There is not enough to be said about this book and the effort President Clinto has put forth since leaving the White House. While this book borders on self promotion and gratification, it is written in a way that takes the attention away from Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, thus zooming in on the organizations (and people) that the foundation has helped or been involved with. I could not help but be inspired as I listened to this book traveling the roads for Christmas Break.
Clinton has taken on challenges that would rival that of those faced while in public office and done so in an understated and humble way. The main theme through out the book is to do what you can, where you can, and do so effectively, which in my mind is what President Clinton has done. Not only is the book a practical guide to giving, but it provides the reader a philosophical background and footing for giving. After having listened to it, I take back most of my negitive opinions about President Clinton and see him has a philanthropic giant in a world that needs more. "Isn't that a bit glowing, and gushy?" you might be asking yourself. Yes, I can answer. In the introduction Clinton sealed the deal stating why he wrote the book and taken the actions described in it. Clinton talks at length about "evening the scales" for having been granted the fortunes he has been granted. This is a man who is by all means risen from near nothing, and done great (and some less than great) things. This notion of "evening the scales" is something that I have taken to heart at times of my life ande something we all to aspire to.
Clinton's main point of the book is to give what suites you. Wither it be time, money, skills, or goods, nothing will be wasted if given effectively. Clinton gives a laundry list of group, people and causes that need gift from the most mundane to the most intense. If you are feeling down about the world, need courage to keep up the fight, or just plain pessimistic about the human race, give this book a try. You might just find what you need.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Stuck In The Middle
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/29/tucson_orders_closure_of_mexican_american
My first reaction to hearing this one the radio was "This is absurd!" What has the country come to when we have programs being shut down that work? This program is effective in trying to get a demographic that struggles to do well in the educational system. Besides, this reeks of racism. This is a group of people who what amounts to a government doing everything in its power to keep it from success. Sure, Chicanos are great for picking crops, doing construction, and working fast food, but they do not warrant their own history is what the state of Arizona is saying.
Not only that but this goes to show what I have said in previous blogs (http://www.fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/12/article-from-npr-about-role-of-blacks.html) about the demonizing of history in our schools. Math, science and reading are all that is important. Little matters if a student cannot type up a lab report in anything but text, it is important that they learn calculus.
That being said, the more I listened to this article, the more I agreed with the State of Arizona, but not on the same grounds. No, ultimately the program should not be closed. It is effective, it is historical, and it is just plain racist to deny a group of people their past. Why then would I agreed. I am after all supposed to be liberalish. I agree (even if faintly) with this because I see this as a way away from these massive divisions in our country. We have worked so hard to create a safe environment for all people (a noble effort) but at what cost? I think the cost is our sense of community. Simply put what I am saying is: the fact that we recognize every difference makes it worse. Why not simply see people for what they are: People. We all have basically the same parts, it matters little (in my mind's eye) what you do with this parts,what color those parts are, or who you do what with those parts. We all have brains in our heads, that can be developed. What should matter most is what we do with them. Yes there are going to be differences, but we have gotten so hung up on those that it all we see.
So where does that leave me? Keep the program, but do so in the mindset of being a history of people. People who belong to a larger group of people.
Out of many, One seems to be a pretty good closing
My first reaction to hearing this one the radio was "This is absurd!" What has the country come to when we have programs being shut down that work? This program is effective in trying to get a demographic that struggles to do well in the educational system. Besides, this reeks of racism. This is a group of people who what amounts to a government doing everything in its power to keep it from success. Sure, Chicanos are great for picking crops, doing construction, and working fast food, but they do not warrant their own history is what the state of Arizona is saying.
Not only that but this goes to show what I have said in previous blogs (http://www.fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/12/article-from-npr-about-role-of-blacks.html) about the demonizing of history in our schools. Math, science and reading are all that is important. Little matters if a student cannot type up a lab report in anything but text, it is important that they learn calculus.
That being said, the more I listened to this article, the more I agreed with the State of Arizona, but not on the same grounds. No, ultimately the program should not be closed. It is effective, it is historical, and it is just plain racist to deny a group of people their past. Why then would I agreed. I am after all supposed to be liberalish. I agree (even if faintly) with this because I see this as a way away from these massive divisions in our country. We have worked so hard to create a safe environment for all people (a noble effort) but at what cost? I think the cost is our sense of community. Simply put what I am saying is: the fact that we recognize every difference makes it worse. Why not simply see people for what they are: People. We all have basically the same parts, it matters little (in my mind's eye) what you do with this parts,what color those parts are, or who you do what with those parts. We all have brains in our heads, that can be developed. What should matter most is what we do with them. Yes there are going to be differences, but we have gotten so hung up on those that it all we see.
So where does that leave me? Keep the program, but do so in the mindset of being a history of people. People who belong to a larger group of people.
Out of many, One seems to be a pretty good closing
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
You Heard It Here First
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-drops-republican-party-registration-ny-031537528.html
This article is more than enough evidence for me to secure my suspicions about President Obama being elected for a second term. Why you might ask would I say such a thing about President Obama when the article referes to Donald Trump. Here is my thought process.
Trump is pulling out of the Republican party so he can run as an Independent in 2012. It is clear as day to me, and plenty of other people know that he has wanted to do this. He has gone so far as to suggest that he would on TV, print and digital media. Should he do so, it will have (in my mind) devastating effects on the Republican Party in the general election.
Why would Trump be a problem to the Republicans and not President Obama? Because Trump can go around picking up the pieces that are left after Romney comes out with the nomination. Yes, Romney will come out with the nomination. He is moderate enough to attract some moderates/ moderate liberals and just ever so appealing to the conservatives that he will get it. The problem is, and this is were Trump comes in, he is not going to get the most Conservative of the party. The Tea Party will most surely fall in line with Trump and some of the middle of the conservative road (the moderates of the right you might say) will go for Trump as well. Thus, with the Republicans will split and President Obama will win.
You might be saying to yourself "How can he say that so soon?" "What does it know that I don't" The answers are: history and nothing. One merely has to look at the 1990 election between Clinton and Bush 41. Ross Perot came in as the "Common Sense Conservative" and pocketed votes from Bush by the trash bag. Yes Bush was the incumbent but it is the same principle as now. Trump will come in as say all the right things, spend massive amounts of money (stack Perot up against Trump and you'll see the only difference is a TV show) and pick up the crumbs from Romney.
You wait and see my friends, and when it happens you'll say to yourself "Ya know, I read that somewhere?!?" That's when I step in and say "Right here."
Happy Christmas All!
This article is more than enough evidence for me to secure my suspicions about President Obama being elected for a second term. Why you might ask would I say such a thing about President Obama when the article referes to Donald Trump. Here is my thought process.
Trump is pulling out of the Republican party so he can run as an Independent in 2012. It is clear as day to me, and plenty of other people know that he has wanted to do this. He has gone so far as to suggest that he would on TV, print and digital media. Should he do so, it will have (in my mind) devastating effects on the Republican Party in the general election.
Why would Trump be a problem to the Republicans and not President Obama? Because Trump can go around picking up the pieces that are left after Romney comes out with the nomination. Yes, Romney will come out with the nomination. He is moderate enough to attract some moderates/ moderate liberals and just ever so appealing to the conservatives that he will get it. The problem is, and this is were Trump comes in, he is not going to get the most Conservative of the party. The Tea Party will most surely fall in line with Trump and some of the middle of the conservative road (the moderates of the right you might say) will go for Trump as well. Thus, with the Republicans will split and President Obama will win.
You might be saying to yourself "How can he say that so soon?" "What does it know that I don't" The answers are: history and nothing. One merely has to look at the 1990 election between Clinton and Bush 41. Ross Perot came in as the "Common Sense Conservative" and pocketed votes from Bush by the trash bag. Yes Bush was the incumbent but it is the same principle as now. Trump will come in as say all the right things, spend massive amounts of money (stack Perot up against Trump and you'll see the only difference is a TV show) and pick up the crumbs from Romney.
You wait and see my friends, and when it happens you'll say to yourself "Ya know, I read that somewhere?!?" That's when I step in and say "Right here."
Happy Christmas All!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Why I'm Not Worried (The Bathtub Explination)
I had an email conversation with a friend this morning about a particular point I teach my students. This individual flew off the handle about how we teach our student "banks pay interest to savers as incentive to save." He rattled off a long email about our our financial system has been ruined by greedy bankers and the Federal Reserve. I had two points of response for him and I will lay them out here for you.
1) Students of economics (more especially eight graders) need to learn how the system SHOULD work. Part of why the banks and the economic system fails us on occasion is because people do not understand how it works. Also, if more people were/are educated about economy the less panic there would be in times of economic down turn. Chicken Littles abound when the economy turns south for its every decade down-ward cycle. Our economy is almost designed to have valleys. Thus, we need to educate our students on the benefits of banks so they can make money in the boom years when money flows freely. It's a simple thought if you get right down to thinking about it. Plus the way things SHOULD be ought to be taught in every subject. It is just good education. If we taught them all the greedy little tricks and dirty little secrets than someone would pitch a damn fit about that too.
Along the same lines, I replied to is email with the response that if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem. Investing is critical in times of depression. Banking even more so. We have to keep the economy moving, even if slowly in order to recover. One does not stop peddling going up the hill on a bicycle do they? Why would we stop investing when there is a depression. Trust men, if I had money you can beat ( and ultimately lose) you ass I would be out there investing like crazy. Yes I would lose money, but if you have the guts to be investing in a depression, you have the guts to invest a lot in a depression.
2) My second responding point is that the economy (believe it or not) is in good hands. Despite some of the greedy hoarders that run government agencies, our economy is run by people with far more education in economics than your or me. What does not cause me to fly off the handle when I read about government economic interventions is a bastardized version of the economy given to my in my college economics classes. I say it have been bastardized in that I have modified it to fit Virginia SOLs. Think of it like this:
The economy is a bathtub, and a bath tube with let four hot/cold handles. One handle is labeled TAXING, a second INTEREST RATES, a third GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and a fourth GOVERNMENT BORROWING. The job of the Federal Reserve is to keep the bath tub full and to keep it relatively warm...it is after all a bathtub. The Federal Reserve, Congress, and the President is to determine which of the handles needs to be turned, if it needs to be hot or cold, and just how hot or cold it needs to be. The most important part of this is that different administrations and Federal Reserve chairs have different philosophies as to what justifies a good temperature for a bath, and which handles to turn to keep it that way.
This understanding keeps me, along with what I know about the economy, from running around like Chicken Little when we hit an economic snag. I understand that the way President Obama, President Bush, and my friend would/do fix the economy is going to be as different at the three characters. Different adjustments suite different situations. Franklin Roosevelt fixed the economy with supply sided measures designed to correct a supplying economy. Presidents Bush and Obama have attempted (and done well I think) at using demand sided measures to correct out faulting consuming based economy.
What my main aim with my friend, and this blog post was/is to show that we cannot and should not panic. We should look at the measures taken, when not greed filled, by those in control of the economy and see what they are trying to do. President Roosevelt had his detractors in his day, just as President Obama has his today. Give this a chance. As my economic professor told me 'We're not out of a recession until we're in another one." Not the most optimist way of looking at things but if you think about it, it is
1) Students of economics (more especially eight graders) need to learn how the system SHOULD work. Part of why the banks and the economic system fails us on occasion is because people do not understand how it works. Also, if more people were/are educated about economy the less panic there would be in times of economic down turn. Chicken Littles abound when the economy turns south for its every decade down-ward cycle. Our economy is almost designed to have valleys. Thus, we need to educate our students on the benefits of banks so they can make money in the boom years when money flows freely. It's a simple thought if you get right down to thinking about it. Plus the way things SHOULD be ought to be taught in every subject. It is just good education. If we taught them all the greedy little tricks and dirty little secrets than someone would pitch a damn fit about that too.
