I officially accepted a position as a mechanic last week and gave my notice to the school where I've been working. I was only a substitute at the school, so the giving of notice was either a) overly-dramatic, or b) a little too formal, or maybe 3)both, but since I have a conscience and they treated me nicely, I felt sort of obligated to give them a heads up. The decision was made all the more complex by purely practical, financial reasons because on Friday I had passed the step that put me at regular teacher pay on their pay schedule. (I'm speaking only in terms that business folk will understand here - viewing my profession as an industry and focusing on the bottom line has greatly helped me ignore any sense of obligation to my students)
In most districts, if you teach in the same position for 20 straight school days, you jump up to first-year teacher pay, which is somewhere around $90-120 per day. I made $120. And, like most districts, if you end up in a long-term substitute spot for 60 straight days, you actually get paid for your experience. In my case that meant on day 61, as long as I didn't have a break in service, I jumped to $220 per day.
That was Friday for me. That's what a 9-year veteran teacher (actually 8.7 years according to the State Teacher's Retirement System) who doesn't pay for any benefits, and who doesn't spread their pay out over 12 months makes per day. (That's just under 40k annually for those of you following the math) I never actually grossed that much in my last permanent job even though I was a coach and an advisor of a year long activity, but that's how the numbers shake out when you're a temp who doesn't pay for anything else.
So anyway, my point was that just as I start earning the pay I was earning before I moved back home, I'm faced with the decision of permanent employment for a little less money, or temporary employment for a little more. The difference in money, sadly, isn't that much. As a mechanic for this particular company I'd start at about a grand less per year than I made as an 8-year veteran teacher with 8 lesson plans to write and 120 students to chase around. This particular company, for whom I would be converting regular vans into handicap accessible and controllable vans, has a 401k plan that rivals the current teacher retirement system in Ohio. Benefits for me are comparable, and only a little more pricey for my family, but the real clincher is, this company values my experience.
I've been told, explicitly by some administrators, implicitly by most in their refusal to even interview me, that traditional public schools can't afford to value experience. They have little interest in filling vacancies with experienced teachers. Strike that. It's not that they aren't interested, it's that they can't afford it. In some places the unspoken cutoff is 3 years. In others, where budgets are tighter, it's rookies only, with a few exceptions for those who will coach the sport in need. The official line is usually around 7 years, but that's only to hire coaches who have had 5-7 winning years at a previous school. The unfunded mandates of NCLB have forced schools to meet the standards that "hold teachers accountable" by doing away with experienced staff and replacing them with rookies, who then become somewhat indentured to the districts where they start because once they rack up 3 or 4 years of experience and get the state mandated master's degree, they're absolutely too expensive to get a job in any other school district.
To be clear, it's a budget issue, not a conspiracy. It's not like the schools have much choice. That's just how it is these days in most places, but especially in Ohio where the state legislature has refused to solve the funding issue at the state level in spite of being ordered to do so by the Ohio Supreme Court almost 20 years ago. Ohio has chosen to revert back to the method of funding used in the early ages of Christianity wherein the rich hired tutors for their children and if their servants' children had time, they could sit in on the lessons - as long as the servants didn't interfere with the rich kid's lessons. So too it goes in Ohio now. If you live by rich kids, your schools are well funded by local investment. And that's not so bad really. I'm all for a free market and am confident enough in my experience that I'd fair well enough were that the case, but education isn't a free market. And this method of funding it violates the very principles of law and the conditions under which Ohio was granted statehood. As a State, not as a collection of little towns, Ohio agreed to fund public education as part of the Northwest Ordnance which granted us statehood. It was one of several conditions the founders of the nation required and the founders of the state agreed to. For all the talk our modern day leaders have wasted about education, their actions tell us that's no longer a priority. Instead, they've pawned this responsibility off on local school districts, and because the citizens in those districts still do value public education, they've hesitantly coughed up levy after levy to cover the state's irresponsibility. But that well's running dry. At some point Ohio's legislators will be forced to act and to show whether or not they really value education. For those watching, either because they believe in education, or like me, have a direct financial stake in the outcome, their opinions are already too clear.
Just as financing is purely a practical matter for school districts, so too is it for the Luther family.
Banks won't write mortgages to substitute teachers even if the teacher has been working consistently for almost 10 years in the profession. I guess the level of pay and the inconsistency of it frighten banks away?! So if all goes well, and we close a deal on our old house in early April (knock on wood and cross fingers) I'll need something more "permanent" before we find our new house and try to finance its purchase. (It probably comes as a shock that I wasn't able to bank enough cash to buy a home on my salary)
So I'm not choosing to leave education out of bitterness or frustration or because I believe I'll be more satisfied working with my hands again, and seeing the concrete results of my efforts at the end of each day. I'm not leaving because I'll be able to sit with my family without a stack of papers to grade every night, or because this particular job actually pays for any training it requires. I'm not leaving because I get burned out at being a parent to parentless kids all day then neglect my duties to my own kids most nights. I'm not leaving because I'm embarassed by the massive outpouring of respect offered to teachers. I'm leaving because I need a full-time job and I need it soon.
Likewise, I didn't even actively pursue this particular opportunity. I simply updated by resume on a couple of online career places. I had hoped to not even have to consider what I'd do next until closer to June, when my current employer officially has no further use for me. But suddenly I have two offers in my lap - the second came right after I accepted the first, and I'm still struggling with that one, but it's a good struggle to have at this point.
So anyway, now that I downloaded all of that from my system, I suppose it's time for the 9-girl slumber party to once again lay waste to the short-lived peace in this household. I'd better do some pre-emptive cleaning before I start the countdown to taking this group home again. As with all of life's trials, we are on the brink of surviving this one. Having done so makes us richer, stronger.
Fight the power!... and in so doing, usurp it.
Luth
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
New Links - Religious discussion
I forgot to mention, there's some interesting dialogue, or would it be polylogue? going on a few posts prior to this one. WCharles offered up some links to previous posts on his own 'blog providing some background on his take on what it means to be a Christian today. He did so at Ray's urging to join this conversation. I'm glad he's back.
Bill and I thought this might a fun forum for the discussion and I don't think either of us has been dissappointed thus far. Join in. The original question was: Has religion outlived its usefulness?
Bill and I thought this might a fun forum for the discussion and I don't think either of us has been dissappointed thus far. Join in. The original question was: Has religion outlived its usefulness?
Luth's not up to the fight right now
Lt. Commander Charles Swift was a model officer in the US Navy. Self-motivated, always taking the initiative to exceed expectations, proud of his country, his branch of the service, and loyal. Because he successfully did the job he was assigned, he was informed that not only would he not be promoted, but that, as such, his services were no longer needed by the Navy. To some it matters that Lt. Commander Swift's JOB was to defend Gitmo detainee Salim Hamdan against terrorist charges. Well, technically that's not entirely accurate. No charges had actually been filed against Hamdan. He'd just been held at Gitmo for almost 5 years with no explanation. Swift simply tried to gain for Hamdan the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Swift felt that the way we treat others is how we might expect others to treat us. He figured out laws mattered. That the world might remember why they respected the U.S. if we could return to the nation of laws we were prior to this administration's spiral away from those principles. In order to check his beliefs and demonstrate our principles to the rest of the world, Swift had to sue his Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense. He won. He was fired. The world can now make its decision.
Will that make us look bad? Do ya think it might make us and our troops a target?
In a similar move in the civilian world, where more people seem to notice and care, even though everyone these days claims to support the troops, the Bush administration is now being investigated for misusing the Patriot Act to fire U.S. Attorneys, whose political independence is the backbone of our freedom, the very basis upon which this country was founded. At least we're a nation that acts on our beliefs, eh?
2 million Iraqis have fled their homeland because of the destruction our actions have caused there and to this day neither they, nor the American citizens who will eventually pay $1 trillion for this effort, have been given an explanation of why we invaded the country in the first place.
The vice president criticized the democractic spending debate for Iraq saying it's what al qaeda and bin Laden would want. That strikes me as a little odd since bin Laden never had any significant ties to Iraq. Isn't Cheney admitting that Iraq was a mistake by invoking his name now... in favor of continued war in Iraq???
Long time Republican loyalist, conservative, Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel has indicated that the only way Bush will face any accountability is via impeachment. Hagel's words: "The president says, 'I don't care,' he's not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Thank God someone with the power to do something is at least considering this.
