William Seward wrote, "guardian angel of the nation." Our most eloquent President changed that to "the better angels of our nature." Seward suggested "ancient music." The President-elect decided on "mystic chords of memory."
Instead of "87 years ago" or even "In 1776," he penned "Four score and seven years ago...."
Gee, did I fool anyone? Of course, despite the silly rhetoric about our current President, Abraham Lincoln remains, hands down, our most eloquent President.
And there are other lessons to be learned other than not believing what the Kool-Aid drinkers write and say. Lincoln didn't just write these things off the top of his head. He often thought and thought, over days and sometimes weeks, about what he'd write or say. He researched his ideas and, frequently submitted them (as he did to Seward) to others to discover better ideas, if there were any. That is, he worked hard at what he wrote and said because, as he knew, ideas and words matter. He was tolerant of different ideas, listening to them, perhaps finding them to be superior to his own, in small ways or big. Opposition should not be silenced (although I'm familiar with the contradictions Lincoln had in the Civil War, perhaps justifiable under the circumstances!).
I'm really appreciative that one of my students gave me a book of Lincoln's speeches. I, of course, can find them in different books. But this book of Lincoln's speeches has them all together, in one place.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
College Sports
The college bowl season is upon us (or, rather, some of you). The money will come flowing in to the colleges. And, after the hype of the bowl games cools a bit, there will be more talk of paying the college athletes, namely the football and basketball players.
Despite all of the money that Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and like universities get from football and basketball, most Division I schools I am told actually lose money. Oh, the big conferences like the SEC and Big Ten (How can it be called "Big Ten" when there are more than ten schools?) still roll in football and basketball dollars. But those not fortunate enough to be in one of those five or six conferences struggle. I'd guess that's why, say, the University of Maryland dropped out of the ACC, with its traditional rivals, to join the Big Ten. So, I think it's important to remember that many Division I schools have financial problems with their athletics, including football and basketball.
Now, as to paying college athletes, particularly basketball and football players, consider this. The average Division I basketball college spends just under $40,000 for each player. And Kentucky dishes out well over $200,000 for each player. All this is according to the US Dept of Ed. In football, Ohio State doles out $109,000 per player, with more than 100 players on the team. $109,000? $217,000? What do these individual players get?????? And some are claiming it's only right to pay these kids?
This will never happen, but Division I should take some tips from Division II and, especially, Division III. Sports, esp football and basketball, but some others in some conferences and at some schools, need to be de-emphasized. Money, of course, will prevent that. But for colleges, Divs II and III should be the model. And, at least at Div III schools, the players go to class and do the work!
While I am at it, I might be the only guy in the US who doesn't care for a Division I playoff to determine an ultimate champion. Who cares? Bring back the old traditional bowl games, with the four big daddies on New Year's Day. Then, imagine the great debates the rest of the year over who was really the best!
I, for one, will not be caught up in the bowl frenzy and, at present, have no plans to watch any of the games.
Despite all of the money that Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and like universities get from football and basketball, most Division I schools I am told actually lose money. Oh, the big conferences like the SEC and Big Ten (How can it be called "Big Ten" when there are more than ten schools?) still roll in football and basketball dollars. But those not fortunate enough to be in one of those five or six conferences struggle. I'd guess that's why, say, the University of Maryland dropped out of the ACC, with its traditional rivals, to join the Big Ten. So, I think it's important to remember that many Division I schools have financial problems with their athletics, including football and basketball.
Now, as to paying college athletes, particularly basketball and football players, consider this. The average Division I basketball college spends just under $40,000 for each player. And Kentucky dishes out well over $200,000 for each player. All this is according to the US Dept of Ed. In football, Ohio State doles out $109,000 per player, with more than 100 players on the team. $109,000? $217,000? What do these individual players get?????? And some are claiming it's only right to pay these kids?
