How many business telephone directories do you think are out there calling themselves "Yellow Pages", or some variation thereof?
I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.
For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.
Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.
So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."
Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.
Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The New Constitution
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
New Interpretation: Keep your religion to yourself, unless it's something besides Judaism and Christianity. Free exercise of religion means only in the privacy of your home and church (for now). Freedom of speech is to be respected, unless you're a Christian or Jew (especially one who supports Israel), a conservative talk show host, or Fox News. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be upheld, unless you are protesting abortion.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
New Interpretation: Militas are outmoded and irrelevant and guns kill people, so all firearms may be outlawed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
New Interpretation: Abuse those war-mongering soldiers and disrupt their funerals whenever possible.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
New Interpretation: This amendment now applies to enemies and terrorists overseas, who are being subjected to such unreasonable telephone wiretaps simply because they wish our country harm. Oh, and if the President is a Democrat, it's OK to perform unreasonable searches and seizures against Republicans (see Bill & Hillary Clinton, 1993-2000)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
New Interpretation: Private property may be taken for any use, public or private, with or without just compensation, at the discretion of the local authorities. (See Supreme Court of the United States, 2005)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
New Interpretation: Speedy trials can be construed as anything between 1 week and 20 years, especially when they involve Federal Special Prosecutors and Capital Murder cases.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
New Interpretation: The right is extended to that of defense attorneys hiring consultants to help them choose jury members most likely to return the verdict sought by the defense.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
New Interpretation: "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" has been redefined as imprisoning people more than one to a cell, failing to provide sumptuous meals, and requiring prisoners to work.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
New Interpretation: Except for religious freedom (See Amendment I). And Abortion (the "inalienable right to life ..." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
New Interpretation: HaHaHa, that's a good one! NOT. (See past 100 years of Presidents and Congresses)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Choices
I would submit that all of these choices are available to each of us:
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Monday, March 27, 2006
The United States of Mexico?
What exactly should we take from the massive demonstrations over the weekend, the largest in LA? Something close to a million latinos marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving Mexican flags to protest the move in Congress to crack down on illegal immigration was supposed to make the rest of legal citizens in the US more sensitive to the plight of illegals?
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Calm Before the Storm
Bought my airline ticket for next week, meaning I have one more week of relative boredom before kicking into high gear. The month of April is booked. And every week but one involves a plane trip to elsewhere: Mostly Canada and Nevada.
Which reminds me, I have one week to get a letter from somewhere that won't get me held up at the border when I go to Canada. Gives me a kind of funny thought - me, a US wetback crossing into Canada to take work from a Canadian. Makes me laugh.
The interesting thing about this turn of events is that I'm actually looking forward to a jam-packed schedule that takes me far away every week. There's even a possible trip to Botswana out there this summer sometime. Two years ago I was so sick of airports and hotels that I quit my job with the intention of never getting on a plane again, except maybe for vacation.
But lately I've been bored and restless. I find myself somewhat excited to get back on the road. Not to mention my discovery that the old gypsy lifestyle is a lot more lucrative, hour-for-hour, than what I am doing back home in Indiana.
So here's to late flights, overbooked hotels, stupid TSA drones, bad rental cars, middle seats in coach, obnoxious clients, lost luggage, and bad restaurants. After two years in exile, I have returned.
Which reminds me, I have one week to get a letter from somewhere that won't get me held up at the border when I go to Canada. Gives me a kind of funny thought - me, a US wetback crossing into Canada to take work from a Canadian. Makes me laugh.
The interesting thing about this turn of events is that I'm actually looking forward to a jam-packed schedule that takes me far away every week. There's even a possible trip to Botswana out there this summer sometime. Two years ago I was so sick of airports and hotels that I quit my job with the intention of never getting on a plane again, except maybe for vacation.
But lately I've been bored and restless. I find myself somewhat excited to get back on the road. Not to mention my discovery that the old gypsy lifestyle is a lot more lucrative, hour-for-hour, than what I am doing back home in Indiana.
So here's to late flights, overbooked hotels, stupid TSA drones, bad rental cars, middle seats in coach, obnoxious clients, lost luggage, and bad restaurants. After two years in exile, I have returned.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
I Apologize
I am so sorry. I've been blind, but now I see the light. I hereby declare that the days of my disrespect for the tenets of the theology of Political Correctness have ended.
I have much to apologize for, so let's get started:
I'm sorry for:
Supporting the Iraq War. I now understand that war is never justified. Only United Nations led "Peacekeeping" missions are an acceptable use of military force, and even then they should not be allowed to carry weapons. So I now understand that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction from oppressed Muslims, and if we just stop being the bullies of the world they will be our friends.
Respecting and Supporting the President. I'm sorry that I have been so blind as to miss that Bush is the most vile, evil President in the History of this country. Why, he's killing and torturing innocent people all over the world to enrich Halliburton. And he's starving and denying healthcare to millions of Americans. Sorry for not believing all of this simply because I haven't seen any evidence; I must trust the word of the priests of PC from now on. Impeach Bush Now!
Thinking the Gay lifestyle is immoral. How dare I apply Christian principles to judge anyone else's behavior. How outrageous for me to suggest that many in the Gay community are predators who lure young teens and impressionable college students into their "cause" by preying on their vulnerability and search for personal identity. How outrageous were my criticisms of those who have been knowingly spreading AIDS to multiple partners as if it were some sort of initiation.
Being a White Male Christian and Catholic. I am ashamed to be a member of the race and religion that has brutally suppressed so many people on this planet over the centuries. How could I live with myself to be associated with such repressive, judgemental, oppressive, polluting, and insensitive groups. We should all be rounded up and executed or imprisoned.
