The recent shooting death of a 9-month old baby has been devastating to many of us. How has this happened? It's a reminder, not the only one, of a culture that has been created. I'm not sure how we got there, but there we are.
I'm sure there are some simplistic answers out there, such as the violence on television and in video games. There are others as well. But we'd better get to the reasons if we want to have any chance of getting rid of these all-to-common occurrences.
I know, I know.... But I think we've created another rotten culture, one that holds nobody responsible or accountable for their actions. Oh, let me amend that. We are quick to give awards, acclamation, prizes, ribbons, etc. for the slightest of good (note the last time you passed a school that wasn't a "Blue Ribbon School" or "State Exemplary School" or a league that didn't give every kid some sort of trophy or award). But bad things? No, No, No...we never acknowledge the people who may have done things (with good intentions, no doubt) that weren't so hot. It's "Let's move on," "Let's not cast blame," "Let's not point fingers," "Let's get beyond this," etc.
How have we made it acceptable--and it's far too acceptable to far too many people!--to unleash a barrage of bullets on a house because of some disagreement over seating at a baby shower? And how many other silly, stupid things have led to other recent shootings? A 9-month old baby??????
As disheartened as I am (Look at the likely choices we'll have for President in Nov. Out of a population of 307 million, these are the best we can find? If so, heaven help us!), I take solace in the words of W.E.B. DuBois, written 90 years ago. He wrote, "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters, Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Full Circle
Way back when, about 50+ years ago, I loved reading books about each of the states written by Walter Havighurst. Of course then there were only 48 states. But I couldn't wait to finish one and start the next. At Amherst, one of my favorite professors was Prof Alfred Havighurst. He was inspiring and a great teacher, British History. It never dawned on me then that the two were brothers. Only later, when Walter died, did I see that Prof Havighurst was his brother! Oh, I wish I had known that when I was a student--how cool! I could have told how much I enjoyed reading the states' books.
So, reading those came 50+ years ago. I'm doing a lot of research now. The two most recent books I read were by--Walter Havighurst. OK, one was edited by him, with contributions from other authors/historians and journal-keepers. But the other was his, engaging and full of knowledge. I read it all, more than I needed to read, and enjoyed it a great deal.
To think, from the 1950s until 2012!
So, reading those came 50+ years ago. I'm doing a lot of research now. The two most recent books I read were by--Walter Havighurst. OK, one was edited by him, with contributions from other authors/historians and journal-keepers. But the other was his, engaging and full of knowledge. I read it all, more than I needed to read, and enjoyed it a great deal.
To think, from the 1950s until 2012!
Monday, February 20, 2012
Believe It or Not
Remember Ripley's old comic strip, "Believe It or Not?" Well, it seems truth can't be believed any longer.
Is what I heard true, that the governor of NJ ordered flags flown at half-mast for the Whitney Houston death? That can't be true, can it? I'm trying to figure out a reason and I can't, at least not a legitimate one. Will, then, cardiac surgeons who've saved hundreds of lives also have flags lowered on their deaths? What about the best teachers? What about former fire fighters and policemen who die, not on duty? And there was talk of this guy running for President? I doubt he would have received my vote before and now certainly he won't if this is reflective of his thinking.
Was a 9-month old baby really shot and killed in Detroit? Some guy, gang-related it's believed, opened up by firing about 40 rounds into a West Side house (Hey, I grew up on the West Side!). Perhaps it's time to start thinking about the death penalty again. I know, I know.... But I can't help but thinking about that 9-month old who won't have a life. And why do I believe that this guy feels no remorse, none at all. By the way, there have already been 48 murders in Detroit this year. And, it seems, Pontiac isn't far behind.
Gas is now $3.53 a gallon in Detroit. It's expected to hit $4.25 or so by April. Is that so, too? I can't believe this stuff. Hey, don't we have a President who has done all he could to stop drilling, to prevent a pipeline, etc.? Isn't he pushing electric cars, you know, the ones I can't afford to buy or, according to an e-mail from a physics friend of mine, operate?
Do educated people really talk this way, even in casual conversations? "I haven't heard nothin' yet." "I haven't went that far yet." These were from two different, allegedly educated people.
Can I believe we've had so many 40-degree days this winter? Today was oh, so beautiful! Is it safe to start thinking we won't get any huge storms this year? I will admit I miss the pretty white stuff and, crazy me, the shoveling. We haven't made a snowman yet this year!
Is it possible the Jeffs' men's basketball team is ranked #2 in the US and the women's team is #1? And, rumor has it, the players still have to go to class and do the work! Yep, that's what I heard.
Is what I heard true, that the governor of NJ ordered flags flown at half-mast for the Whitney Houston death? That can't be true, can it? I'm trying to figure out a reason and I can't, at least not a legitimate one. Will, then, cardiac surgeons who've saved hundreds of lives also have flags lowered on their deaths? What about the best teachers? What about former fire fighters and policemen who die, not on duty? And there was talk of this guy running for President? I doubt he would have received my vote before and now certainly he won't if this is reflective of his thinking.
Was a 9-month old baby really shot and killed in Detroit? Some guy, gang-related it's believed, opened up by firing about 40 rounds into a West Side house (Hey, I grew up on the West Side!). Perhaps it's time to start thinking about the death penalty again. I know, I know.... But I can't help but thinking about that 9-month old who won't have a life. And why do I believe that this guy feels no remorse, none at all. By the way, there have already been 48 murders in Detroit this year. And, it seems, Pontiac isn't far behind.
