Hey dudes,
Thanks for indulging my little mental break. Thanks for checking back, to those of you who are still here. I wrote a draft of this post last weekend and after watching the Daily Show last night, almost scrapped the whole thing. In addition to covering the questions I have here, and discussing them with William Bennett, Jon Stewart also pointed out that the proposed same sex marriage ban constitutional amendment has no chance of passing... which makes the whole idea of dragging the issue out around election time again even more ridiculous, but I've got to get this off my chest and I've been gone for so long that I figured I owed my fans (or, at least those who tolerate me) a real rambler like this one. So here goes...
A friend of mine, an old college roommate, sent me a picture of an unmarked grave. At the top of the forwarded message was this comment: "Luth, don't even try to spin this one." In the message it said that this grave was that of Casey Sheehan. It went on to say that in three years since Casey's death in Iraq, his mom, Cindy Sheehan, "hadn't bothered" to get a stone, even the free one the Deptartment of Defense provides, to mark her son's grave. As proof that this was out of pure neglect, the message contained another picture of Cindy Sheehan hugging the reverend Jesse Jackson, and smiling.
I suggested that the opportunistic photos, and the assumption that Mrs. Sheehan had simply neglected her son's grave might be a little off base and required no further spin on my part. I congratulated my friend on successfully exploiting this mother's loss to his own political purposes (the definition of "spin") and hoped, for his sake, that he never run out of moms who have lost their sons to use for his purposes.
I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child, but I suspect Mrs. Sheehan simply wants answers. Like, why did her son have to die in Iraq? How has his death there made life in America any better for anyone? What threat from Iraq is now alleviated because of her son's, and her own sacrifice? I don't want to speak for her (as the message from my friend claimed to) but I suspect these are the questions to which she hasn't received a satisfactory answer. In reply to this suggestion my friend responded:
"Freedom."
My friend (And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic when I call him that, he has, or had, a heart of gold. I can't explain his heartless politics!) explained that Casey Sheehan was free to join the military or not. I didn't quite follow the logic of this answer and so asked my friend to explain, specifically, what he meant by "freedom." Was it the freedom Mrs. Sheehan had to ask about her son's death? The freedom, and even the responsibility as citizens, that Teddy Roosevelt suggested we use to question our leadership? I'm just not making the connection. What does Iraq have to do with Americans' freedom? Is it the freedom to have our Google searches or our phone calls monitored? As I suspect about Cindy Sheehan, I'm just not satisfied that these abstract answers like "mission accomplished" or "fighting terror" or "defending freedom" have sufficient connections to specific questions to justify the loss of a son's life, let alone 2,000 American lives and 30,000 other lives.
And now, with the mid-term elections bringing out the issues that only come out for campaigns, we are reminded that we have lost more freedom than we've gained since this war, and this presidential administration have begun.
In his weekly radio address President Bush said, “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.” That, apparently, is what people mean when they believe Bush supports freedom, but, of course, there’s more.
“And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts.”
Strange language from a guy whose election, his “mandate from the people,” was decided by the courts, but that’s another story. On the surface, Bush’s comments sound freedom-friendly. Sure, the people should have the right to choose how to live their lives, but that’s clearly not what Bush has in mind with these comments. Considering the constitutional amendment Bush supports through these comments, the comments themselves are beyond hypocritical, they’re flat our oxymoronic.
Let me explain: You see, if people truly had a choice in the matter to which these comments apply, they could marry whomever they choose. Bush, however, is arguing for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST such freedom. Instead, he wants to limit the choice people have in who they marry. In fact, in supporting a constitutional amendment, he wants to take away state's rights in determining their own marriage laws. So how, exactly, does taking away individual and state's rights translate into freedom?!
The president's own language begs to be defined as oxymoronic. “Decisions should be made by the people, not by the courts,” Bush says, but what he really means is, decisions should be made by Congress, not the people. He refers to marriage as a “fundamental social institution,” but then intends to “socialize” only his definition of marriage by having congress codify his narrow view of what this “social” institution is. He apparently thinks “social” means “that which I favor.” To me, this sounds more dictatorial than freedom-friendly.
Now, before you go crying that your religion says this or that regarding this particular “social issue,” keep in mind that no one’s trying to tell you what your church can or can’t do. No one’s trying to take away your religious definition of marriage. Bush is only trying to take away someone else’s definition of marriage. We’re talking a constitutional amendment here. It has nothing to do with any church. It only has to do with a LEGAL definition of marriage. If you keep church out of it, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals. It’s even taxed! Some have called it the “marriage penalty,” which is another Republican definition – the idea that tax = penalty. Republicans, with this definition, seem to suggest that the public infrastructure built and maintained with tax funds, that allows business to operate, is somehow free… that paying taxes to support that is somehow a penalty. They seem to forget that the roads, power grids, sanitation systems and services upon which businesses rely, must be paid for and are one the core functions of government. I guess Republicans believe only Democrats should pay for that stuff?! But I digress…
Back to the legal contract status of marriage and the FACT that that’s all marriage means outside of a church. Would you seek a constitutional amendment to prevent gay interior decorators from opening a business together? How about gay fashion designers? (pardon the stereotypes, but I hope they point out just how ridiculous this argument really is) Seeking to ban gay marriage, in pure legal terms, is just as discriminatory. It has nothing to do with “the backbone of the country.” It has nothing to do with “moral values” or “the institution of family.”
The only connection between those issues and this amendment is the usurping of the national dialogue by the conservative right and Bush’s desire to please them around election time regardless of what society actually wants, regardless of what’s fair, and regardless of the true values on which this nation was founded. (Hint: you won’t find those values on the 700 Club)
Churches are still free to marry or deny marriage to whomever they choose. All Americans are free to NOT marry someone of the same sex if they desire. This amendment isn’t about protecting any freedom. It’s plainly and simply about limiting freedom. Banning gay marriages won’t reduce the 50% failure rate of straight marriages – a shadowy number lying beneath the silly notion that straight marriage is some grand institution. In fact, in his radio address, Bush seemed to indicate the connection between “family values” and this grand institution.
Considering the fairly recent public acceptance of homosexuality in our society, I'd say being a little more lenient in terms of what constitutes a family is worth a shot. Between the 50% divorce rate and the rapid decline, as conservatives constantly remind us during campaigns, of our values, it appears as though the traditional definition of family, at least to the extent that it is the backbone of our society, isn't working! Where we are, in terms of moral values, is the result of the traditional, heterosexual family type being accepted as the standard for the last 150 years. As Dr. Phil says, "how's that workin' for ya?"
So how is this latest attempt at denying yet another freedom supposed to help us? What is it we're gaining by giving up yet another individual right and having bigger government forced upon us by special interest groups who form the moral minority? And how, exactly, does the party of smaller government reconcile this blatant effort toward bigger government? I need some help with this one.
Forgive me, and forgive Cindy Sheehan for having some pretty high expectations for the answers to our questions. No, strike that. I make no apologies. We should have high expectations for the answers to questions that justify the loss of human life and huge non-human resources. When it comes to altering the oldest living, and by that I mean, most effective government document in existence, simply to appease either the tiny fraction of people who feel threatened by gay marriage, or the even tinier fraction of people who might be allowed to get married if the ban fails, we should have better answers.
PS - the Rob Cordry sketch comparing gay marriage to prohibition is something to think about. Nothing makes an issue more attractive than banning it. Perhaps those who seek to ban gay marriage secretly would like to see it become more attractive??
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The Guard can fill in... again.
A couple a things on the President's address...
First, I thought Bill O'reilly was the only guy foolish enough to think there were a bunch of guardsmen sitting around with nothing better to do than support border patrols.
Second, why is no one addressing the bait for our illegal immigrants - the employers who hire them. The closest the president's speech came was cracking down on false documents. C'mon, the employers who hire these folks know what they're doing. If a bartender is held accountable for buying off on a fake ID, then why shouldn't a corporation be held accountable too. We're subsidizing their cheap labor and perpetuating the problem as well as putting companies who won't hire illegals at a disadvantage, but God forbid we address that at the big business level! No, we're much better off picking on the bottom rungs of that ladder of corruption. I guess that's trickle down theory at its finest. Ignore the corruption of business until it flows all the way to some poor guy from Mexico who risks his life to be illegally employed at a buck an hour and then arrest him for it. So why doesn't the No Child Left Behind Act arrest failing students?
