Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:
Up here on the computer, listening to some TV show, purportedly a more cerebral one, that K is watching, I heard..."General George McClellan, a great World War 2 hero...." It took a second or two to shake off the cobwebs, but, one, he wasn't a "WW2" figure and, two, he wasn't a "hero."
McClellan was the commander of the Union forces in the Civil War. He was appointed, dismissed, and appointed a second time. Hmmm, Civil War or World War 2? What's the difference? A lot of people died...get over it. (Yes, that's a snide, caustic, and sarcastic comment based on how one teacher cover(s)(ed) the Civil War.)
McClellan was hardly a "hero." In fact, someone might make the case that he was a traitor, in that he aided and abetted the enemy. I don't think he was overtly treasonous; he was just egotistical to the extreme. Like many of today's "anointed" politicians and academics, he knew what was best, better than anyone else possible could. He was a good organizer and a good defensive general, but he didn't like to fight. Isn't that a great quality for a general leading troops in war? His dalliance, his proclivity for vastly overestimating the size of Lee's and other Confederate generals' armies (he had to know he was doing that, didn't he?), and his unwillingness to engage the Rebs likely extended the war, causing how many more deaths?
How could someone make such a mistake?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Where Have All the Adults Gone?
An author has posed this question, "Where have all the grown-ups gone?" It is her suggestion that we no longer have any adults, that they have abdicated their responsibilities. It's an interesting thesis.
From the 1950s and 1960s, we've had more and more "toys," not little kid ones, but those for adults. The post-WW2 prosperity and lower costs made, first, televisions, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. affordable. These "toys" began to occupy the thinking, the time of adults. No longer could they be bothered with things, trivial things, such as what's happening to our government, to our culture. There were important things to consider, important things like television, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. Of course, as the decades passed, more toys occupied more time of more people--these toys also became more important. Color television, computers, cell phones, and now all the attachments (blueberries, whatever they are!)....
Consider these Presidents: FDR (although I'm no fan of his, I reluctantly admit his significance), Truman, Eisenhower (yes and I can make a strong case for his inclusion). Then consider their successors, right up to the present. None of them belong in the same room with FDR, HST, DDE (although, I suppose, Reagan could be included). Why is that? Why have we had such lousy Presidents (or good Presidents who did too many lousy things?)?
Of course, you might say, "Why did you start with FDR in returning to yesteryear?" (thank you Lone Ranger!) Good question and it helps make my point. At the turn of the century we had TR, Taft (OK, but no great shakes), Wilson. Most consider them pretty good Presidents. We were paying attention. Whoa, but what about Harding, Coolidge (and I'm nearly as hard on Cool Cal as most historians; he was better than they say), and Hoover? Right! And what did the '20s, "The Roaring '20s," bring? Yep, more "toys" in the presence of radio, movies (and the talkies), phonographs, cars that were affordable, etc. The Depression took away many of those toys. People didn't have the diversions.
Hmmm. It's an interesting thesis and more can be said about it and my brief analysis of it here. I haven't really had time to think more about it. But I like it at face value.... It explains a lot of what is happening today.
Remember the Dutchman, "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to spend any time defending it."
From the 1950s and 1960s, we've had more and more "toys," not little kid ones, but those for adults. The post-WW2 prosperity and lower costs made, first, televisions, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. affordable. These "toys" began to occupy the thinking, the time of adults. No longer could they be bothered with things, trivial things, such as what's happening to our government, to our culture. There were important things to consider, important things like television, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. Of course, as the decades passed, more toys occupied more time of more people--these toys also became more important. Color television, computers, cell phones, and now all the attachments (blueberries, whatever they are!)....
Consider these Presidents: FDR (although I'm no fan of his, I reluctantly admit his significance), Truman, Eisenhower (yes and I can make a strong case for his inclusion). Then consider their successors, right up to the present. None of them belong in the same room with FDR, HST, DDE (although, I suppose, Reagan could be included). Why is that? Why have we had such lousy Presidents (or good Presidents who did too many lousy things?)?