I was pretty excited about a month ago when the loyalists to this page agreed to engage in a civil debate about religion's role and importance in our modern world, but between being busy at my temp job, and looking for less temporary employment, keeping my family sane in our temporary living arrangment and searching for more permanent living arrangements, and watching the world around me that's well beyond my control continue its downward trend, I just can't get into it.
I've often been heard arguing that the old adage about never arguing politics and religion is the most ridiculous piece of advice humans on this earth could ever agree to follow. What could possible be more important? What issues could be more worth overcoming some discomfort in or order to reach some agreement? I still think that way, I'm just not up to the argument right now.
Will that make us look bad? Do ya think it might make us and our troops a target?
In a similar move in the civilian world, where more people seem to notice and care, even though everyone these days claims to support the troops, the Bush administration is now being investigated for misusing the Patriot Act to fire U.S. Attorneys, whose political independence is the backbone of our freedom, the very basis upon which this country was founded. At least we're a nation that acts on our beliefs, eh?
2 million Iraqis have fled their homeland because of the destruction our actions have caused there and to this day neither they, nor the American citizens who will eventually pay $1 trillion for this effort, have been given an explanation of why we invaded the country in the first place.
The vice president criticized the democractic spending debate for Iraq saying it's what al qaeda and bin Laden would want. That strikes me as a little odd since bin Laden never had any significant ties to Iraq. Isn't Cheney admitting that Iraq was a mistake by invoking his name now... in favor of continued war in Iraq???
Long time Republican loyalist, conservative, Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel has indicated that the only way Bush will face any accountability is via impeachment. Hagel's words: "The president says, 'I don't care,' he's not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Thank God someone with the power to do something is at least considering this.
I was pretty excited about a month ago when the loyalists to this page agreed to engage in a civil debate about religion's role and importance in our modern world, but between being busy at my temp job, and looking for less temporary employment, keeping my family sane in our temporary living arrangment and searching for more permanent living arrangements, and watching the world around me that's well beyond my control continue its downward trend, I just can't get into it.
I've often been heard arguing that the old adage about never arguing politics and religion is the most ridiculous piece of advice humans on this earth could ever agree to follow. What could possible be more important? What issues could be more worth overcoming some discomfort in or order to reach some agreement? I still think that way, I'm just not up to the argument right now.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
With us or against us?
While reading Richard A Clark’s description of what al Qaeda is I couldn’t help but think back to a previous post in which Ray and I debated the perceived connection between the Muslim faith and terrorism. I argued that Muslims have no greater link to terrorism than Christians, or any other religion for that matter, but that Muslims, especially in American news, just happen to get mentioned more often these days. The reason for that, I argued, was because the faith is most prevalent in third world countries where the population has no representation, but rather, the leadership decides on the country’s agenda. If a radical leader favors the al Qaeda version of Islam (which is like Hitler’s version of Christianity), then that’s what gets established in the country.
Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”
But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.
The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.
Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.
Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”
But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.
The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.
Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.
Has religion outlived its usefulness? featuring: Bill
There was a time when I really believed unions had outlived their usefulness in America. For a number of reasons I won’t bother with here, I’ve sort of come to realize they’re more of a necessary evil in some industries even if I don’t trust their bosses. Now I wonder if it’s religion that hasn’t outlived its usefulness in the world.
About the time I was wondering about that, I got an email from my old buddy Bill on an uncannily similar idea. Bill thought the regular contributors to Horsepoup might provide some good discussion about some questions he had. I hope that means he saw Horsepoup as a place where one is encouraged to argue politics and religion rather than a place, like the rest of public America, where such discussion is discouraged, and thus any real understanding, analysis, consensus building, progress or brotherhood is also discouraged.
In any event, I’m running the email (with Bill’s permission of course) as a guest post. Comments on the questions that arise will be neatly listed in the comments link, but may also make their way onto the main page if they shoot off into significantly different directions. So here’s the start:
Hey Luth,
So our little discussion last weekend got the rusty wheels of grand ideas turning again. And I was thinking the other day about a conversation that would be good to have with you and Ray, your trusty interlocutor on the Horsepoup blog. I think the three of us represent a range of opinions on the issue of faith, of a Creator (capital "C"), etc.
I thought I would try to begin a conversation with what I take to be a simple, yet genuine question. The question I've asked myself of late goes something like this: do I have faith? Given that I do not believe in a Creator (let alone *the* Creator), am I also without faith? Or can I say that I have faith in some other way/thing?
I don't know how to tackle that question head on, hence my inclination to have a dialogue with you and Ray. So to start that off, I'll present my case for not believing in a creator as a good thing, not just for me, but for others too.
In a nutshell, I believe *not* believing in God makes me a better person. And I believe a lack of belief in God, more generally, removes the fundamental idea of a hierarchy of consciousness - that is, of a "supreme being" to which humans are ultimately accountable. Without that hierarchy we are accountable to our fellow humans. To one another. With nobody to grant absolution, we are left to creating the conditions of a peaceful, loving world ourselves. We cannot suspend this responsibility even for one minute, because there is no time *after* which we will be
absolved for *not* creating peace among one another. The fulfilling life in this view of the world is one where you make others' lives better. Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.
This message is not far from biblical. First Corinthians 13 says "now abideth, faith, hope, and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love." I agree.
When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty. You can live a sacred life and still keep slaves. Why? Because the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans.
That's enough of a start, I think. I have another bit I want to propose too - one that proposes a little thought experiment that makes a different case. If we imagine ourselves as God (and if we are created in the image of the creator, this is not an unreasonable move), what kind of human consciousness would we want to encourage and nurture? One that is forever subservient, full of divine entitlement, and unaccountable to other humans? Sounds like bad parenting to me. But more on that one later...
About the time I was wondering about that, I got an email from my old buddy Bill on an uncannily similar idea. Bill thought the regular contributors to Horsepoup might provide some good discussion about some questions he had. I hope that means he saw Horsepoup as a place where one is encouraged to argue politics and religion rather than a place, like the rest of public America, where such discussion is discouraged, and thus any real understanding, analysis, consensus building, progress or brotherhood is also discouraged.
In any event, I’m running the email (with Bill’s permission of course) as a guest post. Comments on the questions that arise will be neatly listed in the comments link, but may also make their way onto the main page if they shoot off into significantly different directions. So here’s the start:
Hey Luth,
So our little discussion last weekend got the rusty wheels of grand ideas turning again. And I was thinking the other day about a conversation that would be good to have with you and Ray, your trusty interlocutor on the Horsepoup blog. I think the three of us represent a range of opinions on the issue of faith, of a Creator (capital "C"), etc.
I thought I would try to begin a conversation with what I take to be a simple, yet genuine question. The question I've asked myself of late goes something like this: do I have faith? Given that I do not believe in a Creator (let alone *the* Creator), am I also without faith? Or can I say that I have faith in some other way/thing?
I don't know how to tackle that question head on, hence my inclination to have a dialogue with you and Ray. So to start that off, I'll present my case for not believing in a creator as a good thing, not just for me, but for others too.
In a nutshell, I believe *not* believing in God makes me a better person. And I believe a lack of belief in God, more generally, removes the fundamental idea of a hierarchy of consciousness - that is, of a "supreme being" to which humans are ultimately accountable. Without that hierarchy we are accountable to our fellow humans. To one another. With nobody to grant absolution, we are left to creating the conditions of a peaceful, loving world ourselves. We cannot suspend this responsibility even for one minute, because there is no time *after* which we will be
absolved for *not* creating peace among one another. The fulfilling life in this view of the world is one where you make others' lives better. Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.
This message is not far from biblical. First Corinthians 13 says "now abideth, faith, hope, and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love." I agree.
When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty. You can live a sacred life and still keep slaves. Why? Because the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans.
That's enough of a start, I think. I have another bit I want to propose too - one that proposes a little thought experiment that makes a different case. If we imagine ourselves as God (and if we are created in the image of the creator, this is not an unreasonable move), what kind of human consciousness would we want to encourage and nurture? One that is forever subservient, full of divine entitlement, and unaccountable to other humans? Sounds like bad parenting to me. But more on that one later...
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Spheres of Influence
Jim Grant is sort of a jack of all trades these days from what I gather, but here’s what I know I like about him: he’s an educator with 20 plus years experience and he recognizes that the NCLB act is a scam.