Third, what's with the amnesty double-speak? Having a job and a home and a history is NOT paying the price for coming here illegally. It's reaping the benefits of amnesty. Call it what you want, but forgiving illegal immigrants is amnesty. I'm the first to admit that we couldn't possibly arrest 12 million people, nor would we want to since most would make fine citizens if they'd follow the rules, but what the pres proposed in that speech was amnesty even though he only used that word to say it wasn't.
Fourth, other than that, it actually sounds like the president has considered some of the realities of this issue. I was pretty impressed by that and the multi-layered approach (except, of course, for the National Guard deal and the amnesty double-speak). Which brings me to...
Fifth: Although the National Guard has pulled almost half the load (45% of troops) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and although they're now being tasked with picking up the slack of some other organization that the top brass have neglected, and although the Guard has consistently done this on about a third of the salary and training time as their active duty counterparts, and although they've done this AND responded to local and domestic national issues, the majority of retiring guardsmen still can't collect a penny of retirement benefit for nearly thirty years after they retire. Active duty retirees collect the day they separate. Most national congressmen collect the day or the year they retire, but guardsmen, many of whom may have seen more combat and overseas duty than some of their active duty counterparts, have to wait until they turn 65. The amounts we're talking here are pretty pathetic, a few days worth of active duty pay per month, but over time, they add up. They (we) deserve it. Write your congressman. Either pay us like active duty troops, or quit using us like them. The unique combination of civilian and military experience that guardsmen offer the nation has to be worth that. If it's not, why would it be called upon so frequently these days?
First, I thought Bill O'reilly was the only guy foolish enough to think there were a bunch of guardsmen sitting around with nothing better to do than support border patrols.
Second, why is no one addressing the bait for our illegal immigrants - the employers who hire them. The closest the president's speech came was cracking down on false documents. C'mon, the employers who hire these folks know what they're doing. If a bartender is held accountable for buying off on a fake ID, then why shouldn't a corporation be held accountable too. We're subsidizing their cheap labor and perpetuating the problem as well as putting companies who won't hire illegals at a disadvantage, but God forbid we address that at the big business level! No, we're much better off picking on the bottom rungs of that ladder of corruption. I guess that's trickle down theory at its finest. Ignore the corruption of business until it flows all the way to some poor guy from Mexico who risks his life to be illegally employed at a buck an hour and then arrest him for it. So why doesn't the No Child Left Behind Act arrest failing students?
Third, what's with the amnesty double-speak? Having a job and a home and a history is NOT paying the price for coming here illegally. It's reaping the benefits of amnesty. Call it what you want, but forgiving illegal immigrants is amnesty. I'm the first to admit that we couldn't possibly arrest 12 million people, nor would we want to since most would make fine citizens if they'd follow the rules, but what the pres proposed in that speech was amnesty even though he only used that word to say it wasn't.
Fourth, other than that, it actually sounds like the president has considered some of the realities of this issue. I was pretty impressed by that and the multi-layered approach (except, of course, for the National Guard deal and the amnesty double-speak). Which brings me to...
Fifth: Although the National Guard has pulled almost half the load (45% of troops) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and although they're now being tasked with picking up the slack of some other organization that the top brass have neglected, and although the Guard has consistently done this on about a third of the salary and training time as their active duty counterparts, and although they've done this AND responded to local and domestic national issues, the majority of retiring guardsmen still can't collect a penny of retirement benefit for nearly thirty years after they retire. Active duty retirees collect the day they separate. Most national congressmen collect the day or the year they retire, but guardsmen, many of whom may have seen more combat and overseas duty than some of their active duty counterparts, have to wait until they turn 65. The amounts we're talking here are pretty pathetic, a few days worth of active duty pay per month, but over time, they add up. They (we) deserve it. Write your congressman. Either pay us like active duty troops, or quit using us like them. The unique combination of civilian and military experience that guardsmen offer the nation has to be worth that. If it's not, why would it be called upon so frequently these days?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Life is better for America, worse for Moussaoui
Zacarias Moussaoui's life sentence was the right thing to do. In fact, it goes a long way in restoring my faith in my fellow Americans. The jurors who had to sit in the same courtroom with that shithead for that long deserved a lot more revenge than they got from that verdict, but that just shows that 12 jurors who were "too stupid to get out of jury duty" are smarter, and more sincere in their duty, than the vocal minority lets on. Of course, when it comes to revenge, there's not enough on this earth for those who lost family or friend in the 9/11 attacks, but a jury's job, our justice system's job shouldn't have anything to do with revenge. And, contrary to what he would now like the world to think, I doubt that Moussaoui had all that much to do with 9/11. Thanks to the insight on his thoughts that he's offered us throughout his trial, I doubt that any terrorist organization worth their salt would trust him with much more that sticking a firecracker in an American Bullfrog's ass.
Aside from my liberal and pro-life belief that killing someone because they killed someone is wrong, or that any irreversible punishment to that extent smacks of more hubris than humans should possess, there are a number of practical reasons why this sentence is better (for us) than death... the primary one for me is that it's worse for Moussaoui.
This wimp thought he would die a martyr even though he didn't take the initiative to even risk, let alone take his own life. Getting sentenced to death is not the way of the martyrs Moussaoui's delusions led him to compare himself to. The martyrs he looks up to kill themselves... and others in the process. Moussaoui didn't have the courage or the strength of conviction to do that. Instead, he jumped on the vilest of bandwagons in order to catch his own 15 minutes. This verdict cuts him off at 13 and he won't ever get the remaining two. He'll probably die in prison before he unsuccessfully tries to gain more attention during his next appeal hearing. Let those our justice system has condemned do that dirty work, not us.
Martyrdom would have earned Moussaoui the famed 72 virgins according to some stretched interpretations of the Koran, or, more likely, according to one of the 2,000+ sayings of the hadith. But, those who are inclined to take such a promise so literally (radical fundamentalist "Muslims") are also probably inclined to believe that women's souls cannot enter heaven. So are these virgins young boys? Is that what Moussaoui was deprived of? Ok, so I digressed a little to say that... either way, this verdict puts the brakes on the martyrdom issue.
Still another reason the verdict is a great decision is because it tells the rest of the world what I've always known about America: once we're calmed down and back in our game, we will do the right thing. In spite of overwhelming individual desire (mine included) to see the perpetrators of the attacks die slow, horrible deaths, that jury, on behalf of the nation, showed the world that we know the difference between justice and revenge. Having done so, the jury dealt a serious blow to the momentum of anti-American sentiment. Our nation has wielded its power in ways that feed that sentiment, no doubt, but here's a sign that our people don't necessarily condone that. We're good people, by and large and those twelve of us proved it to the world on a high-visibility stage.
And the last reason I'll offer up (feel free to toss more in as comments) is the revenge that this verdict actually does allow. As the judge who presided over the sentencing said, "it's quite clear who won and who lost." This slimeball, who claims to hate America, will spend the rest of his life here, surrounded by Americans with even less respect for him than the jurors who spared his life even as they probably didn't think it was worth much. He loses. Game over. Sure, there's talk of moving him to a French prison for some strange reason. So be it. They can have him. He can rot there just as easily. Why not be imprisoned by a country who refused to join us in the war? That would add irony to the situation from both directions. Doesn't matter. With that much time on his hands, even a dumbass like Moussaoui may eventually figure out that there is no place for him in any version of heaven unless he repents. Based on his comments at sentencing, I'm not holding my breath for that. The only thing I'll be waiting to hear is whether or not he counts as one of those virgins in his cellmate's interpretation.
Aside from my liberal and pro-life belief that killing someone because they killed someone is wrong, or that any irreversible punishment to that extent smacks of more hubris than humans should possess, there are a number of practical reasons why this sentence is better (for us) than death... the primary one for me is that it's worse for Moussaoui.
This wimp thought he would die a martyr even though he didn't take the initiative to even risk, let alone take his own life. Getting sentenced to death is not the way of the martyrs Moussaoui's delusions led him to compare himself to. The martyrs he looks up to kill themselves... and others in the process. Moussaoui didn't have the courage or the strength of conviction to do that. Instead, he jumped on the vilest of bandwagons in order to catch his own 15 minutes. This verdict cuts him off at 13 and he won't ever get the remaining two. He'll probably die in prison before he unsuccessfully tries to gain more attention during his next appeal hearing. Let those our justice system has condemned do that dirty work, not us.
