I've noticed that some comments are posting and some are not--I've run a few tests and cannot figure out the problem. Until them I'm turning off comment moderation and turning on word verification--that will be a temporary fix until I hear back from Blogger Support.
Update: OK, I republished the entire blog and it looks like things are going ok now. I'm going back to comment moderation (with word verification off) and so far it looks like it's working. Cross your fingers. I'm really not deleting your comments! I haven't had to do that in months, and that was just for repeated foul language and personal attacks.
If it looks like more comments aren't getting posted, though, I'll switch comment moderation off.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Angels In The Sky
Today at the end of lunch the Blue Angels flew low and fast over our campus. They'll be performing this weekend at an airshow at the former Mather Air Force Base. I heard them fly over but didn't see them.
On my way home from work I saw them. How could I not? They were so low that I could read US Navy under their wings! I'm surprised there weren't car accidents everywhere as people craned their necks to see those amazing pieces of military hardware. Loud, fast, and powerful--I'm glad they're on our side! Additionally, people from businesses on both sides of the road were outside, eyes skyward, trying to catch a glimpse of whatever it was that was causing that roar.
I think I know what we're doing this weekend.
On my way home from work I saw them. How could I not? They were so low that I could read US Navy under their wings! I'm surprised there weren't car accidents everywhere as people craned their necks to see those amazing pieces of military hardware. Loud, fast, and powerful--I'm glad they're on our side! Additionally, people from businesses on both sides of the road were outside, eyes skyward, trying to catch a glimpse of whatever it was that was causing that roar.
I think I know what we're doing this weekend.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Liberals
Here's a post I agree with.
I've been saying it forever--one of the primary differences between the left and right in America is that the left sees people only as members of groups, whereas the right sees people as individuals with inherent rights of their own. The linked post above identifies even more differences between left and right.
Update, 3/18/06: Here's another one :-)
I've been saying it forever--one of the primary differences between the left and right in America is that the left sees people only as members of groups, whereas the right sees people as individuals with inherent rights of their own. The linked post above identifies even more differences between left and right.
Update, 3/18/06: Here's another one :-)
Carnival of Education
For the latest and greatest from around the edublogosphere, click here, my dear.
I certainly fear
that this sounds bad to the ear,
like a sound from the rear.
I certainly fear
that this sounds bad to the ear,
like a sound from the rear.
No Pink Slip Blues
Layoff notices in our district were sent out last Friday. When I didn't get the little yellow notice in my mailbox at home, telling me to come to the post office to suffer the ignominy of having to sign for my layoff notice, I assumed I was safe. A short chat with my principal on Monday confirmed that only our rookie and sophomore teachers got such notices.
This is my 9th year of teaching, my 5th in this district.
This is my 9th year of teaching, my 5th in this district.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Teacher Bites Student
Via the Edwonks (see blogroll at left) comes this story of a teacher who was fired for biting a student. Go read that short news report and then come back to this post.
No, go read the news story first! Can't you follow directions???
I will not defend the teacher's actions here. However, I will state categorically that the student definitely contributed to the problem. I'd assess fault here at 98% teacher and 2% student. Why do I fault the teacher so much? She bit a student! Who the heck does that?!
The catalyst for the problem, however, was that the student did not follow the teacher's instructions. She told the boy to go stand in the hall, and he took it upon himself to return to the class because, apparently, he wanted to get his books. I'll be honest, here, I'm not buying it. I assert, without any fact at all but lots of experience in this type of situation, that the boy returned to class because he wanted to garner a little more attention, either from the teacher or from his classmates. He wanted to show that he was cool or tough enough to violate her instructions. He was trying to be a punk, and he totally succeeded. It's oh so common in junior high. I've taught kids like him.
However, the teacher should not have gotten physical with the student. Perhaps I'm fortunate to always have worked at schools where the administration at least most of the time backed up and supported the teachers in discipline issues. They may not always have done what I would have liked in a given situation, but I never felt like students could run roughshod over me--knowing I would resist the urge to beat the snot out of him or her, even if he or she desperately needed it--and not suffer some consequences. I truly do pity teachers who labor under such circumstances, and I know they're out there.
But I hope that those teachers would never try to justify or excuse biting a student.
No, go read the news story first! Can't you follow directions???
I will not defend the teacher's actions here. However, I will state categorically that the student definitely contributed to the problem. I'd assess fault here at 98% teacher and 2% student. Why do I fault the teacher so much? She bit a student! Who the heck does that?!
The catalyst for the problem, however, was that the student did not follow the teacher's instructions. She told the boy to go stand in the hall, and he took it upon himself to return to the class because, apparently, he wanted to get his books. I'll be honest, here, I'm not buying it. I assert, without any fact at all but lots of experience in this type of situation, that the boy returned to class because he wanted to garner a little more attention, either from the teacher or from his classmates. He wanted to show that he was cool or tough enough to violate her instructions. He was trying to be a punk, and he totally succeeded. It's oh so common in junior high. I've taught kids like him.
However, the teacher should not have gotten physical with the student. Perhaps I'm fortunate to always have worked at schools where the administration at least most of the time backed up and supported the teachers in discipline issues. They may not always have done what I would have liked in a given situation, but I never felt like students could run roughshod over me--knowing I would resist the urge to beat the snot out of him or her, even if he or she desperately needed it--and not suffer some consequences. I truly do pity teachers who labor under such circumstances, and I know they're out there.
But I hope that those teachers would never try to justify or excuse biting a student.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Teachers Make The Worst Students
Here's an interesting column with the same title. The teaser:
In this line of work, you have to be willing to adjust your thinking when confronted with new evidence.
So here goes: I used to think that left-wing Latino activists, Minutemen vigilantes and politicians in both parties had the thinnest skins on the planet. But now that I've been scolded for criticizing the critics of the No Child Left Behind education law, I'd have to say that public schoolteachers win the prize.
A Patriot's History of the United States
I wonder how many teachers and professors will put this book on their reading lists....
Racial Gap in Education
John at Discriminations (see blogroll at left) has an interesting post about the underrepresentation of minority teachers in Connecticut's schools. Oddly enough, minority representation in teachers evenly matches the percentage of minority graduates of teacher colleges, yet still there's a problem.
And the freakin' CTA says we don't talk about race in education. Geez. But back to John's post.
Officials in Greenwich want to attract a more "diverse" teaching staff. There's nothing wrong with that, except when you really mean "darker skinned" when you say "diverse". But the question is, why would you want people of different colors, which to the Greenwich officials is synonymous with different cultures, teaching your kids? John provides an answer:
Ah yes, cultural competence. Ranks right up there with having the correct "disposition" to teach. I wrote about cultural competence last October and will copy the main points here:
Additionally, does this not make our diverse teacher now the spokesperson for his or her identity group? After all, this teacher is here to provide different views for the rest of us, so presumably we can go to this person for the "black" perspective, the "Moslem perspective", or the "gay Guatemalan" perspective on major events of the day. Does this seem at all respectful? It seems to me to be more like having animals in a zoo--let's go see how the lemurs are reacting to this stimulus!
Our goal should be to provide the best education for the students. If we teachers are only supposed to teach English, math, science, PE, art, foreign language, history, or whatever to our students, why does it matter at all what our "culture" is? If 2x+5=25, x=10 no matter what culture my students or I come from. If, however, we want to create "thinking citizens" who will be "activists in the community", why even bother with the facade of teaching academic content at all? Let's just put a bunch of leftist demagogues, suitably chosen based on race and culture, in the classrooms and let them rant.
Yes, of course there's a middle ground. People of different backgrounds can share insights in class while still addressing the academic content of their course. That's part of how you build rapport with students, by showing just a little bit of what makes you as a teacher more of an individual and not just an academic automaton. However, the primary goal for hiring teachers must be academic and pedagogical comptence, which can be measured, and not some nebulous cultural competence. Hire the most highly qualified teachers to teach the children, and don't worry if these teachers "look like" the kids or not. In that way you're doing the children a service instead of pandering to vocal constituencies.
And the freakin' CTA says we don't talk about race in education. Geez. But back to John's post.
Officials in Greenwich want to attract a more "diverse" teaching staff. There's nothing wrong with that, except when you really mean "darker skinned" when you say "diverse". But the question is, why would you want people of different colors, which to the Greenwich officials is synonymous with different cultures, teaching your kids? John provides an answer:
In addition, it appears that the jargon of “cultural competence” is spreading throughout educationdom as a rationale for hiring minorities. “Minority teachers act as cultural interpreters for the entire school community," one administrator claimed.
Ah yes, cultural competence. Ranks right up there with having the correct "disposition" to teach. I wrote about cultural competence last October and will copy the main points here:
Again, I argue that teaching disadvantaged students, giving them some "cultural capital" to spend, is to open the doors to success in society. Others argue, however, that "cultural competence" is not the perview of the student but rather is the responsibility of the teacher; the teacher should adapt, accomodate, respect, and nourish the culture of each child, whatever that culture may be, instead of teaching them the tools they'll need to function in the larger society. In other words, the social engineers want to create a "society" in the schools that is entirely different from the one in which we live. This accepting of other cultures seems to be a one-way street, and only the dominant culture needs to do the accepting. While there is good reason to merge the two beliefs and find some meeting between them, it's not a happy medium--we need to teach the children to function in the society we have much more than in the Utopia we want.
Wendy McElroy writes the following about the new "cultural competence" requirement some schools have for prospective teachers:In practice, the term is the new face of political correctness, which is often accompanied by the PC concepts of "diversity" or "multiculturalism.""Cultural competency" advances the same basic goals as those buzz words. Certain groups (such as minorities) and certain ideas (such as gender feminist interpretations of oppression) are to be promoted by institutionalizing policies that encourage them. Of course, this means that other groups and other ideas are de facto penalized or discouraged.
Her article continues:Norman Levitt, Professor of Mathematics at Rutgers University, explains, "'Cultural competence' is…a bureaucratic weapon. 'Cultural competence,' or rather, your [an educator's] presumed lack thereof, is what you will be clobbered with if you are imprudent enough to challenge or merely to have qualms about 'affirmative action', 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism,' as those principles are now espoused by their most fervent academic advocates."
So already we see that "cultural competence" is a buzzword for thought control and conformity. So-called non-diverse teachers (you know, the monolithic white bloc) will learn cultural competence from our diverse brethren and sistren, which will make us better able to teach algebra to our diverse students.
But let's take John's quote about "cultural interpreters" at face value for a moment and see where it leads us.
For starters, it assumes that people from different cultures will have different values or see things in different ways than we do. In fact, a person from a culture steeped in oppression might well sympathize with the 9/11 hijackers, might hate Jews, might hate America, or might advocate violent revolution. Or, a person from a religion of peace might not believe in having women bosses, might not value the girls in his/her class, or might want gays crushed under toppling walls. Are we to say to these people, "Share your culture with us, but unlike Jay Bennish of Colorado, do it in an even-handed way"? Is that not asking them to subvert the very culture they're supposed to be sharing with the rest of us, and interpreting for us?Additionally, does this not make our diverse teacher now the spokesperson for his or her identity group? After all, this teacher is here to provide different views for the rest of us, so presumably we can go to this person for the "black" perspective, the "Moslem perspective", or the "gay Guatemalan" perspective on major events of the day. Does this seem at all respectful? It seems to me to be more like having animals in a zoo--let's go see how the lemurs are reacting to this stimulus!