Though he makes his living in the education field, he pulls no punches when it comes to this topic. Instead he points out little things, like the fact that a kid, from the time he starts kindergarten until he graduates, spends a total of about 13% of his time in school. 13%. To some, that may sound like a larger number than you would have guessed. To most, it should strike you just how small a figure that is, and yet, in that 13% of the time, teachers are increasingly being called upon to perform more and more of the roles that rightfully fall somewhere in that remaining 87% of a kid’s time.
Here’s how Grant looks at it. He calls it the “Sphere of Influence Inventory” wherin he helps remind educators what many politicians, and even more of their confused followers seem to forget – that their influence is much more limited than modern society is willing to accept.
You can download a copy of this in PDF form from his web page:
www.sde.com/Teacher-Resources.asp#freeDownloads
Seriously, check it out… another PDF listed there (also free to download) is the Parent Report Card… I’ll list it in a post dedicated to my No Parent Left Behind proposal.
(hint: if you want to just skim through and find the important stuff, the activities traditionally covered during that 13% of a kid’s time spent at school are at the bottom of the list. Keep in mind; however, that teachers don’t control many of those factors either.)
Instructions
Using a checkmark, please indicate your degree of influence (sphere of control)
when addressing family factors, societal circumstances, and school policies and
practices contained in this inventory. Space is provided for comments.
Family Factors
1. The family’s socio-economic level
2. The family type (note: there are over ten different types)
3. Homelessness
4. The neighborhood where the family lives
5. The family’s housing arrangements
Birth Issues
1. Traumatic birth
2. Low birth weight
3. Premature birth
4. Damage prenatally, i.e. Alcohol/drugs, smoking, adverse stress,
undernourishment, chemical toxins, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.
Life’s Circumstances
1. Innate capacity (I.Q.)
2. Gender
3. Right/left handedness
4. Chronological age at school entrance
5. Learning disabilities
6. Physical disabilities
7. Conduct disorders
8. Emotional problems
9. Childhood depression
10. Learning styles(s)
11. Maturational level
12. Emotional I.Q.
13. Transience
14. Attendance
15. Tardiness
16. Culture
17. First language (primary language spoken at home)
18. Traumatized, i.e. divorce, family dysfunction, move, school change,
parent incarcerated, death of a family member, violence, neglect, terminal
illness of a family member/friend, etc.
Health/well-being outside of school
Do educators have any control over whether the child:
1. Is exposed to environmental toxins, i.e. lead, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.
2. Has proper nutrition (three balanced meals daily)
3. Has access to timely medical care
4. Suffers from abuse or neglect
5. Receives 9-10 hours of sleep per night
6. Is properly clothed for the occasion/weather
7. Receives positive attention daily
8. Receives daily affection
9. Maintains appropriate personal hygiene
Parental Supervision
Do educators have any control over whether the parent:
1. Pays attention to how much time a child spends watching television
2. Monitors television programs the child watches
3. Tracks the amount of time their child spends on the computer
4. Monitors their child’s computer activities
5. Keeps track of time spent on homework
Parental Involvement
1. The number of books in the home
2. How often is the child read to
3. How often is the child sung to or with
4. Whether the child receives assistance with homework
5. How much time is spent talking with the child each day
6. Whether the child is supervised at all times
Deportment Prior to School
Do educators have any control over whether:
1. The child has knowledge of basic manners
2. The child is disciplined and well behaved
3. The child understands delayed gratification
4. The child knows right from wrong
Parent Character
Do educators have any control over whether:
1. The child is exposed to an alcohol/drug filled environment
2. The child is exposed to second hand smoke
3. The child is exposed to domestic/societal violence
4. The child is exposed to profanity
5. The parent models appropriate decorum
6. The child is disciplined in a non-physical, non-abusive manner
7. The parent supports the school
Societal Circumstances
Do educators have any control over whether the child:
1. Is exposed to songs with inappropriate lyrics
2. Has access to adult websites, i.e. hate groups, pornography, sex, violence,
bomb making, etc.
3. Is pressured by the media and peers to be thin
4. Is pressured by the media to be materialistic, i.e. brand name clothes,
personal products, toys, jewelry sunglasses, etc.
5. Has access to violent video games
6. Has access to movies and videos with an adult theme, i.e. sex, violence,
pornography, mayhem, rudeness, profanity, etc.
7. Has access to television programs with adult content
8. Has access to 900 telephone numbers
9. Access to tobacco products
10. Has access to drugs and alcohol
11. Is exposed to adult advertising
12. Has access to harmful weapons
13. Has access to adult diet products
14. Has access to magazines with adult material
School Policies and Practices
1. Class size
2. Automatic social promotion
3. Full inclusion “at all costs”
4. Adoption of a “whole math” program
5. Age/grade specific group standardized testing
6. Age/grade specific standards
7. Age/grade specific textbook adoptions
8. Lock-step, time-bound school structure
9. Adequate staff support, i.e. social worker(s), guidance counselor(s), aides, etc.
10. Adequate school funding
11. Adoption of Developmentally Inappropriate Practices
The S.I.I. is designed to help educators identify factors and circumstances along with school policies and practices that are within their sphere of control and then act on them. This unique inventory is a useful tool to clarify the role of the parent/guardian, the school, and the greater society and which roles should be shared. The author’s intent is to help school officials gently remind the public that our schools cannot solve the problems of the world single handedly.
Published by Staff Development for Educators
10 Sharon Road • PO Box 577 • Peterborough, NH 03458
1-800-924-9621 • 1-800-337-9929 (fax)
copyright 2002
I know that was a lot of reading, and if you even skimmed most of it, thanks. I didn’t want to remove any of SDE’s context. Grant’s approach to this topic is unique in that it offers little in the way of common sense information, yet much of America OUTSIDE of the world of education seems to have forgotten these important little details. Some, however haven’t. Three states have come out boldly against NCLB by refusing federal funds during a time of near crisis in school funding so that they may be free of the ridiculous rules of the ridiculous program. Several others have decided to work with the program’s requirement for arbitrary, statewide testing by developing their own tests in each district. Nebraska, for instance, could require all of its public school students to write a two-word essay like “Buy corn.” in order to meet the testing requirement! Sounds about as useful as the tests NCLB recommends.
Utah, Colorado and Hawaii have passed legislation opting out of the program, giving up millions of dollars in federal education funding in favor of creating their own standards for their own students. Thirteen other states have considered similar bills, and Connecticut was the first state to join the National Education Association in filing suit against the Federal Government arguing that NCLB, as an unfunded mandate, is unconstitutional. Massachusetts, Ohio and, by now, a growing handful of others have joined the suit.
One interesting note, the drafters of the NCLB must have seen this coming, for in the language of the law is an anecdote that protects itself from this particular argument. It says in section 9527, “the federal government cannot ‘mandate, direct, or control’ a state or a school district to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act." Or, as NEA lawyer, Robert Chanin puts it, “In other words: NCLB cannot become an unfunded mandate: The law itself forbids it.” Are you kidding?! Someone please tell me the lawyers for our nation’s top educational consultants didn’t really go to law school to learn how to do this.
NCLB requires schools receive report cards that must be published to a general public who has no say in what is measured or how on those report cards. One old argument is that we don’t really need those tests to figure out who won’t pass. There’s a story about a school district in Ohio that determined that students from households with annual incomes below $55,000 were most likely to fail a previously used test. The success of their prediction was uncanny. Of course, they won’t say that publicly because they’re not allowed, but the story is the same in most districts. Not coincidentally, the districts with the lowest household incomes are the ones most likely to end up on the endangered list as districts as well. My point? The only thing really measured by the tests NCLB mandates is economic status. So why spend the money on the tests, use the results to belittle the only people who are actually working on student performance when we already know the only thing the tests tell us?
OK. I guess that’s enough of that for tonight. Here’s what’s really on my mind:
As I stare down the end of what I used to refer to as the school year, but which I’m now starting to call “subbing season,” as this “season” comes to a close, I have to start thinking about summer work. As I start thinking about summer work during the point in the season when, thanks to public, political and economic pressure, schools stop teaching and start focusing on the tests, I’m really asking myself why I got myself into this, and how much longer I want to work this hard to stay with it. I guess I’m confused about what’s really valued and where my experience, interests and talents fit into it all. I’d never really thought of education as an industry, but I suppose that’s the result of the same idealism that made me think I should do it in the first place. I’m torn now because admitting I was crazy to think that way, that I was wrong, means admitting that my idealism has died. I don’t know how anyone could continue to put up with what teachers put up with without that. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t. So now that I find myself wondering about all that, wondering if my idealism has died therefore allowing me to even consider other careers, I can’t help but wonder if that’s at least a symptom that said idealism is at best terminally ill. Ah well, my little chunk of that 13% probably represents less influence on a student's life than the clerk at the video store where he rents games.