Along the same lines, I replied to is email with the response that if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem. Investing is critical in times of depression. Banking even more so. We have to keep the economy moving, even if slowly in order to recover. One does not stop peddling going up the hill on a bicycle do they? Why would we stop investing when there is a depression. Trust men, if I had money you can beat ( and ultimately lose) you ass I would be out there investing like crazy. Yes I would lose money, but if you have the guts to be investing in a depression, you have the guts to invest a lot in a depression.
2) My second responding point is that the economy (believe it or not) is in good hands. Despite some of the greedy hoarders that run government agencies, our economy is run by people with far more education in economics than your or me. What does not cause me to fly off the handle when I read about government economic interventions is a bastardized version of the economy given to my in my college economics classes. I say it have been bastardized in that I have modified it to fit Virginia SOLs. Think of it like this:
The economy is a bathtub, and a bath tube with let four hot/cold handles. One handle is labeled TAXING, a second INTEREST RATES, a third GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and a fourth GOVERNMENT BORROWING. The job of the Federal Reserve is to keep the bath tub full and to keep it relatively warm...it is after all a bathtub. The Federal Reserve, Congress, and the President is to determine which of the handles needs to be turned, if it needs to be hot or cold, and just how hot or cold it needs to be. The most important part of this is that different administrations and Federal Reserve chairs have different philosophies as to what justifies a good temperature for a bath, and which handles to turn to keep it that way.
This understanding keeps me, along with what I know about the economy, from running around like Chicken Little when we hit an economic snag. I understand that the way President Obama, President Bush, and my friend would/do fix the economy is going to be as different at the three characters. Different adjustments suite different situations. Franklin Roosevelt fixed the economy with supply sided measures designed to correct a supplying economy. Presidents Bush and Obama have attempted (and done well I think) at using demand sided measures to correct out faulting consuming based economy.
What my main aim with my friend, and this blog post was/is to show that we cannot and should not panic. We should look at the measures taken, when not greed filled, by those in control of the economy and see what they are trying to do. President Roosevelt had his detractors in his day, just as President Obama has his today. Give this a chance. As my economic professor told me 'We're not out of a recession until we're in another one." Not the most optimist way of looking at things but if you think about it, it is
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Applauding A Republican Candidate For Being Reasonable....Opps
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/10/applauding-republican-candidate-for.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
When I wrote my article about Rick Perry having a reasonable stance on immigration, I had no idea that he would come out with this kind of mindless drivel that not only shows his lack of understanding about American today, but of American history. His add shows just how unaware conservatives are when it comes to their on contradictions, and how the rest of America really perceives them.
First look at the idea of gays in the military. As a non-veteran, I understand there are some unseen problems in the introduction of new policies in the military. Some of those who serve may have a problem serving along side those who are gay. At the same time some may have a hard time serving next to blacks, hispanics, asians or women. I can at least respect that because you are serving and I am not. You have earned the right to be critical of who you serve with insofar as whether they are mentally and physically able. But on the grounds of their color, race, gender, or sexual preference? What I do not understand is how someone can look at another person, who obviously shares the core belief that military service is worthwhile, and say they should not be able to serve. A weak comparison would be for me to say to a fellow Mason, "You shouldn't be a Mason because you are Baptist." Obviously those who join the military have similar values and core beliefs, why limit or hinder that?
A second point on this: Why is that Republicans, the "party of 'Merica." are so opposed to letting people serve "'merica." I thought Republicans, Conservatives, or simply Patriotic people in general would want ANYONE who was willing to serve their country to be able. Why do we need to place restrictions, institutionalized or not, on service to this country. Older Americans say that my generation and those after mine are afraid to serve. Could it be that we want to serve but are not wanting to serve and be left unappreciated? I simply cannot get my mind around the paradox that has been created around the issue of gays serving in the military. On top of all this, the branches are struggling to get people to join. Enlistment numbers are down across every branch. Re-enlistment rates are declining. Why then are we going to alienate a whole group of people from serving who want to? Explain that to me Rick Perry? Explain that to me Conservatives who are afraid of gays serving? Please, I beg you. It just seems to be a contradiction in my mind.
Finally I would like to comment on this mis-conceived notion of America being founded solely on the conservative beliefs of the founding fathers. I still struggle with how the right got hold of this idea and why they hang on to it so fearfully. Yes, the founders mention God, but the God they mention is not the same God of Ricky Perry, George W. Bush or even Jimmy Carter. The God of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin was the God as a watchmaker. Just as the watchmaker places the parts together, and sets them in motion, God set the pieces of a life together and set them in motion. I doubt Jefferson would say he had a personal relationship with God as many mainstream Christians would say they do today. I know with little doubt that Franklin would let his religious beliefs get in the way of what felt was best for the country. Franklin saw God as someone and set back, allowing for human judgments to stand and actions to be taken. God was present, but only as a Supreme Architect, who built the universe and set us to work. As children of the Enlightenment, the founders would have seen it up to the individual to determine their fate on Earth.
Conservatives have this thought in their brains that "liberals" have this sceme to fight a war on religion. Liberals are not fighting a war on religion, if anything they are fight a war for religion. It may not be a war for Southern Baptist who go to Rick Perry's church. (By the way, what church goes Rick Perry go to? Why is he not in the pew every Sunday? I thought to be a "good Christian" you needed to be in the pew every Sunday") It is not even a war for us fence riding Methodist, but a war for all religion. It is a war for all Americans to worship how they wish, or not worship at all. Is that not what the pilgrams came over on the Mayflower in search of? Is that not what we have fought for all along?
I'm religious, even if I struggle with faith, and I see a wonderful place for religion in our country and in politics for that matter. In my mind church based relief organizations and NGOs are a VITAL part of the social safety net for those who need it. We want our government to help those in need, yet we do not want a large government. That is were the church, secular and religious NGOs step into the breach. They are vital! Think of the problems our country would face without churches.
In closing, I should say that I have been too hard on conservatives in this post, and is others. In order to be fair and true to what I believe, I should listen to what they have to say. After I have check what they believe against what I believe and start a dialog. It has been my intetion all along with this blog to do so, so if you want to join the fray do not be afraid. I want to hear what you have to say. Am I way off my rocker? Am I spot on? Write me a comment and tell me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
When I wrote my article about Rick Perry having a reasonable stance on immigration, I had no idea that he would come out with this kind of mindless drivel that not only shows his lack of understanding about American today, but of American history. His add shows just how unaware conservatives are when it comes to their on contradictions, and how the rest of America really perceives them.
First look at the idea of gays in the military. As a non-veteran, I understand there are some unseen problems in the introduction of new policies in the military. Some of those who serve may have a problem serving along side those who are gay. At the same time some may have a hard time serving next to blacks, hispanics, asians or women. I can at least respect that because you are serving and I am not. You have earned the right to be critical of who you serve with insofar as whether they are mentally and physically able. But on the grounds of their color, race, gender, or sexual preference? What I do not understand is how someone can look at another person, who obviously shares the core belief that military service is worthwhile, and say they should not be able to serve. A weak comparison would be for me to say to a fellow Mason, "You shouldn't be a Mason because you are Baptist." Obviously those who join the military have similar values and core beliefs, why limit or hinder that?
A second point on this: Why is that Republicans, the "party of 'Merica." are so opposed to letting people serve "'merica." I thought Republicans, Conservatives, or simply Patriotic people in general would want ANYONE who was willing to serve their country to be able. Why do we need to place restrictions, institutionalized or not, on service to this country. Older Americans say that my generation and those after mine are afraid to serve. Could it be that we want to serve but are not wanting to serve and be left unappreciated? I simply cannot get my mind around the paradox that has been created around the issue of gays serving in the military. On top of all this, the branches are struggling to get people to join. Enlistment numbers are down across every branch. Re-enlistment rates are declining. Why then are we going to alienate a whole group of people from serving who want to? Explain that to me Rick Perry? Explain that to me Conservatives who are afraid of gays serving? Please, I beg you. It just seems to be a contradiction in my mind.
Finally I would like to comment on this mis-conceived notion of America being founded solely on the conservative beliefs of the founding fathers. I still struggle with how the right got hold of this idea and why they hang on to it so fearfully. Yes, the founders mention God, but the God they mention is not the same God of Ricky Perry, George W. Bush or even Jimmy Carter. The God of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin was the God as a watchmaker. Just as the watchmaker places the parts together, and sets them in motion, God set the pieces of a life together and set them in motion. I doubt Jefferson would say he had a personal relationship with God as many mainstream Christians would say they do today. I know with little doubt that Franklin would let his religious beliefs get in the way of what felt was best for the country. Franklin saw God as someone and set back, allowing for human judgments to stand and actions to be taken. God was present, but only as a Supreme Architect, who built the universe and set us to work. As children of the Enlightenment, the founders would have seen it up to the individual to determine their fate on Earth.
Conservatives have this thought in their brains that "liberals" have this sceme to fight a war on religion. Liberals are not fighting a war on religion, if anything they are fight a war for religion. It may not be a war for Southern Baptist who go to Rick Perry's church. (By the way, what church goes Rick Perry go to? Why is he not in the pew every Sunday? I thought to be a "good Christian" you needed to be in the pew every Sunday") It is not even a war for us fence riding Methodist, but a war for all religion. It is a war for all Americans to worship how they wish, or not worship at all. Is that not what the pilgrams came over on the Mayflower in search of? Is that not what we have fought for all along?
I'm religious, even if I struggle with faith, and I see a wonderful place for religion in our country and in politics for that matter. In my mind church based relief organizations and NGOs are a VITAL part of the social safety net for those who need it. We want our government to help those in need, yet we do not want a large government. That is were the church, secular and religious NGOs step into the breach. They are vital! Think of the problems our country would face without churches.
In closing, I should say that I have been too hard on conservatives in this post, and is others. In order to be fair and true to what I believe, I should listen to what they have to say. After I have check what they believe against what I believe and start a dialog. It has been my intetion all along with this blog to do so, so if you want to join the fray do not be afraid. I want to hear what you have to say. Am I way off my rocker? Am I spot on? Write me a comment and tell me.
Movie Review; Ides Of March
As usual I am late to the point on something major in the political, arts, technological or entertainment world, but when I am I try to weight in with something unique to say.
My fiance and I finally made it to see Ides of March this weekend, but this was well worth the wait. Very few movies can that be said. There was not a bad roles played in the entire movie, but the movie itself lent to good roles being played. With character actor heavy weights like Phillip Seymore Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, you almost lay bets on who will play their understanded characters to the fullest. Both play frumpy campaign managers who have obviously been around the block. Hoffman gets more screen time as the chain smoking, loyalty driven manager of Clooney's campaign, and ultimate scapegoat when the plot thickens to collapse. Given Hoffman's experiences with campaigning, he was a well placed addition to the cast. Giamatti's time on screen lags, but when on he explodes. Delivering one liners that make the whole philosophical, and moral tone for the movie, Giamatti shows the viewers the games played behind closed doors during a campaign. Ryan Gosslyn (I have no problem misspelling his name) does well too, though he is plagued by what can be politely said as too many close-ups. One viewer, of the Ryan Gosslyn fan base, was over heard to have said "He has a weird shaped head, and they kept zooming in on it."
