I was listening to talk radio on the way home from the YMCA this evening and the host had a guest who was overly critical of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates' opposition to the estate taxes. The criticism generated from the idea that Gates and Buffett want to do with their money what they want. The host and the guest were critical of this. In listening I thought through the contraction in their statements. Here is what I came up with 1) Conservative (I thought) support the free market and despise the government (or anyone else for that matter) tell people what to do with their money 2) Conservatives support capitalism, and Buffett and Gates are the epitome of Capitalist. Why then should they criticize their actions.
1) Conservative (I thought) support the free market and despise the government (or anyone else for that matter) tell people what to do with their money. If this person truly sees the world in a conservative light, would they not mind their own business when it comes to money. I can see them applauding Gates and Buffett for opposing an estate tax, but not attacking them. I think at time it is funny that Conservatives want government to just leave them alone when it comes to money, but they forget that when the government leaves them alone with their money, the government still as an influence. Is it not the case that to not influence is still and influence?
2) Conservatives support capitalism, and Buffett and Gates are the epitome of Capitalist. Why then should they criticize their actions. Warren Buffett perhaps has the strongest case for capitalist of the year, so why then should he ever..ever come under attack from conservative radio host. For one it just goes to show that they'll eat their own to fill air time or as Rodney Dangerfield said in Caddyshack "Now I know why lions eat their young." Conservatives, and Republicans alike are supposed to be the champions of capitalism. I can't imagine why, oh wait it is because those capitalist have decided to use their money..wait for it..how they wish to use it, and for once it is to support a social program. Dare we forget what John D. Rockefeller (Capitalist Of The Year 1928,29,30,and 32) did during the Depression. He nearly single handly pulled the country out of the depression. He was lauded as the Capitalist of the Century
In closing I say shame on you radios host. Shame on you for contradicting yourself and the principles I though all Conservatives, and Republican believed. Maybe I've had it all wrong all these years, but maybe I have not.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Because I Am A Glutten For Punishment
Because I like political debate, and I like to hear lots of different arguments, and frankly I like to argue, I listened to talk radio's coverage of President Obama's speech this evening on the way back from an errand I had to run. This blog is going to be more a response to the response I heard on the radio than it will be a response to the speech itself. I missed most of it but what I did hear, I actually like.
I would like to preface too my response with an aside that for the better part of my trip out I listened to the same radio station which was at the time lauding Rick Perry for his stance on Social Security. My response to anyone who complains about Social Security is simply return the check everyone, or hey do us all a favor and don't pay your taxes.
The radio host's major arguments consisted mostly around the idea that the speech tonight was a campaign speech and that President Obama did not say anything new. To the commentator, it was simply thirty five minutes of neo-liberal stumping that was only applauded by the Democrats in the Joint Session. Several times the announcer complained that Democratic Presidents are always trying to fix education, or the infrastructure of the country. My rebuttal is that those areas need constant attention. I for one grew up with the understanding that the government, federal-state-local, was designed to provide services that otherwise would not be provided.
I am certain that a majority of the hosts on the radio station in question would agree that we need military spending, because lets face it, people of that political persuasion love military spending. I am nearly certain that host would have little trouble with the federal government allocating money to the erecting of a 9/11 Memorial, because it is the patriotic thing to do. Without a doubt the host would love for the government to grant tax breaks for big business so that businesses will in turn give breaks to the working people of this country (because we all no how well Trickle Down Economics really worked)
I can only rebut with the fact that by arguing against government spend, the host only showed his ignorance to the actual workings of the government. I understand that it is a political philosophy to disagree with big government and over exerting governmental power, but at the same time the government has to operate! The host forgets the fact that by the very fact that he wakes up in the morning, the governmental funded military can be thanked. The fact that when he flips the light switch on, it turns on, the House Committee on Energy can be thanked. When he drives his undoubtly expensive car on paved roads (safely I might add) the state department of transportation can be thanked. I could continue but you get my point.
To simply wrap you, and attempt to keep my argument concise, I will simply say this. If you disagree with how you tax dollars are spent, live without all that stuff the government provides and see how you like it.