I guess we all have to grow up someday.
Luth,
Out.
Though he makes his living in the education field, he pulls no punches when it comes to this topic. Instead he points out little things, like the fact that a kid, from the time he starts kindergarten until he graduates, spends a total of about 13% of his time in school. 13%. To some, that may sound like a larger number than you would have guessed. To most, it should strike you just how small a figure that is, and yet, in that 13% of the time, teachers are increasingly being called upon to perform more and more of the roles that rightfully fall somewhere in that remaining 87% of a kid’s time.
Here’s how Grant looks at it. He calls it the “Sphere of Influence Inventory” wherin he helps remind educators what many politicians, and even more of their confused followers seem to forget – that their influence is much more limited than modern society is willing to accept.
You can download a copy of this in PDF form from his web page:
www.sde.com/Teacher-Resources.asp#freeDownloads
Seriously, check it out… another PDF listed there (also free to download) is the Parent Report Card… I’ll list it in a post dedicated to my No Parent Left Behind proposal.
(hint: if you want to just skim through and find the important stuff, the activities traditionally covered during that 13% of a kid’s time spent at school are at the bottom of the list. Keep in mind; however, that teachers don’t control many of those factors either.)
Instructions
Using a checkmark, please indicate your degree of influence (sphere of control)
when addressing family factors, societal circumstances, and school policies and
practices contained in this inventory. Space is provided for comments.
Family Factors
1. The family’s socio-economic level
2. The family type (note: there are over ten different types)
3. Homelessness
4. The neighborhood where the family lives
5. The family’s housing arrangements
Birth Issues
1. Traumatic birth
2. Low birth weight
3. Premature birth
4. Damage prenatally, i.e. Alcohol/drugs, smoking, adverse stress,
undernourishment, chemical toxins, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.
Life’s Circumstances
1. Innate capacity (I.Q.)
2. Gender
3. Right/left handedness
4. Chronological age at school entrance
5. Learning disabilities
6. Physical disabilities
7. Conduct disorders
8. Emotional problems
9. Childhood depression
10. Learning styles(s)
11. Maturational level
12. Emotional I.Q.
13. Transience
14. Attendance
15. Tardiness
16. Culture
17. First language (primary language spoken at home)
18. Traumatized, i.e. divorce, family dysfunction, move, school change,
parent incarcerated, death of a family member, violence, neglect, terminal
illness of a family member/friend, etc.
Health/well-being outside of school
Do educators have any control over whether the child:
1. Is exposed to environmental toxins, i.e. lead, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.
2. Has proper nutrition (three balanced meals daily)
3. Has access to timely medical care
4. Suffers from abuse or neglect
5. Receives 9-10 hours of sleep per night
6. Is properly clothed for the occasion/weather
7. Receives positive attention daily
8. Receives daily affection
9. Maintains appropriate personal hygiene
Parental Supervision
Do educators have any control over whether the parent:
1. Pays attention to how much time a child spends watching television
2. Monitors television programs the child watches
3. Tracks the amount of time their child spends on the computer
4. Monitors their child’s computer activities
5. Keeps track of time spent on homework
Parental Involvement
1. The number of books in the home
2. How often is the child read to
3. How often is the child sung to or with
4. Whether the child receives assistance with homework
5. How much time is spent talking with the child each day
6. Whether the child is supervised at all times
Deportment Prior to School
Do educators have any control over whether:
1. The child has knowledge of basic manners
2. The child is disciplined and well behaved
3. The child understands delayed gratification
4. The child knows right from wrong
Parent Character
Do educators have any control over whether:
1. The child is exposed to an alcohol/drug filled environment
2. The child is exposed to second hand smoke
3. The child is exposed to domestic/societal violence
4. The child is exposed to profanity
5. The parent models appropriate decorum
6. The child is disciplined in a non-physical, non-abusive manner
7. The parent supports the school
Societal Circumstances
Do educators have any control over whether the child:
1. Is exposed to songs with inappropriate lyrics
2. Has access to adult websites, i.e. hate groups, pornography, sex, violence,
bomb making, etc.
3. Is pressured by the media and peers to be thin
4. Is pressured by the media to be materialistic, i.e. brand name clothes,
personal products, toys, jewelry sunglasses, etc.
5. Has access to violent video games
6. Has access to movies and videos with an adult theme, i.e. sex, violence,
pornography, mayhem, rudeness, profanity, etc.
7. Has access to television programs with adult content
8. Has access to 900 telephone numbers
9. Access to tobacco products
10. Has access to drugs and alcohol
11. Is exposed to adult advertising
12. Has access to harmful weapons
13. Has access to adult diet products
14. Has access to magazines with adult material
School Policies and Practices
1. Class size
2. Automatic social promotion
3. Full inclusion “at all costs”
4. Adoption of a “whole math” program
5. Age/grade specific group standardized testing
6. Age/grade specific standards
7. Age/grade specific textbook adoptions
8. Lock-step, time-bound school structure
9. Adequate staff support, i.e. social worker(s), guidance counselor(s), aides, etc.
10. Adequate school funding
11. Adoption of Developmentally Inappropriate Practices
The S.I.I. is designed to help educators identify factors and circumstances along with school policies and practices that are within their sphere of control and then act on them. This unique inventory is a useful tool to clarify the role of the parent/guardian, the school, and the greater society and which roles should be shared. The author’s intent is to help school officials gently remind the public that our schools cannot solve the problems of the world single handedly.
Published by Staff Development for Educators
10 Sharon Road • PO Box 577 • Peterborough, NH 03458
1-800-924-9621 • 1-800-337-9929 (fax)
copyright 2002
I know that was a lot of reading, and if you even skimmed most of it, thanks. I didn’t want to remove any of SDE’s context. Grant’s approach to this topic is unique in that it offers little in the way of common sense information, yet much of America OUTSIDE of the world of education seems to have forgotten these important little details. Some, however haven’t. Three states have come out boldly against NCLB by refusing federal funds during a time of near crisis in school funding so that they may be free of the ridiculous rules of the ridiculous program. Several others have decided to work with the program’s requirement for arbitrary, statewide testing by developing their own tests in each district. Nebraska, for instance, could require all of its public school students to write a two-word essay like “Buy corn.” in order to meet the testing requirement! Sounds about as useful as the tests NCLB recommends.
Utah, Colorado and Hawaii have passed legislation opting out of the program, giving up millions of dollars in federal education funding in favor of creating their own standards for their own students. Thirteen other states have considered similar bills, and Connecticut was the first state to join the National Education Association in filing suit against the Federal Government arguing that NCLB, as an unfunded mandate, is unconstitutional. Massachusetts, Ohio and, by now, a growing handful of others have joined the suit.
One interesting note, the drafters of the NCLB must have seen this coming, for in the language of the law is an anecdote that protects itself from this particular argument. It says in section 9527, “the federal government cannot ‘mandate, direct, or control’ a state or a school district to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act." Or, as NEA lawyer, Robert Chanin puts it, “In other words: NCLB cannot become an unfunded mandate: The law itself forbids it.” Are you kidding?! Someone please tell me the lawyers for our nation’s top educational consultants didn’t really go to law school to learn how to do this.
NCLB requires schools receive report cards that must be published to a general public who has no say in what is measured or how on those report cards. One old argument is that we don’t really need those tests to figure out who won’t pass. There’s a story about a school district in Ohio that determined that students from households with annual incomes below $55,000 were most likely to fail a previously used test. The success of their prediction was uncanny. Of course, they won’t say that publicly because they’re not allowed, but the story is the same in most districts. Not coincidentally, the districts with the lowest household incomes are the ones most likely to end up on the endangered list as districts as well. My point? The only thing really measured by the tests NCLB mandates is economic status. So why spend the money on the tests, use the results to belittle the only people who are actually working on student performance when we already know the only thing the tests tell us?
