I am blessed to have many friends in education, and of those, many work places other than Texas. Most school districts here are just ending their spring breaks, timed to coincide with collegiate breaks. Many of you have yet to have your "break," or are beginning as we end. Especially for those of you who live in northern climes where a break now would be an additional winter break with spring actually more than a month away. Regardless, spring break has become institutionalized; a holiday as sacred as Christmas. Any school district that would propose an academic calendar sans spring break would likely inspire their own Arab Spring complete with revolutionaries burning effigies in the street. Those revolting against the spring breakless calendar would no doubt receive surreptitious funding from all the spring break Meccas like Florida, Cancun, and Padre Island. "Why is that?” she asks rhetorically.
Visit a school the week before the break and observe the behavior of staff and kids. During the week preceding the break all the lounge talk is about the break, the "need" for a break. It does not matter where the break falls during the 8 weeks of March or April. All that matters is that there is a break. Tension rises in anticipation of the break, peeks about Wednesday before the break, and then Thursday and Friday are downhill slides into the break.
I would suggest we "need" the break for two main reasons. First, because it is there. If there were not a break no one would need it. As proof, I would suggest that school folks in Texas really needed a break during the week of March 5 to 9 in anticipation of the break that fell March 12 to 16. Other systems did not feel the need as strongly that week as their break occurs later. When we return on Monday, other districts will be in the week before their break and will really feel the need for the break, while we, having broken, are all returned from our break re-focused until year's end. If a break were really needed, wouldn't we all feel it across this nation at about the same time? But no, we only really feel it during spring break eve.
Second, in an era of high stakes standardized tests, the break is much more likely to be really needed. There is an intensity in classrooms as futures ride on outcomes of bubble sheets that cannot be maintained from Christmas to May. Even with the break, some crack under the stress. There are laws and regulations regarding the amount of time truckers can drive, flight controllers can control, and pilots can fly. No such laws exist in education, but as the pressure mounts, there likely should be.
We remain the subjects of the medieval agrarian calendar. If school consumes 9.5 of the 12 months it makes much more sense to have our "summer" during spring. In summer it is too bloomin' hot to be outdoors and would seem much wiser to be indoors with AC provided by tax dollars. Besides, hurricanes happen in summer and kids would be safer in school buildings than apartment complexes or mobile homes. Winter would be the best time for high stakes testing as it gets dark early and the weather is nasty and we might as well be in school hitting the books with fervor. The season of giving could be expanded to include tests.
But spring is wonderful! Life blooms again. It stays light later. We plant. All the saps rise. Yes, now is the time to take a break.
Our break is now over. Those still employed return to work tomorrow. Kids will drag in. (Staff too, but we will not talk about that.) We go through the process of starting up for the home stretch; the high stakes, high intensity home stretch with no real relief in sight until June. Turn up the heat on the pressure cooker that has become public schools because we have just a few weeks to left to cook.
And I wonder if the break was worth it. Five instructional days gone. The two or three days before hand likely wasted in anticipation, and the two or three days first back likely out of sync means that a one week vacation in the middle of the second semester really costs us up to 10 lost teachable days.
Yep, feels more like spring broke to me.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Really, Dear Parents
I am inspired to write on behalf of teachers everywhere, and in particular for those teachers I know and love who share anecdotal stories regarding interactions with parents and administrators that are beyond belief. If you are a parent and recently have met with a teacher regarding your child’s performance or behavior, or if you are a young administrator and have just heard a parent complaint about one of the teachers in your building, this is for you:
Dear Parents,
Teaching is an incredibly difficult job, especially so if you care about kids and care that they learn. Sadly, kids greatly outnumber us and I am not able to give each child the attention I might like, and equally sad is the fact that your child is not able to do exactly as he or she may want to do because that would distract from the learning of others, or worse, distract me as I attempt to teach others. With that said, here is the truth:
I am not picking on your child, I am not singling your child out for ridicule, and I am not conspiring to set your child up. Do you believe that? Really? There are way too many kids for me to devote the kind of effort that it would take to sabotage one child. There is absolutely nothing for me to gain if your child is structured for failure. There is everything for me to gain and for your child to gain if your child does his or her work and behaves while they are in class. Every effort on my part is to help them and others succeed.
Your child will lie to you. Really. Rather than confess their sins and admit that they did not do their work or that they acted the fool in class, they will prefer to paint me as the bad guy rather than disappoint you. I am not the bad guy. I am doing my very best to help your child succeed and I could use your help. If they tell you something other than that, it is not the truth.
Learning takes dedicated and focused work. I am glad that your child has experienced success prior to my class. To experience success in my class, however, they must do the work and they must behave. The track record of your child means little to me as I attempt to teach them what they must learn this year. Again, I do not have the time to conspire for your child to fail and the path to success is simple, made more so by your support.