Our goal should be to provide the best education for the students. If we teachers are only supposed to teach English, math, science, PE, art, foreign language, history, or whatever to our students, why does it matter at all what our "culture" is? If 2x+5=25, x=10 no matter what culture my students or I come from. If, however, we want to create "thinking citizens" who will be "activists in the community", why even bother with the facade of teaching academic content at all? Let's just put a bunch of leftist demagogues, suitably chosen based on race and culture, in the classrooms and let them rant.
Yes, of course there's a middle ground. People of different backgrounds can share insights in class while still addressing the academic content of their course. That's part of how you build rapport with students, by showing just a little bit of what makes you as a teacher more of an individual and not just an academic automaton. However, the primary goal for hiring teachers must be academic and pedagogical comptence, which can be measured, and not some nebulous cultural competence. Hire the most highly qualified teachers to teach the children, and don't worry if these teachers "look like" the kids or not. In that way you're doing the children a service instead of pandering to vocal constituencies.
Joanne's Book Is Awesome
I just finished reading Joanne Jacobs' (see blogroll at left) Our School, a book about the first few years of an urban charter school which caters to underachieving students. I could pile on the praise here, but look at the time. Besides, the reviews at the Amazon link are dead on.
As I emailed to the author, I really enjoyed the vignette format of the book. The reader is moved along as much by the characters as by the events. In that regard it reminds me of The Goal, a book ostensibly about how to manage a factory efficiently but told as a real story with characters, a plot, as well as a lesson. Both books have a focused topic, but both also draw the reader into the story by sheer force of writing ability.
Now I can go get some sleep.
Oh, and go read Our School. You'll be glad you did.
As I emailed to the author, I really enjoyed the vignette format of the book. The reader is moved along as much by the characters as by the events. In that regard it reminds me of The Goal, a book ostensibly about how to manage a factory efficiently but told as a real story with characters, a plot, as well as a lesson. Both books have a focused topic, but both also draw the reader into the story by sheer force of writing ability.
Now I can go get some sleep.
Oh, and go read Our School. You'll be glad you did.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
I Guess It Was Real After All
I posted back in November about some peace activists, including one American, who were supposedly kidnapped in Iraq while looking for evidence of American atrocities. I mentioned the "tasty" irony of that situation and wondered if perhaps it wasn't staged.
Well, if it was staged, they're going all out to make it appear real. Turns out the American has been found dead. And sad as that is, may it serve as a reminder of who the real terrorists are--and it's not the Americans, you lefty idiots. If just that point gets across to a few lefties, then perhaps this naive man didn't die in vain.
Well, if it was staged, they're going all out to make it appear real. Turns out the American has been found dead. And sad as that is, may it serve as a reminder of who the real terrorists are--and it's not the Americans, you lefty idiots. If just that point gets across to a few lefties, then perhaps this naive man didn't die in vain.
Outsourcing Education Jobs
John Kerry tried to make the outsourcing of American jobs an important point in his campaign--it's an esoteric enough topic that most people yawned and waited for his next Bush-bashing comment, and they were duly rewarded. As a free marketer myself I'm ok with outsourcing jobs, as I don't see how protectionism helps anyone. Besides, if low-skill American jobs are outsourced, that frees up labor and (some) capital that could be put to even more productive use here in the United States.**
But what about education? Can that be outsourced? Currently I'm in another one of those periods in which I consider getting a masters degree. Not that I really want one, of course--what the heck do I need such a degree for? No, the reason I'm considering getting one is purely financial in that I would "move over" on the salary scale and make over $10,000 a year more than I currently do.
No way do I want to get a generic Masters in Education degree, especially the generic Masters in Education with an emphasis on Curriculum and Instruction. Gawd, I can't imagine having to put up with more politically correct tripe in the guise of higher education. If you don't know, schools of education at our universities are hotbeds of Marxism, multiculturalism, academic fuzziness, and anti-Americanism. I've had enough of that crap; I want a degree in something real. I talked to a colleague at school this week who's getting a masters in education. He was very upfront with not really caring about the education he's paying for and not really thinking he'll be able to apply any of it in his classroom--he's just tolerating it for the big fat pay raise he'll be getting. I don't want to spend so much of my time in a pursuit like that. I've done enough of that with my credentialing classes and CLAD (Cross-cultural, Linguistic, and Academic Development--think "bilingual ed") coursework. I want to value the education I receive from now on, and value it for more than just the financial rewards it brings me.
One of the fields I've considered is a Masters in Education with an emphasis in what's called "distance learning"--in other words, how to conduct online classes. A couple of CSU's (Cal State University) offer such degrees online, thereby practicing what they teach. This kinda interests me because the subject matter is more technological than political; I could actually use this knowledge. I see a future where online courses will be delivered to certain high school students--homeschoolers (but partially educated by the local school district), expelled students, "home and hospital" students (those who miss great lengths of school due to illness or injury), dropouts, etc. So this is one field in which I can see value, one I might consider.
But let's get back to the original topic--given the education future I envision, what's to stop the education field from outsourcing jobs overseas? The impetus for these thoughts at such an ungodly hour of a Saturday morning was this article about outsourcing, in particular these few sentences about education:
Add this view to my previous post about the value of a college education--at least one that costs upwards of six digits--and I wonder if perhaps higher education might see some of the same outsourcing-related issues that other service industries are currently facing. It's likely that my current job is safe, but perhaps that future I've envisioned will include video streaming from Shanghai, Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore, or Dehli, and not from Sacramento, Denver, St. Louis, or Philadelphia.
Or perhaps maybe the Rust Belt states should quit whining about the loss of their steel-centric economies and hop on this futuristic bandwagon.
**Here's a quote on that topic from the same article, a quote I hadn't read when I wrote my first paragraph above. I'm glad I'm not the only one with faith in the American economy:
But what about education? Can that be outsourced? Currently I'm in another one of those periods in which I consider getting a masters degree. Not that I really want one, of course--what the heck do I need such a degree for? No, the reason I'm considering getting one is purely financial in that I would "move over" on the salary scale and make over $10,000 a year more than I currently do.
No way do I want to get a generic Masters in Education degree, especially the generic Masters in Education with an emphasis on Curriculum and Instruction. Gawd, I can't imagine having to put up with more politically correct tripe in the guise of higher education. If you don't know, schools of education at our universities are hotbeds of Marxism, multiculturalism, academic fuzziness, and anti-Americanism. I've had enough of that crap; I want a degree in something real. I talked to a colleague at school this week who's getting a masters in education. He was very upfront with not really caring about the education he's paying for and not really thinking he'll be able to apply any of it in his classroom--he's just tolerating it for the big fat pay raise he'll be getting. I don't want to spend so much of my time in a pursuit like that. I've done enough of that with my credentialing classes and CLAD (Cross-cultural, Linguistic, and Academic Development--think "bilingual ed") coursework. I want to value the education I receive from now on, and value it for more than just the financial rewards it brings me.
One of the fields I've considered is a Masters in Education with an emphasis in what's called "distance learning"--in other words, how to conduct online classes. A couple of CSU's (Cal State University) offer such degrees online, thereby practicing what they teach. This kinda interests me because the subject matter is more technological than political; I could actually use this knowledge. I see a future where online courses will be delivered to certain high school students--homeschoolers (but partially educated by the local school district), expelled students, "home and hospital" students (those who miss great lengths of school due to illness or injury), dropouts, etc. So this is one field in which I can see value, one I might consider.
But let's get back to the original topic--given the education future I envision, what's to stop the education field from outsourcing jobs overseas? The impetus for these thoughts at such an ungodly hour of a Saturday morning was this article about outsourcing, in particular these few sentences about education:
Parts of the education sector are at risk as well. Personal interaction is everything, no doubt, so far as K-12 is concerned, but is it necessary in colleges? Reading about the travails of Lawrence Summers at Harvard, one is reminded that personal interaction with academics (as opposed to graduate-student teaching assistants) is something that undergraduates get rather little of in any case -- despite the colossal fees.
Add this view to my previous post about the value of a college education--at least one that costs upwards of six digits--and I wonder if perhaps higher education might see some of the same outsourcing-related issues that other service industries are currently facing. It's likely that my current job is safe, but perhaps that future I've envisioned will include video streaming from Shanghai, Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore, or Dehli, and not from Sacramento, Denver, St. Louis, or Philadelphia.
Or perhaps maybe the Rust Belt states should quit whining about the loss of their steel-centric economies and hop on this futuristic bandwagon.
**Here's a quote on that topic from the same article, a quote I hadn't read when I wrote my first paragraph above. I'm glad I'm not the only one with faith in the American economy:
The danger, as Blinder rightly argues, is not rising unemployment. People will find work. That happened during the first Industrial Revolution (farming to manufacturing) and the second as well (manufacturing to services). Tens of millions of jobs were lost; tens of millions were created. The American labor market is superbly efficient at moving people out of old jobs and into new ones. (It will be a different story in Europe.) The problem is that the adjustment will be painful. Blinder therefore wants to see a much larger commitment to trade-adjustment assistance. He also seems to favor a thicker and stronger social safety net: unemployment insurance, public health insurance, and so on. (There, I hesitate: Europe's safety net is surely one of the reasons why its labor market is so bad at creating new jobs.)
College Not The Best Investment?
Here's a contrarian view if I've ever heard one: perhaps college isn't as good a financial investment as it's been for the past 25 years. Hmmm. And this view is coming from an author in Forbes magazine.
It's worth a read. The parents at the school at which I teach will still insist on sending their kids to Stanford, though.
Why does the price of a four-year degree keep rising? Past performance is one reason. The cost of college degrees earned in the 1940s--tuition at Yale was $450 in 1940--through the 1980s looks like a bargain compared with the cost of those today. The return on investment for older degrees has been spectacular. Take a well-known statistic: As recently as the 1970s, there was little difference in the lifetime earning potential between a high school grad and a four-year-college degree holder. But in just one generation the four-year degree holder has leaped ahead in the earnings wars. In 2003 he could have expected to earn 62% more than the high school grad...
But what if you could guarantee those qualities [intelligence, ability to set goals and achieve them--Darren] in other ways (military service, missionary work, etc.)? See, I think the Harvard or Yale degree is worth plenty, not because of what Harvard or Yale teaches--the postmodern university can do more harm than good; witness Yale’s admission of a former Taliban spokesman. The degree simply puts an official stamp on the fact that the student was intelligent, hardworking and competitive enough to get into Harvard or Yale in the first place. May I present to the jury Bill Gates? He was smart enough to get into Harvard. Then he proved his financial intelligence by dropping out to start a company. (emphasis mine--Darren)
It's worth a read. The parents at the school at which I teach will still insist on sending their kids to Stanford, though.
American Political Families--Kennedy and Bush
An interesting read. Not intellectually rigorous, but a good conversation starter for the cocktail party circuit.
I do grow tired of the use of the word "dynasty" in American politics, though. The Kennedys have only had two generations of serious input into American national politics, the same as the Bushes. If you count Prescott Bush I guess the Bushes could claim three generations, but whatever. To me, that isn't a dynasty.
If the Washingtons were still influential? That would be a dynasty.
I do grow tired of the use of the word "dynasty" in American politics, though. The Kennedys have only had two generations of serious input into American national politics, the same as the Bushes. If you count Prescott Bush I guess the Bushes could claim three generations, but whatever. To me, that isn't a dynasty.