Martyrdom would have earned Moussaoui the famed 72 virgins according to some stretched interpretations of the Koran, or, more likely, according to one of the 2,000+ sayings of the hadith. But, those who are inclined to take such a promise so literally (radical fundamentalist "Muslims") are also probably inclined to believe that women's souls cannot enter heaven. So are these virgins young boys? Is that what Moussaoui was deprived of? Ok, so I digressed a little to say that... either way, this verdict puts the brakes on the martyrdom issue.
Still another reason the verdict is a great decision is because it tells the rest of the world what I've always known about America: once we're calmed down and back in our game, we will do the right thing. In spite of overwhelming individual desire (mine included) to see the perpetrators of the attacks die slow, horrible deaths, that jury, on behalf of the nation, showed the world that we know the difference between justice and revenge. Having done so, the jury dealt a serious blow to the momentum of anti-American sentiment. Our nation has wielded its power in ways that feed that sentiment, no doubt, but here's a sign that our people don't necessarily condone that. We're good people, by and large and those twelve of us proved it to the world on a high-visibility stage.
And the last reason I'll offer up (feel free to toss more in as comments) is the revenge that this verdict actually does allow. As the judge who presided over the sentencing said, "it's quite clear who won and who lost." This slimeball, who claims to hate America, will spend the rest of his life here, surrounded by Americans with even less respect for him than the jurors who spared his life even as they probably didn't think it was worth much. He loses. Game over. Sure, there's talk of moving him to a French prison for some strange reason. So be it. They can have him. He can rot there just as easily. Why not be imprisoned by a country who refused to join us in the war? That would add irony to the situation from both directions. Doesn't matter. With that much time on his hands, even a dumbass like Moussaoui may eventually figure out that there is no place for him in any version of heaven unless he repents. Based on his comments at sentencing, I'm not holding my breath for that. The only thing I'll be waiting to hear is whether or not he counts as one of those virgins in his cellmate's interpretation.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Fair enough assumption, eh?
The picture below is rated PG13 for sexual language.
As an Ohioan whose governor fired staff members for receiving gifts and then promised to crack down on ethics violations and then turned around and got convicted for receiving over $6000.00 worth of gifts, some from the golf buddy who lost millions of Ohio tax money in a more than shady collectible coin scam, and then told Ohioans why it's more important that he finish his job than step down, I've often wondered just what it takes for some people to demand that their political leaders be fired. If you've read this before, you know I have a few questions about my president as well, but my brother sent me a picture that finally puts it all in perspective.
Can anyone explain why this makes sense?
But back to Ohio... it's pretty funny to hear both of the Republican gubernatorial primary candidates bashing each other and claiming that neither is a true Republican. Their evidence: The fact that the opponent has been seen with the incumbent governor! HA! That's so rich.
When that incumbent ran he was a true Republican. Why isn't he now? How can you tell?
As an Ohioan whose governor fired staff members for receiving gifts and then promised to crack down on ethics violations and then turned around and got convicted for receiving over $6000.00 worth of gifts, some from the golf buddy who lost millions of Ohio tax money in a more than shady collectible coin scam, and then told Ohioans why it's more important that he finish his job than step down, I've often wondered just what it takes for some people to demand that their political leaders be fired. If you've read this before, you know I have a few questions about my president as well, but my brother sent me a picture that finally puts it all in perspective.
Can anyone explain why this makes sense?
But back to Ohio... it's pretty funny to hear both of the Republican gubernatorial primary candidates bashing each other and claiming that neither is a true Republican. Their evidence: The fact that the opponent has been seen with the incumbent governor! HA! That's so rich.
When that incumbent ran he was a true Republican. Why isn't he now? How can you tell?
Friday, April 14, 2006
Sticking it to Big Oil
First let me say thanks for the encouragement from Bill and Ray. Bill wrote a post for me that covers at least 10 important topics. Ray welcomed me back to my own 'blog. Both were just what I needed to see after such a long absence. Both made me smile. So thanks, sincerely, to both of you.
Now, the reason I'm procrastinating the work I planned for this evening is this:
I got an email from a former student that laid out the latest plan to stick it to the oil companies. You've probably seen it. It criticizes that last version of those emails wherein consumers were encouraged to not buy gas for a day, then goes on to explain how brilliant this new plan is. The plan is to not buy gas from the two (now one) largest companies, Exxon and Mobil. The theory is that if these two (now one) experience a drop in sales, they will be forced to lower their prices. The goal, according to the email, is to show the oil companies that the buyer controls the market.
It's a great plan, and as it claims, simple... except for a few minor details, namely:
1. The bulk of what we pay at the pump is state and federal tax. That's not gonna change no matter who we buy from.
2. The feds have allowed the major US producers to pump oil from federal lands (that means land we all own) without royalties for years now... why would they do that? That's not real likely to change no matter who we buy from.
3. Those royalties didn't keep up with market values even before they were waived completely. Why would anyone do that? That's not likely to change.
4. We've ignored Jimmy Carter's warning about reliance on oil for 30 years. What could we possibly do now that would really suggest we'll do anything different?
5. The names on the mail list through which I received this message tend to align with supply-side theorists. This plan goes against their core values. If they act on those values (and I'm not holding my breath) they won't do it anyway.
But the real reason I'm writing this particular installment instead of reading this week's 400 pages, cleaning up the toilet paper in my trees that my students (or colleagues?) so graciously donated this evening, grading papers, or sleeping is because I have an even simpler plan for sticking it to the oil companies:
Don't put people in office whose campaigns were financed by them, whose families are beholden to them, whose shares in the industry skyrocket and who sit back and watch as the nation is held captive by them.
What could be simpler than that? As they say up north, "if it looks like an oil covered duck, smells like an oil covered duck, sounds like an oil covered duck, broke into business like an oil covered duck, got bailed out by the oil producing duck whose assets remain protected as long as the country we invaded doesn't produce oil, then it must be an oil covered duck."
After putting up only the obligatory, meaningless written opposition to continuing the aforementioned royalty relief to oil companies (they're only getting away with a few billion here and there) the Bush administration then turned around and threatened to veto a budget that actually taxed oil companies to the tune of $5 billion. After all, why should oil companies, who have experienced record profit, have to pay taxes just because the bottom 90% of Americans do?
When it comes to big oil and the Bush administration, US representative George Miller said it best when he referred to oil as "the gift that keeps on giving." He even referred to this sweet little royalty/tax avoidance deal as a "train robbery."
A free market would create better alternatives to oil before we run out. Unfortunately, the market isn't free. It's tipped toward big oil. Until alternatives become a higher priority than oil profit, nothing will change until we run out and then it will be too late.
Now, the reason I'm procrastinating the work I planned for this evening is this:
I got an email from a former student that laid out the latest plan to stick it to the oil companies. You've probably seen it. It criticizes that last version of those emails wherein consumers were encouraged to not buy gas for a day, then goes on to explain how brilliant this new plan is. The plan is to not buy gas from the two (now one) largest companies, Exxon and Mobil. The theory is that if these two (now one) experience a drop in sales, they will be forced to lower their prices. The goal, according to the email, is to show the oil companies that the buyer controls the market.
It's a great plan, and as it claims, simple... except for a few minor details, namely:
1. The bulk of what we pay at the pump is state and federal tax. That's not gonna change no matter who we buy from.
2. The feds have allowed the major US producers to pump oil from federal lands (that means land we all own) without royalties for years now... why would they do that? That's not real likely to change no matter who we buy from.
3. Those royalties didn't keep up with market values even before they were waived completely. Why would anyone do that? That's not likely to change.
4. We've ignored Jimmy Carter's warning about reliance on oil for 30 years. What could we possibly do now that would really suggest we'll do anything different?
5. The names on the mail list through which I received this message tend to align with supply-side theorists. This plan goes against their core values. If they act on those values (and I'm not holding my breath) they won't do it anyway.
But the real reason I'm writing this particular installment instead of reading this week's 400 pages, cleaning up the toilet paper in my trees that my students (or colleagues?) so graciously donated this evening, grading papers, or sleeping is because I have an even simpler plan for sticking it to the oil companies:
Don't put people in office whose campaigns were financed by them, whose families are beholden to them, whose shares in the industry skyrocket and who sit back and watch as the nation is held captive by them.
What could be simpler than that? As they say up north, "if it looks like an oil covered duck, smells like an oil covered duck, sounds like an oil covered duck, broke into business like an oil covered duck, got bailed out by the oil producing duck whose assets remain protected as long as the country we invaded doesn't produce oil, then it must be an oil covered duck."
