I know I have promised 'short' entries before, but this one must be by its nature. The Shack is a novel by William P. Young. The premise is somewhat challenging, as the foundation of the story is a meeting with God experienced by a man who is seriously troubled about the tenets of his religion - at least what he believes are the tenets of his religion. Many people will reject the premise, and close the pages immediately.
Don't.
The novel presents what the author believes is a viable way to approach spirituality, religion, God, faithfulness - whatever one wants to call the component of life that transcends to earthly/physical.
The story presents a three or four dimensional main character and creates a storyline that is compelling. Furhtermore, the author can write. Unlike Mitch Albom, who has become lucrative as a teller of heartfelt tales, but who approaches the task of writing like a plumber elected to create a three course meal, Young really can write. His characterization is solid, and the storyline is well managed, but his facility with language makes the difference.
Young covers difficult territory, and pushes the limits of credulity throughout the story, but he keeps the reader committed because he says what he has to say so well. I think I am a critical reader, and I was drawn to stick with the story to find out what he had to say, in large part because the voice of the narrator is so engaging.
I think the target audience for the book is anyone who has been troubled by the ambiguities and contradictions of institutional religion, whichever denominiation is involved. Let's face it, all of us have at one time or another happened upon dilemmas that our religious teachings really don't answer in a satisfactory way. Why do good things happen to bad people? What is the best way to live our lives? Why doesn't God intervene when tragedies strike?
It's an interesting book. Give it a shot.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Bitterness
About a year ago, at Thanksgiving, the topic of this blog was Gratitude. Uncharacterisically, I decided to focus on the things for which I was grateful. Despite the general state of affairs throughout the world, and more pressing, at home here in America, there are/were things to be thankful for - and to cherish.
Twelve months later, I am tending toward bitter. The Penn State and Syracuse scandals are part of the cause, but so are the other items of interest throughout the world and country. I can't help but thinking, "I didn't sign up for this" on a regular basis. Fortunately, on a personal level, everything is pretty much OK.
At PSU and Syracuse, I am bitter that these two institutions, two places that I have wanted to put on a pedestal and keep there, are being cast as rude reminders that the root of every image is a purposeful lie. I don't blame the current students, the faculty, or even very many of the administrators. I have to castigate myself for wanting to believe in the carefully crafted image.
For instance, for the moment, Jim Boeheim seems to have been removed from the shenenigans of his long-time assistant coach. But like the PSU case, I want to know how the image of the program can be kept so far removed activity that allegedly took place right under his nose. I want to know how JoePa managed to convince himself at any point that maintaining the reputation of his organization was more important than unmasking a monster who was almost assuredly not finished feasting on innocent prey.
Maybe Bernie Fine was slick enough to shield Boeheim from the truth of his depravity, but didn't the coach notice at any point that Fine had atypical interactions and relationships with boys in the program? Didn't he notice that ballboys were sometimes inexplicably traveling with the team, even though such inclusion was not condoned? Someobody made a rule or regulation that said ballboys are homegame employees. You mean the head coach didn't know the program's rule or the organiztional policy?
And what about Joe's lament that he wishes he had done more? Such a statement suggests that he was aware of what he could have done at some earlier point in time. I am befuddled by the situational ethics, or by the equivocation and rationalization that is required when the ignored, hidden, or sanitized offense is child rape.
I want Jim and Joe to be what they purport to be, or what the cultivated image professed them to be. When it walks like a duck, I want the blasted creature to be a duck.
Having made it halfway to 100, I am not foolish or naive`. I know that things aren't what they always seem to be. I am not so easily duped as to swallow whole and without thinking when the 'too good to be true' persona is thrust before my eyes. I have as much skepticism as the next guy; and if you know me well, you know I have more skepticism than many. I just want SOME of the icons to turn out to be almost as good as they are marketed to be. I will tolerate a wart or two.
I am bitter because I have always professed and believed that a man who really tries to do the right thing will choose wisely most of the time, and that his wrong choices won't betray a native evil that even the best of men cannot avoid. In short, I want some men to craft a pretty image and then be able to live up to it, and even go beyond. I am bitter because these latest two scandals force me to accept the possibility that even the best of men can be driven to disgrace by an inability to stay true to the ideals that made someone what to create the ideal image in the first place.
I know there are very few saints. I am bitter that I may have to admit that there are even fewer than I thought.
Twelve months later, I am tending toward bitter. The Penn State and Syracuse scandals are part of the cause, but so are the other items of interest throughout the world and country. I can't help but thinking, "I didn't sign up for this" on a regular basis. Fortunately, on a personal level, everything is pretty much OK.
At PSU and Syracuse, I am bitter that these two institutions, two places that I have wanted to put on a pedestal and keep there, are being cast as rude reminders that the root of every image is a purposeful lie. I don't blame the current students, the faculty, or even very many of the administrators. I have to castigate myself for wanting to believe in the carefully crafted image.
For instance, for the moment, Jim Boeheim seems to have been removed from the shenenigans of his long-time assistant coach. But like the PSU case, I want to know how the image of the program can be kept so far removed activity that allegedly took place right under his nose. I want to know how JoePa managed to convince himself at any point that maintaining the reputation of his organization was more important than unmasking a monster who was almost assuredly not finished feasting on innocent prey.
Maybe Bernie Fine was slick enough to shield Boeheim from the truth of his depravity, but didn't the coach notice at any point that Fine had atypical interactions and relationships with boys in the program? Didn't he notice that ballboys were sometimes inexplicably traveling with the team, even though such inclusion was not condoned? Someobody made a rule or regulation that said ballboys are homegame employees. You mean the head coach didn't know the program's rule or the organiztional policy?
And what about Joe's lament that he wishes he had done more? Such a statement suggests that he was aware of what he could have done at some earlier point in time. I am befuddled by the situational ethics, or by the equivocation and rationalization that is required when the ignored, hidden, or sanitized offense is child rape.
I want Jim and Joe to be what they purport to be, or what the cultivated image professed them to be. When it walks like a duck, I want the blasted creature to be a duck.
Having made it halfway to 100, I am not foolish or naive`. I know that things aren't what they always seem to be. I am not so easily duped as to swallow whole and without thinking when the 'too good to be true' persona is thrust before my eyes. I have as much skepticism as the next guy; and if you know me well, you know I have more skepticism than many. I just want SOME of the icons to turn out to be almost as good as they are marketed to be. I will tolerate a wart or two.
I am bitter because I have always professed and believed that a man who really tries to do the right thing will choose wisely most of the time, and that his wrong choices won't betray a native evil that even the best of men cannot avoid. In short, I want some men to craft a pretty image and then be able to live up to it, and even go beyond. I am bitter because these latest two scandals force me to accept the possibility that even the best of men can be driven to disgrace by an inability to stay true to the ideals that made someone what to create the ideal image in the first place.
I know there are very few saints. I am bitter that I may have to admit that there are even fewer than I thought.
Monday, November 28, 2011
When the Students are the Teachers
I drew the short straw today and won the right to take my youngest child back to college after a brief Thanksgiving Weekend visit. My daughter has the luxury of driving herself for her three hour return to academia. My son though, is still dependent on a parent to provide a little assistance. This time it was my turn.
I don't really mind the trips, to be honest, as it gives me a chance to have a three hour learning experience. For ninety minutes, we catch up, since we are stuck in close quarters. The return trip always provokes me to consider and weigh the conversation that occurred at the start. All tolled, I get 180 minutes of education each time I serve as the chauffeur.
I have been involved in education for all of my adult life. My son is pursuing a course that may lead to a teaching position. Naturally, I am humbled by the notion that he saw my profession as a worthy one, but I am more interested in following the course of his education as he 'discovers' things I like to think I have learned. I am not sure if that makes sense to non-educators, but I suspect that my fellow teachers will understand.
He tells me that he is concerned that he won't be a good teacher. I tell him, confidently, that he will be fine. After thirty years in the business, I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what differentiates the professional educator from the great teacher. You see, he gets it. His interest is in helping his prospective students to acquire skills and knowledge that supercede the curriculum.
He runs a few ideas by me, and I reinforce them. They are good ideas, but the more important feature to me is that he is thinking about how to be as much of a difference maker as possible. I know from expereince that some of his ideas won't work very weil, and that some of them will be superb. From a distance though, I can not forecast which ideas will fall into which category.
On the ride home, as I debrief myself, I mull over the range of topics that we addressed: his training for lacrosse, nutrition, his fall tuition balance, classroom management, lesson planning, curriculum management, students teaching students, philosophy, and sociology. He also considered and weighed in on my professional life, telling me I should pursue a doctorate and get a job teaching college students. No kidding.
The sociology-philosophy combination is what got the juices flowing for the ride home. I inserted a Bruce Springsteen CD, "Born to Run," I found while rummaging through the trunk; I let the music overrun the car and my brain goes on cruise control.
The young man left me with this tidbit as he grabbed his guitar, and a couple of other odds and ends out of the back seat and made his way to his room: "Humans are bent on self-destruction, I think." he says. History shows that the most stable and productive societies are always small ones. The bigger a society gets, the easier it becomes to fragment and destroy it. But the whole world seems bent on this globalization idea, even though it runs the risk of ruining the societies it serves. It will almost certainly undermine the larger society it creates." (Obviously, the quasi-quote is a paraphrase. I never let anyone talk that long without interruption, and I don't recall the statements verbatim.)
As I pulled into the driveway, I packaged a number of items together from our dialogue. If he pursues a teaching career, I am convinced that he has what it takes to be a great teacher. He sees the big picture first, and the little picture second - a requisite for great teachers. Also, his final volley is the best apology I can think of for organized religion, whatever denomination or faith is involved. Each congregation is its own small society. Whatever global faction the world forces us to join, that small society of a church, synagogue, or mosque provides the structure and stability that humans need to thrive. (I confess that this thought doesn't occur to me until about three hours after my return to home, and after casually watching Mitch Albom's "Have a Little Faith.")
My students and my own children have been teaching me things for years, but I think this particular drive and dialogue has been the most overt instance I have had for quite awhile. The boy had asked me during the discussion of his ideas on teaching, if his thought that he can use his stronger students as in-class tutors and supporters of his less motivated students. "Let students learn from other students," he says with a question behind it.
He is not there to hear my reply, but I answer him anyway: "The students are the best and most important teachers. Always."
I don't really mind the trips, to be honest, as it gives me a chance to have a three hour learning experience. For ninety minutes, we catch up, since we are stuck in close quarters. The return trip always provokes me to consider and weigh the conversation that occurred at the start. All tolled, I get 180 minutes of education each time I serve as the chauffeur.
I have been involved in education for all of my adult life. My son is pursuing a course that may lead to a teaching position. Naturally, I am humbled by the notion that he saw my profession as a worthy one, but I am more interested in following the course of his education as he 'discovers' things I like to think I have learned. I am not sure if that makes sense to non-educators, but I suspect that my fellow teachers will understand.
He tells me that he is concerned that he won't be a good teacher. I tell him, confidently, that he will be fine. After thirty years in the business, I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what differentiates the professional educator from the great teacher. You see, he gets it. His interest is in helping his prospective students to acquire skills and knowledge that supercede the curriculum.
He runs a few ideas by me, and I reinforce them. They are good ideas, but the more important feature to me is that he is thinking about how to be as much of a difference maker as possible. I know from expereince that some of his ideas won't work very weil, and that some of them will be superb. From a distance though, I can not forecast which ideas will fall into which category.
On the ride home, as I debrief myself, I mull over the range of topics that we addressed: his training for lacrosse, nutrition, his fall tuition balance, classroom management, lesson planning, curriculum management, students teaching students, philosophy, and sociology. He also considered and weighed in on my professional life, telling me I should pursue a doctorate and get a job teaching college students. No kidding.
The sociology-philosophy combination is what got the juices flowing for the ride home. I inserted a Bruce Springsteen CD, "Born to Run," I found while rummaging through the trunk; I let the music overrun the car and my brain goes on cruise control.
The young man left me with this tidbit as he grabbed his guitar, and a couple of other odds and ends out of the back seat and made his way to his room: "Humans are bent on self-destruction, I think." he says. History shows that the most stable and productive societies are always small ones. The bigger a society gets, the easier it becomes to fragment and destroy it. But the whole world seems bent on this globalization idea, even though it runs the risk of ruining the societies it serves. It will almost certainly undermine the larger society it creates." (Obviously, the quasi-quote is a paraphrase. I never let anyone talk that long without interruption, and I don't recall the statements verbatim.)
As I pulled into the driveway, I packaged a number of items together from our dialogue. If he pursues a teaching career, I am convinced that he has what it takes to be a great teacher. He sees the big picture first, and the little picture second - a requisite for great teachers. Also, his final volley is the best apology I can think of for organized religion, whatever denomination or faith is involved. Each congregation is its own small society. Whatever global faction the world forces us to join, that small society of a church, synagogue, or mosque provides the structure and stability that humans need to thrive. (I confess that this thought doesn't occur to me until about three hours after my return to home, and after casually watching Mitch Albom's "Have a Little Faith.")
My students and my own children have been teaching me things for years, but I think this particular drive and dialogue has been the most overt instance I have had for quite awhile. The boy had asked me during the discussion of his ideas on teaching, if his thought that he can use his stronger students as in-class tutors and supporters of his less motivated students. "Let students learn from other students," he says with a question behind it.
He is not there to hear my reply, but I answer him anyway: "The students are the best and most important teachers. Always."
Sunday, November 20, 2011
We Are?
People are often inclined to jump to conclusions, and quick to condemn, especially when the target of the contumely is a figure or institution that has largely cultivated a pristine image. Perhaps the most recent example is the demise of Tiger Woods. His situation turned out to be worse than originally reported, but the amount of glee that was expressed at the notion that his wife had attacked him with a golf club was both typical and indicative of the dark side of popular opinion and mob mentality.
The situation at PSU is dark and ugly, and one component of the coverage has been driven by the despicable tendency of people to relish the unmasking of the hero - in this case, the institution and its most recognizable faces. I submit the notion that the same set of circumstances, transplanted to OSU or the University of Miami at the time of their other scandals, would have been treated somewhat differently. The crimes would have been just as heinous, but the temperature and the haste of the reaction would have been tempered by the public's ability to react as if they expected such bad behavior from places and people who were already sullied by past events. [I mean no disrespect to either of the two universities - I mention them only because they have most recently been scandalized.]
At this time, and with the current level of disclosure of information, I am comfortable in drawing a limited number of conclusions. Jerry Sandusky is most likely a monster. People who knew, suspected, or should have suspected this were derelict in fulfilling a human duty to protect children from a monster. I leave out the legal duty on purpose; some things are bigger than the law. A confluence of circumstances tempted some weak men into believing the unbelievable - that even though more than one person knew a 'secret,' their skill, their hard-earned reputation, and their fidelity in maintaining a lie through their silence and inaction would be enough to keep the secret hidden.
After that, I don't know what happened at Penn State. I don't believe Mike McQueary's version of events. If I suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old, ran away from the scene after making eye contact with the monster and his victim, waited an extended period of time before reporting the event ot someone, then provided a graphic account to the head football coach, a man identified by his efforts to run a clean program, and to act decisively when faced with behaviors that ran contrary to the motto, Success with Honor. To accept McQueary's account, I have also to believe that the head coach then provided a delibberately opaque or sanitized version of events to his bureaucratic superiors, who in turn further obscured or bleached the account, thereby providing themselves with a way to delude themselves into believing that they could camouflage/bury or purchase the squelching of the truth. I have further to believe that McQueary then proceeded to support the monster's various fundraising events in his official capacity of football coach at Penn State.
In case this begins to read as a defense of anyone, please review the things I think I do know in paragraph three. Quickly, there was a monster; people should have known about the monster; same people found an excuse for ignoring the existence of the monster.
