Detroit Bailout?

Apparently, it's not coming, at least not from the feds.  I suppose we could debate whether Detroit should get some federal help in bailing itself out--if it can.  I'm not sure where I stand on it, either.

One, I'm generally opposed to bailouts--public or private.  I don't like that the government can pick and choose who to help and who to let drown.  There's far too much room for politics.  Two, Detroit, in many ways, made its own bed.  It played by the feds' rules, taking the "free money" and running with it.  Voters continued to elect corrupt or incompetent leaders, even when it was known they were incompetent or corrupt.  Lots of bad decisions, often dishonest ones, were made by lots of people.

Yet, at the same time, Detroit did play by the feds' rules.  Now, when those "rules" have helped lead to bankruptcy (among other things), the DC pols are abandoning the city.  Of course, it's not an election year, certainly not an election year with a close election looming.  Can you imagine the outcry if, say, W. Bush refused to offer aid to Detroit?

I know foreign aid comprises only a small percentage of the federal budget.  But doesn't anyone find it irksome that we can send billions--and recently--to Egypt, Syria, and the PLA (can you say "Hamas?), but can't find any money for Detroit?  Again, I'm not sure I'm advocating giving Detroit more federal dollars, but I don't like giving these other countries--more likely than not to stab us in the back at the nearest opportunity. And how many of these so-called "needy" Third World countries got that way because of corruption?!?!?! Does Joe Lunchbucket in Detroit deserve any less than anti-American Islamists in the Middle East?

In my history class, I teach about Detroit and environs as "The Arsenal of Democracy," which the likes of Stalin said won the Second World War.  I think a good case can be made for that.  So, if Detroit can help save the US, the US can't help save Detroit?

Still, they make it hard to be sympathetic.  Is it true that about 50% of a new stadium complex is going to be financed by public monies?  I keep getting conflicting stories.  In such a case, the millionaire/billionaire owners can foot the bill, can't they?

My heart aches for the wonderful city I once knew and enjoyed......

Teacher Evaluations

I see the newspapers are all agog over the proposed new teacher evaluations being considered by the state. I don't know the specifics, but I'm not sure I like what I do know.

First, half of the evaluations are based on administrator observations.  I guess someone has to "observe," but from my experiences, most administrators are not capable of effective evaluations/observations.  I've explained why often enough; there's not need to repeat myself.

Second, the evaluations are based on student performances.  This is silly for a variety of reasons.  So, a teacher who gets a class that is unable to read, write, and think and will be poorly evaluated if the students don't do well?  What's to prevent students from tanking on state tests to get even with teachers they don't like, that is, teachers who demand hard work and give low grades if it's not don't?  (And let's not pretend this won't happen.)  Even more, as usual, if performance is based on results on some test(s), teaching will become merely preparing for the test(s).  Of course it will.  If teachers' evaluations are largely determined by test results....yeah.  And most teachers don't have the courage to, en masse, stand up to such silliness.  And this leads to, not free thinking, but indoctrination.  Who will determine what's on the test?  Right...politicians and educators who want to curry favor from the politicians.

Quality education is not "Test!," "Test!," "Test!"  I've said all this before.  I understand why the public is dissatisfied with the schools and teachers.  Believe me, I know.  I worked with many teachers and administrators who deserve all the criticism leveled at education in general.  There have been so many silly and even stupid programs introduced to the schools--from "Self-concept" and "Values Clarification" to "Everyday Math" and "Diversity " ("All cultures and all people are deserving of respect and acceptance.") and everything in-between.  Standards and rigor all but disappeared and more recent teachers have been the products of those lack of standards and rigor, so......  In many ways, teachers and education get what they deserve.  (I find it puzzling why so many people take aim at teachers, often rightfully so, but why most administrators seem immune from criticism.  They are equally incompetent--or often more so.  Beats me.)

I laugh when I hear businessmen and people working in the private sector claim that if they "were ineffective in my job, I'd be fired in a moment."  Bah, that's a crock.  For a long time I have been convinced that many businesses, esp small businesses, succeed only because of inertia.  Have you noticed the "outstanding" employees at your local fast food place, your grocery store, etc.?  OK, maybe that's different and I'm not trying to run anyone down, but how many of them are "effective?"  Don't you always count your change?  Don't you always double check your order?  Gee, how effective were the banks and other lenders?  How effective were the auto executives?  How effective is Wall Street?  Without their buddies the politicians covering for them, well, maybe we could see how effective they really are/were.

There's a lot wrong with education, but current knee-jerk reactions won't do anything to improve it.  I don't think the solution is all that difficult, at least the framework for improvement.  It's the implementation of the solution, which is likely to encounter all sorts of resistance from all sorts of people.  I think it's pretty easy to identify quality teachers, if the evaluator is knowledgeable and forthright.  Most people know who their best teachers were--not necessarily their favorites, but their best ones.  Maybe I'm naive in that.  (I just read a review of one of my Amherst professor's books.  I didn't like him, for several reasons, but admit he was a pretty good teacher, if only because of the incisive comments and questions he posed in class and on returned papers.  Again, he was never one of my favorites, but he was good and I was lucky to have had him.)