OK. I guess that’s enough of that for tonight. Here’s what’s really on my mind:
As I stare down the end of what I used to refer to as the school year, but which I’m now starting to call “subbing season,” as this “season” comes to a close, I have to start thinking about summer work. As I start thinking about summer work during the point in the season when, thanks to public, political and economic pressure, schools stop teaching and start focusing on the tests, I’m really asking myself why I got myself into this, and how much longer I want to work this hard to stay with it. I guess I’m confused about what’s really valued and where my experience, interests and talents fit into it all. I’d never really thought of education as an industry, but I suppose that’s the result of the same idealism that made me think I should do it in the first place. I’m torn now because admitting I was crazy to think that way, that I was wrong, means admitting that my idealism has died. I don’t know how anyone could continue to put up with what teachers put up with without that. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t. So now that I find myself wondering about all that, wondering if my idealism has died therefore allowing me to even consider other careers, I can’t help but wonder if that’s at least a symptom that said idealism is at best terminally ill. Ah well, my little chunk of that 13% probably represents less influence on a student's life than the clerk at the video store where he rents games.
I guess we all have to grow up someday.
Luth,
Out.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Sunshine
I made reference to Little Miss Sunshine a few posts ago. I must confess, at that point I hadn’t actually seen the movie. I knew the basic idea, and had seen the trailers, but I hadn’t seen it. Now I have. It’s great.
Movies do a lot of different things for different people. We tend to like the ones we identify with, which is a nice way of saying “those which reinforce what we believe,” and little else and that's ok. Little Miss Sunshine did that, for sure, but it also solidified a realization I’ve been making over the course of my life: I can’t explain things well without some form of analogy... comparison... metaphor or simile. I just can’t.
I think this stems from a belief I had back when I knew everything that comparisons were the best way to explain something. I apparently fixated on this much like Freud suggests we fixate on pooping or eating. As the powers of language were being revealed to me, I fixated on comparison. Now that I no longer know everything, I’m coming to realize that what I fixated on doesn’t necessarily equate with what is true, righteous, sublime, maybe even real. Rather, what I fixated on is, well, just what I fixated on.
Having provided that disclaimer, let me now explain the beauty of Little Miss Sunshine by comparing it to Volcano, that gem from a few years back starring the lovely Ann Heche and the lovelier Tommy Lee Jones. (I’ll offer my disclaimer, which explains why I watched Volcano, at the end of the post if I remember)
There are a couple of scenes in Volcano in which the stereotypical tendency among teenagers to think only of themselves is depicted rather overtly. (the movie tries too hard to have a point) I notice this kind of crap because I spend a lot of time around teenagers and I know that the stereotype is certainly not without some, ok a lot of supporting examples. (I also notice it because I’m bracing myself for when my own daughters become teenagers) I also know, though it’s sometimes hard to remember, that teenagers are about as mature as, well, teenagers, and that’s why they sometimes forget their actions affect more than just them. Oddly enough, it’s the time I spent working around adults that helped me realize this. Most of the adults I worked with acted the same way. The only problem with that is they weren’t teenagers so they had no excuse for acting like that.
Back to the movie.
These gratuitous “I’m a selfish teenager scenes” were dutifully acted out by TLJ’s character’s daughter. Their last name in the movie was Roark, by the way, stolen from The Fountainhead? as though the FEMA director character played by Jones was some sort of visionary rather than an opportunistic horse trader. (I told you the movie tries too hard) Again, back to the daughter being a selfish teenager. The scenes in which she whines about why something didn’t work her way are an obvious set up for when she later epiphanizes (it’s a word, I’m the coiner) that the world doesn’t actually revolve around her. In Volcano, this epiphany occurs when she happens across a baby whose mother has disappeared in the chaos resulting from a volcano that erupts through the LaBrea Tar Pits... yep, those tar pits in downtown LA. (I told you I’d offer an explanation for why I watched this movie)
So here’s the comparison: Volcano offers this message about teens growing up. To be honest, it offers little else except maybe questions about why Don Cheadle agreed to take the part he took.
Little Miss Sunshine offers a much more realistic (though absurdly exaggerated) look at the same issue in addition to asking all who watch to move closer to the same epiphany as adults. Sunshine’s portrayal of a “dysfunctional” family coming together through a series of completely possible, even likely, but not to the same family in the same three days, events is mind-blowingly effective and, I’d say, necessary. And don't get me started on the themes about the journey over the destination, learning more from what others may call defeat than from victory, and on and on and on. It’s just a cool movie that makes you laugh a little, but makes you think a lot. It makes some of the same mistakes as Volcano... like trying too hard vis-a-vis the older brother’s obsession with Nietzsche and Uncle Frank’s obsession with Proust, but I can easily excuse trying too hard when a movie bites off as much as Sunshine does. Besides, it was just plain fun to watch. Of the last ten movies I’ve seen, it’s in the top three, right up there with Bill Murray in Broken Flowers and, in spite of it’s popularity, The Break Up-darkly hilarious.
Now don’t take my criticism of Volcano too seriously. It was a snow day. It was freezing outside so the girls and I hung out inside all day, and once they decided they were tired of me and disappeared in their room, I surfed channels and found TLJ on AMC while I graded papers. I could have turned the channel. I could have bundled up and gone outside. I chose to watch and I was entertained. That’s all I ask of a movie and on that day, Volcano delivered. But Sunshine delivered on so many more levels I’ll now cease listing the two in the same paragraph.
OK, that’s all for now. I wanted to praise Gov’nor Ahnuld for his recent anti-partisan efforts out in Cali, and in the same post criticize the Dems in congress for their insistence on partisan politics as usual, while at the same time, bashing Bush for wanting to distance himself from Clinton more than he wanted to actually address the terrorist threats we knew of, but I don’t think I’m up to that tonight. I’m too happy. The faith-in-my-fellow-man meter is pegged after watching a good movie with my wife.
Speaking of Grace, I spent one night last weekend with some old college chums. One’s a weather guy in the Air Force these days who’s heading to Korea soon. The other two are teachers... one in college, the other in high school...two of us are Technical Sergeants, the other two are frickin doctors! The four of us were among a handful of people who could sit up all night and solve every single problem in the world through the discussion then and there in that room. We attempted same last weekend. We’re all old, but our discussion on how to fix the world lasted until 4 am. Though my body was tired on my way home, my soul had tapped into a fountain of youth. It was also encouraged by the fact that most of us have offspring (who will undoubtedly rebel against us by becoming corporate execs) and we all seem to have found comfortable places in the world. I know my world’s a better place for their being in it. I hope, in some small way, I have given them a little something in return.
Oh, and the next movie on my list... Flock of Dodos: The Evolution/Intelligent Design Circus, which, as I understand, is as much about the failure of the experts to communicate to us mortals as it is about both sides of the debate.
If only there were some tormented, mid-brained soul out there whose flaw [being mid-brained and thus arguing with himself (or herself) about everything] provided him (or her) with a knack for grasping fairly complex issues and then explaining them, perhaps by analogy, to the common man.
Luth,
Out.
Movies do a lot of different things for different people. We tend to like the ones we identify with, which is a nice way of saying “those which reinforce what we believe,” and little else and that's ok. Little Miss Sunshine did that, for sure, but it also solidified a realization I’ve been making over the course of my life: I can’t explain things well without some form of analogy... comparison... metaphor or simile. I just can’t.
I think this stems from a belief I had back when I knew everything that comparisons were the best way to explain something. I apparently fixated on this much like Freud suggests we fixate on pooping or eating. As the powers of language were being revealed to me, I fixated on comparison. Now that I no longer know everything, I’m coming to realize that what I fixated on doesn’t necessarily equate with what is true, righteous, sublime, maybe even real. Rather, what I fixated on is, well, just what I fixated on.
Having provided that disclaimer, let me now explain the beauty of Little Miss Sunshine by comparing it to Volcano, that gem from a few years back starring the lovely Ann Heche and the lovelier Tommy Lee Jones. (I’ll offer my disclaimer, which explains why I watched Volcano, at the end of the post if I remember)
There are a couple of scenes in Volcano in which the stereotypical tendency among teenagers to think only of themselves is depicted rather overtly. (the movie tries too hard to have a point) I notice this kind of crap because I spend a lot of time around teenagers and I know that the stereotype is certainly not without some, ok a lot of supporting examples. (I also notice it because I’m bracing myself for when my own daughters become teenagers) I also know, though it’s sometimes hard to remember, that teenagers are about as mature as, well, teenagers, and that’s why they sometimes forget their actions affect more than just them. Oddly enough, it’s the time I spent working around adults that helped me realize this. Most of the adults I worked with acted the same way. The only problem with that is they weren’t teenagers so they had no excuse for acting like that.