Gas is now $3.53 a gallon in Detroit. It's expected to hit $4.25 or so by April. Is that so, too? I can't believe this stuff. Hey, don't we have a President who has done all he could to stop drilling, to prevent a pipeline, etc.? Isn't he pushing electric cars, you know, the ones I can't afford to buy or, according to an e-mail from a physics friend of mine, operate?
Do educated people really talk this way, even in casual conversations? "I haven't heard nothin' yet." "I haven't went that far yet." These were from two different, allegedly educated people.
Can I believe we've had so many 40-degree days this winter? Today was oh, so beautiful! Is it safe to start thinking we won't get any huge storms this year? I will admit I miss the pretty white stuff and, crazy me, the shoveling. We haven't made a snowman yet this year!
Is it possible the Jeffs' men's basketball team is ranked #2 in the US and the women's team is #1? And, rumor has it, the players still have to go to class and do the work! Yep, that's what I heard.
Education
I read a couple of interesting articles last week about education in the US, specifically reform in education.
One was by Diane Ravitch, who used to be an expert in education until she stopped agreeing with the politicians. Yep, she was often cited and quoted about reforms, that is, the reforms the politicians desired in education. She seems to have done a bit of a turn-around, though. That has caused her to become a pariah of sorts. For instance, once a supporter of charter schools, she has examined the data--all of it--and has come away much less impressed than she once was.
She uses data to back up her ideas. And she looks to successful education systems, those which seem to be teaching their students/children the most effectively. Finland seems to fit that bill. Oddly, many of those who oppose her new views also point to Finland's success, but they don't look any farther than the results. For them, the only thing is results, not how they were achieved. I really don't know if the US and Finland can be compared; that is, do we match up with the Finns sociologically, family patterns, TV and video time, etc.? I don't know. But Ravitch points out some very interesting things. First, something overlooked by many, is that the Finns are not at all "test-crazy." One standardized test is given to students annually, but it is not used to measure individual standing, teacher or school performance, etc. It's results are seen nationally. No money, no teacher or administrator jobs, none of that is dependent on the test results. And there's no "teaching to the test," cheating, and the like. Hmmm. Second, the very best students are attracted to education. Unlike the US, where for decades the easiest major, the one least rigorous, has been the one found in schools of education, Finnish teachers must pass tough standards, esp in their fields. Third, the Finns demand the same education of all students for the first nine years. Then choices can be made, for vocational school or college prep (?), for the last years. And it works. For those obsessed with test scores, Finland ranks at or near the top of the only international test its students take.
Teachers in Finland are given the responsibility to make decisions, in their schools and in their individual classrooms. They are accountable, but are also given the time to make responsible efforts and choices. And, because they are chosen from the best of the best, they are respected by the community, much like doctors and other real professionals.
I have just one question. Ravitch, like the Finns, calls for schools to be run by "experts in education." Who, in the US, exactly are the "experts?" She correctly criticizes our schools of education. She recognizes that our teachers are not, unlike the Finns, the best of the best. So, then, where do we find our experts?
The other article focused on a movement at Harvard. It "seeks to jolt university teaching." But there seem to be several contradictory paths taken here. I was nodding when I read criticism of more recent students. Their level of curiosity and all that goes with that have declined over the last 20 years.
And I was reminded of my own college education at Amherst, one I may not have recognized at the time as being outstanding. Over the years, though, I have come to appreciate it and my professors more and more. Lectures, it is claimed by a number of the Harvard folks, don't do the trick. They cite the usual criticisms, "passive learning," failure to attach meaning to what is learned, applying that learning, among them. But I remember my AC lectures (Yep, we had some, in addition to the seminars of 10-12 students.) and they were engaging, esp since we knew we had to write papers on them (and our readings). Those papers were going to be thoroughly read and evaluated, with tons of comments. Some were on the papers (in red ink no less!); some were delivered in seminars; some in professors' offices ("If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school," I was once told.). "No sloppy thinking" or some derivative of that was a common comment. In that context, lectures are not at all as bad as suggested here.
But some "myths" about learning/education are also confronted. One involves "different learning styles." Whoa! Is that so? "There's no evidence, zero, that teaching methods should be matched up with different learning styles. It's intuitively appealing, but not scientifically supported." Boy, some folks have become pretty rich preaching about "different learning styles."
Writing--and lots of it--is a most effective teaching/learning tool. I don't think the Harvard folks were talking about term papers, but shorter ones. At AC, we had papers, 3 to 5 pages, due each Monday for most classes. (OK, coming out of high school, I thought "3 to 5 pages" was a term paper!) The topics were often very difficult, gleaned from readings and lectures. I recently had a talk with a colleague, who was decrying the falling enrollment in his classes. He asked what sort of assignments I had, probing, I think, if my classes were "easy" and attracting more students. I told him I assigned a short essay every week and a half or so. He grimaced and said, likely without thinking, "Oh, so it's pretty easy." He proceeded to tell me of his assignments, every two or three weeks, of ten or more pages. Hmmm. I should bring this article in to him.
Yep, there's a lot to learn--and unlearn--about education.
One was by Diane Ravitch, who used to be an expert in education until she stopped agreeing with the politicians. Yep, she was often cited and quoted about reforms, that is, the reforms the politicians desired in education. She seems to have done a bit of a turn-around, though. That has caused her to become a pariah of sorts. For instance, once a supporter of charter schools, she has examined the data--all of it--and has come away much less impressed than she once was.