Being Rich. Until now, I never thought of myself as rich. I have a modest house in the country, drive a 7-year-old SUV, and my wife drives an 11-year-old minivan. But according to those who know, I'm unfairly wealthy. It's so unfair that I work all these hours to earn money when others who don't work only get the 50 percent of my earnings that the government took to redistribute to them. I now understand that I'm not paying my fair share. I deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for my insensitivity and unwillingness to share more of my money with those more deserving of it than me.
Underpaying Taxes. How could I have been so callous as to express frustration with the fact that the government takes nearly half of everything I earn in taxes. I didn't understand that the government is much better qualified to spend my money than I. It's the American Way to freely give up half my earnings to the government so they can give it to others who are more deserving.
Opposing Abortion. I'm a man. How can a man possibly understand the issue of abortion? I should butt out and leave the decisions up to women, who are the only ones qualified to make such decisions. What a horrible person I've been to be outraged and call "barbaric" the current practice of killing a full-term infant right before delivery by sticking a syringe into it's cranium and extracting the brain matter so the dead baby can then be fully delivered and disposed of. I've been so judgemental in believing that it might be immoral to kill an unborn baby just because one got pregnant by accident. So I now understand that it's none of my business, and it's wrong for me to judge any woman for a decision she makes about her own body.
Opposing Illegal Immigration. How racist of me to believe it unfair to legal immigrants that we allow millions of people to sneak into the country from Mexico. How stingy to suggest that the massive influx of illegals is bankrupting our social and healthcare services, making life worse for legal taxpaying citizens. How misguided my belief that all manner of criminals, gang members, drug runners, and maybe even terrorists could be sneaking across the border along with the poor people just looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
So you see, I understand now, and have bowed to the altar of Political Correctness. Anyone care to join me?
I have much to apologize for, so let's get started:
I'm sorry for:
Supporting the Iraq War. I now understand that war is never justified. Only United Nations led "Peacekeeping" missions are an acceptable use of military force, and even then they should not be allowed to carry weapons. So I now understand that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction from oppressed Muslims, and if we just stop being the bullies of the world they will be our friends.
Respecting and Supporting the President. I'm sorry that I have been so blind as to miss that Bush is the most vile, evil President in the History of this country. Why, he's killing and torturing innocent people all over the world to enrich Halliburton. And he's starving and denying healthcare to millions of Americans. Sorry for not believing all of this simply because I haven't seen any evidence; I must trust the word of the priests of PC from now on. Impeach Bush Now!
Thinking the Gay lifestyle is immoral. How dare I apply Christian principles to judge anyone else's behavior. How outrageous for me to suggest that many in the Gay community are predators who lure young teens and impressionable college students into their "cause" by preying on their vulnerability and search for personal identity. How outrageous were my criticisms of those who have been knowingly spreading AIDS to multiple partners as if it were some sort of initiation.
Being a White Male Christian and Catholic. I am ashamed to be a member of the race and religion that has brutally suppressed so many people on this planet over the centuries. How could I live with myself to be associated with such repressive, judgemental, oppressive, polluting, and insensitive groups. We should all be rounded up and executed or imprisoned.
Being Rich. Until now, I never thought of myself as rich. I have a modest house in the country, drive a 7-year-old SUV, and my wife drives an 11-year-old minivan. But according to those who know, I'm unfairly wealthy. It's so unfair that I work all these hours to earn money when others who don't work only get the 50 percent of my earnings that the government took to redistribute to them. I now understand that I'm not paying my fair share. I deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for my insensitivity and unwillingness to share more of my money with those more deserving of it than me.
Underpaying Taxes. How could I have been so callous as to express frustration with the fact that the government takes nearly half of everything I earn in taxes. I didn't understand that the government is much better qualified to spend my money than I. It's the American Way to freely give up half my earnings to the government so they can give it to others who are more deserving.
Opposing Abortion. I'm a man. How can a man possibly understand the issue of abortion? I should butt out and leave the decisions up to women, who are the only ones qualified to make such decisions. What a horrible person I've been to be outraged and call "barbaric" the current practice of killing a full-term infant right before delivery by sticking a syringe into it's cranium and extracting the brain matter so the dead baby can then be fully delivered and disposed of. I've been so judgemental in believing that it might be immoral to kill an unborn baby just because one got pregnant by accident. So I now understand that it's none of my business, and it's wrong for me to judge any woman for a decision she makes about her own body.
Opposing Illegal Immigration. How racist of me to believe it unfair to legal immigrants that we allow millions of people to sneak into the country from Mexico. How stingy to suggest that the massive influx of illegals is bankrupting our social and healthcare services, making life worse for legal taxpaying citizens. How misguided my belief that all manner of criminals, gang members, drug runners, and maybe even terrorists could be sneaking across the border along with the poor people just looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
So you see, I understand now, and have bowed to the altar of Political Correctness. Anyone care to join me?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Math Morons
Why do American students stink in Math?
This might have something to do with it:
The article this came from says that the teachers unions believe the solution to the problem is higher salaries for teachers.
I believe everybody is missing the larger points. While I'd certainly agree that teacher competence in the subject area is critically important, addressing that problem alone will do little to solve the problem.
Even highly competent Math teachers can't produce better results if they are imprisoned in a system that tolerates mediocrity, places "self-esteem" above results, and punishes teachers for setting high standards.
Let's say your local High School has on its faculty the best Math teacher in America. He has advanced degrees in Mathematics, along with the unique ability to make his classes interesting and challenging for his students.
But to really excel, he knows that Math education requires effort and attention from students. Not an extreme effort; merely the expectation that each student complete a daily assignment of between 1 and 2 hours. Without this daily homework practice, students cannot possibly absorb the material as they must to advance in the subject.
Inevitably, students complain to their parents that the teacher is unfairly loading them down with homework. Parents complain to administrators that the Math teacher is unfairly assigning too heavy a homework burden on their children. The parents are even more perturbed that their children are suddenly receiving C's in Math, when they have always been given A's in the past. Local activists petition the School Board to censure the teacher, because minority students are unable to complete assignments and are therefore failing his Math classes. And the High School coaches complain to the administration that their star players are in danger of becoming academically ineligible because they are failing his Math class.