Back to the movie.
These gratuitous “I’m a selfish teenager scenes” were dutifully acted out by TLJ’s character’s daughter. Their last name in the movie was Roark, by the way, stolen from The Fountainhead? as though the FEMA director character played by Jones was some sort of visionary rather than an opportunistic horse trader. (I told you the movie tries too hard) Again, back to the daughter being a selfish teenager. The scenes in which she whines about why something didn’t work her way are an obvious set up for when she later epiphanizes (it’s a word, I’m the coiner) that the world doesn’t actually revolve around her. In Volcano, this epiphany occurs when she happens across a baby whose mother has disappeared in the chaos resulting from a volcano that erupts through the LaBrea Tar Pits... yep, those tar pits in downtown LA. (I told you I’d offer an explanation for why I watched this movie)
So here’s the comparison: Volcano offers this message about teens growing up. To be honest, it offers little else except maybe questions about why Don Cheadle agreed to take the part he took.
Little Miss Sunshine offers a much more realistic (though absurdly exaggerated) look at the same issue in addition to asking all who watch to move closer to the same epiphany as adults. Sunshine’s portrayal of a “dysfunctional” family coming together through a series of completely possible, even likely, but not to the same family in the same three days, events is mind-blowingly effective and, I’d say, necessary. And don't get me started on the themes about the journey over the destination, learning more from what others may call defeat than from victory, and on and on and on. It’s just a cool movie that makes you laugh a little, but makes you think a lot. It makes some of the same mistakes as Volcano... like trying too hard vis-a-vis the older brother’s obsession with Nietzsche and Uncle Frank’s obsession with Proust, but I can easily excuse trying too hard when a movie bites off as much as Sunshine does. Besides, it was just plain fun to watch. Of the last ten movies I’ve seen, it’s in the top three, right up there with Bill Murray in Broken Flowers and, in spite of it’s popularity, The Break Up-darkly hilarious.
Now don’t take my criticism of Volcano too seriously. It was a snow day. It was freezing outside so the girls and I hung out inside all day, and once they decided they were tired of me and disappeared in their room, I surfed channels and found TLJ on AMC while I graded papers. I could have turned the channel. I could have bundled up and gone outside. I chose to watch and I was entertained. That’s all I ask of a movie and on that day, Volcano delivered. But Sunshine delivered on so many more levels I’ll now cease listing the two in the same paragraph.
OK, that’s all for now. I wanted to praise Gov’nor Ahnuld for his recent anti-partisan efforts out in Cali, and in the same post criticize the Dems in congress for their insistence on partisan politics as usual, while at the same time, bashing Bush for wanting to distance himself from Clinton more than he wanted to actually address the terrorist threats we knew of, but I don’t think I’m up to that tonight. I’m too happy. The faith-in-my-fellow-man meter is pegged after watching a good movie with my wife.
Speaking of Grace, I spent one night last weekend with some old college chums. One’s a weather guy in the Air Force these days who’s heading to Korea soon. The other two are teachers... one in college, the other in high school...two of us are Technical Sergeants, the other two are frickin doctors! The four of us were among a handful of people who could sit up all night and solve every single problem in the world through the discussion then and there in that room. We attempted same last weekend. We’re all old, but our discussion on how to fix the world lasted until 4 am. Though my body was tired on my way home, my soul had tapped into a fountain of youth. It was also encouraged by the fact that most of us have offspring (who will undoubtedly rebel against us by becoming corporate execs) and we all seem to have found comfortable places in the world. I know my world’s a better place for their being in it. I hope, in some small way, I have given them a little something in return.
Oh, and the next movie on my list... Flock of Dodos: The Evolution/Intelligent Design Circus, which, as I understand, is as much about the failure of the experts to communicate to us mortals as it is about both sides of the debate.
If only there were some tormented, mid-brained soul out there whose flaw [being mid-brained and thus arguing with himself (or herself) about everything] provided him (or her) with a knack for grasping fairly complex issues and then explaining them, perhaps by analogy, to the common man.
Luth,
Out.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
taking this book without a grain of salt would be... DERELICTION OF DUTY
I just finished reading DERELICTION OF DUTY by Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, USAF (Retired). It's strange that this book ended up in my hands at this time. This past weekend I attended the retirement party of my Guard Unit's most recent commander. He, unlike Patterson, was a "full-bird" colonel. The term "full-bird" refers to the fact that a Lt. Colonel's insignia is an oak leaf cluster. When promoted from Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel, the insignia is an eagle. Anyhoo, the day after that party just happened to mark 20 years to the day of my anniversary of joining the United States Air Force and the Ohio Air National Guard.
I say it's strange timing that I just read this book because as I began reading it, I was intrigued by the fact that I was in the military, and even participated in some of the same operations that Lt. Col. Patterson writes about in his book. I'm blessed with feeling that I'm too young to have been involved in anything about which history has been written, but when Patterson criticized OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY as being one of Clinton's "objective less boondoggles," I took note of the fact that I too had been to Haiti as part of that United Nations initiative. (an initiative that actually began during Bush 41's term) It struck me that my perception of that humanitarian mission (my unit repaired and replaced water and sewer lines, roads, power production and distribution equipment, drilled water wells, remodeled hospitals and schools) was fairly positive, while Patterson's opinion, formulated from his view of the country from the cockpit of his aircraft while on the tarmac at Port au Prince airport, was rather negative. I wanted to read more about that time in my life. I remember it for a couple of reasons. My wife and I were expecting our first child and the Cleveland Indians were in the World Series for the first time in my life... and I was in Haiti at the time. But Patterson's description of Haiti didn't include much about what I remember about this country that once flourished until the French pulled the rug out from under it. Instead, Patterson criticized the operation as misuse of our military, and as one of several reasons why terrorism is all Clinton's fault.
My initial thoughts while reading the prologue and the first chapter were along these lines:
This guy's really bitter. Perhaps someone noticed this early in his career and that's what kept him from making full-bird colonel. He's too wrapped up in himself to have any kind of world view. After all, he's a self-described hero, combat veteran, squadron commander, and hand-selected presidential aid. None of the commanders I'd seen off into retirement boasted any of those credentials (other than the "squadron commander" part, of course... but none had been pilots or presidential aids) and I'd seen quite a few leave who served their entire careers sans combat and still got the birds to wear on their collars.
Just as I caught myself thinking this way, I remembered the study skills I was teaching that week in the reading class I've taken over through the end of the year. I remembered one of the bad habits of bad listeners: criticizing the speaker instead of the message. The old "ad hominem" fallacy. I was preparing to warn my students about this basic principal when I caught myself doing the same thing. So I suppressed my evaluations and read on.
Fortunately, the book is written for people with short attention spans and consists of little more than a short story, lengthwise. I believe it's about 150 or so pages. So I forged on and finished reading it the next night after making these observations. (both that Patterson is bitter, and that I shouldn't decide that until I finish reading all that he has to say)
So I finished the book. But my conclusions about it are pretty much the same. They're slightly altered, I'll admit, but only to include this: As I stare down my own retirement now that that date has passed which makes me eligible, I consider the rank I've achieved and wonder if maybe I shouldn't have achieved more. Can the same criticism be leveled at me when I leave for good. And, more importantly, did the same kind of egotistical narrow-mindedness I found in Patterson's reflections prevent me from contributing more to my section, squadron, state and nation? Could I have fallen into the same singularly-focused trap that Patterson has?
I doubt it. I'm actually pretty happy with my career. Rank comes a little slower in the guard than in active duty, especially now that no one wants to stay on active duty, but I'm happy. I had set a few personal goals once I'd been around long enough to know what some meaningful goals might be and I've achieved almost all of them. I'm close enough to the ones I haven't achieved that it's reasonable to expect them in the remainder of my current enlistment (which will actually take me to 21 years of service), but even if I don't achieve all of them, it's been extremely satisfying. Other than the occasional twinge of hypocrisy I feel for having participated in OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM given how vocally I've opposed it from the beginning, I'm pretty content. In fact I can even live with that since I had no idea we'd be ordered into something so stupid when I made my commitment and, unlike the guy who caused that, I honored that commitment. So I'm cool with it. Nope, I don't think I'll "sally forth" into greener pastures (as RED HORSEmen are wont to do upon their retirement) with quite the chip on my shoulder that Patterson describes.
