Dr. King, Your Dream, I Fear, is Not Deferred; I Feel it's Deemed Unworthy

Let Freedom Ring, you said, but rancor rose --- uncertain what exactly freedom meant. In 1965, a free man had a right to choose his course, his dream, his whole ID --- but since your brothers lingered a full century beyond the proclamation, remained bereft of franchise, status, opportunity, inasmuch as others layered limits on where, and when, and how much, and how soon - and still today another fifty years beyond - draws great attention to these racial firsts first congressman, first honoree, first president as well, because of all of this, your people were not free... and some say freedom still eludes the folks who ask their chance to navigate the Dream. But Dr. King, I think for some the wait has cost the game, stymied are they who built the content of their character, earned their way and touched the Ring of Freedom, high held their heads very so but their own people, those they'd hoped to show a gainful way to earn their rightful place at the board table or the office or in the operating room those same people slapped the faces of the boldest dismissing them - addressing coldly - with a sneer, you Uncle Toms, "too white" they say. This vocal group, comprised of volume more than mass went further, not deferring any dream, instead they disavowed the very notion that the dream which you held up as something of a pinnacle, a brass ring, if you will, was worthy. And after reassessment told them even the Pursuit of Happiness as constituted by the Founder's Frame - was fraudulent for them, beneath them, just a ruse by which they'd never gain a solid stance. At this point, after too prolonged a wait, the culture leaned; some proud and vocal few declared the Great Experiment was compromised. The Dream had betrayed them, they said; they'd not betrayed the Dream. Early on the clear dynamic held: "Here the rewards of Industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labor" Except the deck was stacked and even after Dr. King was laid low by some cracker sadly morphed by craven hate, Your brethren, Dr. King, (not all, but yes, an influential few) embarked upon a path that made them victims once again. Not Colored, Black, Nor Negro - in the intervening years the people somehow shackled to a hyphen - Or maybe, against their will, we shackled them. Whether African-American, or Black-American - the hyphen acted like a wall that barred them even more from being all American, first and yet foremost. But Dr. King, I think your living message resonates, for myriad descendants of the March to Liberty, but those who feel they're swindled exercise a power too: The voices heard most widely, loudly - culturally clear - Within their raps, and rants, and songs - disdaining what have been, the archetypes, the icons: Picket fences all be damned, and even moreso painted white. The little patch of land, and just forget about the mule - Equality is not the aim; yes, preference is king. The danger of the neighborhood is held to scrutiny, as lawlessness is celebrated, talk of moving up, is muted or abandoned altogether, mutiny in several forms is venerated, Inalienable rights are redefined - though many groups have come before, and many still arrive with little more than grit and hope and dream, a faction counts the fruits of labor in the litany of those entitlements that one must have if he be free: No longer shelter makes the grade, A free man needs a home, and if he hasn't head nor heart to him a house needs be conferred. Likewise, a loyal pension after working years have waned, enough to keep in comfort me and mine, and you and yours, regardless of the weight or scope of contribution saved through weeks and month and years --- Less this ---- we all remain enslaved. Good health is also innate right, our care is guaranteed regardless of the energy we gave to our well being. "The country's rich," the clarion call. All care, by right, is free. They've pulled their weight for heavy years so now, their recompense in tangible and concrete forms must be delivered hence. Some see a set of rights long-forged in furnaces of hate, in being then withheld, they claim a stolen legacy. Yet, those who paid the hardest price can never be repaid, except by their assigns and heirs in earning tooth and nail the spoils of commitment to a life of Industry. At this, a segment scoffs, I think they hang, in effigy, Your dream, our dream, their dream --- in laying waste and rioting. Destroying their own handiwork. How many yearning to be free found sustenance in businesses They nurtured into being. "Burn this Bitch Down!" Despair cries out, and thoughtlessness complies. Then Outrage flames like kerosene, creates diversions, shields the scene Disguises truth with violence so no one sees the cool pretense. They do not grieve for Michael Brown; they will not leave til they burn down the shops of those who chase the dream, the ones who chose, who might redeem themselves and your enduring hope to find the cure and learn the scope that leads to full participation become a tool for this great nation - Ordering that with all due speed At last, at last, live out the Creed. That all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator /// Oh, Lord - the dream has withered like a raisin in the sun, it has festered, and now it has exploded. It matters not that all across the land black children do walk hand in hand with white children. No need to point for emphasis at those who do indeed face judgment solely on the basis of their character. Your dream, I fear, has become symbol, Ferguson is held up to account and set aflame by those who deem the Dream - the Dream - Unworthy.

