Some Quick Thoughts

I read an article in today's newspaper about Terri Lynn Land's dreadful candidacy for the US Senate seat from Michigan.  It concerned what we can learn from it, the defeat.  I think I took something far different than the columnist intended.  I still can't understand how the margin was so large, about 30% or so.  OK, Land's campaign was rotten and she certainly didn't appear prepared to be a US Senator.  But I guess my view is a bit different.  How many great campaigners have been to the US Senate and been rotten Senators?  I think a lot of them have and can think of quite a few right now.  I still can't understand how people could vote for a guy like Gary Peters, with his record as a career politician, a typical Democrat who never met a tax he didn't like, someone who voted for ObamaCare.  So, Land's campaign was terrible.  I'd suggest Peters' run as a politician has been equally so.

And I must be losing it, not able to understand how people think--or maybe they don't?  One of the big gripes against Rick Snyder as governor was his signature on the bill that taxed public employees' pensions, not all of the pensions, but above $20,000 for individual filers and double that for couples. I would guess, then, that most pensioners paid, if anything, a few hundred bucks.  Now, I don't like that, giving more of my money to people who waste much of it, but c'mon......  Consider Mark Schauer, Snyder's opponent for governor.  Again, a typical Democrat who has voted many times to raise our taxes and, although vague during the campaign, seemed to want to raise them again if elected.  Why were so many, esp retired teachers, upset with Snyder and pension taxes, but supportive of Schauer and his history of increasing taxes?  And, going back to Peters' vote for ObamaCare, I've paid about three times as much in one year thanks to ObamaCare as I've paid in two years of pension taxes.  I know, I know, I've said this before, but it bears repeating if only to try to get through to the hypocrites (if possible), if taxes are so good, that they help government solve all problems by throwing more money at them, why don't the doo-gooders (and, again, I certainly mean "doo") embrace higher taxes such as on their pensions or, better yet, voluntarily give money to the gov't?  I know why and so do they--other people should pay more, not them.

I think it's a sad state of affairs regarding schools, education, teaching, and learning.  I read another article that led me to think, again, about this.  Students today are looking for ways to gain future material rewards or advantages to get such rewards.  That is, they are looking for ways to find jobs that pay more money.  That's all education has become.  No longer do they seek to find themselves or discover their interests through education.  There is no learning for the joy of learning.  In other words, as I've written and said many times before, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"  Working hard as a matter of principle has disappeared.  Surely, this doesn't describe all students--from all grades, at least those who can figure such things, but esp high school and college.  Unfortunately, though, this describes too many, a number that is growing I fear.

And, such attitudes are aided and abetted by some who should know better.  That is, those in the education establishment have fostered them.  Why should students do well, go on to college?  Well, of course, it's to "get a better job," earn more money, etc.  Do teachers ever talk about the love of learning?  Do they ever get away from teaching to those dreaded, dastardly state tests?

In this, teachers and administrators who blindly go along with the decidedly misnamed "reforms" in education are helped by parents who want the high grades so their children can get into "the best" schools, of course, to then enhance their future earnings.  (More about that later.)  And, of course, let's not let the politicians and corporate-types off the hook.  They do are culpable.  Look at their insistence on the Common Core, designed to create little-thinking minions for the corporate/business world.  It's a said state of affairs and is not at all likely to improve, esp since "reform" seems to have taken on a new meaning, one not associated with "better."

With this I have thought about the requirement in Michigan that students take two years of algebra.  Why is that?  Oh, I think students should take math each and every year, just not necessarily algebra.  Maybe even one year of algebra isn't necessary, but I'm willing to concede that one year.  But, again, some math should always be on a student's schedule.  Why do the politicians and corporate-types insist on two years of algebra?  I'm tempted to ask my math friends to draw up a typical algebra test and then have all those politicians favoring the algebra requirement take it.  Why do I strongly suspect they wouldn't do very well?   Oh, there's more on math, for instance, no longer is there a necessity to know multiplication tables or division by sight.  Oh no, not them.  Students must now be able to reason out why, say 5 X 6 equal 30.  How silly!  It just is; that' good enough for the vast majority of math students.  Those math majors interested in math theory, etc., can explore the "reasons."  I don't need to know why my car runs or why my computer works in order to use them effectively.  Let's put it this way, I can do college calculus, but have to sometimes struggle to help my granddaughter do third grade math--the questions are so bad!  And, in being able to do that calculus, guess what, I don't have to know what the new math thinks is necessary to do multiplication and division.  Once again, we've let people with their eyes on money run things.

Shame on us......