If the Washingtons were still influential? That would be a dynasty.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The "Right" To An Education?
What about those who don't really want an education? Here's an interesting view from an interesting libertarian.
Anti-Gay School Broadcast
On the first day, a few students talked about supporting gay rights, and no one paid much attention.
On the second day, a school counselor talked about respecting each other, and no one paid much attention.
On the third day, a few students spoke against homosexuality and a teacher said it is ''wrong according to the Bible'' -- and people noticed very much.
That final segment of a Miami Sunset Senior High television project roiled the normally placid West Dade campus, drew sharp response from both students and teachers and has raised questions about the free exchange of ideas and religion in public schools.
Interesting. Read the whole thing.
Another hat tip goes to EIA.
An Effective Tardy Policy
Students at my school howl about our tardy policy--get 10 tardies over the course of several weeks and you get Saturday School as a punishment? I wonder if they'd get to class on time if they had this policy to contend with.
Hat tip to EIA.
Hat tip to EIA.
We Need MORE Testing, Not Less
Psychologists at Washington University in St. Louis have discovered
So for those who whine that "testing isn't learning", maybe they're wrong after all.
My counselor when I was in high school was a former math teacher. After I became a math teacher he and my old principal, also a former math teacher, took me to breakfast. They asked how often I gave quizzes and didn't like my answer. Gotta quiz every week, they said, if not more than that. Since that day I've assessed student learning with either a quiz or a test each week. Now it seems there's some scientific validity to what those two men learned through experience--and passed on to me.
Maybe NCLB should mandate more tests per year! (said merely to tweak my anti-NCLB readers!)
that students understood and retained information more readily when subjected to frequent tests and quizzes while studying than students who simply read material over and over again.
So for those who whine that "testing isn't learning", maybe they're wrong after all.
My counselor when I was in high school was a former math teacher. After I became a math teacher he and my old principal, also a former math teacher, took me to breakfast. They asked how often I gave quizzes and didn't like my answer. Gotta quiz every week, they said, if not more than that. Since that day I've assessed student learning with either a quiz or a test each week. Now it seems there's some scientific validity to what those two men learned through experience--and passed on to me.
Maybe NCLB should mandate more tests per year! (said merely to tweak my anti-NCLB readers!)
What's REALLY Wrong With A Little Porn At Work?
This guy is suspended with pay for watching porn on his computer at work. What he didn't realize was that the computer was also connected to a monitor behind him, so his (college) students got to watch a little bit of free porn in class.
Is there really something wrong with watching porn at work? Is there anything else besides porn that we can't view on our computers at work? In K-12 schools I can see the justification for a ban--you want there to be zero risk of a minor seeing this stuff because of an adult. But in grown-up workplaces? Is it really so bad?
Just throwing some ideas out there, trying to avoid the groupthink.
Is there really something wrong with watching porn at work? Is there anything else besides porn that we can't view on our computers at work? In K-12 schools I can see the justification for a ban--you want there to be zero risk of a minor seeing this stuff because of an adult. But in grown-up workplaces? Is it really so bad?
Just throwing some ideas out there, trying to avoid the groupthink.
NEA's Darling
What? NEA's darling, Hillary Clinton, the woman who sent her own child to an exclusive private school, the woman who doesn't want to allow all parents to send their children to any but the local public school--also has ties to the evil Wal*Mart???
Is the NEA really this hypocritical, or am I just missing something? (P.S. It's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer--and I'm not missing anything.)
Want to see other entries about Wal*Mart? Just cut this -->> Wal*Mart <<-- and paste it into the search engine at the top left of this page. And by the way, I'm very pro-Wal*Mart. Update, 2/2/07: That search engine is so yesteryear. Just click the label Wal*Mart to the left!
Is the NEA really this hypocritical, or am I just missing something? (P.S. It's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer--and I'm not missing anything.)
Want to see other entries about Wal*Mart? Just cut this -->> Wal*Mart <<-- and paste it into the search engine at the top left of this page. And by the way, I'm very pro-Wal*Mart. Update, 2/2/07: That search engine is so yesteryear. Just click the label Wal*Mart to the left!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Abortion Rights For Men
There's a case in Michigan that, if I were a betting man, will get thrown out of court. Legislatures are the appropriate places to solve this problem, not courts. Again, courts are supposed to *interpret* the law, not make law, and while current child support laws (and lack of abortion rights for men) are certainly unfair I'm not convinced they're illegal.
I've written about Men's Right To Choose here, and here's a view from a person who's not entirely sympathetic to the Michigan case.
I've written about Men's Right To Choose here, and here's a view from a person who's not entirely sympathetic to the Michigan case.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A "Good Teacher" Thing
I did something in class today that paid a lot of dividends. It would be nice if I could do it more often, but today the stars were in alignment or something and it just worked out.
Our school has the funkiest schedule on the planet. On Mondays and Fridays, we have "regular days". On Tuesdays and Wednesdays we have "block days", having periods 1, 3, and 5 on Tuesday for 2 hrs each and periods 2, 4, and 6 on Wednesdays. On Thursdays we do something so ignorant that I won't spend time on it here. Suffice it to say that yesterday and today I had 2 hour classes.
In my pre-calc (trig) classes, we went over the one assignment that students have been working on for the last two days. Pretty difficult stuff, and I wanted to ensure the students had time to attempt it on the first day, ask questions, finish it on the second day, and ask final clarifying questions today. After that we had a scheduled quiz. All of that took up the first hour of the block period.
For the 2nd hour of the block period I had a lesson planned. It's a fairly simple lesson, one that I was able to cover in about 15 minutes. Rather than do a 2nd lesson for the remaining 40 minutes, though, I opted to let the students work on tonight's assignment in class while I graded their quizzes. Here's the "good teacher" thing: I had each student come up to my desk while I graded his or her quiz so they could got immediate feedback on how well they did as well as immediate remediation.
Most students scored fairly well on the quiz. Those who didn't, however, were thankful for the chance to learn, one-on-one, what they hadn't figured out over the last couple days. This is especially helpful, though, because they have a chapter test a week from today.
Of course, it should be patently obvious to anyone that scoring quizzes right away is a smart thing to do. Often I take up to 2 days, however, by which time we've already moved on to new material. Grading in class isn't always possible, either; it's not often I get a lesson that can adequately be taught in only 15 minutes. So what I did today isn't always possible, but it sure felt good to do it.
I feel like I accomplished something today. We'll see if it that's true on the test next week!
Our school has the funkiest schedule on the planet. On Mondays and Fridays, we have "regular days". On Tuesdays and Wednesdays we have "block days", having periods 1, 3, and 5 on Tuesday for 2 hrs each and periods 2, 4, and 6 on Wednesdays. On Thursdays we do something so ignorant that I won't spend time on it here. Suffice it to say that yesterday and today I had 2 hour classes.
In my pre-calc (trig) classes, we went over the one assignment that students have been working on for the last two days. Pretty difficult stuff, and I wanted to ensure the students had time to attempt it on the first day, ask questions, finish it on the second day, and ask final clarifying questions today. After that we had a scheduled quiz. All of that took up the first hour of the block period.
For the 2nd hour of the block period I had a lesson planned. It's a fairly simple lesson, one that I was able to cover in about 15 minutes. Rather than do a 2nd lesson for the remaining 40 minutes, though, I opted to let the students work on tonight's assignment in class while I graded their quizzes. Here's the "good teacher" thing: I had each student come up to my desk while I graded his or her quiz so they could got immediate feedback on how well they did as well as immediate remediation.
Most students scored fairly well on the quiz. Those who didn't, however, were thankful for the chance to learn, one-on-one, what they hadn't figured out over the last couple days. This is especially helpful, though, because they have a chapter test a week from today.
Of course, it should be patently obvious to anyone that scoring quizzes right away is a smart thing to do. Often I take up to 2 days, however, by which time we've already moved on to new material. Grading in class isn't always possible, either; it's not often I get a lesson that can adequately be taught in only 15 minutes. So what I did today isn't always possible, but it sure felt good to do it.
I feel like I accomplished something today. We'll see if it that's true on the test next week!
Great Quote About Liberals
From PowerlineBlog:
Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid. Worse, I think that many liberals...are so far gone in hatred of President Bush that everything they say and do is said and done in bad faith. Like Jack Murtha, they have lost any ability to distinguish truth from fiction, and any desire to do so.
Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid. Worse, I think that many liberals...are so far gone in hatred of President Bush that everything they say and do is said and done in bad faith. Like Jack Murtha, they have lost any ability to distinguish truth from fiction, and any desire to do so.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Kids, DON'T Try This At Home
From CNN.com:
FONTANA, California (AP) -- Five boys who posted a fake profile of a 15-year-old girl as an Internet prank helped police arrest a 48-year-old man who tried to meet the fictitious teenager for sex, authorities said Monday...Read the whole thing.The man also sent the "girl" his picture and arranged to meet her at a public park. The boys went to the park and, when the man arrived, they called police.
Michael Ramos, 48, of Fontana, was booked into West Valley Detention Center on Monday for investigation of felony attempted lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and for an outstanding warrant, Megenney said.
Geography Quiz
By now you've probably heard of Colorado geography teacher Jay Bennish, who lectured forth on anti-Americanism while a student surreptitiously recorded him. Here's a geography quiz from his class.
If you're sensitive to foul language and/or raunchy humor, the comments section might not be for you.
If you're sensitive to foul language and/or raunchy humor, the comments section might not be for you.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Goldberg Rumor Continues in LA
People still think Jackie Goldberg is the frontrunner to replace Roy Romer as superintendent of the dysfunctional LA Unified School District. Columnist Jill Stewart, who often writes about education, has this to say about Ms. Goldberg:
Stewart spends the rest of the column detailing the damage that Goldberg has wrought wherever she's been in office. It's a long list and it's worth the read.
For those not steeped in Goldberg-ology, she is the failed former school board president of the Los Angeles Unified School District, whose inability to get over her leftist glory days of the 1960s - and whose knack for grabbing power - has wreaked lots of damage in Los Angeles.
Stewart spends the rest of the column detailing the damage that Goldberg has wrought wherever she's been in office. It's a long list and it's worth the read.
Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment 8-0
With Justice Alito recusing himself, the Supreme Court today upheld the Solomon Amendment 8-0. There wasn't even a concurring opinion--all 8 voting justices agreed with the ruling in its entirety.
I've previously written about this case here, here, and here; here's a FoxNews story about the case. I just looked briefly and didn't see a similar story on CNN.com at all, but then again I only looked in the Law section of their web page so they may have filed a story elsewhere.
Put simply, a law (the Solomon Amendment) says that schools that accept federal money (student loans, research money, grants, etc) are required to allow military recruiters on their campuses. Several law schools at some prestigious universities didn't want to allow military recruiters because--or at least this is the reason they're giving--the military doesn't allow homosexuals to serve openly. They filed suit against the Secretary of Defense. I give a little more detail in the 2nd link, above.
A few points, most of which I've made before:
1. They're targeting the wrong people. Banning homosexuals isn't a Defense Department policy, it's a Congressional mandate. They should ban members of Congress, not members of the military.
2. "Don't ask, don't tell" was promulgated by the previous President, not the current one.
3. The schools argued that their 1st Amendment rights to free association were being violated by having to allow recruiters on campus. This belief was shot down thoroughly; they don't have to allow recruiters, but they don't have to accept federal dollars, either.