I can't accept McQueary's account because it doesn't make sense. I initially read the McQueary was 23 years old at the time, and while youth doesn't excuse a decision to run, I know that psychological studies show that people faced unexpectedly with horrific situations often cower in fear and do not intervene. Finding out he was 28 at the time changed everything. Why would a 28 year old confronted with the scene need to seek his father's counsel at all. What advice would/did his father give? You mean to tell me that after running like a sissy, the 28 year old needed his father to convince him to go see the head coach? You mean that the coward consulted with his father, then suddenly transformed into the intrepid whistleblower and provided graphic, chillng testimony about a boyhood hero (the monster) whom he now had the courage to identify as a sadistic pedophile? The more likely behavior of such a mouse of a man is to talk with his father about how to expose the crime and ease whatever was left of his impotent conscience, while simultaneously assuring that
he, himself, would never have to face the monster.
You have probably deduced that I think McQueary is a different kind of monster than Sandusky, but I think that he is nonetheless a monster. I don't know what he told Joe, but I am fairly certain that his consultaiton with his father wasn't dedciated to determining how to tell the graphic truth. 28 year old men, even if the term 'man' is a misnomer, do not need coaching in how to tell the truth. If they are truly men, they don't need counsel with parents to decide whether to tell the truth. 28 year old pantywaists need to consult with mentors when they want to avoid responsibility or hide from difficult decisions.
Paterno in my mind is not protected. I confess that I cannot reconcile the image I have had of the man with the actions/behaviors that are embedded in this story. I don't believe that he was a doddering fool who ceased being abe to coach many years ago, and that he has been merely a figure head for years. Nor do I believe that he is a product of hubris who was brought down by his fatih that he, or the institution, or the football program are/were bigger than the human directive to prevent harm to children. I am sure that Joe has plenty of ego, and that he can be conned into believing that he is as important as the syncophants sometimes make him out to be. However, I cannot reconcile the current account of him as a co-conspirator with 60 years of benevolence, integrity, altruism, and success with honor. People want to limit this situation and his downfall to a selfish decision to protect himself and the program (and the university). Yet this wasn't a single decision made in the the heat of the moment. The lie had to be maintained for years. If the Paterno image has/had even one scintilla of validity, the man could not have facilitated the cover-up. Again, it does not make sense. Here I defer speculation and conclusion to the facts that will ultimately be disclosed.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are somewhat in the same boat as Paterno, in that their actions don't jibe with the carefully cultivated images that the public had of the leaders of PSU. A large difference though is that they were the people who had to have made a calculated decision to enable the monster. They did notify the Second Mile. They did ban the monster from campus in the most wimpy manner possible. They don't make those calls or those decsions without acknowledging that their concerns were serious enough to do so. Subsequently, if their concerns were serious enough to do those things, they are then serious enough to turn over to law enforcement. Even notification of the university police that Schultz administered would have led to an interview with weeny McQueary, who would have had another chance to handle himself properly. Paterno would also have completed a statement detailing exactly what McQueary said to him before 7 years had passed. Likewise, we would have written statements from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.
Bigger than all of this, had Curley, Spanier, and Schultz been genuine leaders, we would probably have had the monster arrested and contained long before now.
.
The situation at PSU is dark and ugly, and one component of the coverage has been driven by the despicable tendency of people to relish the unmasking of the hero - in this case, the institution and its most recognizable faces. I submit the notion that the same set of circumstances, transplanted to OSU or the University of Miami at the time of their other scandals, would have been treated somewhat differently. The crimes would have been just as heinous, but the temperature and the haste of the reaction would have been tempered by the public's ability to react as if they expected such bad behavior from places and people who were already sullied by past events. [I mean no disrespect to either of the two universities - I mention them only because they have most recently been scandalized.]
At this time, and with the current level of disclosure of information, I am comfortable in drawing a limited number of conclusions. Jerry Sandusky is most likely a monster. People who knew, suspected, or should have suspected this were derelict in fulfilling a human duty to protect children from a monster. I leave out the legal duty on purpose; some things are bigger than the law. A confluence of circumstances tempted some weak men into believing the unbelievable - that even though more than one person knew a 'secret,' their skill, their hard-earned reputation, and their fidelity in maintaining a lie through their silence and inaction would be enough to keep the secret hidden.
After that, I don't know what happened at Penn State. I don't believe Mike McQueary's version of events. If I suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old, ran away from the scene after making eye contact with the monster and his victim, waited an extended period of time before reporting the event ot someone, then provided a graphic account to the head football coach, a man identified by his efforts to run a clean program, and to act decisively when faced with behaviors that ran contrary to the motto, Success with Honor. To accept McQueary's account, I have also to believe that the head coach then provided a delibberately opaque or sanitized version of events to his bureaucratic superiors, who in turn further obscured or bleached the account, thereby providing themselves with a way to delude themselves into believing that they could camouflage/bury or purchase the squelching of the truth. I have further to believe that McQueary then proceeded to support the monster's various fundraising events in his official capacity of football coach at Penn State.
In case this begins to read as a defense of anyone, please review the things I think I do know in paragraph three. Quickly, there was a monster; people should have known about the monster; same people found an excuse for ignoring the existence of the monster.
I can't accept McQueary's account because it doesn't make sense. I initially read the McQueary was 23 years old at the time, and while youth doesn't excuse a decision to run, I know that psychological studies show that people faced unexpectedly with horrific situations often cower in fear and do not intervene. Finding out he was 28 at the time changed everything. Why would a 28 year old confronted with the scene need to seek his father's counsel at all. What advice would/did his father give? You mean to tell me that after running like a sissy, the 28 year old needed his father to convince him to go see the head coach? You mean that the coward consulted with his father, then suddenly transformed into the intrepid whistleblower and provided graphic, chillng testimony about a boyhood hero (the monster) whom he now had the courage to identify as a sadistic pedophile? The more likely behavior of such a mouse of a man is to talk with his father about how to expose the crime and ease whatever was left of his impotent conscience, while simultaneously assuring that
he, himself, would never have to face the monster.
You have probably deduced that I think McQueary is a different kind of monster than Sandusky, but I think that he is nonetheless a monster. I don't know what he told Joe, but I am fairly certain that his consultaiton with his father wasn't dedciated to determining how to tell the graphic truth. 28 year old men, even if the term 'man' is a misnomer, do not need coaching in how to tell the truth. If they are truly men, they don't need counsel with parents to decide whether to tell the truth. 28 year old pantywaists need to consult with mentors when they want to avoid responsibility or hide from difficult decisions.
Paterno in my mind is not protected. I confess that I cannot reconcile the image I have had of the man with the actions/behaviors that are embedded in this story. I don't believe that he was a doddering fool who ceased being abe to coach many years ago, and that he has been merely a figure head for years. Nor do I believe that he is a product of hubris who was brought down by his fatih that he, or the institution, or the football program are/were bigger than the human directive to prevent harm to children. I am sure that Joe has plenty of ego, and that he can be conned into believing that he is as important as the syncophants sometimes make him out to be. However, I cannot reconcile the current account of him as a co-conspirator with 60 years of benevolence, integrity, altruism, and success with honor. People want to limit this situation and his downfall to a selfish decision to protect himself and the program (and the university). Yet this wasn't a single decision made in the the heat of the moment. The lie had to be maintained for years. If the Paterno image has/had even one scintilla of validity, the man could not have facilitated the cover-up. Again, it does not make sense. Here I defer speculation and conclusion to the facts that will ultimately be disclosed.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are somewhat in the same boat as Paterno, in that their actions don't jibe with the carefully cultivated images that the public had of the leaders of PSU. A large difference though is that they were the people who had to have made a calculated decision to enable the monster. They did notify the Second Mile. They did ban the monster from campus in the most wimpy manner possible. They don't make those calls or those decsions without acknowledging that their concerns were serious enough to do so. Subsequently, if their concerns were serious enough to do those things, they are then serious enough to turn over to law enforcement. Even notification of the university police that Schultz administered would have led to an interview with weeny McQueary, who would have had another chance to handle himself properly. Paterno would also have completed a statement detailing exactly what McQueary said to him before 7 years had passed. Likewise, we would have written statements from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.
Bigger than all of this, had Curley, Spanier, and Schultz been genuine leaders, we would probably have had the monster arrested and contained long before now.
.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
What does the Kim Kardashian Farce have to do with Gay Marriage?
First, I have to make an admission - before the recent firestorm surrounding the announcement of KK's divorce (Is it all right to call her KK? Probably not, but I don't care) I had only vague recognition of who Kim Kardashian is. I feel a bit ashamed and embarrassed about my latest topic. However, listening to people draw comparisons of some kind between societal offense to the sham wedding, and reluctance to accept the notion of gay marriage has drawn me in.
I barely know who KK is, and after looking her up on the computer, I am not sure of the fascination. She is reasonably attractive and overweight. She is not voluptuous; she is unfit. In simple terms, I have no idea why the populace has found her interesting. Alas, however, they have.
So if I have the story straight, she and her family duped the public into believing that their scripted TV life is engaging, and when interest waned, they cooked up a scheme called a wedding to revitalize the dim-witted public's attention. That about right? Furthermore, they waited about two and a half months before indirectly confessing to their scam by announcing an intention to divorce. And judging by the channels my wife flipped through last night, revelation of the subterfuge is cause for media coverage overkill? Am I warm?
What drew my attention was an incessant need by the various pundits - and there were pundits galore who wanted to talk about this non-event - to snidely suggest that the ruse marriage by two artificially created celebrities somehow serves as a talking point when considering the validity of gay marriage. My first thought was that logic would prevail and the moderator, or fellow pundit would destroy such a premise. No one said boo about the specious association.
INTENTIONAL DIGRESSION: I have a semantic problem with gay marriage. Marriage occurs between a man and a woman. If you ask me should laws allow same-sex couples to declare themselves an indissoluble couple and gain legal benefits from said union? I say sure. I think they need to make a new word. Marriage already has a meaning.
The KK marital fiasco speaks not at all to the topic of marriage. You see, it wasn't real! Only an idiot would view a fabricated event and then say that its unfolding has some relevance to actual life. If I watch Criminal Minds and see a young couple go on a murderous rampage because of abuse they suffered as children, does this make a statement about the state of parenting throughout the country? Real people sometimes get married for ridiculous reasons and without proper forethought and preparation, and they often get divorced rather quickly as a result. These events, taken in a larger context, have some bearing on the state of marriage in the country, but not a made-for-tv event, even if it took 72 days to play out.
I have gotten to the point where I am trying not to grumble too much about the people who are - in my opinion - foolishly taken into by reality tv. I want to believe that they see it, as my wife does, as light entertainment that doesn't hurt anybody. Yet the commentary last night tells me that the scam is becoming eerily destructive. It has grown so large that the people who are supposed to be reminding the viewing public that it's just a game are instead polishing the facade and building an even bigger lie.
Maybe this will help. To make money and draw in viewers, KK pretended to fall in love with a guy, threw a giant lucrative wedding, then took away the mask to get on with the rest of her life. Don't be offended or disgusted that such events makes light of marriage. Instead, poke yourself in the eye for being so gullible that you fell for the pretense. THESE SHOWS AREN'T REAL! THE BACHELOR AND THE BACHELORETTE AREN'T LOOKING FOR OF FINDING TRUE LOVE. THE REAL HOUSEWIVES AS PRESENTED ON TV ARE ACTING. YOU, IF YOU SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND, ARE THE ONE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE COUNTRY. Go occupy something and be unable to articulate what you want to be the result of the protest.
I barely know who KK is, and after looking her up on the computer, I am not sure of the fascination. She is reasonably attractive and overweight. She is not voluptuous; she is unfit. In simple terms, I have no idea why the populace has found her interesting. Alas, however, they have.
So if I have the story straight, she and her family duped the public into believing that their scripted TV life is engaging, and when interest waned, they cooked up a scheme called a wedding to revitalize the dim-witted public's attention. That about right? Furthermore, they waited about two and a half months before indirectly confessing to their scam by announcing an intention to divorce. And judging by the channels my wife flipped through last night, revelation of the subterfuge is cause for media coverage overkill? Am I warm?
What drew my attention was an incessant need by the various pundits - and there were pundits galore who wanted to talk about this non-event - to snidely suggest that the ruse marriage by two artificially created celebrities somehow serves as a talking point when considering the validity of gay marriage. My first thought was that logic would prevail and the moderator, or fellow pundit would destroy such a premise. No one said boo about the specious association.
INTENTIONAL DIGRESSION: I have a semantic problem with gay marriage. Marriage occurs between a man and a woman. If you ask me should laws allow same-sex couples to declare themselves an indissoluble couple and gain legal benefits from said union? I say sure. I think they need to make a new word. Marriage already has a meaning.
The KK marital fiasco speaks not at all to the topic of marriage. You see, it wasn't real! Only an idiot would view a fabricated event and then say that its unfolding has some relevance to actual life. If I watch Criminal Minds and see a young couple go on a murderous rampage because of abuse they suffered as children, does this make a statement about the state of parenting throughout the country? Real people sometimes get married for ridiculous reasons and without proper forethought and preparation, and they often get divorced rather quickly as a result. These events, taken in a larger context, have some bearing on the state of marriage in the country, but not a made-for-tv event, even if it took 72 days to play out.
I have gotten to the point where I am trying not to grumble too much about the people who are - in my opinion - foolishly taken into by reality tv. I want to believe that they see it, as my wife does, as light entertainment that doesn't hurt anybody. Yet the commentary last night tells me that the scam is becoming eerily destructive. It has grown so large that the people who are supposed to be reminding the viewing public that it's just a game are instead polishing the facade and building an even bigger lie.
Maybe this will help. To make money and draw in viewers, KK pretended to fall in love with a guy, threw a giant lucrative wedding, then took away the mask to get on with the rest of her life. Don't be offended or disgusted that such events makes light of marriage. Instead, poke yourself in the eye for being so gullible that you fell for the pretense. THESE SHOWS AREN'T REAL! THE BACHELOR AND THE BACHELORETTE AREN'T LOOKING FOR OF FINDING TRUE LOVE. THE REAL HOUSEWIVES AS PRESENTED ON TV ARE ACTING. YOU, IF YOU SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND, ARE THE ONE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE COUNTRY. Go occupy something and be unable to articulate what you want to be the result of the protest.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
PA's New Teen Driving Bill
Ok, let's get the paramters straight. The odds that bad things will happen will increase as one adds teenagers to a car being driven by a teenager. So I am not speaking in favor of teenagers driving in large packs. Nor am I annoyed by the passing of a bill with good intentions. I am disappointed and a bit perturbed by the thoughtlessness that drives the issue.
Here's what will happen: about 15% of parents will communicate with their children and reinforce the idea that teens should not be in cars with large numbers of teens. Great. Consequently, the number of teen deaths ought to decrease - at least for awhile - as the culture changes and people are encouraged to use common sense. Fewer teens will be injured or killed on the highways? Also great.
What angers me is that people are now begging the government to do what they already have the power to do. Really, it's depressing. You mean to tell me that we as a community, a state, or a country need a law to tell us that we shouldn't let our children go carousing in cars in large numbers? For crying out loud, how ridiculous is that?
I am in the process of raising three children, all of whom have thankfully made it out of their teens without hurting themselves while riding or driving. My daughter, however, is the only one of the three who has experienced a close call. She and one other teen were driving off somewhere when the driver lost control on an S turn, ran off the road, and sliced a pine tree with a two feet diameter trunk in half. They flipped, sawed the tree in half, and landed on the roof of the SUV. They survived because they were wearing their seat belts, and because they were driving a five star crash rated car.
I haven't read the details of the law that PA is waiting to pass, but I don't think the law would have prevented the two girls from driving together. They would still have the chance to get into trouble. And yes, the accident was directly related to the driver's inexperience. She was not being reckless, but she was also not driving as safely as she should have been.
I don't feel, however, that luck is the only reason that my children have made it to adulthood. I am not foolish enough to think that each is above or beyond expereincing a car accident. However, I didn't buy my kids a car when they turned 16 or 17. In fact, my 20 year old has never owned a car. He drives as the opportunity or necessity presnets itself, and I was the one who put in the driving hours with them when they had their learner's permits. I had one rule. Learn to be in control of your vehicle and your driving environment. If i don't see evidence of adherence to rule no. 1 - the only rule - a parent will not be escorting or supporting their driver exam appointment. All of them are good drivers. My oldest drives too fast for my tastes, but he is always in control of his car. My daughter is less alert than I would like her to be, but she drives concervatively and with a little bit of healthy fear. My youngest thinks he has every situation under control, which worries me sometimes, but he has demonstrated a solid sense of the risks that are out there.
