Mon AM Musings

I chuckled this AM as I read some of yesterday's and today's newspapers.  Two articles about Kerry Bentivolio included the by-now-obligatory "reindeer farmer."  Is there something wrong with being a "reindeer farmer?"  The guy trains reindeer to pull sleighs in Chris parades.  He dresses up as Santa for kids at Chris time.  Is there anything worse about being a "reindeer farmer" than, say, a "school psychologist" or "career politician?"  How about a journalist who obfuscates the truth?  Both the media and Republican Party leadership obviously don't want this guy.  Based on this alone, maybe he's worth a vote!

I also chuckled at this, in a letter-to-the-editor this AM.  "Republicans are only pursuing their self-interested agenda...."  Well, no kidding.  The rest of the tenor of the letter suggests that the Reps are the only ones who do this.  Is this guy sane?  Do we let him vote?  C'mon, does this guy really think Dems don't do the same thing?  He can't be that dumb.

I wonder if crossword puzzle creators collaborate.  It seems as if an unusual clue shows up from out of nowhere in one puzzle, within days it also appears in other ones--other crosswords by other creators in other newspapers.  Hmmmmm......  A question for after the war.

Guns and Mass Shootings

Regarding last week's massacre in Aurora, CO:

I don't think guns--more or less--are the issue. OK, I have some difficulties with automatic weapons and those with sizable magazines, but.... What has sparked me the past few months is the number of deaths reported in the newspapers from gunfire. In Detroit and its environs, deaths by guns seems epidemic. It seems not a single day passes when at least one gun-death isn't reported--usually there are more. In fact, as I tell my students, such deaths have become so commonplace, dare I say "accepted?" that they don't even rate headline or front page news. This AM, back on page 11, a one-inch story told of a shooting death on Detroit's West Side, not too far from where I was raised. Where has our sense of humanity disappeared? Why do so many, that is the shooters, attach so little value to others' lives? It's not uncommon in instances of "road rage" to have some guy pull out a gun and use it on someone who didn't use a turn signal or some other driving gaffe. What about the gangs, who to retaliate or mark their "turf," spray houses with bullets, with no regard as to the occupants? In March here, just such an occasion saw a 9-month old boy killed. (The "outrage" lasted about three days. Newspapers stopped reporting. Sharpton and Jackson were notably absent, but, of course, found time to get to Fla for the Trayvon Martin deal.) Last week, about a mile from my late in-laws' and a block over from my brother-in-law (about 5 blocks east of my childhood home), four guys broke into a house. When the owner appeared to apparently thwart the robbery, he was just shot, that's all, just shot. At their arraignment, none of the perpetrators displayed any emotion, no remorse, not even fear of being convicted. What do we do when there's no fear, when there's no value to a human life (except, I suppose, the murderers' own lives?)? Does this, our changing/lack of values, also then change the equation with gun possession? Over the past few decades, American society has certainly had a significant shift in mindset, values, or whatever we choose to call it. I don't see the change as anything positive.

Similarly, with the same issue, think about video games, television, movies, and music, particularly "gangsta rap."  Can anyone argue they are much, much more violent that 50 or 60 years ago.  People are quick to say "Ban guns! (or a certain type of gun)."  They aren't quite so quick to say anything about video games, television, movies, and music.  Yet, don't these things have an important effect on psyches, esp those who might be prone to violence?  Doesn't mass advertising work, influencing how people act?  Of course it does.  There's a reason companies spend so much money on advertising on the boob tube.  Ads affect people's behavior, leading them to buy more.  I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  Then, can't the video games, television, movies, and music similarly affect people's behavior?  It sure seems they could.