4. The feds argued that Congress can and should be allowed to attach strings to money, and the Court upheld that view. However, a stronger case can be made by going directly to the Constitution. Article 1, Section 12 explicitly gives Congress the authority to "raise and support armies", and Section 13 gives Congress the authority to "provide and maintain a navy". Clearly, recruiting falls within the realm of raising, supporting, providing, and maintaining military forces.
So the law schools who brought this case have now lost 8-0. Think about that for a moment. Some of our most prestigious law schools, from some of our most prestigious (Ivy League) universities, had arguments that were so weak that they could not sway a single Supreme Court justice to side with them. I'm just wondering here, prestigious or not, how good are these schools? How much money are their students paying for tuition to attend a school that can't get one Supreme Court justice to agree with an argument?
It's pretty pathetic, I think.
The Associated Press, via Yahoo News, has a story that probably won't be linkable for long. This story has some interesting tidbits:
1. "Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money." Gotta love that. It ties in nicely with my Article 1, Section 12 comment above.
2. "Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for the challengers of the law, said that the case called attention to the military policy. 'A silver lining to the Supreme Court's opinion is the court made it clear,' he said, 'law schools are free to organize protests.'" Well, duh. Of course they are. That is a 1st Amendment freedom. And what military policy did this case call attention to, "don't ask, don't tell"? That's been around for a dozen or so years; anyone who pays attention knows about that policy.
Yes, I'm doing a Happy Dance over the outcome of this case. Lefties will most certainly want to call me a homophobe because of it--lefties are good at name-calling. I'm certainly not a homophobe, and I'm not even sure if I agree with the prohibition against gays' serving--I go back and forth on that issue. I certainly understand both sides of that debate and believe that eventually gays, like blacks and women before them, will eventually serve openly in integrated units. My happy dance is from watching a bunch of holier-than-thou, ivory tower liberals make fools of themselves on a national stage and get slapped down in the process.
Update, 3/7/06 6:39 am: Here's a take from the Volokh Conspiracy, perhaps the biggest lawblog around. I love this comment, quoted by Volokh from the Powerline blog and attributed to the dean of the George Mason Law School:
Yes!
Update #2, 3/7/06 1:28 pm: CNN has finally published a rather slanted story on the topic.
Update #3, 3/11/06 7:44 am: Howard Bashman at Law.com claims that we shouldn't be so hard on the litigants.
He then makes a few points, none of which is especially strong in my opinion--but they are perhaps stronger than FAIR's points in the case (which isn't saying much). Sorry, I can't resist the digs at those people. Anyway, Bashman's a law guy, so read his column if you're interested.
I've previously written about this case here, here, and here; here's a FoxNews story about the case. I just looked briefly and didn't see a similar story on CNN.com at all, but then again I only looked in the Law section of their web page so they may have filed a story elsewhere.
Put simply, a law (the Solomon Amendment) says that schools that accept federal money (student loans, research money, grants, etc) are required to allow military recruiters on their campuses. Several law schools at some prestigious universities didn't want to allow military recruiters because--or at least this is the reason they're giving--the military doesn't allow homosexuals to serve openly. They filed suit against the Secretary of Defense. I give a little more detail in the 2nd link, above.
A few points, most of which I've made before:
1. They're targeting the wrong people. Banning homosexuals isn't a Defense Department policy, it's a Congressional mandate. They should ban members of Congress, not members of the military.
2. "Don't ask, don't tell" was promulgated by the previous President, not the current one.
3. The schools argued that their 1st Amendment rights to free association were being violated by having to allow recruiters on campus. This belief was shot down thoroughly; they don't have to allow recruiters, but they don't have to accept federal dollars, either.
4. The feds argued that Congress can and should be allowed to attach strings to money, and the Court upheld that view. However, a stronger case can be made by going directly to the Constitution. Article 1, Section 12 explicitly gives Congress the authority to "raise and support armies", and Section 13 gives Congress the authority to "provide and maintain a navy". Clearly, recruiting falls within the realm of raising, supporting, providing, and maintaining military forces.
So the law schools who brought this case have now lost 8-0. Think about that for a moment. Some of our most prestigious law schools, from some of our most prestigious (Ivy League) universities, had arguments that were so weak that they could not sway a single Supreme Court justice to side with them. I'm just wondering here, prestigious or not, how good are these schools? How much money are their students paying for tuition to attend a school that can't get one Supreme Court justice to agree with an argument?
It's pretty pathetic, I think.
The Associated Press, via Yahoo News, has a story that probably won't be linkable for long. This story has some interesting tidbits:
1. "Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money." Gotta love that. It ties in nicely with my Article 1, Section 12 comment above.
2. "Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for the challengers of the law, said that the case called attention to the military policy. 'A silver lining to the Supreme Court's opinion is the court made it clear,' he said, 'law schools are free to organize protests.'" Well, duh. Of course they are. That is a 1st Amendment freedom. And what military policy did this case call attention to, "don't ask, don't tell"? That's been around for a dozen or so years; anyone who pays attention knows about that policy.
Yes, I'm doing a Happy Dance over the outcome of this case. Lefties will most certainly want to call me a homophobe because of it--lefties are good at name-calling. I'm certainly not a homophobe, and I'm not even sure if I agree with the prohibition against gays' serving--I go back and forth on that issue. I certainly understand both sides of that debate and believe that eventually gays, like blacks and women before them, will eventually serve openly in integrated units. My happy dance is from watching a bunch of holier-than-thou, ivory tower liberals make fools of themselves on a national stage and get slapped down in the process.
Update, 3/7/06 6:39 am: Here's a take from the Volokh Conspiracy, perhaps the biggest lawblog around. I love this comment, quoted by Volokh from the Powerline blog and attributed to the dean of the George Mason Law School:
This is really a stinging rebuke, not only to FAIR but to an entire industry that has become complacent and self-indulgent. Many law professors really do believe, with the late Justice Brennan, that their own strongly-held policy preferences are all encoded somehow in the Constitution. This is a timely reminder that it just isn’t so.
Yes!
Update #2, 3/7/06 1:28 pm: CNN has finally published a rather slanted story on the topic.
Update #3, 3/11/06 7:44 am: Howard Bashman at Law.com claims that we shouldn't be so hard on the litigants.
Notwithstanding the 8–0 trouncing that FAIR's arguments received at the hands of the Supreme Court, it strikes me as a bit unfair to argue that the outcome calls into question the professional qualifications of those liberal law professors who devised and backed the Solomon Amendment litigation.
He then makes a few points, none of which is especially strong in my opinion--but they are perhaps stronger than FAIR's points in the case (which isn't saying much). Sorry, I can't resist the digs at those people. Anyway, Bashman's a law guy, so read his column if you're interested.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Mark Steyn on the Patriot Act
The only thing better than reading Steyn's columns is hearing him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show on Thursday afternoons. Here's his latest, at the beginning of which he discusses the Patriot Act:
I had to sign a tedious business contract the other day. They wanted my corporation number -- fair enough -- plus my Social Security number -- well, if you insist -- and also my driver's license number -- hang on, what's the deal with that?
Well, we e-mailed over a query and they e-mailed back that it was a requirement of the Patriot Act. So we asked where exactly in the Patriot Act could this particular requirement be found and, after a bit of a delay, we got an answer.
And on discovering that there was no mention of driver's licenses in that particular subsection, I wrote back that we have a policy of reporting all erroneous invocations of the Patriot Act to the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds that such invocations weaken the rationale for the act, and thereby undermine public support for genuine anti-terrorism measures and thus constitute a threat to America's national security.
And about 10 minutes after that the guy sent back an e-mail saying he didn't need the driver's license number after all.
Doesn't that sound just like "the research" that's often quoted in education circles but just as often doesn't exist?
Free Speech and Sensitivity
This is what happens when you let sensitivity to someone's feeeeeeelings become a higher principle than the freedom of speech.
Read the whole thing.
Much of Europe has painted itself into a corner on the censorship issue. What can Norway say to pro-censorship Muslims when it already has a hate speech law forbidding, among other things, "publicly stirring up one part of the population against another," or any utterance that "threatens, insults or subjects to hatred, persecution or contempt any person or group of persons because of their creed, race, color or national or ethnic origin ... or homosexual bent"? No insulting utterances at all? Since most strong opinions can be construed as insulting (hurting someone's feelings), no insults means no free speech...
Many nations have set themselves up for Muslim complaints by adopting the unofficial slogan of the West's chattering classes: Multiculturalism trumps free speech. Sensitivity and equality are viewed as so important that the individual right to speak out is routinely eclipsed. (emphasis mine--Darren) Naturally enough, Muslims want to play the same victim game as other aggrieved groups. The French Council of Muslims says it is considering taking France Soir, which reprinted the Danish cartoons, to court for provocation.
Read the whole thing.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
More Than 30 Years Later, This Is All We've Improved?
I'm disappointed in this "return to the moon" plan by NASA. Haven't we progressed yet to the point where we can actually land a real ship on the moon?
Apparently not.
NASA likens this program to "Apollo on steroids." And that's all it is. Take Apollo, make it a little bigger, and add some more modern technology. I guess I just expected more.
Update, 3/7/06: I know this wasn't designed to go to the moon, but it is more like what I had in mind. A real ship.
Apparently not.
NASA likens this program to "Apollo on steroids." And that's all it is. Take Apollo, make it a little bigger, and add some more modern technology. I guess I just expected more.
Update, 3/7/06: I know this wasn't designed to go to the moon, but it is more like what I had in mind. A real ship.
Not The First Time I've Been Told This
| Your Personality Is |
You are sensible, down to earth, and goal oriented. Bottom line, you are good at playing by the rules. You tend to be dominant - and you are a natural leader. You are interested in rules and order. Morals are important to you. A hard worker, you give your all at whatever you do. You're very serious, and people often tell you to lighten up. In love, you tend to take things carefully and slowly. At work, you are suited to almost any career - but you excel in leadership positions. With others, you tend to be polite and formal. As far as looks go, you are traditionally attractive. You take good care of yourself. On weekends, you tend to like to do organized activities. In fact, you often organize them! |
A Leftie "Infiltrates" UC Irvine Discussion
Go here to read about the leftie who felt dirty after "infiltrating" a discussion about radical Islam's threat to the world. He stayed silent in fear.
Apparently, Republicans and other assorted right-wingers in Irvine are known to cut off heads, burn effigies, torch cars, destroy embassies, set off bombs in neighborhoods, and fly airplanes into buildings.
The comments are as entertaining as the idiot himself was. Comment #33 is one I often make about lefties.
Update, 3/4/06 12:44 pm: Link is fixed now. Sorry!
Apparently, Republicans and other assorted right-wingers in Irvine are known to cut off heads, burn effigies, torch cars, destroy embassies, set off bombs in neighborhoods, and fly airplanes into buildings.
The comments are as entertaining as the idiot himself was. Comment #33 is one I often make about lefties.
Update, 3/4/06 12:44 pm: Link is fixed now. Sorry!
Different Views About Hurricane Katrina
Seldom do I see this--a blogger publishes a post, and the large majority of the comments excoriate the author! Often blogs are communal backslapping sessions; someone visits a blog because they like the blogger's slant, wit, or excessively good looks (that's why people come here, I'm sure), so many comments are of the "I agree" and "Me, too" variety.
Not so in this post.