Here's why... and in case you haven't guessed by now, here's why his book should be taken for what it is - little more than the personal venting of frustrations by a rather narrow-minded officer who was fortunate enough, in spite of himself, to retire from one of the greatest organizations in the world.
In chapter one, Patterson attributes Clinton's "failure" to order the assassination of Osama bin Laden to Clinton's preoccupation with a professional golf tournament. There's no question that from Patterson's perspective, the golf tournament is the reason Clinton didn't "pull the trigger." I won't dispute that. What I will take issue with is the assumption that Patterson knew all of the facts regarding Clinton's decision. It was apparently beyond Patterson to consider that the decision had already been made before the golf tournament started... or that there were reasons for not ordering an assassination that Patterson wasn't privy to. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, the President of the United States knew something that one of his staff aids didn't?? Chapter one, of course, precludes that possibility lays the blame squarely on Clinton's selfish desire to watch a golf tournament... that was actually rain-delayed at the time of the phone calls according to Patterson's account of it. Patterson seems to forget that Gerald Ford signed an executive order banning assassinations AND that Ronald Reagan later issued his own order making the language even stronger. (something he would later regret when dealing with Manuel Noriega)
Patterson attributes one more factor to this particular failure: Clinton's lack of courage. yet Patterson ends the book with an example of his own. In the last chapter, Patterson remembers discussing with the military aids from the other services the fact that the joint chiefs of staff all resigned at the same time during the Vietnam conflict. Patterson says the current military aids to the President tossed the idea around due to their mutual disgust for the president. But, alas, none of them could pull the trigger and instead, they attended the farewell party held in their honor and accepted the medals President Clinton awarded them with. IN two classy moves that speak volumes about Patterson, he finishes up accusing the president of making eyes at this wife at the party and pointing out that he never opened the box the medal came in. Sounds a little like how John Kerry felt about his Vietnam medals, eh?
By that point, I felt fairly safe in assuming my initial impressions of Patterson, based solely on what he chose to write, were pretty accurate. He took the job to further his career and when that didn't pan out in spite of glowing evaluations the president wrote, and which, for no apparent reason other than self promotion, were included in the appendix of the book, Patterson decided to go the company route and bag on the Democrat in spite of the facts.
He includes a number of fallacial arguments between the two chapters I've mentioned, and while it wouldn't take long to summarize each of those chapters, I'll dwell only on a couple of the bad arguments and perpetuated myths that made the book a best-seller.
Patterson blames Clinton for the first WTC attack although Clinton had only been in office for 38 days. Patterson then makes it dreadfully obvious that Clinton, the CIA, the FBI, and pretty much everyone else in Washington DC knew about bin Laden, yet when the second WTC attack took place eight MONTHS after Bush took office, Patterson says that was somehow Clinton's fault too.
Patterson says Clinton's failure to retaliate against terrorist acts led "the terrorists" (as though they're all in some private club together) to learn that America was vulnerable and unwilling to defend itself. He neglects to mention that Reagan and Bush 41 took no action whatsoever in response to two of the largest attacks on American citizens prior to 911.
Patterson blames Clinton for the fact that he inherited a military, after 12 straight years of Republican rule, that was drastically underpaid. Patterson even cites a Time Magazine study in 1993 that notes the number of military families living below the poverty line. 1993! Clinton just moved into the White House! And yet, according to Patterson, it's his fault that while Reagan and Bush 41 passed on billions of defense budget dollars to their buddies who own big defense corporations, they kind of forgot that all that equipment had to be run by people... people they gave the standard 2% pay raises to. Patterson neglects to point out that Clinton convinced an opposition Congress to give the largest single military pay increase since Eisenhower. To his credit, Reagan tried to give bigger raises, but even 5% wouldn't have helped the families Time Magazine wrote about. And congress wasn't going to pass that budget at that point anyway because the Russians had already beat us to bankruptcy and military spending, nation building, regime tooling, was no longer a priority.
Patterson gives himself a pretty loud pat on the back for his participation in OPERATION URGENT FURY (Grenada) and credits Reagan's decisiveness for the operation's success. He then later blames Clinton's lack of decisiveness for the death of 18 U.S. troops in Mogadishu. Patterson never mentions the mishaps, poor planning and reliance on faulty intelligence that resulted in that same number of deaths during URGENT FURY, an operation that lasted less than 30 days.
Patterson makes numerous mention of the examples of where Clinton appeared to believe he was above the law, especially the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and accuses the president of frequently being guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, yet he seems to suggest that he's never seen any other military officer act similarly. Apparently he doesn't consider whining behind one's boss's back unbecoming. As an enlisted person, I could write a hundred books about officers who have tarnished their commissions as such. It happens. No one's perfect all the time, but most of us trust our friends and colleagues to either say something to our face or shut the hell up about it and hope we correct it on our own. (talk about a lack of courage)
Oh, I could go on and on, but I think I'm almost spent.
Patterson's knee-jerk Republican support, in spite of some obvious and blatant lapses of memory, is something I'm used to now that I've hung around military folk for 20 years, but I'm surprised someone was able to publish a novella based on it! Kudos to that guy. I wish I'd thought of it first. I hope he's enjoying his retirement... and can live with the bitter taste of the spoils of his whining.
I'm startled by the impact my 20th anniversary has had on me. I'd never seriously considered getting out just because I am suddenly eligible, but the passage of the date has kind of had me thinking otherwise. I'm no longer eligible for any reenlistment bonuses. My unit has frozen promotions in order to give the appearance of political correctness while some changes with the Ohio Air Guard take place. Plenty of my buddies are retiring, and I definitely don't want to leave my family fatherless again, even for a year, to go back to Iraq or any other unjustified war our current commander in chief might volunteer us for.
Patterson's book reminded me that I can't always trust the officers above me to apply logic to every situation. That's nothing knew to me, but now I've got to decide how comfortable I am with it... how much longer I'll have to hang around before I can write a book about how bad one of my bosses was even though I didn't say a word at the time to stop him.
Speaking of that...
How' bout them Dixie Chicks?! I'm definitely not a country music fan, but I was tickled to learn that the "liberal media's" attempts to boycott their music because they'd exercised their right to express their opinions didn't keep them from nearly sweeping the Grammys. Bush was pretty cocky when their record sales dropped, but I haven't heard him say anything about their recent awards.
OK, that's all for now. I'm trying to balance out DERELICTION by reading AGAINST ALL ENEMIES next. I'm only into about the third chapter, but it's a vastly different book in that it has already considered the opinions of at least two people outside of the author's.
Later dudes.
I say it's strange timing that I just read this book because as I began reading it, I was intrigued by the fact that I was in the military, and even participated in some of the same operations that Lt. Col. Patterson writes about in his book. I'm blessed with feeling that I'm too young to have been involved in anything about which history has been written, but when Patterson criticized OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY as being one of Clinton's "objective less boondoggles," I took note of the fact that I too had been to Haiti as part of that United Nations initiative. (an initiative that actually began during Bush 41's term) It struck me that my perception of that humanitarian mission (my unit repaired and replaced water and sewer lines, roads, power production and distribution equipment, drilled water wells, remodeled hospitals and schools) was fairly positive, while Patterson's opinion, formulated from his view of the country from the cockpit of his aircraft while on the tarmac at Port au Prince airport, was rather negative. I wanted to read more about that time in my life. I remember it for a couple of reasons. My wife and I were expecting our first child and the Cleveland Indians were in the World Series for the first time in my life... and I was in Haiti at the time. But Patterson's description of Haiti didn't include much about what I remember about this country that once flourished until the French pulled the rug out from under it. Instead, Patterson criticized the operation as misuse of our military, and as one of several reasons why terrorism is all Clinton's fault.
My initial thoughts while reading the prologue and the first chapter were along these lines:
This guy's really bitter. Perhaps someone noticed this early in his career and that's what kept him from making full-bird colonel. He's too wrapped up in himself to have any kind of world view. After all, he's a self-described hero, combat veteran, squadron commander, and hand-selected presidential aid. None of the commanders I'd seen off into retirement boasted any of those credentials (other than the "squadron commander" part, of course... but none had been pilots or presidential aids) and I'd seen quite a few leave who served their entire careers sans combat and still got the birds to wear on their collars.
