"Nonjudgmentalism?" Is that even a real word? (It reminds me of Warren Harding's "Return to Normalcy." "Normalcy" wasn't a dictionary word up until the '20 campaign. "Normal," "norm," "normality," "normalness," etc. were, but not "normalcy.")
What is "nonjudgmentalism?" Isn't being so actually making a judgment? Isn't not taking a stand on an issue, be it gay rights, abortion, drug use, etc., actually taking a stand?
If one, for instance, in the extreme, is a pornographer and another says, "I don't want to be judgmental" about the pornography/er, isn't the other, clearly, standing up for pornography? It seems to be to be the case. (BTW, who got rid of the "e" in "judgment," as opposed to "judgement?" I believe the English still include it and, after all, isn't it their language?)
And, what about "drawing the line?" Why are we afraid to "draw the line?" Is that another instance of being "judgmental?" I read a column yesterday from a columnist I respect, but had to shake my head at his thesis, "the politics of fear." It seemed he was concerned about people being "judgmental," at "drawing the line." Maybe I misread his intentions, but that's what I picked up from his piece.
Using the extreme example above, why are we unwilling to draw the line at censoring pornographers? Are we willing to let our kids watch/read pornography? Is it that we think pornography is only for "mature" people/adults? What is "mature" about, say, watching women do pole dances or lap dances? (Is that any more "mature" than putting paper/cardboard in people's shoes at the door when they remove them? Insiders will know....)
Why are we so unwilling to stand up for what we believe? Or, don't we believe in anything any more? In schools, passing students who clearly don't deserve to pass (from "social promotions" to whatever reasons), giving out grades that students don't clearly deserve, etc. is being "judgmental." Think about that one.
Back to the article I read yesterday or Thur or whenever. "The politics of fear...." Hmmm. Do we have cause to be afraid, frightened? Maybe concerned is another word I could use, but that's just playing with semantics. And, maybe, just maybe, we should be playing "the politics of fear." How else to get Americans out of their doldrums? Does anyone really think we are headed in the right direction--economically, morally, etc.? Maybe some do; I don't know. My guess is most are not concerned, except for what's on American Idol or who wins the ballgame. The "I, Me, Mine" generations have taken roost and seem unwilling to move from their perches. It's not me I am concerned about--it's my kids and, esp, grandkids. What are we leaving them? The goal of past generations was to leave a nation in which their kids and grandkids could enjoy better lives than those generations had. And, it worked! They took two or more jobs. They sacrificed with one parent (mom?) staying home instead of earning a second income. They didn't take cruises and extended vacations, buy every toy out there, or spend, spend, spend. They did things for their kids' futures, not immediate gratification such as buying all the latest stuff. Yes, I do "fear" for the future. But, it's not for my sake. It's what we are doing to the future.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Education
Certainly a wrong turn was made in education when somebodies (the education-types) decided education had to be "relevant." This likely came from the '50s' and, esp, '60s' movements, was fostered in the '70s, and became established in the '80s.
First, what is "relevant?" What does that mean? Who decides what is "relevant" and what isn't? Isn't that handing over education to the students, who, without question, have no real idea what education is supposed to be yet? Haven't, then, the "education-types" relinquished, even abdicated, their obligations, allowing students to determine what is to be learned--under the guise of "relevance?"
Of course, the "education-types" would argue otherwise. They are believers in "relevance" or what they call "relevancy." (Like the use of the the word competency for competence, this, to me, grates like fingernails on the blackboard.) And, these "education-types" are those with the educational experiences that are least rigorous and with the least quality. And they are now making the decisions.
Woe is us!
First, what is "relevant?" What does that mean? Who decides what is "relevant" and what isn't? Isn't that handing over education to the students, who, without question, have no real idea what education is supposed to be yet? Haven't, then, the "education-types" relinquished, even abdicated, their obligations, allowing students to determine what is to be learned--under the guise of "relevance?"
Of course, the "education-types" would argue otherwise. They are believers in "relevance" or what they call "relevancy." (Like the use of the the word competency for competence, this, to me, grates like fingernails on the blackboard.) And, these "education-types" are those with the educational experiences that are least rigorous and with the least quality. And they are now making the decisions.
