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
Sunday, November 27, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)