As the Worm Turns...

We are all born with blinders on, and over time, though we fight to see peripherally, we are largely unsuccessful in doing so. Some few people try to invite us to embrace the task of seeing more comprehensively, but each generation, it seems, remains largely unable to accept that cultural spirals are inevitable. So what is the point? We are currently, in the US, dealing with myriad issues, not all of them political/economic, which serve as parallels to situation that have played themselves out in the not-so-distant past. For instance, I have recently received emails regarding our current immigration policies where the point of reference is a quote from Teddy Roosevelt. In said email, Teddy focuses on assimilation as the aim and condition of continued acceptance of all the huddled masses yearning to be free. Teddy was commenting on a situation that was then current - over 100 years ago. Yet the contemporary position seems to be that what we are currently experiencing is new and more serious than the issue that Teddy was responding to a century ago. It is the same issue, and we should respoind to it similarly, though of course, we may not. If we do, we will most likely gather some sense of control over the situation, and then wait for its return in a few generations. If we do not follow something of the same series of reactions, then the cycle will alter dramatically. However, even under these circumstances, the result will likely bear more resemblance to the past than we ever let on. You see, were are bounded and confined by a world-view that is very constrained. At the risk of sending a 'so what?' message, perhaps I can suggest that we make a stronger effort to be evaluative and reflective. I don't know the answer to our current immigration dilemma. On the one hand, we have millions of people here illegally, and many of them are gainfully employed and operating outside the purview of the IRS. On the other hand, we have millions of illegals who are contributing nothing to the economy, and are literally going one step further and robbing the US citizenry by gaining access to perks and privileges granted by the government to try to prevent them from being a drain on society. If that sound convoluted to you, I apologize. I know of no way to simplufy it. The gainfully employed illegals are hurting the US by not paying their fair share of taxes, but the truth is that their tax contribution would be very small anyway. They are largely the working poor that we hear about often. Worse yet, we have trained a subset of the illegal population to rely upon the charity that exists already. They do not work because they can't find work, or because they have learned that they don't have to; they will be able to access food, shelter, and clothing through the various assistance programs. Worse yet, we have created a subculture of illegals who are here to earn money that will go directly to their families in their home country. Worse yet, we have allowed a subculture of illegals who 'live' here only to participate in criminal activities of one sort or another. The ultimate worst is that embedded in each of the above statements is the acknowledgment that we have created or allow all of these things to happen. We have in fact encouraged them to happen because we don't want to use common sense. We don't want people to go hungry and cold, so we create safety nets to prevent this from happening. Then we provide access to the safety nets to people who don't need them, thereby ensuring that the resouces will be depleted, guaranteeing that people will go hungry and cold.

Dreading Hope

I am changing gears here, as another life change has thrust itself into the pole position at the moment. I want to publicly mull over the circumstances that are part of fatherhood. At least I think they are a common part of the fatherhood experience, and I cross my fingers that I am not being presumptuous. Currently, I have a 25 year old who has embarked on the next phase of his life. He has boldly dropped everything to trek 1200 miles from PA to Miami, FL, hoping that he and his girlfriend are ready to undertake a scary and exciting experiment with true independence. My daughter is graduating from college, and holding her breath that she can figure out how best to proceed with the next phase of her life. My youngest is finishing up his junior year of college, and trying to determine if he will have prospects to pursue a year or so from now. Me? I think my job is to believe in all of them. Mother has the same job, only slightly different. She needs to believe in them too, but she is supposed to make her primary message that she will be there for them no matter what. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that my job is to let them know that I have high expectations. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I feel that my father, who was a flawed individual on a good day, always conveyed the message that my success was expected, a given, and that anything less than success would be a disappointment. Consequently, I don't want to mimic his approach, as I don't know that his position always worked to my betterment. Therefore, I want my children to know that, while I do expect much from them, I don't have a measuring stick in mind. Iw want them to know that the standard I expect them to meet - and exceed - is predicated on what they want to achieve. Following that reasoning, their relative level of success is connected to their living up to their own expectations. I want the bar to be set where they say. My measurement of their achievement is controlled entirely by what they want to squeeze out of life. I am not sure if I have been clear, though I know exactly what I am in the process of meaning. In short, my expectations are high, but I have no concrete benchmarks that I expect them to reach. Instead, I expect them to set their own high goals, and to convey their own expectations in regard to achieving them. If the eldest aspires to the Nobel Peace Prize, and the youngest aspires to a steady job at the local supermarket, and they each attain their goal, I will be proud of them. In short, I want them to set worthy goals and struggle and sacrifice to reach them. Perhpas the middle child has it in her to cure a deadly disease; if so, then I want her still working in that direction until she reaches that goal. Ultimately, I am not the judge. I want them to be their own judges, and if or when they decide to have children, I want them to impose these same attitudes on their children. My wife and I have managed to raise great kids. I think we have been very lucky, but I also think we have done some things right. I am certain that the luck part is most observable in the fact that our mistakes - and there have been many - have not been major impediments to our children's development. Because they are great kids, they have masked or overcome our shortcomings as parents. I will not delineate what I know have been the mistakes. At this point, our kids have not been hobbled by them. They have a chance to become what they wish to become, and their having reached this point makes me very proud. I am not sure if I am right to be so proud, but the older I get, the less I care about that.