Just as I caught myself thinking this way, I remembered the study skills I was teaching that week in the reading class I've taken over through the end of the year. I remembered one of the bad habits of bad listeners: criticizing the speaker instead of the message. The old "ad hominem" fallacy. I was preparing to warn my students about this basic principal when I caught myself doing the same thing. So I suppressed my evaluations and read on.
Fortunately, the book is written for people with short attention spans and consists of little more than a short story, lengthwise. I believe it's about 150 or so pages. So I forged on and finished reading it the next night after making these observations. (both that Patterson is bitter, and that I shouldn't decide that until I finish reading all that he has to say)
So I finished the book. But my conclusions about it are pretty much the same. They're slightly altered, I'll admit, but only to include this: As I stare down my own retirement now that that date has passed which makes me eligible, I consider the rank I've achieved and wonder if maybe I shouldn't have achieved more. Can the same criticism be leveled at me when I leave for good. And, more importantly, did the same kind of egotistical narrow-mindedness I found in Patterson's reflections prevent me from contributing more to my section, squadron, state and nation? Could I have fallen into the same singularly-focused trap that Patterson has?
I doubt it. I'm actually pretty happy with my career. Rank comes a little slower in the guard than in active duty, especially now that no one wants to stay on active duty, but I'm happy. I had set a few personal goals once I'd been around long enough to know what some meaningful goals might be and I've achieved almost all of them. I'm close enough to the ones I haven't achieved that it's reasonable to expect them in the remainder of my current enlistment (which will actually take me to 21 years of service), but even if I don't achieve all of them, it's been extremely satisfying. Other than the occasional twinge of hypocrisy I feel for having participated in OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM given how vocally I've opposed it from the beginning, I'm pretty content. In fact I can even live with that since I had no idea we'd be ordered into something so stupid when I made my commitment and, unlike the guy who caused that, I honored that commitment. So I'm cool with it. Nope, I don't think I'll "sally forth" into greener pastures (as RED HORSEmen are wont to do upon their retirement) with quite the chip on my shoulder that Patterson describes.
Here's why... and in case you haven't guessed by now, here's why his book should be taken for what it is - little more than the personal venting of frustrations by a rather narrow-minded officer who was fortunate enough, in spite of himself, to retire from one of the greatest organizations in the world.
In chapter one, Patterson attributes Clinton's "failure" to order the assassination of Osama bin Laden to Clinton's preoccupation with a professional golf tournament. There's no question that from Patterson's perspective, the golf tournament is the reason Clinton didn't "pull the trigger." I won't dispute that. What I will take issue with is the assumption that Patterson knew all of the facts regarding Clinton's decision. It was apparently beyond Patterson to consider that the decision had already been made before the golf tournament started... or that there were reasons for not ordering an assassination that Patterson wasn't privy to. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, the President of the United States knew something that one of his staff aids didn't?? Chapter one, of course, precludes that possibility lays the blame squarely on Clinton's selfish desire to watch a golf tournament... that was actually rain-delayed at the time of the phone calls according to Patterson's account of it. Patterson seems to forget that Gerald Ford signed an executive order banning assassinations AND that Ronald Reagan later issued his own order making the language even stronger. (something he would later regret when dealing with Manuel Noriega)
Patterson attributes one more factor to this particular failure: Clinton's lack of courage. yet Patterson ends the book with an example of his own. In the last chapter, Patterson remembers discussing with the military aids from the other services the fact that the joint chiefs of staff all resigned at the same time during the Vietnam conflict. Patterson says the current military aids to the President tossed the idea around due to their mutual disgust for the president. But, alas, none of them could pull the trigger and instead, they attended the farewell party held in their honor and accepted the medals President Clinton awarded them with. IN two classy moves that speak volumes about Patterson, he finishes up accusing the president of making eyes at this wife at the party and pointing out that he never opened the box the medal came in. Sounds a little like how John Kerry felt about his Vietnam medals, eh?
By that point, I felt fairly safe in assuming my initial impressions of Patterson, based solely on what he chose to write, were pretty accurate. He took the job to further his career and when that didn't pan out in spite of glowing evaluations the president wrote, and which, for no apparent reason other than self promotion, were included in the appendix of the book, Patterson decided to go the company route and bag on the Democrat in spite of the facts.
He includes a number of fallacial arguments between the two chapters I've mentioned, and while it wouldn't take long to summarize each of those chapters, I'll dwell only on a couple of the bad arguments and perpetuated myths that made the book a best-seller.
Patterson blames Clinton for the first WTC attack although Clinton had only been in office for 38 days. Patterson then makes it dreadfully obvious that Clinton, the CIA, the FBI, and pretty much everyone else in Washington DC knew about bin Laden, yet when the second WTC attack took place eight MONTHS after Bush took office, Patterson says that was somehow Clinton's fault too.
Patterson says Clinton's failure to retaliate against terrorist acts led "the terrorists" (as though they're all in some private club together) to learn that America was vulnerable and unwilling to defend itself. He neglects to mention that Reagan and Bush 41 took no action whatsoever in response to two of the largest attacks on American citizens prior to 911.
Patterson blames Clinton for the fact that he inherited a military, after 12 straight years of Republican rule, that was drastically underpaid. Patterson even cites a Time Magazine study in 1993 that notes the number of military families living below the poverty line. 1993! Clinton just moved into the White House! And yet, according to Patterson, it's his fault that while Reagan and Bush 41 passed on billions of defense budget dollars to their buddies who own big defense corporations, they kind of forgot that all that equipment had to be run by people... people they gave the standard 2% pay raises to. Patterson neglects to point out that Clinton convinced an opposition Congress to give the largest single military pay increase since Eisenhower. To his credit, Reagan tried to give bigger raises, but even 5% wouldn't have helped the families Time Magazine wrote about. And congress wasn't going to pass that budget at that point anyway because the Russians had already beat us to bankruptcy and military spending, nation building, regime tooling, was no longer a priority.
Patterson gives himself a pretty loud pat on the back for his participation in OPERATION URGENT FURY (Grenada) and credits Reagan's decisiveness for the operation's success. He then later blames Clinton's lack of decisiveness for the death of 18 U.S. troops in Mogadishu. Patterson never mentions the mishaps, poor planning and reliance on faulty intelligence that resulted in that same number of deaths during URGENT FURY, an operation that lasted less than 30 days.
Patterson makes numerous mention of the examples of where Clinton appeared to believe he was above the law, especially the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and accuses the president of frequently being guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, yet he seems to suggest that he's never seen any other military officer act similarly. Apparently he doesn't consider whining behind one's boss's back unbecoming. As an enlisted person, I could write a hundred books about officers who have tarnished their commissions as such. It happens. No one's perfect all the time, but most of us trust our friends and colleagues to either say something to our face or shut the hell up about it and hope we correct it on our own. (talk about a lack of courage)
Oh, I could go on and on, but I think I'm almost spent.
Patterson's knee-jerk Republican support, in spite of some obvious and blatant lapses of memory, is something I'm used to now that I've hung around military folk for 20 years, but I'm surprised someone was able to publish a novella based on it! Kudos to that guy. I wish I'd thought of it first. I hope he's enjoying his retirement... and can live with the bitter taste of the spoils of his whining.
I'm startled by the impact my 20th anniversary has had on me. I'd never seriously considered getting out just because I am suddenly eligible, but the passage of the date has kind of had me thinking otherwise. I'm no longer eligible for any reenlistment bonuses. My unit has frozen promotions in order to give the appearance of political correctness while some changes with the Ohio Air Guard take place. Plenty of my buddies are retiring, and I definitely don't want to leave my family fatherless again, even for a year, to go back to Iraq or any other unjustified war our current commander in chief might volunteer us for.
Patterson's book reminded me that I can't always trust the officers above me to apply logic to every situation. That's nothing knew to me, but now I've got to decide how comfortable I am with it... how much longer I'll have to hang around before I can write a book about how bad one of my bosses was even though I didn't say a word at the time to stop him.
Speaking of that...
How' bout them Dixie Chicks?! I'm definitely not a country music fan, but I was tickled to learn that the "liberal media's" attempts to boycott their music because they'd exercised their right to express their opinions didn't keep them from nearly sweeping the Grammys. Bush was pretty cocky when their record sales dropped, but I haven't heard him say anything about their recent awards.
OK, that's all for now. I'm trying to balance out DERELICTION by reading AGAINST ALL ENEMIES next. I'm only into about the third chapter, but it's a vastly different book in that it has already considered the opinions of at least two people outside of the author's.
Later dudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)