I suppose that my children at some point in the teens, have probably been in cars that, according to the imminent law, were overcrowded with teen passengers. On the other hand, they knew from their parents - in fact, their mother more than I - that driving was a dangerous and responsibility-laden business. I am not naive enough to think they never took chances or did a foolish thing. What I am saying is that some of our good fortune is the result of their knowing that we expected them to behave in a certain way. I don't think they always listened, but I think their risk was lowered because they had clear understanding of their responsibilites and our expectations.
My largest point is that the passage of this law flies in the face of what I know. We need parents to do a better job of establishing the rules and expectations for their children. Relying on the government to do this job is problematic. The driving law is a piece of the big picture issue. It may save some lives for awhile, but I think it undermines the ideal situation. Parents, to the best of their ability, set the rules and teach the lessons. We all know that parents will now rely on the law to curtail the overcrowding of cars with teens. Lost will be the conversations that help teens to learn how to regulate their behaviors. In fact, we seem to have admitted defeat in this area; why else would we need the government's supervision to enforce common sense.
I know that some will read this and think that I am just being a contrarian. I am often that, but this new law really bothers me. As in all cases, teens will often follow the rule for fear of fines and tickets, but riding in large crowds of teens will also become the 'cool' thing to do when teen drivers think no adult is looking. Those teens who are not parented well will still take risks, and so will some very well parented teens. Teenagers are by nature irresponsible, and often reckless. How best can they be helped to regulate behavior while they make their way to adulthood? Let's pass laws that prohibit smoking and drinking. Let's pass laws that prohibit truancy from school. Let's pass laws that set curfews. We do all of these things because parents have relinquished responsibility for raising their children. Last time I checked, teens were breaking all of these rules and some others. A new driving law will have limited effect.
We should not be reliant on the government for the enforcement of common sense expectations. Neither the government nor the parent can curtail all the recless or negative behaviors. What bothers me is that parents won't have the required constant dialogue with their kids. Many parents will rely on their being a rule. They won't talk to their kids about the big picture; they will say, don't do it or you will lose your license or be fined. They will use the existence of the law to shorten the conversation. I want the conversation to be longer and more comprehensive.
Here's what will happen: about 15% of parents will communicate with their children and reinforce the idea that teens should not be in cars with large numbers of teens. Great. Consequently, the number of teen deaths ought to decrease - at least for awhile - as the culture changes and people are encouraged to use common sense. Fewer teens will be injured or killed on the highways? Also great.
What angers me is that people are now begging the government to do what they already have the power to do. Really, it's depressing. You mean to tell me that we as a community, a state, or a country need a law to tell us that we shouldn't let our children go carousing in cars in large numbers? For crying out loud, how ridiculous is that?
I am in the process of raising three children, all of whom have thankfully made it out of their teens without hurting themselves while riding or driving. My daughter, however, is the only one of the three who has experienced a close call. She and one other teen were driving off somewhere when the driver lost control on an S turn, ran off the road, and sliced a pine tree with a two feet diameter trunk in half. They flipped, sawed the tree in half, and landed on the roof of the SUV. They survived because they were wearing their seat belts, and because they were driving a five star crash rated car.
I haven't read the details of the law that PA is waiting to pass, but I don't think the law would have prevented the two girls from driving together. They would still have the chance to get into trouble. And yes, the accident was directly related to the driver's inexperience. She was not being reckless, but she was also not driving as safely as she should have been.
I don't feel, however, that luck is the only reason that my children have made it to adulthood. I am not foolish enough to think that each is above or beyond expereincing a car accident. However, I didn't buy my kids a car when they turned 16 or 17. In fact, my 20 year old has never owned a car. He drives as the opportunity or necessity presnets itself, and I was the one who put in the driving hours with them when they had their learner's permits. I had one rule. Learn to be in control of your vehicle and your driving environment. If i don't see evidence of adherence to rule no. 1 - the only rule - a parent will not be escorting or supporting their driver exam appointment. All of them are good drivers. My oldest drives too fast for my tastes, but he is always in control of his car. My daughter is less alert than I would like her to be, but she drives concervatively and with a little bit of healthy fear. My youngest thinks he has every situation under control, which worries me sometimes, but he has demonstrated a solid sense of the risks that are out there.
I suppose that my children at some point in the teens, have probably been in cars that, according to the imminent law, were overcrowded with teen passengers. On the other hand, they knew from their parents - in fact, their mother more than I - that driving was a dangerous and responsibility-laden business. I am not naive enough to think they never took chances or did a foolish thing. What I am saying is that some of our good fortune is the result of their knowing that we expected them to behave in a certain way. I don't think they always listened, but I think their risk was lowered because they had clear understanding of their responsibilites and our expectations.
My largest point is that the passage of this law flies in the face of what I know. We need parents to do a better job of establishing the rules and expectations for their children. Relying on the government to do this job is problematic. The driving law is a piece of the big picture issue. It may save some lives for awhile, but I think it undermines the ideal situation. Parents, to the best of their ability, set the rules and teach the lessons. We all know that parents will now rely on the law to curtail the overcrowding of cars with teens. Lost will be the conversations that help teens to learn how to regulate their behaviors. In fact, we seem to have admitted defeat in this area; why else would we need the government's supervision to enforce common sense.
I know that some will read this and think that I am just being a contrarian. I am often that, but this new law really bothers me. As in all cases, teens will often follow the rule for fear of fines and tickets, but riding in large crowds of teens will also become the 'cool' thing to do when teen drivers think no adult is looking. Those teens who are not parented well will still take risks, and so will some very well parented teens. Teenagers are by nature irresponsible, and often reckless. How best can they be helped to regulate behavior while they make their way to adulthood? Let's pass laws that prohibit smoking and drinking. Let's pass laws that prohibit truancy from school. Let's pass laws that set curfews. We do all of these things because parents have relinquished responsibility for raising their children. Last time I checked, teens were breaking all of these rules and some others. A new driving law will have limited effect.
We should not be reliant on the government for the enforcement of common sense expectations. Neither the government nor the parent can curtail all the recless or negative behaviors. What bothers me is that parents won't have the required constant dialogue with their kids. Many parents will rely on their being a rule. They won't talk to their kids about the big picture; they will say, don't do it or you will lose your license or be fined. They will use the existence of the law to shorten the conversation. I want the conversation to be longer and more comprehensive.
Monday, September 19, 2011
What's Wrong With Michael Moore?
I watched a guest appearance by Michael Moore on the television program "The View" a few minutes ago. I don't know when it was filmed or aired, because I was watching on my computer, where a website had it labeled as a currently popular video.
I am at odds with Michael Moore's politics, though I defend his right to believe what he wants. I just don't understand how he can be such a bright guy, and so wrong in drawing his conclusions. Moore maintains in the brief appearance that the Republicans should nominate the candidate from Utah, whom he says admits to the reality of global warming, and whom is a centrist when compared with most of the other candidates.
He is wrong, though on a theoretical level, he makes sense. You see, on a theoretical level, the way for candidate A to beat candidate B is to earn the votes in the middle. Logical. Yet the model only works if the polar viewpoints have equal credibility and viability. The Democratic platform and approach has never worked. It is predicated on a naive notion that father government needs to take care of everything so that people never have to sacrifice, suffer, or think for themselves.
His other position almost smells of nobility. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden, he says, and then put him on trial for his crimes. Such a thought is grounded in a degree of naivete` that I find astounding coming from a bright guy. In his argument for demonstrating our commitment to the right of law and the right of the individual, Moore references the Nazi war trials. Such a comparison is boneheaded and wrong. Amazingly wrong. Had we tried Hitler, or really any of the highest ranking Nazis, perhaps he would have grounds for argument.
The truth is that we didn't try Hitler, or any of the psychopaths. I can't imagine that we would have. Providing these people with a forum for justifying their crimes can provide no benefit. We already know, from broadcasts created by Bin Laden himself, that he is guilty. We know the disregard for humanity that pervades his distorted view of Islam. Allowing him the opportunity for continued vitriolic ranting serves no positive purpose, and opens up the possibility for a slew of negative responses.
Bin Laden's minions are just as sick as he is. A trial held anywhere on the planet is sure to create opportunities for further atrocities. Holding a trial for which the outcome - guilty or innocence - is already known does not make us look lawful and noble; rather, it can only be viewed as gratuitous and shameful, and weak to boot.
Let's just imagine that the trial is held at The Hague, a symbol of international justice. Bin Laden, if he does speak, proffers his anti-American rant. The civilized world presents as evidence against the videotapes wherein Bin Laden advises his followers to continue to kill Westerners as often as they can. He is found guilty lickety-split and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. While the trial continues, crazies have chances to set IED's, to rally, to use any transcripts or videotape to show how the kangaroo court intended the trial to humiliate the leader and his cause. If he is put to death, he is a martyr. If he is jailed, he remains a cause.
In short, Michael Moore has plenty of brain, and plenty of knowledge, and little wisdom. In my opinion, expecting the best of all people all the time is foolish, yet the viewpoints espoused by Moore almost always misread the capacity of peoples. Individual people are capable of incredible things. Collectives of people always ultimately debase themselves. The checks and balances are in place only if a benevolent government says that nature should take its course in most matters. Governement can provide structure, temporary safety nets, and supervision of a sort.
The governement that Moore wants cultivates a system of dependency for the lowest levels of humanity. Eventually, the next level will 'aspire' to the same level, rather than the other way around. People often work their hardest out of a sense of desperation, for fear that failing to will bring about their demise. The possibility that laziness and complacency might end with disaster must remain in place.
I am at odds with Michael Moore's politics, though I defend his right to believe what he wants. I just don't understand how he can be such a bright guy, and so wrong in drawing his conclusions. Moore maintains in the brief appearance that the Republicans should nominate the candidate from Utah, whom he says admits to the reality of global warming, and whom is a centrist when compared with most of the other candidates.
He is wrong, though on a theoretical level, he makes sense. You see, on a theoretical level, the way for candidate A to beat candidate B is to earn the votes in the middle. Logical. Yet the model only works if the polar viewpoints have equal credibility and viability. The Democratic platform and approach has never worked. It is predicated on a naive notion that father government needs to take care of everything so that people never have to sacrifice, suffer, or think for themselves.
His other position almost smells of nobility. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden, he says, and then put him on trial for his crimes. Such a thought is grounded in a degree of naivete` that I find astounding coming from a bright guy. In his argument for demonstrating our commitment to the right of law and the right of the individual, Moore references the Nazi war trials. Such a comparison is boneheaded and wrong. Amazingly wrong. Had we tried Hitler, or really any of the highest ranking Nazis, perhaps he would have grounds for argument.
The truth is that we didn't try Hitler, or any of the psychopaths. I can't imagine that we would have. Providing these people with a forum for justifying their crimes can provide no benefit. We already know, from broadcasts created by Bin Laden himself, that he is guilty. We know the disregard for humanity that pervades his distorted view of Islam. Allowing him the opportunity for continued vitriolic ranting serves no positive purpose, and opens up the possibility for a slew of negative responses.
Bin Laden's minions are just as sick as he is. A trial held anywhere on the planet is sure to create opportunities for further atrocities. Holding a trial for which the outcome - guilty or innocence - is already known does not make us look lawful and noble; rather, it can only be viewed as gratuitous and shameful, and weak to boot.
Let's just imagine that the trial is held at The Hague, a symbol of international justice. Bin Laden, if he does speak, proffers his anti-American rant. The civilized world presents as evidence against the videotapes wherein Bin Laden advises his followers to continue to kill Westerners as often as they can. He is found guilty lickety-split and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. While the trial continues, crazies have chances to set IED's, to rally, to use any transcripts or videotape to show how the kangaroo court intended the trial to humiliate the leader and his cause. If he is put to death, he is a martyr. If he is jailed, he remains a cause.
In short, Michael Moore has plenty of brain, and plenty of knowledge, and little wisdom. In my opinion, expecting the best of all people all the time is foolish, yet the viewpoints espoused by Moore almost always misread the capacity of peoples. Individual people are capable of incredible things. Collectives of people always ultimately debase themselves. The checks and balances are in place only if a benevolent government says that nature should take its course in most matters. Governement can provide structure, temporary safety nets, and supervision of a sort.
The governement that Moore wants cultivates a system of dependency for the lowest levels of humanity. Eventually, the next level will 'aspire' to the same level, rather than the other way around. People often work their hardest out of a sense of desperation, for fear that failing to will bring about their demise. The possibility that laziness and complacency might end with disaster must remain in place.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11/11 - Sad Squared
I watched some of the tribute/memorial programs today, and was left with an exponential sense of sadness. Obviously, the loss of almost 3,000 people for what was, on the part of the terrorists, a symbolic gesture, is gut wrenching. The exponential part is that we, as a country, have succumbed to the terrorists' larger agenda. The reason for the symbolic gesture, to prove that the USA was/is vulnerable, had the ulterior and more important motive to expose the fact that we are not United States.
My sense of sadness is predicated on the observation that the terrorists, in this narrow sense, were right and have won.
I listened today as commentators on radio and television who were integral parts of event coverage tried to convince the audience that the ten-year-old event still resonates. However, I suspect that the commentators are wrong. Yes, most of us, especially on the East Coast, were unable to watch any footage without re-experiencing the 'pit of the stomach' response that prevailed ten years ago. However, I reflect on the current state of affairs and find little reason for optimism.
We are currently embarking on the next significant election season, and the two rival factions are focused not on the good of the country but on the maintenance of their respective platforms. The President's recent address provoked no thoughtful analysis; rather, the pre-conditioned and predetermined responses fell neatly into the expected categories. I honestly don't know if the outlined plans are viable, but I would rather the Republicans tell us how those plans can be implemented to make them work. I would rather that the Democrats be prepared to detail the reason for the viabiltiy. Instead, I heard nothing that rose above the Republican's expected denunciation, and nothing above the Democrat's obsequious acceptance of each Obama utterance as the gospel of the lord.
We have problems. As an American, I would like to feel that people in Washington have a sense of the bigger or biggest picture. Today's presentaitons tell me that they do not. We are not united. We are not galvanized. We pay lip service to the tragic losses, but we quickly revert to ideologocal stances that do not serve the greater good.
If you watched the tributes with even a modicum of objectivity, you would reach the same conclusion. The individuals involved were genuine and heart-wrenching. The sense that it was all for show lingers with me.
My sense of sadness is predicated on the observation that the terrorists, in this narrow sense, were right and have won.
I listened today as commentators on radio and television who were integral parts of event coverage tried to convince the audience that the ten-year-old event still resonates. However, I suspect that the commentators are wrong. Yes, most of us, especially on the East Coast, were unable to watch any footage without re-experiencing the 'pit of the stomach' response that prevailed ten years ago. However, I reflect on the current state of affairs and find little reason for optimism.
We are currently embarking on the next significant election season, and the two rival factions are focused not on the good of the country but on the maintenance of their respective platforms. The President's recent address provoked no thoughtful analysis; rather, the pre-conditioned and predetermined responses fell neatly into the expected categories. I honestly don't know if the outlined plans are viable, but I would rather the Republicans tell us how those plans can be implemented to make them work. I would rather that the Democrats be prepared to detail the reason for the viabiltiy. Instead, I heard nothing that rose above the Republican's expected denunciation, and nothing above the Democrat's obsequious acceptance of each Obama utterance as the gospel of the lord.
We have problems. As an American, I would like to feel that people in Washington have a sense of the bigger or biggest picture. Today's presentaitons tell me that they do not. We are not united. We are not galvanized. We pay lip service to the tragic losses, but we quickly revert to ideologocal stances that do not serve the greater good.