Of course, you might say, "Why did you start with FDR in returning to yesteryear?" (thank you Lone Ranger!) Good question and it helps make my point. At the turn of the century we had TR, Taft (OK, but no great shakes), Wilson. Most consider them pretty good Presidents. We were paying attention. Whoa, but what about Harding, Coolidge (and I'm nearly as hard on Cool Cal as most historians; he was better than they say), and Hoover? Right! And what did the '20s, "The Roaring '20s," bring? Yep, more "toys" in the presence of radio, movies (and the talkies), phonographs, cars that were affordable, etc. The Depression took away many of those toys. People didn't have the diversions.
Hmmm. It's an interesting thesis and more can be said about it and my brief analysis of it here. I haven't really had time to think more about it. But I like it at face value.... It explains a lot of what is happening today.
Remember the Dutchman, "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to spend any time defending it."
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Education
Boy, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have it right on education!!!! Why is it nobody listens to them, preferring the "psychobabble" of the education-types (I say that in the most pejorative sense, of course!) and administrators? Williams and Sowell make all kinds of sense.
Read the latest column from Williams: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/12/23/black_education
Note what he says about schools of education, which, in my experience, is right on the money. I know people will scoff, not really arguing against what I say, just scoffing as if I can't be taken seriously, but student-teaching is a big scam. It's a crock. What does student-teaching do that the first year of teaching doesn't? Oh, then they learn it while student-teaching, not while earning pay? Think about that one a while, think deeply. Then try asking it again, with a straight face. Student-teaching rips off students-teachers, reinforces the worst of the worst (note Williams' comments on schools of education again), and allows teachers to get paid with time off. But who will listen? Who will take this seriously?
And note what Williams says about those going into education, that is, those becoming teachers. It's devastating. No doubt, we have some good people with good minds who are going to be teachers, but, in all honesty, they are not nearly a high enough percentage. Even some people I know who have always defended teachers, the worse even, have said that the younger teachers just don't cut the mustard. From my experiences, they don't know their subjects, have no sense of rigor and/or quality, and don't have any integrity or courage when it comes to demanding excellence (of course, per my first two clauses, they might not know what "excellence" is!). And, who keeps passing them along, with tenure and awards? Yep, the equally inept administrators, who also are afraid of or don't know quality, rigor, etc. What, do people think Sowell and Williams just make up this stuff? They know what they are talking about.
Good timing, for the editorial above Williams' column this AM talks about the state reform legislation that is pending, calling for its passage. Again, people who don't know what they are talking about, who don't know the real problems, who take what they hear from politicians and administrators as the gospel, etc., weighing in on education. Read the editorial and then read Williams--night and day. The difference between right and wrong (although the intent might be noble).
Freakonomics takes a few glances at education and suggests the above, the good part of above. Again, my guess is nobody will listen. Who, after all, wants to criticize teachers who give out all As and Bs to their kids, despite the fact the students can't read or write very well?
What have we created? See, there's the problem with "give and take," with "compromise." A little give here and there and here and there and soon we have a problem that is monumental, one that likely can't be solved without destroying the entire system. What was it Everett Dirksen said about gov't spending? A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Yep....
We should be ashamed, but, alas, there no longer is a sense of shame.
Read the latest column from Williams: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/12/23/black_education
Note what he says about schools of education, which, in my experience, is right on the money. I know people will scoff, not really arguing against what I say, just scoffing as if I can't be taken seriously, but student-teaching is a big scam. It's a crock. What does student-teaching do that the first year of teaching doesn't? Oh, then they learn it while student-teaching, not while earning pay? Think about that one a while, think deeply. Then try asking it again, with a straight face. Student-teaching rips off students-teachers, reinforces the worst of the worst (note Williams' comments on schools of education again), and allows teachers to get paid with time off. But who will listen? Who will take this seriously?