What happens next? The Math Teacher is summoned to the Principal's office, where he is given a choice: He can either lower his standards so that 95% of his students pass the class, or he can be reassigned to teaching in the Learning Disabled program and become the Detention Supervisor and Lunchroom Supervisor. (We'll assume he is tenured, so they can't fire him.)
The result: A disillusioned Math Teacher who may no longer challenge his students to excellence, but must accept mediocrity and pass nearly everyone. He marks the rest of his teaching career by doing his best to teach and inspire students who don't want to be inspired and giving away inflated grades to students who never really learned the subject matter. If he's lucky, he finds a way to be encouraged by the handful of truly motivated and talented students who pay attention in class and absorb what they need from him to succeed in College.
So if you think increasing the numbers of qualified Math and Science teachers in schools will solve the problem, go right ahead. Will that action bring results? Not so much as 1 percentage point.
This might have something to do with it:
As it is now, fewer than a third of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students score at the proficient level in math. And U.S. students score below the international average on tests of math and science knowledge.
Inadequate instruction is at least part of the reason for those scores. An estimated 38% of math teachers in grades 7-12 lack either a major or minor in math.
- USA TodayThe article this came from says that the teachers unions believe the solution to the problem is higher salaries for teachers.
I believe everybody is missing the larger points. While I'd certainly agree that teacher competence in the subject area is critically important, addressing that problem alone will do little to solve the problem.
Even highly competent Math teachers can't produce better results if they are imprisoned in a system that tolerates mediocrity, places "self-esteem" above results, and punishes teachers for setting high standards.
Let's say your local High School has on its faculty the best Math teacher in America. He has advanced degrees in Mathematics, along with the unique ability to make his classes interesting and challenging for his students.
But to really excel, he knows that Math education requires effort and attention from students. Not an extreme effort; merely the expectation that each student complete a daily assignment of between 1 and 2 hours. Without this daily homework practice, students cannot possibly absorb the material as they must to advance in the subject.
Inevitably, students complain to their parents that the teacher is unfairly loading them down with homework. Parents complain to administrators that the Math teacher is unfairly assigning too heavy a homework burden on their children. The parents are even more perturbed that their children are suddenly receiving C's in Math, when they have always been given A's in the past. Local activists petition the School Board to censure the teacher, because minority students are unable to complete assignments and are therefore failing his Math classes. And the High School coaches complain to the administration that their star players are in danger of becoming academically ineligible because they are failing his Math class.
What happens next? The Math Teacher is summoned to the Principal's office, where he is given a choice: He can either lower his standards so that 95% of his students pass the class, or he can be reassigned to teaching in the Learning Disabled program and become the Detention Supervisor and Lunchroom Supervisor. (We'll assume he is tenured, so they can't fire him.)
The result: A disillusioned Math Teacher who may no longer challenge his students to excellence, but must accept mediocrity and pass nearly everyone. He marks the rest of his teaching career by doing his best to teach and inspire students who don't want to be inspired and giving away inflated grades to students who never really learned the subject matter. If he's lucky, he finds a way to be encouraged by the handful of truly motivated and talented students who pay attention in class and absorb what they need from him to succeed in College.
So if you think increasing the numbers of qualified Math and Science teachers in schools will solve the problem, go right ahead. Will that action bring results? Not so much as 1 percentage point.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Diversity Lie
Diversity is a code word. Everyone has to be in favor of diversity, or risk being called nasty names.
If the true meaning of the word is that we all need to respect each other, regardless of our race or religion or economic background, then it's a worthy concept. But if you listen to the thought police who currently define the word, you'll find out that it is just a big lie.
Diversity is one-sided. Today's definition of diversity is absolute support and embrace of gay rights, with hatred and vilification of any people of faith that have the temerity to suggest it's not a healthy lifestyle. Another definition is that we must embrace and respect diverse religions, except of course Christianity and Judaism, which can be vilified freely. Diversity means that immigrants should not be forced to learn English or be folded into the great American "melting pot", but should join their homogeneous communities that don't embrace American language, culture, or values.
And, of course, diversity means opposing the government, especially if it's Republican. It means fomenting communist, anarchist, socialist, and other anti-American political views. It means suppressing any sort of conservative thought in the Universities, to the point of banning conservative student groups or in extreme cases expelling students who simply voice an opinion they deem "anti-diversity".
I saw an article today about a group of University Professors who have joined some other far-left organizations to fight back against David Horowitz's campaign for a "College Student's Bill of Rights". This new group claims to be fighting against Horowitz's repressive ideas that will stifle diversity of thought in the Universities.
That's funny, because Horowitz's campaign is all about diversity of thought. He's not saying that the communist college professors should shut up about their views. He's actually saying that those professors should stop punishing students that don't subscribe to those views. Plus that a half-hour diatribe with the tired old "Bush sucks" and "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric is probably not appropriate in an English or Math class; if you're going to have political discourse, save it for the political science, current affairs, and similar classes in which the topic is actually relevant.
Parents like me who are being hammered with outrageous tuition and fees for college-age kids don't want to hear that their kids are sitting in their English or Math or Science classes getting some communist indoctrination instead of what we're paying for them to study. Fortunately I don't think there's much of that going on with my two collegians.
If you're really sold on the concept of diversity, let me make just one request. Go right ahead and respect people of all races, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and political views as much as you like. But do just that - respect them all! Don't exclude those whose diverse opinions and lifestyles you disdain.
I'll bet that's hard for you, isn't it? Still believe in the lefty definition of diversity?
If the true meaning of the word is that we all need to respect each other, regardless of our race or religion or economic background, then it's a worthy concept. But if you listen to the thought police who currently define the word, you'll find out that it is just a big lie.