Not so in this post.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Socialized Medicine in California
This is among my greatest fears:
Lefties will always ignore the facts because results don't matter to them. Only feeeeeeeling good matters to them. This is probably worse even than Meathead's universal preschool idea.
A plan to outlaw private health insurance in California has been proposed by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles). Senator Kuehl's bill, SB840, proposes to create the California Health Insurance Agency, a state government run single payer system for financing the health care of all Californians. Her bill, if enacted, would abolish all private health insurance in the Golden State. Her legislation essentially aims to replicate the system of socialized medicine in Canada which, until a recent court ruling in Quebec, made all private health care illegal. Her health care proposal is more authoritarian than the health care systems in the United Kingdom or Germany in which citizens can buy private insurance if they so choose.
Remarkably, Kuehl's proposal to socialize California's health care is being made just at the time when the Canadian system it resembles is falling apart at the seams....
Looking at the fine print, you find that Kuehl's government-run single payer system will be cheaper because it will actually ration health care. In other words, decisions about what treatments will be available to Californians and when they will become available will be in the hands of government health care bureaucrats....Kuehl plans to finance the California Health Insurance Agency through a dedicated payroll tax in which employers would pay 8.2 percent and workers would pay 3.8 percent. And when the system runs short of money, as it inevitably will, the new health bureaucracy will impose cost control measures that include the "postponement of introduction of new benefits or benefit improvements; a temporary decrease in benefits; a postponement of planned capital expenditures, and limitations on aggregate reimbursements to manufacturers of pharmaceutical and durable and nondurable medical equipment." Translation: California health care bureaucrats, not doctors or patients, will be deciding what new treatments will be offered; what new hospitals and laboratories will be built; and what new drugs and new biomedical technologies will be permitted in the state.
Today, as the Canadian health care system implodes, more and more Canadians are seeking private medical care across the border in the United States.
Lefties will always ignore the facts because results don't matter to them. Only feeeeeeeling good matters to them. This is probably worse even than Meathead's universal preschool idea.
Jackie Goldberg--Not The Superintendent that LA Unified Needs
Jill Stewart writes an interesting piece about the so-called progressive education fads that sank California's academic performance--and how they'll be back with a vengeance if Jackie Goldberg has her way.
And she's the most-talked about replacement for Roy Romer as head of the state's largest and perhaps most dysfunctional school district?
And she's the most-talked about replacement for Roy Romer as head of the state's largest and perhaps most dysfunctional school district?
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The Tuskegee Airmen
Events like this one are good:
Today it's right and just to remember the sacrifices and efforts of those men, the Tuskegee Airmen, who served a country that called them niggers. I take nothing from their service.
I have a bad taste in my mouth about one particular Tuskegee Airman, though. I can never hear about this organization without my mind racing back to that day in the early-to-mid-1990's, when I used to be a volunteer docent at the Western Aerospace Museum at the Oakland, California airport. One weekend the museum had an event that honored the Tuskegee Airmen, and I considered it an honor to get to sit and talk to some of those men. One said something so vile to me that I've never forgotten it. I'll paraphrase most of it, but that which is in boldface is his exact quote.
I've long since forgotten that man's name. I wonder if he's ever recognized the irony of his own bigotry.
I haven't let him color my view of the Tuskegee Airmen as a whole, of course. But my memory of this man serves as a reminder that they were not demi-gods but were men, with all the imperfections that come with that title.
The Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw called the Depression/WWII generation, wasn't perfect. They suffered greatly and fought for a just cause, but they didn't do it with halos above their heads. Sometimes I need to be reminded of that, I guess. But I wish it wasn't this one man who reminds me of it.
400 to 0
New York Sun Editorial
March 2, 2006
That was the vote in the House of Representatives Tuesday night in favor of Rep. Charles Rangel's bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen. In a body known for its partisanship, it was a remarkable expression of national unity and consensus. As Mr. Rangel notes, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld - who Mr. Rangel has urged be impeached - released a letter urging members of Congress to support the initiative. "I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld on too many things. But when it comes to the Tuskegee Airmen we stand shoulder to shoulder," Mr. Rangel, a Democrat who represents Harlem, said in a press release.
Today it's right and just to remember the sacrifices and efforts of those men, the Tuskegee Airmen, who served a country that called them niggers. I take nothing from their service.
I have a bad taste in my mouth about one particular Tuskegee Airman, though. I can never hear about this organization without my mind racing back to that day in the early-to-mid-1990's, when I used to be a volunteer docent at the Western Aerospace Museum at the Oakland, California airport. One weekend the museum had an event that honored the Tuskegee Airmen, and I considered it an honor to get to sit and talk to some of those men. One said something so vile to me that I've never forgotten it. I'll paraphrase most of it, but that which is in boldface is his exact quote.
I didn't want to go to Europe. Germany didn't attack us. We shouldn't have been fighting there. Christians fighting Christians over Jews.
I've long since forgotten that man's name. I wonder if he's ever recognized the irony of his own bigotry.
I haven't let him color my view of the Tuskegee Airmen as a whole, of course. But my memory of this man serves as a reminder that they were not demi-gods but were men, with all the imperfections that come with that title.
The Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw called the Depression/WWII generation, wasn't perfect. They suffered greatly and fought for a just cause, but they didn't do it with halos above their heads. Sometimes I need to be reminded of that, I guess. But I wish it wasn't this one man who reminds me of it.
Bad Humor
In the last local union newsrag I received were a couple articles that had, as a keystone, complaining about the No Child Left Behind Act, known to us insiders as NCLB.
Try to follow me here.
One article was called Multicultural and Civic Education Go Hand in Hand, but Move to the Back in NCLB. Her argument seems to be that since NCLB doesn't require tests in social studies, it therefore devalues social studies education. From there she veers into multicultural education, with its twin pillars of "social justice" and "equity". Interestingly enough, I doubt she'd want my views on social justice and equity taught, but I've already written posts on those topics: just go to the search engine up at the top left of this page and type in either multicultural education or social justice if you're interested.
So where's the humor I mentioned in the title? Well, there's a parenthetical explanation after her title, one that's supposed to be a cute play on the NCLB abbreviation. Here's the full title:
Multicultural and Civic Education Go Hand in Hand, but Move to the Back in NCLB (Nascent Citizens Left Befuddled?)
Hahahahahaha! Isn't that funny????? I didn't think so either. If you want to be funny, your new anti-abbreviation needs to be easily understood, preferably pithy, and contain at least a grain of humor. You can't just make up something that has the same letters and then pat yourself on the back because of your amazing wit.
For starters, I had to think a moment about what nascent meant. It's not a word I use every day, so I had to think. And befuddled? Who uses that word? And the whole statement isn't even funny. Besides that, are our nascent citizens (I figured out she meant our students) really befuddled by the loss of our district's multicultural library? I'm thinking no.
She tried to be funny, but to use some baseball parlance, swing and a miss. She doesn't know she wasn't funny because she really didn't try hard enough to be funny.
No clue, lazy broad.
Try to follow me here.
One article was called Multicultural and Civic Education Go Hand in Hand, but Move to the Back in NCLB. Her argument seems to be that since NCLB doesn't require tests in social studies, it therefore devalues social studies education. From there she veers into multicultural education, with its twin pillars of "social justice" and "equity". Interestingly enough, I doubt she'd want my views on social justice and equity taught, but I've already written posts on those topics: just go to the search engine up at the top left of this page and type in either multicultural education or social justice if you're interested.
So where's the humor I mentioned in the title? Well, there's a parenthetical explanation after her title, one that's supposed to be a cute play on the NCLB abbreviation. Here's the full title:
Multicultural and Civic Education Go Hand in Hand, but Move to the Back in NCLB (Nascent Citizens Left Befuddled?)
Hahahahahaha! Isn't that funny????? I didn't think so either. If you want to be funny, your new anti-abbreviation needs to be easily understood, preferably pithy, and contain at least a grain of humor. You can't just make up something that has the same letters and then pat yourself on the back because of your amazing wit.
For starters, I had to think a moment about what nascent meant. It's not a word I use every day, so I had to think. And befuddled? Who uses that word? And the whole statement isn't even funny. Besides that, are our nascent citizens (I figured out she meant our students) really befuddled by the loss of our district's multicultural library? I'm thinking no.
She tried to be funny, but to use some baseball parlance, swing and a miss. She doesn't know she wasn't funny because she really didn't try hard enough to be funny.
No clue, lazy broad.
A Dumb School Rule
I enforce school rules. Even if the rule is one I myself wouldn't have made, I enforce the rules. Failure to enforce a rule breeds contempt for all the rules. If there's a rule you don't enforce, get rid of it.
Even when our school administration makes a rule that I think is silly or petty, I enforce the rule. I may not enforce it with a vengeance, but I'll tell the student that a rule is a rule and they need to correct whatever it is they're doing mucho pronto. Other teachers allow open violations of rules--personal music players in class, for instance--but I do not. Not enforcing rules undercuts the authority of our administrators, and since I don't ever want them to undercut my authority in front of students, I won't undercut theirs.
But the rule that came out today is so stupid, so lacking in logic, so ridiculous, that even I have to wonder if my own credibility as a thinking human would be diminished by enforcing this rule. It was published in our daily bulletin today: Due to their drug reference, shirts that display a snowman are not to be worn to school.
Did you catch that? Students cannot wear shirts with snowmen on them because someone has decided to make snowmen a drug reference. (Snowman, snow, cocaine--get it?)
Jokingly I note that the Christmas cartoon Frosty the Snowman, which can only be understood by someone under the influence of a hallucinogen, was made in 1969--the same year as Woodstock. See? It all ties together.
Of course, some students want to rebel and go buy snowman shirts and wear them tomorrow. I told them that if only a few of them, or even a few dozen of them, did that, all that would happen is they'd all get in trouble. No, if you want to protest a stupid rule, I said, you have to do it with intellect. Or satire. Or sarcasm, Or irony. Something that will make the makers of the rule embarrassed they ever created the rule in the first place.
Let's start with the obvious. The policy is that no shirt can have a snowman on it. Perhaps tomorrow snowmen should start popping up on pants, backpacks, caps, etc. Totally in compliance with the policy! Perhaps black armbands with snowmen on them with the saying, "Save Frosty". One student has already made me a sign that's hanging in my room. At the top it says "Say No to drugs", under that is a snowman, and under that is the "Save Frosty" statement that I so need to trademark.
Here's me at my most creative, though: Sell snow-cones on the quad at lunch and donate the proceeds to the Darfur refugees. Sell yummy frozen water to Save Frosty (tm), and help thirsty people in a desert in the process.
There's lots of snow in the mountains right now. Someone suggested that students should fill a pickup bed with snow and build a snowman in front of the main office. I like that idea, too.
Update, 3/3/06: Joanne Jacobs (see blogroll at left) links to this story and has an interesting idea of her own.
Even when our school administration makes a rule that I think is silly or petty, I enforce the rule. I may not enforce it with a vengeance, but I'll tell the student that a rule is a rule and they need to correct whatever it is they're doing mucho pronto. Other teachers allow open violations of rules--personal music players in class, for instance--but I do not. Not enforcing rules undercuts the authority of our administrators, and since I don't ever want them to undercut my authority in front of students, I won't undercut theirs.
But the rule that came out today is so stupid, so lacking in logic, so ridiculous, that even I have to wonder if my own credibility as a thinking human would be diminished by enforcing this rule. It was published in our daily bulletin today: Due to their drug reference, shirts that display a snowman are not to be worn to school.
