as Enlightenment thought holds (and it's the ideas of the Enlightenment that separate us from the Islamists' world, among those of other tyrants), is what makes freedom work. Ignorant people are more easily controlled, their freedoms taken away while distracting them with other things.

I don't think good teachers need to constantly change, to keep up to date with current trends. For the most part, that's what so-called "changes" are, merely trendy. With the next gust of wind, they will be replaced by some other guru's ideas that will make someone a lot of money, but not make teachers any better. How many administrators jump on those bandwagons? But they do need to be constantly thinking about their subjects, how to present them, how to evaluate them.

There are good teachers out there, probably more than I realize. There are even a few "superstars," as K calls one. Not everyone can be a superstar. But there are more bad ones out there, too, again more than one might realize. Kristof, to close, noted that if merely the 5% worst teachers were replaced by average ones (and there is nothing wrong with average teachers!), each student in those classrooms would have a cumulative increase of $52,000 over the course of his or her lifetime--that's each student! So, those whose bottom lines are always about money, there's something to think about.

Perhaps more later....

What Have We Become?

Reading this AMs newspaper and computer headlines leads to some distressing thoughts. The first one is, "What have we become?"

There were more than several articles about people shooting other people. No, I'm not an advocate of gun control, although I think having a howitzer in one's front yard or an Uzi for target practice might be considered. Still, how have we created an atmosphere in which so many people think it's perfectly fine to open fire on others? One of the shootings was "gang-related." But the guy (with two "friends") starting blasting away at a large group of dozens of people. So, he didn't care if he shot many others, just as long as he got his gang target? Another was a former school guard who shot and killed his ex-girlfriend for seeing another man---five months after the break-up! Run that one by me again. And, at his sentencing, the guy claims he's "a good man with a good heart." Yeah, right. How does that one remind me of the oft-heard excuse, "He's/She's basically 'a good kid?'" Yeah, right. And, just keep reading the news, if you have the stomach.

Then there's the story that, despite all of the preaching that has gone on, almost 40% of US adults are "obese." That's 2 of every 5 people. For teens and younger, the percentage is nearly 20% obesity. Now, what do you think is going to happen to those kids as they age? Hmmm, they are probably a lot more active (although obviously not active enough!) now than they will be. If they are already obese, what will they become--super-obese? As I was telling a class yesterday, looking out at a number of less-than-svelt students, the government doesn't know what it is getting into with ObamaCare--it has no clue. Look at the history of Social Security for a snapshot.

Apparently, Debbie Stabenow has accumulated a huge war chest in her bid for reelection to the US Senate. That boggles my mind. Even if one despises the Republicans--and a Republican challenger hasn't yet been determined--how can one support her? I have no idea. The comments from insiders, the nickname she has acquired (even among DC Democrats) of "Do-Nothing Debbie" should be some sort of clue. One candidate once said of why voters should choose him over his opponent, "They could do worse and they probably will." Again, it's beyond me.

All in all, it's not a good way to commence the morning. I can shake the doldrums, though. The Codester and I are now about to play cars with his garage.

Expectations?

One person always told me, "Be thankful you have a job, that your employer hired you instead of someone else," or words to that effect. I found that to be a defeatist sentiment and liked to turn it around. In my view, my employer should have been thankful to have me as an employee. That may or may not have been true, but it wasn't a one-sided deal. I guess I've always thought that about college, too. How did I get into that place? What other qualified high schools didn't get in because I did? Rather than feel guilty that I wasn't the best student ever accepted or to graduate, I realize that I had some things that the school needed or at least wanted from me. And it used those things to its advantage. Again, it was not a one-sided transaction. Each of us gained benefit from it.

This is an introduction to the Republican theater called "the nomination process." It looks as if the nominee is going to be Mitt Romney, unless there are some very unexpected changes. And, the stories are now coming out, he is the only "electable" Republican candidate, the only one who can "beat Obama," that Obama needs to be defeated at any cost. It's sort of the old argument above, in a way.

Is this, really, the "best" the Republicans can do? I, for one, am weary of this. Look at the very mediocre candidates they have thrown at us for the past couple of decades: the two Bushes, Dole, McCain, and now Romney. Do they really reflect Republican values, at least more traditional Republican values? Can any argue that Dukakis, Clinton, Algore, Kerry, and Obama didn't represent the mainstream Democratic Party? Of course they did and the Democrats nominated a Democrat, one of their own. Have the Republicans done that or have they elected someone who was thought to be "electable," regardless of how mainstream Republican he was?

