Beowulf's Other Page

Lay off the Newtster

2012-03-02T02:16:00.000-06:00

Sent via email to Rachel Maddow:

Rachel,

Echoing the sentiments of one of my favorite current writers, Christopher Moore, I am officially declaring you as my little sister. This is in part because my married status precludes anything else, but most it is because I admire your reporting, your commentary, and, frankly, your spunk.

That said, I must ask you to refrain from further disparaging Newt Gingrich’s idea of a colony on the Moon. It is not that I particularly like Gingrich. In fact, I don’t. He reminds me of pasty mashed potatoes and find his ideology utterly distasteful no matter how much gravy I could pour over him. Still, the idea of having a colony on the Moon is one that I would support.

We have as a nation abandoned space exploration and helping to build the Space Station and landing Rovers on Mars simply isn’t the same.

I grew up with Sputnik and Telstar being humanity’s first attempts to see what is beyond our atmosphere. Every time there was a space launch, I would stay home as late as possible to watch it before leaving for school. I had it timed perfectly to the exact amount of time it took me to run the four blocks to school and would sit patiently while they counted down. On those days when they had to stop the countdown and I could wait no longer, I would rush to school with a transistor radio just so that I wouldn’t miss it.

The nuns at our school frowned upon such radios, but I would still risk their wrath and covertly have the radio in my desk or pants pocket with a single earpiece wire strung through my shirtsleeve. I would sit, supposedly listening to the teacher, with my hand cupped over my ear, listening instead for those wondrous words, “Three, we have ignition. Two. One, we have liftoff.” Little did I know then that that earpiece was the earwig that Ray Bradbury foretold in Fahrenheit 451, or that it was a precursor to how we listen to most music today.

I mourned the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in the Apollo 1 fire. Two and half years later, I sat with my parents and countless other millions of people to watch grainy black and white images of those first human steps on the moon. Those Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts were among the heroes of my youth. Then came Apollo 17, the last lunar mission, in 1972, and we haven’t been back since.

Years later, space still intrigued me, and I applied for the ill-fated teacher in space program that NASA touted. I mourned Christa McCauliffe and the others. We had the Space Shuttle, to me a semi for space, but at least still manned. Now the shuttle program is over and we have to use Russian craft to send people to the Space Station. It is now nearly forty years since we have set foot on the Moon, and I am still angry about it.

It is true that space exploration is dangerous. It is true we have deficit and debt problems in the nation and that the needs of our poor are great. We can and should do great things, and shedding the chains of gravity is but one of those.

The space program of the 60s brought us many benefits, some trivial like powdered drinks, some useful like Velcro, and some more meaningful like the basis for much of the technology we take for granted today. More importantly, this nation jump-started an increase in funding for education. As a nation we collectively decided that expanding our knowledge of the universe was the right and proper thing to do. We came together as a nation in this goal. And, despite the cost of NASA, we also decided to fund Medicare and other social programs. In short, this nation can and should do great things at the same time regardless of the costs. The space program that I grew up with united our people, and that unity allowed us to accomplish great things beyond those footprints we left in the dust 238,857 miles away.

So, please stop disparaging Gingrich on this. We should not have stopped manned missions in space. We should have a colony on the Moon already. From there the stars are closer, our humanity can blossom, and we can once again achieve our full potential.

As Tennyson said, “… though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

We can still, as Ulysses, sail beyond the sunset.

Inconsistency

2012-02-20T22:38:00.000-06:00

I sincerely believe that all life is sacred. Thus, I am opposed to the death penalty and abortion, and it is in regard to these points of cultural contention that I first noticed the inconsistent nature of some right-wingers. To me, the rule is simple: Thou shalt not kill.

It is true that many, if not most, modern translations of that rule supplant “kill” with “murder.” Thus, they are saying that the scholars who did the first translations of The Bible got it wrong. These first translations consisted of the two main competing churches, The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The results we have today are the King James Version (KJV) and the Douay-Rheims version (DR), both of which use the word “kill” in that Commandment. The 21st Century King James Version still uses the word, as does the most recent Douay-Rheims.

Etymologically, the word “murder” had been in use in the English language for at least 300 years and was thus available for both the KJV and DR translators toward the end of the 1500s, yet they still chose “kill.” It seems to me that the use of “murder” by some fundamentalists and by modern translations is based more on political ideology. The Bible, after all, is a translation of a translation of a translation of an oral tradition handed down from father to son for many generations.

As I said, I believe all life is sacred be it in the womb or in a prison cell.

***
Another inconsistency I see in these political time is the constant call to restore the rights granted by the Constitution that the current administration has supposedly eviscerated, at least according to Fox News and their ilk. Yet is it these same people who see nothing wrong with violation of the Constitution’s 4th and 5th amendments be requiring drug testing for welfare recipients.

Yes, it is true that some jobs require drug testing. But it is by no means the majority of jobs, as some right-wingers would have us believe. And yes some jobs that involve public safety should indeed require testing to ensure that safety. Still, without probably cause of criminal activity, there is no reason to insist that welfare recipients submit, or indeed any worker or job seeker submit to testing. Further, the 5th amendment allows individuals the right to not incriminate themselves.