If you watched the tributes with even a modicum of objectivity, you would reach the same conclusion. The individuals involved were genuine and heart-wrenching. The sense that it was all for show lingers with me.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Islam vs. The West
This is really a column motivated by a sneaking suspicion that occurred to me as I reviewed the history of 'hits' that my blog has recieved. I will explain.
Quite awhile ago, I wrote a commentary on the news that an iman was planning to build a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Ironically, that story has not been in the news since that time. When I finish this piece, I am going to do some research to see if I can find out whether or not the iman's plan is still going ahead as planned. I really don't know.
That we/I don't know is the crux of this rumination. It occurs to me that Westerners, and Americans in particular, are burdened with an optimistic disposition that lends itself to naivete`. This is important when considering the conflict between Islam and the West.
Because our culture is predisposed to see the positive side of things, we would like to think that the Muslim world is largely inclined to be as tolerant as we have been taught to be. Think of it: almost every Western society has welcomed the Muslim population, and subsequently each has had to deal with exponential side effects of the Muslim presence in their respective countries. France, England, the US, and Germany have all been forced to respond to issues related to a rapidly growing Muslim presence.
Do I think that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I don't. However, I do think that the ultimate aim of the Muslim world is not to find a way to live peacably with other religious denominations the way that Westerners have. After all, most Western nations were irevocably influenced to find a middle ground during the Protestant Reformation. The conflicts between Christian sects were violent enough, but sustained violence had to lead to civil war in all the European countries. In fact, the reason that America developed the values system that it did is that many of the Pilgrims and Puritans were running from persecution in their mother countries. The other option was inevitable self-annihilation.
The Muslim world has evolved similarly, with open wounds between various Muslim cultures. As a result, not all Muslims subscribe to the belief that non-Muslims need to be eradicated. However, the driving force behind the conflict between these two worlds is the portion of the Muslim world that does believe in a literal victory over the Jewish and Christian faiths, and to be fair, all other faiths as well.
So, I am not suspicious of all Muslims, but I am very susppicious of Muslim motives when they affect the American way of life, and my own life as well. So I don't trust the iman who wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero. My attitude may be wrong, and unfair, but it is the only prudent attitude. After all, I do know that a portion of the Muslim world has been very open about wanting my way of life destroyed. Perhaps this point of view is not the dominant one, but I can't know for sure, and so American policy must be built on being protective.
I must also admit to an ulterior motive. This blog is not widely viewed or distributed. But over the past three years or so, the previous column about the mosque at Ground Zero has had significantly more hits than any other column that I have posted. I am suspicious that my own country, or people in the Muslim world, are searching for posts on Muslim topics.
This post then, is something of a test. In the next few weeks, if I have significantly more hits because of the title of this post, I will know that people out there are trying to detemrine if my little blogs are harmless or reason for alarm. I trust they will decide they are harlmess, but I will also know to what extent we are all being 'investigated.' If anything comes of it, I will create a follow-up post.
Quite awhile ago, I wrote a commentary on the news that an iman was planning to build a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Ironically, that story has not been in the news since that time. When I finish this piece, I am going to do some research to see if I can find out whether or not the iman's plan is still going ahead as planned. I really don't know.
That we/I don't know is the crux of this rumination. It occurs to me that Westerners, and Americans in particular, are burdened with an optimistic disposition that lends itself to naivete`. This is important when considering the conflict between Islam and the West.
Because our culture is predisposed to see the positive side of things, we would like to think that the Muslim world is largely inclined to be as tolerant as we have been taught to be. Think of it: almost every Western society has welcomed the Muslim population, and subsequently each has had to deal with exponential side effects of the Muslim presence in their respective countries. France, England, the US, and Germany have all been forced to respond to issues related to a rapidly growing Muslim presence.
Do I think that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I don't. However, I do think that the ultimate aim of the Muslim world is not to find a way to live peacably with other religious denominations the way that Westerners have. After all, most Western nations were irevocably influenced to find a middle ground during the Protestant Reformation. The conflicts between Christian sects were violent enough, but sustained violence had to lead to civil war in all the European countries. In fact, the reason that America developed the values system that it did is that many of the Pilgrims and Puritans were running from persecution in their mother countries. The other option was inevitable self-annihilation.
The Muslim world has evolved similarly, with open wounds between various Muslim cultures. As a result, not all Muslims subscribe to the belief that non-Muslims need to be eradicated. However, the driving force behind the conflict between these two worlds is the portion of the Muslim world that does believe in a literal victory over the Jewish and Christian faiths, and to be fair, all other faiths as well.
So, I am not suspicious of all Muslims, but I am very susppicious of Muslim motives when they affect the American way of life, and my own life as well. So I don't trust the iman who wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero. My attitude may be wrong, and unfair, but it is the only prudent attitude. After all, I do know that a portion of the Muslim world has been very open about wanting my way of life destroyed. Perhaps this point of view is not the dominant one, but I can't know for sure, and so American policy must be built on being protective.
I must also admit to an ulterior motive. This blog is not widely viewed or distributed. But over the past three years or so, the previous column about the mosque at Ground Zero has had significantly more hits than any other column that I have posted. I am suspicious that my own country, or people in the Muslim world, are searching for posts on Muslim topics.
This post then, is something of a test. In the next few weeks, if I have significantly more hits because of the title of this post, I will know that people out there are trying to detemrine if my little blogs are harmless or reason for alarm. I trust they will decide they are harlmess, but I will also know to what extent we are all being 'investigated.' If anything comes of it, I will create a follow-up post.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Real Education: Four Simple Truths
I have been rambling on for quite awhile on education topics, and think it fitting if I change gears a bit to recommend a book I just finished. The abbreviated title is the subject of this entry, and the author is Charles Murray. It is available on your kindle for $11.99.
I am making this move primarily because I downloaded the book on a bit of a whim: it was a rainy Sunday with plenty to do, but most of it required standing out in the rain. I didn't want to. That I read the book in one day says something, though I have been inspired to read books in one day before.
His four simple truths are as follows. 1) ability varies. 2) half of all students are below average. 3) too many people are going to college. 4) America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.
I immediately agreed with three of the four truths, which prompted me to buy the book and start in. I should forewarn you that the book is written for a certain audience, so if you are not one of the academically gifted, or you are not involved and interested in education reform, you are probably not going to invest in the reading. If you fit the two criteria, however, you should give it a look.
Murray's book, to summarize, attacks what he calls educational Romanticism. (An earlier entry or two, on egalitarianism and pluralism, discussed variations on the same theme, revealing my particular bias.)
Educational romanticism hold true to what Murray believes are the fallacies that undermine school reform efforts. The inverse of those fallacies comprise the Four Simple Truths mentioned above.
For halaf a century or more, Americans in education have subscribed to the belief that schools can somehow magically improve academic performance by dealing with the factors over which they have some control, but Murray contends that such an effort has also necessitated that they ignore 'facts' that have led many people astray.
I will discuss one here, then invite you to read the book. The reformers have long subscribed to the 'truth' that all students can learn. However, more recent reforms have expanded that starting point to champion the notion that all students can learn at a high level, with the high level being what is determined to be 'grade level' performance. Murray contends that the evolutionaly 'truth' is false. He maintains that ability varies to a high degree, and that no degree of hard work or intervention that we know of can elevate a low ability student into the ranks of the high achiever. (Remember, the definition of high achievement means consistent grade level work.)
The ramifications of this are myriad, and Murray contends, self-destructive. Whether the program is NCLB or Title I or Head Start, the consequence is that schools are spending massive amounts of money to lift a statistical portion of the population beyond the limits of their ability. As evidence he presents the statistical results of a number of programs, with the conclusion being that even those efforts that seemed to create significant and laudable improvement were ephemeral. In other words, those students who were identified and received expensive and broad attention to items that should improve academic performance were nevertheless unable to retain that high level of performance throughout their academic careers. Some made great gains on the targeted test, but subsequent tests revealed that these students rather quickly performed at levels commensurate with the low ability that identified them in the first place.
Read the book. Murray goes further than to attack the fallacies. He suggests ways that we can effectively redesign the educational system to meet the needs that face us as a country and a culture. His suggestions extend to colleges, the hiring practices of the business world, and currucular choices made K-12.
Read the book. I think he is far more right than wrong.
I am making this move primarily because I downloaded the book on a bit of a whim: it was a rainy Sunday with plenty to do, but most of it required standing out in the rain. I didn't want to. That I read the book in one day says something, though I have been inspired to read books in one day before.
His four simple truths are as follows. 1) ability varies. 2) half of all students are below average. 3) too many people are going to college. 4) America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.
I immediately agreed with three of the four truths, which prompted me to buy the book and start in. I should forewarn you that the book is written for a certain audience, so if you are not one of the academically gifted, or you are not involved and interested in education reform, you are probably not going to invest in the reading. If you fit the two criteria, however, you should give it a look.
Murray's book, to summarize, attacks what he calls educational Romanticism. (An earlier entry or two, on egalitarianism and pluralism, discussed variations on the same theme, revealing my particular bias.)
Educational romanticism hold true to what Murray believes are the fallacies that undermine school reform efforts. The inverse of those fallacies comprise the Four Simple Truths mentioned above.
For halaf a century or more, Americans in education have subscribed to the belief that schools can somehow magically improve academic performance by dealing with the factors over which they have some control, but Murray contends that such an effort has also necessitated that they ignore 'facts' that have led many people astray.
I will discuss one here, then invite you to read the book. The reformers have long subscribed to the 'truth' that all students can learn. However, more recent reforms have expanded that starting point to champion the notion that all students can learn at a high level, with the high level being what is determined to be 'grade level' performance. Murray contends that the evolutionaly 'truth' is false. He maintains that ability varies to a high degree, and that no degree of hard work or intervention that we know of can elevate a low ability student into the ranks of the high achiever. (Remember, the definition of high achievement means consistent grade level work.)
The ramifications of this are myriad, and Murray contends, self-destructive. Whether the program is NCLB or Title I or Head Start, the consequence is that schools are spending massive amounts of money to lift a statistical portion of the population beyond the limits of their ability. As evidence he presents the statistical results of a number of programs, with the conclusion being that even those efforts that seemed to create significant and laudable improvement were ephemeral. In other words, those students who were identified and received expensive and broad attention to items that should improve academic performance were nevertheless unable to retain that high level of performance throughout their academic careers. Some made great gains on the targeted test, but subsequent tests revealed that these students rather quickly performed at levels commensurate with the low ability that identified them in the first place.
Read the book. Murray goes further than to attack the fallacies. He suggests ways that we can effectively redesign the educational system to meet the needs that face us as a country and a culture. His suggestions extend to colleges, the hiring practices of the business world, and currucular choices made K-12.
Read the book. I think he is far more right than wrong.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
Now I know that the American Experiment was not originally conceived to be or to become an empire in the same way that the Roman Empire did. Yet the similarities between the two entities has got to grab the current citizens' attention. Furthermore, this is far from the first time that discussion of the topic, the title of this entry, had been bandied about. My contribution to the topic is, I hope, a bit different.
Everyone knows that the fall of the Roman Empire really happened rather slowly, over centuries, and the causes have been debated for years. Nevertheless, most agree that a shift in values - that is, a culture shift contributed to the demise. This is where I believe the similarities are most striking.
I am a moderate Republican. I think that viewpoint obviously colors all of the perceptions that I have regarding the precipitious slide that America is experiencing. This posting promises to be a bit different from here, as I plan to make observations, and not to comment on the significance thereof.
1. For more than 150 years, American values were heavily influenced by a small pocket of people known as the Pilgrims, and their counterparts, the Puritans. As evidence, I mention merely the tendency in two directions - prudery, and industry. Those of us who are correclty classified as baby boomers have witnessed the eradication of conservative morality. From sex and nudity to profanity and tastelessness, our media - TV and film - have reflected a pendulum swing away from that prudery. Presently, almost anything goes. As to industry, the American commitment to work has waned as well. Whereas the parents of baby boomers took sometimes annoying pride in accounting for their capacity for work, the next generation has made "money for nothing" their aim and a point of pride.
2. Patriotism is no longer universally applauded and practiced. Our parents were eager to complain and debate the relative merits of whatever policy prevailed at the time, and even the Vietnam era objectors tended toward a belief in the peaceful protest. Today, what we are witnessing is a tendency toward violent protest for its own sake, to the point where the target of the protest is incnsequential. Rather, the prepondernance of flash mobs speaks to a belief that the individual dissatisfaction is cause enough to wreak harm on anyone within arms' length, even if the victim has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the protest. In short, previous values tended to respect the rights of the collective individual over the rights of the individually dissatisfied or disaffected. Again, the Vietnam era protestors sometimes wrought serious harm, but the undercurrent seemed always to value the Amercan citizenry. That is, the aim seemed to be the betterment of the country.
3. Our Congressmen are no longer committed to the betterment of the country either, and this is not an indictment of every congressman, but rather an indictment of the system and its values. Clearly, the American people have no great objection to the compensation package of our political leaders or we would have had backlash along the way. Today though, the populace has recognized that while we were tolerant of perks and privileges, the politicians have been raiding the cookie jar. I doubt you could find a regular citizen in the country who really believes that a congressman should be compensated for life, that congressman should have a gold-laced health plan for which they pay nothing, that per diem expenses, on top of a generous salary are warranted.
4. America's foreign policy has failed to live up to its principles. Though we have maintained a presence of some kind in many countries across the globe for a long time, our presence has usually been welcomed or easily tolerated, as we were not in the business of disrupting the course of life in those countries. Recently though, our presence has become unwelcomed and intrusive in many places. The military presnce in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq are unwelcomed incursions, sure. But the current aim, as I perceive it, is to play watchdog for the world. I may be under-informed, but our objectives seem to be duplicitious, even to me, an American. (I should emphasize that this is a perception that is surely the result of my own ignorance, as the information that we hear is so sparse.)
Again, I won't elaborate on these observations; the judgments are up to you.
Everyone knows that the fall of the Roman Empire really happened rather slowly, over centuries, and the causes have been debated for years. Nevertheless, most agree that a shift in values - that is, a culture shift contributed to the demise. This is where I believe the similarities are most striking.
I am a moderate Republican. I think that viewpoint obviously colors all of the perceptions that I have regarding the precipitious slide that America is experiencing. This posting promises to be a bit different from here, as I plan to make observations, and not to comment on the significance thereof.
1. For more than 150 years, American values were heavily influenced by a small pocket of people known as the Pilgrims, and their counterparts, the Puritans. As evidence, I mention merely the tendency in two directions - prudery, and industry. Those of us who are correclty classified as baby boomers have witnessed the eradication of conservative morality. From sex and nudity to profanity and tastelessness, our media - TV and film - have reflected a pendulum swing away from that prudery. Presently, almost anything goes. As to industry, the American commitment to work has waned as well. Whereas the parents of baby boomers took sometimes annoying pride in accounting for their capacity for work, the next generation has made "money for nothing" their aim and a point of pride.
2. Patriotism is no longer universally applauded and practiced. Our parents were eager to complain and debate the relative merits of whatever policy prevailed at the time, and even the Vietnam era objectors tended toward a belief in the peaceful protest. Today, what we are witnessing is a tendency toward violent protest for its own sake, to the point where the target of the protest is incnsequential. Rather, the prepondernance of flash mobs speaks to a belief that the individual dissatisfaction is cause enough to wreak harm on anyone within arms' length, even if the victim has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the protest. In short, previous values tended to respect the rights of the collective individual over the rights of the individually dissatisfied or disaffected. Again, the Vietnam era protestors sometimes wrought serious harm, but the undercurrent seemed always to value the Amercan citizenry. That is, the aim seemed to be the betterment of the country.
3. Our Congressmen are no longer committed to the betterment of the country either, and this is not an indictment of every congressman, but rather an indictment of the system and its values. Clearly, the American people have no great objection to the compensation package of our political leaders or we would have had backlash along the way. Today though, the populace has recognized that while we were tolerant of perks and privileges, the politicians have been raiding the cookie jar. I doubt you could find a regular citizen in the country who really believes that a congressman should be compensated for life, that congressman should have a gold-laced health plan for which they pay nothing, that per diem expenses, on top of a generous salary are warranted.