Woe is us!
Hippy Rock Music?
A book I'm reading lays much blame on hippy rock music (OK, she calls it "rock 'n' roll") for today's ills. Maybe, but I'm wondering if she's giving it too much credit (not blame, but credit).
For instance, she notes the openness rock has with sexual activity. OK, I guess. I was listening to "Blue Moon" on the radio yesterday and thought of this book. How different the sentiment in "Blue Moon" and, let's say, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road?" Does that make any difference? Again, I wonder. No doubt, "Road" is crass and, IMHO, not nearly the song that "Blue Moon" is. Yet, do songs/music make a difference?
Do people actually listen to the words? I guess, obviously, today they must. Since there is no real music in much of today's rap/hip hop, etc., they only thing is to listen to the words? Maybe. But earlier rock and even the screamin' stuff of today...can the words even be understood? "Louie Louie" is the usual example, but who can understand much of what the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, etc. "sing" (I'm using that term loosely)? So, if we can't understand the words, how can the word have an effect on us? Just asking....
Is this much ado about nothing? Or is it a small piece of a larger problem/phenomenon?
For instance, she notes the openness rock has with sexual activity. OK, I guess. I was listening to "Blue Moon" on the radio yesterday and thought of this book. How different the sentiment in "Blue Moon" and, let's say, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road?" Does that make any difference? Again, I wonder. No doubt, "Road" is crass and, IMHO, not nearly the song that "Blue Moon" is. Yet, do songs/music make a difference?
Do people actually listen to the words? I guess, obviously, today they must. Since there is no real music in much of today's rap/hip hop, etc., they only thing is to listen to the words? Maybe. But earlier rock and even the screamin' stuff of today...can the words even be understood? "Louie Louie" is the usual example, but who can understand much of what the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, etc. "sing" (I'm using that term loosely)? So, if we can't understand the words, how can the word have an effect on us? Just asking....
Is this much ado about nothing? Or is it a small piece of a larger problem/phenomenon?
The Queen's English
No doubt, we don't speak English the "English way," whatever that is. But is it a sign of the times that our command of the language seems to be on the decline. I'm not talking about our everyday, even street-level usage, but that used to convey so-called "important" ideas. Have we "dumbed-down" our language?
No doubt language is important. The list of reasons is practically endless. To lose the use of some of it would certainly be debilitating.
What brought this on was listening, briefly, to the radio this AM. I don't know the name of the author being interviewed or even the interviewers (I think they were sitting in for Bill Bennett). But all three of them just butchered the language. They mismatched verbs with subjects, overused the pretentious "whomever," etc. Can people who don't speak properly be taken seriously? Maybe they can, but maybe not.
It sure would eliminate that question if they just could speak properly.
I'm not going to even start on what is heard on television.
No doubt language is important. The list of reasons is practically endless. To lose the use of some of it would certainly be debilitating.
What brought this on was listening, briefly, to the radio this AM. I don't know the name of the author being interviewed or even the interviewers (I think they were sitting in for Bill Bennett). But all three of them just butchered the language. They mismatched verbs with subjects, overused the pretentious "whomever," etc. Can people who don't speak properly be taken seriously? Maybe they can, but maybe not.
It sure would eliminate that question if they just could speak properly.
I'm not going to even start on what is heard on television.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
What Have We Done?
Again, just considering some things from the past few days:
In a book I'm reading, the author contends that today's adults want to be teen-agers forever. This wish, she holds, leads us to dress, behave, etc. like adolescents, not adults. And, she writes, it is leading to the current demise of American culture. Hmmmm.... I was somewhat taken aback that, of current Sponge Robert Square Pants viewers, 23% are those older than 21! And, I think it's a silly thing, not good for kids and not funny enough for adults (as opposed to, say, The Three Stooges!). The author also talked about the clothes current adults wear, the Levis and sweats, backward hats, casual running shoes, etc., being extensions of the desire to remain teen-agers. I really have to think about that one. I wear Levis, sweats, and old running shoes because they are comfortable. She decries the lack of "dressing up" by adults, even in situations "requiring" dress-up. Maybe here I see it. I note at weddings, Chris functions, even funerals how few adults really dress up. Some do wear sweaters and nicer slacks, but few wear suits and ties, nice dresses, etc. And far too many come in sweatsuits (however designer-made!) and worse. My dad always wore a suit and tie to family functions and the above. I will usually wear a tie, always to family holiday gatherings (usually alone), to more formal gatherings and even somewhat less formal affairs. Now, I might have on Levis, but a collared, button-down shirt with a tie is usually the attire for me. I note walking into a school nowadays and seeing so few ties and coats, nicer dresses/pant suits and so many sweatsuits, Levis, etc. I wonder if that is reflective of other, more important matters--and I really think it is.