Perhaps you think it would be wonderful if every failure your child experienced was someone else’s fault. Do you believe that? Really? Perhaps that is why you call principals to complain that your child is failing or is in trouble and you think it is my fault. It is not my fault. It is the fault of your child. If the principal agrees with you that it is my fault, that is more a reflection on the preparation and quality of the principal than of me. Call me.
But please, before you pick up the phone or log on to your email account, take a breath. Ask yourself if you really, really believe that a professional educator would go to great lengths to set your child up to fail. That for some truly bizarre reasons an adult, professional, degreed certified educator would on some whim pick some student out of the blue on some given day to harass, ridicule, pick on, or set up to fail. That is an anathema to teachers. Our job is to promote learning and success. We take no joy from failure. Help us.
Really.
Dear Parents,
Teaching is an incredibly difficult job, especially so if you care about kids and care that they learn. Sadly, kids greatly outnumber us and I am not able to give each child the attention I might like, and equally sad is the fact that your child is not able to do exactly as he or she may want to do because that would distract from the learning of others, or worse, distract me as I attempt to teach others. With that said, here is the truth:
I am not picking on your child, I am not singling your child out for ridicule, and I am not conspiring to set your child up. Do you believe that? Really? There are way too many kids for me to devote the kind of effort that it would take to sabotage one child. There is absolutely nothing for me to gain if your child is structured for failure. There is everything for me to gain and for your child to gain if your child does his or her work and behaves while they are in class. Every effort on my part is to help them and others succeed.
Your child will lie to you. Really. Rather than confess their sins and admit that they did not do their work or that they acted the fool in class, they will prefer to paint me as the bad guy rather than disappoint you. I am not the bad guy. I am doing my very best to help your child succeed and I could use your help. If they tell you something other than that, it is not the truth.
Learning takes dedicated and focused work. I am glad that your child has experienced success prior to my class. To experience success in my class, however, they must do the work and they must behave. The track record of your child means little to me as I attempt to teach them what they must learn this year. Again, I do not have the time to conspire for your child to fail and the path to success is simple, made more so by your support.
Perhaps you think it would be wonderful if every failure your child experienced was someone else’s fault. Do you believe that? Really? Perhaps that is why you call principals to complain that your child is failing or is in trouble and you think it is my fault. It is not my fault. It is the fault of your child. If the principal agrees with you that it is my fault, that is more a reflection on the preparation and quality of the principal than of me. Call me.
But please, before you pick up the phone or log on to your email account, take a breath. Ask yourself if you really, really believe that a professional educator would go to great lengths to set your child up to fail. That for some truly bizarre reasons an adult, professional, degreed certified educator would on some whim pick some student out of the blue on some given day to harass, ridicule, pick on, or set up to fail. That is an anathema to teachers. Our job is to promote learning and success. We take no joy from failure. Help us.
Really.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Safety and Control
My small town experienced a recent tragedy, the untimely death of a young man. Son of well known and beloved parents, sibling to a brother and sister, this young man took his own life for reasons beyond our kin. It is deeply sad. It is tragic.
There is a quick and predictable response: folks want to know why. They want to know why to confirm or absolve their guilt. They want to know why because if there is an identifiable variable perhaps we can implement something to control the variable. Was it drugs? Was it alcohol? Was it a lost love? Was it a failure of some sort? Who should have done what to keep this from ever happening? Should it have been me? Should I have done something? Could I have said something? Should I have noticed something? Oh my, what should we do?
It is deeply sad. It is tragic. It is scary.
If this young man took his own life, my own kids might do the same! Oh my, what should we do? We should do something. We cannot just sit here and fear and worry and wonder and not act. We must do something, anything! Find the cause and treat it! Find the variable and control it! Eliminate our pain. Make us safe.
This tragedy replays across our land in cities large and small. I believe it hits smaller communities harder. Why live in a small community? It is safer. We know everyone. We can control more variables. There is less random contact, fewer unknowns, and more knowns. We have more control. We should be safer. We forgo the malls, the theatres, the symphonies, the plays, the restaurants, the 24 hour a day hustle and bustle to feel safer. We forgo making more money to live smaller, to live slower, to live closer, to know more, and to be safer. We are totally rattled to discover we are not safe. The randomness of life, the intervening strange variable happens even here. There is no control. There is no real safety. Life unfolds and we all die.
We resent the randomness. We are angry at the lack of control. When we ask “why?" we are demanding a cause and effect response so we can control future responses. That is science, that is math, that is the technology that in fact has made us safer, our homes more secure, our transportation more efficient, our communication instant, and our weapons so effective. Few die from the attack of wild animals. But some do. Few die from poison in our food or water. But some do. Few die from the attack of marauding enemies. But some do. Few die from starvation. But some do. We are safer than we have ever been, but we still are not safe. Our drive to understand, to control, to be safe has brought us much and I am grateful for those advances. But there is still more we do not know, cannot understand, and cannot control.
On a larger scale our nation responded with “doings” after 9/11, after Columbine, after Pearl Harbor. We implemented programs, we fought back, and we sought control. And yet, we still die.