Diversity is one-sided. Today's definition of diversity is absolute support and embrace of gay rights, with hatred and vilification of any people of faith that have the temerity to suggest it's not a healthy lifestyle. Another definition is that we must embrace and respect diverse religions, except of course Christianity and Judaism, which can be vilified freely. Diversity means that immigrants should not be forced to learn English or be folded into the great American "melting pot", but should join their homogeneous communities that don't embrace American language, culture, or values.
And, of course, diversity means opposing the government, especially if it's Republican. It means fomenting communist, anarchist, socialist, and other anti-American political views. It means suppressing any sort of conservative thought in the Universities, to the point of banning conservative student groups or in extreme cases expelling students who simply voice an opinion they deem "anti-diversity".
I saw an article today about a group of University Professors who have joined some other far-left organizations to fight back against David Horowitz's campaign for a "College Student's Bill of Rights". This new group claims to be fighting against Horowitz's repressive ideas that will stifle diversity of thought in the Universities.
That's funny, because Horowitz's campaign is all about diversity of thought. He's not saying that the communist college professors should shut up about their views. He's actually saying that those professors should stop punishing students that don't subscribe to those views. Plus that a half-hour diatribe with the tired old "Bush sucks" and "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric is probably not appropriate in an English or Math class; if you're going to have political discourse, save it for the political science, current affairs, and similar classes in which the topic is actually relevant.
Parents like me who are being hammered with outrageous tuition and fees for college-age kids don't want to hear that their kids are sitting in their English or Math or Science classes getting some communist indoctrination instead of what we're paying for them to study. Fortunately I don't think there's much of that going on with my two collegians.
If you're really sold on the concept of diversity, let me make just one request. Go right ahead and respect people of all races, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and political views as much as you like. But do just that - respect them all! Don't exclude those whose diverse opinions and lifestyles you disdain.
I'll bet that's hard for you, isn't it? Still believe in the lefty definition of diversity?
Monday, March 20, 2006
Wired Differently
I've concluded that conflict between people happens for a simple reason: We are all wired differently. Our attitudes, opinions, beliefs, passions, and behavior is driven by who we are, and who we are is determined by a combination of nature and nurture.
There are certain traits and characteristics in each of us that are most definitely hard-wired. I know that my basic personality was there from birth. As were the personalities of my sisters, my brother, my childhood friends, my own children. How else can one explain the varied personalities of all these people, who were essentially born and raised in a relatively homogeneous environment?
I can attest through my own observation to a number of general tendencies:
Women are driven by emotion. Men are more rational (except when it comes to women).
Having an extensive education doesn't guarantee common sense. Just observe the average college professor.
Little education doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid. With the exception of those who coasted through school and never learned to read. There are plenty of relatively uneducated people I've met in my life that have an inspiring amount of wisdom and common sense.
Introverts are born introverts. Extroverts are born extroverts. Introverts can learn to be a little better socially, while extroverts don't believe they have a problem.
Anybody can find God. Anybody can reject God. Everybody has their own reasons.
Talented writers, artists, and musicians generally aren't very good at math. Mathematic geniuses generally have no talent whatsoever.
Great athletes generally aren't very good students. Perhaps it's just a matter of time management. Perhaps they are wired that way.
Me? I have always been the proverbial jack of all trades, which also means master of none.
I was a good student, but not exceptional (too lazy). I was quite good at the humanities, could handle math OK as long as I kept up with the homework, but was awful in science and art.
I was a decent athlete, but not exceptional (too lazy). I'm a pretty good singer, but will never make prime time (too lazy? not sure).
I'm more analytical than creative.
I'm introverted and have no problem with that.
I'm a person of faith.
I'm capable of being the best friend you ever had, but am waiting for you to discover that fact.
I'm not very good at saying "No".
In High School, I belonged to almost all the groups: Eggheads (now called 'geeks', I think), Musicians (now called 'bandies'?), Jocks (still called 'jocks' as far as I know). Well, then again, I sort of belonged to them all but then again belonged to none of them. I stayed away from the drama and choir groups in High School because of the perceived stigma of being a guy in that scene, but when I got to College, I got involved in both, deciding that I wasn't going to let the presence of a few sexual deviants stop me from doing what I found enjoyable.
As if anyone who knows me well doesn't already know all of this ...
IyamwhatIyamandthatsallthatIyam. Popeye
There are certain traits and characteristics in each of us that are most definitely hard-wired. I know that my basic personality was there from birth. As were the personalities of my sisters, my brother, my childhood friends, my own children. How else can one explain the varied personalities of all these people, who were essentially born and raised in a relatively homogeneous environment?
I can attest through my own observation to a number of general tendencies:
Women are driven by emotion. Men are more rational (except when it comes to women).
Having an extensive education doesn't guarantee common sense. Just observe the average college professor.
Little education doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid. With the exception of those who coasted through school and never learned to read. There are plenty of relatively uneducated people I've met in my life that have an inspiring amount of wisdom and common sense.
Introverts are born introverts. Extroverts are born extroverts. Introverts can learn to be a little better socially, while extroverts don't believe they have a problem.
Anybody can find God. Anybody can reject God. Everybody has their own reasons.
Talented writers, artists, and musicians generally aren't very good at math. Mathematic geniuses generally have no talent whatsoever.
Great athletes generally aren't very good students. Perhaps it's just a matter of time management. Perhaps they are wired that way.
Me? I have always been the proverbial jack of all trades, which also means master of none.
I was a good student, but not exceptional (too lazy). I was quite good at the humanities, could handle math OK as long as I kept up with the homework, but was awful in science and art.
I was a decent athlete, but not exceptional (too lazy). I'm a pretty good singer, but will never make prime time (too lazy? not sure).
I'm more analytical than creative.
I'm introverted and have no problem with that.
I'm a person of faith.