Consider the so-called "sexual revolution" of the '60s and '70s, when sexual relations lost their taboos.  I'm not arguing there wasn't sex outside of marriage, only that there was far less of it before this "revolution."  Stigmas that served, at least in part, to discourage sex outside of marriage were removed.  They were pooh-poohed as "old-fashioned" and getting rid of them was "liberating."  Once the taboos were lifted, Hollywood changed tacks.  Movie producers found that sex, open sex, on the screen sold and sold big!  After all, any sex (outside of things such as rape, incest, pedophilia) was permissible.  We were "consenting adults."  The message was clear and was heard by more than those "adults."  I would hope nobody would argue that this revolution has been a good thing, "liberation" notwithstanding.  To dissuade any such thoughts, think of teen-age pregnancies, think of fatherless families.  Toss in the rate of poverty, its skyrocketing, among those pregnant teens, fatherless families.  And the message was carried, loud and clear, by the media.

In addition to guns, perhaps it's time to examine other parts of our society.  That is, perhaps it's time if we are really serious.

Self-Reliance

Hey, I almost feel like Ralph Waldo Emerson--"Self-Reliance."  No, of course, I make no comparisons, certainly not ones favorable to me, with Emerson.  Still....

Last night driving home, I was the subject, yet again, of light-hearted ridicule. Karen was driving, since I'd had a few too many LaBatts.  We had a car-load--three others.  K started pulling out and I said, "Put on the headlights."  She did, but someone asked, "Don't you have the automatic headlights?"  K proceeded to tell them, "Yeah, but he won't activate them.  He says, 'If I want my car lights on, I'll put them on.  I won't let a car dictate what I'm doing.'"  That was a fair representation of my attitude.  K went on to further explain, "He can't stand the automatic door locks, either.  As soon as they lock, he unlocks them."  And she again accuraely indicated why I do so and my reasoning behind that.  There are some, jocularly I hope, who use such escapade to psychoanalyze me--and I often come out on the wrong end of ridicule.

But I think about this often.  It's not just a quirk or stubborness.  I believe it reflects some life principle of mine.  The most obvious one is "self-reliance."  (No, this isn't goin to be a criticism of Obama's "You didn't make this..." speech, ridiculous on many counts as it was.)  In many, most, of my life experiences I want to be self-reliant.  I want to do things for myself.  Of course, others have contributed to my successes (and failures!) and I am grateful.  Too late in life I realized there were lots of folks I needed to thank, but never did and it was often too late, far too late (as in dead).  A lot of my charity work (for want of another term that I'm too tired to stop to think about) is a way I can repay what others have done for me, although it's often unbeknown to them.

Back to the "self-reliance."  For example, just like I don't want my car to decide when my doors will be locked, I don't want the government, through laws or regulations, or some pencil-pushing bureaucrat to tell me what to do.  OK, I have to stop at red lights (or at least I'm supposed to) and I must pay taxes.  But I resent that some guy or body, by virtue of an elective or appointive office, tries to tell me what size soda I can buy and drink, what kind of television I must have (although were I single, I'd likely get rid of it), what light bulbs I must use, what kind of toilet I must have--the list goes on and on. 

It's my suspicion that people who let cars tell them things are easily persuaded to let others, such as government, tell them what they can and can't do--that is, beyond government's purview.  I, obvously, have no statistics, but....

But my quirkiness with my automobile's headlights and door locks is more than quirkiness and fodder for ridicule--although I don't mind it.

Principles?

 "Why should the top 1%, which now pays 40% of all income taxes, have unity, purpose, and optimism when they are often attacked verbally, and their accomplishments are minimized by the president?"

This quotation is taken from a conservative historian's blog.  And, I agree with its sentiment.  We've heard a lot recently from the conservatives about the President's "trashing" of accomplishments in business.  But what the President has said isn't my focus here.  It's the other guys, the conservatives, who most often seem to pull out their conservative principles when the principles suit them and then ignore them when they don't.

Here are a couple of examples, using (Surprise!) teachers and education.  To extrapolate the above, in a new setting--conservatives, from politicians to businessmen, are harshly critical of teachers.  In fact, they not only "attack verbally" and "minimize their accomplishments" (OK, I rearranged from above), but take action such as cutting pay and benefits, as well as installing other onerous financial conditions.  Who would want to be a teacher today?  They are getting less pay, pay that was comfortable, but not at all commensurate with the job.  They are required to pay more for insurances.  Their pensions are being trampled.  And, of course, they are almost daily criticized by nonteachers who, because they went to school and had teachers, know all about teaching.  After all, the answer to the problems in education is testing and more testing. 