This death was deeply sad. It was tragic. It was scary. It is beyond our kin. We do not need a new program in our schools to make everyone else safe. We do not need to “do” anything. We need to be human beings, not human doings. We need to love, we need to support, we need to experience our feelings whether they are good or bad, we need to have faith, we need to help all those in need, and we need to forgive.
There will never be total safety and total control.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
There is a quick and predictable response: folks want to know why. They want to know why to confirm or absolve their guilt. They want to know why because if there is an identifiable variable perhaps we can implement something to control the variable. Was it drugs? Was it alcohol? Was it a lost love? Was it a failure of some sort? Who should have done what to keep this from ever happening? Should it have been me? Should I have done something? Could I have said something? Should I have noticed something? Oh my, what should we do?
It is deeply sad. It is tragic. It is scary.
If this young man took his own life, my own kids might do the same! Oh my, what should we do? We should do something. We cannot just sit here and fear and worry and wonder and not act. We must do something, anything! Find the cause and treat it! Find the variable and control it! Eliminate our pain. Make us safe.
This tragedy replays across our land in cities large and small. I believe it hits smaller communities harder. Why live in a small community? It is safer. We know everyone. We can control more variables. There is less random contact, fewer unknowns, and more knowns. We have more control. We should be safer. We forgo the malls, the theatres, the symphonies, the plays, the restaurants, the 24 hour a day hustle and bustle to feel safer. We forgo making more money to live smaller, to live slower, to live closer, to know more, and to be safer. We are totally rattled to discover we are not safe. The randomness of life, the intervening strange variable happens even here. There is no control. There is no real safety. Life unfolds and we all die.
We resent the randomness. We are angry at the lack of control. When we ask “why?" we are demanding a cause and effect response so we can control future responses. That is science, that is math, that is the technology that in fact has made us safer, our homes more secure, our transportation more efficient, our communication instant, and our weapons so effective. Few die from the attack of wild animals. But some do. Few die from poison in our food or water. But some do. Few die from the attack of marauding enemies. But some do. Few die from starvation. But some do. We are safer than we have ever been, but we still are not safe. Our drive to understand, to control, to be safe has brought us much and I am grateful for those advances. But there is still more we do not know, cannot understand, and cannot control.
On a larger scale our nation responded with “doings” after 9/11, after Columbine, after Pearl Harbor. We implemented programs, we fought back, and we sought control. And yet, we still die.
This death was deeply sad. It was tragic. It was scary. It is beyond our kin. We do not need a new program in our schools to make everyone else safe. We do not need to “do” anything. We need to be human beings, not human doings. We need to love, we need to support, we need to experience our feelings whether they are good or bad, we need to have faith, we need to help all those in need, and we need to forgive.
There will never be total safety and total control.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Who Is Accountable and How?
A 60 year old man, who has smoked his entire adult life and has had several heart attacks and strokes arrives at the hospital having trouble breathing. Several scans later the admitting doctor sees that he has stage 4, inoperable lung cancer. Can he be saved? Should the doctor be held accountable for his life to continue to the average age of 72?
A 30 year old woman convicted twice for theft is caught shoplifting on video tape in a jewelry store. Her conviction will send her to prison for life. The jewels with her fingerprints were recovered in her purse and the tape is high definition leaving no doubt that she was the thief. A public defender is assigned to defend her. Can she be saved from prison? Should the public defender lawyer be held accountable for her freedom?
A six year old boy arrives at school. He does not know his father. His mother never graduated from high school and was 16 when he was born. He does not know his letters or his colors. There are no books in his home, he has not been fed nutritiously, nurtured, held, loved or intellectually stimulated. His only model for responding to conflict or frustration is to yell profanities and physically run away or strike back. Can he be taught? Should the kindergarten teacher be held accountable for his learning? Should the teacher be held accountable for his learning on a standardized paper and pencil test?
Why is it so hard to explain to folks of a certain perspective that holding teachers accountable for student performance is at best a loosely linked connection? The doctor knows the patient will die, and will provide comfort in his final days. The lawyer knows his client is going to prison, but maybe the sentence can be reduced to 20 years. The teacher knows the kid is not likely to be academically successful anytime real soon, but maybe the kid can catch up before he leaves elementary school if the kid works hard and the mother supports the effort. The doctor will be praised for his heroic and humane efforts. The lawyer will be lauded for his ability to save a client from a life sentence. The kindergarten teacher will be damned, as will the 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade, etc., teachers for the poor performance of the child. Those teachers will demonstrate equally heroic efforts, equally laudable professional practice to save a child from ignorance. But the test results will show, despite the growth, that the child is severely behind. The child was behind before he showed up, much as the patient was doomed and the client was guilty. But only the teachers and the schools will be damned.
Why is it so hard to explain to folks of a certain perspective that holding teachers, schools and school systems accountable for student performance in a judgmental system is so wrong to do?