I'm capable of being the best friend you ever had, but am waiting for you to discover that fact.
I'm not very good at saying "No".
In High School, I belonged to almost all the groups: Eggheads (now called 'geeks', I think), Musicians (now called 'bandies'?), Jocks (still called 'jocks' as far as I know). Well, then again, I sort of belonged to them all but then again belonged to none of them. I stayed away from the drama and choir groups in High School because of the perceived stigma of being a guy in that scene, but when I got to College, I got involved in both, deciding that I wasn't going to let the presence of a few sexual deviants stop me from doing what I found enjoyable.
As if anyone who knows me well doesn't already know all of this ...
IyamwhatIyamandthatsallthatIyam. Popeye
Friday, March 17, 2006
Defining Extremism
Reading a letter to the editor in this morning's newspaper from the Indiana Director of Planned Parenthood sort of got under my skin.
Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.
The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".
Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.
Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.
Class dismissed.
Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.
The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".
Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.
Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.
Class dismissed.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Natural Disasters
The spring floods were the worst this year since we moved to the farm. The first spring in the house we got lots of water in the basement, but this time it just won't go away. Every night we're all in the basement, baling and pumping and mopping. By the next morning, it's all flooded again.
It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.
So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.
Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.
It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.
So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.
Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Major Moves
It's quite a catchy name for the deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-led consortium for 75 years. The deal seems to have passed narrowly last night on a party-line vote in the State House. The lease deal is a front-loaded payment of 3.8 billion dollars, which is a lot of money for Indiana, even though not all that much by Washington DC standards.
The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.
It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.
The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.
I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.
My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:
1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.
2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.
3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.
One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.
The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.
It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.
The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.
I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.
My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:
1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.
2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.
3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.
One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Story Time
Here's a funny story from my trip to the grocery store yesterday.
After work, I stopped in at the grocery to pick up just a few things before going home. Trying to get in and out quickly, I walked fast until I was forced to fall in behind an older woman who was moving rather slowly.
She looked rather like Miss Gulch. Think this picture without the hat. But less attractive.
Grocery store aisles are generally about 2 people wide, but my slow-moving and oblivious friend was meandering straight down the middle, stopping every few steps to examine some bit of produce. And there was simply no way I could get past her, until finally a detour opened up around one of the produce tables.
I proceeded to grab the oranges and bananas I wanted from the produce aile, then moved further into the store. But almost immediately after moving away from the fresh fruits, she somehow caught up with me and pushed her cart directly into my path. I had to stop in mid-stride, finding myself once again caught in her very own bizarre grocery store traffic jam. Although she showed no sign of even sensing my presence behind her, I couldn't help but wonder if she was secretly reveling in her successful obstruction of my progress.
Patiently, I waited for another opportunity to get around her, by this time thinking (rather uncharitably, I admit), "What a hag". And finally the opportunity presented itself, and I proceeded into the next aisle in search of the rest of my shopping list.
But my encounter with the Wicked Witch of the West wasn't over yet. I arrived at the back of the store and walked past the meat cases toward the cheese and butter, and there she was. She was stopped in front of the beef, talking with someone on her cellphone. Now, the aisle is extra wide in the back, probably enough for 3 people with carts. But she had the whole thing covered. She was standing next to the beef case, with the cart positioned diagonally to her left and across the entire aisle. My first thought was wondering who in the world would voluntarily chat with that woman on the phone?
Between me and Madam Gulch was a young mother with a toddler in her cart, looking somewhat perplexed. I imagined that she was considering whether to intrude on Ms. Gulch's conversation to request passage through the aisle. I couldn't help myself, and briefly let out a laugh. That drew a smile from the young mother and even a glance from Ms. Gulch, who nonetheless seemingly remained oblivious to the plight of the shoppers she was inconveniencing. Two other shoppers approached behind me, and I wondered how long the line would become before Lady Gulch got the hint.
Instead of waiting around to find out, I ducked into another aisle to go around. And felt fortunate when I picked up my last items without a further encounter with Ms. Gulch. That is, until I approached the checkout lanes.
But this time I would not be blocked again. I spotted her several feet away, and so quickened my step and ducked into the self-service checkout. "Hah!" I thought to myself. I had foiled her evil plans.
I scanned and bagged my groceries, headed to the parking lot and home.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Busy Times Ahead
It looks like a large new project is starting up for me in a little over a week. That's good news, as it looks like it will keep me busy for the next 3-4 months, at least. Maybe it's a good time to start shopping for a car.
I've been reasonably busy the last few weeks, but somehow kind of bored at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be all that much going on, aside from work. No big news events, no great movies coming out, and nothing really to get me excited or interested.
Some of you might think there's political stuff happening of interest. I don't. Dubai and the ports? Big deal. I knew that was doomed when I first heard about it.
The stupid communist high school geography teacher caught on tape (what's his name, Jay Bennish or something like that?). Like it's some surprise that lots of high school teachers are communists? Want to guess why? Ever heard the phrase, "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach?". He's just another bitter outcast hoping to someday be a communist official forcibly taking for himself the money and possessions some "capitalist" bully went out and earned by unfairly exploiting losers like him. And people still don't understand why we graduate so many idiots from our public schools.
Illegal immigration? Congress is nothing but, to quote, "... sound and fury, signifying nothing". The Oscars? Come on. Eminent Domain abuse? Same thing. The Iraq war? Almost over. Iran? Yep, they're probably next, unless we're stupid enough to elect Hillary. But nothing's going to happen either way for awhile yet, at least until they try to blow up New York or LA with a nuke. Abortion ban in North Dakota? Mildly interesting, but I won't really pay attention unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The 2006 election? I'm actually pleasantly surprised that we're not being barraged with campaign ads already.
Boring can be good, because excitement can come from either good or bad events. I'll count my blessings for now that the bad events will stay away awhile longer.