4. America's foreign policy has failed to live up to its principles. Though we have maintained a presence of some kind in many countries across the globe for a long time, our presence has usually been welcomed or easily tolerated, as we were not in the business of disrupting the course of life in those countries. Recently though, our presence has become unwelcomed and intrusive in many places. The military presnce in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq are unwelcomed incursions, sure. But the current aim, as I perceive it, is to play watchdog for the world. I may be under-informed, but our objectives seem to be duplicitious, even to me, an American. (I should emphasize that this is a perception that is surely the result of my own ignorance, as the information that we hear is so sparse.)
Again, I won't elaborate on these observations; the judgments are up to you.
Monday, August 1, 2011
E-A-G-L-E-S - Eagles!
I am listening to the sports talk radio guys, and I just disagree with everything they say about the Eagles' prospects. They are trumpeting the recent acquisitions, many of which are impressive and reason for excitement and optimism. They go too far, however, with evaluating the Eagles' status as Super Bowl contenders. In fact, they have gone so far as to say that this should be a Super Bowl or bust season for Andy Reid.
Hold on, buckaroos. The roster overhaul was necessary and, as I said, exciting, but have they really positioned themselves to compete with the elite? I say no, and here's why.
What I saw last year was an unexpected series of performances from Michael Vick. He had a much better season than I anticipated, but I have trouble elevating his success to Herculean standards. His numbers, in the end, were just very good, not great. Furthermore, as opponents overcame their surprise with his return to athletic excellence, they developed game plans designed to contain him - and they suceeded to an alarming degree.
Consequently, I saw Vick's season as a personal victory, but not much else. In the playoffs, and even in the tougher games at the end of the regular season, I though Vick returned to the form he demonstrated in Atlanta: tremendous, highlight-reel plays which ultimately led to disappointing outcomes at crunch time.
If a team does not have a dependable QB, they cannot go deep into the playoffs. Vince Young is something of a younger, even more physical version of Vick, with the same limitations. He and Vick either cannot read defenses, or they are unable to stand up in the face of pressure and retain the poise that is needed when the pressure is relentless, as it always is in the playoffs.
In addition to the QB position, the Eagles have done nothing to upgrade their offense. DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both accomplished weapons, but they are small and limited also. Neither one will be confused with Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice. If the QB were Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, I would declare the receiving corps as good enough to contend for a championship. Furthermore, if they were not still questionable along the offensive line, with Winston Justice and King Dunlop being counted on to contribute, maybe Vick and/or Young would be good enough.
On defense, they have giant question marks at safety and linebacker. True, they have upgraded the defensive line and cornerback positions, and those two positions are of paramount importance in the pass-happy NFL. Yet the other two areas concern me greatly.
Super Bowl or Bust? I don't think so. My prediction is that Michael Vick's bubble will burst early, and that Philly fans will be yellng for Vince Young, who will meet with some of the same failures as the man he replaces.
I hope I am wrong, because I like when the Eagles win. But we will see...
Hold on, buckaroos. The roster overhaul was necessary and, as I said, exciting, but have they really positioned themselves to compete with the elite? I say no, and here's why.
What I saw last year was an unexpected series of performances from Michael Vick. He had a much better season than I anticipated, but I have trouble elevating his success to Herculean standards. His numbers, in the end, were just very good, not great. Furthermore, as opponents overcame their surprise with his return to athletic excellence, they developed game plans designed to contain him - and they suceeded to an alarming degree.
Consequently, I saw Vick's season as a personal victory, but not much else. In the playoffs, and even in the tougher games at the end of the regular season, I though Vick returned to the form he demonstrated in Atlanta: tremendous, highlight-reel plays which ultimately led to disappointing outcomes at crunch time.
If a team does not have a dependable QB, they cannot go deep into the playoffs. Vince Young is something of a younger, even more physical version of Vick, with the same limitations. He and Vick either cannot read defenses, or they are unable to stand up in the face of pressure and retain the poise that is needed when the pressure is relentless, as it always is in the playoffs.
In addition to the QB position, the Eagles have done nothing to upgrade their offense. DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both accomplished weapons, but they are small and limited also. Neither one will be confused with Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice. If the QB were Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, I would declare the receiving corps as good enough to contend for a championship. Furthermore, if they were not still questionable along the offensive line, with Winston Justice and King Dunlop being counted on to contribute, maybe Vick and/or Young would be good enough.
On defense, they have giant question marks at safety and linebacker. True, they have upgraded the defensive line and cornerback positions, and those two positions are of paramount importance in the pass-happy NFL. Yet the other two areas concern me greatly.
Super Bowl or Bust? I don't think so. My prediction is that Michael Vick's bubble will burst early, and that Philly fans will be yellng for Vince Young, who will meet with some of the same failures as the man he replaces.
I hope I am wrong, because I like when the Eagles win. But we will see...
Monday, July 11, 2011
Christian Lopez Did What He Needed to Do...
So let's set the record straight. If your boyhood hero hit a milestone, and you had a chance to be a unique part of it, you SHOULD do the noble thing and make a contribution to that hero.
In case you weren't aware, Derek Jeter of the Yankees hit a homer to reach the 3,000 hit plateau for his career. As a rule, I can't like a Yankee, being a Phillies fan, but I have always thought that Jeter has done it right. He is a super player, and he has been classy along the way. If I were asked to try to like a Yankee, he would be the first choice.
Christian Lopez, a 23 year old fan in the stands for the event, had the great fortune to catch the ball that capped Jeter's pursuit of 3,000 hits. Naturally, eschewing the instinct to see the good luck as a chance to cash in - by holding someone hostage to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the piece of memorabilia, the young man decided to be as classy as his hero, by returning the ball, with no demand for payback.
Sure, he said he'd like to meet Derek, and he thought an autograph or two would be nice, but in the end he made no demands. Had he been me, a fifty-year-old guy who can't elevate these professional athletes to a pedestal anymore, perhaps one could question the decision. But given the circumstances, he did what he had to do.
My first ballplayer hero was Larry Bowa, who didn't ever get near the milestone of 3,000 hits. So to try to make a half-decent comparision, let's say I came up with a ball he hit for a ground rule double in the 1980 World Series, and let's say that hit clinched the Series win. At that moment, I would want the chance to be part of Larry's finest moment - for the rest of my life, and his. A picture with him would have sufficed. For much of his early career, the Phillies were terrible, and still I loved watching him play. I would not have had a chance of seeing my fortune to be financially lucrative.
All the columnists and talk radio guys are being short-sighted, and therefore, predictably foolish. The ball isn't a lottery ticket, except in the sense that it can represent a stroke of luck that binds a regular boy and his baseball hero forever. That boy can tell that story for the next fifty or sixty years. To some extent, I think it justifiable if the boy says he is simply going to keep the ball, put it on his mantlepiece, and maybe someday donate it to the Yankee museum, or the Baseball Hall of Fame, or maybe leave it to his own children, so they can continue the story.
The point is that we are all bound in our decision-making by the forces that control us at any given point in time. Middle age men don't have the ability to idol worship anymore, unless the subject is their own children, or later, grandchildren. To me, Derek Jeter is a kid playing ball for lots of money; he is not a model of what I want to be someday. Likewise, I couldn't feel that same allegiance to any of the current Phillies, for whom I love to cheer. Ryan Howard's 800th homer - yes I am being a bit silly - would go on the market should I be the one to catch it. Ryan could certainly make a reasonable bid that I would be inclined to accept, but the money would be more improtant to me now. Perhaps that means I have grown old and jaded, but I have earned each smudge and smear on that once pristine soul.
In case you weren't aware, Derek Jeter of the Yankees hit a homer to reach the 3,000 hit plateau for his career. As a rule, I can't like a Yankee, being a Phillies fan, but I have always thought that Jeter has done it right. He is a super player, and he has been classy along the way. If I were asked to try to like a Yankee, he would be the first choice.
Christian Lopez, a 23 year old fan in the stands for the event, had the great fortune to catch the ball that capped Jeter's pursuit of 3,000 hits. Naturally, eschewing the instinct to see the good luck as a chance to cash in - by holding someone hostage to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the piece of memorabilia, the young man decided to be as classy as his hero, by returning the ball, with no demand for payback.
Sure, he said he'd like to meet Derek, and he thought an autograph or two would be nice, but in the end he made no demands. Had he been me, a fifty-year-old guy who can't elevate these professional athletes to a pedestal anymore, perhaps one could question the decision. But given the circumstances, he did what he had to do.
My first ballplayer hero was Larry Bowa, who didn't ever get near the milestone of 3,000 hits. So to try to make a half-decent comparision, let's say I came up with a ball he hit for a ground rule double in the 1980 World Series, and let's say that hit clinched the Series win. At that moment, I would want the chance to be part of Larry's finest moment - for the rest of my life, and his. A picture with him would have sufficed. For much of his early career, the Phillies were terrible, and still I loved watching him play. I would not have had a chance of seeing my fortune to be financially lucrative.
All the columnists and talk radio guys are being short-sighted, and therefore, predictably foolish. The ball isn't a lottery ticket, except in the sense that it can represent a stroke of luck that binds a regular boy and his baseball hero forever. That boy can tell that story for the next fifty or sixty years. To some extent, I think it justifiable if the boy says he is simply going to keep the ball, put it on his mantlepiece, and maybe someday donate it to the Yankee museum, or the Baseball Hall of Fame, or maybe leave it to his own children, so they can continue the story.
The point is that we are all bound in our decision-making by the forces that control us at any given point in time. Middle age men don't have the ability to idol worship anymore, unless the subject is their own children, or later, grandchildren. To me, Derek Jeter is a kid playing ball for lots of money; he is not a model of what I want to be someday. Likewise, I couldn't feel that same allegiance to any of the current Phillies, for whom I love to cheer. Ryan Howard's 800th homer - yes I am being a bit silly - would go on the market should I be the one to catch it. Ryan could certainly make a reasonable bid that I would be inclined to accept, but the money would be more improtant to me now. Perhaps that means I have grown old and jaded, but I have earned each smudge and smear on that once pristine soul.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
I Don't Care About the Casey Anthony Trial
My wife cares a great deal about the Casey Anthony trial, and her sympathy and empathy are among her most enviable traits. By osmosis, because she was riveted to it, I have become relatively familiar with the details, having sat in the room reading or playing on the computer while she hung on as many words as she was capable of taking in.
I don't care about the trial. I care that a young child was killed, and I care that her mother was not held very accountable for taking care of that daughter. I just don't care about the theatrics and the media circus of the trial.
In fact, I object to very many things associated with it. A heinous incident occurred. Because I didn't engage on an emotional level, I can't say that I have an opinion on whether her mother did it or not. I don't care about that either. My caring begins with the notion that a parent is supposed to take care of his or her children. This mother didn't. She should be held responsible, on some level, for what happened.
To my wife and the others who engaged and invested - please don't hold ill will toward the jurors, who in my opinion, reached the only verdict they could. The prosecution may have proved that the mother considered killing her daughter; they may have proved that she is a lying, conniving monster who was willing to cast suspicion on anyone she could, including her parents and sibling. From my vantage point, since they don't know exactly the manner of death, or the cause of death, and since they can't put mother in the room when the death occurred, they can't convict for murder.
Now the real source of my annoyance is the ridiculous coverage of the trial. At least five Nancy Grace's sprouted when this trial commenced, all of them yelling at the TV audience in one manner or another, and none of them apparently capable of providing one scintilla of information that matters. Like many of the riveted audience members, they were incapable of dong what a journalist ought to do - provide some insightful thoughts.
The problem is with the coverage itself. I contend that the general public's inclusion in the trial subverts the justice system. Jurors need to be harvested from another area so that they might be found unbiased. Then, all of the yelling faces insert themselves into the mechanics of the trial. We all know that the lawyers, the witnesses, the police themselves have been influenced by what the screaming faces have said. Sure, they pretend to be unaffected, rising high above normal human behavior to maintain their objectivity, but none of us would really be able to do so. I therefore don't blame them. I blame the notion that the general public has some right to know the case on an intimate level, which is what the screaming faces purport to provide.
I don't know that the outcome of the trial was affected by all of the hullabaloo; in fact, that's my point. I don't want that to be a consideration. I want the court to summarily reject all requests for TV or radio, or computer access. If the screaming faces are going to scream, let them do so on the basis of having sat through the tedium themselves, or let them rely on professional reporters to go in and sift through the mountains of factoids.
Get the cameras out of the courtroom. Allow no obvious external obstacles to objectivity or clarity. Audience, since my preferences are not going to be met, stop watching the screaming faces unless they do their jobs and augment the audience's understanding of the situation.
Quite simply, the prosecution did not prove the mother guilty, as I see it. They tried to rely on the juror's expected emotional response to the odious circumstance of the little girl's death. Their case should have been laid out as I noted above. Parents should take care of their kids. They should have been able to prove that this one didn't.
I don't care about the trial. I care that a young child was killed, and I care that her mother was not held very accountable for taking care of that daughter. I just don't care about the theatrics and the media circus of the trial.
In fact, I object to very many things associated with it. A heinous incident occurred. Because I didn't engage on an emotional level, I can't say that I have an opinion on whether her mother did it or not. I don't care about that either. My caring begins with the notion that a parent is supposed to take care of his or her children. This mother didn't. She should be held responsible, on some level, for what happened.
To my wife and the others who engaged and invested - please don't hold ill will toward the jurors, who in my opinion, reached the only verdict they could. The prosecution may have proved that the mother considered killing her daughter; they may have proved that she is a lying, conniving monster who was willing to cast suspicion on anyone she could, including her parents and sibling. From my vantage point, since they don't know exactly the manner of death, or the cause of death, and since they can't put mother in the room when the death occurred, they can't convict for murder.
Now the real source of my annoyance is the ridiculous coverage of the trial. At least five Nancy Grace's sprouted when this trial commenced, all of them yelling at the TV audience in one manner or another, and none of them apparently capable of providing one scintilla of information that matters. Like many of the riveted audience members, they were incapable of dong what a journalist ought to do - provide some insightful thoughts.
The problem is with the coverage itself. I contend that the general public's inclusion in the trial subverts the justice system. Jurors need to be harvested from another area so that they might be found unbiased. Then, all of the yelling faces insert themselves into the mechanics of the trial. We all know that the lawyers, the witnesses, the police themselves have been influenced by what the screaming faces have said. Sure, they pretend to be unaffected, rising high above normal human behavior to maintain their objectivity, but none of us would really be able to do so. I therefore don't blame them. I blame the notion that the general public has some right to know the case on an intimate level, which is what the screaming faces purport to provide.
I don't know that the outcome of the trial was affected by all of the hullabaloo; in fact, that's my point. I don't want that to be a consideration. I want the court to summarily reject all requests for TV or radio, or computer access. If the screaming faces are going to scream, let them do so on the basis of having sat through the tedium themselves, or let them rely on professional reporters to go in and sift through the mountains of factoids.
Get the cameras out of the courtroom. Allow no obvious external obstacles to objectivity or clarity. Audience, since my preferences are not going to be met, stop watching the screaming faces unless they do their jobs and augment the audience's understanding of the situation.
Quite simply, the prosecution did not prove the mother guilty, as I see it. They tried to rely on the juror's expected emotional response to the odious circumstance of the little girl's death. Their case should have been laid out as I noted above. Parents should take care of their kids. They should have been able to prove that this one didn't.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
An UPdate on Religion
Recent conversations, some on networking sites populated by my children and their friends, have drawn me into discussions about the place of religion and church and spirituality in the lives of the regular Joes of the world. (I know I posted a longer rumination on religion in an earlier post, so this will be something of a tune-up.)
The discussion thread in question started with a posting of a quote attributed to Buddha, the gist of which was that the individual human must find his own answers: the minute the individual's perspective is dependent upon any authority, literary, philosphical, canonical, or otherwise, the individual has ceded himself, and thereby diminished himself. That is, at least, what I took from the quote. Responses ensued. The respondents are intelligent people, so the thoughts were generally well-crafted and comprehensible, despite an apparent disregard for the conventional mechanics of written communication and the occasional typo. What struck me, however, upon re-reading the thread, was just how much of the dialogue and the observations are dependent upon the limits of the experience of the speakers.