Amazingly, we shift our assumptions of teacher accountability to the doctor/lawyer model once a student enters college. At age 18 in May it is the teacher’s fault if he does not learn. At age 18 in September it is the student’s fault if he fails. And, accomplishing one of the greatest pieces of mental gymnastics I can imagine, the colleges blame the public schools for not ensuring that the students are college ready!
Teachers exhibit the best professional practice they can given the students they serve. OK, given some doctors are better than others, some lawyers are better than others, we must assume that some teachers are better than others. But, no one fires the emergency room doctor or the public defender lawyer if they lose one as long as they followed standard professional protocols. In fact we are grateful that they perform the professional practice they perform with the patients and clients they serve. We all get that much of the failure of medicine to save lives is based on the life style of the patient, much of the conviction rate is based on the behavior of the accused, and much of the college failure and dropout rate is based on the student’s performance and behavior. Why is it so hard to recognize the same connection with student learning in public schools?
Who is accountable and how we hold them accountable is the real question here. We know how to teach kids whatever their circumstance. No pencil-paper test can measure all that we do much less how well we do it.
Or, perhaps those of us with a lifetime devoted to teaching kids in public schools should simply acquiesce. OK, you are right, all kid learning, nutrition, fitness, and college readiness is entirely up to us. We alone can do it. We are gods, treat us as such. We can transform all children regardless of their background, their effort, their aptitudes, and their families into high performing, productive citizens. Bring on the tests so we can prove it!
Poppycock and balderdash.
Teachers should be held accountable in the same way other professionals who are dependent on the behavior of their clients/patients/students are held accountable: Do we know our stuff, care about kids, and did we give it our best shot demonstrating that we expected every kid to get it however we measure whether they got it or not.
Period.
A 30 year old woman convicted twice for theft is caught shoplifting on video tape in a jewelry store. Her conviction will send her to prison for life. The jewels with her fingerprints were recovered in her purse and the tape is high definition leaving no doubt that she was the thief. A public defender is assigned to defend her. Can she be saved from prison? Should the public defender lawyer be held accountable for her freedom?
A six year old boy arrives at school. He does not know his father. His mother never graduated from high school and was 16 when he was born. He does not know his letters or his colors. There are no books in his home, he has not been fed nutritiously, nurtured, held, loved or intellectually stimulated. His only model for responding to conflict or frustration is to yell profanities and physically run away or strike back. Can he be taught? Should the kindergarten teacher be held accountable for his learning? Should the teacher be held accountable for his learning on a standardized paper and pencil test?
Why is it so hard to explain to folks of a certain perspective that holding teachers accountable for student performance is at best a loosely linked connection? The doctor knows the patient will die, and will provide comfort in his final days. The lawyer knows his client is going to prison, but maybe the sentence can be reduced to 20 years. The teacher knows the kid is not likely to be academically successful anytime real soon, but maybe the kid can catch up before he leaves elementary school if the kid works hard and the mother supports the effort. The doctor will be praised for his heroic and humane efforts. The lawyer will be lauded for his ability to save a client from a life sentence. The kindergarten teacher will be damned, as will the 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade, etc., teachers for the poor performance of the child. Those teachers will demonstrate equally heroic efforts, equally laudable professional practice to save a child from ignorance. But the test results will show, despite the growth, that the child is severely behind. The child was behind before he showed up, much as the patient was doomed and the client was guilty. But only the teachers and the schools will be damned.
Why is it so hard to explain to folks of a certain perspective that holding teachers, schools and school systems accountable for student performance in a judgmental system is so wrong to do?
Amazingly, we shift our assumptions of teacher accountability to the doctor/lawyer model once a student enters college. At age 18 in May it is the teacher’s fault if he does not learn. At age 18 in September it is the student’s fault if he fails. And, accomplishing one of the greatest pieces of mental gymnastics I can imagine, the colleges blame the public schools for not ensuring that the students are college ready!
Teachers exhibit the best professional practice they can given the students they serve. OK, given some doctors are better than others, some lawyers are better than others, we must assume that some teachers are better than others. But, no one fires the emergency room doctor or the public defender lawyer if they lose one as long as they followed standard professional protocols. In fact we are grateful that they perform the professional practice they perform with the patients and clients they serve. We all get that much of the failure of medicine to save lives is based on the life style of the patient, much of the conviction rate is based on the behavior of the accused, and much of the college failure and dropout rate is based on the student’s performance and behavior. Why is it so hard to recognize the same connection with student learning in public schools?
Who is accountable and how we hold them accountable is the real question here. We know how to teach kids whatever their circumstance. No pencil-paper test can measure all that we do much less how well we do it.
Or, perhaps those of us with a lifetime devoted to teaching kids in public schools should simply acquiesce. OK, you are right, all kid learning, nutrition, fitness, and college readiness is entirely up to us. We alone can do it. We are gods, treat us as such. We can transform all children regardless of their background, their effort, their aptitudes, and their families into high performing, productive citizens. Bring on the tests so we can prove it!