She uses data to back up her ideas. And she looks to successful education systems, those which seem to be teaching their students/children the most effectively. Finland seems to fit that bill. Oddly, many of those who oppose her new views also point to Finland's success, but they don't look any farther than the results. For them, the only thing is results, not how they were achieved. I really don't know if the US and Finland can be compared; that is, do we match up with the Finns sociologically, family patterns, TV and video time, etc.? I don't know. But Ravitch points out some very interesting things. First, something overlooked by many, is that the Finns are not at all "test-crazy." One standardized test is given to students annually, but it is not used to measure individual standing, teacher or school performance, etc. It's results are seen nationally. No money, no teacher or administrator jobs, none of that is dependent on the test results. And there's no "teaching to the test," cheating, and the like. Hmmm. Second, the very best students are attracted to education. Unlike the US, where for decades the easiest major, the one least rigorous, has been the one found in schools of education, Finnish teachers must pass tough standards, esp in their fields. Third, the Finns demand the same education of all students for the first nine years. Then choices can be made, for vocational school or college prep (?), for the last years. And it works. For those obsessed with test scores, Finland ranks at or near the top of the only international test its students take.
Teachers in Finland are given the responsibility to make decisions, in their schools and in their individual classrooms. They are accountable, but are also given the time to make responsible efforts and choices. And, because they are chosen from the best of the best, they are respected by the community, much like doctors and other real professionals.
I have just one question. Ravitch, like the Finns, calls for schools to be run by "experts in education." Who, in the US, exactly are the "experts?" She correctly criticizes our schools of education. She recognizes that our teachers are not, unlike the Finns, the best of the best. So, then, where do we find our experts?
The other article focused on a movement at Harvard. It "seeks to jolt university teaching." But there seem to be several contradictory paths taken here. I was nodding when I read criticism of more recent students. Their level of curiosity and all that goes with that have declined over the last 20 years.
And I was reminded of my own college education at Amherst, one I may not have recognized at the time as being outstanding. Over the years, though, I have come to appreciate it and my professors more and more. Lectures, it is claimed by a number of the Harvard folks, don't do the trick. They cite the usual criticisms, "passive learning," failure to attach meaning to what is learned, applying that learning, among them. But I remember my AC lectures (Yep, we had some, in addition to the seminars of 10-12 students.) and they were engaging, esp since we knew we had to write papers on them (and our readings). Those papers were going to be thoroughly read and evaluated, with tons of comments. Some were on the papers (in red ink no less!); some were delivered in seminars; some in professors' offices ("If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school," I was once told.). "No sloppy thinking" or some derivative of that was a common comment. In that context, lectures are not at all as bad as suggested here.
But some "myths" about learning/education are also confronted. One involves "different learning styles." Whoa! Is that so? "There's no evidence, zero, that teaching methods should be matched up with different learning styles. It's intuitively appealing, but not scientifically supported." Boy, some folks have become pretty rich preaching about "different learning styles."
Writing--and lots of it--is a most effective teaching/learning tool. I don't think the Harvard folks were talking about term papers, but shorter ones. At AC, we had papers, 3 to 5 pages, due each Monday for most classes. (OK, coming out of high school, I thought "3 to 5 pages" was a term paper!) The topics were often very difficult, gleaned from readings and lectures. I recently had a talk with a colleague, who was decrying the falling enrollment in his classes. He asked what sort of assignments I had, probing, I think, if my classes were "easy" and attracting more students. I told him I assigned a short essay every week and a half or so. He grimaced and said, likely without thinking, "Oh, so it's pretty easy." He proceeded to tell me of his assignments, every two or three weeks, of ten or more pages. Hmmm. I should bring this article in to him.
Yep, there's a lot to learn--and unlearn--about education.
Presidents' Day
On this Presidents' Day, let's remember the words of W.E.B. DuBois from a 1922 essay in which he explained what many people thought was a previous criticism of A. Lincoln.
"Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
Inspiring, both the author and the subject.
"Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
Inspiring, both the author and the subject.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Paranoid?
Sometimes I think I'm being paranoid when I worry about big government intrusions in my life. After all, "C'mon Ron...it's our government." When I was teaching and the commies controlled the USSR, I used to joke with students, "What do you think this is, Russia?" Hmmmmmm......
Here comes a little gem about the federal "food police." At a day care, a 3-year old girl had her lunch taken from her because it didn't meet the "food police" (HHS) guidelines. No, it wasn't the potato chips that caused the problem. The packed lunch was a turkey/cheese sandwich, the said potato chips, a banana, and apple juice. Apparently that wasn't good/healthy enough for the HHS and the little girl lost her lunch, replaced by HHS-approved "chicken nuggets." (Can you imagine what healthy chicken nuggets must taste like?) So, it's no longer up to Mom (or, in this case, Grandma who often packs the kids' lunches) to determine what to feed her kids. It's not as if the lunch was a soda and Twinkies! But, once again, it's the arrogant elitists running the gov't. They know what's good for us better than we do. And, of course, that really isn't the point, is it?
So, now we've been told what kind of televisions we must have. Let's not forget light bulbs. Oh, and there are gov't regulated toilets (flushes, you know). How far away are mandated-electric dars? After all, a gov't that can tell us we have to buy health insurance or tell insurance companies they have to provide free birth-control....
Maybe I'm not so paranoid at that. And, it's not that these arrogant elitists don't know more than I do. No, that's not the point. The point is that decisions like these should be my choices, not theirs. Isn't it enough that they can steal our money (look up the word "steal" in the dictionary and see if I'm being all that ridiculous) and, if we balk at the thievery, we, not they, go to to jail or face fines. Go ahead, try to defy the IRS--heh, heh.