Of course, maybe the "mainstream Republican" values have changed. Maybe the party has evolved into a different party. That's fine, but then perhaps it's time for a new party, a third party, to challenge the other two. I know the conventional wisdom is that a third party is a waste of time, that it will ensure Democratic victory/ies, etc. But this same conventional wisdom has given us "electable" candidates who have allowed the Democrats to nibble away, taking a little here and a little there, getting exactly what they want, although perhaps a bit slower than desired. We didn't get where we are today with one big revolutionary move; it's taken decades of little changes. Keep adding 1 + 1 + 1 +1.... Maybe people's interests and views would be much better represented by a third party. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Aren't Republican voters tired of "holding their noses" and voting for the least undesirable candidate? How much better to vote for a good candidate instead of the better of two bad ones!

Just Asking

How is "sugar-free" maple syrup made? Isn't there maple sugar in it?

Why do surveys, etc. ask for both state of residence and Zip Code? Isn't each Zip assigned to a specific area and aren't the numbers coded for those areas, including states?

What, really, is the difference between regular cane/beet sugar and high fructose corn sugar? Is there any, chemically, how our bodies metabolize them, etc.? Is the big concern that hfcs is cheap to make, driving down the cost of sugar, thereby becoming more used?

Does technology always mean progress, making things better or more efficient? Are workers more proficient with computers, in as much as they spend so much time at work with personal e-mails (and even maybe not-so-necessary work-related e-mails since they are so much easier and quicker to send out), surfing, and playing computer/video games? Are cell phones really necessary? For every life that is supposedly saved by cell phone calls in emergencies, how many are lost due to traffic accidents caused by driving callers? Is cooking a roast or turkey in the microwave, although quicker, than the oven really better? Where is that wonderful aroma that fills the house?

Why are the people we hold up as "heroes" today considered "heroes?" Very few of them actually are. In sports, Hollywood, etc., most of the "heroes" have actually led lives of ease. OK, some of them worked hard to get where they are. But a lot of people work hard. Did that NFL QB work any harder than my grandfather, who put backseats in Ford cars for 42 years? Did the Hollywood-type work harder than my father, who came home from work, had dinner, and then rushed out to work another four hours--and on at least one weekend day, too? Oh, and he still always found time to play catch, coach and/or attend our games, etc. Which of these "heroes" hasn't been pampered? They were identified early on as being big or fast or pretty or handsome or whatever it is that they have that most of us don't. Then, they were given college opportunities (note I didn't say "educations"), with better meals, better facilities, etc. than any of us could dream of. And, the pampering continued. Perhaps we should rethink our definition of "hero."

Hall of Pretty Good

Happy 2012! Let's hope for a happy, healthy, and prosperous year for all of us.

It's going to be a significant year. I'm hoping for better things, but all that transpires around me suggests that won't be so. For instance, if Mitt Romney is elected President (and I'm not at all sure he can defeat Obama, but if...), I think the Democrats will ultimately be more satisfied than the Republicans. In Michigan, the obsession with "best practices" will continue to trump common sense. And, amid it all, most people will continue to be more concerned with American Idol, the NFL on CBS, and what other latest Hollywood-type committed some perversion.

In the mean time, I see the baseball Hall of Fame has officially become the Hall of Pretty Good. I'm not knocking Barry Larkin as a ballplayer; he was very good. But, seriously, does he conjure up images of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Stan Musical, Sandy Koufax, etc.? Of course he doesn't. It continues to reflect this national obsession with giving awards, more and more often to people who don't deserve them. What defense can be given for awarding a Nobel to Algore or B. Obama? Can you imagine honoring the Wayne County executive with his alma mater's "Alumnus of the Year" award? How can anyone keep a straight face with that one? What about our high school "halls" or "walls" of fame? I still see that practically every school is an "Exemplary School," "Blue Ribbon School," or some other such nonsense. How do we get so many poor products with so many "great schools?" Why do our little leagues insist on handing out trophies to each and every kid who plays, even the worst of them, those who don't try, etc.? What's wrong with a watermelon party at the end of the season? And, the list goes on and on and on.....

I know "The Fur Trade in Michigan" likely doesn't arouse a great deal of excitment, at least not at first glance. But there is a lot of cool stuff involved with it. Imagine a 5'4" man hauling around two or three or four 90-pound bales of fur, carrying them two or three miles, often running. Imagine eating something called "pemmican," sort of an energy bar two or three hundred years ago, made of animal fat/grease, maybe some berries and flour. Imagine traveling hundreds of miles in a birchbark canoe, with a thickness of maybe 1/4" or 1/2", sewn together with the roots of tamarack trees. Imagine the government getting into an enterprise, competing with private companies, giving itself all of the advantages, but failing miserably. (That really happened!) I don't know if I am enjoying writing this thing as much as I am enjoying finding out all this new stuff. (And "stuff" remains one of my favorite words!)

I like tacos.