I've been reasonably busy the last few weeks, but somehow kind of bored at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be all that much going on, aside from work. No big news events, no great movies coming out, and nothing really to get me excited or interested.
Some of you might think there's political stuff happening of interest. I don't. Dubai and the ports? Big deal. I knew that was doomed when I first heard about it.
The stupid communist high school geography teacher caught on tape (what's his name, Jay Bennish or something like that?). Like it's some surprise that lots of high school teachers are communists? Want to guess why? Ever heard the phrase, "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach?". He's just another bitter outcast hoping to someday be a communist official forcibly taking for himself the money and possessions some "capitalist" bully went out and earned by unfairly exploiting losers like him. And people still don't understand why we graduate so many idiots from our public schools.
Illegal immigration? Congress is nothing but, to quote, "... sound and fury, signifying nothing". The Oscars? Come on. Eminent Domain abuse? Same thing. The Iraq war? Almost over. Iran? Yep, they're probably next, unless we're stupid enough to elect Hillary. But nothing's going to happen either way for awhile yet, at least until they try to blow up New York or LA with a nuke. Abortion ban in North Dakota? Mildly interesting, but I won't really pay attention unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The 2006 election? I'm actually pleasantly surprised that we're not being barraged with campaign ads already.
Boring can be good, because excitement can come from either good or bad events. I'll count my blessings for now that the bad events will stay away awhile longer.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Bush and Clinton
We went to the event at Butler last night to see George H. W. Bush. One of the major personal studies I looked forward to was comparing the crowds between the Bush event and Clinton's last Fall. What I observed was fascinating, although predictable.
The Clinton crowd was a visibly Democratic crowd. To illustrate that fact, I need only describe the people who sat directly on either side of me at the Clinton event. To my right was a lesbian couple. To my left was a College professor.
How do I know? OK, the prof was grading essays before the event started. And the lesbians - come on, all I needed was a glance in their direction.
The characteristics of the Clinton crowd were fairly easy to discern. The Clinton crowd was heavily populated with professors and teachers, gays and lesbians, whole sections of black folks that I guessed were from churches or other organizations that picked up their tickets in blocks, and lots of, hmm, how to describe? Let's go with strangely dressed and mannered young people who could be described variously as free spirits, hippies, artists, bohemians, etc.
In attitude, the Clinton crowd bordered on rowdy, and showed their love and approval for their favorite president loudly and enthusiastically. During the speech, whenever it seemed that Clinton might rip on current President Bush, they could barely contain their excitement, but it was often squashed when Clinton stopped short of a 2-barreled blast. But they certainly cheered loudest for Clinton's more subtle jabs at his replacement.
The contrast between the Clinton crowd and the Bush crowd was dramatic. The Bush crowd was more reserved, more polite. They were more conservatively dressed, and I saw a lot more suits and ties. There were more seniors, but also more children. There were blacks present, but in much fewer numbers. The strange looking young people from the Clinton event were nowhere to be seen at the Bush event.
The contrast between speeches was dramatic as well. Clinton's speech was heavy on globalism and government policy, while Bush's speech was mostly about people. While we all gathered from Clinton's speech all the things the government was doing or should be doing to solve problems and bring peace, Bush's speech was fundamentally about how each of us has a responsibility to get involved and do whatever we can to help make the world a better place.
In other words, the essence of each reflected the essence of their political philosophies: Clinton believes in government, and Bush believes in people.
I enjoyed the Bush speech, and found him surprisingly funny, especially during the early part of the speech. He was right on with comments about the lack of objectivity and civility in the press, and the inappropriateness of former president Carter's political demagoging at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. He talked about being a proud father and grandfather, and about how we all can make a difference just by getting involved.
There was one story that the Clinton crowd would have found objectionable, but I found rather funny. To paraphrase:
Once during my presidency, I had the opportunity to visit San Francisco. And you all know how dangerous it is for someone like me to show my face in that city. We were driving into the city, with two limosines, you know, the decoy and the real one, with all the armoring and security stuff. And of course, there were protestors everywhere. Suddenly, a woman - and I'm talking about probably the ugliest woman I ever saw in my life - jumps in front of my limo waving a sign. And the sign says, "Get out of my womb!". So I say, "Whoa, lady. OK, Believe me, No Problem!" (Hands in the air in a sign of surrender)
Writing that, I realized much of the effect is in the delivery, which was hilarious. But of course, the radical feminists and lesbians in the Clinton crowd would have been horribly offended. Because if something strikes too close to home, it is offensive to those living in the home. What makes it funny to the rest of us is that it's probably true.
Oh yeah, the other thing I had hoped to observe was the difference between the two crowds in their generosity. There were fraternity guys outside of Hinkle Fieldhouse again this time taking donations for Riley Hospital for Children. But we arrived a little early and left before the main crowd, so I didn't really have the opportunity to observe what happened with the large crowd of people passing the frat guys. Except there were some people walking in front of us to and from the Bush event, of which I observed several dropping dollar bills into the guys' buckets. Contrast that to the Clinton event, when there were probably 10 times the number of people in the crowd, and I didn't see a single person drop even spare change into the buckets.
Interpret that how you will.
The Clinton crowd was a visibly Democratic crowd. To illustrate that fact, I need only describe the people who sat directly on either side of me at the Clinton event. To my right was a lesbian couple. To my left was a College professor.
How do I know? OK, the prof was grading essays before the event started. And the lesbians - come on, all I needed was a glance in their direction.
The characteristics of the Clinton crowd were fairly easy to discern. The Clinton crowd was heavily populated with professors and teachers, gays and lesbians, whole sections of black folks that I guessed were from churches or other organizations that picked up their tickets in blocks, and lots of, hmm, how to describe? Let's go with strangely dressed and mannered young people who could be described variously as free spirits, hippies, artists, bohemians, etc.