At the end of our 3rd-grade basketball season, one of our players asked me, "Where are our trophies?" Those who know me know my strong feelings on this--it's garbage of the worst sort. It's very destructive and serves no positive purpose. I don't blame the kid, much. Apparently he didn't remember we won 2 games of 16, that most of our defeats were by 10 points or more, to kids who can't shoot, dribble, rebound--frankly, can't play basketball very well. "Trophes?" Who started this crap, everyone gets a trophy? "Participation trophy" they are called. Hey, I played on three national championship baseball teams and we received black bats with all of our teammates' name emblazoned on them each year--that's it. And for winning state championships each of those years, we received diddly, squat. I don't think we were deprived of anything. Nobody thought anything of it. No wonder some many kids expect their high schools to have million dollar football fields, multi-million dollar field houses, etc. Again, what have we done?
An editorial this AM asked a good question, "How do we want to punish lawbreakers?" He differentiated between those who we fear and those at whom we are angry. I suggest, somewhat opposed to the editorial, that we need to imprison both. The editor thought we might save money by releasing or not even imprisoning nonviolent criminals. I don't like that idea. I might buy into his argument that we might not throw in jail those who otherwise have good records, but have made rash, stupid decisions. He noted that the cost for housing a prisoner each year is $40,000. Whoa! Why so high? I'd love to see a breakdown on costs. What food is given to prisoners? Anything better than hot dogs, sausages, etc.--government surplus--is not necessary and should be stopped forthwith. Do prisoners really get cable television, fitness facilities, opportunities for college degrees (do the professors work for free???), etc.? Why? And what is to stop, as a condition for parole, early release, garnishing wages to repay some of the $40,000 for each year? Why not take $3,000 or even $5,000 a year from these parolees until their total debt has been repaid?
I see where some community and technical colleges are offering guarantees to graduates--if they graduate and don't have jobs within a year, they are refunded their tuition. Well, OK. But, there are far too many variables. Did these graduates really deserve to graduate? Did they get through because, well frankly, as long as students put in their time, they usually get passing grades? Did their instructors hold them to rigorous programs/standards. Or, did they just hand out grades?
That was on my mind last week as I told students about an academic scholarship available to them, with some conditions. Two of the requirements were 2.5 overall GPA and 3.25 GPA in history courses. From what I understand, the 2.5, at least, would not be a concern for anyone, since the average grade at the school is 3.1 (or so I was told). I thought, "Doesn't the benefactor of this scholarship deserve to know that the 2.5 (or even 3.25) GPAs are legitimage?" I'd think so and I guess I'd be about the only one who did. But, that said, I know some top-flight students there who I'd hope would apply--they are deserving.
The next time you are at some little kids' games or activities, watch their parents. These cam be athletic contests or just play in a park. Check to see home many of their parents aren't paying the least attention to what their kids are doing. Note how many are on their cell phones, talking or tweeting or Internet surfing or anything other than giving their kids their attention. Isn't that pathetic? Oh, I again realize I might be the only one who thinks so. But parents can't even forget about themselves for a while and give some attention, real attention, to their kids? Are they so wrapped up in themselves or material things or gadgets or whatever to share in the ultimate joys of watching their kids at play????? Note above about "the death of adulthood," "participation trophies" (oh, I bet the parents are keen on those!), etc.
Out....