After putting up only the obligatory, meaningless written opposition to continuing the aforementioned royalty relief to oil companies (they're only getting away with a few billion here and there) the Bush administration then turned around and threatened to veto a budget that actually taxed oil companies to the tune of $5 billion. After all, why should oil companies, who have experienced record profit, have to pay taxes just because the bottom 90% of Americans do?
When it comes to big oil and the Bush administration, US representative George Miller said it best when he referred to oil as "the gift that keeps on giving." He even referred to this sweet little royalty/tax avoidance deal as a "train robbery."
A free market would create better alternatives to oil before we run out. Unfortunately, the market isn't free. It's tipped toward big oil. Until alternatives become a higher priority than oil profit, nothing will change until we run out and then it will be too late.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Too Busy
Sorry for being gone so long kids. I'm taking a class right now that requires weekly postings to a message board, so my spleen is vented elsewhere lately, but that doesn't mean I don't love you anymore.
In addition to the 200+ pages of reading per week for that class, a class I teach chose to read the 1400-page Count of Monte Cristo over the next 7 weeks as well... do the math... I'm going blind, but that which does not kill me makes me more liberal and prolific.
Expect to see here soon:
-Top 10 reasons why not to invade Iran.
-Why illegal immigrants are, in fact, illegal, but it would cost more to send them home than it would to keep them, and who would do all that work?
-Why the now dissappearing trend toward "vocational" education was stupid, and, more importanly, NOT the idea of teachers, but rather, the same people who now have a cure for the ailing public education system.
-The growing list of generals and White House staff who have left in a cloud of shame.
-White House flip-floppery when it comes to things they said to justify the war in Iraq. (the latest installment of "lying is only bad when democrats do it")
-How amazingly easy it's been to give up potatos for Lent and why this chubby little, mostly Irish, potato lover did it.
-Why Plato was an idiot.
That should do it for now. I don't want to make the list too big to handle.
Ciao!
-
In addition to the 200+ pages of reading per week for that class, a class I teach chose to read the 1400-page Count of Monte Cristo over the next 7 weeks as well... do the math... I'm going blind, but that which does not kill me makes me more liberal and prolific.
Expect to see here soon:
-Top 10 reasons why not to invade Iran.
-Why illegal immigrants are, in fact, illegal, but it would cost more to send them home than it would to keep them, and who would do all that work?
-Why the now dissappearing trend toward "vocational" education was stupid, and, more importanly, NOT the idea of teachers, but rather, the same people who now have a cure for the ailing public education system.
-The growing list of generals and White House staff who have left in a cloud of shame.
-White House flip-floppery when it comes to things they said to justify the war in Iraq. (the latest installment of "lying is only bad when democrats do it")
-How amazingly easy it's been to give up potatos for Lent and why this chubby little, mostly Irish, potato lover did it.
-Why Plato was an idiot.
That should do it for now. I don't want to make the list too big to handle.
Ciao!
-
Saturday, April 01, 2006
What Teachers Make
This latest email going around got me thinking about my career:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I often catch myself leaning toward the CEO’s opinion. I think that perhaps I’d be better off doing something less satisfying in order to be able to put more money into my kids’ college fund. But then my kids remind me why this isn’t so important. They tell me they want to be teachers when they grow up. I have mixed feelings about that.
That thought never occurred to me when I was their age. Teaching wasn’t a profession, it was just something weird people - who, to me, didn’t even exist outside those weird buildings - did. No normal person would want to do that. You didn’t make any money. You worked harder and longer than most other professions, and the most common customer reaction was ridicule and disrespect.
Yeah, I know what many of you are thinking at this point, “teachers? work longer and harder? They only work 9 months out of the year and most schools only schedule 6-hour days.” That’s about as ridiculous as believing that actors in a play only work during the actual performance of the play or that professional athletes only work during the game or that private business owners only work Monday through Friday from 9-5. Think about it. Does anyone in the real world only work those hours anymore? Plenty of people in the business world do... certainly not the owners or managers, but plenty do. No full-time teachers have hours that easy or regular.
I had fallen so hard for the myths about teaching as a profession that the thought didn’t even cross my mind when I ended up changing my major from business to liberal arts. I was so disappointed with the rigid path laid out in the business program and its lack of opportunity for discovery and exploration that I switched after my first year. Even when I declared English as a major - because it allowed for the study of everything - it didn’t occur to me to become a teacher. Oddly enough, it was my friends’ constant question of: “what will you do with an English degree, teach?” that even got me thinking about it. I didn’t really want to teach, but I couldn’t ignore three straight years of that question without it having some kind of effect.
One summer, while doing construction work for a guy who started the company after retiring as a detective, some of my college-aged co-workers asked the question again. The company owner butted in and said, “Why would he have to teach? What CAN’T you do with an English degree?” Everyone turned to look at him, even me, like he had just spoken Martian. Realizing he now had an audience, something he thoroughly enjoyed, he continued, “I’d rather hire someone with a good solid education like that. Someone who can think for himself, than some smart-ass fresh out of a carpentry program that thinks he knows everything.” He still wasn’t making much sense to us, but he went on, “And what if he did teach? What’s wrong with that? The fact that you bums even got into college is because of your teachers. I don’t care what job you think is better for whatever reason. You wouldn’t do it, there would be no role models in that career field, if there weren’t good teachers out there preparing those people and making them believe they could succeed. Things don’t always work out like you plan, but whatever success you manage to have, you owe to a teacher.” We were used to being shocked by Dave’s outbursts of wisdom, but we didn’t call it wisdom at the time.
I still wasn’t going to be a teacher. I was going to do something better than that. This guy was nuts. He’d apparently seen too much in Vietnam, then later as a career cop and detective on the Akron Police Department. Only a fool would choose a thankless, underpaid, often dangerous life as a public servant. What did he know about life? He had to start a business in his retirement just to get by thanks to his public service career.
So I finished up my English degree, and thanks to that constant question, picked up a teaching certificate as a sort of hedge or backup plan, or even an afterthought. Right out of college I started working for another construction company. I’d done it for five summers by that point, and my experience in the National Guard, in a civil engineering unit, had provided even more experience in that field, so it was easy enough to slip into. There was plenty of work. It paid pretty good, and I enjoyed the variety of settings and most of the people. I also enjoyed seeing the immediate results of my efforts. Only later did the need for immediate gratification in the form of one’s chosen profession strike me as immature.
At that point, the questions changed from, “what are you gonna do, teach?” to “why would someone with a college degree ever want to do construction work?” Even my colleagues in the National Guard joined in, constantly asking, “since you have your degree, when are you going to become an officer?” I began to realize how much of the world saw the sole purpose of education as furthering one’s career. To more people than I would ever have guessed, a college degree meant no more than a bigger paycheck. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that a mechanic or a construction worker or anyone might be better at his job, or be a better employee, even a better citizen or member of society by seeking understanding not only of his job, but of the world around him. Where had education gone wrong? When did it become nothing more than a commodity to be traded for a paycheck?
I took it all in and eventually sought out a career that seemed more publicly in line with my education. A small-town weekly newspaper was looking for a “stringer.” I didn’t even know what that was, but the ad said it involved writing. I found out it was a “get paid as you go” system of writing stories for the paper. No sooner had I started getting $10 per council meeting story and making my face known in the newspaper’s office, did I discover they also needed a handyman. I weaseled my way into a full-time position there as a writer and office furniture builder/arranger/trash taker outer. I was making quite a bit less money than I did in construction, but had to answer fewer questions about my English degree. I started taking and developing pictures for the paper to go along with my stories, and mostly by attrition, ended up as the editor of that little paper. It was one of the most fun but lowest paying jobs I’d ever had. No bosses, no real hours, just a weekly deadline, a critical public and a seasoned publisher to please. It was as close to running my own business as I ever wanted to be. It was a blast. But as I thought about buying a house and having kids, and the publisher decided that cutting the cost of the paper to less than half of what it was when I’d started wasn’t enough, I took a full-time position in my Air National Guard unit. All of a sudden, I would have actual benefits, be able to leave town without missing something, and regular hours. The pay was almost double and it was a management position so it would be a better resume builder than I’d ever had. It wasn’t anything I’d ever dreamed of doing, but I decided I’d give it five years and see what happened. After four, I knew that management, especially with the government, wasn’t something I could do for the rest of my life.