In attitude, the Clinton crowd bordered on rowdy, and showed their love and approval for their favorite president loudly and enthusiastically. During the speech, whenever it seemed that Clinton might rip on current President Bush, they could barely contain their excitement, but it was often squashed when Clinton stopped short of a 2-barreled blast. But they certainly cheered loudest for Clinton's more subtle jabs at his replacement.
The contrast between the Clinton crowd and the Bush crowd was dramatic. The Bush crowd was more reserved, more polite. They were more conservatively dressed, and I saw a lot more suits and ties. There were more seniors, but also more children. There were blacks present, but in much fewer numbers. The strange looking young people from the Clinton event were nowhere to be seen at the Bush event.
The contrast between speeches was dramatic as well. Clinton's speech was heavy on globalism and government policy, while Bush's speech was mostly about people. While we all gathered from Clinton's speech all the things the government was doing or should be doing to solve problems and bring peace, Bush's speech was fundamentally about how each of us has a responsibility to get involved and do whatever we can to help make the world a better place.
In other words, the essence of each reflected the essence of their political philosophies: Clinton believes in government, and Bush believes in people.
I enjoyed the Bush speech, and found him surprisingly funny, especially during the early part of the speech. He was right on with comments about the lack of objectivity and civility in the press, and the inappropriateness of former president Carter's political demagoging at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. He talked about being a proud father and grandfather, and about how we all can make a difference just by getting involved.
There was one story that the Clinton crowd would have found objectionable, but I found rather funny. To paraphrase:
Once during my presidency, I had the opportunity to visit San Francisco. And you all know how dangerous it is for someone like me to show my face in that city. We were driving into the city, with two limosines, you know, the decoy and the real one, with all the armoring and security stuff. And of course, there were protestors everywhere. Suddenly, a woman - and I'm talking about probably the ugliest woman I ever saw in my life - jumps in front of my limo waving a sign. And the sign says, "Get out of my womb!". So I say, "Whoa, lady. OK, Believe me, No Problem!" (Hands in the air in a sign of surrender)
Writing that, I realized much of the effect is in the delivery, which was hilarious. But of course, the radical feminists and lesbians in the Clinton crowd would have been horribly offended. Because if something strikes too close to home, it is offensive to those living in the home. What makes it funny to the rest of us is that it's probably true.
Oh yeah, the other thing I had hoped to observe was the difference between the two crowds in their generosity. There were fraternity guys outside of Hinkle Fieldhouse again this time taking donations for Riley Hospital for Children. But we arrived a little early and left before the main crowd, so I didn't really have the opportunity to observe what happened with the large crowd of people passing the frat guys. Except there were some people walking in front of us to and from the Bush event, of which I observed several dropping dollar bills into the guys' buckets. Contrast that to the Clinton event, when there were probably 10 times the number of people in the crowd, and I didn't see a single person drop even spare change into the buckets.
Interpret that how you will.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Economics
I have to admit, I wasn't the best student ever when it came to my courses in Economics. In the MBA, I had to take macro and micro, and can't say I enjoyed either one. Especially the macro class, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was one of those academic disciplines created mainly for the purpose of employing college professors.
But lately I'm hearing a lot of debate about the US economy, basically with Republicans saying it's great and Democrats saying it stinks. At its most basic level, the debate is clearly one of perspective; Republicans see the glass as half full, while Democrats prefer to see it as half empty.
Let's see if I can apply my humble logic and reasoning skills to separate each side's truth from their BS.
Republicans say:
The economy is terrific! There is more home ownership than ever before. We have achieved full employment, with unemployment rates lower than they've been in the last decade. The stock market is strong, corporate profits are up. All true.
Why should Republicans and the President get credit? Because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts stimulate the economy by allowing companies and individuals to keep more of what they earn, which they in turn spend on things that help boost the economy. True, but there's room for debate on how significant the tax cuts were in boosting the economy.
Democrats say:
The economy is only terrific if you're rich. The poor and middle class are getting slammed with higher energy prices, higher education costs, out-of-control healthcare costs, and all this while their wages are declining. I can't deny that there is truth to all of this. It's easy to agree, because we're all experiencing firsthand or know plenty of others who lost jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, can't get or can't afford health insurance, and our household budgets are all getting slammed by high energy costs. And my consulting work is involved regularly with setting up payrolls for companies, and I see it all the time: A handful of executives are raking in outrageous salaries, bonuses, and stock options, while the vast majority of the employee base only gets somewhere between minimum wage and around $50-$60K per year. The middle pay grades are practically gone - I saw the transition from the 80's and 90's, as the whole group we used to call "middle management" disappeared. It's true, they are gone forever.
Democrats also say the tax cuts are responsible for today's struggle in the lower and middle class. That's bunk. First of all, the tax cuts went to everyone, not just the rich. The Democrats make their living on class envy, misleading their consitituents into believing that the rich are somehow getting away with avoiding their fair share of taxes. That's just not true, unless of course you consider socialism the model of "fair share", where we go back to the late 60's and early 70's with marginal tax rates at 70 to 80 percent.
The fundamental dilemma should be defined independent of the rhetoric of both sides. Sending high-tech and other formerly good-paying jobs to India is helping corporations post record profits on the backs of their own country's workers. Illegal immigration is taking entry-level jobs away from young Americans every day; it is misleading to suggest that they only do those jobs Americans won't take. Basic economic fact says that you can fill any job simply by paying the market wage, but that market wage is artificially skewed by uninvited foreign workers. Finally, I find it morally reprehensible to do what Cummins and other big companies all around the country have done to their high-tech workers: Fire them all and replace them with immigrants from India who will do the work for a fraction of the compensation.
What is the solution? I don't like the so-called "solutions" offered by either party. Of course, the Republicans have no solutions, because they don't believe there is a problem. And the Democrats' solution has nothing to do with solving the problem, because they are more focused on regaining their political power to move the country closer to European-style socialism than actually dealing with any problems.