In a book I'm reading, the author contends that today's adults want to be teen-agers forever. This wish, she holds, leads us to dress, behave, etc. like adolescents, not adults. And, she writes, it is leading to the current demise of American culture. Hmmmm.... I was somewhat taken aback that, of current Sponge Robert Square Pants viewers, 23% are those older than 21! And, I think it's a silly thing, not good for kids and not funny enough for adults (as opposed to, say, The Three Stooges!). The author also talked about the clothes current adults wear, the Levis and sweats, backward hats, casual running shoes, etc., being extensions of the desire to remain teen-agers. I really have to think about that one. I wear Levis, sweats, and old running shoes because they are comfortable. She decries the lack of "dressing up" by adults, even in situations "requiring" dress-up. Maybe here I see it. I note at weddings, Chris functions, even funerals how few adults really dress up. Some do wear sweaters and nicer slacks, but few wear suits and ties, nice dresses, etc. And far too many come in sweatsuits (however designer-made!) and worse. My dad always wore a suit and tie to family functions and the above. I will usually wear a tie, always to family holiday gatherings (usually alone), to more formal gatherings and even somewhat less formal affairs. Now, I might have on Levis, but a collared, button-down shirt with a tie is usually the attire for me. I note walking into a school nowadays and seeing so few ties and coats, nicer dresses/pant suits and so many sweatsuits, Levis, etc. I wonder if that is reflective of other, more important matters--and I really think it is.
At the end of our 3rd-grade basketball season, one of our players asked me, "Where are our trophies?" Those who know me know my strong feelings on this--it's garbage of the worst sort. It's very destructive and serves no positive purpose. I don't blame the kid, much. Apparently he didn't remember we won 2 games of 16, that most of our defeats were by 10 points or more, to kids who can't shoot, dribble, rebound--frankly, can't play basketball very well. "Trophes?" Who started this crap, everyone gets a trophy? "Participation trophy" they are called. Hey, I played on three national championship baseball teams and we received black bats with all of our teammates' name emblazoned on them each year--that's it. And for winning state championships each of those years, we received diddly, squat. I don't think we were deprived of anything. Nobody thought anything of it. No wonder some many kids expect their high schools to have million dollar football fields, multi-million dollar field houses, etc. Again, what have we done?
An editorial this AM asked a good question, "How do we want to punish lawbreakers?" He differentiated between those who we fear and those at whom we are angry. I suggest, somewhat opposed to the editorial, that we need to imprison both. The editor thought we might save money by releasing or not even imprisoning nonviolent criminals. I don't like that idea. I might buy into his argument that we might not throw in jail those who otherwise have good records, but have made rash, stupid decisions. He noted that the cost for housing a prisoner each year is $40,000. Whoa! Why so high? I'd love to see a breakdown on costs. What food is given to prisoners? Anything better than hot dogs, sausages, etc.--government surplus--is not necessary and should be stopped forthwith. Do prisoners really get cable television, fitness facilities, opportunities for college degrees (do the professors work for free???), etc.? Why? And what is to stop, as a condition for parole, early release, garnishing wages to repay some of the $40,000 for each year? Why not take $3,000 or even $5,000 a year from these parolees until their total debt has been repaid?
I see where some community and technical colleges are offering guarantees to graduates--if they graduate and don't have jobs within a year, they are refunded their tuition. Well, OK. But, there are far too many variables. Did these graduates really deserve to graduate? Did they get through because, well frankly, as long as students put in their time, they usually get passing grades? Did their instructors hold them to rigorous programs/standards. Or, did they just hand out grades?
That was on my mind last week as I told students about an academic scholarship available to them, with some conditions. Two of the requirements were 2.5 overall GPA and 3.25 GPA in history courses. From what I understand, the 2.5, at least, would not be a concern for anyone, since the average grade at the school is 3.1 (or so I was told). I thought, "Doesn't the benefactor of this scholarship deserve to know that the 2.5 (or even 3.25) GPAs are legitimage?" I'd think so and I guess I'd be about the only one who did. But, that said, I know some top-flight students there who I'd hope would apply--they are deserving.