Lest the conclusion of the last paragraph sound dismissive of the posted views, let me clarify. Most of the people contributing are in their twenties. Consequently, though their respective voices are intelligent and thoughtful, they are to a large extent encumbered by their lack of years. The oldest of the respondents took the broadest approach, and so on down the line. So, while I have respect, comprehension, and appreciation for their thoughts, I am incapable of seeing things as they do. My point is not that I am older, wiser, and therefore more 'right.' Rather, my point is merely that I can't agree and accept the viewpoint each espouses, since living more than twice as long as all of them, I have been shoved into my way of seeing by the cumulative experiences that I have had.
Examples might help here. One of the participants is closely aligned with an orthodox religious approach. Another has been influenced by an orthodox religious perspective, but has rejected such viewpoint entirely. A third has been less indoctrinated into any formal theology, and so has adopted a somewhat carefully crafted hybrid of those with which he is familiar: he is a contemporary L. Ron Hubbard who is blazing a trail that is malleable and organic. Finally, the oldest contributor - except for me - has apparently concluded that there is no one way, and that if there is, it will always elude him just as he gets close enough to nab it.
Again, all of these people are interacting with and responding to life as they know and are living it. All of them are right, and none of them is, including me. People, if they are so inclined to make spiritual or religious discoveries, are constantly taking in new information on the basis of the things they observe. Only the most severely indoctrinated believes that the answers to life's questions have all been generated, and that the individual needs only to locate the template and then adhere to it.
My observation is simply this: the individual finds and tries to adhere to an approach that makes the most sense to him at the time. The indoctrinated individual believes he has found the pertinent answers in a formal code that will serve him for the rest of his life. Yet I feel confident that the details of the personal application of the philiosophy or theology will go through myriad developments as life throws its curves his way. The same is true for the rest of the group; the only difference is that their epiphanies may come to them not as a shock, or as a necessary adjustment, as they have already determined that the answers are elusive or ever-changing.
I don't know that any of this is clear enough, but for those who were part of the discussion thread, I think it best clarifies the broad range of the discourse.
The discussion thread in question started with a posting of a quote attributed to Buddha, the gist of which was that the individual human must find his own answers: the minute the individual's perspective is dependent upon any authority, literary, philosphical, canonical, or otherwise, the individual has ceded himself, and thereby diminished himself. That is, at least, what I took from the quote. Responses ensued. The respondents are intelligent people, so the thoughts were generally well-crafted and comprehensible, despite an apparent disregard for the conventional mechanics of written communication and the occasional typo. What struck me, however, upon re-reading the thread, was just how much of the dialogue and the observations are dependent upon the limits of the experience of the speakers.
Lest the conclusion of the last paragraph sound dismissive of the posted views, let me clarify. Most of the people contributing are in their twenties. Consequently, though their respective voices are intelligent and thoughtful, they are to a large extent encumbered by their lack of years. The oldest of the respondents took the broadest approach, and so on down the line. So, while I have respect, comprehension, and appreciation for their thoughts, I am incapable of seeing things as they do. My point is not that I am older, wiser, and therefore more 'right.' Rather, my point is merely that I can't agree and accept the viewpoint each espouses, since living more than twice as long as all of them, I have been shoved into my way of seeing by the cumulative experiences that I have had.
Examples might help here. One of the participants is closely aligned with an orthodox religious approach. Another has been influenced by an orthodox religious perspective, but has rejected such viewpoint entirely. A third has been less indoctrinated into any formal theology, and so has adopted a somewhat carefully crafted hybrid of those with which he is familiar: he is a contemporary L. Ron Hubbard who is blazing a trail that is malleable and organic. Finally, the oldest contributor - except for me - has apparently concluded that there is no one way, and that if there is, it will always elude him just as he gets close enough to nab it.
Again, all of these people are interacting with and responding to life as they know and are living it. All of them are right, and none of them is, including me. People, if they are so inclined to make spiritual or religious discoveries, are constantly taking in new information on the basis of the things they observe. Only the most severely indoctrinated believes that the answers to life's questions have all been generated, and that the individual needs only to locate the template and then adhere to it.
My observation is simply this: the individual finds and tries to adhere to an approach that makes the most sense to him at the time. The indoctrinated individual believes he has found the pertinent answers in a formal code that will serve him for the rest of his life. Yet I feel confident that the details of the personal application of the philiosophy or theology will go through myriad developments as life throws its curves his way. The same is true for the rest of the group; the only difference is that their epiphanies may come to them not as a shock, or as a necessary adjustment, as they have already determined that the answers are elusive or ever-changing.
I don't know that any of this is clear enough, but for those who were part of the discussion thread, I think it best clarifies the broad range of the discourse.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The School Reform Boondoggle
If the reader has followed this blog in any regard, he has noted the author's disdain for the school reform movement. Briefly, most reformers are well-trained and versed, and their ideas are generally usable and defensible in some regard. However, the reform/testing/accountability model has proven to be costly in terms of money and time. One could easily make the case that the current budgetary mess is directly caused by the high performing school reform movement.
Before I go further, I am going to provide a link to an article that anyone with serious interest must read. It is not very long, but it highlights in an effective way the statistics and correlative reasoning behind most of the premises of this article. Heres the link: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.html. This blog format will not allow me to make the URL a hyperlink, so you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.
The school reform movement was born around 1980, with the Chicken Little response to "A Nation at Risk." That study alerted leaders to serious deficiencies in American schools, and it took a good twenty years before enough traction was gained to have the Federal government intervene and make the mess even worse.
The article referenced above DOES NOT maintain that American schools are doing great and that all the initiatives are unnecessary. Rather, the author's conclusion is that all of the worries about American competitiveness are genuine and worrisome. However, the focus of the article is the manner in which school leaders misinterpret the statistics - I think purposefully.
Simply put, the gap between the US and the rest of the world is misleading in some ways. For a long time, the US education model was internationally successful. However, as the rest of the world has closed the socioeconomic gap, US aggregate superiority has evaporated. ALL of our students do not perform as well as the best on the world stage. Again, if you think I am trotting out the same old teaching community excuses and defenses, please read the article.
When socioeconomic parallels are drawn, US students outperform the world in many, if not all, areas and subgroups.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that the reformers have been, and will continue to be, misleading on purpose. If the data says that the most crucial way to improve our global competitiveness is to improve our economic status, so that we do not have such a high percentage of students below the poverty level, then the sundry reform initiatives don't command such attention - and so many dollars.
School leaders NEED for the public to believe that their proposals will make a difference, because they need to justify their existence. Reform gurus need to tout their ideas, and to convince school boards to spend money on them, or they cannot capitalize on the millions of dollars to be spent.
The truth is that schools need to continue to work toward improvement, in their own self-monitored and intiated ways. I maintain that no local school will benefit from a reform initiative as much as they might benefit from internally generated improvement. Researching and devising ideas is necessary, but adopting the plans that have worked for others, in vastly different cultures and communities, is foolish, expensive, and doomed to less effectiveness, in my opinion.
Before I go further, I am going to provide a link to an article that anyone with serious interest must read. It is not very long, but it highlights in an effective way the statistics and correlative reasoning behind most of the premises of this article. Heres the link: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.html. This blog format will not allow me to make the URL a hyperlink, so you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.
The school reform movement was born around 1980, with the Chicken Little response to "A Nation at Risk." That study alerted leaders to serious deficiencies in American schools, and it took a good twenty years before enough traction was gained to have the Federal government intervene and make the mess even worse.
The article referenced above DOES NOT maintain that American schools are doing great and that all the initiatives are unnecessary. Rather, the author's conclusion is that all of the worries about American competitiveness are genuine and worrisome. However, the focus of the article is the manner in which school leaders misinterpret the statistics - I think purposefully.
Simply put, the gap between the US and the rest of the world is misleading in some ways. For a long time, the US education model was internationally successful. However, as the rest of the world has closed the socioeconomic gap, US aggregate superiority has evaporated. ALL of our students do not perform as well as the best on the world stage. Again, if you think I am trotting out the same old teaching community excuses and defenses, please read the article.
When socioeconomic parallels are drawn, US students outperform the world in many, if not all, areas and subgroups.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that the reformers have been, and will continue to be, misleading on purpose. If the data says that the most crucial way to improve our global competitiveness is to improve our economic status, so that we do not have such a high percentage of students below the poverty level, then the sundry reform initiatives don't command such attention - and so many dollars.
School leaders NEED for the public to believe that their proposals will make a difference, because they need to justify their existence. Reform gurus need to tout their ideas, and to convince school boards to spend money on them, or they cannot capitalize on the millions of dollars to be spent.
The truth is that schools need to continue to work toward improvement, in their own self-monitored and intiated ways. I maintain that no local school will benefit from a reform initiative as much as they might benefit from internally generated improvement. Researching and devising ideas is necessary, but adopting the plans that have worked for others, in vastly different cultures and communities, is foolish, expensive, and doomed to less effectiveness, in my opinion.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
School Taxes? To Capitulate or Not to Capitulate.
I just read another news article about a budget proposal that includes cutting middle school athletics, much of the arts and music programs, and an assortment of other 'non-essential' courses. However, what struck me was a subsequent comment on the website that carried the article: essentially the citizen called agreement to a tax increase 'capitualtion' to the spendthrift, irresponsive school board.
In the interest of brevity, I sanction capitulation. Currently, most external sources report that our students in the US are inadequately prepared to compete on the world stage. Nevertheless, the US is one of the prime importers of students who are trained in our universities. These two pieces of information seem contradictory, right?
US students are reportedly still superior in only one regard - creativity and ingenuity in tackling problems. If you don't believe me, please check out Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat. Despite our academic failures, many cultures are trying to replicate American creativity and ingenuity in their educational plans. They are having rousing success in teaching upper level science and math, and their students' appreciation of social studies' issues are likewise impressive. What they are having trouble with is teaching students to think outside the box.
I say capitulate - and keep the one and only feature of American education that is currently thriving. The loss of the 'non-essential' courses, such as music and the arts, will directly affect the only strategic advantage that our students currently have. Similarly, I contend that some/much of that ingenuity is nurtured by our competitiveness, thereby endorsing the continued investment in sports activities and band competitions.
Capitulate, capitulate, capitulate! If we strip our ineffective educational program down to the essentials - math, English, science, and social studies - programs that we know are lagging behind our international competitors, then we are consciously choosing to give up any hope we have of staying competitive while we fix those programs.
How have I reached the conclusions I have reached, you might ask. Logic. The significant difference between the American educational experience and that of most other countries is our investment in a wide assortment of experiences, from music to art, to technology, to athletics. Additionally, our obsession with competition, especially on the athletic fields, represents the other most notable difference.
If we are falling behind - and we are - and the divergence of opportunity is the one thing keeping us in the race at all, then cutting the educational program is long term idiocy.
I am all for frugality, and for cost-cutting, and for financial oversight. What is happening to our schools in the face of the current budget crisis, however, stands to cripple our chances of staying in the game while we address the funding issues.
Capitulate, because failure to do so may very well help the sky to fall. No kidding. The situation is that serious.
In the interest of brevity, I sanction capitulation. Currently, most external sources report that our students in the US are inadequately prepared to compete on the world stage. Nevertheless, the US is one of the prime importers of students who are trained in our universities. These two pieces of information seem contradictory, right?
US students are reportedly still superior in only one regard - creativity and ingenuity in tackling problems. If you don't believe me, please check out Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat. Despite our academic failures, many cultures are trying to replicate American creativity and ingenuity in their educational plans. They are having rousing success in teaching upper level science and math, and their students' appreciation of social studies' issues are likewise impressive. What they are having trouble with is teaching students to think outside the box.
I say capitulate - and keep the one and only feature of American education that is currently thriving. The loss of the 'non-essential' courses, such as music and the arts, will directly affect the only strategic advantage that our students currently have. Similarly, I contend that some/much of that ingenuity is nurtured by our competitiveness, thereby endorsing the continued investment in sports activities and band competitions.
Capitulate, capitulate, capitulate! If we strip our ineffective educational program down to the essentials - math, English, science, and social studies - programs that we know are lagging behind our international competitors, then we are consciously choosing to give up any hope we have of staying competitive while we fix those programs.
How have I reached the conclusions I have reached, you might ask. Logic. The significant difference between the American educational experience and that of most other countries is our investment in a wide assortment of experiences, from music to art, to technology, to athletics. Additionally, our obsession with competition, especially on the athletic fields, represents the other most notable difference.
If we are falling behind - and we are - and the divergence of opportunity is the one thing keeping us in the race at all, then cutting the educational program is long term idiocy.
I am all for frugality, and for cost-cutting, and for financial oversight. What is happening to our schools in the face of the current budget crisis, however, stands to cripple our chances of staying in the game while we address the funding issues.
Capitulate, because failure to do so may very well help the sky to fall. No kidding. The situation is that serious.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The School Budget Crisis
The following is a difficult and painful commentary for me, a career-long public educator. Therefore, before I begin, I will say a few things that objectors will forget in just a few paragraphs. I believe in the importance of extracurricular programs as a means to prepare our next generation of students. Though I was a coach, of four different sports, over twenty-five years, I do not value athletics over the other extracurricular programs. Yes, I have a soft spot in my heart for sports, but my heart is not driving the commentary that follows.
In many districts in the area in which I live, school boads are planning to severely curtail extracurricular programs, and to severely reduce teaching, support, and facilities staffs to try to balance their respective budgets. Naturally, the music boosters, or the sports boosters, or one support group or another is descending upon board meetings to wax lyrical about the importance of one program or another.
My unpopular question is this: honestly, what do you want the various boards to do? In many places, the deficit is in the millions. Millions of dollars are not easily trimmed in any district.
Cut administrators, some will say. Okay, let's suggest for argument's sake that a central office can trim four administrative jobs, at a savings of 250,000 dollars per employee. We just saved a million dollars, right? The respective duties can be divvied up among the administraotrs being retained, and the jobs will get done somehow.
Now the deficit is down to 4 or 5 million, depending on which local district is being considered. We can raise taxes next. Most districts, at their current millage, can close the deficit by a million or two using the tax increase approach.
What's next? Well, programs, personnel, and programs and personnel. You see, the problem is that even if the popular cuts are made, and the unpopular tax increase is adopted, a large deficit remains. The reduction in expenditures is going to undermine programs one way or another.
One must also consider that my hypothetical situation presumed that central adminstration had four positions to cut, and that each of those expendable postitions are very costly. The hypothetical also presumed that a tax increase is manageable. In some districts, assigning higher taxes won't result in revenues if the people can't come up with the money. Projected revenues will suggest a balanced budget that will never materialize. Where will the money come from then?
A certain population of students necessitates a certain number of teachers, and management of facilities necessitates a certain number of people to run them.
Cuts must be made. Is band more important than wrestling? Are business courses more important than art courses? I don't want a fully funded music program if it means we will have no arts. I don't want a fully funded athletic program if it means we will have no business courses.
Local boards need to make provisions for next year, and the next. Large tax increases year after year aren't the answer. I don't know an easy fix, but i know that states had better try to work with local education agencies to devise a long term management approach.
Even if the economy rebounds quickly, though that isn't likely, the increased revenues will not benefit many districts that are burdened with limited tax bases. Love of music, sports, the arts, or a full day kndergarten are well and good, but hearts are not going to solve this problem. Reason is needed at this time, not emotion.
In many districts in the area in which I live, school boads are planning to severely curtail extracurricular programs, and to severely reduce teaching, support, and facilities staffs to try to balance their respective budgets. Naturally, the music boosters, or the sports boosters, or one support group or another is descending upon board meetings to wax lyrical about the importance of one program or another.
My unpopular question is this: honestly, what do you want the various boards to do? In many places, the deficit is in the millions. Millions of dollars are not easily trimmed in any district.