Poppycock and balderdash.
Teachers should be held accountable in the same way other professionals who are dependent on the behavior of their clients/patients/students are held accountable: Do we know our stuff, care about kids, and did we give it our best shot demonstrating that we expected every kid to get it however we measure whether they got it or not.
Period.
Friday, January 20, 2012
How Much Do You Cost?
(I drafted this post several days ago and decided to "sleep" on it. Did not want to seem too risqué. But as I hear the outcry over the temporary cancellation of the pipeline and GOP candidates arguing about ways to improve our economy, I decided to set my more lady-like airs aside and post it anyway.)
As I headed off to college many years ago my father, a minister, told me the only semi-bawdy joke I ever heard from his lips: A gorgeous young blond woman enters a bar and takes a seat on a stool. Soon, a very elderly gentlemen, bedecked with diamonds, Rolex and in a tux, sidles up to her at the bar. Though clearly very wealthy, this man was perhaps 90+ years old, barely mobile and skin loose with wrinkles. He turns to her and says, "You are beautiful. I will give you $1 million dollars in cash for 30 minutes alone with you in my hotel suite where you will do what I ask of you." The young woman is taken aback. But, she ponders his proposal. "How bad could it be for 30 minutes? I would be set for life with a million dollars in cash." So, she turns to him and says, "OK." The old rich man smiles and says, "Good. How about the same deal for $10?" Horrified, the young woman exclaims, "What do you think I am?" The old man says, "Darlin', we've established that. We're just hagglin' over price."
That joke has stayed with me ever since. I know scripture. I know ethics. I can actually quote the 10 commandments. But that joke is what comes to mind when I face an ethical decision regarding money.
If the basis of our decision making is only what it will gain us financially, then we have already established what we are and are just hagglin' over price. The market, supply and demand, are not moral schemas. They are financial schemas. I will always argue that the morality of the issue carries far more weight than the possible bottom-line. As business men consider whether to lay off people to maintain a bottom line, as top CEO's accept bonuses as they file for bankruptcy or accept government bail outs, as companies calculate ways to manufacture cheaper overseas rather than employ our folks, then each has established what they are and are simply hagglin' over price. I hear the arguments all the time. I watch corporations seek property tax abatements to establish operation within the boundaries of school districts. I see governments leverage masses of cheap labor to improve their trade deals. I see corporations arguing that the environmental cost of operations means nothing compared to the revenue and jobs. I see candidates arguing that what is good for business is good for the USA. We've heard all that before. I would argue that each time we listen and are tempted, we are the blond on the bar stool pondering whether she can sell herself for $1 million or $10.
One of the really nice things about aging, from my point of view, is that the temptations decrease. I am not likely to have a rich old person approach me at a bar with an immoral proposition. I am not likely to make a business decision that will garner money for me at the expense of someone else. Guess I'm just old school. For a moral cause, I'm free, or at least really cheap. For an immoral cause, I cannot be bought.
Listen carefully to the rationales of the presidential candidates as they speak of proposed policies. I hear blonds and rich old men.
Ten bucks, a million bucks, or no way in hell?
As I headed off to college many years ago my father, a minister, told me the only semi-bawdy joke I ever heard from his lips: A gorgeous young blond woman enters a bar and takes a seat on a stool. Soon, a very elderly gentlemen, bedecked with diamonds, Rolex and in a tux, sidles up to her at the bar. Though clearly very wealthy, this man was perhaps 90+ years old, barely mobile and skin loose with wrinkles. He turns to her and says, "You are beautiful. I will give you $1 million dollars in cash for 30 minutes alone with you in my hotel suite where you will do what I ask of you." The young woman is taken aback. But, she ponders his proposal. "How bad could it be for 30 minutes? I would be set for life with a million dollars in cash." So, she turns to him and says, "OK." The old rich man smiles and says, "Good. How about the same deal for $10?" Horrified, the young woman exclaims, "What do you think I am?" The old man says, "Darlin', we've established that. We're just hagglin' over price."
That joke has stayed with me ever since. I know scripture. I know ethics. I can actually quote the 10 commandments. But that joke is what comes to mind when I face an ethical decision regarding money.
If the basis of our decision making is only what it will gain us financially, then we have already established what we are and are just hagglin' over price. The market, supply and demand, are not moral schemas. They are financial schemas. I will always argue that the morality of the issue carries far more weight than the possible bottom-line. As business men consider whether to lay off people to maintain a bottom line, as top CEO's accept bonuses as they file for bankruptcy or accept government bail outs, as companies calculate ways to manufacture cheaper overseas rather than employ our folks, then each has established what they are and are simply hagglin' over price. I hear the arguments all the time. I watch corporations seek property tax abatements to establish operation within the boundaries of school districts. I see governments leverage masses of cheap labor to improve their trade deals. I see corporations arguing that the environmental cost of operations means nothing compared to the revenue and jobs. I see candidates arguing that what is good for business is good for the USA. We've heard all that before. I would argue that each time we listen and are tempted, we are the blond on the bar stool pondering whether she can sell herself for $1 million or $10.