Politics - blogging - ranting - raving

I have contributed to a blog that was originally built to support the candidacy of Ron Paul for President. I cannot vote for Ron Paul for president. I have what I think are sound political principles, and I am sometimes certain of the soundness of my views because, when I delineate them, liberals who see them are offended.

My positions are rather simple: I value the individual over the bureaucracy, to the extent that I am comfortable with the notion that government programs that offer assistance may fall short of providing adequate supports for everyone who needs them.

Yes, I said that i believe the premise of support programs should be that we will deliberately provide less than is absolutely necessary. For that reason, many left leaning people think I am a far right conservative. In fact, when I have take the on-line polls to determine my ideological placement, I always fall just to the right of the aisle. How can that be when my second paragraph is translated by liberals to be caustic, rigid, and unsympathetic?

The answer to me is simple. People are animals at their core. Yes, they are capable of honor, integrity, nobility, bravery, and many other traits that separate them from their animal core. However, they are still animals at the center. Consequently, government support for the poor and downtrodden must stop short, by design, from helping them to survive. Rather, governmental safety nets should provide them with a temproary reprieve from destruction, but no more.

My reason for the callous position is that I know that human nature is base, and so government safety nets that really provide everything a poor soul needs will ultimately lead the poor soul to decide to do nothing but lean on the government program. Complacency and dissolution are the only logical outcomes for a poor soul who learns that when he is at his lowest and most destitute, he need only solicit the assistance of some other to shield him from ownership of his own status or state. In simple terms, if a poor soul knows he will not perish, no matter what, when things are most dire, then he will eventually learn that there is no sense in trying hard. Psychological research has demonstrated variations of this principle over the years, and yet humans somehow think that, because the human mind can sugjugate and dominate his animal behaviors to some extent, he can therefore deny their existence or power.

Consequently, I think my position the most humane. If I want what is best for the majority of people, I must support the notion that people are at their best when they are forced to be self-sufficient and empowered. Government assistance demeans and weakens people. Government dependency debases humans.

I acknowledge that deliberately providing less than necessary will result in some individuals perishing. However, I learned from 1980's Star Trek that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one - or some similar statement. Soldiers live and die with that concept. The greatest good is still in teaching a man to fish, rather than handing him a haddock.

Republican principles align more closely with the ideas mentioned above, so I rightfully test out as a moderate Republican. The line between the left and right in this country is really located at that point between assisting and enabling. Extrapolate from there and the litmus test for governmental intervention is clear for me. If what you propose the government do will most logically lead to a subset of dependent people, I am against it. If the government intervention you propose is conceived to prop up the temporarily incapacitated, I am for it with reservations. Those reservations are relateed to the question of how temporary, or how invasive.

I have been having email and message board arguments with friends and relatives who are liberal-minded. They are also mostly young, which skews their thinking in my opinion. The jump I can't seem to get them to make is to see the severe side-effects of the governmental control they seem to condone and actively support. They seem to me to think only the best of most people at all times, despite overwhelming evidence that people under the most dire circumstances will always revert to their most animalistic drives. Government programs therefore should be designed to intervene when circumstances are most dire, and compel by design the individual to return to independence and self-sufficiency. The only way to do that, in my opinion, is to allow for the fact that some will perish when they don't find a road to self-reliance.