Oddly enough, it was the recruiter in my guard unit who continued my education on education by asking me if I’d ever thought about teaching. While employed by the Guard, we’d manned the recruiter’s booth at a county fair and both thoroughly enjoyed talking to high school students about the guard, the Air Force, our unit and the careers available. As we were packing up, this recruiter talked about the classes I’d taught to adults in our guard unit as part of my job there. “Man you’re good at that.” he said, “Your enthusiasm is contagious - people don’t even sleep when YOU teach those classes.” He pointed out how at ease I’d been while speaking with the high school students at the fair. He suggested that it looked like I was enjoying myself, and he was right. I was. But I wasn’t making the connection. On the way back to our station, I told him that I had, in fact, picked up a teaching certificate while in college, but never really thought of it as a career. According to him, it was clear: I’d been given a gift. I’d been steered in this direction and it was obvious what I should do with it. He asked me why I never tried teaching.
It had been a good ten years since I’d thought about that question. On the way home that night, I couldn’t remember the answer. As it happened, that very summer was the year the state of Ohio decided to revamp their teacher licensing program. I got a letter in the mail telling me that my teaching certificate, which had expired, would no longer be renewable after that summer. I was still in the mindset of maintaining that certificate as a backup plan when I called Columbus and asked what I had to do in order to renew. The series of events led me to think more and more about why I had never seriously considered teaching. I told my wife about all of this and she echoed the question adding, “you’d be good at it.”
I made the move. I began substituting while burning up all the vacation time I’d amassed in four years working full-time for the guard. I was at a level where I got six weeks of vacation per year - kind of like teachers, eh?! It didn’t take long to realize that you could work every school day of the year as a substitute if you wanted to and IF you could take it. (That would be the only situation where a “teacher” only worked 9 months out of the year) It was during this transition that I learned first hand that teaching IS doing. Not only must you master your subject matter and present it effectively, but you must also master a wide variety of management skills most professions never call upon. Then you must deliver this whole package every period of every day you’re in a classroom, much like a boxer must give his all every time the bell starts a round. In every other profession I’d had, you could get by with bad days. “Phoning it in” never really set you back much most of the time, but teachers don’t get that opportunity during those 9 months of 6-hour days. When the bell rings, it’s on. You either perform, or you get eaten alive. I knew then that I at least had to see if I could face this challenge even if I was never actually going to stoop so low as to become a teacher for a living.
I continued to be employed by the guard until I used up all my leave. By that point I’d taken on work teaching night classes to adults at the local vocational school. On alternate nights, I taught students who had been kicked out of regular high school at the big high school in a neighboring town, and I occasionally taught Saturday seminars to local businesses or organizations through that vocational program. I was still working most days as a substitute and eventually landed a long-term sub position at the high school where I began teaching English for good. Those days when I went back to my Guard unit to serve the traditional weekend duty, I received more support for my new career than I expected, but never without the occasional reminder of what society really thinks about teachers. Someone always said, “...finally realized you couldn’t DO, so now you teach, eh?” By then, of course, I knew that if I were to swap jobs with anyone dumb enough to actually believe that, I’d probably get by just fine in their spot while they wouldn’t last 10 minutes in my classroom.
I’ve now been teaching full-time for eight years. I began in a large urban high school and now teach in one of the smallest rural schools in Ohio. Both have their advantages. Both have their disadvantages, just like any other job. A number of ideas come to mind now that I’ve settled in and in light of the email that inspired this rambling. While I suppose that deep down somewhere, I still believe teaching is, in fact, a noble profession, for those of us who do it every day, it’s just a job, like any other. It is that buried belief that gets us past the criticism of immature students and adults; that helps us find a way to survive in spite of the low pay; that drives us to get better when most of the public notices only our failures. But really, it’s just the job we do. We know why we do it and what we do and what we make. We know that critical thinking will never be accurately measured on any standardized test, that the vision and imagination to solve the world’s future problems will never be part of the mandated curriculum and that we will always be more accountable to ourselves and our students than any government program could ever hold us. Those of us who stay in this profession also know that the gratification doesn’t come at the end of the day, week or year, but in seeing students grow up, move on, and do what they want to do with their lives. It takes a while for that to happen. In order to DO this job, you have to be smart, quick, tolerant, wise and all that other easy stuff required in any profession, but mostly, you have to be patient and mature. Few can DO that like teachers.
I could kick myself these days for the ten years I wasted toying with “real” professions, but the truth is, I wasn’t mature enough to know any of this during those years. I didn’t have the experience or the wisdom that classroom teachers have to have to survive, let alone be effective teachers. I don’t know how people straight out of college do it, but I work with many of them and continue to be amazed. They have something that a society who doesn’t value it could never understand, and thus has never been willing to pay for. That’s our fault for being more concerned with providing a quality product than with marketing it.
Sadly, the trend of society looking down upon teachers is more firmly in place now than it has ever been. Society has never put its money where its mouth was. Sure education is important, we claim, but we’re not willing to actually pay for it. We’ve gotten away with that because so many young women were willing to do it for token salaries for so long. And we got away with that by convincing ourselves that anybody could do what these young women did. It was JUST teaching. We respected the dedication of these young women, but we would never admit they were professionals who were good at what they did. Or rather, that what they did might actually be a profession.
These days, not only has pay remained a salient truth that society doesn’t believe teaching is a skilled profession, but the level of respect has dropped to join the pay, as the email points out. Another example of this loss of status, another sign that the trend is continuing comes in the form of the benefit of the doubt teachers always give and used to get. When I got a detention or an F on a paper, I got punished at home, on the spot. AFTER the lecture and the punishment, I was sometimes given the opportunity to explain my side of the story - not that it ever counted for much. The assumption was that the teacher was right, had already given the student the benefit of the doubt, and finally had to resort to the F or the detention, or the letter home. But these days, thanks, probably, to the public assertion that we need No Child Left Behind or standardized tests or school district report cards to be accountable, the assumption is that the teacher just has it in for that student. The one stereotype of teachers that used make up for the rest of the abuse - integrity, dedication, respect - is now questioned as well.
Teacher pay has in fact increased quite a bit since those days when only women taught, but I still took a huge pay cut even from government work when I started teaching. Now that we also seem to be losing the authority we once had as impartial judges of appropriate classroom behavior or assessors of student work in our subject area, what else do we still have to lose? How clear does society have to make it that they believe our jobs could be done by machines or monkeys?
To that I say simply, try it. The only thing I have to lose is a career that challenges me and in meeting that challenge, is satisfying. When the monkeys or machines replace me, I’ll get a real job and make some real money for a change. When I go back to making widgets rather than making a difference, at least my integrity and skills will no longer be questioned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dinner guests were sitting around the table discussing life. One man, a CEO, decided to explain the problem with education. He argued, “What’s a kid going to learn from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?”
He reminded the other dinner guests what they say about teachers: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” To stress his point he said to another guest, “You’re a teacher, Susan, be honest, what do you make?”
Susan, who had a reputation for honesty and frankness replied,
You want to know what I make?
I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I make a C+ feel like the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall in absolute silence.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids wonder.
I make them question.
I make them criticize.
I make them apologize and mean it.
I make them write.
I make them read, read, read.
I make them show all their work in math and perfect their final drafts in English. I make them understand that if you have the brains, and you follow your heart, and if someone ever tries to judge you by what you make, you must pay no attention because they just failed to learn.
Susan paused, and then continued. “You want to know what I make? I make a difference. What do you make?”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I often catch myself leaning toward the CEO’s opinion. I think that perhaps I’d be better off doing something less satisfying in order to be able to put more money into my kids’ college fund. But then my kids remind me why this isn’t so important. They tell me they want to be teachers when they grow up. I have mixed feelings about that.
That thought never occurred to me when I was their age. Teaching wasn’t a profession, it was just something weird people - who, to me, didn’t even exist outside those weird buildings - did. No normal person would want to do that. You didn’t make any money. You worked harder and longer than most other professions, and the most common customer reaction was ridicule and disrespect.
Yeah, I know what many of you are thinking at this point, “teachers? work longer and harder? They only work 9 months out of the year and most schools only schedule 6-hour days.” That’s about as ridiculous as believing that actors in a play only work during the actual performance of the play or that professional athletes only work during the game or that private business owners only work Monday through Friday from 9-5. Think about it. Does anyone in the real world only work those hours anymore? Plenty of people in the business world do... certainly not the owners or managers, but plenty do. No full-time teachers have hours that easy or regular.