One of the really nice things about aging, from my point of view, is that the temptations decrease. I am not likely to have a rich old person approach me at a bar with an immoral proposition. I am not likely to make a business decision that will garner money for me at the expense of someone else. Guess I'm just old school. For a moral cause, I'm free, or at least really cheap. For an immoral cause, I cannot be bought.
Listen carefully to the rationales of the presidential candidates as they speak of proposed policies. I hear blonds and rich old men.
Ten bucks, a million bucks, or no way in hell?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Happy New Year?
Thank goodness Iowans have finally caucused! One more hour of news on the GOP candidates and I will have a visual and auditory gag reflex. If this is what is to come for the remaining primaries, I’m shifting to the BBC.
Meanwhile, there are several things that this old liberal broad finds amazing about all the candidate rhetoric:
First, Rick Perry wrote a book. Second, the theme of Perry’s book is that the federal government should leave the states alone to do as they will. Third, Perry doesn’t like what the state of Virginia decided as an independent state regarding qualifying for their primary so he is suing them. Another “oxy” for this moron. Fourth, I heard Bachman call Obama a “socialist” last night on TV. Really? Fortunately, even the Republicans in Iowa get that she was off target.
I am further amazed that the sliding scale used by candidates to assess each other is the conservative-liberal scale. Perhaps we need to define that scale as I have not seen any candidate in Iowa who walks like, talks like, smells like or looks like a liberal. Least of all my own Congressman, Ron Paul. (Yes, he is my Congressman and Perry is my Governor. Pray for me.)
If you read the standard definitions and descriptions of liberal and conservative you will see that the theme is “who solves problems?” We would be led to believe that if you support individuals solving their own problems you are a conservative, and if you believe government solves problems then you are a liberal. Such delineation was clearly written by conservatives and is not quite right. The real question for me is a moral question, “Who is my brother?” I have a brother, I have children, I have a family and I would do most anything I could do to help them. I believe conservatives think the same way, elsewise, why would they fight so hard to protect the rights of their children to inherit the wealth they have accumulated? (If the definition of welfare is receiving benefits one has not earned, would not inherited wealth be welfare?) But, if one really believes individuals should solve their own problems, then I ask, do wealthy conservatives not share their wealth with their families? I think they do. Do wealthy conservatives require that each member of their family generate their own wealth? I think they do not. Would a wealthy conservative support a family member in need? I think they do. So, the real question is, “who is my brother?” If I view all Americans as brothers, then I am willing to share my wealth, whatever that wealth may be, with all Americans. If any of us are poor, hungry, uneducated, in need of medical treatment, then it is incumbent on all of us to chip in to help, just as we would were the poor/hungry/uneducated/sick person a family member. I think being a liberal is the Christian way. I think being liberal is the rational way.
The telling question to a conservative is, do you share your wealth, and if so, with whom, and why not others? If the answer is “we are all better off in a non-regulated free enterprise economy,” I would beg to differ. The law of supply and demand is not a moral code. The market is by its very nature without ethics. If my goal is to accumulate wealth rather than be a moral person, then my behaviors are very different. I will be willing to fight to keep money as opposed to sharing it. I will fight to make more money no matter whom I may hurt or what laws I may break. Making money is easy, especially if there is no ethical boundary. So yes, I would regulate enterprise and I would tax the profits made on enterprise.
Another clarifying variable on the liberal-conservative scale involves civil liberties. Conservatives would have the government support value-based decision making for individuals at the same time they oppose the government collecting money from some individuals to help others. I think that is backwards. The government should not impose certain values or beliefs or practices on any of us. It is fine to oppose gay marriage. Don’t marry someone of the same sex if that is your view. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose abortion. Don’t get an abortion. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose euthanasia. Don’t get euthanized. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to be a Christian. Go to church and tithe and do good works and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. But do not mandate that everyone must do that. (In fact, if you believe in an omnipotent God, why would you mandate what God could clearly have mandated and chose not to?) So, it is really kind of funny that liberals do promote individual responsibility for beliefs, for thinking, for feeling, for choosing life styles, and conservatives do not. Equally kind of funny that liberals do support taxing all to provide for the physical needs of those who suffer and conservatives do not. So liberals support non-government intervention on things internal and conservatives support non-governmental intervention on things external, and vice-versa. Conservatives would not regulate the economy but would regulate beliefs. Liberals would regulate the economy and not regulate beliefs.
The most amazing thing of all to me is that there are poor conservatives! I can only guess they are conservative because of the civil liberties issue as being conservative on the economic issues will only hurt them. Just as I was amazed in Texas when educators supported Tea Party candidates and then were amazed that the government spending that got cut was their salary! I want to scream, “Duh!” (I am not amazed that there are rich liberals because I believe being a liberal is a rational and humanitarian way to be. And, there are rich liberals!)