Here comes a little gem about the federal "food police." At a day care, a 3-year old girl had her lunch taken from her because it didn't meet the "food police" (HHS) guidelines. No, it wasn't the potato chips that caused the problem. The packed lunch was a turkey/cheese sandwich, the said potato chips, a banana, and apple juice. Apparently that wasn't good/healthy enough for the HHS and the little girl lost her lunch, replaced by HHS-approved "chicken nuggets." (Can you imagine what healthy chicken nuggets must taste like?) So, it's no longer up to Mom (or, in this case, Grandma who often packs the kids' lunches) to determine what to feed her kids. It's not as if the lunch was a soda and Twinkies! But, once again, it's the arrogant elitists running the gov't. They know what's good for us better than we do. And, of course, that really isn't the point, is it?
So, now we've been told what kind of televisions we must have. Let's not forget light bulbs. Oh, and there are gov't regulated toilets (flushes, you know). How far away are mandated-electric dars? After all, a gov't that can tell us we have to buy health insurance or tell insurance companies they have to provide free birth-control....
Maybe I'm not so paranoid at that. And, it's not that these arrogant elitists don't know more than I do. No, that's not the point. The point is that decisions like these should be my choices, not theirs. Isn't it enough that they can steal our money (look up the word "steal" in the dictionary and see if I'm being all that ridiculous) and, if we balk at the thievery, we, not they, go to to jail or face fines. Go ahead, try to defy the IRS--heh, heh.
China?
A former state school superintendent has become a consultant and sycophant for the Chinese, both the people and the government. Perhaps the geopolitical situation trumps all and we really have to do business with the Chinese, but there are things I think about.
First, although this guy claims he has many friends in China and has even eaten dinner at their houses (yeow!), don't we have to realize that China right now isn't its people, but its government--the Commies? Shouldn't we think about trading with a government that allows just one child per family and aborts any others, a government that still imprisons those who voice dissent, a government that runs over its people with tanks? Why would we trade high-tech equipment and information with a government whose intent is to destroy us, at least destroy how we live? I guess I'd ask that question of US companies, too. I know the answer, of course. "We make money in China!" And making money trumps all.
Still this former superintendent's shilling (this is far from the first time) for the Chinese is troublesome. Has he thought about these questions? If he has, has he dismissed them? Is there no concern for what this says about dealing with such a gov't? Maybe there's no relationship, but I think this guy's current stance on China trade explains a lot about the state schools under his tenure. Maybe not and, once again, I am out of touch.
First, although this guy claims he has many friends in China and has even eaten dinner at their houses (yeow!), don't we have to realize that China right now isn't its people, but its government--the Commies? Shouldn't we think about trading with a government that allows just one child per family and aborts any others, a government that still imprisons those who voice dissent, a government that runs over its people with tanks? Why would we trade high-tech equipment and information with a government whose intent is to destroy us, at least destroy how we live? I guess I'd ask that question of US companies, too. I know the answer, of course. "We make money in China!" And making money trumps all.
Still this former superintendent's shilling (this is far from the first time) for the Chinese is troublesome. Has he thought about these questions? If he has, has he dismissed them? Is there no concern for what this says about dealing with such a gov't? Maybe there's no relationship, but I think this guy's current stance on China trade explains a lot about the state schools under his tenure. Maybe not and, once again, I am out of touch.
The New Math
Tell me we didn't see that one coming!
Obama's new budget spends $1.2 trillion to $1.5 million (depending on the source) more than revenue taken in, but is "a step in cutting the deficit." Yep, the newspaper headlines yesterday told all of us that this will cut the deficit because the spending is not as much as expected. They've swallowed the hogwash hook, line, and sinker.
There are some agencies, programs, etc. that are getting less money. But I cringe at how "cutting" means getting only a 5% increase instead of a 7% increase. Hmmm.... When is getting more than before actually "a cut?" I think that's why the education-types embraced the "new math" and all of the other rotten programs for teaching numbers. They knew the politicians could pull fast ones on the citizenry.
NASA is not only getting less, but a real "less," fewer dollars than before. I suppose most people aren't bothered by that, figuring "it's just the space program." I wonder how many know how their daily lives have been improved or at least affected by the developments coming out of the space program. I'd bet not many. Pacemakers, low-weight/high strength plastics, freeze-dried foods, transistors, computer advances, fireproof materials, water purification techniques.... The list goes on. But, let's eliminate the program....
Now, I'm not sure which "less" this is, "less" increase than expected or actually "less," but education is getting "less." Gee, I wonder what the Kool-Aid drinkers among the education-types think of their guy Obama now. No, I know what they thing--the same think the feminists thought of Clinton when he was engaged in his roust-abouts.
Meanwhile, let's soak "the rich," make them pay "their fair share." I think this is an arugment that can't be won, that the rich more than pay their fair share. That 46% of Americans (not kids, of course) don't pay any taxes is what's not "fair." I may or may not like paying taxes for roads, schools, even bike paths, but at least the money I pay results in something from which I might well benefit. The 46% benefit from all for which I pay and from even more programs for which I pay but receive no benefit, yet don't pay for any of the benefits. Now, isn't that "not fair?" (On an unrelated side note, the recently deceased singer reportedly lost $110 million, just squandered it on bodyguards, lavish lifestyle, drugs, etc. Where are the cries of "greed!?!?" Nah, I don't expect to hear any either.)
Obama's new budget spends $1.2 trillion to $1.5 million (depending on the source) more than revenue taken in, but is "a step in cutting the deficit." Yep, the newspaper headlines yesterday told all of us that this will cut the deficit because the spending is not as much as expected. They've swallowed the hogwash hook, line, and sinker.