I had fallen so hard for the myths about teaching as a profession that the thought didn’t even cross my mind when I ended up changing my major from business to liberal arts. I was so disappointed with the rigid path laid out in the business program and its lack of opportunity for discovery and exploration that I switched after my first year. Even when I declared English as a major - because it allowed for the study of everything - it didn’t occur to me to become a teacher. Oddly enough, it was my friends’ constant question of: “what will you do with an English degree, teach?” that even got me thinking about it. I didn’t really want to teach, but I couldn’t ignore three straight years of that question without it having some kind of effect.
One summer, while doing construction work for a guy who started the company after retiring as a detective, some of my college-aged co-workers asked the question again. The company owner butted in and said, “Why would he have to teach? What CAN’T you do with an English degree?” Everyone turned to look at him, even me, like he had just spoken Martian. Realizing he now had an audience, something he thoroughly enjoyed, he continued, “I’d rather hire someone with a good solid education like that. Someone who can think for himself, than some smart-ass fresh out of a carpentry program that thinks he knows everything.” He still wasn’t making much sense to us, but he went on, “And what if he did teach? What’s wrong with that? The fact that you bums even got into college is because of your teachers. I don’t care what job you think is better for whatever reason. You wouldn’t do it, there would be no role models in that career field, if there weren’t good teachers out there preparing those people and making them believe they could succeed. Things don’t always work out like you plan, but whatever success you manage to have, you owe to a teacher.” We were used to being shocked by Dave’s outbursts of wisdom, but we didn’t call it wisdom at the time.
I still wasn’t going to be a teacher. I was going to do something better than that. This guy was nuts. He’d apparently seen too much in Vietnam, then later as a career cop and detective on the Akron Police Department. Only a fool would choose a thankless, underpaid, often dangerous life as a public servant. What did he know about life? He had to start a business in his retirement just to get by thanks to his public service career.
So I finished up my English degree, and thanks to that constant question, picked up a teaching certificate as a sort of hedge or backup plan, or even an afterthought. Right out of college I started working for another construction company. I’d done it for five summers by that point, and my experience in the National Guard, in a civil engineering unit, had provided even more experience in that field, so it was easy enough to slip into. There was plenty of work. It paid pretty good, and I enjoyed the variety of settings and most of the people. I also enjoyed seeing the immediate results of my efforts. Only later did the need for immediate gratification in the form of one’s chosen profession strike me as immature.
At that point, the questions changed from, “what are you gonna do, teach?” to “why would someone with a college degree ever want to do construction work?” Even my colleagues in the National Guard joined in, constantly asking, “since you have your degree, when are you going to become an officer?” I began to realize how much of the world saw the sole purpose of education as furthering one’s career. To more people than I would ever have guessed, a college degree meant no more than a bigger paycheck. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that a mechanic or a construction worker or anyone might be better at his job, or be a better employee, even a better citizen or member of society by seeking understanding not only of his job, but of the world around him. Where had education gone wrong? When did it become nothing more than a commodity to be traded for a paycheck?
I took it all in and eventually sought out a career that seemed more publicly in line with my education. A small-town weekly newspaper was looking for a “stringer.” I didn’t even know what that was, but the ad said it involved writing. I found out it was a “get paid as you go” system of writing stories for the paper. No sooner had I started getting $10 per council meeting story and making my face known in the newspaper’s office, did I discover they also needed a handyman. I weaseled my way into a full-time position there as a writer and office furniture builder/arranger/trash taker outer. I was making quite a bit less money than I did in construction, but had to answer fewer questions about my English degree. I started taking and developing pictures for the paper to go along with my stories, and mostly by attrition, ended up as the editor of that little paper. It was one of the most fun but lowest paying jobs I’d ever had. No bosses, no real hours, just a weekly deadline, a critical public and a seasoned publisher to please. It was as close to running my own business as I ever wanted to be. It was a blast. But as I thought about buying a house and having kids, and the publisher decided that cutting the cost of the paper to less than half of what it was when I’d started wasn’t enough, I took a full-time position in my Air National Guard unit. All of a sudden, I would have actual benefits, be able to leave town without missing something, and regular hours. The pay was almost double and it was a management position so it would be a better resume builder than I’d ever had. It wasn’t anything I’d ever dreamed of doing, but I decided I’d give it five years and see what happened. After four, I knew that management, especially with the government, wasn’t something I could do for the rest of my life.
Oddly enough, it was the recruiter in my guard unit who continued my education on education by asking me if I’d ever thought about teaching. While employed by the Guard, we’d manned the recruiter’s booth at a county fair and both thoroughly enjoyed talking to high school students about the guard, the Air Force, our unit and the careers available. As we were packing up, this recruiter talked about the classes I’d taught to adults in our guard unit as part of my job there. “Man you’re good at that.” he said, “Your enthusiasm is contagious - people don’t even sleep when YOU teach those classes.” He pointed out how at ease I’d been while speaking with the high school students at the fair. He suggested that it looked like I was enjoying myself, and he was right. I was. But I wasn’t making the connection. On the way back to our station, I told him that I had, in fact, picked up a teaching certificate while in college, but never really thought of it as a career. According to him, it was clear: I’d been given a gift. I’d been steered in this direction and it was obvious what I should do with it. He asked me why I never tried teaching.
It had been a good ten years since I’d thought about that question. On the way home that night, I couldn’t remember the answer. As it happened, that very summer was the year the state of Ohio decided to revamp their teacher licensing program. I got a letter in the mail telling me that my teaching certificate, which had expired, would no longer be renewable after that summer. I was still in the mindset of maintaining that certificate as a backup plan when I called Columbus and asked what I had to do in order to renew. The series of events led me to think more and more about why I had never seriously considered teaching. I told my wife about all of this and she echoed the question adding, “you’d be good at it.”
I made the move. I began substituting while burning up all the vacation time I’d amassed in four years working full-time for the guard. I was at a level where I got six weeks of vacation per year - kind of like teachers, eh?! It didn’t take long to realize that you could work every school day of the year as a substitute if you wanted to and IF you could take it. (That would be the only situation where a “teacher” only worked 9 months out of the year) It was during this transition that I learned first hand that teaching IS doing. Not only must you master your subject matter and present it effectively, but you must also master a wide variety of management skills most professions never call upon. Then you must deliver this whole package every period of every day you’re in a classroom, much like a boxer must give his all every time the bell starts a round. In every other profession I’d had, you could get by with bad days. “Phoning it in” never really set you back much most of the time, but teachers don’t get that opportunity during those 9 months of 6-hour days. When the bell rings, it’s on. You either perform, or you get eaten alive. I knew then that I at least had to see if I could face this challenge even if I was never actually going to stoop so low as to become a teacher for a living.
I continued to be employed by the guard until I used up all my leave. By that point I’d taken on work teaching night classes to adults at the local vocational school. On alternate nights, I taught students who had been kicked out of regular high school at the big high school in a neighboring town, and I occasionally taught Saturday seminars to local businesses or organizations through that vocational program. I was still working most days as a substitute and eventually landed a long-term sub position at the high school where I began teaching English for good. Those days when I went back to my Guard unit to serve the traditional weekend duty, I received more support for my new career than I expected, but never without the occasional reminder of what society really thinks about teachers. Someone always said, “...finally realized you couldn’t DO, so now you teach, eh?” By then, of course, I knew that if I were to swap jobs with anyone dumb enough to actually believe that, I’d probably get by just fine in their spot while they wouldn’t last 10 minutes in my classroom.
I’ve now been teaching full-time for eight years. I began in a large urban high school and now teach in one of the smallest rural schools in Ohio. Both have their advantages. Both have their disadvantages, just like any other job. A number of ideas come to mind now that I’ve settled in and in light of the email that inspired this rambling. While I suppose that deep down somewhere, I still believe teaching is, in fact, a noble profession, for those of us who do it every day, it’s just a job, like any other. It is that buried belief that gets us past the criticism of immature students and adults; that helps us find a way to survive in spite of the low pay; that drives us to get better when most of the public notices only our failures. But really, it’s just the job we do. We know why we do it and what we do and what we make. We know that critical thinking will never be accurately measured on any standardized test, that the vision and imagination to solve the world’s future problems will never be part of the mandated curriculum and that we will always be more accountable to ourselves and our students than any government program could ever hold us. Those of us who stay in this profession also know that the gratification doesn’t come at the end of the day, week or year, but in seeing students grow up, move on, and do what they want to do with their lives. It takes a while for that to happen. In order to DO this job, you have to be smart, quick, tolerant, wise and all that other easy stuff required in any profession, but mostly, you have to be patient and mature. Few can DO that like teachers.