George Clooney was best served as the head writer for the movie though his character was surprising in the end. If you come to Ides of March looking for fast moving, twists and turns, you will be disappointed. The plot of this movie was layered with scenes where the actors trade dialog, the close comparison to verbal shotgun blasts, over philosophical or moral points. Just when you think you have it all figured out, up comes a three minute scene that drops you off a cliff, and runs you over with a Mac truck. Clooney writes the screenplay so well that you leave the theatre wondering who really wins? My guess is Clooney had a good foundation from "Farragut North" written in 2008.
Ides of March, thanks to a well written screenplay and subtle geniuses of Hoffman and Giamatti get past the good looking heartthrob that is Ryan Gosslyn and transforms in to tank of a film that is not just another campaign movie or political thriller.
My fiance and I finally made it to see Ides of March this weekend, but this was well worth the wait. Very few movies can that be said. There was not a bad roles played in the entire movie, but the movie itself lent to good roles being played. With character actor heavy weights like Phillip Seymore Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, you almost lay bets on who will play their understanded characters to the fullest. Both play frumpy campaign managers who have obviously been around the block. Hoffman gets more screen time as the chain smoking, loyalty driven manager of Clooney's campaign, and ultimate scapegoat when the plot thickens to collapse. Given Hoffman's experiences with campaigning, he was a well placed addition to the cast. Giamatti's time on screen lags, but when on he explodes. Delivering one liners that make the whole philosophical, and moral tone for the movie, Giamatti shows the viewers the games played behind closed doors during a campaign. Ryan Gosslyn (I have no problem misspelling his name) does well too, though he is plagued by what can be politely said as too many close-ups. One viewer, of the Ryan Gosslyn fan base, was over heard to have said "He has a weird shaped head, and they kept zooming in on it."
George Clooney was best served as the head writer for the movie though his character was surprising in the end. If you come to Ides of March looking for fast moving, twists and turns, you will be disappointed. The plot of this movie was layered with scenes where the actors trade dialog, the close comparison to verbal shotgun blasts, over philosophical or moral points. Just when you think you have it all figured out, up comes a three minute scene that drops you off a cliff, and runs you over with a Mac truck. Clooney writes the screenplay so well that you leave the theatre wondering who really wins? My guess is Clooney had a good foundation from "Farragut North" written in 2008.
Ides of March, thanks to a well written screenplay and subtle geniuses of Hoffman and Giamatti get past the good looking heartthrob that is Ryan Gosslyn and transforms in to tank of a film that is not just another campaign movie or political thriller.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Think Local, Act Local
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/13/143538472/home-sweet-home-the-new-american-localism
Reading this article was a trip down memory lane to those happy days of college when I was struggling to agree with anyone I was stuck in Public Policy and Community Service classes. They were (in my mind) way to liberal or simply lacking common sense. I saw it that the world had to spin the way it was spinning. We needed to protect our borders (by not allowing anyone in or if they were in making them speak English), politically correctness was stupid (I don't care what you hyphenated name you want to be called) and we certainly needed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did attack us after all. I was never politically incorrect, rude or that argumentative (I like to debate and argue) to people who did not believe as I did. I just did not agree with them. Boy what I missed out on.
Those were the days...and when I say that it is not with much pride. I have since become more moderate and even started to lean to the left..ever so slightly. (Who am I kidding? I'm more liberal now then I was conservative then) I'm a late bloomer, what else is there to be said? The one thing we could all agree on was the "Local" movement that was budding, and had been budding for awhile, amongst the main stream community. We wrote paper after paper about how local was better, healthier, and simply good economics. Now that movement is arriving en mass to the world and it is about time. We worked to get the movement off the ground around Emory, and to some degree laid the ground work for the Glade Spring revitalization program that is nearing completion. Sadly I left allot of my work unfinished and never really followed through with much of it. I still regret not working harder in college.
By no means am I the champion of such a movement. I still have my faults, and to some degree have even backslid, but I still love the feeling of the movement. In college, and still today, I seek out unique things that are made where they are sold. Christmas presents from my mom and sister came from Abingdon or Saltville. I made my dad's presents more times then not. Today presents come from Roanoke, Charlotte, or whatever little hamlet my fiance and I have traveled to see some historical sight or art museum.
To a degree though I have backslid and I am not sure it is all for the better. Today I am as apt to go on Amazon and order something from out of state as I am to try and find the equvilent here in Rocky Mount or the areas around. This is too bad. All of this technology has gotten to me. I am that late bloomer after all, and perhaps the "local" movement was a fluke. Maybe I was was a head of the curve on it but behind on all the other stuff. I have always been a stick in the mud when it comes to things that I can get close to home or make. I am afterall southern, Scotch and apparently Welsh so if I cannot get it close to home, cannot make it, then I should not need for it.
Reading this article was a trip down memory lane to those happy days of college when I was struggling to agree with anyone I was stuck in Public Policy and Community Service classes. They were (in my mind) way to liberal or simply lacking common sense. I saw it that the world had to spin the way it was spinning. We needed to protect our borders (by not allowing anyone in or if they were in making them speak English), politically correctness was stupid (I don't care what you hyphenated name you want to be called) and we certainly needed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did attack us after all. I was never politically incorrect, rude or that argumentative (I like to debate and argue) to people who did not believe as I did. I just did not agree with them. Boy what I missed out on.
Those were the days...and when I say that it is not with much pride. I have since become more moderate and even started to lean to the left..ever so slightly. (Who am I kidding? I'm more liberal now then I was conservative then) I'm a late bloomer, what else is there to be said? The one thing we could all agree on was the "Local" movement that was budding, and had been budding for awhile, amongst the main stream community. We wrote paper after paper about how local was better, healthier, and simply good economics. Now that movement is arriving en mass to the world and it is about time. We worked to get the movement off the ground around Emory, and to some degree laid the ground work for the Glade Spring revitalization program that is nearing completion. Sadly I left allot of my work unfinished and never really followed through with much of it. I still regret not working harder in college.
By no means am I the champion of such a movement. I still have my faults, and to some degree have even backslid, but I still love the feeling of the movement. In college, and still today, I seek out unique things that are made where they are sold. Christmas presents from my mom and sister came from Abingdon or Saltville. I made my dad's presents more times then not. Today presents come from Roanoke, Charlotte, or whatever little hamlet my fiance and I have traveled to see some historical sight or art museum.
To a degree though I have backslid and I am not sure it is all for the better. Today I am as apt to go on Amazon and order something from out of state as I am to try and find the equvilent here in Rocky Mount or the areas around. This is too bad. All of this technology has gotten to me. I am that late bloomer after all, and perhaps the "local" movement was a fluke. Maybe I was was a head of the curve on it but behind on all the other stuff. I have always been a stick in the mud when it comes to things that I can get close to home or make. I am afterall southern, Scotch and apparently Welsh so if I cannot get it close to home, cannot make it, then I should not need for it.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Article From NPR About The Role Of Blacks............
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143291199/black-scholar-of-the-civil-war-asks-whos-with-me?sc=fb&cc=fp
The original radio segment and subsequent article points out two glaring gaps in the American depth of knowledge. This first is of the role of African Americans in the Civil War (though I disagree), but the second is both deeper and grander at the same time. The second fault of this shows the lack of understanding about American History as a subject in the American mind.
I feel as though Mr. Coates is somewhat mistaken when he denotes that the role of blacks in the Civil War is underplayed or forgotten. He obliviously has not taught American history at the high school level in several years (if ever) and has fallen prey to what is common amongst the ivory towers of academia. Thinking "what are they teaching down there?" is common in colleges and one cannot fault Mr. Coates too terribly much for asking that. We (high school history teachers) teach the Civil War, and if memory serves, we teach the roles of blacks in the Civil War. It is infused in the standards (which one might argue show a need for standards), written in the fiber of the texts that we use, and is intelligently thought about by students and teachers alike. In my history classes we showed GLORY, spoke of the 54thMassachusetts
In addition, Mr. Coates (in the radio interview) demonstrated a slight ignorance about facts regarding Stonewall Jackson and his ownership of slaves. WhileJackson Jackson
Mr. Coates has an argument about the lack of knowledge of blacks in the Civil War. It is on that point I can passively agree with Mr. Coates, but I think his frustrations might best be aimed at the big picture. Of coarse his little picture arguments might better be solved if he were to climb down from his lofty tower and experience real teaching for a change.
So, was this not the article you thought you would read judging by the title? If it wasn't, leave me a comment, and let me know what you thought. Did you expect this? Did you think I was going to blast off with some tyrant? This goes for any of my articles as well. If you like what you read, let me know. If you dislike it really let me know. I would love to start up a debate.
The original radio segment and subsequent article points out two glaring gaps in the American depth of knowledge. This first is of the role of African Americans in the Civil War (though I disagree), but the second is both deeper and grander at the same time. The second fault of this shows the lack of understanding about American History as a subject in the American mind.
I feel as though Mr. Coates is somewhat mistaken when he denotes that the role of blacks in the Civil War is underplayed or forgotten. He obliviously has not taught American history at the high school level in several years (if ever) and has fallen prey to what is common amongst the ivory towers of academia. Thinking "what are they teaching down there?" is common in colleges and one cannot fault Mr. Coates too terribly much for asking that. We (high school history teachers) teach the Civil War, and if memory serves, we teach the roles of blacks in the Civil War. It is infused in the standards (which one might argue show a need for standards), written in the fiber of the texts that we use, and is intelligently thought about by students and teachers alike. In my history classes we showed GLORY, spoke of the 54th
In addition, Mr. Coates (in the radio interview) demonstrated a slight ignorance about facts regarding Stonewall Jackson and his ownership of slaves. While
So, was this not the article you thought you would read judging by the title? If it wasn't, leave me a comment, and let me know what you thought. Did you expect this? Did you think I was going to blast off with some tyrant? This goes for any of my articles as well. If you like what you read, let me know. If you dislike it really let me know. I would love to start up a debate.
Thoughts About Stereotypes
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/12/07/142861568/disappointing-redneck-tv-shortchanges-the-american-south?verified=true&sc=fb&cc=fp#commentBlock
I speak with a Eastern Tennessee accent and I am an educated, upstanding, and contributing member of society. I hold a Master’s Degree and while I teach in a small Southwestern Virginia town I have my student research the masters of art, read Shakespeare, and do things like listen to NPR. Such are hardly things that “backward” rednecks do, though I do not fill uncomfortable at NASCAR races. The south is a unique place unlike any other in the United State
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Corporate Bullying? Copyright Infringement? Smoke and Mirrors?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/us/eat-more-kale-t-shirts-challenged-by-chick-fil-a.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
Jefferson stole from John Locke to write the Declaration. What are we afraid of? For as long as there have been written words, art or music people have reading, seeing and hearing then simply saying "I could do that just a smidge different and make it better." Is that wrong? Maybe. Is that cheating? Maybe. Is that fair? Absolutely
Why is it fair you might ask? Because we have a free market. In the free market, players are able to compete in what ever way they see fit so long as they do not murder one another. I always find it funny when businesses, politicians, or talking heads on the radio are annoyed by something and say "you cannot do that, it looks too much like ours." yet they will turn around and do the very same thing the first time it is profitable. Why is Chick-fil-a not going after McDonalds for copying their chicken sandwich? I've had both, and they are pretty close. Why do they not go after all the companies that have taken to using animals in their advertisements? My guess is, they do not want to have these companies putting them (Chick-fil-a) under the microscope in return and so they keep to picking on small time (or what they perceive to be small time) targets like Mr. Muller-Moore. In Mr. Muller-Moore they see a target of opportunity to crush out some left over hippie that disagrees with Chick-fil-a’s agenda. That’s right I said. Chick-fil-a’s agenda.