If Santorum Wins...

The plan is for this posting to be short. If Rick Santorum, a Catholic from my home state of PA, wins the Republican nomination, I will be calling for Ron Paul, or someone, to run as a third party candidate.

I have to get the religion stuff out of the way first. I don't believe in abortion, and I think pre-natal testing can be used heinously. However, I don't think my private beliefs are any of the government's business, and so shouldn't be part to the legislative landscape. This may be hard for pro-lifers to swallow, but I don't know when human life begins. Science may someday determine that human consciousness absolutely begins at conception, or soon thereafter, and then the pro-choicers will have to make some decsions of their own.

My position is that Roe vs. Wade shouldn't be on the books, precisely because the issue is one the government can't answer. Of course, that may sound crazy to some, but no argument I have yet heard tells me why a ruling should declare a right to kill a fetus. I may be odd, but I am comfortable leaving the accessibility and the 'rightness' up to the hospitals.

My problem with Santorum is actually fairly complex. He can make his religious beliefs known if he wants, but he obviously thinks the government should legislate his and his church's beliefs for everyone. Furthermore, I don't think Santorum can win in a general election. Let me be clear: I don't think he could win against any candidate in a general election. If Obama were abducted by aliens - the UFO kind, not the undocumented visitors who live and raise families here, and stay forever without contributing much to the general weal - and the Dems had to find another candidate in a hurry, whomever they find will defeat Santorum.

I am a little squeamish also in the number of times his candidacy has been described in some way as a mission from God. The last time this country attributed its actions to Manifest Destiny, the purpose was to legislate the Native American tribes almost out of existence. He can believe he's been chosen and that he's being directed if he wants, but he should keep that particular opinion to himself. Opinions like that one are a serious hindrance, in my opinion. The number of citizens who are leery of such a concept far outnumber the ones who have similar beliefs in an overt and obvious calling from above.

I think the Republican leadership should be very concerned about his current success and popularity. If I am right, and his nomination guarantees a victory for Obama, they should be strategizing on how to help Romney or Paul rally for a comeback. I am absolutely serious about this, and I am a pretty secure Republican, though all those on-line tests usually characterize me as a moderate one.

If Santorum is really not thinking he can pull ahead and win, but he is posturing for a place on the ticket, I am just as concerned, for the same reasons. He would theoretically prop up Romney in some areas, but he would sway many of the undecided's who share my concerns with his views.

In conclusion, I don't disagree with all of Santorum's ideas, but I am strongly opposed to the suggestion that his personal beliefs should be a part of the platform.

What's Wrong with Obama's Latest Mandate?

In case the news doesn't concern you, or perhaps you mistakenly think the mandate is a good thing, I offer a few things to consider in response to Obama's 'ruling' that insurance companies must offer contraceptive services in plans where the purchasers of the plans do not want them. Forget that these buyers reject it on religious grounds for just a minute, though that objection is a serious one to me.

The president is essentially saying that the government can dictate what products are available to everyone, since insurance is essentially a product. Companies that offer insurance of any kind take a calculated risk on an individual basis. However, they really face little statistical risk if they can sell enough policies to minimize the effect of individual claims. If that doesn't make sense to you, you may not be able to follow this post, and you might want to check out something lighter.

The point is that insurance is a product that is bought and sold. How it ever became viewed as a right is beyond me. Regardless, the greedy insurance companies, and the greedy pharmaceutical companies who have created an astonishing arsenal of treatments and medicines over the past 100 years, fueled primarily by capitalism, are now subject to governmental strangleholds that are sure to curtail innovation and advancement to some unknown extent, since one can never measure what might have happened if some outside force hadn't prevented it. If Jimi Hendrix were still alive, would he have created the greatest catalogue of modern music ever seen?

Our current incarnation of government foolishly believes that creating a national healthcare program will provide better living conditions for the poor, the downtrodden, and the destitute. What will happen, however, is this. The poor people may very well gain better access to treatment, but their having such will not make their lot better. Every system has managed to find a way to create or allow a peasant class. Human nature says that people will take less care of themselves, since the response to poor health will be more frequent doctor visits, or more demand, not less.