This will never happen, but Division I should take some tips from Division II and, especially, Division III. Sports, esp football and basketball, but some others in some conferences and at some schools, need to be de-emphasized. Money, of course, will prevent that. But for colleges, Divs II and III should be the model. And, at least at Div III schools, the players go to class and do the work!
While I am at it, I might be the only guy in the US who doesn't care for a Division I playoff to determine an ultimate champion. Who cares? Bring back the old traditional bowl games, with the four big daddies on New Year's Day. Then, imagine the great debates the rest of the year over who was really the best!
I, for one, will not be caught up in the bowl frenzy and, at present, have no plans to watch any of the games.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Education and Government
I believe there is a direct relationship between education and government, more specifically, quality education and good government. The better educated the people are in a democracy, the better government they will have. Teachers are not there for students, directly, but to mold them to be good citizens. That is, education is there for society, to keep it strong and vibrant. Being students' friends, building self-esteem, and all that other rigmarole that has invaded education ("Follow the money.") over the past three or four decades has been deleterious, in direct contradistinction of education's purpose.
Here is a good essay on the topic: http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current
I sometimes disagree with ideas coming from Hillsdale. Occasionally it seems the place, both on campus and in its literature, contradicts its own values, that is, tolerance for opposing views. But this is a good essay, well worth the ten minutes it takes to read it.
The essay's comparison of government--then and now, right and wrong--is spot on. Imagine the idiocy (and I mean that) of Obama's interview a couple of weeks ago when he said that government is sometimes too big to get anything done correctly. He was, of course, trying to explain away the ObamaCare signup snafu. Perhaps he wasn't even aware of what he was saying, in a larger context. But of course it's too big. Consider, as the essay does, modern laws that are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages long. Have you ever tried to deal with the IRS or the VA or even the state DMV, to actually talk to someone who can give a definitive answer? And more than two weeks later, my Medicare application hasn't been approved. (I was told "five days.") I could make a snide/sarcastic comment here, but I will refrain from it.
Here is a good essay on the topic: http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current
I sometimes disagree with ideas coming from Hillsdale. Occasionally it seems the place, both on campus and in its literature, contradicts its own values, that is, tolerance for opposing views. But this is a good essay, well worth the ten minutes it takes to read it.
The views of the author on education are those I've expounded for, what, 30 years or more, to little avail. What the essay calls "core," not at all to be associated with "Common Core," is what I've termed, again and again, the rigors required for a quality education. Instead of this "core," trendy things from Outcomes-Based Education and Values Clarification to the current Common Core have taken precedence, to the detriment of quality education. And the trend things are backed by money, "follow the money."
The essay's comparison of government--then and now, right and wrong--is spot on. Imagine the idiocy (and I mean that) of Obama's interview a couple of weeks ago when he said that government is sometimes too big to get anything done correctly. He was, of course, trying to explain away the ObamaCare signup snafu. Perhaps he wasn't even aware of what he was saying, in a larger context. But of course it's too big. Consider, as the essay does, modern laws that are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages long. Have you ever tried to deal with the IRS or the VA or even the state DMV, to actually talk to someone who can give a definitive answer? And more than two weeks later, my Medicare application hasn't been approved. (I was told "five days.") I could make a snide/sarcastic comment here, but I will refrain from it.
Reforming education and government doesn't necessarily require something new or even "doing something." It could be as simple as not doing anything, that is, returning to what worked and worked well in the past. (Of course, as my letter in the newspaper earlier in the week noted, "Follow the money." Who stands to make money, a lot of it, by pushing reform, reform, reform. That will explain a lot.)
Boehner?
It just dawned on me this AM. The bill passed by the House of Representatives included the cuts to military veterans' pensions. The cuts could have been stopped/eliminated right then and there. Hmmm...... Who controls the House? It think it's the Speaker. And, who's the Speaker? Oh, it's John Boehner. Yep, Boehner could have given the veteran pensioners what they had coming. But, he didn't. I guess maybe he was too busy criticizing members of his own party to realize what is in the Ryan/Murray scam--or, as a former Speaker infamously said, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
Democrats or Establishment Republicans (and when I use that term, it's not complimentary), it doesn't matter. They are both wrong for this country.