And note what Williams says about those going into education, that is, those becoming teachers. It's devastating. No doubt, we have some good people with good minds who are going to be teachers, but, in all honesty, they are not nearly a high enough percentage. Even some people I know who have always defended teachers, the worse even, have said that the younger teachers just don't cut the mustard. From my experiences, they don't know their subjects, have no sense of rigor and/or quality, and don't have any integrity or courage when it comes to demanding excellence (of course, per my first two clauses, they might not know what "excellence" is!). And, who keeps passing them along, with tenure and awards? Yep, the equally inept administrators, who also are afraid of or don't know quality, rigor, etc. What, do people think Sowell and Williams just make up this stuff? They know what they are talking about.
Good timing, for the editorial above Williams' column this AM talks about the state reform legislation that is pending, calling for its passage. Again, people who don't know what they are talking about, who don't know the real problems, who take what they hear from politicians and administrators as the gospel, etc., weighing in on education. Read the editorial and then read Williams--night and day. The difference between right and wrong (although the intent might be noble).
Freakonomics takes a few glances at education and suggests the above, the good part of above. Again, my guess is nobody will listen. Who, after all, wants to criticize teachers who give out all As and Bs to their kids, despite the fact the students can't read or write very well?
What have we created? See, there's the problem with "give and take," with "compromise." A little give here and there and here and there and soon we have a problem that is monumental, one that likely can't be solved without destroying the entire system. What was it Everett Dirksen said about gov't spending? A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Yep....
We should be ashamed, but, alas, there no longer is a sense of shame.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Youth
First, I want to thank our elected officials in DC for the lousy, rotten Chris present they call "health care reform." And, if I were a youngster, I would especially thank them for seriously threatening my future. (We won't mention the vote to raise the debt ceiling, ever higher, with no chance of paying back the debt and no hope of these clowns reducing spending.)
"Clowns?" Yeah, didn't Lee Iacocca call them "bozos" in his book, on page one? Boy, with that and the Mustang, K-car, and mini-wagon, he got things right.
Perhaps we can take some solace, with some hope, from the recent history of Rumania. It wasn't the "grown-ups," but the youth of Rumania who had the courage to stand up to the tyranny of the dictator Ceaucescu. They encouraged the older folks to protest. They took to the streets, often being gunned down in cold blood. They stood their ground. They had the guts to fight for freedom. Maybe we can hope for the same.
I see some hope in that I get a few e-mails from the younger crowd asking about the massive spending and restrictive legislation our government officials are perpetrating. (I deliberately use the word "perpetrating" because that's what the crime show cops call those who commit crimes, "perps.") Some are beginning to see what a mess is being created with their future.
Now, if they can protest and the "grown-ups" can learn from their courage and throw off their apathy.... Is this too much to ask for?
"Clowns?" Yeah, didn't Lee Iacocca call them "bozos" in his book, on page one? Boy, with that and the Mustang, K-car, and mini-wagon, he got things right.
Perhaps we can take some solace, with some hope, from the recent history of Rumania. It wasn't the "grown-ups," but the youth of Rumania who had the courage to stand up to the tyranny of the dictator Ceaucescu. They encouraged the older folks to protest. They took to the streets, often being gunned down in cold blood. They stood their ground. They had the guts to fight for freedom. Maybe we can hope for the same.
I see some hope in that I get a few e-mails from the younger crowd asking about the massive spending and restrictive legislation our government officials are perpetrating. (I deliberately use the word "perpetrating" because that's what the crime show cops call those who commit crimes, "perps.") Some are beginning to see what a mess is being created with their future.
Now, if they can protest and the "grown-ups" can learn from their courage and throw off their apathy.... Is this too much to ask for?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Television Judges?
Just asking:
How did many of these judges get through law school????? And, then, how did they pass the bar exams????? No, I don't watch them, but Karen does. So, they are on frequently, esp during her breaks. I listen while I read or write or grade papers or am on the computer. What I hear leads me to think, "What the heck?" What was it one of my AC professors wrote on one of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?"
