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.
Friday, December 2, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)