Again, where's my Third Party to rescue us?????? That is, if anyone cares.
Democrats or Establishment Republicans (and when I use that term, it's not complimentary), it doesn't matter. They are both wrong for this country.
Again, where's my Third Party to rescue us?????? That is, if anyone cares.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A Lesson to Be Learned...
...if only one would take heed.
It must have been in Las Vegas where I read a column--I've forgotten the author, forgetfulness no longer a rarity with me--that would serve as a great teacher or, at least, teaching tool.
The columnist was trying to make a case for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. It was a typical argument coming from the Left: ascribe a ridiculous position to an opponent, whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant, and then call the position ridiculous, as only the arrogant elitists can do.
He made several arguments, if I recall correctly, to illustrate this. First, since whenever he cited, worker productivity has doubled; therefore, so should wages. What a silly non sequitur! Have all workers' jobs doubled in productivity? Of course they haven't, esp the low-wage, minimum-wage jobs. Then, he equates the argument of some that there should be no minimum wage, that the free market should determine wages, to slavery. I'm not arguing for or against a minimum wage here, but this guy is a fool.
Of course, one can't have a dialogue with people like this. They and they alone know the absolute truths--about everything.
For the record, the call for a minimum wage to $15 or even $12 is utterly nonsensical! That my wife runs an elementary school and doesn't make $15 an hour is all the argument I need. The argument that one can't raise a family on the minimum wage reflects more about that person than the minimum wage law.
It must have been in Las Vegas where I read a column--I've forgotten the author, forgetfulness no longer a rarity with me--that would serve as a great teacher or, at least, teaching tool.
The columnist was trying to make a case for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. It was a typical argument coming from the Left: ascribe a ridiculous position to an opponent, whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant, and then call the position ridiculous, as only the arrogant elitists can do.
He made several arguments, if I recall correctly, to illustrate this. First, since whenever he cited, worker productivity has doubled; therefore, so should wages. What a silly non sequitur! Have all workers' jobs doubled in productivity? Of course they haven't, esp the low-wage, minimum-wage jobs. Then, he equates the argument of some that there should be no minimum wage, that the free market should determine wages, to slavery. I'm not arguing for or against a minimum wage here, but this guy is a fool.
Of course, one can't have a dialogue with people like this. They and they alone know the absolute truths--about everything.
For the record, the call for a minimum wage to $15 or even $12 is utterly nonsensical! That my wife runs an elementary school and doesn't make $15 an hour is all the argument I need. The argument that one can't raise a family on the minimum wage reflects more about that person than the minimum wage law.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Cont'd....
If things like this weren't so pathetic, they'd be hilarious.
Can you imagine someone like John Boehner saying of the critics of the Ryan/Murray budget bill (a "compromise" it isn't!), "They've lost all credibility." Again, if this wasn't so pathetic, it would be a riot. But can many on Capitol Hill have lost any more credibility than Boehner? Some supporters of the budget bill (Remember, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in about three years. There's some great leadership by Harry Reid, heh? Of course, we all know he's playing games.) have acquiesced, claiming, "It's better than nothing." What a dumb thing to say! First, is "nothing" the only alternative? Certainly it isn't. Second, no this isn't better than "nothing." It's a bad deal that adds billions of dollars to the deficit, eliminates many of the sequester cuts from last year, raises taxes, and more all with the promise to make cuts eight or ten years up the road. Yeah, now who really believes that? I even heard a House Republican committee chair defend the budget bill in such a way. This is the modus operandi of the Democrats. They get what they want now, with the promises of ceding things in the future. But, funny how none of those promises are ever kept; things are never ceded. And the Republicans fall for it again and again.....
