I'm not naive enough to believe we have eliminated racism--hardly. In fact, I suppose if we got rid of racism, there are quite a few folks out there who would have to find another way to make a living. (No doubt you know of whom I speak.)
But, like many things, I often wonder about "racism." What exactly is it? Who can be a "racist?" Is it justiciable? I even wonder about "hate crimes," if they should be punished more severely than the same crime without the "hate."
Now, though, I take exception to cries of "racism" in two recent matters. One is the offer of the state of Michigan to take over Belle Isle from the city of Detroit. The transaction wouldn't be permanent and would, in fact, merely be a "loan" of sorts. The state would beautify the island--clean it up!--and maintain and operate it. Detroit would be free of all that expense, which it can hardly afford, and, when the lease is up, will get a cleaner Belle Isle back. (Please, Please don't call me a "racist" for using the word "cleaner.") Yet, the city council balked, delaying matters so long that the state withdrew its offer. And what did I hear the other day on the radio? Yep, one of the council members accusing the state of "racism" for the offer. How is that "racism?" For Detroit, it seems to me to be a win-win situation. And, as a caller to a radio station, one who identified himself as black, noted, the $10 state park fee shouldn't be a burden to many, if any, folks. He noted these people regularly go to Metropolitan Beach, Kensington MetroPark, other state facilities and pay money. He also pointed to the zoo, professional and college sports, etc. which charge for admission.
And, I guess VW has a Super Bowl ad that is "racist." I watched the video, looking for the "racism" that had introduced the ad. Some advertising "expert" began her criticism with that charge, "racism." I will admit, she sounded much the fool to me, one of those arrogant elitists who lives to tell us what we can't think for ourselves. (That's just my first impression of her, the one I got from her short evaluation. She might be a nice lady for all I know.) The "racism" stems from using a white guy to talk like a Jamaican (or some other Caribbean native). It's part of the them of "Don't Worry, Be Happy," you know, that popular song from a few years back. By the end of the ad, a car-load of folks are talking, conveying the sense of happiness from driving a VW. "Racist?" Why aren't white gangsta rappers, then, "racists?" How about some of those comedians? Hey, I've heard the President use the vernacular! For that matter, why aren't there criticisms of television shows and movies who depict mobsters with heavy Italian accents?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Purpose of Education?
I suppose before we can fix what's wrong with education, we have to decide what it is we want from it. What is the purpose of education, especially higher education?
Increasingly, I've heard more and more about education being the pathway to jobs. That is, the purpose of education to prepare one for a job. Well, OK, I guess. But I'm not sure I like the take that most people have on that.
Are colleges and universities supposed to be training grounds for jobs, in essence, trade schools? There's nothing, not a thing, wrong with vocational education. But I think the purposes of a trade school, of vocational education, runs counter to the more traditional education.
Of course jobs are important. People need jobs and need the abilities to do those jobs. Especially for skilled trades, vocational education--in schools or on-the-job--is vital.
But I've been troubled by the views of some folks. I listened to a broadcast the other day, on Bill Bennett's radio show. (Bennett, for my money, has the best nationally-syndicated show, by far!) I don't know who his guest was, a governor from some state in the South, but they were discussing educational reform. OK, this immediately sends up my antennas. Who are these reformers? I become leery, even frightened, if I discover they are politicians or educationists/school administrators or experts. I've blogged about both before and, to summarize, think very few of them really know much about quality education and how to implement/achieve it.
Anyway, this guest wanted to emphasize "preparing for jobs" in our schools. Well, yes and no. It's as if most people think a traditional liberal arts education is practically worthless, not much good for anything, especially not for getting a job. I think that's hooey and reflects the mistaken views that "most people" have of liberal arts education.