There are some agencies, programs, etc. that are getting less money. But I cringe at how "cutting" means getting only a 5% increase instead of a 7% increase. Hmmm.... When is getting more than before actually "a cut?" I think that's why the education-types embraced the "new math" and all of the other rotten programs for teaching numbers. They knew the politicians could pull fast ones on the citizenry.
NASA is not only getting less, but a real "less," fewer dollars than before. I suppose most people aren't bothered by that, figuring "it's just the space program." I wonder how many know how their daily lives have been improved or at least affected by the developments coming out of the space program. I'd bet not many. Pacemakers, low-weight/high strength plastics, freeze-dried foods, transistors, computer advances, fireproof materials, water purification techniques.... The list goes on. But, let's eliminate the program....
Now, I'm not sure which "less" this is, "less" increase than expected or actually "less," but education is getting "less." Gee, I wonder what the Kool-Aid drinkers among the education-types think of their guy Obama now. No, I know what they thing--the same think the feminists thought of Clinton when he was engaged in his roust-abouts.
Meanwhile, let's soak "the rich," make them pay "their fair share." I think this is an arugment that can't be won, that the rich more than pay their fair share. That 46% of Americans (not kids, of course) don't pay any taxes is what's not "fair." I may or may not like paying taxes for roads, schools, even bike paths, but at least the money I pay results in something from which I might well benefit. The 46% benefit from all for which I pay and from even more programs for which I pay but receive no benefit, yet don't pay for any of the benefits. Now, isn't that "not fair?" (On an unrelated side note, the recently deceased singer reportedly lost $110 million, just squandered it on bodyguards, lavish lifestyle, drugs, etc. Where are the cries of "greed!?!?" Nah, I don't expect to hear any either.)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Book Banning
I think banning of books shouldn't be taken lightly. There is a great deal of danger in that. Locally, there is a book banning controversy in a school district over a book in an AP English course.
I haven't read the book and am not familiar with it. So, I suppose I can't specifically make any comment. But, generally, I wonder, "Aren't there enough quality books out there that do not have vile language, sexually explicit scenes, etc. that we can't those something less controversial?" Whoa! Did Ron just say that? I guess so, but again I think there are a number of high quality books, ones that teach thinking skills, show the human condition, etc. and don't resort to foul language, the ubiquitous sex, and what not.
"It's high school," some might say. Yep, but that doesn't mean all kids are ready for that kind of material. I'd guess that school district has developmental programs, such as Pre-Kindergarten, Junior Primary, etc. That in itself recognizes that students develop differently, some faster than others. I'd guess a lot of high schoolers aren't ready to read this stuff. They can when they get older.
And, personally, one of the teachers who picked the book didn't do himself any favors in my book by showing up at the board meeting in what looked like a dark undershirt. The guy should invest in a shirt and tie. OK, that's just me. But I don't think teachers should come to work looking like they just changed the oil on their cars, were working in their garden, or are ready for a five-mile jog. If they want to be treated as "professionals," they should dress/look the part. How many of us would let some lawyer represent us/a doctor operate on us if he came to work dressed like he was going to fix the garbage disposal? How many lawyers show up in court in levis and dark undershirts?
Out for a thrilling, I'm sure, lecture on the First World War.
I haven't read the book and am not familiar with it. So, I suppose I can't specifically make any comment. But, generally, I wonder, "Aren't there enough quality books out there that do not have vile language, sexually explicit scenes, etc. that we can't those something less controversial?" Whoa! Did Ron just say that? I guess so, but again I think there are a number of high quality books, ones that teach thinking skills, show the human condition, etc. and don't resort to foul language, the ubiquitous sex, and what not.
"It's high school," some might say. Yep, but that doesn't mean all kids are ready for that kind of material. I'd guess that school district has developmental programs, such as Pre-Kindergarten, Junior Primary, etc. That in itself recognizes that students develop differently, some faster than others. I'd guess a lot of high schoolers aren't ready to read this stuff. They can when they get older.
And, personally, one of the teachers who picked the book didn't do himself any favors in my book by showing up at the board meeting in what looked like a dark undershirt. The guy should invest in a shirt and tie. OK, that's just me. But I don't think teachers should come to work looking like they just changed the oil on their cars, were working in their garden, or are ready for a five-mile jog. If they want to be treated as "professionals," they should dress/look the part. How many of us would let some lawyer represent us/a doctor operate on us if he came to work dressed like he was going to fix the garbage disposal? How many lawyers show up in court in levis and dark undershirts?
Out for a thrilling, I'm sure, lecture on the First World War.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Some Thoughts
Lots of folks are clamoring for "change." Some are still bent on "Hope and Change," while others want to "change" back to before this huge government morass. Oh, we talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, we're lacking somehow. I'm not sure why.
I think I wrote to someone the other day about the "woosification of America." We've been taught not to be confrontational. Schools claim they teach "critical thinking," but I think they don't. They are far too concerned with test scores rather than any type of thinking. They certainly don't encourage any thinking that isn't establishment thinking, that is, the right thinking of the education-types. Schools can't handle thinking that isn't their own. So, people can challenge the power structure, but when faced with real change, they back down. They have been taught to do so. "Let's not point fingers." "Let's move on." "Let's not cast blame." (All foolishness--all this does is allow people to do things for which they are never accountable.) Besides, to get ahead we've been taught (through actions, if not words) to go along, not to really question those who can give us promotions, grades, etc., no matter how silly they act.