Little to many of us know, but Chick-fil-a has been channeling money though 501-C4s to Conservative Republicans for years. Yes, the company is the beacon of good, Christian, values (and I do applaud them for standing up for what they believe) but the channeling of money through back rooms, and this pithy endeavor against what could be called a venture capitalist is a bit too much in my book. To me it smells of smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from their questionable actions.
And why do they feel the need to hide? The whole notion of backchannel money is just not whatAmerica
For my money, nothing beats Chick-fil-a’s chicken sandwiches, for my money I’ll pay to watch the underdog win, and for my money I’d rather see corporate money out in the open and not culverted to the deep pockets of politicians from seedy sources. I say leave the man alone (and really pat him on the back for creativity), and keep your opinions out in the open, and be up front with your money.
Why is it fair you might ask? Because we have a free market. In the free market, players are able to compete in what ever way they see fit so long as they do not murder one another. I always find it funny when businesses, politicians, or talking heads on the radio are annoyed by something and say "you cannot do that, it looks too much like ours." yet they will turn around and do the very same thing the first time it is profitable. Why is Chick-fil-a not going after McDonalds for copying their chicken sandwich? I've had both, and they are pretty close. Why do they not go after all the companies that have taken to using animals in their advertisements? My guess is, they do not want to have these companies putting them (Chick-fil-a) under the microscope in return and so they keep to picking on small time (or what they perceive to be small time) targets like Mr. Muller-Moore. In Mr. Muller-Moore they see a target of opportunity to crush out some left over hippie that disagrees with Chick-fil-a’s agenda. That’s right I said. Chick-fil-a’s agenda.
Little to many of us know, but Chick-fil-a has been channeling money though 501-C4s to Conservative Republicans for years. Yes, the company is the beacon of good, Christian, values (and I do applaud them for standing up for what they believe) but the channeling of money through back rooms, and this pithy endeavor against what could be called a venture capitalist is a bit too much in my book. To me it smells of smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from their questionable actions.
And why do they feel the need to hide? The whole notion of backchannel money is just not what
For my money, nothing beats Chick-fil-a’s chicken sandwiches, for my money I’ll pay to watch the underdog win, and for my money I’d rather see corporate money out in the open and not culverted to the deep pockets of politicians from seedy sources. I say leave the man alone (and really pat him on the back for creativity), and keep your opinions out in the open, and be up front with your money.
Friday, December 2, 2011
An Editorial About Education From The Inside Looking Out
It is testing season here in the Commonwealth so I am reminded daily of how, in my opinion, we are failing our kids by using a system that utilizes standardized tests.
While I have a lot of faith in the generation I am teaching (or is it better put testing), I do worry about their perception of education. So many of our kids are driven away from education, away from the idea of learning, or ever pursuing further education because we as teachers are forced to teach to standards comprised by people who have little real understanding of education or teaching. We do not need to look anywhere else than to working class to see this in play. Education had long been a way for people to rise above their current station in life, yet today those that would benefit the most from school are being turned off to it. Most of my students who could really benefit from a broad based, classical education (in the model of Jefferson, Franklin or even Steven Jobs) are the very students who are flunking out because they are being forced to learn in a way that is not conducive to them. In turn we are turning off students in droves.
This does not even take into consideration the intellectual welfare of the working class. Americans in the working to lower classes, I would lay money, compare little to those of the same status in Europe or Asia. Even the most basic information seems to be lost on those who leave school or do not pursue advanced degree. Ignorance (not stupidity..ignorance..there's a difference) abounds in the working poor of America, and it is not limited to the working poor, but the working middle as well. In his writings, Thomas Jefferson opined that education is a necessary component to the survival of the American Democracy. The educated body politic is needed to elect the very best, understand the laws passed, and stand up if incorrectly treated. This is not happening in America and the standardization and routtenization of the American education is to blame.
In addition to the turning off of students in the classroom by hamstrung teachers we are doing serious damage to the physical nature of these students. Not only are physical education requirements being depleted, but we are pumping our students full of medicines in order to keep them in their seats long enough to dump into their minds the information that is going to be on the test. Who really knows the long term effect medicines to "cure" ADD, AD/HD will have on the generations to come. Le us just conclude that I am thankful for having never been placed on them as a student, and I would venture to say that my un-born children do as well.
In closing, testing, in my mind, shines a very bright spotlight on a gross double standard in America today. We have initiatives trotted out almost daily to induce creativity and encouraging students to "think out side the box" yet we are forced daily to test them on a prescribed set of knowledge in the same way we have always done it. Which focus are we to follow? I would love to be able to teach my subject how I see fit, I chafe under the fact that I am forced to teach the same way all of the other teachers of my subject do across the Commonwealth. Yes there is room to expand some here and there, but little.
We need to think outside the box, we need to be able to run our students wild with enthusiasm about the American government. Are we afraid of that? What would be wrong with anger being replaced with optimism and willingness? Our problems do not lie in the American political system, but in the public perception. Where does the incorrect public perception come from? The lack of proper education about the American political system.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Can We Really Be This Lucky?
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/congressional-gridlock-could-be-good
If there is anything I have learned in the past few years, it is that the Clinton era was an economically sound time. We had come out major inflation problems faced in the 1980's, a budget surplus, and the stock market was booming. I really do not know if this was because of the Clinton tax codes were that beneficial, or if the Bush tax cuts were that harmful. If what is said in this article is true, then I lean towards the Bush tax-cuts being less than useful to the country.
Should this be true, that Congress can do more to fix the problems by doing nothing, an interesting paradigm is created that maybe be hard to come out from under. If they (Congressional Democrats) do nothing, then Republicans will rant, rave, and scream that Congress is a lame duck that refuses to do something when the country needs it most. If the do something, they risk harming the country when the country does not need harm.I have read in several places that Congressional Democrats need to call the Republican bluff and let the deadline pass. I would be interested to see what would really happen should this take place, and I hope that it does.
This, however, fails to mention the precedent it sets for the future. When the going gets tough, are future Congresses going to sit back and not take action? Are they going to forever be taking every forward step only after looking around to see if they have to, as if they were in an episode of Scooby Doo? Does it show the American people that Congress is inept? That Congress not doing something is better than Congress in action. I think not on any occasion. Congress can take the measures needed (or not needed as the case may be) this time, and every time if they only stop, look around, and proceed with some level of caution. In addition, Congress not acting on the budget cuts, is no different than President Obama vetoing a bill or simply letting it lay on his desk until Congressional support wains. We have this lovely system of checks and balances in the United States. It is about time we use them in this decade. (A a side note: it's hard to teach 8th graders without examples. I'm looking at you government)
I see no problem in letting the budget go untouched. It would provide short-term and long run solutions to problems we are facing. If Americans are taught the situtation, and taught it with the facts, they will see that Congress's in-activity is not a bad thing but a good thing. If my understanding of the situtation, and my knowledge of Clinton era economics are correct, then who would not want Congress to pack up and go home on December 16th? I know I wouldn't
If there is anything I have learned in the past few years, it is that the Clinton era was an economically sound time. We had come out major inflation problems faced in the 1980's, a budget surplus, and the stock market was booming. I really do not know if this was because of the Clinton tax codes were that beneficial, or if the Bush tax cuts were that harmful. If what is said in this article is true, then I lean towards the Bush tax-cuts being less than useful to the country.
Should this be true, that Congress can do more to fix the problems by doing nothing, an interesting paradigm is created that maybe be hard to come out from under. If they (Congressional Democrats) do nothing, then Republicans will rant, rave, and scream that Congress is a lame duck that refuses to do something when the country needs it most. If the do something, they risk harming the country when the country does not need harm.I have read in several places that Congressional Democrats need to call the Republican bluff and let the deadline pass. I would be interested to see what would really happen should this take place, and I hope that it does.
This, however, fails to mention the precedent it sets for the future. When the going gets tough, are future Congresses going to sit back and not take action? Are they going to forever be taking every forward step only after looking around to see if they have to, as if they were in an episode of Scooby Doo? Does it show the American people that Congress is inept? That Congress not doing something is better than Congress in action. I think not on any occasion. Congress can take the measures needed (or not needed as the case may be) this time, and every time if they only stop, look around, and proceed with some level of caution. In addition, Congress not acting on the budget cuts, is no different than President Obama vetoing a bill or simply letting it lay on his desk until Congressional support wains. We have this lovely system of checks and balances in the United States. It is about time we use them in this decade. (A a side note: it's hard to teach 8th graders without examples. I'm looking at you government)
I see no problem in letting the budget go untouched. It would provide short-term and long run solutions to problems we are facing. If Americans are taught the situtation, and taught it with the facts, they will see that Congress's in-activity is not a bad thing but a good thing. If my understanding of the situtation, and my knowledge of Clinton era economics are correct, then who would not want Congress to pack up and go home on December 16th? I know I wouldn't
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Movie Review:The Party's Over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnzUd5sEnUc
Major Points:
Political parties in America are similar in that they are rule for the most part by major lobbies
Political parties in America are virtually saying the same things and that the other party is wrong
An under current is was forming even in 2000 of unrest
The American political system is broken
Major Agreements
Political parties in America are similar in that they are rule for the most part by major lobbies
Political parties in America are virtually saying the same things and that the other party is wrong
An under current was forming even in 2000 of unrest
Major Agreements:
The American political system is broken
My thoughts:
While THE PARTY'S OVER has not received the best reviews, I feel that the major points on the movie are spot on and concise with what many Americans are saying today in addition to what many Americans said in 2000. It has context, a relatively unbiased opinion and shows what could be considered a birth to the OWS movement.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes a documentary that is equally critical of both political parties and focuses on major lobbies that influence both parties. He attended both nominating conventions, in addition to the Green Party convention, being received at all three equally unwelcomed. The documentary has been gigged for lacking central point and wondering from place to place, but I see this a positive rather than a contraction. Hoffman skips around, pulling various points of view, but no more frequently than Documentarian Michael Moore, though Moore is praised for his ability to tie a central narrative together almost from outer space.
In a side by side comparison between Moore's documentaries such as CAPITALISM: A LOVE AFFAIR, or even BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE I would take THE PARTY'S OVER any day as far objectivity and points made. Hoffman provides a much more palatable spin of the failures of Democracy, political parties, and the political process than Moore, whom I consider a raving lunatic that fains objectivity and unbiased reporting. (My bias shows)
Hoffman does start out the film, much like Moore does many of his but as it progresses it develops it's own mind and never paints any of the caste of characters in a negative light.
Insofar as the points Hoffman makes, I could not agree more! America's political parties are remarkably similar. They are both owned by big lobbies, and they certainly do forget the common person. Hoffman addresses the major issues of the political parties (gun control, illegal drugs, capitol punishment, and education) but directly points to the major lobby brokers that influence the party leadership. I could not agree more with the overriding points made by this film and I would recommend it to anyone who cannot stomach Michael Moore's endless ravings.
