Money

I got a big kick out of this AM's newspaper, specifically an op-ed decrying all the money involved in politics.  As might be expected of this newspaper, the targets of the spending spree were the Republicans.  And that well, might be so.  I do not identify as a Republican.  But I'll have to re-read the column.  It seems I missed any mention of Democrat Debbie Stabenow's war chest of millions of dollars, stored up for the 2018 campaign and election.  Yeah,I must have missed any such mention.

Speaking of money in politics, here's a novel idea.  Well, it's not novel; I have broached it before.  There are still many cries against the Supremes decision in the Citizens United case.  I am of two minds about it.  One, I don't like limiting spending based on what government rules.  Two, I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is sent to the electric chair.  But that's all for another time.  Maybe this would solve the problem of overspending.  Why don't voters discover what candidate has raised the most money and then vote for the other guy?  If both of the major candidates have raised nearly equal amounts, vote for a third party candidate.  A few such successful messages might get the attention of those running for office.

Surely our election system is insanity personified.  Why do our campaigns last months, years even?  That must be a big reason why we spend obscene amounts on politics, in effect, establishing a "pay-to-play" system.  How democratic is that?  I wonder if it is constitutional to limit campaigns to weeks, maybe five or six or them.  I'm not a big fan of doing something just because "other countries do it," but other countries do limit campaigns.  What candidate cannot get his or her message out in five or six weeks?  If he or she can't, then that should be a reason not to vote for him or her.

Talk about insanity......  Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of articles on how to improve schools.  Every single one of them came from an education-establishment writer.  Now, how crazy is that?  We turn for solutions to the very people who created the education mess in the first place!  I'm sure nobody will try this approach.  Decades ago, the US educational system was the envy of the entire world (well, outside of the commie world).  Sometime, in the late '60s or early '70s, we lost our edge, our top position.  We fell and, according to many of the claims, fell fast.  Often, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in the area of quality education.  (I'm just citing what many claim.)  Why don't we go back, year-by-year, and discover the first indications of failing.  See what we did before and after, that is what worked well and what later didn't work so well.  Then we can return to what really worked.

I know, I know......  "But students learn differently today!"  I would argue maybe so, that the "difference" lies in that many of them don't learn much, if anything at all.  Perhaps a return to what actually taught students should be explored.

Consider, too, that many of our institutions of higher learning remain the best in the world.  Why don't we see what they do and adapt their practices to other levels?

I've never seen these proposals anywhere at any time.  I heard some guy this weekend blaming "those teachers' unions" for the decline in education.  If anyone still believes the teachers' unions are responsible for the demise of education they are either delusional or very ignorant.  One article I read decried the calls for "More Money!" for schools.  He cited evidence that the US spends more money on education than other countries, yet doesn't get much bang for the buck.  Here's something to consider.  I don't deny that we spend "more money," but I do want to ask this:  If that's so, why are our teachers paid so little?  (I recognize that many teachers aren't worth what little they get, but that's no reason at all to penalize the good ones with salaries that are insulting!)

I understand, but don't understand, the public perceptions and even animosity toward teachers.  Recently, one guy noted that he made "$150,000 a year quite a few times."  I noted that's more than two times what I ever was paid in a year for teaching.  He wasn't deterred, "But I was working 50 and 60 hours a week......"  First, I know no good teachers who worked only 40 hours a week.  (When he was in high school, I once asked one of my sons what he wanted to do when he grew up.  There was a lot of hesitation, so I offered, "What about teaching?"  I barely got it out of my mouth when he spit out, "No!"  I asked why not and he replied, "You work too much.")  Second, apparently this guy isn't so hot at math.  Even at 60 hours a week, he worked 50% more than I did, but was paid 200% or more than I was.  In part thanks to the society/culture we have created where making more and more money to buy more and more things is the goal, what college student is going to spend all that money and time (including that wasted year of student teaching) to come earn $35,000 a year to start, with hopes of topping out in the $50,000 or $60,000 range?  I suppose it's one thing that teachers in, say, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills can't afford houses in their school districts, but young teachers here struggle to buy homes where they teach.

So, I guess a legitimate question to ask is where all this money is going??????  I know and, as I have told several local school board members, until they address my concerns I will refuse to vote for any millage increases or bond proposals--and I will urge my friends and neighbors to do the same.  (I guess the board members/schools are lucky I don't have many friends.)

Baseball.  I am very glad to see Justin Verlander doing so well in Houston.  I hope he get to the World Series and wins a ring!  I'm also sad to see Brad Ausmus let go.  I know a lot of folks don't like him, think he was a bad manager, etc.  I'm not one of them.  He didn't give himself a lousy bullpen every year.  He didn't give himself outfielders who can't catch.  He didn't sign flop after flop the past few seasons.  (Well, not every signee was a flop!)  I disagreed with him at times, but never thought he didn't know the game; we just have different philosophies on how best to play the game.  But, like so, much, everybody knows everything.  After all, everyone played little league......