Schools also teach that "feeling" is the equivalent of "thinking." It isn't, yet students write papers which cannot be "wrong" because it's how they feel. Their opinions can't be "wrong." Try this one on them: What if one thinks Hitler should be "St. Adolf?" Well, if it's someone's opinion, it holds that this is a truth.
Perhaps, too, we are too involved with things that don't matter. What's more important in people's lives than American Idol, the Super Bowl, etc.? Not much. Go ahead, try to engage someone(s) into a meaningful conversation and see how long it takes to deteriorate into, say, the latest television shows. (OK, I fully realize the importance of digressions and distractions. Yes, they are important. But they shouldn't dominate our lives, our thinking, etc.) So, while many mouth the word "Change," they don't have time for it. These diversions get in the way.
Here's something from David Brooks: "Very few people have the genius to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview" to actually envision and enact change. How right he is. And that, again, is a direct product of our education or lack of it. People have their "opinions" based on very little; so when they are challenged by reasoned opposition, they inevitably give up. In a way, Brooks calls such an opinion "a feeble spasm."
Students have not been exposed to "great ideas," deep thinking of past philosophers. There are a variety of reasons for that--the poor quality of far too many teachers and the weak education they received en route to their "certification," the idea that these deep thinkers were merely old white men, the obsession with tests, etc. People, then, want change, but have no viable alternative to fill the gap. They have no idea of a replacement.
Note, not the Tea Parties, but the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Listen to them. They want "change," but it seems all they really want is to change some people's wealth to them. They just babble on, rambling about nothing but envy of others.
I think I wrote to someone the other day about the "woosification of America." We've been taught not to be confrontational. Schools claim they teach "critical thinking," but I think they don't. They are far too concerned with test scores rather than any type of thinking. They certainly don't encourage any thinking that isn't establishment thinking, that is, the right thinking of the education-types. Schools can't handle thinking that isn't their own. So, people can challenge the power structure, but when faced with real change, they back down. They have been taught to do so. "Let's not point fingers." "Let's move on." "Let's not cast blame." (All foolishness--all this does is allow people to do things for which they are never accountable.) Besides, to get ahead we've been taught (through actions, if not words) to go along, not to really question those who can give us promotions, grades, etc., no matter how silly they act.
Schools also teach that "feeling" is the equivalent of "thinking." It isn't, yet students write papers which cannot be "wrong" because it's how they feel. Their opinions can't be "wrong." Try this one on them: What if one thinks Hitler should be "St. Adolf?" Well, if it's someone's opinion, it holds that this is a truth.
Perhaps, too, we are too involved with things that don't matter. What's more important in people's lives than American Idol, the Super Bowl, etc.? Not much. Go ahead, try to engage someone(s) into a meaningful conversation and see how long it takes to deteriorate into, say, the latest television shows. (OK, I fully realize the importance of digressions and distractions. Yes, they are important. But they shouldn't dominate our lives, our thinking, etc.) So, while many mouth the word "Change," they don't have time for it. These diversions get in the way.
Here's something from David Brooks: "Very few people have the genius to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview" to actually envision and enact change. How right he is. And that, again, is a direct product of our education or lack of it. People have their "opinions" based on very little; so when they are challenged by reasoned opposition, they inevitably give up. In a way, Brooks calls such an opinion "a feeble spasm."
Students have not been exposed to "great ideas," deep thinking of past philosophers. There are a variety of reasons for that--the poor quality of far too many teachers and the weak education they received en route to their "certification," the idea that these deep thinkers were merely old white men, the obsession with tests, etc. People, then, want change, but have no viable alternative to fill the gap. They have no idea of a replacement.
Note, not the Tea Parties, but the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Listen to them. They want "change," but it seems all they really want is to change some people's wealth to them. They just babble on, rambling about nothing but envy of others.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
I believe Mark Twain wrote that, among many other words of wisdom which are largely ignored. Here are others:
“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
"In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards."
Great wisdom in these, but we have ignored at our peril.
Back to "Lies, damn lies, and statistics...." A few articles in today's paper spells these out. First, and the Lamestream Media has completely ignored this stuff, unemployment figures for the last month were "down" to 8.3%. Well, it's "down" to that figure if we no longer include 1.2 million people who are out of work, but are no longer looking for work, in the final statistics. Yep, 1.2 million unemployed people who have given up, for one reason or another, who are counted as "unemployed." I don't need to say more.
The Congressional Budget Office, which we often hear is "nonpartisan" (but I don't believe that for an instant), has issued a report predicting the $1.1 trillion deficit can be pared down to "a measly $269 billion by 2015." (Yep, "measly" reminds me of Everett Dirksen's statement back in the '60s, "A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon we're talking real money.") Well, to "pare down" the deficit takes several leaps that defy logic. First, the CBO says tax increases on the wealthiest of us are necessary and assumes they will happen. Of course, that means "the wealthiest of us" (paying their "fair share!") won't have money to invest. That translates to fewer jobs. Fewer jobs results in fewer taxes being collected. Oops....! Second, the CBO assumes Congress will have the honesty, courage, will to cut more than $2 billion in discretionary spending. Does anyone outside of the CBO believe for even an instant that will happen? Nobody I know....
Then some guy, OK the president of the "Electric Drive Transportation Association" claims there are a lot of electric cars that we can afford, that these cars cost less than $30,000. That's about the average cost of gasoline-powered cars. First, I don't think I believe that, given this guy isn't exactly an independent source. Second, he never mentions the federal gov't money given to help consumers buy those cars. Doesn't that money have to come from somewhere? Yep, from you and me. Yeah, a lot of electric cars cost as little as some gas cars, but that's not the complete story is it? While Big Oil continues to pay billions of dollars, yes billions of dollars, in taxes, the alternate sources of energy (which haven't worked, have they?) continue to not only pay more taxes, but also get huge government subsidies--that's fancy talk for robbing you to pay them for technology that doesn't work.