A liberal arts education should teach students to question, to think, to problem-solve (yes, I find that term grating, too, but....). What job wouldn't want someone who could question, think, and (grate, grate) problem-solve? I think having those attributes would make for a better employee. Specialized training can come, too, but likely isn't required for most jobs. Employers, now armed with new hires who can question, think, solve problems, should easily be able to train them. I think of my college mates who were fine arts majors, but went to med school and on to long, successful careers as doctors. I think of my college mates who majored in English or Psychology who became successful in business and the law.
By limiting education to job-preparation--or emphasizing that--we diminish the wider benefits of all of those years of schooling. We make citizens who are less civic-minded, who don't understand or participate in government affairs. What was it Pericles said? " We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all."
I was disappointed to hear Bill Bennett's responses to some of this. Bennett went to Williams, I believe. I would like to ask him if he knew, if he could identify his good teachers and his not-so-good ones. Of course he could. And could he also identify the qualities that made those good ones so easily identifiable? Of course he could. Then, why all this hand-wringing about bad teachers, about unions, about schools? (Now, we need to be honest about this. We have to differentiate between good teachers and favorite or nice teachers. They may be mutual, but they may not be, also.) With his liberal arts education, Bennett should have challenged his guess about the exclusivity of education for jobs. Usually Bennett is much better than that.
A related news story also piqued my interest. I guess the Michigan Superintendent of Schools called for "six-figure salaries" for teachers. Oh, that's $100,000 for science and math teachers. Again, this is very, very narrow-minded. Of course we need better science and math teachers. (I might well argue that the $100,000 salaries likely wouldn't improve science and math teacher, but that's a time for a later blog.) But once again, ignorant people diminish the importance of the social studies and humanities. These people ignore the significance of having citizens--employees and otherwise--who can think, who know about their culture, who can express themselves. I am reminded of the doctors my father had. Oh, they might well have been good technicians. (And how I am to know how good they were? He died.) But I do know they were pretty lousy at communicating. How many stories do we hear of rotten bedside manners? I think of the many businessmen who have few or no ethics, but are loaded up with the MBAs and other business degrees. (I won't consider today if today's businessmen are more or less ethical than those of the past. I would suggest, though, that they are just as "greedy" and that there are far more of them, dipping down into what is called "mid-level management.")
It's yet another example of how those involved in education think so little of history, civics, etc. Perhaps that's a major factor in our current societal malaise, the problems we have--we don't know our history, our government/civics, etc.
Increasingly, I've heard more and more about education being the pathway to jobs. That is, the purpose of education to prepare one for a job. Well, OK, I guess. But I'm not sure I like the take that most people have on that.
Are colleges and universities supposed to be training grounds for jobs, in essence, trade schools? There's nothing, not a thing, wrong with vocational education. But I think the purposes of a trade school, of vocational education, runs counter to the more traditional education.
Of course jobs are important. People need jobs and need the abilities to do those jobs. Especially for skilled trades, vocational education--in schools or on-the-job--is vital.
But I've been troubled by the views of some folks. I listened to a broadcast the other day, on Bill Bennett's radio show. (Bennett, for my money, has the best nationally-syndicated show, by far!) I don't know who his guest was, a governor from some state in the South, but they were discussing educational reform. OK, this immediately sends up my antennas. Who are these reformers? I become leery, even frightened, if I discover they are politicians or educationists/school administrators or experts. I've blogged about both before and, to summarize, think very few of them really know much about quality education and how to implement/achieve it.
Anyway, this guest wanted to emphasize "preparing for jobs" in our schools. Well, yes and no. It's as if most people think a traditional liberal arts education is practically worthless, not much good for anything, especially not for getting a job. I think that's hooey and reflects the mistaken views that "most people" have of liberal arts education.
A liberal arts education should teach students to question, to think, to problem-solve (yes, I find that term grating, too, but....). What job wouldn't want someone who could question, think, and (grate, grate) problem-solve? I think having those attributes would make for a better employee. Specialized training can come, too, but likely isn't required for most jobs. Employers, now armed with new hires who can question, think, solve problems, should easily be able to train them. I think of my college mates who were fine arts majors, but went to med school and on to long, successful careers as doctors. I think of my college mates who majored in English or Psychology who became successful in business and the law.