The next time you are at some little kids' games or activities, watch their parents. These cam be athletic contests or just play in a park. Check to see home many of their parents aren't paying the least attention to what their kids are doing. Note how many are on their cell phones, talking or tweeting or Internet surfing or anything other than giving their kids their attention. Isn't that pathetic? Oh, I again realize I might be the only one who thinks so. But parents can't even forget about themselves for a while and give some attention, real attention, to their kids? Are they so wrapped up in themselves or material things or gadgets or whatever to share in the ultimate joys of watching their kids at play????? Note above about "the death of adulthood," "participation trophies" (oh, I bet the parents are keen on those!), etc.
Out....
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Epiphany
I had an awakening in class the other day. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
I was going some "facts" about WW1 and, right in the middle of the lecture, realized that nobody at Amherst taught us the "facts" such as the sinking of the Lusitania, who the Central Powers were, etc. We were expected to already know them! After all, we did graduate from high school, didn't we?
My professors assumed we knew those things and took off from there.... How novel!
I was going some "facts" about WW1 and, right in the middle of the lecture, realized that nobody at Amherst taught us the "facts" such as the sinking of the Lusitania, who the Central Powers were, etc. We were expected to already know them! After all, we did graduate from high school, didn't we?
My professors assumed we knew those things and took off from there.... How novel!
Fact v Theory
Sometimes the line between fact and theory becomes obfuscated, blurred beyond recognition so that, indeed, theory becomes fact. And, how dangerous is that?
Who, but an absolute imbecile deserving of immediate dismissal, ridicule, and ostracism, would argue against "fact?" Of course, what is fact? Is man-made global warming a fact? Is even "global warming" a fact? Well, according to some people it/they are. My own US Senator, in a reply to an e-mail I sent her, dismissed my concerns with our gov't's rash reactions to "global warming" with "the facts are settled." And, as any first semester logic student knows, they are not. Theory is not fact.
The Depression was a catastrophe for the overwhelming majority of people. It devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Those are facts. The New Deal was FDR's attempt to end the Depression. And, the Depression did end. Those, too, are facts. Now, that FDR's New Deal ended the Depression or even eased it are not facts, but theories. I, then, remain amazed that when I present this is class students resort to "the New Deal ended the Depression." Somebody somewhere, a lot of somebodies in a lot of somewheres, must be teaching this. I know most textbooks hold this to be "a fact." And, since it is a "fact," to argue against it is, well, see above.
That I can present facts and figures that suggest the Depression wasn't ended by the New Deal, that, in fact, it may well have prolonged it, is not accepted by most of my students. (Note the answers on their essays!) I don't say, in class, that it did or didn't. I merely indicate that it isn't at all clear that the New Deal had a positive effect on the New Deal devastation. (Of course, I personally believe it didn't help much if at all, economically, and that, in other areas, was very deleterious, the evils we are experiencing to this day.)
The same goes for the Versailles Treaty and the standard "fact" that it led to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, etc. Those are theories, again, held by most textbooks, historians, etc. For me to present them as theories, not facts, is often met with skepticism by students (well, the handful who remember their other history classes in high school and college or who watch the History Channels) who have been told otherwise. That I present facts and figures to buttress my contention (a theory, not a fact) does little to persuade them.
The danger in this is obvious. Politically, well, note the "man-made global warming" argument. How many billions of dollars are invested (wasted?) in countering this "fact?" And, until recently with the discovery of the fraud among scientists, this is exactly what happened. What are the global warming alarmists doing to counteract the discovery of fraud? Yep, falling back on the "fact" of global warming. How many other instances/examples can we find of this? In the schools, try arguing against the latest folly being perpetrated as fact. In fact, most of these follies aren't just theories, but stupid theories. But to argue that isn't arguing against stupid theories, but against fact. That, certainly, leads to dismissal, riducule, and ostracism. What narrow, narrow minds! We find this even in some of our most prestigious universities. (U of M, are you listening? Of course not.)
Hence, the argument for a strong, rigorous, quality education--not the type most teachers have today. But, that's a dead horse I've been beating for decades and nobody believes my "theory."