OK, teachers were, for the most part, comfortably compensated.  Today, the plaint is, from those in the private sector, "Why do teachers get great health insurance?" and "Why do they get such handsome pensions?"  "We don't get these great benefits!"  Of course, these same critics never, ever consider some facts.  Often, when the private sector was getting raises, teachers were not.  Instead, teachers were promised better benefits and future compensaton, that is, pensions.  Ask some of those private sector employees what they did with those sizable raises of the '70s and '90s, you know, when teachers weren't getting raises (at least I wasn't!).  Were they saving, creating their own pension plans?  Obviously, some were--but an awful lot weren't, instead spending, spending, spending.  And the argument that teachers should be susceptible to the same things private sector employees face is silly, very silly.  First, when times are bad, teachers have to sacrifice just like everyone else (as if coaching football and baseball, with responsibility for a dozen or more players at about 15 cents an hour isn't "sacrifice"), but when times are good, teachers don't have to share in the bounty.  Second, that some people are open to the nasty vagaries of employers doesn't mean everyone should be--how silly!  Hey, I can't afford a new car, so nobody should be able to get one--right?  I work for a jerk, so everyone has to--right?

Why don't the principles of the free market work with teachers/education?  Oh, the conservatives say we have to pay to attract the top managerial talent.  Yep, that makes sense.  The top doctors and lawyers, not to mention athletes, deserve the best pay.  I have no qualms about that, not at all.  But why doesn't that also apply to teachers/education?  To attract the best people to teaching, why isn't compensation higher, say, as in Finland--who many conservatives are now pointing as the model?  Teacher pay has been comfortable, let me repeat (athough recent years have seen a sharp dimunition).  And, again as I've noted many times before, there are a lot of rotten teachers out there, more than most people would recognize or be willing to admit.  But, whose fault is that?  The good teachers' fault?  Hardly. 

Oh, the thunder has stopped and I'm going to try to sneak in a run, at least a short one.

The Supremes

An op-ed piece from, I guess, a regular guy in the Det News this AM reflected ideas I've expressed concerning the arrogance and elitism of our elected and appointed officials.  The column focuses on the ObamaCare, its passage by Congress and the Supreme Court's ruling that it is Constitutional.  Again, I've expressed some of these ideas before, but perhaps they bear repeating.

First, CJ Roberts' somewhat convoluted reasoning.  I know some folks have said/written good and bad about it, with requisite name-calling, complimentary or otherwise.  Roberts, in siding with the four liberal justices, wrote that the individual mandate of ObamaCare, that is, that people are required to purchase health insurance, is not authorized by the Commerce Clause.  Yet, he upheld ObamaCare's mandate citing the taxing power of Congress--after ruling that the mandate is not a tax (but a penalty). Huh??????  Yes, exactly.

But the four justices with whom Roberts sided have been allowed to skate, as it were.  In their opinions, very little attention is paid to the Constitution.  Rather, they cite the overwhelming good that ObamaCare will bring.  Hmmmm......  First, it's not at all clear it will bring good.  In fact, there's a great deal of evidence it will bring harm to far more people than it will hep.  Second, what does that have to do with Constitutionality?  It harkens us back to the racist, elitist, arrogant Woodrow Wilson, who held that the Constitution was a barrier to the Progressive programs he knew would help people.  Checks and balances to protect citizen from tyranny of the government?  Bah, said Wilson.  Limited government?  Bah, said Wilson, esp when those so much smarter than the rest of us (that is, those like Wilson) can enact programs to help us, whether we like them or not.  As one of the conservative justices wrote, "the wonderful things" the federal government might or might not bring about, are "quite beside the point."

I suppose if we travel back in time, maybe a few centuries, to the Old Regime, we can find similar attitudes.  Then, it was noblesse oblige, the aristrocracy that blessed the peons with their superior knowledge and ideas.  Now, it's the "progressives," as they have come to call themselves, who are doing the same thing.