In simple terms, people behave most appropriately when influenced by fear of something. Why worry about getting sick, or not taking care of yourself if the medical community will have to bail you out? Some might say that such an opinion reveals a dim view of human nature. Guilty. I know that people can be noble, altruistic, and amazingly resourceful and resilient. I also know that these traits are born and nurtured most effectively when effort and setback, and persistence has ultimately been rewarded - either extrinsically or intrinsically. Moreover, I know that those who do not have fear of calamity woven into their being still find a way to foment calamity upon themselves and others.

I may have lost you there, so let's get back to the mandate. If the governemnt has the right to determine the characteristics and features of a product, which insurance is, they also have a right to mandate that other products have the features they decide are right and just and true. Taken to an extreme, it means that the government can decide that all cars must be blue, and all shirts yellow.

The liberals are now dismissing this as ridiculous, and they are allowed, since I will defend their right to think and act for themselves, even if I find their choices stupid or wrong-headed. If I don't believe in contraception, or sterilization, or abortion, or a vegetarian lifestyle, or homosexuality, why should I be driven to impose those beliefs on others. At present, all of those things are legal in fact. Some may not like the law, but I don't see that the government should be in the business of telling individuals what to think.

So the fact that religious institutions have enjoyed some protections is, in my opinion, a great thing. If I want my health care plan to include services that prevent pregnancy, and unwanted births, then I need to work for one of the million organizations that offers such care. An employee of an organization that does not espouse these things will know the rules when he pursues employment. What right does the government have to force the issue?

Seriously, what is gained in this case by forcing any religious organization to offer health care options that are contrary to their creed? How is that making the country stronger, or the world a better place?

JoePa Redux

I throw out the perspective of the tried and true Nittany Lion alum, fan, supporter, or current student. They are incapable of objectivity because they are too close to the scene.
I throw out the perspective of the haters. They have had an agenda for quite awhile, and it is grounded in their distaste for the perspective of the group identified in paragraph one.
I also have to throw out the perspective of the talking heads, the pundits, the radio and TV hosts: their viewpoint is too heavily influenced by the need to be 1) politically correct, or 2) outspoken enough to get ratings.

I believe Joe's legacy will ultimately be only marginally blemished by the Sandusky scandal. Sixty years of altruism, philanthropy, integrity, and honor will not be eradicated by association with someone else's crimes, someone else's negligence, and someone else's moral turpitude.

Joe's legacy can be tainted only if the facts disclose that he made a conscius decision to cover up the crimes, or that he was asleep at the wheel when the facts related to him reveal that he had a duty to report directly to the police, thereby subverting the principles his institution reasonably expected him to follow.

In simple terms, the grand jury would have held him accountable if what they learned suggested he were culpable. Those on their high horses have conveniently discounted the judgment of those who have all the facts, and who have gone out of their way to declare that Paterno was not named to the list of PSU officials who were guilty of either shirking their duties or deliberately creating a mechanism for abandoning them.

I don't think Joe was guilty of anything except not being suspicious or jaded enough. In many instances where players or people within his program were guilty of actions contrary to the principles he espoused, he responded decisively. In some cases, he was accused of responding too harshly. Of course, he chose unwisely in a few instances, but so has everyone when faced with information that doesn't dictate a clear choice.

Here's what I think happened. McQueary witnessed a heinous crime, but lacking the courage to live up to his responsibility he turned it over to Joe. Like a coward, he deliberately presented a sanitized account of what he saw, so that the mantle of responsibility did not fall on him. Burdened by an inexplicit report, Joe turned the case over to the proper authorities. Since he either didn't know or understand the severity of the situation, Joe relied on the people 'in charge' to take care of the business.

I refuse to believe that Joe never bothered to ask the AD or the administrator of the university police, perhaps unofficially, for an update on the report he filed. If those officials have any scruples, they will ultimately tell the truth: they did as much as they could to keep Joe in the dark. My guess is that they told Joe that the proper authorities were doing a full investigation, even encouraging him to not throw his weight around. Remember, if Joe had used his influence to force the details into the open, Sandusky would have been guilty until proven innocent.