I could kick myself these days for the ten years I wasted toying with “real” professions, but the truth is, I wasn’t mature enough to know any of this during those years. I didn’t have the experience or the wisdom that classroom teachers have to have to survive, let alone be effective teachers. I don’t know how people straight out of college do it, but I work with many of them and continue to be amazed. They have something that a society who doesn’t value it could never understand, and thus has never been willing to pay for. That’s our fault for being more concerned with providing a quality product than with marketing it.
Sadly, the trend of society looking down upon teachers is more firmly in place now than it has ever been. Society has never put its money where its mouth was. Sure education is important, we claim, but we’re not willing to actually pay for it. We’ve gotten away with that because so many young women were willing to do it for token salaries for so long. And we got away with that by convincing ourselves that anybody could do what these young women did. It was JUST teaching. We respected the dedication of these young women, but we would never admit they were professionals who were good at what they did. Or rather, that what they did might actually be a profession.
These days, not only has pay remained a salient truth that society doesn’t believe teaching is a skilled profession, but the level of respect has dropped to join the pay, as the email points out. Another example of this loss of status, another sign that the trend is continuing comes in the form of the benefit of the doubt teachers always give and used to get. When I got a detention or an F on a paper, I got punished at home, on the spot. AFTER the lecture and the punishment, I was sometimes given the opportunity to explain my side of the story - not that it ever counted for much. The assumption was that the teacher was right, had already given the student the benefit of the doubt, and finally had to resort to the F or the detention, or the letter home. But these days, thanks, probably, to the public assertion that we need No Child Left Behind or standardized tests or school district report cards to be accountable, the assumption is that the teacher just has it in for that student. The one stereotype of teachers that used make up for the rest of the abuse - integrity, dedication, respect - is now questioned as well.
Teacher pay has in fact increased quite a bit since those days when only women taught, but I still took a huge pay cut even from government work when I started teaching. Now that we also seem to be losing the authority we once had as impartial judges of appropriate classroom behavior or assessors of student work in our subject area, what else do we still have to lose? How clear does society have to make it that they believe our jobs could be done by machines or monkeys?
To that I say simply, try it. The only thing I have to lose is a career that challenges me and in meeting that challenge, is satisfying. When the monkeys or machines replace me, I’ll get a real job and make some real money for a change. When I go back to making widgets rather than making a difference, at least my integrity and skills will no longer be questioned.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
re: Equivocation
I've decided to pull this much of the comments from the Equivocation post up onto the main page. Ray asked some good questions about that post and I'm afraid, once again, I didn't make the subtle factors of my thoughts as clear as I should have.
While my emphasis in that post was on Bush taking the blame for a lack of clear objectives in Iraq, I didn't mean to suggest that perpetrators of criminal acts shouldn't be held accountable at all. What I meant to say is that they should share that accountability with the people who put them there with no clear direction in the first place. While the Nuremberg Trials eliminated "just following orders" as a defensefor enlisted troops, they in no way absolved commanders of responsibility.
Let's start with some of the specifics...
Regarding my plea that Bush share some of the responsibility for prisoner abuse, specifically in the case of Army dog handler Sgt. Michael Smith, Ray asked:
"Let me ask you Luth, is this sort of behavior taught in the military? Is it encouraged? Is it even spoken of? Or is military training more about honor and duty. Duty to one's country. From your experience, is there any military training that enforces this kind of inhuman behavior?"
Well, Smith was convicted of using his dog to intimidate a prisoner. Is intimidation taught in the military? Absolutely. Drill sergeants intimidate new troops. The troops themselves intimidate newer troops. From hazing to flat out criminal acts, intimidation, inhumane treatment and abuse are a de facto part of military training. My fellow horsemen and I experienced our share of it during Combat Readiness Training at Ft.Benning and in Kuwait en route to Iraq. I have some rank and 18+ years of experience, and still you run across it. There are aspects of it that make me question the whole "honor and duty" thing regularly. As far as honor and duty go, troops either have that when they join, or they have a 50/50 shot of picking it up as a result of military training. Honor and duty are no more and no less explicit than intimidation and abuse in military training.
As far as duty to one's country goes. Basic trainees are taught that folding underwear correctly is duty to one's country. Marching in step is duty to one's country. Trimming grass with scissors is a duty to one's country. Obedience seems to be the foremost duty to one's country per military training. Doing one's job in the military, from accounting to tagging bodies, is serving one's country. Sgt. Smith probably felt he was doing his job by using his guard dog to get information that would protect America. Ever heard that expression used?
We tap the phones of American citizens without a warrant in order to protect America. We record the history of library books checked out by American citizens to protect America. We look at a million randomly selected Google search histories without a warrant to protect America. We ignore treaties and the Geneva Convention to protect America. We detain civilians, including children, for years without charges, representation, or contact with their families to protect America. We invaded an extremely poor, weak country led by an impotent dictator to protect America. Why would it seem out of the realm of reasonable behavior to use a dog to intimidate a terrorist suspect into giving up information that might protect America? Sgt. Smith shows no remorse because by all accounts, he did the job he was sent to do. Perhaps his judgment was in err, but given the total absence of any clear reason for him being there in the first place, is he alone to blame for that erred judgment?
If the enlisted men and staff officers in Iraq and Gitmo are going to be publicly held accountable for carrying out their CinC's orders, shouldn't the CinC also be held accountable? A pretty historically significant court seemed to think so...
"It's common for plaintiffs in cases like this (war crimes) to lack concrete evidence against top commanders. Like Mafia dons, commanders rarely commit the crimes themselves, and they don't leave much of a paper trail—not since the Nazis' zealous documentation proved so useful to Nuremberg prosecutors. Even at Nuremberg, there wasn't enough evidence of direct control to convict all the defendants who seemed guilty, so the tribunal there developed the doctrine of command responsibility. The idea was that a commander who did little or nothing to stop his troops from committing atrocities was effectively encouraging them and should be held responsible." (Effective Command by Susan Benech http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=230)
American courts think so too, but that comes later...
Regarding the high school superintendent gone bad scenario: I'm not suggesting that the superintendent's behavior JUSTIFIES the bad behavior of those in his charge, but rather, that they all go down for the resulting bad behavior even if only the teachers get caught. Especially when the teachers keep getting caught doing things that superintendent exemplified or otherwise endorsed or even condoned. Those teachers are a symptom... fully accountable for their own actions to be certain, but we have to treat the cause, not just the symptoms. If in any way that superintendent's behavior, speech, or doctrine influenced the teachers' behavior, or he failed to exercise the control he was hired to exercise, then he is as responsible as they are. Note the distinction: It's not that the teachers should be given impunity, it's that ALL of them should be held accountable.
Civilian contractor interrogators have endorsed, at the very least, rough treatment of prisoners being delivered for interrogation. They have trained military guards on the local operating procedures of the prisons. Commanders who have questioned this, and detailed the abusive practices demonstrated, have been relieved of their command. Their lower ranking charges have been convicted of abuse. The contractors have continued to do their work... their duty to the nation that the Bush administration hired them to do.
Furthermore, the Bush administration has admitted to sending prisoners to countries where abusive interrogation methods are the routine. Sending prisoners in one's charge to a place where one knows they will be abused is an endorsement of the abuse. It's not just allowing it to happen, or failing to prevent it, it's an endorsement of it.
Now for the American court's take on this responsibility:
"The doctrine of 'command responsibility,' the product of an American initiative enshrined in law since the Nuremberg Statutes after World War II, affirms that civilian and military leaders may be held legally accountable for abuses committed by their subordinates -- even when these commanders did not personally order abuses, witness such abuses, have direct knowledge about them or conspire to commit them. This law recognizes the tremendous danger of abuse inherent in war and, in tribute to the awful sacrifices of the Holocaust and those who died in two world wars, it places the moral worth of each and every person at the center of our international order. Rather than permit leaders to turn a blind eye to abuse, it charges both military and civilian authorities with an affirmative duty to prevent crimes, to control their troops, to act when a crime is discovered, and to punish those found guilty of committing the actual crime – no matter how high responsibility may reach in the chain of command." (The Abuse of Power, speech by Terry Karl, http://wais.stanford.edu/General/abuseofpower.htm)
President Bush must answer for his role in the Iraqi situation from the specifics to the general. The only answers he's given so far are catchphrases and faulty intelligence backed hypotheses that have since been proven false. He must answer us since he's spending our money. We would expect no less from any other commander who authorized the rounding up of people and their detention in foreign lands. The person who authorizes that is responsible for the care and treatment of those people. Sgt. Smith did not authorize that.