Being liberal is not a dirty word, is not a slander, though some would use tone and inflection to imply as much. Being liberal is a wonderful, liberating perspective, supportive of human rights and dignity, supportive of support of the poor, the downtrodden, the young, the old, the sick and infirm. Everyone who has ever received my liberal support has thanked me. I am more of a giver than a receiver, and I am proud of that.
Not so proud that I can come out of the closet. I know too many conservatives who would tar and feather me, or seek to have me committed if I did. And that is another liberal attribute: tolerance of diversity in thought and belief, life style and attitude. Our nation was founded on liberal beliefs and the first 10 amendments to our Constitution made it the law of the land. After all, if you had it made and were in the top 1% in Europe in the mid 1700’s, why would you leave it all and come here?
We tend to have short memories. I cannot expect my conservative friends to remember 1776 if they cannot remember the fall of 2008. Our policies and leadership 4 years ago were conservative and we crashed. If we return to the prevailing philosophy we elected in 2004, or 2000, we are not likely to experience much different.
If so, Happy New Year?
Meanwhile, there are several things that this old liberal broad finds amazing about all the candidate rhetoric:
First, Rick Perry wrote a book. Second, the theme of Perry’s book is that the federal government should leave the states alone to do as they will. Third, Perry doesn’t like what the state of Virginia decided as an independent state regarding qualifying for their primary so he is suing them. Another “oxy” for this moron. Fourth, I heard Bachman call Obama a “socialist” last night on TV. Really? Fortunately, even the Republicans in Iowa get that she was off target.
I am further amazed that the sliding scale used by candidates to assess each other is the conservative-liberal scale. Perhaps we need to define that scale as I have not seen any candidate in Iowa who walks like, talks like, smells like or looks like a liberal. Least of all my own Congressman, Ron Paul. (Yes, he is my Congressman and Perry is my Governor. Pray for me.)
If you read the standard definitions and descriptions of liberal and conservative you will see that the theme is “who solves problems?” We would be led to believe that if you support individuals solving their own problems you are a conservative, and if you believe government solves problems then you are a liberal. Such delineation was clearly written by conservatives and is not quite right. The real question for me is a moral question, “Who is my brother?” I have a brother, I have children, I have a family and I would do most anything I could do to help them. I believe conservatives think the same way, elsewise, why would they fight so hard to protect the rights of their children to inherit the wealth they have accumulated? (If the definition of welfare is receiving benefits one has not earned, would not inherited wealth be welfare?) But, if one really believes individuals should solve their own problems, then I ask, do wealthy conservatives not share their wealth with their families? I think they do. Do wealthy conservatives require that each member of their family generate their own wealth? I think they do not. Would a wealthy conservative support a family member in need? I think they do. So, the real question is, “who is my brother?” If I view all Americans as brothers, then I am willing to share my wealth, whatever that wealth may be, with all Americans. If any of us are poor, hungry, uneducated, in need of medical treatment, then it is incumbent on all of us to chip in to help, just as we would were the poor/hungry/uneducated/sick person a family member. I think being a liberal is the Christian way. I think being liberal is the rational way.
The telling question to a conservative is, do you share your wealth, and if so, with whom, and why not others? If the answer is “we are all better off in a non-regulated free enterprise economy,” I would beg to differ. The law of supply and demand is not a moral code. The market is by its very nature without ethics. If my goal is to accumulate wealth rather than be a moral person, then my behaviors are very different. I will be willing to fight to keep money as opposed to sharing it. I will fight to make more money no matter whom I may hurt or what laws I may break. Making money is easy, especially if there is no ethical boundary. So yes, I would regulate enterprise and I would tax the profits made on enterprise.
Another clarifying variable on the liberal-conservative scale involves civil liberties. Conservatives would have the government support value-based decision making for individuals at the same time they oppose the government collecting money from some individuals to help others. I think that is backwards. The government should not impose certain values or beliefs or practices on any of us. It is fine to oppose gay marriage. Don’t marry someone of the same sex if that is your view. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose abortion. Don’t get an abortion. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to oppose euthanasia. Don’t get euthanized. But do not mandate that all must do as you do. It is fine to be a Christian. Go to church and tithe and do good works and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. But do not mandate that everyone must do that. (In fact, if you believe in an omnipotent God, why would you mandate what God could clearly have mandated and chose not to?) So, it is really kind of funny that liberals do promote individual responsibility for beliefs, for thinking, for feeling, for choosing life styles, and conservatives do not. Equally kind of funny that liberals do support taxing all to provide for the physical needs of those who suffer and conservatives do not. So liberals support non-government intervention on things internal and conservatives support non-governmental intervention on things external, and vice-versa. Conservatives would not regulate the economy but would regulate beliefs. Liberals would regulate the economy and not regulate beliefs.