When is a tax not a tax? It's when it's called "a user fee." There are a number of tax increases in this budget bill that are hidden as "user fees." The one on airline tickets is one of them. This House committee chair defended them this AM by saying those who use airplanes should pay for that use; why should people not flying pay for an airline "user fee?" But, what is it that flyers are going to get from this user fee? What service or product will they get from this fee that nonflyers won't also get? I guess if that's the case, then maybe I shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools. My kids have graduated.
And when is a spending decrease not a spending decrease? Again, it's when Congress is speaking. Usually it's the Dems who use this disingenuous if not outright dishonest ploy. They often employ it against those mean-spirited Republicans who want to take things away with spending and tax cuts. Here's how it's working again. There are no cuts in spending. What there are--and only in some cases--there's less of a spending increase than was originally planned. For instance, instead of spending $54 billion more, only $45 billion more will be spent. That's not a cut or decrease; it's just not as big of an increase. And, it's dishonest.
How can Hillary be ahead in the earliest of '16 polls?????? She swamps her potential Dem opponents and pretty easily defeats any of the Republicans. I guess I just don't understand. She not only revealed her lack of character in the past, but as Sec of State showed her incompetence. I'm not saying she isn't smart, certainly a lot smarter than our current White House resident. What I am saying is I can't at all figure out how anyone can vote for her. I'd better watch out what I write......
That recent student shooting in Colo, is that any surprise? The kid was going after a teacher who didn't give the kid what he wanted--a clean record that might help him into the USAF Academy, from what I understand. So, the kid went to kill the teacher because he wasn't getting into the Academy now anyway. I wonder about this one. Did the poor treatment, publicly, of teachers have anything to do with leading this kid to try to kill the teacher? That is, teachers are disrespected, blamed for everything that goes wrong in education (and remember I'm not a real big fan of many teachers). They are vastly overpaid and underworked. Student test scores far below other nations' student test scores are teachers' fault. Teachers are publicly ridiculed--they are the fault of all these bankruptcies. So, they are expendable. Is that what this kid thought? I don't know, but what's offiing a teacher--they're useless anyway? And what have we been teaching kids for the past 30 or more years? That they are the most important things! Schools have told kids, in essence, "God doesn't make any junk" (but he really does, with evidence surrounding us). So, when this kid didn't get what he wanted, well, he went loony-tunes. He's supposed to get what he wants, right? Maybe I'm all wet on this, but maybe those responsible for the above should pause and think about what they are doing and done.
Can you imagine someone like John Boehner saying of the critics of the Ryan/Murray budget bill (a "compromise" it isn't!), "They've lost all credibility." Again, if this wasn't so pathetic, it would be a riot. But can many on Capitol Hill have lost any more credibility than Boehner? Some supporters of the budget bill (Remember, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in about three years. There's some great leadership by Harry Reid, heh? Of course, we all know he's playing games.) have acquiesced, claiming, "It's better than nothing." What a dumb thing to say! First, is "nothing" the only alternative? Certainly it isn't. Second, no this isn't better than "nothing." It's a bad deal that adds billions of dollars to the deficit, eliminates many of the sequester cuts from last year, raises taxes, and more all with the promise to make cuts eight or ten years up the road. Yeah, now who really believes that? I even heard a House Republican committee chair defend the budget bill in such a way. This is the modus operandi of the Democrats. They get what they want now, with the promises of ceding things in the future. But, funny how none of those promises are ever kept; things are never ceded. And the Republicans fall for it again and again.....
When is a tax not a tax? It's when it's called "a user fee." There are a number of tax increases in this budget bill that are hidden as "user fees." The one on airline tickets is one of them. This House committee chair defended them this AM by saying those who use airplanes should pay for that use; why should people not flying pay for an airline "user fee?" But, what is it that flyers are going to get from this user fee? What service or product will they get from this fee that nonflyers won't also get? I guess if that's the case, then maybe I shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools. My kids have graduated.