See this in practice with the "health care debate," how much better the socialized medicine of European nations is than ours. Don't argue otherwise; that's a known fact. Even if you uncover the fallacy of this fact, you don't get anywhere. Who in his right mind can argue that Cuban medicine/health care isn't far superior than ours? After all, Michael Moore made a movie all about it! Speaking of "right minds," what American would opt to hop on a plane bound for Havana for treatment instead of even the hospital right down the road? I rest my case.... Where else do you want to go? Cap and tax? Raising taxes to increase gov't revenues and fix the economy? The list is endless.
Where is our vaunted college education? Why don't we see through such illogic? As I think I finally figured out, today's colleges (the majority of them, at least) are now doing the jobs that previous generations' junior highs and high schools did. That is, a college degree (the work required, the lessons and information learned) of today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of 30-40 years ago.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!
Who, but an absolute imbecile deserving of immediate dismissal, ridicule, and ostracism, would argue against "fact?" Of course, what is fact? Is man-made global warming a fact? Is even "global warming" a fact? Well, according to some people it/they are. My own US Senator, in a reply to an e-mail I sent her, dismissed my concerns with our gov't's rash reactions to "global warming" with "the facts are settled." And, as any first semester logic student knows, they are not. Theory is not fact.
The Depression was a catastrophe for the overwhelming majority of people. It devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Those are facts. The New Deal was FDR's attempt to end the Depression. And, the Depression did end. Those, too, are facts. Now, that FDR's New Deal ended the Depression or even eased it are not facts, but theories. I, then, remain amazed that when I present this is class students resort to "the New Deal ended the Depression." Somebody somewhere, a lot of somebodies in a lot of somewheres, must be teaching this. I know most textbooks hold this to be "a fact." And, since it is a "fact," to argue against it is, well, see above.
That I can present facts and figures that suggest the Depression wasn't ended by the New Deal, that, in fact, it may well have prolonged it, is not accepted by most of my students. (Note the answers on their essays!) I don't say, in class, that it did or didn't. I merely indicate that it isn't at all clear that the New Deal had a positive effect on the New Deal devastation. (Of course, I personally believe it didn't help much if at all, economically, and that, in other areas, was very deleterious, the evils we are experiencing to this day.)
The same goes for the Versailles Treaty and the standard "fact" that it led to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, etc. Those are theories, again, held by most textbooks, historians, etc. For me to present them as theories, not facts, is often met with skepticism by students (well, the handful who remember their other history classes in high school and college or who watch the History Channels) who have been told otherwise. That I present facts and figures to buttress my contention (a theory, not a fact) does little to persuade them.
The danger in this is obvious. Politically, well, note the "man-made global warming" argument. How many billions of dollars are invested (wasted?) in countering this "fact?" And, until recently with the discovery of the fraud among scientists, this is exactly what happened. What are the global warming alarmists doing to counteract the discovery of fraud? Yep, falling back on the "fact" of global warming. How many other instances/examples can we find of this? In the schools, try arguing against the latest folly being perpetrated as fact. In fact, most of these follies aren't just theories, but stupid theories. But to argue that isn't arguing against stupid theories, but against fact. That, certainly, leads to dismissal, riducule, and ostracism. What narrow, narrow minds! We find this even in some of our most prestigious universities. (U of M, are you listening? Of course not.)
Hence, the argument for a strong, rigorous, quality education--not the type most teachers have today. But, that's a dead horse I've been beating for decades and nobody believes my "theory."
See this in practice with the "health care debate," how much better the socialized medicine of European nations is than ours. Don't argue otherwise; that's a known fact. Even if you uncover the fallacy of this fact, you don't get anywhere. Who in his right mind can argue that Cuban medicine/health care isn't far superior than ours? After all, Michael Moore made a movie all about it! Speaking of "right minds," what American would opt to hop on a plane bound for Havana for treatment instead of even the hospital right down the road? I rest my case.... Where else do you want to go? Cap and tax? Raising taxes to increase gov't revenues and fix the economy? The list is endless.
Where is our vaunted college education? Why don't we see through such illogic? As I think I finally figured out, today's colleges (the majority of them, at least) are now doing the jobs that previous generations' junior highs and high schools did. That is, a college degree (the work required, the lessons and information learned) of today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of 30-40 years ago.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