I say we need to ignore the political parties and find leaders who actually have real positive ideas that solve the real problems. Those solutions have to include sealing the borders and revamping the immigration system so it makes sense for everyone. It's not necessary to punish corporations for doing what they do, but it's certainly a good idea to stop the current preferential treatment they are getting from the government and begin actually enforcing our anti-trust laws again.
Actual solutions to the healthcare crisis that make it possible for average citizens to afford medical care and prescription drugs without turning the whole system over to an inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracy are badly needed. Oil exploration and drilling wherever reserves are found on our own soil must be permitted, starting with ANWR and continuing with the vast reserves we already know are sitting just offshore. More refinery capacity should be encouraged, mostly by enforcing anti-trust laws on the oil industry to foster competition.
Education needs to be fixed. We should not longer accept the outrageous failure rate of our public schools, and must demand our schools produce results or we'll close them down and send the students to schools that work.
There's more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some work done. But isn't it interesting how all these issues intertwine? We have two choices if we continue the status quo of the two political parties in America: We can either become like Europe, with a socialist society where nobody starves but nobody is allowed to earn much either, and we all can live in cramped little apartments while squeaking by on the government dole. Or we can continue the current course, with a gradual consolidation of business power into fewer and fewer mega corporations, who can reach around the globe for the cheapest workers and continue to chip away at employee health and retirement benefits.
There's a third way, and it requires a third party. My other blog talks about the tenets of this party, but it takes a huge number of people to band together to begin to make it a force for change. Maybe someday.
But lately I'm hearing a lot of debate about the US economy, basically with Republicans saying it's great and Democrats saying it stinks. At its most basic level, the debate is clearly one of perspective; Republicans see the glass as half full, while Democrats prefer to see it as half empty.
Let's see if I can apply my humble logic and reasoning skills to separate each side's truth from their BS.
Republicans say:
The economy is terrific! There is more home ownership than ever before. We have achieved full employment, with unemployment rates lower than they've been in the last decade. The stock market is strong, corporate profits are up. All true.
Why should Republicans and the President get credit? Because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts stimulate the economy by allowing companies and individuals to keep more of what they earn, which they in turn spend on things that help boost the economy. True, but there's room for debate on how significant the tax cuts were in boosting the economy.
Democrats say:
The economy is only terrific if you're rich. The poor and middle class are getting slammed with higher energy prices, higher education costs, out-of-control healthcare costs, and all this while their wages are declining. I can't deny that there is truth to all of this. It's easy to agree, because we're all experiencing firsthand or know plenty of others who lost jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, can't get or can't afford health insurance, and our household budgets are all getting slammed by high energy costs. And my consulting work is involved regularly with setting up payrolls for companies, and I see it all the time: A handful of executives are raking in outrageous salaries, bonuses, and stock options, while the vast majority of the employee base only gets somewhere between minimum wage and around $50-$60K per year. The middle pay grades are practically gone - I saw the transition from the 80's and 90's, as the whole group we used to call "middle management" disappeared. It's true, they are gone forever.
Democrats also say the tax cuts are responsible for today's struggle in the lower and middle class. That's bunk. First of all, the tax cuts went to everyone, not just the rich. The Democrats make their living on class envy, misleading their consitituents into believing that the rich are somehow getting away with avoiding their fair share of taxes. That's just not true, unless of course you consider socialism the model of "fair share", where we go back to the late 60's and early 70's with marginal tax rates at 70 to 80 percent.
The fundamental dilemma should be defined independent of the rhetoric of both sides. Sending high-tech and other formerly good-paying jobs to India is helping corporations post record profits on the backs of their own country's workers. Illegal immigration is taking entry-level jobs away from young Americans every day; it is misleading to suggest that they only do those jobs Americans won't take. Basic economic fact says that you can fill any job simply by paying the market wage, but that market wage is artificially skewed by uninvited foreign workers. Finally, I find it morally reprehensible to do what Cummins and other big companies all around the country have done to their high-tech workers: Fire them all and replace them with immigrants from India who will do the work for a fraction of the compensation.
What is the solution? I don't like the so-called "solutions" offered by either party. Of course, the Republicans have no solutions, because they don't believe there is a problem. And the Democrats' solution has nothing to do with solving the problem, because they are more focused on regaining their political power to move the country closer to European-style socialism than actually dealing with any problems.
I say we need to ignore the political parties and find leaders who actually have real positive ideas that solve the real problems. Those solutions have to include sealing the borders and revamping the immigration system so it makes sense for everyone. It's not necessary to punish corporations for doing what they do, but it's certainly a good idea to stop the current preferential treatment they are getting from the government and begin actually enforcing our anti-trust laws again.
Actual solutions to the healthcare crisis that make it possible for average citizens to afford medical care and prescription drugs without turning the whole system over to an inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracy are badly needed. Oil exploration and drilling wherever reserves are found on our own soil must be permitted, starting with ANWR and continuing with the vast reserves we already know are sitting just offshore. More refinery capacity should be encouraged, mostly by enforcing anti-trust laws on the oil industry to foster competition.
Education needs to be fixed. We should not longer accept the outrageous failure rate of our public schools, and must demand our schools produce results or we'll close them down and send the students to schools that work.
There's more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some work done. But isn't it interesting how all these issues intertwine? We have two choices if we continue the status quo of the two political parties in America: We can either become like Europe, with a socialist society where nobody starves but nobody is allowed to earn much either, and we all can live in cramped little apartments while squeaking by on the government dole. Or we can continue the current course, with a gradual consolidation of business power into fewer and fewer mega corporations, who can reach around the globe for the cheapest workers and continue to chip away at employee health and retirement benefits.
There's a third way, and it requires a third party. My other blog talks about the tenets of this party, but it takes a huge number of people to band together to begin to make it a force for change. Maybe someday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)