The one clear objection that Hoffman makes, and it is a sutble one, is that the American political system is broken. Throughout the documentary, Hoffman shows protesters in American streets protesting various events such as the WTO and the recounting of votes after the election. Perhaps this is flavored by my one objection of the OWS movment, but it seems a constant hum of people pointing out that the American system is broken. I believe that the American system is not broken simply because you say it is broken. It is not unbroken simply because I say so either. Many people, on both sides, who point out the faults of Democracy and America tend to focus solely on the problems and not the postives. In addition to this "woe is me" attitude, they never seem to offer solutions. I say, "Show me solutions, show me solutions you are willing to work for, then go work for them." There is a culture in today's youth that is it easier to get cracked in the head or pepper sprayed than it is to vote, donate time/money, or actually vote. So, do I agree with the subtle hints in Hoffman's film that America is broken? No
Major Points:
Political parties in America are similar in that they are rule for the most part by major lobbies
Political parties in America are virtually saying the same things and that the other party is wrong
An under current is was forming even in 2000 of unrest
The American political system is broken
Major Agreements
Political parties in America are similar in that they are rule for the most part by major lobbies
Political parties in America are virtually saying the same things and that the other party is wrong
An under current was forming even in 2000 of unrest
Major Agreements:
The American political system is broken
My thoughts:
While THE PARTY'S OVER has not received the best reviews, I feel that the major points on the movie are spot on and concise with what many Americans are saying today in addition to what many Americans said in 2000. It has context, a relatively unbiased opinion and shows what could be considered a birth to the OWS movement.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes a documentary that is equally critical of both political parties and focuses on major lobbies that influence both parties. He attended both nominating conventions, in addition to the Green Party convention, being received at all three equally unwelcomed. The documentary has been gigged for lacking central point and wondering from place to place, but I see this a positive rather than a contraction. Hoffman skips around, pulling various points of view, but no more frequently than Documentarian Michael Moore, though Moore is praised for his ability to tie a central narrative together almost from outer space.
In a side by side comparison between Moore's documentaries such as CAPITALISM: A LOVE AFFAIR, or even BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE I would take THE PARTY'S OVER any day as far objectivity and points made. Hoffman provides a much more palatable spin of the failures of Democracy, political parties, and the political process than Moore, whom I consider a raving lunatic that fains objectivity and unbiased reporting. (My bias shows)
Hoffman does start out the film, much like Moore does many of his but as it progresses it develops it's own mind and never paints any of the caste of characters in a negative light.
Insofar as the points Hoffman makes, I could not agree more! America's political parties are remarkably similar. They are both owned by big lobbies, and they certainly do forget the common person. Hoffman addresses the major issues of the political parties (gun control, illegal drugs, capitol punishment, and education) but directly points to the major lobby brokers that influence the party leadership. I could not agree more with the overriding points made by this film and I would recommend it to anyone who cannot stomach Michael Moore's endless ravings.
The one clear objection that Hoffman makes, and it is a sutble one, is that the American political system is broken. Throughout the documentary, Hoffman shows protesters in American streets protesting various events such as the WTO and the recounting of votes after the election. Perhaps this is flavored by my one objection of the OWS movment, but it seems a constant hum of people pointing out that the American system is broken. I believe that the American system is not broken simply because you say it is broken. It is not unbroken simply because I say so either. Many people, on both sides, who point out the faults of Democracy and America tend to focus solely on the problems and not the postives. In addition to this "woe is me" attitude, they never seem to offer solutions. I say, "Show me solutions, show me solutions you are willing to work for, then go work for them." There is a culture in today's youth that is it easier to get cracked in the head or pepper sprayed than it is to vote, donate time/money, or actually vote. So, do I agree with the subtle hints in Hoffman's film that America is broken? No
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
OWS Protesters Intrude On President Obama's Speech
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/occupy-protestor-hands-president-obama-note-201229558.html
I do not find this as troubling as many people would, but it bring around a set of thoughts that have been rolling over in my mind for a couple of days now. I thought it rude to interrupt a President, or anyone for that matter, but I thought President handled it well. They have a right to protest, and I appreciate that.
A co-work was discussing on Facebook about how she felt we were facing a upheaval much like the 1960's. This had not occurred to me until she mentioned it. my mind began to calculate similarities and we are very much easily compared.
There are mass protests in the streets of major cities, a great mistrust in the government, unpopular wars, and a unpopular president.
If we a truly looking at a decade similar to the 1960's rather than the 1930's (as I opine) then many young people must begin perseverating on how they are going to react to the times. Many will simply blow the whole matter off and live their lives sheltered from all effects. Some will remain loyal to the cause, and some will openly join a rebellion. A small few will try and change the system from within, though this group will receive the least amount of attention. I see myself as apart of this group. No I do not have that much impact as a lowly civics and economics teacher, but I like to think I have more to do with how the world turns than some.
I struggle though too with this notion that I am not doing anything at all. I would protest, maybe not with the Occupy Wall Streeters, but with a group that had a specific purpose. I am loyal to the system though and want to see President Obama succeed in his plans. I agree with the OWS in their right to protest, and their message as a whole, but I want to see them do more. Maybe there is more being done that what is played on the media, but it seems that they want to protest and that is it. Whatever movement I might join needs to have substance to it. I want to see lobbying done, letters written, votes casts, and protesting can be a section as well. So that leads me to the 1960's
Back to my original question: What faction would I have been a part of during the 1960's? I'm not a political radical. I want my government to do well by it's people. I like government, I want a limber government that meets the needs of the people. Big government does not bother me, to me it means it should be able to do more and do it well. All of this throughs me out of that group. I'm not a true hippie, as much as I would like to be. I like showers and do not have a pension towards substances stronger than beer. I'm not a full fledge protesting radical. Protesting should be just but a fraction of a groups platform.
I'm rambling off topic. Does anyone have any suggestions of a group that is like minded with me. Not too radical, clean, smart, and willing to fight with opinions supported by facts.
I do not find this as troubling as many people would, but it bring around a set of thoughts that have been rolling over in my mind for a couple of days now. I thought it rude to interrupt a President, or anyone for that matter, but I thought President handled it well. They have a right to protest, and I appreciate that.
A co-work was discussing on Facebook about how she felt we were facing a upheaval much like the 1960's. This had not occurred to me until she mentioned it. my mind began to calculate similarities and we are very much easily compared.
There are mass protests in the streets of major cities, a great mistrust in the government, unpopular wars, and a unpopular president.
If we a truly looking at a decade similar to the 1960's rather than the 1930's (as I opine) then many young people must begin perseverating on how they are going to react to the times. Many will simply blow the whole matter off and live their lives sheltered from all effects. Some will remain loyal to the cause, and some will openly join a rebellion. A small few will try and change the system from within, though this group will receive the least amount of attention. I see myself as apart of this group. No I do not have that much impact as a lowly civics and economics teacher, but I like to think I have more to do with how the world turns than some.
I struggle though too with this notion that I am not doing anything at all. I would protest, maybe not with the Occupy Wall Streeters, but with a group that had a specific purpose. I am loyal to the system though and want to see President Obama succeed in his plans. I agree with the OWS in their right to protest, and their message as a whole, but I want to see them do more. Maybe there is more being done that what is played on the media, but it seems that they want to protest and that is it. Whatever movement I might join needs to have substance to it. I want to see lobbying done, letters written, votes casts, and protesting can be a section as well. So that leads me to the 1960's
Back to my original question: What faction would I have been a part of during the 1960's? I'm not a political radical. I want my government to do well by it's people. I like government, I want a limber government that meets the needs of the people. Big government does not bother me, to me it means it should be able to do more and do it well. All of this throughs me out of that group. I'm not a true hippie, as much as I would like to be. I like showers and do not have a pension towards substances stronger than beer. I'm not a full fledge protesting radical. Protesting should be just but a fraction of a groups platform.
I'm rambling off topic. Does anyone have any suggestions of a group that is like minded with me. Not too radical, clean, smart, and willing to fight with opinions supported by facts.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Immigration In South Carolina
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/242060/20111102/south-carolina-immigration-law-lawsuit-obama.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/9601-obama-administration-challenges-south-carolina-immigration-law (really neat history..even if they don’t give sources)
This issue has perplexed me and I have started to seriously consider it more by the day. There have been two things that have come to mind in my consideration. The first being a disconnect from the legislature in South Carolina
If I were residing in South Carolina (or Alabama
“Row crops are generally produced on over 1.3 million acres of crop land in South Carolina
$1,014,582,000 was turned in to the department last in revenue from crops that require harvesting. In my humbled opinion that is a large sum of money, and even more so of poundage in crops. All of these figures beg a simple question. Who harvests these crops? It certainly is not Anglo or African Americans. Immigrants (despite what Republican scare mongers would have you believe) are not, simply not taking jobs away from Americans. They are taking jobs that native-born Americans will not take. Ask any large farmer, who turns out for picking work and you will find this out.
If ever there was a case of not understanding the impact of legislation it would have to be this. What ever the General Assembly of South Carolina was thinking when passing a law making it harder to be an immigrant in their state, they were thinking incorrectly. In a time when economic growth is either stagnate or declining, what governing body would take measures to make it harder on the one business that is propping up that state’s economy.
Understandably this is not a new line of thought on this issue, but it has come to my attention more in my looking at it from a Constitutional standpoint. The Tenth Amendment does state that all issues not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the discernment of the states, but the Fourteen Amendment states that no person living within any states jurisdictions be denied rights granted to them in the Constitution. Immigration is not enumerated in the Constitution, neither is education. However the U.S. Constitution supersedes states Constitutions.
This issue also fails to recognize, or at least places a considerable question in regards to education. What is to be done about students in South Carolina
There are implications that have not been explored in South Carolina , and even more when you consider the rest of the United States South Carolina
It is obvious that many people do not understand that we need immigrant labor as much or more than immigrants need us. It’s a simple fact. I have my opinions of immigration. See my previous posts about the subject and you will understand what/why I believe.
In closing, too, I would like to know about those of you who are reading this blog. Why are you reading it? How are you finding it? What do you think of it? What do you think about the subjects I am writing about? I’ve tried to get this out to more places by posting links on my Facebook, and my LinkedIn pages. I’ve even tried commenting on other blogs in an attempt to raise discussions. I’m curious, and more than willing to debate, talking or simply argue (though I prefer civil discussions) any and all points of consideration. Let me know, leave a comment, or even subscribe.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Perfect Historical Event
I recently had a historiographical conversation with my fiancé about the New Deal and we came to the conclusion that it is nearly the most perfect historical set of actions if looking at it from the eyes of the biased historian. We came to this conclusion from educated, albeit it limited, knowledge of the historiography of the New Deal. Both of us have read Howard Zinn, and I have read Arthur Schlesinger. In graduate school, I had to good fortune to study those who opposed the New Deal during the New Deal, but a basic search for opposition written as history will find little. Out argument centered around two points
1) Those who typically offer a revisioned or liberal view of history loved the New Deal because it is a liberal set of laws, set forth by a liberal president, and was successful. Had the New Deal taken a conservative tone, been put in by a conservative and been successful, many like Zinn would tear it apart. I do not see this is a folly by historians or those who support the New Deal in history. It eventually worked, and it was wildly popular (with very notable and loud exceptions) when it was being implemented. The New Deal has stood the test of time, ink spilt, and come out as one of the most popular historical event. A case for the perfect event, I think so.
