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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)