I still can't believe I listened to that and in turned got bent out of shape about it. What a waste of my time and brain power
I would like to preface too my response with an aside that for the better part of my trip out I listened to the same radio station which was at the time lauding Rick Perry for his stance on Social Security. My response to anyone who complains about Social Security is simply return the check everyone, or hey do us all a favor and don't pay your taxes.
The radio host's major arguments consisted mostly around the idea that the speech tonight was a campaign speech and that President Obama did not say anything new. To the commentator, it was simply thirty five minutes of neo-liberal stumping that was only applauded by the Democrats in the Joint Session. Several times the announcer complained that Democratic Presidents are always trying to fix education, or the infrastructure of the country. My rebuttal is that those areas need constant attention. I for one grew up with the understanding that the government, federal-state-local, was designed to provide services that otherwise would not be provided.
I am certain that a majority of the hosts on the radio station in question would agree that we need military spending, because lets face it, people of that political persuasion love military spending. I am nearly certain that host would have little trouble with the federal government allocating money to the erecting of a 9/11 Memorial, because it is the patriotic thing to do. Without a doubt the host would love for the government to grant tax breaks for big business so that businesses will in turn give breaks to the working people of this country (because we all no how well Trickle Down Economics really worked)
I can only rebut with the fact that by arguing against government spend, the host only showed his ignorance to the actual workings of the government. I understand that it is a political philosophy to disagree with big government and over exerting governmental power, but at the same time the government has to operate! The host forgets the fact that by the very fact that he wakes up in the morning, the governmental funded military can be thanked. The fact that when he flips the light switch on, it turns on, the House Committee on Energy can be thanked. When he drives his undoubtly expensive car on paved roads (safely I might add) the state department of transportation can be thanked. I could continue but you get my point.
To simply wrap you, and attempt to keep my argument concise, I will simply say this. If you disagree with how you tax dollars are spent, live without all that stuff the government provides and see how you like it.
I still can't believe I listened to that and in turned got bent out of shape about it. What a waste of my time and brain power
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Our Founders
I got an email today that has stuck in my brain enough write this post.
In the text of the email the writer attempted to give me a lecture on the Constitution and the principle of representative government. This writer went so far as to hint that my understanding of the Constitution was incorrect. In the text of the email they made mention that administrations in the passed have misused or negated the Constitution. I have two points with this statement: 1) The Constitution was written in a way that it was left open for interpretations, the likes of which change with Presidents, Congress and Supreme Courts. 2) If were are perpetually looking backwards at the actions taken by previous administrations, we are going to lose focus on a) the current administration and b) the future administrations. I will address each of these in as concise a way as possible
1) The Constitution was written in a way that it was left open for interpretations, the likes of which change with Presidents, Congress and Supreme Courts. Many people fail to consider the magnitude of the Constitution (or any other document for that matter) when they critic the decisions of elected officials. The brilliant men that wrote the Constitution wrote in a way that left the document open for interpretations, and changes for that matter. We have made 27 changes to the Constitution for that matter, and when it comes to interpretations there are many. While the writer of this email passes judgment (using his understanding of the Constitution) on the actions taken by a President (whom I am sure knows the Constitution), they are forgetting that the President takes those actions based on his interpretation. It is all a matter of interpretation, which I think is what the writer has forgotten and in doing so forgotten the original intent of the documen. When such assumptions are made by supposed experts it shows the lack of respect and basic understanding of the Constitution that people who make such judgments tend to pride themselves on..too snarky?
2) If were are perpetually looking backwards at the actions taken by previous administrations, we are going to lose focus on a) the current administration and b) the future administrations. I am not sure if I like the way this is worded but I am going to run with it. The writer made a reference to what the framers of the Constitution intended, thus why I worded it as I did. I can (for the sake of argument) take out the interpretation part, and focus on the founders for this second part. If we constantly look back to what the framers of the Constitution meant to say, then we are going to miss a freight train of problems that we in the modern world face. Issues like domestic spying, tele-communications and dare I say slavery were not in the forefront of the framers minds when they were writing the document. If we are going to tie ourselves to the framers then we are going to sink under the weight of that anchor. Issues never thought of are now common place in today's landscape, and those in power must make the most informed decision presently using a document that is over 200 years old.