Did you catch that? Students cannot wear shirts with snowmen on them because someone has decided to make snowmen a drug reference. (Snowman, snow, cocaine--get it?)
Jokingly I note that the Christmas cartoon Frosty the Snowman, which can only be understood by someone under the influence of a hallucinogen, was made in 1969--the same year as Woodstock. See? It all ties together.
Of course, some students want to rebel and go buy snowman shirts and wear them tomorrow. I told them that if only a few of them, or even a few dozen of them, did that, all that would happen is they'd all get in trouble. No, if you want to protest a stupid rule, I said, you have to do it with intellect. Or satire. Or sarcasm, Or irony. Something that will make the makers of the rule embarrassed they ever created the rule in the first place.
Let's start with the obvious. The policy is that no shirt can have a snowman on it. Perhaps tomorrow snowmen should start popping up on pants, backpacks, caps, etc. Totally in compliance with the policy! Perhaps black armbands with snowmen on them with the saying, "Save Frosty". One student has already made me a sign that's hanging in my room. At the top it says "Say No to drugs", under that is a snowman, and under that is the "Save Frosty" statement that I so need to trademark.
Here's me at my most creative, though: Sell snow-cones on the quad at lunch and donate the proceeds to the Darfur refugees. Sell yummy frozen water to Save Frosty (tm), and help thirsty people in a desert in the process.
There's lots of snow in the mountains right now. Someone suggested that students should fill a pickup bed with snow and build a snowman in front of the main office. I like that idea, too.
Update, 3/3/06: Joanne Jacobs (see blogroll at left) links to this story and has an interesting idea of her own.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Tired Of My Posts About San Francisco?
Go to the top left corner of this blog page and type San Francisco into the search engine. You'll see several posts dedicated to telling you why I can't stand that city. Do I need another reason? Probably not, but they gave me one anyway.
Is this really what the taxpayers of San Francisco think their city/county government should be doing, how those local government officials should be spending their time?
Is this really what the taxpayers of San Francisco think their city/county government should be doing, how those local government officials should be spending their time?
How I Spent My Afternoon
Pictures taken by Yours Truly.
She's as great in person as she is on her blog.
Joanne is the third fellow blogger I've met, after Miller Time and Polski3. It's a real treat to meet in person these people from my computer screen whose intellect and wit I value.
Carnival of Education
This week's is home at the EdWonks. Great roundup of stories from around the edusphere.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Yet Another Post On Universal Preschool
Among several posts I've written on this topic are this one from early last December and this one from a few days ago. Here we have a San Francisco Chronicle article on the topic. All tell you the same thing--that what Meathead (Rob Reiner) is proposing is bad for California.
Let's review what I said back in December, shall we?
Well, well, well. Today I received my California Educator magazine--apparently CTA hasn't yet figured out I'm no longer a union member and hence not entitled to their rag--and what's the topic of the issue? Three guesses, and the first two don't count! Cover story: Early Childhood Education, This Is Serious Business. Page 10 starts an article on Meathead's specific initiative. Oh, look what I read on page 12! "Other teachers expressed support for requiring credentials for preschool teachers...." If only I could read the stock market as easily as I can predict the CTA's take on things.
But wait, you touchy-feely libs will say. What's wrong with universal preschool? Probably nothing, but what is wrong here is the way it's funded--and the cost/benefit analysis is heavily weighted to the cost side.
Let's repeat what I previously quoted from Joanne Jacobs' blog:
Now let's see what the Chron says:
and
Today's major Sacramento newspaper has an interesting story on this subject as well.
What is it Archie said about Meathead? "Dead, from the neck up!"
Toss in Reiner's conflict of interest and potential legal trouble on this topic and you have an initiative that should be dead on arrival. Why is it still even in play?
Because too many people will think with their hearts and not their heads, just like they did on the stem cell initiative.
Update, 3/3/06: Joanne has more here.
Update #2, 3/5/06: Another informative essay here.
Let's review what I said back in December, shall we?
Rob Reiner, who is still a meathead after all these years, wants to tax rich people to pay for universal pre-school here in California. Think the CTA will have anything to say about this? Think they'll want credentialed teachers to run these preschools? Think these teachers will be compelled to cough up CTA dues?
Well, well, well. Today I received my California Educator magazine--apparently CTA hasn't yet figured out I'm no longer a union member and hence not entitled to their rag--and what's the topic of the issue? Three guesses, and the first two don't count! Cover story: Early Childhood Education, This Is Serious Business. Page 10 starts an article on Meathead's specific initiative. Oh, look what I read on page 12! "Other teachers expressed support for requiring credentials for preschool teachers...." If only I could read the stock market as easily as I can predict the CTA's take on things.
But wait, you touchy-feely libs will say. What's wrong with universal preschool? Probably nothing, but what is wrong here is the way it's funded--and the cost/benefit analysis is heavily weighted to the cost side.
Let's repeat what I previously quoted from Joanne Jacobs' blog:
Universal preschool would cost Californians $23 billion over the next 10 years, if Rob Reiner's Proposition 82 passes. But it won't close the learning gap for poor kids, warns Bruce Fuller, a Berkeley education and public policy professor. Currently, 64 percent of four-year-olds go to preschool; Reiner's plan would boost that only to 70 percent. Instead of directing public money at needy families, most of the dollars would go to provide free preschool to middle-class and wealthy parents. Any gains by poor children are likely to be lost when they enter substandard schools.
Now let's see what the Chron says:
If Reiner's initiative is approved in June, individuals making more than $400,000 a year ($800,000 for families) will face a 1.7 percent tax increase to raise $2.5 billion to finance three hours of free preschool a day for all of California's 4-year-olds -- even the 62 percent who already attend preschool without universal subsidies.
and
Again, let me remind you that this is the San Francisco Freakin' Chronicle saying these things.Will California's program enhance school readiness of children in its care and improve educational outcomes, one of the main arguments of child care advocates? Not if Quebec's experience is any indication.
Pierre Lefebvre, an economics professor at Universite du Quebec, has just completed a study comparing 4- to 5-year-olds in Quebec with kids elsewhere in Canada and found that Quebec kids have no better scores on the Peabody vocabulary test -- the most widely used indicator of school readiness...
Universal preschool sounds progressive, but actually has pernicious unintended consequences for the parents and children it seeks to help.
Today's major Sacramento newspaper has an interesting story on this subject as well.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, one of the state's leading Democrats, said Tuesday he is reconsidering his support for a June universal preschool ballot proposal in another blow to Rob Reiner's initiative campaign.The June initiative, Proposition 82, would increase income taxes on the state's wealthiest earners to raise $2.4 billion to pay for preschool for any family that wants it.
Perata, an Oakland Democrat, said he is concerned that the initiative lacks a "means test" and therefore would mostly benefit middle- and upper-middle class families in California. He also said there is no mandate for superintendents to use anything other than school districts, so community-based organizations serving ethnic communities may lose out.
What is it Archie said about Meathead? "Dead, from the neck up!"
Toss in Reiner's conflict of interest and potential legal trouble on this topic and you have an initiative that should be dead on arrival. Why is it still even in play?
Because too many people will think with their hearts and not their heads, just like they did on the stem cell initiative.
Update, 3/3/06: Joanne has more here.
Update #2, 3/5/06: Another informative essay here.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
The False Lure of Socialism
Dan Weintraub, blogger extraordinaire at the major Sacramento newspaper, had this to say earlier this week:
Universal health care
Here is my column for Tuesday, in which I ask why we don't want our employers to manage our food, housing and transportation purchases, but we think it is a good idea for them to decide how we get our health care. I also suggest that this relationship is a major reason we are more insecure about our next doctor visit than our next meal.
The PTA and the Teachers Union
From the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com site comes this commentary about the PTA its decline since essentially becoming a front for the teachers unions. Fair Use excerpts:
In "The Politics of the PTA" (2002), Charlene Haar explains that the PTA shifted its focus mainly because of its longstanding alliance with the National Education Association. Formed in 1857, the NEA once shared the parent group's concern for schoolchildren in such matters as school curriculum and the qualifications of public-school teachers. Indeed, in 1920, the National Congress felt so much in line with the NEA that it moved into the association's impressive Washington headquarters. Already allied with the teachers group on support for a "progressive" curriculum that would emphasize "life skills," the PTA would from then on curb its more general social programs and limit itself to matters directly affecting education.
Ms. Haar chronicles the major policies on which the two groups cooperated throughout the 20th century. Having begun as equals, the PTA gradually became the subservient partner. Both organizations refused to support the National Defense Education Act--passed in 1958 in the wake of the Soviet's launch of Sputnik--because, as Ms. Haar explains, it "provided funds for mathematics, science and other defense-related curricula but could not be used for teacher salaries."
By the 1960s, the PTA was known as "a coffee-and-cookies organization"--unquestioningly offering its seal of approval to the newly unionized NEA. It was the issue of teacher strikes, though, that dealt the reputation of the PTA its final blow. In 1961 the AFT, representing New York City's teachers, staged the nation's first citywide strike, and in 1968 Florida teachers followed with the first statewide strike. To avoid conflict, the PTA abandoned any pretense of independence and supported the walkouts.
A few years later, the PTA tagged along with the NEA, lobbying for a cabinet-level federal department of education. What followed were a series of legislative victories for the teachers unions. Among their outstanding lobbying successes, backed by the PTA, was the defeat of a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Moynihan in 1978 proposing a tax credit for as much as half of private-school tuition. In the aftermath, many parents began their exodus from the PTA, including a large number of Catholics whose tuition fees for parochial schools would have become less burdensome under the plan.
Today the PTA supports all of the union's positions, including increased federal funding for education and opposition to independent charter schools, to vouchers and to tuition tax credits for private and religious schools. This "parent" group lobbies for teachers to spend less time in the classroom and to have fewer supervisory responsibilities like lunchroom duty. Moreover, they want a pay scale for teachers that is based on seniority, not merit. In November, the PTA even helped to defeat California's Proposition 74, which called for limiting teacher tenure by extending the probation period for new teachers from two to five years, a proposal designed to give administrators more time to weed out bad instructors.
With polls indicating that the union label is a liability with the public, an arrangement has developed whereby the NEA provides needed financial support for the PTA, which in turn bolsters union positions at the grass-roots level. As one union official put it: "[T]he PTA has credibility . . . we always use the PTA as a front."
Proportional Reasoning and the Chicken Problem
University of Rochester math professor Ralph Raimi listened to a speaker who was pushing what we so-called traditionalists refer to as "fuzzy math". He wasn't impressed.
Read his account of the 6th grade math involved. See how his mathematical approach simplifies and organizes the problem so much more than the speaker's tripe. Even non-mathies will see that Raimi's approach is far superior.
I always tell my students (and their parents) that it's taken the best minds our human race has to offer a couple thousand years to develop the math we have today. It would be ridiculous, wasteful, and futile to expect a bunch of 14-year-olds (or however old) to invent this math on their own over the course of 9 school months. Instead, the school district pays me a moderate amount of money on the assumption that I know more math than anyone else in the room, and I'm expected to transfer that knowledge to the students. My primary method of pedagogy will not be putting kids in groups of 4 and having them invent the math that was invented centuries ago. I will teach the students. Parents love hearing this at Back To School Night.
Read his account of the 6th grade math involved. See how his mathematical approach simplifies and organizes the problem so much more than the speaker's tripe. Even non-mathies will see that Raimi's approach is far superior.