And when is a spending decrease not a spending decrease? Again, it's when Congress is speaking. Usually it's the Dems who use this disingenuous if not outright dishonest ploy. They often employ it against those mean-spirited Republicans who want to take things away with spending and tax cuts. Here's how it's working again. There are no cuts in spending. What there are--and only in some cases--there's less of a spending increase than was originally planned. For instance, instead of spending $54 billion more, only $45 billion more will be spent. That's not a cut or decrease; it's just not as big of an increase. And, it's dishonest.
How can Hillary be ahead in the earliest of '16 polls?????? She swamps her potential Dem opponents and pretty easily defeats any of the Republicans. I guess I just don't understand. She not only revealed her lack of character in the past, but as Sec of State showed her incompetence. I'm not saying she isn't smart, certainly a lot smarter than our current White House resident. What I am saying is I can't at all figure out how anyone can vote for her. I'd better watch out what I write......
That recent student shooting in Colo, is that any surprise? The kid was going after a teacher who didn't give the kid what he wanted--a clean record that might help him into the USAF Academy, from what I understand. So, the kid went to kill the teacher because he wasn't getting into the Academy now anyway. I wonder about this one. Did the poor treatment, publicly, of teachers have anything to do with leading this kid to try to kill the teacher? That is, teachers are disrespected, blamed for everything that goes wrong in education (and remember I'm not a real big fan of many teachers). They are vastly overpaid and underworked. Student test scores far below other nations' student test scores are teachers' fault. Teachers are publicly ridiculed--they are the fault of all these bankruptcies. So, they are expendable. Is that what this kid thought? I don't know, but what's offiing a teacher--they're useless anyway? And what have we been teaching kids for the past 30 or more years? That they are the most important things! Schools have told kids, in essence, "God doesn't make any junk" (but he really does, with evidence surrounding us). So, when this kid didn't get what he wanted, well, he went loony-tunes. He's supposed to get what he wants, right? Maybe I'm all wet on this, but maybe those responsible for the above should pause and think about what they are doing and done.
Just a Start...
...for today.
Does money excuse hypocrisy? Or, am I too critical? For instance, I heard an ad on a conservative radio station this AM, at least one that has conservative programming/talk show hosts. The ad was being read (delivered) by a purportedly conservative program host. But the ad was for a company that was urging people to take advantage of "free" government money, payments for health insurance. So, a conservative radio station with conservative hosts should be opposed to more government spending (outside of the military, I guess), less government involvement in people's lives (for instance, in health care), and fewer taxes (how the gov't gets this "free" money), shouldn't it? Why, then, would it promote the principles it opposes, at least theoretically? Could it be the advertising dollars being brought in by running the ad, from the sponsoring company? It sure does take away from the image the station tries to promote/portray, at least to me it does. Again, maybe I am too critical or picky (persnickety?).
And, I heard a conservative radio host last night (The alternative was listening to the Lions--no thanks--or some of that lousy music being blared at us) criticize, rightly, Congress for cutting military retirement benefits that had been promised to veterans when they enlisted. "They signed up with the promise that these benefits would be there later in their lives. To deny them that now is despicable." Yet, I've heard this same guy rip on teacher and other public employee benefits, namely pensions. I can't speak for most public employees, but I do know that teachers and secretaries were often told their low pay (with minimal raises) would be balanced out by the good pensions (and their pensions are good) they would receive later. That is, compensation might not be coming now, but would be in the future. So, why is it not OK to renege on some promises, but is desired to break others??????
I'm curious, too, why many on the left (Oh, let's criticize both sides this AM) demonize one who works hard (I know, I know, "Nobody works hard any more.") for years and even decades, invests his money wisely and persistently, and, as a senior citizen ready for retirement, has accumulated several million dollars. He's "greedy," "has made money off the backs of the poor," and worse. What a bad man! But I never hear these same demonizers attack, say, Hollywood-types/ who make several million dollars in a month or two shooting some likely awful movie. Nope, these actors and actresses (I still refuse to call women "actors.") are "hard-working," "earn their money," etc. So, digging a ditch, teaching students, running a mom-and-pop store, creating ads or keeping books, etc. isn't "working hard" or "earning money?" I wonder what the difference could possibly be?????? Oh, I know what it is. Look at the politics, no farther.