BTW, is anyone really surprised at "pay-to-play" in Wayne County government? I think we might really be surprised if we uncovered some level of government where this wasn't the case.
“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
"In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards."
Great wisdom in these, but we have ignored at our peril.
Back to "Lies, damn lies, and statistics...." A few articles in today's paper spells these out. First, and the Lamestream Media has completely ignored this stuff, unemployment figures for the last month were "down" to 8.3%. Well, it's "down" to that figure if we no longer include 1.2 million people who are out of work, but are no longer looking for work, in the final statistics. Yep, 1.2 million unemployed people who have given up, for one reason or another, who are counted as "unemployed." I don't need to say more.
The Congressional Budget Office, which we often hear is "nonpartisan" (but I don't believe that for an instant), has issued a report predicting the $1.1 trillion deficit can be pared down to "a measly $269 billion by 2015." (Yep, "measly" reminds me of Everett Dirksen's statement back in the '60s, "A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon we're talking real money.") Well, to "pare down" the deficit takes several leaps that defy logic. First, the CBO says tax increases on the wealthiest of us are necessary and assumes they will happen. Of course, that means "the wealthiest of us" (paying their "fair share!") won't have money to invest. That translates to fewer jobs. Fewer jobs results in fewer taxes being collected. Oops....! Second, the CBO assumes Congress will have the honesty, courage, will to cut more than $2 billion in discretionary spending. Does anyone outside of the CBO believe for even an instant that will happen? Nobody I know....
Then some guy, OK the president of the "Electric Drive Transportation Association" claims there are a lot of electric cars that we can afford, that these cars cost less than $30,000. That's about the average cost of gasoline-powered cars. First, I don't think I believe that, given this guy isn't exactly an independent source. Second, he never mentions the federal gov't money given to help consumers buy those cars. Doesn't that money have to come from somewhere? Yep, from you and me. Yeah, a lot of electric cars cost as little as some gas cars, but that's not the complete story is it? While Big Oil continues to pay billions of dollars, yes billions of dollars, in taxes, the alternate sources of energy (which haven't worked, have they?) continue to not only pay more taxes, but also get huge government subsidies--that's fancy talk for robbing you to pay them for technology that doesn't work.
BTW, is anyone really surprised at "pay-to-play" in Wayne County government? I think we might really be surprised if we uncovered some level of government where this wasn't the case.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Musings
I think I've decided. I refuse to "hold my nose" and vote for a Presidential candidate whose chief asset is he's not as bad as the other guy. Nope, I am not going to do it again. I think the Republicans better heed that, since I think I'm not the only one. Can you say "Third Party?"
So, some quarterback's wife, in the face of criticism of her husband, complained about his receivers not being able to catch the ball. I suppose she could have kept quiet. But she was defending him. Does she have any idea what she is talking about? If so, then go see the receivers who were dropping the ball. Who cares? What about the classless opponent's fans? Why aren't they being criticized for getting into her face? But, all in all, who cares?
I don't understand how the federal government can compel a religion/religious group, namely the Catholics, to provide money for birth control/abortions to people receiving assistance from the Catholics. How about it's time we all just said, "NO!??????" This should be front-page material each and every day until it's stopped. What are the chances of the Lamestream Media taking the administration to task? Right.... Of course, perhaps it is the Church's own fault. After all, it wasn't too far back when the mission to save souls received company--calls for government to spend money to remedy social and economic "unfairness." Now, the chickens are coming home to roost? Government, now, is doing just that, trying to deal with what it perceives as social and economic "unfairness." (I heartily disagree, but that's not the point.) The Catholic Church made its bed and now....
Speaking of Catholics, how can members of the Church be outspoken critics of its policies, namely that prohibiting abortion, and still consider themselves to be "good Catholics?" They write letters to the editor all of the time. "I'm a good Catholic, but I believe in abortion...." "I'm a good Catholic, but I believe a woman has the right to do with her body what she wishes." (So, do they also condone prostitution? How about drug usage? After all, if it's a woman's body....) Either they believe what the Church professes or they aren't members and should find another church. How great it would be to say, "I'm a good Catholic, but I don't believe in prohibitions against adultery. So, I'm going to have a million affairs." How silly....
I must really be out of touch--with everything! First, I heard folks again today saying what an "awesome," "great" halftime show the Super Bowl had. I found nothing at all "awesome" or "great" about it. It was rather humdrum. It wasn't particularly creative--the choreography was pretty stilted; the music wasn't live, but lip-synched and was still mediocre. And I was led to a Web site today that said that this "Met Your Mother" show was critically acclaimed and has won all sorts of awards. Granted, I've never at all watched it and have no plans to do so. But I've seen and heard some of the advertisements for it. I'd assume the ads are supposed to be highlights, to induce people to watch the show. After all, if the ads show lousy stuff, who would watch? Anyway, the ads I have seen are not at all funny, not in the least. The bit acting, granted just sound bites, I guess, is pretty bad, too. "Critically acclaimed" and "awards?" And this goes, as I was talking to a number of folks over the weekend, for a lot of other shows that, admittedly I never watch. But I see the ads and they are remarkable--for their lack of humor, drama, etc.
Out to finish making dinner--stuff pork loin, with baked Idahoes, and beans with butter. Oh, yummy!