By limiting education to job-preparation--or emphasizing that--we diminish the wider benefits of all of those years of schooling. We make citizens who are less civic-minded, who don't understand or participate in government affairs. What was it Pericles said? " We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all."
I was disappointed to hear Bill Bennett's responses to some of this. Bennett went to Williams, I believe. I would like to ask him if he knew, if he could identify his good teachers and his not-so-good ones. Of course he could. And could he also identify the qualities that made those good ones so easily identifiable? Of course he could. Then, why all this hand-wringing about bad teachers, about unions, about schools? (Now, we need to be honest about this. We have to differentiate between good teachers and favorite or nice teachers. They may be mutual, but they may not be, also.) With his liberal arts education, Bennett should have challenged his guess about the exclusivity of education for jobs. Usually Bennett is much better than that.
A related news story also piqued my interest. I guess the Michigan Superintendent of Schools called for "six-figure salaries" for teachers. Oh, that's $100,000 for science and math teachers. Again, this is very, very narrow-minded. Of course we need better science and math teachers. (I might well argue that the $100,000 salaries likely wouldn't improve science and math teacher, but that's a time for a later blog.) But once again, ignorant people diminish the importance of the social studies and humanities. These people ignore the significance of having citizens--employees and otherwise--who can think, who know about their culture, who can express themselves. I am reminded of the doctors my father had. Oh, they might well have been good technicians. (And how I am to know how good they were? He died.) But I do know they were pretty lousy at communicating. How many stories do we hear of rotten bedside manners? I think of the many businessmen who have few or no ethics, but are loaded up with the MBAs and other business degrees. (I won't consider today if today's businessmen are more or less ethical than those of the past. I would suggest, though, that they are just as "greedy" and that there are far more of them, dipping down into what is called "mid-level management.")
It's yet another example of how those involved in education think so little of history, civics, etc. Perhaps that's a major factor in our current societal malaise, the problems we have--we don't know our history, our government/civics, etc.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Mon AM
Bounding down the stairs, somewhat agitated, came Bopper. He doesn't like being late to school. In fact, he begins to simmer if he's not there 15 or more minutes before he needs to be. I quickly defused his agitation, "No school today, Bopp. Snow day!" His demeanor quickly reversed itself with a fist-pumping, "Yes!" Ah, is there any thing more joyful to a kid than the words, "Snow Day?" Of course, K and C were also pumped up for it, calling for the "Snow Day Dance" yesterday. I won't go into the details, but it would be something I'd like to see, if only to watch neighbors' reactions. But, whatever it is, it worked. No word yet on the college closing. My guess is I still have class tonight, which is fine. I'd rather not miss.
And, thanks to this weekend, I finally think I know who's in this year's Super Bowl. I know two brothers, the Harbaughs, are coaching against each other. 49ers v Ravens. How odd it still seems to me to say anything other than "Baltimore Colts." When did that change happen?????? To be honest, I have no interest at all in the game, none. K and I are headed to a Super Bowl Party and that's my only interest. But, as someone noted over the weekend, why isn't the game played on Sat instead of Sun? Viewers would like it more. Business/Restaurants/Bars likely would, too. (More folks, I'd guess, would go out to see the game on Sat than on Sun, with work on Mon.) Regardless, with all the very serious stuff going on right now, I wonder about a people who can spend so much energy and time on a football game. (Perhaps it's a needed diversion; I don't know, but I don't think so.) I guess that's going to take me a step closer to being tossed out of the "Man Club." (Besides the NFL, I don't care for cars, fast boats, NCAA basketball or football--I received some strange looks this weekend when I noted I didn't watch the NCAA football championship game, which K confirmed--golf, or power tools.)
Do I ask too many questions? I know I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions. I think that harkens back to Socrates (or was it Plato or Plato citing Socrates?), "The unexamined life is not worth living." I do believe that is true, at least for me.