Cut administrators, some will say. Okay, let's suggest for argument's sake that a central office can trim four administrative jobs, at a savings of 250,000 dollars per employee. We just saved a million dollars, right? The respective duties can be divvied up among the administraotrs being retained, and the jobs will get done somehow.
Now the deficit is down to 4 or 5 million, depending on which local district is being considered. We can raise taxes next. Most districts, at their current millage, can close the deficit by a million or two using the tax increase approach.
What's next? Well, programs, personnel, and programs and personnel. You see, the problem is that even if the popular cuts are made, and the unpopular tax increase is adopted, a large deficit remains. The reduction in expenditures is going to undermine programs one way or another.
One must also consider that my hypothetical situation presumed that central adminstration had four positions to cut, and that each of those expendable postitions are very costly. The hypothetical also presumed that a tax increase is manageable. In some districts, assigning higher taxes won't result in revenues if the people can't come up with the money. Projected revenues will suggest a balanced budget that will never materialize. Where will the money come from then?
A certain population of students necessitates a certain number of teachers, and management of facilities necessitates a certain number of people to run them.
Cuts must be made. Is band more important than wrestling? Are business courses more important than art courses? I don't want a fully funded music program if it means we will have no arts. I don't want a fully funded athletic program if it means we will have no business courses.
Local boards need to make provisions for next year, and the next. Large tax increases year after year aren't the answer. I don't know an easy fix, but i know that states had better try to work with local education agencies to devise a long term management approach.
Even if the economy rebounds quickly, though that isn't likely, the increased revenues will not benefit many districts that are burdened with limited tax bases. Love of music, sports, the arts, or a full day kndergarten are well and good, but hearts are not going to solve this problem. Reason is needed at this time, not emotion.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Twelve Column Inches: A Valediction
The format is altered by the limitations of the blog, but I hope the words themselves do their job without the formatting help.
Can’t help but think a life
IS MORE
Than 12 column inches,
Give or take –
Especially when the giving
Lingered long.
The pens and inkwells
Treasured up –
NO LESS
Than fascination with the craft -
The stylus scraping paper
Cast a spell almost as strong
As any sullen art.
Perhaps it is fitting –
AFTER ALL
A foot of copy
Fashioned for the press -
He prized conciseness and reduced
In verse, his observations.
A ruler length is also apt-
A schoolroom symbol channeling
(A trolley ride through Green Town?)
SO, GIVEN
The tenure – teaching –
Maybe a dozen column inches
Can serve as fitting tribute.
For what is absent in the post
IS NOT
the quirky combinations –
Marine – and – poet
Thespian, director, mentor, leader.
All-in-one
What the ones who knew him feel
IS MISSING
Is the part they carry still.
For me? The charge to rise beyond –
And find what made me tick
OR TOCK.
Advice, suggestions, reprimands
Invariably garnished
With respect and affirmation.
IN THE END
“…faithful and just, to me”
He did not “go gentle” everywhere,
(And some say Anywhere)
But now, in retrospect -
A vantage point he loved
BY THE WAY –
This verse can pay a debt.
Since part of who I am took seed
In stilted conversations
That obliquely lit the way.
Can’t help but think a life
IS MORE
Than 12 column inches,
Give or take –
Especially when the giving
Lingered long.
The pens and inkwells
Treasured up –
NO LESS
Than fascination with the craft -
The stylus scraping paper
Cast a spell almost as strong
As any sullen art.
Perhaps it is fitting –
AFTER ALL
A foot of copy
Fashioned for the press -
He prized conciseness and reduced
In verse, his observations.
A ruler length is also apt-
A schoolroom symbol channeling
(A trolley ride through Green Town?)
SO, GIVEN
The tenure – teaching –
Maybe a dozen column inches
Can serve as fitting tribute.
For what is absent in the post
IS NOT
the quirky combinations –
Marine – and – poet
Thespian, director, mentor, leader.
All-in-one
What the ones who knew him feel
IS MISSING
Is the part they carry still.
For me? The charge to rise beyond –
And find what made me tick
OR TOCK.
Advice, suggestions, reprimands
Invariably garnished
With respect and affirmation.
IN THE END
“…faithful and just, to me”
He did not “go gentle” everywhere,
(And some say Anywhere)
But now, in retrospect -
A vantage point he loved
BY THE WAY –
This verse can pay a debt.
Since part of who I am took seed
In stilted conversations
That obliquely lit the way.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Pluralism etc. - What Happens in 9th grade...?
During 9th grade, students will have the opportunity to choose an area of concentration, anticipating the source of their post-secondary training. For instance, a student who is committed to the liberal arts program referenced earlier, and who wishes to pursue a B.A. or B.S. at a traditional four year college, will pursue 9th grade course that lead in that direction. A student who prefers to pursue a trade will begin his specialization. Those who are interested in technology will have a course to follow, as will those who lean toward a certification program, such as the ones offered at community colleges and technical schools.
The curriculum for these four tracks will be very similar in 9th grade, but they will become very different during each year of school subsequently. For instance, all 9th graders will have some brand of algebra, most likely. The exceptions would be students whose track through middle school has allowed thme to advance further. The other end of the spectrum will be those whose math skills will not support intense study of algebra. They will take a lower level course that sill supports the development of algebra skills.
The same concept will drive the science curriculum. Most 9th graders will take earth and spece science, but advanced students may opt for biology. Even the less interested will need to ultimately pass a biology course, but they may also do so in 10th grade.
Social studies will be comprised of a World History course in 9th grade, and an American government course in 10th grade. Four year degree students will have access to courses in Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, American History, during 11th and 12th grades, but those who wish to pursue other post-secondary education will need no other social studies credits after their 10th grade year.
The same is true for the math and science tracks mentioned above. After students have demonstrated facility with algebra and biology, they will not need to schedule further math or science courses.
The English curriculum will follow the same pattern. The 4 year college bound student will follow a track that is similar to the current one. Those who look to alternative post-secondary training will take a ninth grade course that includes training in writing, speaking, and reading comprehension. The reading comprehension component will use materials that run the full gamut from literature, to periodicals, to e-texts, blogs, news forums, etc. The key component here is that after 10th grade, students who do not plan to pursue a traditional four year degree will not be forced into literature driven courses.
If one follows the pattern set, 11th and 12th grade will provide students will time to pursue specific areas of interest. Without math, science, English, and social studies requirements in those two grades, artists and musicians will have room for intensive study of those fields. Likewise, the student who is interested in a business track, like accounting, for example, will have time to fit in a number of business courses.
Furthermore, the student who doesn't plan to pursue a four year degree will have the option of finishing school early, after he or she demonstrates competency in the math, science, English, and social studies courses mentioned above. The student who has not demonstrated competency in those areas will have two years to do so, in courses that are specifically designed for those who have struggled in a specific area.
To be clear, a student who does not make the grade in Algebra in ninth or tenth grade will have 11th and 12th grade to tackle the subject. The same will hold true for the other disciplines.
I believe that Career Pathways are Bunk, as currently conceived and implemented in many of our schools. However, the idea that the last two years of high school can be used to train students in a specific, interest and desire driven area is desirable.
I am throwing out numbers here, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are accurate. 60-70% of students don't need to know a lick of trigonometry, chemistry, physics, calculus, or any higher level lit. They don't need to know about European History or Sociology.
Imagine the success level for chemistry students if their classes are populated solely by students who are interested in those courses. Imagine the success rate for Trig and Calc classes where few are enrolled because they need the math credit.
The curriculum for these four tracks will be very similar in 9th grade, but they will become very different during each year of school subsequently. For instance, all 9th graders will have some brand of algebra, most likely. The exceptions would be students whose track through middle school has allowed thme to advance further. The other end of the spectrum will be those whose math skills will not support intense study of algebra. They will take a lower level course that sill supports the development of algebra skills.
The same concept will drive the science curriculum. Most 9th graders will take earth and spece science, but advanced students may opt for biology. Even the less interested will need to ultimately pass a biology course, but they may also do so in 10th grade.
Social studies will be comprised of a World History course in 9th grade, and an American government course in 10th grade. Four year degree students will have access to courses in Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, American History, during 11th and 12th grades, but those who wish to pursue other post-secondary education will need no other social studies credits after their 10th grade year.
The same is true for the math and science tracks mentioned above. After students have demonstrated facility with algebra and biology, they will not need to schedule further math or science courses.
The English curriculum will follow the same pattern. The 4 year college bound student will follow a track that is similar to the current one. Those who look to alternative post-secondary training will take a ninth grade course that includes training in writing, speaking, and reading comprehension. The reading comprehension component will use materials that run the full gamut from literature, to periodicals, to e-texts, blogs, news forums, etc. The key component here is that after 10th grade, students who do not plan to pursue a traditional four year degree will not be forced into literature driven courses.
If one follows the pattern set, 11th and 12th grade will provide students will time to pursue specific areas of interest. Without math, science, English, and social studies requirements in those two grades, artists and musicians will have room for intensive study of those fields. Likewise, the student who is interested in a business track, like accounting, for example, will have time to fit in a number of business courses.
Furthermore, the student who doesn't plan to pursue a four year degree will have the option of finishing school early, after he or she demonstrates competency in the math, science, English, and social studies courses mentioned above. The student who has not demonstrated competency in those areas will have two years to do so, in courses that are specifically designed for those who have struggled in a specific area.
To be clear, a student who does not make the grade in Algebra in ninth or tenth grade will have 11th and 12th grade to tackle the subject. The same will hold true for the other disciplines.
I believe that Career Pathways are Bunk, as currently conceived and implemented in many of our schools. However, the idea that the last two years of high school can be used to train students in a specific, interest and desire driven area is desirable.
I am throwing out numbers here, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are accurate. 60-70% of students don't need to know a lick of trigonometry, chemistry, physics, calculus, or any higher level lit. They don't need to know about European History or Sociology.
Imagine the success level for chemistry students if their classes are populated solely by students who are interested in those courses. Imagine the success rate for Trig and Calc classes where few are enrolled because they need the math credit.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Pluralism and Egalitarianism in Education
People aren't equal. It seems to me that the first thing that has to happen, should American education wish to improve dramatically, is acceptance and embracing of the first statement in this piece. Because people aren't equal, the primary directive of education must be to stop adhering to the fallacy that all people are capable of the same degree of development and production.
Let's suppose, briefly, that people were born and endowed with congruent capacities. Even if this were true, so long as humans have free will, and personal taste and interests, a simple fact of life is that each person follows his drives and ambitions, and that those ambitions are diverse and often elusive. Consequently, building an educational process that pretends to level the playing field, or to equal the opportunities for all, is destined to relative failure.
Before the reader jumps the gun and presumes that I will be advocating the adoption of a European system of education, let me state definitively that I am not. Neither am I opposed to such a program. If we tend in that direction, I am supportive of the approach, but only if we rethink what we want our schools to do.
Most schools are currently constituted, whether they admit it or not, to a standard belief in liberal arts education, even through K-12, though we use the term primarily in regard to college. What I mean is that the program of studies from primary to secondary school is built upon a set of values that says all students need exposure to quality literature, higher math, and serious science. I don't believe they do.
Here's the problem with my own theory: children haven't developed their minds, their tastes, and their genuine preferences until sometime in late middle school or early high school. Thus the problem is how to maintain a wealth of exposures and experiences that will help them know how to make their individual paths?
What I propose is as follows. K-8th grade should be comprised of less formalized study of any discipline. Since my background is in English, I will look first at the language arts curriculum.
Currently, 4th through 8th graders spend a great deal of time trying to grasp the principles of grammar, the rudimentary concepts of literature, and a working understanding of how to express themselves in writing. The system I propose will have students, based on their working understanding of language, avoiding the mention of a an infinitve, subject/verb agreement, or even proper nouns. Instead, their study of grammar will focus solely on learning a multitude of ways to say the same thing. They will learn usage and grammar through experimentation with language.
Their study of literature will be similarly delivered. No child will hear about Freytag's Pyramid. They will learn some of the jargon of lterary study, but the objective will not be deliberately built upon application of any of those terms. Instead, they will be asked to propose causes and effect of various choices, devices, and/or purposes. They will be asked to make inferences, distinguish fact from opinion, and generally connect the texts to what they already know. The acquisition of vocabulary and literary language will be a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.
The same concepts will hold true in other disciplines. Before high school, working with the material ought to be the aim. Hypothesizing, proposing, noticing, and responding to information will be the activity, since those things will support all of the standards and benchmarks as currently written. Take a look at the standards and see if you can make the connection. Not one standard specifies that anyone know the 'rules' of the short story, or the particulars of a verse form, or name an author or character from a story.
I don't think the social studies curriculum should change dramatically through these grade levels. As it stands, social studies in 4th through 8th is focused on acquisition of knowledge, and the management of information is also a skill that needs to be given some play. Let social studies be in charge of the focus on that skill.
Math creates a headache, and probably requires the largest change. Having reached middle age, I can attest to the relative lack of importance of higher math skills for me and a majority of people. By higher math skill, I mean calculus and the far end of trigonometry.
The current Pennsylvania test of math proficiency suggests that dexterity with algebra is the end game of math instruction. Consequently, schools should "require" no math instruction after a student has acquired algebra facility. Understaning of higher level math is a valuable thing for a good many people, but the school program should be set up to accommodate only those people who are interested and driven. Even four year colleges have changed their math requirements. Thirty years ago, my college demanded that I tackle calculus, along with all my peers. I have had no use for it since. In fact, when I have been in contact with calculus in the interim, I remember almost nothing. That forgetfulness has not been to my detriment.
The same can be said for science. Let's demand scientific acumen only for those who are inclined in that direction. lord knows that our world needs chemists and physicists, and multitudes of engineers. The point is that those needs may be met, and more progress made, if we rid the chem and physics classrooms of the undermotivated and disinterested.
The next installment will discuss how schools can channel students into tracks or paths that suit their needs.
Let's suppose, briefly, that people were born and endowed with congruent capacities. Even if this were true, so long as humans have free will, and personal taste and interests, a simple fact of life is that each person follows his drives and ambitions, and that those ambitions are diverse and often elusive. Consequently, building an educational process that pretends to level the playing field, or to equal the opportunities for all, is destined to relative failure.
Before the reader jumps the gun and presumes that I will be advocating the adoption of a European system of education, let me state definitively that I am not. Neither am I opposed to such a program. If we tend in that direction, I am supportive of the approach, but only if we rethink what we want our schools to do.
Most schools are currently constituted, whether they admit it or not, to a standard belief in liberal arts education, even through K-12, though we use the term primarily in regard to college. What I mean is that the program of studies from primary to secondary school is built upon a set of values that says all students need exposure to quality literature, higher math, and serious science. I don't believe they do.
Here's the problem with my own theory: children haven't developed their minds, their tastes, and their genuine preferences until sometime in late middle school or early high school. Thus the problem is how to maintain a wealth of exposures and experiences that will help them know how to make their individual paths?
What I propose is as follows. K-8th grade should be comprised of less formalized study of any discipline. Since my background is in English, I will look first at the language arts curriculum.
Currently, 4th through 8th graders spend a great deal of time trying to grasp the principles of grammar, the rudimentary concepts of literature, and a working understanding of how to express themselves in writing. The system I propose will have students, based on their working understanding of language, avoiding the mention of a an infinitve, subject/verb agreement, or even proper nouns. Instead, their study of grammar will focus solely on learning a multitude of ways to say the same thing. They will learn usage and grammar through experimentation with language.
Their study of literature will be similarly delivered. No child will hear about Freytag's Pyramid. They will learn some of the jargon of lterary study, but the objective will not be deliberately built upon application of any of those terms. Instead, they will be asked to propose causes and effect of various choices, devices, and/or purposes. They will be asked to make inferences, distinguish fact from opinion, and generally connect the texts to what they already know. The acquisition of vocabulary and literary language will be a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.
The same concepts will hold true in other disciplines. Before high school, working with the material ought to be the aim. Hypothesizing, proposing, noticing, and responding to information will be the activity, since those things will support all of the standards and benchmarks as currently written. Take a look at the standards and see if you can make the connection. Not one standard specifies that anyone know the 'rules' of the short story, or the particulars of a verse form, or name an author or character from a story.