I always tell my students (and their parents) that it's taken the best minds our human race has to offer a couple thousand years to develop the math we have today. It would be ridiculous, wasteful, and futile to expect a bunch of 14-year-olds (or however old) to invent this math on their own over the course of 9 school months. Instead, the school district pays me a moderate amount of money on the assumption that I know more math than anyone else in the room, and I'm expected to transfer that knowledge to the students. My primary method of pedagogy will not be putting kids in groups of 4 and having them invent the math that was invented centuries ago. I will teach the students. Parents love hearing this at Back To School Night.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Free Speech and Hypocrisy--One View From San Francisco
Via RealClearPolitics.com I learn that The LA Times carried this op-ed by Catherine Siepp. Excerpts:
Sure, they're within their rights to sell whatever books they want. But hypocrisy runs like a river in that city.
The fascists of free speech
A FRIEND OF MINE took his young daughter to visit the famous City Lights bookstore in San Francisco, explaining to her that the place is important because years ago it sold books no other store would — even, perhaps especially, books whose ideas many people found offensive.
...
However, it did occur to him that perhaps the long-delayed English translation of Oriana Fallaci's new book, "The Force of Reason," might finally be available, and that because Fallaci's militant stance against Islamic militants offends so many people, a store committed to selling banned books would be the perfect place to buy it. So he asked a clerk if the new Fallaci book was in yet.
"No," snapped the clerk. "We don't carry books by fascists."
Now let's just savor the absurd details of this for a minute. City Lights has a long and proud history of supporting banned authors — owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti was indicted (and acquitted) for obscenity in 1957 for selling Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," and a photo at the bookstore showed Ferlinghetti proudly posing next to a sign reading "banned books."
Yet his store won't carry, of all people, Fallaci, who is not only being sued in Italy for insulting religion because of her latest book but continues to fight the good fight against those who think that the appropriate response to offensive books and cartoons is violent riots. It's particularly repugnant that someone who fought against actual fascism in World War II should be deemed a fascist by a snotty San Francisco clerk.
Strangest of all is the scenario of such a person disliking an author for defending Western civilization against radical Islam — when one of the first things those poor, persecuted Islamists would do, if they ever (Allah forbid) came to power in the United States, is crush suspected homosexuals like him beneath walls.
...
But, although "The Force of Reason" is expected to reach the U.S. this spring, a City Lights clerk said when I called that the store has no plans to carry anything by Fallaci.
"You're welcome to buy her book elsewhere, though," my friend was told helpfully when he visited. "Let's just say we don't have room for her here."
OK, let's just say that. But let's also say that one of the great paradoxes of our time is that two groups most endangered by political Islam, gays and women, somehow still find ways to defend it.
Sure, they're within their rights to sell whatever books they want. But hypocrisy runs like a river in that city.
The End of Soviet Communism
Here is an excellent post about the beginning of the end of Soviet communism. This particular post puts that starting point not in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but in 1956, when Krushchev gave a speech about the horrors perpetrated by Stalin. I don't know whether or not this view would be substantiated by mainstream historians, but I enjoyed it anyway.
I loved this comment about lefties, though:
As I've said before, lefties never let facts get in the way.
I loved this comment about lefties, though:
I was a radical leftist in the '60's when I woke up to the realization that our own homegrown Left/Liberals are of exactly the same ilk as the Soviets and ChiComs. Remember the shock and awe when Alexander Solzhenytsin got "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and "The Gulag Archipelago" published? I'll never forget the look on the faces of my com-symp friends when they read, or even heard word of, those works. These people are festering and fulminating here at home, even as we speak, as I think all of you are aware. They're disguised now as Environmentalists, Progressives, and New Agers, but there are many subsets, too.I suspect this is a latent disease, like cancer, that has always lurked in the human psyche: The mob that brought down the Roman Republic; the hierarchy of the Catholic Church - which brought on the Protestant Reformation; the "levelers" of Cromwell's England; the Directory of the French Revolution; Karl Marx's loyal followers; the 'Wobblies' here in America; and so on.
Any mass of people who have looked inside themselves and seen only a gaping chasm of emptiness (no talents, no conscience, no empathy) will come to believe that violent theft from productive members of society is the only path for their survival. So they believe, and they may be correct, that they won't survive without a scheme, or scam, or a hybrid of the two: a customized religion, just for them.
As I've said before, lefties never let facts get in the way.
I Lost A Comment
Someone posted a comment, which I approved but now cannot find, about a child who's struggled with Algebra 1 in junior high and Geometry in 9th grade and is concerned about the two-year math requirement in high school--meaning the child will take Algebra II. I think I have the facts straight here.
If you'd post your comment/question again, please, I'll note which post it belongs to and address it adequately.
I apologize for the screw-up.
If you'd post your comment/question again, please, I'll note which post it belongs to and address it adequately.
I apologize for the screw-up.
Friday, February 24, 2006
What Has Happened To The Republican Party
As a fan of Star Trek, I know there's nothing worse than a "warp core breach". This happens when the matter/anti-matter interaction that powers Enterprise gets out of hand and "superheats" (to put it in early 21st century terminology) to the point where the core (think carburetor or perhaps cylinders in a car engine) will actually explode. There's not much you can do if a breach is imminent except to eject the core from the ship and try to get far enough away to avoid the damage when it does in fact explode.
Sometimes I wonder if the Republican Party isn't headed towards a warp core breach.
I'm almost done with an amazing book called The Right Nation: Conservative Power In America. Written by two Brits who don't seem to have a dog in this fight, it chronicles and explains the conservative undercurrent that exists in this country. Here's a fair comment from the linked Amazon review:
Totally agree. The only word missing is "Tocquevillean", a term which would certainly apply.
I've often had a hard time wondering how small-government conservatives could, in the next breath, care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. This book explained it to me. But before I explain it to you, allow me to relate the following "Ask Amy" column. I'll assume the writer is a conservative, probably Republican, based on her location and actions. Yes, I'm stereotyping here, and I'd like to be wrong and find out the woman is on the boards of both the ACLU and Amnesty International, but my fear is she's more likely a member of Focus On The Family.
ASK AMY
Amy answers the question the way I would:
The Right Nation authors separate the Republican Party into two wings, working independently of each other while still operating under a big tent. One wing is the Southern Wing, the social and religious conservatives; the other was the Western Wing, the small-government, individualist conservatives. During the Reagan years, this so-called Western Wing was prominent. However, the Southern Wing is now ascendant--see the Ask Amy column above. This social conservatism explains how a Republican presidential administration can spend (non-defense) money faster than a drunken sailor in an Asian port.
The Right Nation authors have a chapter called How It Could Go Wrong: Too Southern, Too Greedy and Too Contradictory. I've already highlighted "the Southern problem". The greed is exemplified by the need to have a Porkbusters group. Power corrupts, and all that rot. Too contradictory? Toss in tensions between libertarians and traditionalists, and between religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives, and you've got injection manifolds that are frozen in the full-open position. For you non-Trekkers, that means we've got the makings of a warp core breach. And that's bad.
I support President Bush's foreign initiatives. He's an excellent leader in the Global War on Terror. Honestly, I'm glad he's at the helm. However, it won't do us any good to revere the captain when the Enterprise is torn apart by a matter/anti-matter explosion. When that happens, it's bad. Very, very bad. Think Republicans-in-the-election-of-1964 bad. Think Michael Dukakis bad.
Federalizing airport screeners by creating the TSA, the most useless government agency this side of the levee boards in New Orleans. Prescription drug benefit fiasco. These are not good. Not warp core breach bad, but pretty bad.
Harriett Miers. The Dubai port deal. The war in Iraq. How many times in the last 5 years have we heard that the President has good proposals, he just needs to get out there and sell them to the American public? I'm sick of hearing it. You'd think that someone in the White House--maybe even the big guy himself--would get a clue and start doing this. But no. Instead, they wait until there's a crisis of confidence in the country, often inflamed by a hostile media, and then try to play catch-up.
The economy is humming right along, the War on Terror is proceeding, Iraq isn't a rose garden but its institutions as well as its infrastructure are being built before our very eyes--or they would be before our eyes if the press would actually cover them. These are positives. But I haven't heard from the President since his State of the Union address.
Sometimes it seems to me that the Administration is on autopilot. Unfortunately, that autopilot has no setting for "make sure the American people are behind this" or "the public may not understand this, or if they do understand it they may not stay behind it unless they're repeatedly encouraged to do so". I'm reminded of all my lessons about leadership and being in charge--follow-up is key. This administration does not do the required follow-up with the American people, and it does so to its peril. Well, maybe not to its peril, since it's going to be around for 3 more years no matter what, but to the peril of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
What happened to social security reform? What happened to immigration reform?
What has happened to my Republican Party? How do we bring the Western Wing back to the forefront?
To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel:
Where have you gone, Ronald Reagan
The nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Woo woo woo.
Update, the next morning: I finished the book after typing this post, and came across a glimmer of hope. Perhaps I shouldn't hope for continued Republican control of both the White House and the Congress--maybe the House should switch back to the Democrats for a couple years, just to slap some reality into the Republicans. They were a much better minority party than they are today. Perhaps a couple years in the desert will bring about a purification.
But here's the glimmer of hope. From page 383:
Pretty much sums up the libs to me.
Update #2, and it's still morning: The BBC gives the Republicans more cause for hope.
Update #3, 2/27/06 6:54 am: Here's an article in The Nation that says pretty much the same thing I did.
Sometimes I wonder if the Republican Party isn't headed towards a warp core breach.
I'm almost done with an amazing book called The Right Nation: Conservative Power In America. Written by two Brits who don't seem to have a dog in this fight, it chronicles and explains the conservative undercurrent that exists in this country. Here's a fair comment from the linked Amazon review:
My fear is that people will see it as just one more "exposé" of the evil right-wingers and their malevolent influence on the country.If that's what you're looking for, you're bound to be disappointed. This is, in fact, a thoroughly researched and marvelously fair look at the rise of conservatism as a political force in America. More than that, it's a fascinating look at why America is a fundamentally conservative place, and why even liberal Democrats -- on the far Left by U.S. standards -- would be centrists, or even conservatives themselves, in Europe. While this last may be an unpleasant idea for the American Left to have to entertain, even readers on that side of the political spectrum will find a lot in here to recommend it.
Totally agree. The only word missing is "Tocquevillean", a term which would certainly apply.
I've often had a hard time wondering how small-government conservatives could, in the next breath, care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. This book explained it to me. But before I explain it to you, allow me to relate the following "Ask Amy" column. I'll assume the writer is a conservative, probably Republican, based on her location and actions. Yes, I'm stereotyping here, and I'd like to be wrong and find out the woman is on the boards of both the ACLU and Amnesty International, but my fear is she's more likely a member of Focus On The Family.
ASK AMY
Monday, February 20, 2006; C12
Dear Amy:
My husband and I have lived in our quiet suburban Denver neighborhood for six years.
About two years ago two young gay men moved in across the street. They've taken the ugliest, most run-down property in the neighborhood and remodeled and transformed it into the pride of the street.
When it snows, they shovel out my car and are friendly, yet they mostly keep to themselves.
Last month I went out to retrieve my newspaper and watched them kiss each other goodbye and embrace as they each left for work.
I was appalled that they would do something like that in plain view of everyone.