Yesterday, one of them berated a plaintiff, "I don't care what you 'think!' That's the last thing I'll consider in this case, what you 'think.'" The next question out of the judge's mouth, after the appropriate delay for the audience laughter and approval at the judge's Solomonic words, was, "Well, sir, what then did you think...?"
And so it goes....
How did many of these judges get through law school????? And, then, how did they pass the bar exams????? No, I don't watch them, but Karen does. So, they are on frequently, esp during her breaks. I listen while I read or write or grade papers or am on the computer. What I hear leads me to think, "What the heck?" What was it one of my AC professors wrote on one of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?"
Yesterday, one of them berated a plaintiff, "I don't care what you 'think!' That's the last thing I'll consider in this case, what you 'think.'" The next question out of the judge's mouth, after the appropriate delay for the audience laughter and approval at the judge's Solomonic words, was, "Well, sir, what then did you think...?"
And so it goes....
Lonely Opinions
Boy, I really like talking/writing to myself. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear, does it make a noise?
Hey, is American Idol on tonight? What about a football game?
"I was too busy enjoying my freedoms to do anything to protect them."
Hey, is American Idol on tonight? What about a football game?
"I was too busy enjoying my freedoms to do anything to protect them."
Degrees
At face value, I'm sure the idea of the former state superintendent of public schools to offer lower tuition to students majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" seems attractive to some. After all, to get more math majors, offer financial incentives. Upon closer examination, though, the whole thing stinks of, well, something offered by the education establishment--and there's a reason the guy rose to state superintendent of public schools.
First, is that the sole purpose of education, to fill jobs? Education, then, is to prepare people for specific jobs? Wow! What has become of the western tradition of liberal education?
Second, how long before there is a glut of those graduates, that is, before the "under-filled professions" are sated? Will those graduates then be flipping burgers as has been the case with math, science, engineering students of the past?
Third, who says majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" is a smart thing? Let's see, one of my college roommates majored in psychology and, with no graduate degree in business, eventually was a manager of properties for major insurance firms, millions of dollars of transactions passing his desk daily. Hmmm, a fine arts major a year ahead of me, who later played in the NFL, became an anaesthesiologist--no, he wasn't a chemistry or biology major.
Education, in the western tradition, is to teach people to think (not necessarily what to think, but how to think), as well as express, in writing and verbally, those thoughts. Students should be able to apply what they think, to problems, to citizenship, etc. If one is taught to do these things, one, physical/intellectual limitations excepted, any job should be open. In the western tradition, students would be exposed to math and science as well as history and English/writing. Further training, as in the case of my fine arts/anaesthesiologist college mate, can be had in graduate school.
The idea offered by the former super of public education is hare-brained. So, likely, the education-types will embrace it.
First, is that the sole purpose of education, to fill jobs? Education, then, is to prepare people for specific jobs? Wow! What has become of the western tradition of liberal education?
Second, how long before there is a glut of those graduates, that is, before the "under-filled professions" are sated? Will those graduates then be flipping burgers as has been the case with math, science, engineering students of the past?
Third, who says majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" is a smart thing? Let's see, one of my college roommates majored in psychology and, with no graduate degree in business, eventually was a manager of properties for major insurance firms, millions of dollars of transactions passing his desk daily. Hmmm, a fine arts major a year ahead of me, who later played in the NFL, became an anaesthesiologist--no, he wasn't a chemistry or biology major.
Education, in the western tradition, is to teach people to think (not necessarily what to think, but how to think), as well as express, in writing and verbally, those thoughts. Students should be able to apply what they think, to problems, to citizenship, etc. If one is taught to do these things, one, physical/intellectual limitations excepted, any job should be open. In the western tradition, students would be exposed to math and science as well as history and English/writing. Further training, as in the case of my fine arts/anaesthesiologist college mate, can be had in graduate school.
The idea offered by the former super of public education is hare-brained. So, likely, the education-types will embrace it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