This "actors/actresses" thing reminds me of a story, several years (OK, several decades) ago. I am ashamed to admit I was serving on a school committee--shame on me! But I was naive (stupid?), enough so that I thought they might make differences. Anyway, the chair of the committee was a woman and I thoughtlessly said something about the "chairman." I quickly caught myself and repeated, "Sorry, chairwoman." It wasn't at all snide or sarcastic, but the reply from the chairwoman was. "It's 'chairperson," she responded with great indignance and officiousness. "Oh," I said in repeating my apologies. But I couldn't help but get in my digs, adding, "I guess I'll just call you our 'chairone' from now on." Oh, the look I got--as I laughed. And for the rest of that committee's existence--orally or in writing--I referred to the "chairone."
Does money excuse hypocrisy? Or, am I too critical? For instance, I heard an ad on a conservative radio station this AM, at least one that has conservative programming/talk show hosts. The ad was being read (delivered) by a purportedly conservative program host. But the ad was for a company that was urging people to take advantage of "free" government money, payments for health insurance. So, a conservative radio station with conservative hosts should be opposed to more government spending (outside of the military, I guess), less government involvement in people's lives (for instance, in health care), and fewer taxes (how the gov't gets this "free" money), shouldn't it? Why, then, would it promote the principles it opposes, at least theoretically? Could it be the advertising dollars being brought in by running the ad, from the sponsoring company? It sure does take away from the image the station tries to promote/portray, at least to me it does. Again, maybe I am too critical or picky (persnickety?).
And, I heard a conservative radio host last night (The alternative was listening to the Lions--no thanks--or some of that lousy music being blared at us) criticize, rightly, Congress for cutting military retirement benefits that had been promised to veterans when they enlisted. "They signed up with the promise that these benefits would be there later in their lives. To deny them that now is despicable." Yet, I've heard this same guy rip on teacher and other public employee benefits, namely pensions. I can't speak for most public employees, but I do know that teachers and secretaries were often told their low pay (with minimal raises) would be balanced out by the good pensions (and their pensions are good) they would receive later. That is, compensation might not be coming now, but would be in the future. So, why is it not OK to renege on some promises, but is desired to break others??????
I'm curious, too, why many on the left (Oh, let's criticize both sides this AM) demonize one who works hard (I know, I know, "Nobody works hard any more.") for years and even decades, invests his money wisely and persistently, and, as a senior citizen ready for retirement, has accumulated several million dollars. He's "greedy," "has made money off the backs of the poor," and worse. What a bad man! But I never hear these same demonizers attack, say, Hollywood-types/ who make several million dollars in a month or two shooting some likely awful movie. Nope, these actors and actresses (I still refuse to call women "actors.") are "hard-working," "earn their money," etc. So, digging a ditch, teaching students, running a mom-and-pop store, creating ads or keeping books, etc. isn't "working hard" or "earning money?" I wonder what the difference could possibly be?????? Oh, I know what it is. Look at the politics, no farther.
This "actors/actresses" thing reminds me of a story, several years (OK, several decades) ago. I am ashamed to admit I was serving on a school committee--shame on me! But I was naive (stupid?), enough so that I thought they might make differences. Anyway, the chair of the committee was a woman and I thoughtlessly said something about the "chairman." I quickly caught myself and repeated, "Sorry, chairwoman." It wasn't at all snide or sarcastic, but the reply from the chairwoman was. "It's 'chairperson," she responded with great indignance and officiousness. "Oh," I said in repeating my apologies. But I couldn't help but get in my digs, adding, "I guess I'll just call you our 'chairone' from now on." Oh, the look I got--as I laughed. And for the rest of that committee's existence--orally or in writing--I referred to the "chairone."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