I was so disturbed that I spoke to my pastor. He encouraged me to draft a letter telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood.
I did so and asked a few of our neighbors to sign it.
Since I delivered it, I've not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation.
I offer greetings but they've chosen to ignore me.
They have made it so uncomfortable for the other neighbors and me by not even acknowledging our presence.
How would you suggest we open communications with them and explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior.
Amy answers the question the way I would:
You're lucky that these gentlemen merely choose to ignore you.
Your neighbors could respond to your hospitality by hosting weekly outdoor "gay pride" barbecues and inviting all of their friends to enjoy life on our quiet suburban street.
I can hold out hope that they will choose to do this, but I'm spiteful in that way. Your neighbors sound much more kind.
In your original petition to these men, you basically stated that while you value them when they are raising the standard on your street and shoveling your driveway, you loathe them for being who they are.
The only way to open communication with your neighbors would be to start by apologizing to them for engaging your other neighbors in your campaign. Because you don't sound likely to apologize, you are just going to have to tolerate being ignored.
The Right Nation authors separate the Republican Party into two wings, working independently of each other while still operating under a big tent. One wing is the Southern Wing, the social and religious conservatives; the other was the Western Wing, the small-government, individualist conservatives. During the Reagan years, this so-called Western Wing was prominent. However, the Southern Wing is now ascendant--see the Ask Amy column above. This social conservatism explains how a Republican presidential administration can spend (non-defense) money faster than a drunken sailor in an Asian port.
The Right Nation authors have a chapter called How It Could Go Wrong: Too Southern, Too Greedy and Too Contradictory. I've already highlighted "the Southern problem". The greed is exemplified by the need to have a Porkbusters group. Power corrupts, and all that rot. Too contradictory? Toss in tensions between libertarians and traditionalists, and between religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives, and you've got injection manifolds that are frozen in the full-open position. For you non-Trekkers, that means we've got the makings of a warp core breach. And that's bad.
I support President Bush's foreign initiatives. He's an excellent leader in the Global War on Terror. Honestly, I'm glad he's at the helm. However, it won't do us any good to revere the captain when the Enterprise is torn apart by a matter/anti-matter explosion. When that happens, it's bad. Very, very bad. Think Republicans-in-the-election-of-1964 bad. Think Michael Dukakis bad.
Federalizing airport screeners by creating the TSA, the most useless government agency this side of the levee boards in New Orleans. Prescription drug benefit fiasco. These are not good. Not warp core breach bad, but pretty bad.
Harriett Miers. The Dubai port deal. The war in Iraq. How many times in the last 5 years have we heard that the President has good proposals, he just needs to get out there and sell them to the American public? I'm sick of hearing it. You'd think that someone in the White House--maybe even the big guy himself--would get a clue and start doing this. But no. Instead, they wait until there's a crisis of confidence in the country, often inflamed by a hostile media, and then try to play catch-up.
The economy is humming right along, the War on Terror is proceeding, Iraq isn't a rose garden but its institutions as well as its infrastructure are being built before our very eyes--or they would be before our eyes if the press would actually cover them. These are positives. But I haven't heard from the President since his State of the Union address.
Sometimes it seems to me that the Administration is on autopilot. Unfortunately, that autopilot has no setting for "make sure the American people are behind this" or "the public may not understand this, or if they do understand it they may not stay behind it unless they're repeatedly encouraged to do so". I'm reminded of all my lessons about leadership and being in charge--follow-up is key. This administration does not do the required follow-up with the American people, and it does so to its peril. Well, maybe not to its peril, since it's going to be around for 3 more years no matter what, but to the peril of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
What happened to social security reform? What happened to immigration reform?
What has happened to my Republican Party? How do we bring the Western Wing back to the forefront?
To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel:
Where have you gone, Ronald Reagan
The nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Woo woo woo.
Update, the next morning: I finished the book after typing this post, and came across a glimmer of hope. Perhaps I shouldn't hope for continued Republican control of both the White House and the Congress--maybe the House should switch back to the Democrats for a couple years, just to slap some reality into the Republicans. They were a much better minority party than they are today. Perhaps a couple years in the desert will bring about a purification.
But here's the glimmer of hope. From page 383:
Nowadays, American liberalism has fragmented into two remnants: a collection of single-issue pressure groups (the teachers' unions, abortion rights activists, etc.) and an inchoate leftist protest movement, furious abou the Right Nation's advances.
Pretty much sums up the libs to me.
Update #2, and it's still morning: The BBC gives the Republicans more cause for hope.
So why is it that Democrats can't move on? The answer is that they don't know where to go.
Update #3, 2/27/06 6:54 am: Here's an article in The Nation that says pretty much the same thing I did.
Just The Fours
I've been tagged. For those of you who want to know a little bit about me, this is your chance.
Four Jobs I’ve Had
Army Officer
Sales Coordinator (inside sales)
Manufacturing Manager
Math Teacher
Four Movies I Can Watch Over and Over
Sky High
Patton
Crimson Tide
Ocean's 11 (Clooney/Pitt version)
Four Places I’ve Lived
California
New York state
Colorado Springs, Colorado
El Paso, Texas
Four TV Shows I Love
I don't watch TV anymore, except perhaps for World News Tonight.
I used to watch the Star Trek serieses (is that the correct plural), Friends, Scrubs, and others, but now? Nothing.
Four Places I’ve Vacationed
Baja California
Western Europe
British Columbia
Las Vegas
Four of My Favorite Foods
Pizza
Ice Cream
Roast Beef
Tacos
Four Blogs I Visit Daily
Instapundit
Joanne Jacobs
Newsalert
Little Green Footballs
Four Places I’d Rather Be Right Now
The Bahamas
London
Colorado Springs
On a ski slope
Coach Brown
EdWonk
Lillian Perry
(links for all of them are on the blogroll at left)
The Great Algebra Debate
I thought I had a fairly good reply to Richard Cohen's pathetic little screed against algebra. It turns out that Pharyngula's is even better (albeit not by much!). Here are some points:
And here are some of the comments:
Go read the whole thing. Truly entertaining and enlightening.
I'm sure that he has never once rued not being able to use algebra. If I had never heard a poem or listened to a symphony or read a novel or visited Independence Hall, I could probably dumbly write that I don't miss literature, music, or history…never heard of 'em. Don't need 'em. Bugger all you eggheads pushing your useless 'knowledge' on me!
That kind of foolish complacency is what we'd expect of the ignorant, but it takes the true arrogance of the stupid to insist that others don't need that knowledge…especially after you've dismissed the utility of algebra because they can just use calculators. What, Mr Cohen, you don't think the engineers who make calculators need algebra?
Yeah, a person can live a good, bland life without knowing much: eat, watch a little TV, fornicate now and then, bleat out opinions that the other contented consumers will praise. It's so easy.
Or we could push a little bit, stretch our minds, challenge ourselves intellectually, learn something new every day. We ought to expect that our public schools would give kids the basic tools to go on and learn more—skills in reading and writing, a general knowledge of their history and culture, an introduction to the sciences, and yes, mathematics as a foundation. Algebra isn't asking much. It's knowledge that will get kids beyond a future of stocking shelves at WalMart or pecking out foolish screeds on a typewriter.
And here are some of the comments:
So Cohen's argument seems to be "Algebra shouldn't be required for graduation from high school." I assume he's talking here about basic algebra, a class my brother and I passed in eigth grade and my sister passed in seventh. He's arguing that since not getting a high school diploma is bad, we should give diplomas to even those who don't pass algebra.
I feel that the same argument could be made about any class in high school. I don't use history in my everyday life, why not get rid of it? English? Nothing in my profession requires analysis of symbolism in literature, so why bother there? And on and on. At some point, we need to address the fact that a high school diploma should be indicitive of more than the ability to show up at 8:30 every morning. One of the many skills I'd hope students have learned is basic algebra - maybe they don't have to solve quadratic equations in their heads, but most students can use calculators in their classes these days anyway. If someone can't be bothered to put in the extra work required to pass a class they're struggling in, should they really get a diploma?
The more people that perpetuate the image that "I suck at math and succeeded in life" the worse math will be off for our younger generations. How can people imply that "I know less" is good? It's sending the completely wrong signal.
Go read the whole thing. Truly entertaining and enlightening.
ENIAC
ENIAC is considered the world's first computer. An amazing machine--primitive by today's standards. Then again, most things created in 1946 are primitive by today's standards. Sixty years of progress will do that to you.
Here's a very interesting post on ENIAC. It's from Photon Courier, which I'm proud to have on my blogroll.
I remember listening to a talk by Commodore (I love that rank) Grace Hopper, USN, for some class I took at West Point. I don't even remember which course. Anyway, Commodore Hopper talked about her work on ENIAC, a fascinating first-person story from a "little old lady" told as only a little old lady could. What I remember most about this talk was her description of a nanosecond. She couldn't grasp how small a timeframe a nanosecond was, so she calculated how far light (or electricity) would travel in a nanosecond. It came out to about 11.8", and she cut a wire that long to help her "see" a nanosecond. As we left the auditorium, she handed each of us a "nanosecond".
I've long since lost mine. Shame.
Here's a very interesting post on ENIAC. It's from Photon Courier, which I'm proud to have on my blogroll.
I remember listening to a talk by Commodore (I love that rank) Grace Hopper, USN, for some class I took at West Point. I don't even remember which course. Anyway, Commodore Hopper talked about her work on ENIAC, a fascinating first-person story from a "little old lady" told as only a little old lady could. What I remember most about this talk was her description of a nanosecond. She couldn't grasp how small a timeframe a nanosecond was, so she calculated how far light (or electricity) would travel in a nanosecond. It came out to about 11.8", and she cut a wire that long to help her "see" a nanosecond. As we left the auditorium, she handed each of us a "nanosecond".
I've long since lost mine. Shame.
Must A Private School Accept Students It Doesn't Want?
From CNN.com:
If the school receives state money, I can see the legitimacy of this lawsuit. You can't use state money to discriminate against people on the basis of race--unless you're implementing so-called affirmative action, in which you can discriminate on the basis of race if in doing so you benefit people whose skin color is the same as that of people who used to be discriminated against on the basis of race. That's a topic for a different post.
But these schools seem to have more money available to them than most small countries. The individualist Republican (as opposed to the religious Republican) in me asks: why shouldn't these schools be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want? Is this a free association issue? Or is there more at stake?
I invite readers to comment on why the schools should be required to accept non-Hawaiians if they don't want to.
HONOLULU, Hawaii (AP) -- A federal appeals court said Wednesday that it would reconsider a decision to strike down the Hawaiians-only admissions policy of a prestigious private school...
Kamehameha Schools was established under the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, and its three campuses are partly funded by a trust now worth $6.2 billion. More than 5,000 students are enrolled in elementary to high school classes on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.
If the school receives state money, I can see the legitimacy of this lawsuit. You can't use state money to discriminate against people on the basis of race--unless you're implementing so-called affirmative action, in which you can discriminate on the basis of race if in doing so you benefit people whose skin color is the same as that of people who used to be discriminated against on the basis of race. That's a topic for a different post.
But these schools seem to have more money available to them than most small countries. The individualist Republican (as opposed to the religious Republican) in me asks: why shouldn't these schools be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want? Is this a free association issue? Or is there more at stake?
I invite readers to comment on why the schools should be required to accept non-Hawaiians if they don't want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)