In the end, it doesn't matter if such programs are good, "wonderful," or whatever.  Again, that is beside the point.  The US was established as a republic, a democracy (despite a lot on the right who dispute that, there's a little sticking point that might get in the way--the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People....")  I suppose if "the People" want to eliminate their "republic," they can (the op-ed piece opens with Ben Franklin's famous, "a republic...if we can keep it").  Perhaps they no longer care, as long as they continue to get their American Idol, NFL, etc..."bread and circuses."

Civility

William Raspberry, a noted nationally syndicated columnist, died the other day.  Although he stopped writing as frequently a while ago, he will be missed.  I didn't always agree with him, but he had a habit of making me rethink my positions.  He was a writer I respected.  Here is an example of his ideas:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/18/AR2005121800884.html
Rereading this column, it is a reminder to me, one I often forget--as to many others.  I will keep this column handy and hope to learn from it again and again.

So, the ACLU is filing civil rights lawsuits against the school districts in Highland Park and Detroit on behalf of parents of school children there.  More to the point, the lawsuit addresses what the ACLU claims is "a right to read."  Hmmm....  Are we making up yet another right?  There are lots of potential problems with this, but those are for another afternoon.  Already, in the newspaper and in blogs, critics of the lawsuit are asking, "Where were [those] parents?"  Initially, the reaction is to ape that, "Yeah, where were they?"  Some say that their children's inability to read is the parents' fault, for sending the kids to school and then forgetting about them, assuming they are learning to read.    There is probably a lot to this, but, again, that's for another afternoon.  Upon some thought, why wouldn't parents think the schools/teachers are teaching their kids to read?  After all, they have them for 6 or 7 hours a day, five days a week?  After all, the MEA (and other local and national teachers' unions) keep(s) telling us how "great" every teacher is.  Maybe there is something to this lawsuit after all.

Why are so many people shocked that football at Penn State trumped all else?  Is that a surprise?  C'mon....  Certainly not on the same despicable level, but isn't football king all over?  Look at the newspapers.  Does a day pass when there isn't some college football player not dismissed from the team for "violations of team rules," that is, was arrested for a crime?  How many football players are admitted to colleges having no discernable academic skills, certainly none that would suggest the ability to do college work?  I've always wondered why alumni from their precious, so-called "elite academic" universities (like the one in Ann Arbor), aren't outraged at this.  It certainly casts aspersions on their elite schools.  Perhaps someone in a position of authority will take on the football machines and the farces they are making of college education.  But, I won't hold my breath.

$10 Million?

So, I hear on the radio this afternoon, a Detroit Lion player (I didn't recognize the name, but it wasn't Dominic Suh or Calvin Jackson) turned down a 3-year, $30 million contract!!!!!!  And, $20 million of it was guaranteed?  A guy turns down $10 million a year to play football?  For the Lions?

First, I don't begrudge any of these professional athletes their money.  I think it's ridiculous that they get so much, but I don't pay it.  So, more economic power to them.  Second, $10 million a year isn't enough money?  I know, I know...  "But their careers are so short."  Yeah, right.  As if I made 1/10 that in my entire lifetime.  And certainly, with the college degrees they were handed (note, I didn't say "earned"), they can't be expected to go out and get jobs after their playing days.  Gee, nobody would hire an ex-NFL player--nah!  Third, who is this guy again?  How many Super Bowls or even playoff wins did he lead the Lions to over the years?  Oh, none.  Uh-huh.

Why don't people complain about professional athletes' salaries or, for that matter, the Hollywood-types, television celebrities, or hippy-rock stars?  Oh, they grouse bitterly about the "greed" of CEOs, the big bankers, Wall Street, Big Oil, and so on.  Gee, how many athletes, movie and TV stars, etc. run companies that actually hire a lot of people?  Oh, an agent here, a bodyguard there, but hundreds or thousands or more employees?  I'm not arguing that some CEOs et al aren't dishonest, unscrupulous, and other bad things--no doubt some are.  But if some guy is running a profit at a corporation that, in turn, employs thousands of people, not to mention increases the value of the company (and its stock), why shouldn't that guy get paid a lot?