I'm not blaming the system for what individuals like Smith did, I'm blaming the commander. I'm not blaming him for the acts committed by the individuals like Smith, but for creating a culture that allows or encourages the individuals to think what they did was the right thing. They answer for their actions. Bush answers for his.
And what of CW2 Birt and Maj. Klaus? They exercised field expediency to ready their convoys to meet mission demands. Some of what they were convicted of (not filling out the proper paperwork for cannabalizing vehicle parts) happened while under fire. When another unit refused to do what Klaus's unit did to prepare their equipment, they were charged with failing to perform their mission. How do you decide what the right thing to do is given that information? Right and wrong never seems to be as easy on the ground as conservatives make it sound.
Sorting all of this out is not easy here in my comfy den. Imagine what those troops in Iraq have to process when determining the right thing to do. They may have volunteered to serve, but they didn't choose to go to Iraq. Are they solely to blame for what they're asked to do there in the name of honor and duty, serving their country, and protecting America?
While my emphasis in that post was on Bush taking the blame for a lack of clear objectives in Iraq, I didn't mean to suggest that perpetrators of criminal acts shouldn't be held accountable at all. What I meant to say is that they should share that accountability with the people who put them there with no clear direction in the first place. While the Nuremberg Trials eliminated "just following orders" as a defensefor enlisted troops, they in no way absolved commanders of responsibility.
Let's start with some of the specifics...
Regarding my plea that Bush share some of the responsibility for prisoner abuse, specifically in the case of Army dog handler Sgt. Michael Smith, Ray asked:
"Let me ask you Luth, is this sort of behavior taught in the military? Is it encouraged? Is it even spoken of? Or is military training more about honor and duty. Duty to one's country. From your experience, is there any military training that enforces this kind of inhuman behavior?"
Well, Smith was convicted of using his dog to intimidate a prisoner. Is intimidation taught in the military? Absolutely. Drill sergeants intimidate new troops. The troops themselves intimidate newer troops. From hazing to flat out criminal acts, intimidation, inhumane treatment and abuse are a de facto part of military training. My fellow horsemen and I experienced our share of it during Combat Readiness Training at Ft.Benning and in Kuwait en route to Iraq. I have some rank and 18+ years of experience, and still you run across it. There are aspects of it that make me question the whole "honor and duty" thing regularly. As far as honor and duty go, troops either have that when they join, or they have a 50/50 shot of picking it up as a result of military training. Honor and duty are no more and no less explicit than intimidation and abuse in military training.
As far as duty to one's country goes. Basic trainees are taught that folding underwear correctly is duty to one's country. Marching in step is duty to one's country. Trimming grass with scissors is a duty to one's country. Obedience seems to be the foremost duty to one's country per military training. Doing one's job in the military, from accounting to tagging bodies, is serving one's country. Sgt. Smith probably felt he was doing his job by using his guard dog to get information that would protect America. Ever heard that expression used?
We tap the phones of American citizens without a warrant in order to protect America. We record the history of library books checked out by American citizens to protect America. We look at a million randomly selected Google search histories without a warrant to protect America. We ignore treaties and the Geneva Convention to protect America. We detain civilians, including children, for years without charges, representation, or contact with their families to protect America. We invaded an extremely poor, weak country led by an impotent dictator to protect America. Why would it seem out of the realm of reasonable behavior to use a dog to intimidate a terrorist suspect into giving up information that might protect America? Sgt. Smith shows no remorse because by all accounts, he did the job he was sent to do. Perhaps his judgment was in err, but given the total absence of any clear reason for him being there in the first place, is he alone to blame for that erred judgment?
If the enlisted men and staff officers in Iraq and Gitmo are going to be publicly held accountable for carrying out their CinC's orders, shouldn't the CinC also be held accountable? A pretty historically significant court seemed to think so...
"It's common for plaintiffs in cases like this (war crimes) to lack concrete evidence against top commanders. Like Mafia dons, commanders rarely commit the crimes themselves, and they don't leave much of a paper trail—not since the Nazis' zealous documentation proved so useful to Nuremberg prosecutors. Even at Nuremberg, there wasn't enough evidence of direct control to convict all the defendants who seemed guilty, so the tribunal there developed the doctrine of command responsibility. The idea was that a commander who did little or nothing to stop his troops from committing atrocities was effectively encouraging them and should be held responsible." (Effective Command by Susan Benech http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=230)
American courts think so too, but that comes later...
Regarding the high school superintendent gone bad scenario: I'm not suggesting that the superintendent's behavior JUSTIFIES the bad behavior of those in his charge, but rather, that they all go down for the resulting bad behavior even if only the teachers get caught. Especially when the teachers keep getting caught doing things that superintendent exemplified or otherwise endorsed or even condoned. Those teachers are a symptom... fully accountable for their own actions to be certain, but we have to treat the cause, not just the symptoms. If in any way that superintendent's behavior, speech, or doctrine influenced the teachers' behavior, or he failed to exercise the control he was hired to exercise, then he is as responsible as they are. Note the distinction: It's not that the teachers should be given impunity, it's that ALL of them should be held accountable.
Civilian contractor interrogators have endorsed, at the very least, rough treatment of prisoners being delivered for interrogation. They have trained military guards on the local operating procedures of the prisons. Commanders who have questioned this, and detailed the abusive practices demonstrated, have been relieved of their command. Their lower ranking charges have been convicted of abuse. The contractors have continued to do their work... their duty to the nation that the Bush administration hired them to do.
Furthermore, the Bush administration has admitted to sending prisoners to countries where abusive interrogation methods are the routine. Sending prisoners in one's charge to a place where one knows they will be abused is an endorsement of the abuse. It's not just allowing it to happen, or failing to prevent it, it's an endorsement of it.
Now for the American court's take on this responsibility:
"The doctrine of 'command responsibility,' the product of an American initiative enshrined in law since the Nuremberg Statutes after World War II, affirms that civilian and military leaders may be held legally accountable for abuses committed by their subordinates -- even when these commanders did not personally order abuses, witness such abuses, have direct knowledge about them or conspire to commit them. This law recognizes the tremendous danger of abuse inherent in war and, in tribute to the awful sacrifices of the Holocaust and those who died in two world wars, it places the moral worth of each and every person at the center of our international order. Rather than permit leaders to turn a blind eye to abuse, it charges both military and civilian authorities with an affirmative duty to prevent crimes, to control their troops, to act when a crime is discovered, and to punish those found guilty of committing the actual crime – no matter how high responsibility may reach in the chain of command." (The Abuse of Power, speech by Terry Karl, http://wais.stanford.edu/General/abuseofpower.htm)
President Bush must answer for his role in the Iraqi situation from the specifics to the general. The only answers he's given so far are catchphrases and faulty intelligence backed hypotheses that have since been proven false. He must answer us since he's spending our money. We would expect no less from any other commander who authorized the rounding up of people and their detention in foreign lands. The person who authorizes that is responsible for the care and treatment of those people. Sgt. Smith did not authorize that.
I'm not blaming the system for what individuals like Smith did, I'm blaming the commander. I'm not blaming him for the acts committed by the individuals like Smith, but for creating a culture that allows or encourages the individuals to think what they did was the right thing. They answer for their actions. Bush answers for his.
And what of CW2 Birt and Maj. Klaus? They exercised field expediency to ready their convoys to meet mission demands. Some of what they were convicted of (not filling out the proper paperwork for cannabalizing vehicle parts) happened while under fire. When another unit refused to do what Klaus's unit did to prepare their equipment, they were charged with failing to perform their mission. How do you decide what the right thing to do is given that information? Right and wrong never seems to be as easy on the ground as conservatives make it sound.
Sorting all of this out is not easy here in my comfy den. Imagine what those troops in Iraq have to process when determining the right thing to do. They may have volunteered to serve, but they didn't choose to go to Iraq. Are they solely to blame for what they're asked to do there in the name of honor and duty, serving their country, and protecting America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)