This is my response to the first sub point, and segways into my response to the second sub point which is the future. Presidents, Legislatures and Supreme Court Justices have to consider the future when taking actions, not just the present. Presidents have long taken action that went against the Constitution or as the very least the common understandings. Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, Andrew Johnson failed to fire Seward using the Constitution, Kennedy and LBJ violated Constitutional rights during the Vietnam conflict, Andrew Jackson violated untold numbers of Native American's Constitutional rights under the Indian Removal Acts. My understanding of each of the situations is that these Presidents did so under the notion that if they did not take those measures, there would be few pieces to pick up. There are times, and I think those that sit in power understand this, when you have dirty your hands in order to keep your arms clean. Better put, you have to crack eggs to make omelets.
For the sake of length I am not going to go into the comments about representative government with this post, but I must say that telling someone how bad something is, really does not help fix the problem. This was best summed up by a fellow teacher just today at lunch "What tea party person can rightfully run for office, when they have spent so much time putting that office down?"
In the text of the email the writer attempted to give me a lecture on the Constitution and the principle of representative government. This writer went so far as to hint that my understanding of the Constitution was incorrect. In the text of the email they made mention that administrations in the passed have misused or negated the Constitution. I have two points with this statement: 1) The Constitution was written in a way that it was left open for interpretations, the likes of which change with Presidents, Congress and Supreme Courts. 2) If were are perpetually looking backwards at the actions taken by previous administrations, we are going to lose focus on a) the current administration and b) the future administrations. I will address each of these in as concise a way as possible
1) The Constitution was written in a way that it was left open for interpretations, the likes of which change with Presidents, Congress and Supreme Courts. Many people fail to consider the magnitude of the Constitution (or any other document for that matter) when they critic the decisions of elected officials. The brilliant men that wrote the Constitution wrote in a way that left the document open for interpretations, and changes for that matter. We have made 27 changes to the Constitution for that matter, and when it comes to interpretations there are many. While the writer of this email passes judgment (using his understanding of the Constitution) on the actions taken by a President (whom I am sure knows the Constitution), they are forgetting that the President takes those actions based on his interpretation. It is all a matter of interpretation, which I think is what the writer has forgotten and in doing so forgotten the original intent of the documen. When such assumptions are made by supposed experts it shows the lack of respect and basic understanding of the Constitution that people who make such judgments tend to pride themselves on..too snarky?
2) If were are perpetually looking backwards at the actions taken by previous administrations, we are going to lose focus on a) the current administration and b) the future administrations. I am not sure if I like the way this is worded but I am going to run with it. The writer made a reference to what the framers of the Constitution intended, thus why I worded it as I did. I can (for the sake of argument) take out the interpretation part, and focus on the founders for this second part. If we constantly look back to what the framers of the Constitution meant to say, then we are going to miss a freight train of problems that we in the modern world face. Issues like domestic spying, tele-communications and dare I say slavery were not in the forefront of the framers minds when they were writing the document. If we are going to tie ourselves to the framers then we are going to sink under the weight of that anchor. Issues never thought of are now common place in today's landscape, and those in power must make the most informed decision presently using a document that is over 200 years old.
This is my response to the first sub point, and segways into my response to the second sub point which is the future. Presidents, Legislatures and Supreme Court Justices have to consider the future when taking actions, not just the present. Presidents have long taken action that went against the Constitution or as the very least the common understandings. Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, Andrew Johnson failed to fire Seward using the Constitution, Kennedy and LBJ violated Constitutional rights during the Vietnam conflict, Andrew Jackson violated untold numbers of Native American's Constitutional rights under the Indian Removal Acts. My understanding of each of the situations is that these Presidents did so under the notion that if they did not take those measures, there would be few pieces to pick up. There are times, and I think those that sit in power understand this, when you have dirty your hands in order to keep your arms clean. Better put, you have to crack eggs to make omelets.
For the sake of length I am not going to go into the comments about representative government with this post, but I must say that telling someone how bad something is, really does not help fix the problem. This was best summed up by a fellow teacher just today at lunch "What tea party person can rightfully run for office, when they have spent so much time putting that office down?"