Again, maybe I'm coming from another universe, but our top colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Princeton, and, yes, Williams and Amherst are never criticized.  In fact, they are touted as the best in the world.  Let's toss in public universities such as U Virgina, U North Carolina, and our own U of Michigan, among others.  Top foreign students leave their countries to study at our best schools.  We know why they are "the best."  Why can't we apply what we do there to how we teach at lower levels?  If, as I'm sure people will think, we "can't do that because these are different situations," maybe we need to ask, "Why are they different?"  Then we can address the "differences."

Rainy Day Musings

A fan in Milwaukee was asked to leave the stadium when she appeared wearing a tee shirt that she had changed from "Braun" to "Fraud."  Way to go MLB, put your head in the sand again.  When the druggies were using PEDs to put up great numbers and put more fans in the seats, MLB (the league and the owners) looked the other way.

Interesting that this year is the first year since 1965 (I think) when no living former player is going to be inducted into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.  Several with Hall statistics were rejected by baseball writers because of their association with PEDs.  Good for the writers.  Shame on MLB for its inaction for so many years.

Yet, I shook my head at the story's claim that baseball fans are livid over Braun's lying and deception.  Are they really?  I don't know, but I do know very few people were upset over Bill Clinton's lying and deception. Oh, he was impeached, but I think the vast majority of Americans were of the opinion, "He didn't do anything wrong."  Of course, to most Americans, I am convinced, "character" no longer matters.

I see Miggy was just thrown out of the game for, well, it's hard to determine why.  He obviously wasn't too happy with the two strikes called on him.  And, to my view, neither was a strike.  Aren't these umpires supposed to be the best?  How did the guy miss not one, but two pitches?  Miggy didn't show up the umpire.  He wasn't demonstrative.  He just muttered.  And then he was run by the umpire--who, if he hadn't made such rotten calls, would not have created such a situation.  And, Cabrera didn't rant and rave.  In fact, I'll bet 99% or more of the fans didn't even know he said anything.

Now, Matt and Linda went down to the game.  I know if I had gone, I'd not be happy.  I think I'd ask for my money back.  Cabrera hitting is all I'd go to see.  No slam on the others, but I don't go to see them.  I go to see Miggy hit.  I don't know any of the Phillies' players, none of them.  So, because of his own lousy calls, an umpire throws out the player I specifically came to see?  Yeah, I'd want my money back.  It would be one thing if the calls were correct, but they weren't.  It would be one thing if Cabrera ranted and raved, but he didn't.

I've written about this before, but MLB has to do something about stuff like this.  I'm not saying umpires should protect superstars like the NBA protects its superstars--not at all.  I am saying something like what happened today shouldn't happen.  It's too bad there's no ratings/marketing machine on my boob tube.  It would be noted that I have turned off the Tigers' game.

I also see that John Mayberry, Jr. plays for the Phillies.  I don't know about him and didn't even know he was in the Bigs before yesterday.  But the name rang a bell, a clear one, so I did some research.  He's the son of John Mayberry (no kidding Ron?).  I played against John Sr way back when on the Detroit sandlots. Oh, he was a good player, a great player.  Many times we outfielders were chasing down his drives.  He was huge back then, 6'3" or taller and about 220 or more pounds.  I remember he was a giant.  And, one time he pitched against us!  Talk about taking a couple of gulps before getting in the batter's box when seeing him on the hill.  And why I remember this I don't know, but I did get three hits against him one game.  It might be I remembered because John was a lefthander and I batted lefthanded.  Maybe that's why, I don't know.  John later had a nice, long career in the Majors.

Late Start

I laughed when I read an article this AM that showed high school students perform much better when they start school later in the AM.  Almost half of US high schools start before 8 AM, some much earlier than that. Only 15% start at 8:30 or later, despite mounting evidence (and anecdotally known for years!) that students are more alert (biorhythms?), have better attendance and fewer tardies, are better prepared, show less depression, and perform better.  Hmmm......  What's not to like?

Many school districts cite earlier starts because of logistics.  It's easier to arrange bus/transportation schedules, esp for multi-tiered districts.  After school activities are easier to schedule.  And, of course, jobs--what about student jobs?

So, let's dispense with "We're here for the students" and "Education is the most important thing."  Neither of these statements is true and never has been true.  It's what's been easier and "better" for administrators and teachers.

And, yet, we still have the same people (or same types of people) running our schools, making claims about improving education.  Bah!

BTW, I noticed that, for US taxpayers to get all of their money back from just the GM bailout, GM stock would have to triple its current price.  And, GM stock has already increased 25% from back when.  What are the odds of that happening?  Was the bailout a good thing?  There are lots of demerits.  More later......

Watergate, redux?

Granted, I surely don't have all the answers--nor does anyone--yet.  The investigation is ongoing and, likely, just beginning.  I'm talking of the IRS scandal, which seems to be growing by the day.