2) Those who would not write the New Deal in a favorable light are those on the right/ conservative side, but they are not the types to ridicule the past and those who took part in it. They are far to penchant towards hero worship, even it a liberal hero. It would nearly be Un-American to critic President Roosevelt and any of his action. He was a president fergoodnesssake. Had the New Deal not worked, I do not see an outpouring of critics either. What little written about the New Deal being deem Unconstitutional in the history books is typically swept under the run with the pointing out of a Conservative Court who would have ruled against anything Roosevelt did. This brushing off by historians leads me to think that the likelihood of negative assessments of the New Deal would be at a minimum
It is these two (the peanut galley happy, and hero worshipers silent) points that led us to our conclusion. Understandably there are plenty of books out there dedicated to a historiographical understanding of the New Deal, but it is the understanding and conclusion of this blogger that it is the perfect historioghapical event.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Empathy? More Like Sympathy
I have followed the news media after last Wednesday's Republican Presidential Debates, and have been perplexed by the responses I have heard. Granted, the most troubling have been from Conservative outlets but I am really surprised (I cannot understand why) by the empathy for Rick Perry. Several talking heads on Fox News, and even Steven Colbert (though I take his empathy with a grain of salt) have expressed empathy for Perry.
Webster's defines empathy as
Webster's defines empathy as
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
Empathy is not the word I would use for Perry. Sympathy would be a better for Perry, and even then I would transfer that to all Republicans at this critical time in the political atmosphere. I feel sympathy for Perry and the Republicans for two reasons. 1) They are so set about having anyone other than Mitt Romney that they are turning to doofuses like Perry when they need to focus on beating President Obama 2) Republicans really do not have a viable option to beat President Obama, and their thinking that Perry, Cain and the crew could just goes to prove my point.
1) Republicans need to look at history to see how far behind they are in this race. If you go back to the last time a Democrat was is office and as unpopular as President Obama is right now, you will (at least in my mind) need to look at Jimmy Carter. Carter was beat by Reagan soundly, but for two reasons. One was Reagan was simply charismatic enough to do so, and two the Republicans started early trying to beat Carter. As it stands today we're 158 days away from the election and they have no clear (viable) candidate to beat President Obama. The party seems to almost hate Romney, Cain has the dogs on his back (with the option for more if nominated), and none of the others seem to have a hope. Ron Paul has been the popular candidate amongst those that want to be involved in the party, but you get the sense that party bosses may very well want to loose. At least then they have four more years to take pot-shots at President Obama, or at least that's what a Romney nomination says to me. The only thing is, if this is the case, they are actually making it hard on the 2016 candidate by doing so. The only option I see is that they are simply trying to let Romney have his time in the sun so he will quietly fade away. The Democrats did that in 2008 with ole whatshisface Kerry. It's possible..I've been wrong before.
2) Perry is just a moron, let's face it. And tell me again why the Republicans want to go with a boot wearing cowboy again? They tried that once, and I'm not sure they liked the outcome. What happened to the idea that a Republican should/could beat a Democrat on ideas. Why are they not trying to offer a calm, intelligent Conservative minded Republican that can appeal to moderates, and even some Democrats who think President Obama has gone too far left? (I am not of the opinion that he has, but that the right has gone so far right it would make any moderate look like a Pinko Commie Bastard) Romney, from what I can see, is very intelligent, reasonable, but seems to not have the party base. You cannot win without the base.
My answer is this: a) you should have encouraged Palin to run then absolutely burned her so bad she would stay out of politics or b) get behind Romney. He is the best hope you have, albeit a slim one, and you had better pump his campaign full of ideas, moderation, and NO TEA PARTY. You wanna loose for sure, bring those folks along.
Didn't See This Coming! My Thoughts On Taxes.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/09/142142329/it-stinks-but-the-only-way-to-fix-the-economy-is-to-squeeze-the-middle-class
I honestly did not see this coming, but I am glad I read this. Originally, I was a side by side with the Occupy Wall Streeters in my thoughts about taxing the richest, but apparently I need to rethink that notion. In doing so I came up with my own plan that has three parts. I can't remember the third part..oops, sorry. Actually I can. Here they are. 1) Lower corporate taxes to 25% and close loopholes. 2) Raise middle class taxes 6% 3) Cut Federal Education Spending. With my limited understanding 10% should do...yeah I said it.
1) You cannot convince me that there is not a way to close the mile wide loopholes that these corporations have been driving Mac trucks through all these years. A drop to 25% and tightening of loop holes should make up for the cheating 2% on the middle class taxes. The wealthy need to pay more, they make more. Yes it's their money, yes it socialism to take it away from them. They are not, however, going to have people come work from them if they cannot afford to work, which is what is going to happen if taxes on the middle class increase too much. People will simply stay at home and draw off the government.
2) I am middle class. As I said earlier I thought the wealthiest could carry the full load, but I will take this article at face value and assume it is correct. (If it is not then I get another blog out of it) By no means can the middle class take more than a 10% rate increase, 8% mentioned in the article is too high for my blood, but I will settle for 6%. With loopholes closed and my plan to cut Federal Education spending, we should be ok.
3) My argument against Federal education spending starts at the beginning. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any word about education. (Yes it is a slippery slope to be quoting the Constitution) Education is a state issue per the Tenth Amendment that reserves any powers not enumerated in the Constitution to be left to the states. I therefore, support that education is a state issue. Most federal education mandates go sadly un/underfunded anyway. By tightening the belt, we might, hopefully, get rid of wasteful programs like Race To The Top, and No Child Left Behind (A race by nature means someone is left behind).
Federal education leaves schools pinning for moneys that are not worth the troubles they cause. By everything I have seen (with my own two eyes,see also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennessees-rules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all) these federal mandates are only hurting education. Besides, cutting federal funding will force localities to run their school boards more efficiently and effectively. People do not realize the monumental paradigm shifts made in the education world to obtain federal monies. Far too often school boards cut off their noses to spite their faces, and in the end it is the educators and students that are hurt. Programs labored over for years, often in search of more money, are torn down over-night in search of more money. In addition once federal monies do come in, it leads to wasteful spending on things like cheesecakes, I-Tunes cds, hardhats, and Ipads that remain locked in offices. As my grandfather was known to say "They can't chase you if you don't run." Schools cannot waste money they do not have.
I honestly did not see this coming, but I am glad I read this. Originally, I was a side by side with the Occupy Wall Streeters in my thoughts about taxing the richest, but apparently I need to rethink that notion. In doing so I came up with my own plan that has three parts. I can't remember the third part..oops, sorry. Actually I can. Here they are. 1) Lower corporate taxes to 25% and close loopholes. 2) Raise middle class taxes 6% 3) Cut Federal Education Spending. With my limited understanding 10% should do...yeah I said it.
1) You cannot convince me that there is not a way to close the mile wide loopholes that these corporations have been driving Mac trucks through all these years. A drop to 25% and tightening of loop holes should make up for the cheating 2% on the middle class taxes. The wealthy need to pay more, they make more. Yes it's their money, yes it socialism to take it away from them. They are not, however, going to have people come work from them if they cannot afford to work, which is what is going to happen if taxes on the middle class increase too much. People will simply stay at home and draw off the government.
2) I am middle class. As I said earlier I thought the wealthiest could carry the full load, but I will take this article at face value and assume it is correct. (If it is not then I get another blog out of it) By no means can the middle class take more than a 10% rate increase, 8% mentioned in the article is too high for my blood, but I will settle for 6%. With loopholes closed and my plan to cut Federal Education spending, we should be ok.
3) My argument against Federal education spending starts at the beginning. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any word about education. (Yes it is a slippery slope to be quoting the Constitution) Education is a state issue per the Tenth Amendment that reserves any powers not enumerated in the Constitution to be left to the states. I therefore, support that education is a state issue. Most federal education mandates go sadly un/underfunded anyway. By tightening the belt, we might, hopefully, get rid of wasteful programs like Race To The Top, and No Child Left Behind (A race by nature means someone is left behind).
Federal education leaves schools pinning for moneys that are not worth the troubles they cause. By everything I have seen (with my own two eyes,see also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennessees-rules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all) these federal mandates are only hurting education. Besides, cutting federal funding will force localities to run their school boards more efficiently and effectively. People do not realize the monumental paradigm shifts made in the education world to obtain federal monies. Far too often school boards cut off their noses to spite their faces, and in the end it is the educators and students that are hurt. Programs labored over for years, often in search of more money, are torn down over-night in search of more money. In addition once federal monies do come in, it leads to wasteful spending on things like cheesecakes, I-Tunes cds, hardhats, and Ipads that remain locked in offices. As my grandfather was known to say "They can't chase you if you don't run." Schools cannot waste money they do not have.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
You Win Some, You Lose Some
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/300876
Yesterday's election was bittersweet for this blogger. In the Franklin County Sheriff's race, the county replaced what seemed to be one of the worst PR blunders for the county in Ewell Hunt. The former Sheriff has been a ticking time bomb of gaffs since I have been here, and apparently it started before my time in the fair county. The race was in question the entire time with two Independent candidates running against an incumbent Republican. Many felt as though the two would run against each other and drive a wedge between those voters who wanted (for lack of a better term) a new Sheriff in town. Thankfully the voters of Franklin County proved wise enough to see the need for better leadership behind the badge and voted Hunt off the force.
While the vote was a success at the immediate level, it was (I my opinion) less so on the state level. Republicans won a 20-20 tie in the State Senate. In the House of Delegates there were several upsets and Republican victories due to jerrymadnering of district lines. None more obvious than the race between Poindexter and Armstrong. For every tense and purpose Armstrong simply out classed, smarted, campaigned, and issued Poindexter. Armstrong won nearly every battle but was not able to prevail.
What gets me was that Poindexter is literally not smart enough to notice his own blunders and stupidity. Yes, Armstrong ran on a fairly narrow platform, but in what world was Poindexter's broad. Poindexter was attempting to put Armstrong at the "Obama Democrat" table, which could not be further from the truth. My bias notwithstanding, Armstrong was as grounded, moderate a Democrat as you are going to find, and certainly not an "Obama Democrat" (as if that would have been a bad thing) Besides, was this not a House of Delegates race? What real contact would a Delegate from the new 9th District of Virginia really have with President Obama. Doubtful there is a little red phone in the office in Richmond that has a direct line to a little red phone in the Oval Office. This just goes to show that sometimes, even the people in government do not fully understand the government as much as they should.
There is more that could be said, but I will not. I guess we can say, Congratulation Mr. Poindexter, you got lucky, and if you ever..ever...ever have your picture taken with a Republican President, you'd better not go waving it around. You might just become a "Cain (or worse) Republican"
Yesterday's election was bittersweet for this blogger. In the Franklin County Sheriff's race, the county replaced what seemed to be one of the worst PR blunders for the county in Ewell Hunt. The former Sheriff has been a ticking time bomb of gaffs since I have been here, and apparently it started before my time in the fair county. The race was in question the entire time with two Independent candidates running against an incumbent Republican. Many felt as though the two would run against each other and drive a wedge between those voters who wanted (for lack of a better term) a new Sheriff in town. Thankfully the voters of Franklin County proved wise enough to see the need for better leadership behind the badge and voted Hunt off the force.
While the vote was a success at the immediate level, it was (I my opinion) less so on the state level. Republicans won a 20-20 tie in the State Senate. In the House of Delegates there were several upsets and Republican victories due to jerrymadnering of district lines. None more obvious than the race between Poindexter and Armstrong. For every tense and purpose Armstrong simply out classed, smarted, campaigned, and issued Poindexter. Armstrong won nearly every battle but was not able to prevail.