I am worked up about the governor's call for new taxes on the roads. Like anyone with a set of eyes, I realize that our roads are in terrible condition--always in terrible condition. But, more taxes to repair them? I don't think so, at least not yet. The governor (who I think is a wolf in sheep's clothing) needs to convince me of several things before I change my mind. First, my first pay check (for two weeks) of this year was $90 light (and I don't make a lot of money!). Of course, it wasn't all state taxes, but still it was $90 short of what I brought home in Dec's check. And, I haven't filed my 2012 state (or federal) income taxes yet. By most media accounts, those will be higher, too, with increase taxes and fewer deductions/credits. So, then, what is the government doing with my extra money, money they've stolen, er, taken from me? I'd also like to know if businesses are also going to be nailed. Perhaps they will, at the gas pump and with registration. I don't know yet. Will they be exempted? Beats me. But it seems that businesses use the roads a lot more than I do and, an important "and," they also tear up the roads a lot more than I do. I believe Michigan has the highest weight limit for trucks in the entire US. That needs to be addressed before I think that higher taxes are necessary. And, where are the constuction guarantees? Will the road repairers (is that a word?) guarantee that their work will last? This can't be a perpetual cycle.
I think I saw an article this weekend, buried back in the middle pages of the newspaper, that the state unemployment rate has gone up. Hmmmmm...... And, I'd guess, there are lots of folks who aren't looking for jobs anymore, frustration taking root. So, is the rate even higher than that reported? I thought the business tax cut pushed through by the governor was going to fix all that. Of course, the tax cut came without any conditions. Pay fewer taxes, but you don't have to hire more people or even lower prices.
I'm not sure the governor can do anything these last couple of years to persuade me to vote for him. And, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat. I guess it's write-in or third party--again.
I've asked here and in public, with all the crap being done to teachers (and remember, I think many of them deserve it), why would anyone of any competence ever want to be a teacher in this climate? So, these ding-a-lings who think they know how to make schools better (After all, they went to school, so.... It's sort of like, "I played little league baseball so I can manage in the big leagues." Their main efforts at reform are more testing, more testing, more testing....) are going to do so by attracting less competent people? I wonder why their business models don't apply here; to attract the best managers, requisite high pay is required. How interesting that they are selective in what business "best practices" (isn't that a grating, grating term?) to employ? Anyway, one guy this weekend asked, of public sector employees in general, but teachers specifically, why those outside of those jobs are so adamant in asking the teachers to work for 1990s pay. And, that's true. K now, even exclusive of cost of living increases, has the disposable income of about 12 or 15 years ago. I realize some folks have had it tough, some have lost jobs, taken lesser-paying jobs, have had hours cut, etc. But....
And, thanks to this weekend, I finally think I know who's in this year's Super Bowl. I know two brothers, the Harbaughs, are coaching against each other. 49ers v Ravens. How odd it still seems to me to say anything other than "Baltimore Colts." When did that change happen?????? To be honest, I have no interest at all in the game, none. K and I are headed to a Super Bowl Party and that's my only interest. But, as someone noted over the weekend, why isn't the game played on Sat instead of Sun? Viewers would like it more. Business/Restaurants/Bars likely would, too. (More folks, I'd guess, would go out to see the game on Sat than on Sun, with work on Mon.) Regardless, with all the very serious stuff going on right now, I wonder about a people who can spend so much energy and time on a football game. (Perhaps it's a needed diversion; I don't know, but I don't think so.) I guess that's going to take me a step closer to being tossed out of the "Man Club." (Besides the NFL, I don't care for cars, fast boats, NCAA basketball or football--I received some strange looks this weekend when I noted I didn't watch the NCAA football championship game, which K confirmed--golf, or power tools.)
Do I ask too many questions? I know I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions. I think that harkens back to Socrates (or was it Plato or Plato citing Socrates?), "The unexamined life is not worth living." I do believe that is true, at least for me.