The most amazing thing of all to me is that there are poor conservatives! I can only guess they are conservative because of the civil liberties issue as being conservative on the economic issues will only hurt them. Just as I was amazed in Texas when educators supported Tea Party candidates and then were amazed that the government spending that got cut was their salary! I want to scream, “Duh!” (I am not amazed that there are rich liberals because I believe being a liberal is a rational and humanitarian way to be. And, there are rich liberals!)
Being liberal is not a dirty word, is not a slander, though some would use tone and inflection to imply as much. Being liberal is a wonderful, liberating perspective, supportive of human rights and dignity, supportive of support of the poor, the downtrodden, the young, the old, the sick and infirm. Everyone who has ever received my liberal support has thanked me. I am more of a giver than a receiver, and I am proud of that.
Not so proud that I can come out of the closet. I know too many conservatives who would tar and feather me, or seek to have me committed if I did. And that is another liberal attribute: tolerance of diversity in thought and belief, life style and attitude. Our nation was founded on liberal beliefs and the first 10 amendments to our Constitution made it the law of the land. After all, if you had it made and were in the top 1% in Europe in the mid 1700’s, why would you leave it all and come here?
We tend to have short memories. I cannot expect my conservative friends to remember 1776 if they cannot remember the fall of 2008. Our policies and leadership 4 years ago were conservative and we crashed. If we return to the prevailing philosophy we elected in 2004, or 2000, we are not likely to experience much different.
If so, Happy New Year?
Monday, December 19, 2011
Waiting for Christmas
(Re-posted from June10, 2011. Still waiting.)
I wait.
I wait for the tinsel, aluminum, flocked and fluffed trees to come down,
and the bulbs on the rotating lights to burn out.
I wait for the evergreen to grow brown on the tips
and the holly berries to fall with the stale popcorn on the sheeted carpet.
And I wait for the paper and ribbon and tape
to decorate the interior of 400 million American trash cans.
and I am dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the 2,000 cards to fall off the wall
and the divinity to dry out and be thrown away
with the five unopened fruit cakes.
And I wait for the dissonant amen of the shaky rendition of Messiah
to finally echo off the wreath-strewn, candle-lit walls of the church.
I wait for the bell-ringing Santa to count up his pennies
and go home and take down his $500 dollar multi-colored
wall-to-wall house lights.
and I am constantly dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the wassail to grow ferment
and the piped-in Bing Crosby carols to get scratched
and stuck in a groove.
And I wait for a time when Sears and Dillard's and Macy's deliver the bills
and we pay our penance for commercialized love.
I wait for the batteries to burn out on technocracy's toys
and children learn
to be bored and bitter and spoiled with the season of playing.
and I am constantly waiting and dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the brightest of stars
to be unseen behind the colored floodlights on our buildings and trees.
And I wait for the chorus of angels
to be unheard outside our insulated, air conditioned, amplified
midnight church service.
And I wait for a group of lower class shepherds
to catch all our fathers assembling bicycles, tricycles, swing sets and trains.
And I wait for three intellectuals
to barge in on our turkey dinners with news we don't want to hear.
And I wait for some anonymous Mary
to bear a savior
who will lead us away from institutionalized giving
and into a world where Christmas is not what it is,
But a constant re-birth of caring.
I wait.
I wait for the tinsel, aluminum, flocked and fluffed trees to come down,
and the bulbs on the rotating lights to burn out.
I wait for the evergreen to grow brown on the tips
and the holly berries to fall with the stale popcorn on the sheeted carpet.
And I wait for the paper and ribbon and tape
to decorate the interior of 400 million American trash cans.
and I am dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the 2,000 cards to fall off the wall
and the divinity to dry out and be thrown away
with the five unopened fruit cakes.
And I wait for the dissonant amen of the shaky rendition of Messiah
to finally echo off the wreath-strewn, candle-lit walls of the church.
I wait for the bell-ringing Santa to count up his pennies
and go home and take down his $500 dollar multi-colored
wall-to-wall house lights.
and I am constantly dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the wassail to grow ferment
and the piped-in Bing Crosby carols to get scratched
and stuck in a groove.
And I wait for a time when Sears and Dillard's and Macy's deliver the bills
and we pay our penance for commercialized love.
I wait for the batteries to burn out on technocracy's toys
and children learn
to be bored and bitter and spoiled with the season of playing.
and I am constantly waiting and dreaming of a re-birth of caring.
I wait for the brightest of stars
to be unseen behind the colored floodlights on our buildings and trees.
And I wait for the chorus of angels
to be unheard outside our insulated, air conditioned, amplified
midnight church service.
And I wait for a group of lower class shepherds
to catch all our fathers assembling bicycles, tricycles, swing sets and trains.
And I wait for three intellectuals
to barge in on our turkey dinners with news we don't want to hear.
And I wait for some anonymous Mary
to bear a savior
who will lead us away from institutionalized giving
and into a world where Christmas is not what it is,
But a constant re-birth of caring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
