Good and Bad

In the past month or so I've visited the idyllic Amherst, MA and the eccentric Strip of Las Vegas, NV. Wow! These are two completely different cultures, no, different worlds! What a contrast!

Just to remind people, my pension is not the problem with what's wrong today. I (and my pension) had nothing to do with giving money to incompetent and greedy CEOs on Wall Street, the banks, the auto companies, etc. We had nothing to do with Fannie Mae and the incredible story of gov't malfeasance (from Congress and the President to the independent agencies) that ruined the home market. We had nothing to do with state legislators and a governor who decided it was easy to spend other people's money (even money they don't have!) like drunken sailors. Need I go on?

A couple of recent court rulings defy credibility. No, I'm not talking about that case where it sure seems like the mother murdered her little daughter, but was acquitted. She might well be innocent, although her behavior was outrageous and despicable. From what I understand, that's all the prosecution had, evidence of outrageous and despicable behavior. Not only couldn't the prosecution say who murdered the poor little one, but neither could it say how the child was killed. No, not that case. The Supremes last week said Calif can't regulate violent video games sold to children. I read some of the reasoning in the majority opinion by Justice Scalia. It falls woefully short of the usually stellar thinking Scalia gives us. In fact, this defies logic. So, in sum, it's OK to keep pornography from a 14-year old, but not violent stuff? A 13-year old can't see a naked woman, but can play a video game in which he strips her down to almost the bare essentials and then tortures and murders her? Utterly ridiculous. The ruling isn't even consistent with the normally conservative views of Scalia and his supporters. Foolish ruling indeed. And the 6th Circuit ruled Michigan's law against affirmative action in college admissions is illegal. What? The law, patterned after other states' and the federal civil rights laws, was passed in an initiative by about 16%, a sizable majority (in an election, that's certainly a landslide). If the law doesn't discriminate (and it doesn't), if it doesn't violate the Constitution or federal law (and it doesn't), how can it be illegal? It is troubling because, once again, it is a sign that some people think they are smarter than the rest of us. That's OK, as long as the self-anointed aren't in positions of government and can dictate their own views of what is "right" or "wrong." Like the financial managers, the czars, these judges are threatening "government of the people, by the people, for the people." They are undemocratic.

What if, in light of these self-anointed elitists, "We the People" just said, "No!"?????? What if we decided to take our gov't and, indeed, our country back? What happens when the government and its officials are corrupt, stupid, or undemocratic? Are we bound to accept what they do and rule?

Did you see the Time Mag article on the Founders? It's online somewhere and was written, I expect, for Independence Day. It's also all wrong. The author, whoever the guy is, is ignorant of the Founding. He has no idea what the Founders were doing. Like the czars, judges, etc., he must be convinced he knows more than we do and is smarter than we are. Find the article and read it--you'll find out he's wrong, not only about the Founders. He doesn't know more than we do and he's not smarter than we are.

Speaking of history, I see another recent study came out and showed how woefully ignorant of US History our students are--from jr high to high school to college. Very few know even the basics of their own country's history. That then makes it a lot easier for demagogues to make outrageous claims about the US. How can anyone, for instance, who knows anything of US History believe a President who claims the US "isn't exceptional?"

Again, I laugh (not Ha Ha funny) at the educational "reformers." They are all wet. C'mon, what message is being sent (and received) when we glorify and make multi-millionaires of very mediocre athletes and entertainers (I'm being generous here)? This wasn't the case in previous generations, when education, not athletics or entertainment, was seen as the stepping stone to a good life. There's another thing that will have to change before education is really "reformed." What are the odds of that happening?

How about evaluations for politicians and corporate executives? Everyone is all worked up about evaluating teachers. Anyone who knows me also knows I think far too many people are teaching who shouldn't be. And, that goes double for administrators. But let's try evaluating the pols and CEOs--that is, without the lies and distortions that accompany them.

While in Las Vegas, I read the local papers for several days. (I'm not a big fan of USA Today, pabulum in my view.) But the op-ed pages in LV newspapers had some very good articles, columns, editorials, and letters. Not all of the ideas reflected mine, but they were good ideas, well-presented and convincing. There are some smart people in this nation--why do we listen to those who aren't so smart?