At what point does envy turn to greed?  Certainly they are related, closely so.  Isn't, in truth, envy greed itself?  "I want what the other guy has!"  Nope, only the other guy is greedy, never us.  That's why so many of us can go on European vacations, own cottages and condos, have sailboats, drive big SUVs, and more, but then rail about other people's "greed."  It, I think, has become obvious what other people have doesn't bother me; hypocrisy does.

A while back I had a discussion with a guy who has been quite vocal about the greed of Big Oil, especially.  A way to calm him down is to ask about the tickets at U of M games, the prices of food at the Tigers' ballpark, and professional athletes' salaries.  Oh, he doesn't mind those, after all, it's the U of M, the Tigers, and athletes.  They are different.  Yeah, right....

Imagine the former Penn State football player, whose name I don't remember and didn't recognize, who tried to justify not being critical of Joe Paterno and his silence during the pedophile years.  I can't imagine anything to justify it, but the former player said, "No man is perfect."  Well, he has a point.  Hitler was said to like children and dogs....

Education

Here I go again, beating a dead horse.  But as Winston Churchill once said, "Never, Never, Never , Never give up...except to convictions of honor and good sense."  So, although my retired friends keep asking me why I still care, I do.

How ridiculous that the state of Michigan recently increased its requirements for the certification of teachers.  OK, at face value, that's a good thing--if one accepts "certification" as a good thing.  I've maintained for years that it's a sham, at least the way it's conducted.  Student teaching is perhaps one of the few aspects of certification I can accept; but there are serious flaws with even that.  And here the state is not only perpetuating such certification, mostly based on "process" and not knowledge, Michigan is makng it worse.

The increase in certification requirements focus on more courses on "the learning process."  State tests on content aside (and from what several folks who have taken the tests have told me, they are jokes), teachers need to know things and, if they don't, learn things.  A teacher can't teach what a teacher doesn't know.  And, pretty conclusively, more and more teachers know less and less.  The number one trait of a good teacher is not "caring" or any other "feely-touchy" characteristic, but knowledge (although communication skills are important, too, as is hard work).  Teachers must know things, that is, their subjects.  Far too many don't.

And how does the state of Michigan get away with such cetification?  Where are the teachers' unions, the ones so loudly proclaiming they are there "for the kids?"  At least they should admit they are not there "for the kids," but there to work for members.  And there is nothing dishonorable or devious in that.  Where are the administrators?  Aren't many colleges courses for administrators called "Educational Leadership?" Where's the "leadership" in not opposing process in favor of content, not to mention all the testing and the emphasis on it?

In things that matter, I hate to lose.  But I fear I have lost this battle, the one over quality education.  The battle has become politicized--politicians have taken over, the media have banged the drums, and the education establishment has, as usual, buckled rather than stand and fight for what's right, that is, rigorous quality education.  To cite Churchill again, though, I will never give up.....

??????

I have been the fairly frequent recipient of recent e-mails asking me to join groups to help re-elect President Obama.  These are not mass e-mails, but come from locals I know.  But they apparently don't know me.  How can anyone who knows me think I would want to re-elect the President?  This is not an endorsement of Mitt  Romney, who is also a less-than-desirable candidate.  It's just acknowledgement that Obama is rotten and has had rotten effects on the US.

Almost invariably, these e-mail requests toss in some slams at the Tea Party.  In almost all instances, such disparagements of the Tea Party reflect an arrogant elitism (or is it elitist arrogance?).  The TPs are summarily described and dismissed as "racist," "bigoted," "ignorant," and the like.  There may be reasons to criticize the Tea Partiers, but these are not included among them.  I find this almost humorous, except that the critics really think they are engaging in thoughtful analysis by simply tossing out "racist," "bigoted," and "ignorant."  It is mindful of the administrators in education who won't or can't defend what they do by merely calling critics names.  Isn't that a great way to engage in serious dialogue--ignore or dismiss critics and then merely call them names?  This is merely reflective of their own intellectual deficiencies--they don't know much and are unable to think.  Much of this also reeks of hypocrisy.  Why, then, aren't the "99%ers" equally criticized?  Oh, that's right--they are, but by other type of folks.  What is so enlightened about "Hey, I bought a home I couldn't afford and now I shouldn't have to pay for it?" or "I want to go to college, but with other people's money?"  People don't have to agree--with me or with each other.  But we should at least be able to expect some intellectual honesty from everyone, well, politicians excluded (ha ha).