Like Benghazi, the IRS is being covered up with lies, blatant lies.  (Benghazi, remember, was due to some unknown video on You Tube--well, that's what the Obama administration, including the President and Secretary of State, affirmed.  Other stooges were also sent out to peddle the lie, which is what it was.)  The IRS scandal was originally dismissed by the Obama-ites and their friends in the media as some rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati.  That, too, is a blatant lie as the mounting evidence is demonstrating.  Some of the Tea Party and conservative groups that were targeted received letters sent, not from Cincinnati, but other places such as Baltimore, not exactly a suburb of Cincinnati.  Testimony in Congress indicates that orders came from above.  In fact, it appears that, at least, the chief White House counsel was involved.  But, we'll see.

Ultimately, to me, the question harkens back to Watergate: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"  (That always seemed like two questions to me, but I suppose I quibble.)  Nixon was never proven to be initially involved in l'Affaire Watergate.  But, by the end, he was chin deep in it.

Nixon received everything he deserved, at least in my view.  I was one who was disappointed in President Ford's pardon.  But I admit now that I think Ford was wiser then than many/most of us were.  And, he paid the price for doing what was right, in large part costing him the election to Jimmy Carter.  How does one lose to Jimmy Carter?  We owe Gerald Ford and I hope history is kinder to him than voters were in '76.

But I think there's a substantive difference between Watergate and the IRS scandal.  Watergate involved a break-in (and subsequent dirty tricks) by Republican Party operatives against Democrats.  I'm not excusing any of this; it was reprehensible and, as I noted above, Nixon deserved what he got.  The IRS mess is much more troubling.

The IRS isn't an arm of a political party, but a part of the federal government.  It wasn't targeting another/an opposing political party, but American citizens.  I think there's a fundamental difference, using a political party for dirty tricks (Nixon involved in the cover-up) vs an already feared arm of the federal government to silence US citizen groups with views in opposition to the party in power.  The federal government was targeting Americans for their political views.

And, there's some preliminary word that the FBI had/has started its own investigation of the IRS.  I wonder if Congress can be trusted in its investigation.  Surely the media can't be trusted.

"First they came after the socialists, but I wasn't a socialist, so I said nothing......"

Stay tuned......

Shunning?

I see Stevie Wonder has said he won't perform in any state that has a "stand your ground" law.  That's fine and it's good to see him get involved.  I don't know anything about his other involvement, if any, or his financial activities--I know nothing of his personal life.

But I wonder (no pun intended) if will also refuse to perform in states or cities that have other undesirable (depending on one's views) laws or conditions.  For instance, will he refuse to perform in states which continue to encourage fatherless families by providing financial assistance to families abandoned by fathers instead of hunting down the deadbeats?  Will he refuse to perform in cities where schools do disservice to students?  Will he refuse to perform in cities with corrupt politicians whose actions and greed lead to poorer lives for citizens?

Yep, there's a lot more that can be done.  Why stop at "stand your ground?"

Technology

We've had some computer problems this past week.  What is it that is said about technology?  "Can't live with it; can't live without it."  Or, something like that.

I still dislike much of what technology leads people to do.  For instance, I think technology will diminish learning and teaching.  Online and virtual courses can't and won't measure up to face-to-face encounters with teachers.  And, if education is so much more important and vital than it used to be, why are we watering it down thus?  I can't stand seeing everyone, well almost everyone, on cell phones, yakking away at any and every place--grocery stores, restaurants, art fairs, even on lonely trails out in the woods.  And, if seems, if they aren't yakking, they are texting.  In my car, on my bike, out running, I am frequently endangered by people driving while they are talking on their cell phones or texting.  I received an e-mail last week with something I hadn't seen for a while. It was Einstein's lament, "I fear the day when technology overlaps with our humanity.  The world will only have a generation of idiots."  I'm not convinced he ever said or wrote that (but it's on the Internet!).  And I don't completely subscribe to it, but......

Still, technology has it's place and provides comfort and what have become necessities.  I know technology has saved lives, with medical advances, more and better information, phone calls, etc.  Certainly that's a good thing.  Being able to find one's way when lost is a plus.  It's said technology has made businesses more efficient, although I wonder how many man-hours are lost while people "play" on their computers instead of working.

It's the loss of "our humanity" that concerns me.  Was it Marshall McLuhan who said, "The medium is the message?"

This certainly isn't true in all cases, but consider what happened when doctors became specialists instead of the family doctors/general practitioners of the past.  Many of them, the new doctors, lost their abilities to communicate, to empathize with their patients.  They may be more skilled and maybe more knowledgeable, but they aren't better with people.

In education, I can't imagine any technology--films, videos, virtual whatevers--coming close to replicating most of the professors I had at Amherst.  Also consider the claims made by colleges and universities, made possible by technology, to "earn a four-year degree in a year and a half" or other such claims.  That can't be good, can it?  Who wants to be treated by a nurse who received four years of training in six months??????

That said, this past week I was lost for a few days without my computer and access to the Internet.  Fortunately, the kids had me going, there was the Ann Arbor Art Fair (Whew! It was hot, 95 degrees, with humididity to match!), some appointments, and a lot of yardwork that had gone untended (I finally got my mower running again).