What gets me was that Poindexter is literally not smart enough to notice his own blunders and stupidity. Yes, Armstrong ran on a fairly narrow platform, but in what world was Poindexter's broad. Poindexter was attempting to put Armstrong at the "Obama Democrat" table, which could not be further from the truth. My bias notwithstanding, Armstrong was as grounded, moderate a Democrat as you are going to find, and certainly not an "Obama Democrat" (as if that would have been a bad thing) Besides, was this not a House of Delegates race? What real contact would a Delegate from the new 9th District of Virginia really have with President Obama. Doubtful there is a little red phone in the office in Richmond that has a direct line to a little red phone in the Oval Office. This just goes to show that sometimes, even the people in government do not fully understand the government as much as they should.
There is more that could be said, but I will not. I guess we can say, Congratulation Mr. Poindexter, you got lucky, and if you ever..ever...ever have your picture taken with a Republican President, you'd better not go waving it around. You might just become a "Cain (or worse) Republican"
What Do You Get When You Make Teaching Into A Clecrical Job?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennessees-rules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all
I have come across several articles lately about teaching and the education profession that have just thrown me for a loop. One I will not even justify with a post here because it is so absurd I would not be able to be concise and to the point without flying totally off the handle. My response was visceral to say the least.
This article caused a much more tempered, even response and raised more questions than responses. For an all too brief second I will climb on my soap box and respond. Education is not going to the toilet in this country. There are dedicated, hard working, fun, bright people in the teaching profession. In response we get (for the most part) good, dedicated, hard working, fun, bright young people in our schools. People who say the education system is going down hill do not spend time in schools. Ignore them.
Soap box disengaged. Several questions arose in reading this article that I need to ask. The first being: Did we have problems with schools before someone created a means to measure problems? My gut instinct says "No." My guess is, someone in the periphery of education (a professor, principle, consultant (who are the swine of education), or superintendent) needed to study something in order to obtain some lackluster degree and created the fascination with measurable outcomes in education. The American education system was moving on a respectable clip, until suddenly forms (that appear magically from the friendly neighborhood central office) start telling us otherwise. Again this is only my speculations
My second question is: Is all this paper work effective? Gut instinct again “No!” It is been my experience to watch moral at schools amongst teachers tank with an inordinate amount of paper work has been put into place. It interferes with planning, preparing, expanding of knowledge and growth. A teacher is hampered by paper work in the same way as a law enforcement officer. Teaching is an action. By nature we do not take time to fill out after action reports, we are moving on
Finally: Who wins in this paper dragon chase? Politicians do because they can say “Oh look at the schools of my state, they did great with all the money (because it boils down to money) I brought them.” Beaurcrates, like Secretaries of Education, look great because they can say “Gee Mr. Representative, look at what I did with all that money you brought me.” This goes down the line until it stops at the teacher. The teacher does look good in this situation, but it takes a lot of shine to polish a terd. Teachers are not the terds here either. The terd here is not even the students, it the finish product that is the terd. The final report that we send up the latter is the terd. We teachers have to bend, stretch, work and fudge to make these reports look good. We have to give students multiple choice test (that don’t really test knowledge..no matter how well worded) in the stead of honest to goodness learning. Tests are what shows if a teacher is teaching. Test, not well rounded students, are determining (incorrectly I might add) who is deemed a good teacher or a bad one. Teachers used to be judged on the student for which they taught. Was the student well rounded, could they think for themselves, could they stand alone, and stand out in a crowd? Now, I am judged on what kind of test scores I am able to produce. Snarky as it my be, Emory never made me take a standardized test, and I turned out ok
I have come across several articles lately about teaching and the education profession that have just thrown me for a loop. One I will not even justify with a post here because it is so absurd I would not be able to be concise and to the point without flying totally off the handle. My response was visceral to say the least.
This article caused a much more tempered, even response and raised more questions than responses. For an all too brief second I will climb on my soap box and respond. Education is not going to the toilet in this country. There are dedicated, hard working, fun, bright people in the teaching profession. In response we get (for the most part) good, dedicated, hard working, fun, bright young people in our schools. People who say the education system is going down hill do not spend time in schools. Ignore them.
Soap box disengaged. Several questions arose in reading this article that I need to ask. The first being: Did we have problems with schools before someone created a means to measure problems? My gut instinct says "No." My guess is, someone in the periphery of education (a professor, principle, consultant (who are the swine of education), or superintendent) needed to study something in order to obtain some lackluster degree and created the fascination with measurable outcomes in education. The American education system was moving on a respectable clip, until suddenly forms (that appear magically from the friendly neighborhood central office) start telling us otherwise. Again this is only my speculations
My second question is: Is all this paper work effective? Gut instinct again “No!” It is been my experience to watch moral at schools amongst teachers tank with an inordinate amount of paper work has been put into place. It interferes with planning, preparing, expanding of knowledge and growth. A teacher is hampered by paper work in the same way as a law enforcement officer. Teaching is an action. By nature we do not take time to fill out after action reports, we are moving on
Finally: Who wins in this paper dragon chase? Politicians do because they can say “Oh look at the schools of my state, they did great with all the money (because it boils down to money) I brought them.” Beaurcrates, like Secretaries of Education, look great because they can say “Gee Mr. Representative, look at what I did with all that money you brought me.” This goes down the line until it stops at the teacher. The teacher does look good in this situation, but it takes a lot of shine to polish a terd. Teachers are not the terds here either. The terd here is not even the students, it the finish product that is the terd. The final report that we send up the latter is the terd. We teachers have to bend, stretch, work and fudge to make these reports look good. We have to give students multiple choice test (that don’t really test knowledge..no matter how well worded) in the stead of honest to goodness learning. Tests are what shows if a teacher is teaching. Test, not well rounded students, are determining (incorrectly I might add) who is deemed a good teacher or a bad one. Teachers used to be judged on the student for which they taught. Was the student well rounded, could they think for themselves, could they stand alone, and stand out in a crowd? Now, I am judged on what kind of test scores I am able to produce. Snarky as it my be, Emory never made me take a standardized test, and I turned out ok
Friday, November 4, 2011
Why Can They Not All Be Like This
http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsArticles&ContentRecord_id=66b44683-8a43-49f1-a6a6-0acd4705bd8b&ContentType_id=cc3ac18e-c52f-4861-b310-83ea6a7150c1&Group_id=303dc633-2307-45c8-ae71-4ba2ace2189b
Understandably there is some biases present in this post. The first is Senator Alexander is from Tennessee, the second being: I read this article because it was sent to me by subscription from Senator Alexander's office. We teach our students to detect bias, but I just made it very easy to spot it in regards to the sources. Also, I am sure that there are others out there in the Senate and the House that work as hard/well with the other party to make things better.
I would however like to make a few comments on this notion that people have to work "across party lines." We pat them on the back as if it was something done at great danger to their political careers. What happened to the notion that they were in Washington to make things better for ALL of us, not just the party. Yes, as Senator Alexander points out, times have been harder. Yes, things have been worse (I'm guilty of saying "It could be worse"), but why can it not be better? By no means am I attempting to negate Senator Alexander's work, in fact I am writing to thank him.
Last month, I went to see Dorris Kearnes Goodwin in Roanoke. During her presentation she spoke about this subject and how bi-partisan Washington has been in the past. She spoke about the genius Lyndon Johnson had in reaching across the lines to get things done. Understandably it was done with the "Johnson Treatment" but some of the most important legislation singed during the Johnson Administration was steared by Democrats and Republicans. Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL),Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humprey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) wrote a revision of the bill during the inital fillibuster for the bill. If both parties can work as well to pass something as controversal then, why not now? We do not need a partisan Superman that will save us from our woes. We need 535 men and women to help sign on to what the American people have been saying for awhile now.
Understandably there is some biases present in this post. The first is Senator Alexander is from Tennessee, the second being: I read this article because it was sent to me by subscription from Senator Alexander's office. We teach our students to detect bias, but I just made it very easy to spot it in regards to the sources. Also, I am sure that there are others out there in the Senate and the House that work as hard/well with the other party to make things better.
I would however like to make a few comments on this notion that people have to work "across party lines." We pat them on the back as if it was something done at great danger to their political careers. What happened to the notion that they were in Washington to make things better for ALL of us, not just the party. Yes, as Senator Alexander points out, times have been harder. Yes, things have been worse (I'm guilty of saying "It could be worse"), but why can it not be better? By no means am I attempting to negate Senator Alexander's work, in fact I am writing to thank him.
Last month, I went to see Dorris Kearnes Goodwin in Roanoke. During her presentation she spoke about this subject and how bi-partisan Washington has been in the past. She spoke about the genius Lyndon Johnson had in reaching across the lines to get things done. Understandably it was done with the "Johnson Treatment" but some of the most important legislation singed during the Johnson Administration was steared by Democrats and Republicans. Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL),Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humprey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) wrote a revision of the bill during the inital fillibuster for the bill. If both parties can work as well to pass something as controversal then, why not now? We do not need a partisan Superman that will save us from our woes. We need 535 men and women to help sign on to what the American people have been saying for awhile now.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
"They're A Bunch Of Socialist"
I had a colleague today, who is older, go on a diatribe about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and how “they are nothing but a bunch of socialist!” I will not refer specifically to his occupational status, but if you read carefully you will be able to deduce the nature of it. While this is not the time or the place to be critical of my colleague, it is a place where I might voice my opinion on the matter of that “bunch of socialist!”
I have two points on the “socialist” bit. 1) Social Security, Welfare, Workers Compensation, and basically any other public service are all socialistic programs. They create a burden on all society. Please do not accuse people of being socialist as if it were a bad thing. If anything they would be Communist but now I split hairs 2) The OWS movement asks for is that those who make far more money than the rest of us to by more in taxes than those of us trying to scrape by.
1) Social Security, Welfare, Workers Compensation, and basically any other public service are all socialistic programs. They create a burden on all society. Please do not accuse people of being socialist as if it were a bad thing. Merriam- Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as follows
1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Under my comprehension of those definitions, government programs would fall under the distribution of goods. Is Social Security, a program that takes money from working people and give it to those who have worked their entire lives, that bad? I think not. Retirees deserve to benefit from their hard work and giving up of their money to the Social Security network. I pay into Social Security; I pay into the Unemployment Benefits fund. Is it as definite that I will benefit from either program as those benefiting now? No. In fact I will not be able to do so if projections remain true. There are solutions to this problem and it leads me to my next point.
Besides the large programs like Social Security and Welfare, there are small, no less important, programs that we all pay for and others benefit from. Those who claim others to be socialist pay taxes that go to a variety of services they may never use. A person pays taxes that go towards fire a rescue service, but may never use them. Tax money can be spent to build county, state and federal roads that would be nearly impossible for every tax paying citizen to drive on. Sound like a bad thing? I know without a doubt that I did not/ will not directly benefit from every tax dollar taken from my pay check. Some of it will go to salmon research in Alaska
2) The OWS movement asks for is that those who make far more money than the rest of us to by more in taxes than those of us trying to scrape by. In what universe is it just, fair, decent or otherwise that someone who becomes a teacher, goes so far into debt, yet people who already have money obtain college educations, go to work on Wall Street, and make millions of dollars? Yes, I chose to be a teacher. Yes, I understood that I would not make large sums of money doing so, yet I did so because I thought teaching would be stable and lucrative enough to provide for the kind of family structure I would like. Those in the middle see the ground crumbling away, and need someone to support it. Why should we place an every growing burden on those beneath us, when those above could easily do the job? Besides, the wealthiest of the wealth did not get there but on the backs of teachers, laborers, and factory managers. It is only just to take from those who have so much, and give to those who have little or less. Wealthy people should pay more. They make more. Heaven knows they do not make it legally, or dare we say morally. My parents taught me “Easy Come, Easy Go.” It is easy for the wealthy to make more money because the cards are stacked in their favor. All the OWS is asking for is a new deck that is not stacked as tall.