I am worked up about the governor's call for new taxes on the roads. Like anyone with a set of eyes, I realize that our roads are in terrible condition--always in terrible condition. But, more taxes to repair them? I don't think so, at least not yet. The governor (who I think is a wolf in sheep's clothing) needs to convince me of several things before I change my mind. First, my first pay check (for two weeks) of this year was $90 light (and I don't make a lot of money!). Of course, it wasn't all state taxes, but still it was $90 short of what I brought home in Dec's check. And, I haven't filed my 2012 state (or federal) income taxes yet. By most media accounts, those will be higher, too, with increase taxes and fewer deductions/credits. So, then, what is the government doing with my extra money, money they've stolen, er, taken from me? I'd also like to know if businesses are also going to be nailed. Perhaps they will, at the gas pump and with registration. I don't know yet. Will they be exempted? Beats me. But it seems that businesses use the roads a lot more than I do and, an important "and," they also tear up the roads a lot more than I do. I believe Michigan has the highest weight limit for trucks in the entire US. That needs to be addressed before I think that higher taxes are necessary. And, where are the constuction guarantees? Will the road repairers (is that a word?) guarantee that their work will last? This can't be a perpetual cycle.
I think I saw an article this weekend, buried back in the middle pages of the newspaper, that the state unemployment rate has gone up. Hmmmmm...... And, I'd guess, there are lots of folks who aren't looking for jobs anymore, frustration taking root. So, is the rate even higher than that reported? I thought the business tax cut pushed through by the governor was going to fix all that. Of course, the tax cut came without any conditions. Pay fewer taxes, but you don't have to hire more people or even lower prices.
I'm not sure the governor can do anything these last couple of years to persuade me to vote for him. And, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat. I guess it's write-in or third party--again.
I've asked here and in public, with all the crap being done to teachers (and remember, I think many of them deserve it), why would anyone of any competence ever want to be a teacher in this climate? So, these ding-a-lings who think they know how to make schools better (After all, they went to school, so.... It's sort of like, "I played little league baseball so I can manage in the big leagues." Their main efforts at reform are more testing, more testing, more testing....) are going to do so by attracting less competent people? I wonder why their business models don't apply here; to attract the best managers, requisite high pay is required. How interesting that they are selective in what business "best practices" (isn't that a grating, grating term?) to employ? Anyway, one guy this weekend asked, of public sector employees in general, but teachers specifically, why those outside of those jobs are so adamant in asking the teachers to work for 1990s pay. And, that's true. K now, even exclusive of cost of living increases, has the disposable income of about 12 or 15 years ago. I realize some folks have had it tough, some have lost jobs, taken lesser-paying jobs, have had hours cut, etc. But....
Friday, January 25, 2013
Outta My Mind on a Fri AM...
...oh, it's Fri afternoon already? Where did Fri morning go? I did sleep in today, all the way to 5:54 AM, but still......
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Individual Drive?
Before my main thrust, I just want to know who cares, who really cares!, if that singer lip-synched the National Anthem at the Inauguration?????? C'mon, the government is spending millions of dollar it doesn't have every minute. Kids are getting shot in every major city every day. Politicans of both parties lie like hell to us, all in the name of knowing what's best for us better than we do. Despite the deceptive reports, the unemployment/underemployment rate in this country is still near 20%. Public education is a shambles, thanks to lousy teachers and administrators and, now, arrogant politicians who think they know what quality education is because, after all, we can run our schools like businesses. And we're worried about some lip-synching and some college football player's online girlfriend.... Surely the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Monday, January 21, 2013
A "Disconnect?"
Isn't that the rather trendy word, "disconnect?" It's when, I guess, things don't quite match up, don't quite follow from each other. Maybe it's a step or two short of hypocrisy?
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
That Mark Twain had a way with words, didn't he? (My favorite of his, though, remains, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yep. I had that one on my classroom bulletin board, there for one and all to see, for years and years and years.)
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