So, some quarterback's wife, in the face of criticism of her husband, complained about his receivers not being able to catch the ball. I suppose she could have kept quiet. But she was defending him. Does she have any idea what she is talking about? If so, then go see the receivers who were dropping the ball. Who cares? What about the classless opponent's fans? Why aren't they being criticized for getting into her face? But, all in all, who cares?
I don't understand how the federal government can compel a religion/religious group, namely the Catholics, to provide money for birth control/abortions to people receiving assistance from the Catholics. How about it's time we all just said, "NO!??????" This should be front-page material each and every day until it's stopped. What are the chances of the Lamestream Media taking the administration to task? Right.... Of course, perhaps it is the Church's own fault. After all, it wasn't too far back when the mission to save souls received company--calls for government to spend money to remedy social and economic "unfairness." Now, the chickens are coming home to roost? Government, now, is doing just that, trying to deal with what it perceives as social and economic "unfairness." (I heartily disagree, but that's not the point.) The Catholic Church made its bed and now....
Speaking of Catholics, how can members of the Church be outspoken critics of its policies, namely that prohibiting abortion, and still consider themselves to be "good Catholics?" They write letters to the editor all of the time. "I'm a good Catholic, but I believe in abortion...." "I'm a good Catholic, but I believe a woman has the right to do with her body what she wishes." (So, do they also condone prostitution? How about drug usage? After all, if it's a woman's body....) Either they believe what the Church professes or they aren't members and should find another church. How great it would be to say, "I'm a good Catholic, but I don't believe in prohibitions against adultery. So, I'm going to have a million affairs." How silly....
I must really be out of touch--with everything! First, I heard folks again today saying what an "awesome," "great" halftime show the Super Bowl had. I found nothing at all "awesome" or "great" about it. It was rather humdrum. It wasn't particularly creative--the choreography was pretty stilted; the music wasn't live, but lip-synched and was still mediocre. And I was led to a Web site today that said that this "Met Your Mother" show was critically acclaimed and has won all sorts of awards. Granted, I've never at all watched it and have no plans to do so. But I've seen and heard some of the advertisements for it. I'd assume the ads are supposed to be highlights, to induce people to watch the show. After all, if the ads show lousy stuff, who would watch? Anyway, the ads I have seen are not at all funny, not in the least. The bit acting, granted just sound bites, I guess, is pretty bad, too. "Critically acclaimed" and "awards?" And this goes, as I was talking to a number of folks over the weekend, for a lot of other shows that, admittedly I never watch. But I see the ads and they are remarkable--for their lack of humor, drama, etc.
Out to finish making dinner--stuff pork loin, with baked Idahoes, and beans with butter. Oh, yummy!
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Hmmm??????
Here's one for you. There was an interesting article in the newspaper this AM about the term "African-American." I've never liked it, but for the same reason I don't consider myself an "Italian-American." I'm an American, pure and simple.
The article claims an increasing number of "African-Americans" don't like being called that or, at least, prefer something else. "Black" is term of choice. "Afro-American" is very low on the list of preferences.
But here's the quandary, an actual one of a student at an unidentified medical school in the US. He was born in Africa, Mozambique maybe, of US parents. He resides here now and ran afoul of his med school authorities for calling himself "African-American." He is White. I don't know why he chooses this label, for publicity, for scholarship preferences, for whatever, but he does. But, his med school didn't care for it. He continues to argue that he really is "African-American," more so than Blacks born here in the US. Hmmm??????
The article claims an increasing number of "African-Americans" don't like being called that or, at least, prefer something else. "Black" is term of choice. "Afro-American" is very low on the list of preferences.
But here's the quandary, an actual one of a student at an unidentified medical school in the US. He was born in Africa, Mozambique maybe, of US parents. He resides here now and ran afoul of his med school authorities for calling himself "African-American." He is White. I don't know why he chooses this label, for publicity, for scholarship preferences, for whatever, but he does. But, his med school didn't care for it. He continues to argue that he really is "African-American," more so than Blacks born here in the US. Hmmm??????
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Groceries
I just read an article on how to save at the grocery store. One suggestion is to "look high and low" for items. Stores put the higher-priced items at eye-level, easily seen. They often put the lower-priced goods in out-of-reach places (as if having to look or reach down or up a foot or two is too inconvenient!). But wait! Sometimes they put "premium-priced" goods higher or lower, reasoning people who want them will reach up or down for the "premium" product. Huh? Which is it? Higher or lower cheaper or more expensive? Shouldn't we, then, just look all over?
Am I the only one who's noticed how high grocery prices have risen? Milk, a gallon on sale, is now $2.50. Soda, on sale, is $4 a 12-pack. Ground chunk, on sale, is $2.99 a pound. The list goes on. If the election question is, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago? The answer is nope, at least not at the grocery store. What's Obama's retort to that one?
While I'm at it, Cheeseburger Deluxes at Wendy's just went up 40%, from 99 cents to $1.39. 40%? Isn't that "greedy?" I guess it's back to McD's for the McDouble. Being independently wealthy, of course, I can afford the 40 cents. This is a matter of principle.
Am I the only one who's noticed how high grocery prices have risen? Milk, a gallon on sale, is now $2.50. Soda, on sale, is $4 a 12-pack. Ground chunk, on sale, is $2.99 a pound. The list goes on. If the election question is, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago? The answer is nope, at least not at the grocery store. What's Obama's retort to that one?
While I'm at it, Cheeseburger Deluxes at Wendy's just went up 40%, from 99 cents to $1.39. 40%? Isn't that "greedy?" I guess it's back to McD's for the McDouble. Being independently wealthy, of course, I can afford the 40 cents. This is a matter of principle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