Here's another example.  Supposedly, asking for picture identification to vote is some sort of act of intimidation. Yet, Black Panther thugs lurking around polling places, issuing threats, is dismissed.  What, really, is a greater threat to the voting process?  That is, if we are intellectualy honest.  That might be asking a lot from arrogant elitists, smugly self-righteous as they are.

"Gee It's Great...

...to be back home!"  I know it's a little different context, but S & G had it right.  I enjoyed my week in California.  I like seeing the differences in that part of the US, esp since it had been 21 years since my last visit there.  San Francisco is a wonderful place, an amazing city to see.  The weather was just ideal.  But most of all I was reminded of how lucky I am to have had such people in my life.  I enjoyed it beyond expression.

There's been a lot to catch up on over the past, well, almost two weeks.  Let's start by giving someone some credit, lots of it.  And, remember, I don't often have anything good to say about EJ Dionne.  He wrote in the Wash Post, "We do a disservice to ourselves and the Founders alike if we take them out of history and demand that they settle arguments that we ought to settle on our own."  I'm very surprised this came out of his typewriter/computer, but it's very insightful regardless.  Thanks to him for the good thought.  He's right on the money.

Now, let me get this straight.  The Obama Administration was suing Arizona because Arizona was enforcing federal immigration law (when Obama policy is to not enforce it).  The Supremes said "No go" to that, but that's not the point here.  (That the Obama policy is "logically ridiculous," "mind-boggling," etc. is food for another blog.)  So, let's play with this one a bit.  The Obama Administration wants a state to not enforce federal law, in this case immigration law.  Now, what if states refuse to enforce/enact the provisions of ObamaCare?  Isn't that what the President and his Justice Dept want, states not to enforce federal law?  What if states (and at least three have already said they will not act to put ObamaCare measures in place) do just that, refuse to enforce the provisions of ObamaCare?  Will the Administration then be happy, that federal law isn't being enforced by the states?  Of course, I'm just kidding.  But isn't it a dangerous proposition to enforce some laws and not enforce others?  (That is laws other than those such as "It's illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant in Detroit" and  "It's illegal for an elephant to eat peanuts while roller skating in Natchez, MS.")

And what's with this federal judge in Detroit publicly criticizing a juror in a case in his court for speaking after the hung jury?  Apparently the judge doesn't believe in free speech?  This is, perhaps, more worthy of outrage than that trumped up "Muzzle the Women" episode in Lansing a few weeks ago.  And then we wonder why people don't want to serve on juries or perform other public service.  Thanks a lot, judge.

I see Gov Snyder has moved forward with his push to get school children's weight data on state records.  First and foremost, it's none of his business how fat our kids are.  Oh, it's laudable, but not the role of government to watch our kids' weight.  Second, since the schools with accumulate the data, it's reasonable to ask, "Don't they have better and more important things to do--such as do a better job of teaching?"  Third, instead of getting all this information and then doing what? with it, why not make physical education mandatory in the schools?  After all, if the obesity problem is now an education problem...?

Speaking of the schools, I see more than half of the states have already received waivers on No Child Left Behind mandates.  And more will receive them before 2014.  I guess it's reasonable to ask your members of Congress, what good is passing a law (and a bad, bad law at that) if waivers are given out in such numbers?  If the law is so good, worthy of passage, why have so many states, with the number growing, have been given permission to avoid the law?  Hmmmm......  No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating.  Its members are collective boobs.

OK, lots to write tonight.  Out....