I don't think the social studies curriculum should change dramatically through these grade levels. As it stands, social studies in 4th through 8th is focused on acquisition of knowledge, and the management of information is also a skill that needs to be given some play. Let social studies be in charge of the focus on that skill.
Math creates a headache, and probably requires the largest change. Having reached middle age, I can attest to the relative lack of importance of higher math skills for me and a majority of people. By higher math skill, I mean calculus and the far end of trigonometry.
The current Pennsylvania test of math proficiency suggests that dexterity with algebra is the end game of math instruction. Consequently, schools should "require" no math instruction after a student has acquired algebra facility. Understaning of higher level math is a valuable thing for a good many people, but the school program should be set up to accommodate only those people who are interested and driven. Even four year colleges have changed their math requirements. Thirty years ago, my college demanded that I tackle calculus, along with all my peers. I have had no use for it since. In fact, when I have been in contact with calculus in the interim, I remember almost nothing. That forgetfulness has not been to my detriment.
The same can be said for science. Let's demand scientific acumen only for those who are inclined in that direction. lord knows that our world needs chemists and physicists, and multitudes of engineers. The point is that those needs may be met, and more progress made, if we rid the chem and physics classrooms of the undermotivated and disinterested.
The next installment will discuss how schools can channel students into tracks or paths that suit their needs.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Career Pathways are Bunk
I like to start off with a qualifier, when appropriate - especially when the headline is one that can not be taken as anyting other than an attack on a theory, program, or plan. So, here goes.
The theory that people ought to be enabled to pursue a career path that will help them to pursue a profession or vocation that is in their interest spectrum is obviously a great idea. However, and again, the implementation model or pattern is critical. Most current models of career pathways ask students in middle school, ages 12-14, to make astute judgments about their future. You should see the ridiculousness of this already. Yet that provocation or investigation is actually defensible. The error commences when the decision made is so particular that a change of course becomes problematic.
If your own 12 year old chooses a set of courses that is supposed to lead to a career in , let's say, medical support services and related fields, and he or she discovers an aversion to math and science might serve as a bit of a deterrent, can s/he change course without losing credit or status in the replacement program?
To be specific, the young man or woman has entered a course or sequence that leads to trigonometry in 11th grade, and to chemistry in 10th grade. The change of course though, can make a move to a communications program unwieldy. You see, the new program places less emphasis on math and science, so while the completed courses may still carry weight and credit toward graduation, the student has no way to return and to take the classes s/he missed during the enrollment in medical professions investigation. The original course was designed to emphasize science and math, and even though the student completed the required courses, he or she has no way to take the courses that are needed for the current track. The barrier is that all courses cannot be taught at all levels and in all programs. Consequently the number of credits earned may be adequate, but jumping into an upper level course in another arena will cause problems, since the foundation for that particular sequence has not been set.
Some schools solve that problem by making the sequences almost the same, so that Career Pathways exist in name or theory only. They give lip service to career exploration, but the 'training' specific to a chosen course doesn't exist.
The next post will suggest what schools can do to meet the needs for career specific training more effectively.
The theory that people ought to be enabled to pursue a career path that will help them to pursue a profession or vocation that is in their interest spectrum is obviously a great idea. However, and again, the implementation model or pattern is critical. Most current models of career pathways ask students in middle school, ages 12-14, to make astute judgments about their future. You should see the ridiculousness of this already. Yet that provocation or investigation is actually defensible. The error commences when the decision made is so particular that a change of course becomes problematic.
If your own 12 year old chooses a set of courses that is supposed to lead to a career in , let's say, medical support services and related fields, and he or she discovers an aversion to math and science might serve as a bit of a deterrent, can s/he change course without losing credit or status in the replacement program?
To be specific, the young man or woman has entered a course or sequence that leads to trigonometry in 11th grade, and to chemistry in 10th grade. The change of course though, can make a move to a communications program unwieldy. You see, the new program places less emphasis on math and science, so while the completed courses may still carry weight and credit toward graduation, the student has no way to return and to take the classes s/he missed during the enrollment in medical professions investigation. The original course was designed to emphasize science and math, and even though the student completed the required courses, he or she has no way to take the courses that are needed for the current track. The barrier is that all courses cannot be taught at all levels and in all programs. Consequently the number of credits earned may be adequate, but jumping into an upper level course in another arena will cause problems, since the foundation for that particular sequence has not been set.
Some schools solve that problem by making the sequences almost the same, so that Career Pathways exist in name or theory only. They give lip service to career exploration, but the 'training' specific to a chosen course doesn't exist.
The next post will suggest what schools can do to meet the needs for career specific training more effectively.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Should Every Student Be Prepared for College?
I haven't broached the subject of teaching and education for awhile, so perhaps this is a good time to provide an update on some recent conversations relative to learning.
I have heard of a school that is currently in the process of eliminating their track of classes for students who do not plan to follow a post-secondary path. The logic of such a course is defensible, despite what many front line teachers think. After all, the purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for the rest of their lives. The current requisite skill set for adults who wish to be contributing citizens - read, gainfully employed - includes abilities that have not historically been part of the non-college-preparatory track.
For clarity, the 'general' track, which is also often called the 'applied' track, or the 'work-readiness' track remained focused on the three R's. Students in this track were presumed to need basic, lower level skills in reading, writing, and math. After all, the employment opportunities afforded this group of people was usually comprised of the established trades: cooks, mechanics, laborers, builders, as well as the service trades: gardeners, maids, custodians, retail sales clerks, and the like. However, now, if we are to believe the employment forecasts, even those jobs are soon to be rarer, less lucrative, and/or altered to the point where higher level skills are required to perform them.
Consequently, the idea to raise the bar for everyone is not necessarily a bad one. Yet the district in question has undertaken some strange methodologies for eliminating the track. For instnace, though a percnetage of the student population is adamantly disinclined to do the work necessary to acquire college readiness skills, these students are being placed in academic courses. Simultaneously, the courses themselves are being revised to accommodate the change in clientele.
The change in mission and objective in these courses is predicated on the belief that heterogenous grouping - that is, placing these students in courses with students who may pursue a college education - will encourage these students to acquire the knowledge and skills they may need to perform tasks that are growing increasingly more complex, but which do not require a four year matriculation at a college.
The problem is that the adjustment of mission and abjective has a side effect that hasn't been considered. In changing these courses to reflect a skill set that is challenging, but which may not lead to college, has displaced the students who do plan to go to college.
The math is simple. If I attempt to train a group of students motivated to prepare themselves for college, but I build in accommodations for students who might not want to go to college, I will be spending precious time on skills and knowledge that the college prep students do not need or want. Furthermore, since the clientele has been diminished in terms of motivation, capacity, and prior knowledge to begin with, I will be subjecting the college bound students to a slower pace, one that accommodates the learning styles and abilities of the former 'general' students.
So the former college prep students will be encouraged to enroll in Honors, IB, and AP courses. Some of these transplanted students will be similarly ill-equipped for their new placement, and the pace and depth of learning in these upper level courses will be compromised.
Eradicating the courses that served the non-college bound students may not be a bad idea, but forcing them into courses that do not meet their needs is not smart. Moreover, failing to account for the inevitable learning differences that accompany a change in clientele in the uppper level courses is really foolish.
I promise to propose a solution to the dilemma in a series of entries to follow. This is getting too long.
I have heard of a school that is currently in the process of eliminating their track of classes for students who do not plan to follow a post-secondary path. The logic of such a course is defensible, despite what many front line teachers think. After all, the purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for the rest of their lives. The current requisite skill set for adults who wish to be contributing citizens - read, gainfully employed - includes abilities that have not historically been part of the non-college-preparatory track.
For clarity, the 'general' track, which is also often called the 'applied' track, or the 'work-readiness' track remained focused on the three R's. Students in this track were presumed to need basic, lower level skills in reading, writing, and math. After all, the employment opportunities afforded this group of people was usually comprised of the established trades: cooks, mechanics, laborers, builders, as well as the service trades: gardeners, maids, custodians, retail sales clerks, and the like. However, now, if we are to believe the employment forecasts, even those jobs are soon to be rarer, less lucrative, and/or altered to the point where higher level skills are required to perform them.
Consequently, the idea to raise the bar for everyone is not necessarily a bad one. Yet the district in question has undertaken some strange methodologies for eliminating the track. For instnace, though a percnetage of the student population is adamantly disinclined to do the work necessary to acquire college readiness skills, these students are being placed in academic courses. Simultaneously, the courses themselves are being revised to accommodate the change in clientele.
The change in mission and objective in these courses is predicated on the belief that heterogenous grouping - that is, placing these students in courses with students who may pursue a college education - will encourage these students to acquire the knowledge and skills they may need to perform tasks that are growing increasingly more complex, but which do not require a four year matriculation at a college.
The problem is that the adjustment of mission and abjective has a side effect that hasn't been considered. In changing these courses to reflect a skill set that is challenging, but which may not lead to college, has displaced the students who do plan to go to college.
The math is simple. If I attempt to train a group of students motivated to prepare themselves for college, but I build in accommodations for students who might not want to go to college, I will be spending precious time on skills and knowledge that the college prep students do not need or want. Furthermore, since the clientele has been diminished in terms of motivation, capacity, and prior knowledge to begin with, I will be subjecting the college bound students to a slower pace, one that accommodates the learning styles and abilities of the former 'general' students.
So the former college prep students will be encouraged to enroll in Honors, IB, and AP courses. Some of these transplanted students will be similarly ill-equipped for their new placement, and the pace and depth of learning in these upper level courses will be compromised.
Eradicating the courses that served the non-college bound students may not be a bad idea, but forcing them into courses that do not meet their needs is not smart. Moreover, failing to account for the inevitable learning differences that accompany a change in clientele in the uppper level courses is really foolish.
I promise to propose a solution to the dilemma in a series of entries to follow. This is getting too long.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Obama's State of the Union Dilemma
Obama can deliver a speech. Seriously. Though I am admittedly not a fan of his political prespective, and though I think in the end his speech doesn't mean much, I must give him credit for the strategic approach employed in the address.
I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.
Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.
For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.
Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.
How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.
The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.
So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.
ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.
I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.
Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.
For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.
Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.
How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.
The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.
So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.
ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
To Hell In A Handbasket...
Two students in LA are shot when a loaded gun is dropped and goes off. A psychopath shoots a congresswoman and many others, including a nine-year-old girl too young to have ever hurt anyone significantly. The list goes on.
Is American culture going to hell in a handbasket? I never truly understood the source or full implication of that phrase, but I think the present answer might be yes. The constant violence, much of which occurs mostly because it can, is not new. In fact, the history of the country is fraught with violence. The difference, I think, is the effect and the response that we have to it.
In the violent early years, and even up to the 20th century, people were outraged, and then braced for the inevitable vengeance that followed. Such a response wasn't necessarily the right way to handle the outrage, but at least the offender knew his actions would provoke repercussions. Society at large responded forcefully to the events.
Fast forward to the present reaction. When the students at Columbine wreaked carnage on a system that they felt had served them poorly, cultural response was strong, yet often misguided. Schools ratcheted up the faux security measures to create a lie that told parents their children were safer. They weren't and aren't. Fortunately, schools are still among the safest places in the country, but that safety is not because of improved security measures. Instead, schools remain relatively safe because they rarely provoke the rath of our depressed and mentally ill.
Fast forward to the incidents mentioned at the start of this piece. The focal point of public response to the events in Arizona devolved into fruitless finger pointing. For three days, at least, the most often heard message was that the psycho had been inspired by the vitriolic political environment. Only after the boy had been questioned did the false message die out. In the meantime, Sarah Palin and others had spent energy defending themselves.
The point of this is not to defend Palin, the tenor of the political dialogue, or the irresponsible media who manufactured a catalyst for the violence before they knew anything. Instead, I am convinced that the public largely doesn't care. If they really wanted genuine answers to the questions, they would not be so easily sidetracked into baseless discussions. They wouldn't be so quick to adjust their focus.
I maintain that the fundamental goodness that has usually been omnipressent in the country is no longer so evident. Culturally, we want someone or soemthing to blame, quickly, so we can get back to Jersy Shore, or Celebrity Rehab. Only late in the game did any media outlets start asking the why's and how's of the incident. I can't pinpoint proof, but I also feel that when they did so, they were doing it reluctantly.
Don Henley wrote a song, in the late '80's I believe, where he drew an analogy between a young girl's loss of innocence, and the loss of innocence that citizens in America were experiencing. I loved the song, but wasn't so sure that his contention, that the Reagan era was father to disillusionment, was very accurate. I thought the end of the innocence had to have come during the Vietnam era. Regardless, innocnece, and buoyant optimism certainly was compromised.
Now, however, we aren't talking about innocence. I think the loss we are witnessing is a loss of empathy, of altruism, of humanity. Sure, individuals have exhibited a dearth of these traits, but the culture - society at large - usually responded with at least a modicum of caring. We have become inured to the violence, and to the bankruptcy of values.
Maybe it's me, my age, my inevitable slide into the ranks of the older generation. I don't know. I don't think this is just a personal perception. I am concerned that it's pervasive and ubiquitous. And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
Is American culture going to hell in a handbasket? I never truly understood the source or full implication of that phrase, but I think the present answer might be yes. The constant violence, much of which occurs mostly because it can, is not new. In fact, the history of the country is fraught with violence. The difference, I think, is the effect and the response that we have to it.
In the violent early years, and even up to the 20th century, people were outraged, and then braced for the inevitable vengeance that followed. Such a response wasn't necessarily the right way to handle the outrage, but at least the offender knew his actions would provoke repercussions. Society at large responded forcefully to the events.
Fast forward to the present reaction. When the students at Columbine wreaked carnage on a system that they felt had served them poorly, cultural response was strong, yet often misguided. Schools ratcheted up the faux security measures to create a lie that told parents their children were safer. They weren't and aren't. Fortunately, schools are still among the safest places in the country, but that safety is not because of improved security measures. Instead, schools remain relatively safe because they rarely provoke the rath of our depressed and mentally ill.
Fast forward to the incidents mentioned at the start of this piece. The focal point of public response to the events in Arizona devolved into fruitless finger pointing. For three days, at least, the most often heard message was that the psycho had been inspired by the vitriolic political environment. Only after the boy had been questioned did the false message die out. In the meantime, Sarah Palin and others had spent energy defending themselves.
The point of this is not to defend Palin, the tenor of the political dialogue, or the irresponsible media who manufactured a catalyst for the violence before they knew anything. Instead, I am convinced that the public largely doesn't care. If they really wanted genuine answers to the questions, they would not be so easily sidetracked into baseless discussions. They wouldn't be so quick to adjust their focus.
I maintain that the fundamental goodness that has usually been omnipressent in the country is no longer so evident. Culturally, we want someone or soemthing to blame, quickly, so we can get back to Jersy Shore, or Celebrity Rehab. Only late in the game did any media outlets start asking the why's and how's of the incident. I can't pinpoint proof, but I also feel that when they did so, they were doing it reluctantly.
Don Henley wrote a song, in the late '80's I believe, where he drew an analogy between a young girl's loss of innocence, and the loss of innocence that citizens in America were experiencing. I loved the song, but wasn't so sure that his contention, that the Reagan era was father to disillusionment, was very accurate. I thought the end of the innocence had to have come during the Vietnam era. Regardless, innocnece, and buoyant optimism certainly was compromised.
Now, however, we aren't talking about innocence. I think the loss we are witnessing is a loss of empathy, of altruism, of humanity. Sure, individuals have exhibited a dearth of these traits, but the culture - society at large - usually responded with at least a modicum of caring. We have become inured to the violence, and to the bankruptcy of values.
Maybe it's me, my age, my inevitable slide into the ranks of the older generation. I don't know. I don't think this is just a personal perception. I am concerned that it's pervasive and ubiquitous. And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
Monday, January 10, 2011
A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations... [Harry Callahan]
With open eyes, engaged,
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.
Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.
Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.
In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.
Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.
Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.
In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)