Monday, June 13, 2011
Movie Review: Waiting For Superman
Major Points:
The American education system is failing those who are in it
It is not just the teachers fault that education is failing, and that force above the classroom play a part
Race, and socio-economic status still plays a role in education
Tracking students is a faulty practice
Tenure for teachers is not all that great
My Agreements:
The American education system is failing those who are in it
It is not just the teachers fault that education is failing, and that force above the classroom play a part
My Disagreements:
Tracking students is a faulty practice
Tenure for teachers is not all that great
My Comments:
I have to admit that I was skeptical about this movie and walked away as skeptical, but surprised as well. Normally I approach anything dealing with education with a health amount of caution. Most articles, movies, books, studies about education are written or produced by people who have never taught, or who have studied teaching from a distance. That being said WAITING FOR SUPERMAN was well done and respectful of teachers. It placed blame where blame was due. For that I give it some respect, and my only real disagreements stem from ideas restated in the movie rather than initially stated.
I totally agree with the concept that there are faulty elements in the education system. Teachers do have their hands tied by tests, and bureaucracy that is not necessary. Many teacher abuse the bureaucracy and many simply do not work at their jobs. I felt that the movie did not do as good a job at pointing out teachers that do a good job. They did highlight several projects and school concepts that were successful which I will say suffices.
We do need to fix our system or totally revamp it. We constantly hear comparisons between the U.S and Europe/ China. Those systems are not like ours at all. They leave children behind. They do not deal with every child. If you will allow me a story I will explain both types of system.
Once a business leader was asked to speak to a group of teachers. He spent most of his talk telling the teachers how his company made the best ice cream from only the all the best ingredients, in particularly their blueberry ice cream. He talked at length about how if a blueberry wasn't to their very high standards they sent it away. He encouraged the teachers to do better in their classrooms and to in a sense make better students. At the close he asked for questions. One older teacher stood up and said "I appreciate your comments and you dedication to making the best blueberry ice cream, though we as teachers have to deal with ALL of the blueberries, so when our ice cream isn't as tasty as your, don't be critical."
Can you guess now which character in the story represents other countries in the world?
Can you figure out which is the United States?
My question has always been, are we going to throw away blueberries or use all of them? As it stands now we're trying to do both and it's not working.
One thing that I did disagreed with was something that was not original to the film which is the notion of tracking students, and placing them into like groups. The idea is a fairly old idea and was thrown out during the age of "everyone can succeed if given the same chance."
Please do not get my intentions wrong in what I am about to say. I subscribe to the idea of giving everyone a chance. I also think that if you were to group kids with other kids that are operating on the same level then you allow the teacher more room to grow those children and move them forward. In my classroom I am likely to have a student operating on a say 9th grade level sitting right next to a student on a 5th grade level. How fair is it to either of the students to be in that situation? Would it not be better to have the 5th grade kid in a room full of 5th grade kids so that the teacher can better teach them what they need to know to catch them up? Would it not be better for the kids operating on a 9th grade level to be in a room full of other kids on the 9th grade level so that the entire class can be pushed?
If you will allow a metaphor. As it is, we as teachers have to a) figure out what starting line EVERY kid in a class is starting from b) figure out what the finish line is going to be c) figure out how fast all of your students can run d) figure out how to get ALL of the kids to that finish line. I am only saying that if you put all of your class on the same starting line, you will be more likely to get to the finish line with all of your students
Overall I liked it the movie, though I am still skeptical. I worry that many people are going to see it and try to be a Superman to education. Education doesn't need Supermen, we need good teachers
The American education system is failing those who are in it
It is not just the teachers fault that education is failing, and that force above the classroom play a part
Race, and socio-economic status still plays a role in education
Tracking students is a faulty practice
Tenure for teachers is not all that great
My Agreements:
The American education system is failing those who are in it
It is not just the teachers fault that education is failing, and that force above the classroom play a part
My Disagreements:
Tracking students is a faulty practice
Tenure for teachers is not all that great
My Comments:
I have to admit that I was skeptical about this movie and walked away as skeptical, but surprised as well. Normally I approach anything dealing with education with a health amount of caution. Most articles, movies, books, studies about education are written or produced by people who have never taught, or who have studied teaching from a distance. That being said WAITING FOR SUPERMAN was well done and respectful of teachers. It placed blame where blame was due. For that I give it some respect, and my only real disagreements stem from ideas restated in the movie rather than initially stated.