Too as a bonus…Why would any working person not like a system in which pay is according to work done? That might mean that those corporate bums would get paid for what they really done: which is nothing as to compared to the work done by say, any other profession except athletes who are over paid as well.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Student Debt Repayment
http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2011/10/26/student-debt-is-a-symptom-of-our-lack-of-economic-literacy/
I have three points with this article and I will unabashingly say that my liberal streak is show a little with each of them
1) Stop being hyper-critical of President of Obama and his policies.
a) If it was a Republican everything he did would be golden
b) Anyone in the office would have to be trying the same policies
2) This is not that different from supply side economic recovery that was used to get us out of the Great Depression
3) Many people with student loans are stuck in jobs that will never allow them to pay it off. Not for a lack of effort on our part, but because decent jobs still do not pay enough
1) Stop being hyper-critical of President Obama and his policies. By no means has President Obama be perfect in his running of the country, but anyone who would occupy the office would have to be trying the same policies. Yes, if a Republican was in the White House they would be doing some things differently, but then again there are only so many different ways to pull an economy like ours out of a recession. What really would be worse, is if there was a Republican in office. Then we would have had to hear the same Republicans calling President Obama socialist, calling McCain a socialist. That would be infinitely worse. As it stands now, Republicans calling a Democrat a socialist is nothing new. McCain, or god forbid Romney, were in office, they would have by now reached the end of their conservative measures to fix the economy and would be trying things that President Obama is trying now. What I am trying to say, to make it clear, is that people need to stop being hyper-critical and give some time to these plans. Let them gain footing. The Great Depression did not end over night, neither will the Great Depression. To think so simply show your ignorance of economics.
2) This is not that different from supply side economic recovery that was used to get us out of the Great Depression. President Roosevelt used strategies designed to allow businesses to flourish or what economist call supply side measures Government spending was used to help business literally produce their way out of the Depression. All of those CCC workers needed tools to build the damn, roads, and bridges. WPA agencies had to have money to hire the workers being sent back to work. Where did that money come from? Not from thin air. President Obama's plans are simply the other side of the supply and demand curve. Rightfully, from my humble economic background, he is correct in assuming that if people have money in their pockets they will spend it. They are going to buy new things, it's vital that we do. Last I check too, President Bush did the same thing. Like it our not, our economy is a consumer driven economy that relies on the consumer to buy. If we want to heal out weak economy when much consume. Just as the American economy was a production economy during the Great Depression and President Roosevelt used supply sided economic measures, President Obama is face with a consumer economy and must use demand side economic measures.
3) Many people with student loans are stuck in jobs that will never allow them to pay it off. Not for a lack of effort on our part, but because decent jobs still do not pay enough. Opponents of these measure often attack people with student loans as if were are all free loaders, and simply wanted to go to college to buy some time. This is not true for almost any of the people I know. Yes, there are those out there, but my goodness.
I am a teacher. I have a Master's Degree that allows me to teach. That Master's Degree was not cheap, and I would not have been able to earn it without student loans. I received a top-notch education at Emory & Henry, that was not cheap either, but there is not a single day that goes by that I do not use something I learned while in college. I would not be where I am today, a productive (though under appreciated) member of society, who pays my taxes, and certain is trying my damnedest to teach the next generation of kids about the very government and economic systems that they will one day take over.
Oh and hey, lay off the kids who major in philosophy. We need them. We need people with vision, with ideals. And just because they aren't working doesn't mean that they don't want to, it's because these people who don't want the government to do anything make it damn hard for the government to do anything in the way of creating jobs.
I have three points with this article and I will unabashingly say that my liberal streak is show a little with each of them
1) Stop being hyper-critical of President of Obama and his policies.
a) If it was a Republican everything he did would be golden
b) Anyone in the office would have to be trying the same policies
2) This is not that different from supply side economic recovery that was used to get us out of the Great Depression
3) Many people with student loans are stuck in jobs that will never allow them to pay it off. Not for a lack of effort on our part, but because decent jobs still do not pay enough
1) Stop being hyper-critical of President Obama and his policies. By no means has President Obama be perfect in his running of the country, but anyone who would occupy the office would have to be trying the same policies. Yes, if a Republican was in the White House they would be doing some things differently, but then again there are only so many different ways to pull an economy like ours out of a recession. What really would be worse, is if there was a Republican in office. Then we would have had to hear the same Republicans calling President Obama socialist, calling McCain a socialist. That would be infinitely worse. As it stands now, Republicans calling a Democrat a socialist is nothing new. McCain, or god forbid Romney, were in office, they would have by now reached the end of their conservative measures to fix the economy and would be trying things that President Obama is trying now. What I am trying to say, to make it clear, is that people need to stop being hyper-critical and give some time to these plans. Let them gain footing. The Great Depression did not end over night, neither will the Great Depression. To think so simply show your ignorance of economics.
2) This is not that different from supply side economic recovery that was used to get us out of the Great Depression. President Roosevelt used strategies designed to allow businesses to flourish or what economist call supply side measures Government spending was used to help business literally produce their way out of the Depression. All of those CCC workers needed tools to build the damn, roads, and bridges. WPA agencies had to have money to hire the workers being sent back to work. Where did that money come from? Not from thin air. President Obama's plans are simply the other side of the supply and demand curve. Rightfully, from my humble economic background, he is correct in assuming that if people have money in their pockets they will spend it. They are going to buy new things, it's vital that we do. Last I check too, President Bush did the same thing. Like it our not, our economy is a consumer driven economy that relies on the consumer to buy. If we want to heal out weak economy when much consume. Just as the American economy was a production economy during the Great Depression and President Roosevelt used supply sided economic measures, President Obama is face with a consumer economy and must use demand side economic measures.
3) Many people with student loans are stuck in jobs that will never allow them to pay it off. Not for a lack of effort on our part, but because decent jobs still do not pay enough. Opponents of these measure often attack people with student loans as if were are all free loaders, and simply wanted to go to college to buy some time. This is not true for almost any of the people I know. Yes, there are those out there, but my goodness.
I am a teacher. I have a Master's Degree that allows me to teach. That Master's Degree was not cheap, and I would not have been able to earn it without student loans. I received a top-notch education at Emory & Henry, that was not cheap either, but there is not a single day that goes by that I do not use something I learned while in college. I would not be where I am today, a productive (though under appreciated) member of society, who pays my taxes, and certain is trying my damnedest to teach the next generation of kids about the very government and economic systems that they will one day take over.
Oh and hey, lay off the kids who major in philosophy. We need them. We need people with vision, with ideals. And just because they aren't working doesn't mean that they don't want to, it's because these people who don't want the government to do anything make it damn hard for the government to do anything in the way of creating jobs.
Why All The Attention Continued
After some thought, and conversation with my girlfriend, that there was more to be said about this story.
The first revelation was the notion that in some ways, people assume that veterans somehow give up their rights when they join the military, and never regain them when they leave. This is not true. Certainly it is more noticeable when a veteran protests something, but it is not out of the ordinary. If anything veteran ought to be more upset at Wall Street. They've been off fight wars, while Wall Street has managed to upheve the economy to the point that they have very little to come back to. This is not including the fact that they have lost time gaining education, training and starting a career.
I also, I think veterans have earned the right to protest. It is after all the country they protected. If they don't like something it should be, especially so, their right to stand up and say it. We teach our students that military service (if called) is a civic duty that is punishable by jail if not complied. We teach demonstrating and letting your voice be heard as a civic responsibility. Are veterans not collecting two civic virtues? They are in my book.
The first revelation was the notion that in some ways, people assume that veterans somehow give up their rights when they join the military, and never regain them when they leave. This is not true. Certainly it is more noticeable when a veteran protests something, but it is not out of the ordinary. If anything veteran ought to be more upset at Wall Street. They've been off fight wars, while Wall Street has managed to upheve the economy to the point that they have very little to come back to. This is not including the fact that they have lost time gaining education, training and starting a career.
I also, I think veterans have earned the right to protest. It is after all the country they protected. If they don't like something it should be, especially so, their right to stand up and say it. We teach our students that military service (if called) is a civic duty that is punishable by jail if not complied. We teach demonstrating and letting your voice be heard as a civic responsibility. Are veterans not collecting two civic virtues? They are in my book.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why All The Attention?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-veteran-critical-condition?newsfeed=true
Understandably, when someone prefaces their statements with " I would like to preface my statements with" they are about to contradict themselves. To be up front, I am going to but I do some in a broad way and if you read what I have to say carefully, you will see them I truly support what is going on.
1) Understandably a veteran has a certain place in America. They fight, serve and die for our freedoms and our protection. It is extremely patriotic to serve in the military. I never have served, and that is something I have thought about many times.
In order though to be fair, why is their such media attention if an veteran protests something? Are they not like anyone else out there? Does their protest ring louder or more true? Lots of every day people are out there protesting and they do not get the play veterans, or lawyers or whomever get. This was a problem during the Vietnam protests as well. Lots of people did little things to protest. They may have gone to a rally or they may not. While it became fashionable to do, many people took up wearing POW/MIA bracelets for men they did not know. So, then I asks again does a veteran's protest weight more than a common person's? I think not. All of the OWS protesters deserve recognition in some light or way. Understandably this is hard, but it is a thought worth thinking. Lots of people are not at the rallies themselves but support it by having their students read about it, or bringing it up at lunch so they and their co-workers can discuss it. That is equally as patriotic as getting hit with a bean-bag round, or a veteran getting hit with a bean-bag round.
By no means am I discrediting, I'm giving equal credit.
2) So you if you are freaked out by protest, go read about the Great Depression. People think we have it rough now need to look back. Go read the New York Times from '30, '31, '32. Read how people shot and butchered zebras in the NYC Zoo. Try that on for size and see how it fits. No way, no how, never is this Great Recession nearly as bad as the Great Depression.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-veteran-critical-condition?newsfeed=true
Understandably, when someone prefaces their statements with " I would like to preface my statements with" they are about to contradict themselves. To be up front, I am going to but I do some in a broad way and if you read what I have to say carefully, you will see them I truly support what is going on.
1) Understandably a veteran has a certain place in America. They fight, serve and die for our freedoms and our protection. It is extremely patriotic to serve in the military. I never have served, and that is something I have thought about many times.
In order though to be fair, why is their such media attention if an veteran protests something? Are they not like anyone else out there? Does their protest ring louder or more true? Lots of every day people are out there protesting and they do not get the play veterans, or lawyers or whomever get. This was a problem during the Vietnam protests as well. Lots of people did little things to protest. They may have gone to a rally or they may not. While it became fashionable to do, many people took up wearing POW/MIA bracelets for men they did not know. So, then I asks again does a veteran's protest weight more than a common person's? I think not. All of the OWS protesters deserve recognition in some light or way. Understandably this is hard, but it is a thought worth thinking. Lots of people are not at the rallies themselves but support it by having their students read about it, or bringing it up at lunch so they and their co-workers can discuss it. That is equally as patriotic as getting hit with a bean-bag round, or a veteran getting hit with a bean-bag round.
By no means am I discrediting, I'm giving equal credit.
2) So you if you are freaked out by protest, go read about the Great Depression. People think we have it rough now need to look back. Go read the New York Times from '30, '31, '32. Read how people shot and butchered zebras in the NYC Zoo. Try that on for size and see how it fits. No way, no how, never is this Great Recession nearly as bad as the Great Depression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)