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...