Naturally, I don't know all the facts. I could be wrong. However, the spin that the media has put on the case doesn't jibe with any of the facts about Joe's character that preseded this scandal. I don't remember in forty years of following Penn State any instances of Joe putting the program or his image above his ethics. Were he a hypocrite, I suspect that one or more of the haters would have screamed to the heavens. Joe's tenure has spanned decades where the public has paid extravagantly to hear the sordid details of any and all discrepancies between image and fact. We are to believe that as his tneure drew to an end, Joe made the misguided decision to risk undermining everything he had stood for over more than sixty years? Sorry, this doesn't make sense.

I think the legacy may always come with an asterisk. The scandal that came at the end is real, and disgusting, and disheartening. Nevertheless, I truly believe that the facts will eventually vindicate Joe. I know from experience how ruthless people can be, and to what lengths they will go to hide an ugly truth to protect themselves. I simply don't believe that Joe Paterno was one of those people.

I measure the man by the gifts he gave, and I do not mean the monetary contributions. Joe recruited boys to play a game, and turned them into the best of men more often than not. How can someone make a more valuable contribution than that?

Data Driven Decision Making

I don't know if the TV show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader," is still on the air, but I hope that the audience here has seen it or heard of it, since I plan to use the premise of the show to make a larger point.

Adults are brought on to the program and are tested by questions that are integral content points of a typical 5th grade classroom in the US. The adult contestants are usually productive citizens who have found a way to contribute to their families and communities. The premise itself speaks loudly about the importance of 5th grade content. You see, if the content were critical to an adult's efficacy, the adult contestants would answer every or most questions correctly. Instead, the contestants rarely know all of the answers because the material is not critical in and of itself. What fifth graders need to know as it applies to adulthood and citizenship is not really represented by the 5th grade curriculum.

In short, the information covered in 5th grade is inconsequential to the productive adult. He or she can be very high functioning in his field without knowing very much material that is covered in 5th grade. This is true because the knowledge imparted in 5th grade is chosen on the basis of what the 5th grade mind can process. In other words, the skills are more important than the content.

This principle remains true at all levels of education, although to different degrees. I personally completed a BA at a private liberal arts college, and an MS at a well-respected university. The importance of most of the raw content I processed in these programs is dubious. I would venture a guess that I have maintained a knowledge base that includes about 10% of the information I have been asked to learn and to know.

What this has to do with Data Driven Decision Making, as it applies to secondary education, is as follows: Data Driven Decision Making has the potential to make a mess of education.

Presupposing that the date collectd presents a genuine reflection of the knowledge imparted and acquired by a given student (and such a supposition is itself questionable), the data collected is based on knowledge that is dubious in and of itself. To be a productive citizen, does every person need to have a facility with chemistry, with biology, with literature, with geometry? The question is rhetorical. We all know the answer?

The composition of the high school curriculum is generally formulated on the basis of exposure to ways of thinking. The type of thinking that is integral to an uderstaning of chemistry is peculiar to the chemistry classroom. Similarly, the type of thinking that is critical to the successful navigation of a literature lesson is peculiar to the literature classroom. The raw content in each and all cases is inconsequential and relatively unimportant.

In case I haven't been clear in pulling all of these points together, chew on this. Schools across the counrty are currently engaged in implmenting data teams, and RtI programs, as well as school specific programs, that are dedicating enormaous amounts of money and time to the creation of assessments which are supposed to provide diagnoses and prescriptions which will 'cure' learning ills. Because the data being collected is itself dubious, the resultant 'interventions' are dubious to the 2nd power.

I will end with a simple example. A 10th grade English teacher finds that one of her classes hasn't yet mastered an understanding of figurative language. The test item asked students to say what is meant when a character is described as 'cold as ice.' The assessments all agree that such facility is necessary. What does the teacher do? Tutoring? Remediation? Collaborative learning? More work sheets?

What if the test item itself is flawed? What if the students answered incorrectly because the context used in the assessment was unfamiliar and unrelated to their classroom curruculum materials? What if this question came up on the fourth consecutive day of standardized testing, and the students were disinclined to care?

Hopefully, the above was clear enough in touching on all of the concerns associated with data driven decision making. More information is almost always better than not enough information. But operating in response to information that is not what it purports to be sets off an expensive chain reaction where gobs of time and energy are expended in attacking a problem that may not be there, or in treating an illness that is merely a symptom.

More later.

The Shack

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.

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.

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."

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.



.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...