I totally agree with the concept that there are faulty elements in the education system. Teachers do have their hands tied by tests, and bureaucracy that is not necessary. Many teacher abuse the bureaucracy and many simply do not work at their jobs. I felt that the movie did not do as good a job at pointing out teachers that do a good job. They did highlight several projects and school concepts that were successful which I will say suffices.
We do need to fix our system or totally revamp it. We constantly hear comparisons between the U.S and Europe/ China. Those systems are not like ours at all. They leave children behind. They do not deal with every child. If you will allow me a story I will explain both types of system.
Once a business leader was asked to speak to a group of teachers. He spent most of his talk telling the teachers how his company made the best ice cream from only the all the best ingredients, in particularly their blueberry ice cream. He talked at length about how if a blueberry wasn't to their very high standards they sent it away. He encouraged the teachers to do better in their classrooms and to in a sense make better students. At the close he asked for questions. One older teacher stood up and said "I appreciate your comments and you dedication to making the best blueberry ice cream, though we as teachers have to deal with ALL of the blueberries, so when our ice cream isn't as tasty as your, don't be critical."
Can you guess now which character in the story represents other countries in the world?
Can you figure out which is the United States?
My question has always been, are we going to throw away blueberries or use all of them? As it stands now we're trying to do both and it's not working.
One thing that I did disagreed with was something that was not original to the film which is the notion of tracking students, and placing them into like groups. The idea is a fairly old idea and was thrown out during the age of "everyone can succeed if given the same chance."
Please do not get my intentions wrong in what I am about to say. I subscribe to the idea of giving everyone a chance. I also think that if you were to group kids with other kids that are operating on the same level then you allow the teacher more room to grow those children and move them forward. In my classroom I am likely to have a student operating on a say 9th grade level sitting right next to a student on a 5th grade level. How fair is it to either of the students to be in that situation? Would it not be better to have the 5th grade kid in a room full of 5th grade kids so that the teacher can better teach them what they need to know to catch them up? Would it not be better for the kids operating on a 9th grade level to be in a room full of other kids on the 9th grade level so that the entire class can be pushed?
If you will allow a metaphor. As it is, we as teachers have to a) figure out what starting line EVERY kid in a class is starting from b) figure out what the finish line is going to be c) figure out how fast all of your students can run d) figure out how to get ALL of the kids to that finish line. I am only saying that if you put all of your class on the same starting line, you will be more likely to get to the finish line with all of your students
Overall I liked it the movie, though I am still skeptical. I worry that many people are going to see it and try to be a Superman to education. Education doesn't need Supermen, we need good teachers
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Opinions On Education
The following is an attempt to put my opinions on education today into writing. If at any point you feel as though I am ranting rather than being logical, please stop reading. I will attempt to offer solutions when I have a well formulated answer.
At times I will struggle to put into exact words what my opinion is, and will most likely bounce from place to place at points. Bare with me
Part One
First off I am a young teacher. Many could say that I am too young, and inexperience for my opinions to be justifiable or heard. I would respond that yes I am young, but I am not inexperience in the field of education, or in the politics of education. If you consider me too young, opinionate, or just plan stupid, do not read this. I know what I see and I know it well. This is what I see
I teach a social science. Social Sciences have been relegated to a second or third class subject. This is not opinion, it is fact. Look at the increasing importance placed on Science and Math. My school system, and the Commonwealth in which I teach, have become apart of the growing number to place STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) education at the forefront of their curriculum. We as a country are doing so at our own peril.
Peril is the word I choose for this because we suffer when education is compartmentalized. STEM has become so popular because those fields are where jobs are TODAY. China , Japan , and parts of Europe saw STEM on the horizon years ago, thus they are benefiting today. Think of the Industrial revolution. The United States
My solution is to simply stop. Curriculum can and should be written to broaden student rather than send them into a specific field. With in a borad education there is room for the sciences, yet there is room for the soft sciences, art, and physical education aswell. Teach our students in the liberal arts. Teach them to ask questions, not so much of how, but why. Had “Why?” been asked more than “Why Not?” many of the worlds problems would not have be problems at all. The world needs to stop asking what new technology is next, and start asking what the cost of that new technology is. What human skill is being lost at the expense of the new widget? What are the implications of these new technologies? These questions my friends are better asked by philosophers and humanist than engineers and nanotechnologist. Technology only dulls our creative thinking. Look back to the feats obtained by the likes of Einstein,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)