The right’s argument is fallaciously simple: if you’re not doing anything, you don’t have anything to worry about. That kind of reasoning allows the government to do anything under the guise of the public good. That kind of reasoning is people willingly giving up their rights, and when we do that, we lose them altogether.

***

Another long held tenet of the right is less government control in our lives and less taxes. The aforementioned drug-testing proposal is a clear example of where taxes will have to be raised as government intrudes on the personal lives of people. It seems that when the right wants to instill some type of moral ethic, it is perfectly okay for the government to step in, be it regarding the issue of contraception, abortion, or gay marriage.

While they may make a legitimate claim for religious freedom, it is indeed odd that GOP proposals and enacted state laws since at least 2000 have made the same requirement of insurance companies to provide contraception, they had no qualms about religious freedom when it was they who were introducing those requirements. Now that the current President has offered a legitimate compromise on the issue, they want nothing to do with it.

Last year, the Speaker of the House commissioned a report of solutions to the debt and deficit problems of the nation. That report, posted on the Speaker’s web site last year, noted that the best, most effective method to attack our nation’s problems was through a combination of both cuts and increases on revenues. The ratio the Speaker’s own report suggested was a ratio of 85 percent cuts in spending and a 15% increase in tax revenues. Yet, when the Democrats and the President suggested just that, they ignored their own experts.

More of Walker's Misinformation

2011-10-24T23:58:00.001-05:00

On his Facebook Page, Gov. Scooter Walker gives a link to a new page, supported by taxpayers dollars. Some people claim that this is merely a campaign page that he will be using if and when the efforts to recall him come to fruition.

To me, it really is just another fluff page to tout what Walker sees as his accomplishments. I also think he deluding himself and is just making stuff up as he goes along, pulling things out of thin air. For example his site claims that the state has added 40,000 new jobs in his first six months in office. Like so much else that comes out of this guy's mouth, it simply isn't true.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses two different surveys to determine unemployment rates and jobs growth. For September, after four months of steady increase, the rate for Wisconsin fell from 7.9 to 7.8. In actual jobs numbers, the two surveys sometimes differ greatly. The Current Employment Survey (CES) is what the governor’s office has been using consistently in it’s claims of job creation. The Current Population Survey (CPS) is also used by the BLS to determine the unemployment rate.

What I find interesting is that looking at actual numbers from both surveys will reveal a very different story than the supposed 40000 jobs the governor claims have been created. In fact, neither survey comes anywhere close to this claim.

In January 2011, the CES reported Jobs totaling 2,744,000. In June, the jobs totaled 2,775,100. How does the governor come up being almost 25% off in his numbers? Maybe he was using the CPS figures? In January the CPS reported a number of 2,819,301. In June that number rose to 2,831,826, even less close to the 40000 he claims as jobs creation.

Since June, both the CES and the CPS report an overall decline in jobs in the state with 2,755,800 and 2,819,319 respectively. I find it interesting that according to the CPS, the net gain of jobs in Wisconsin is a grand total of 18.

Reforms working my ass, governor. More like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Try telling the truth for a change.

Boston Loses, Worst Collapse in Baseball History?

2011-10-01T03:05:00.000-05:00

Most sports pundits picked the Boston Red Sox to win it all this year. They made some trades and spent a lot of money on free agency. They had a lot of good players including an MVP and a Cy Young winner. Still that pool of talent failed to even make the playoffs.

I am a Cub fan. I know disappointment. The 1969 debacle, the failure to win a single game in San Diego after going up 2 games in 1984, being five outs away from the Series, not winning a single playoff game after having the best record in the N, going 0-6 in their last two playoff appearance.

But the Red Sox collapse was worse than all of that. The only thing that rivals it is the Phillies losing a 6.5 game lead with just 12 to go in 1960.

Toure fr0m MSNBC took great pleasure from the Boston failure:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Revision of open letter

2011-09-15T20:46:00.000-05:00

I emailed the last post to my local paper, the Racine Journal Times. The editor emailed me back and said they do not publish third party letters. So I revised it as follows:

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the NY Mets wanted to wear baseball caps honoring the firefighters and police who lost their lives on that day. It was a home game for the Mets and a one-time request.

The actions of Bud Selig as baseball commissioner in handling the situation was at best disappointing and at worst disturbing. According to a player rep, Selig or his office went so far as to threaten fines if the Mets did not comply. Instead the Mets were told to wear the official MLB cap that included the team logo and an American flag. Maybe it is only a coincidence that MLB was also selling the caps for $39.95.

As a baseball fan, I simply do not understand the reasoning behind this ruling.

What is most disturbing, however, is Selig’s reaction to the news of this getting out. He reportedly called the Mets and expressed that he was upset that they leaked the story to the media.

Selig was more upset that the public found out about his actions rather than simply doing the right thing in the first place. I don’t believe that he would be so callous as not to honor the memory of those brave first responders, but it seems clear that he is more concerned about his own image that with baseball’s image.

Open Letter to Bud Selig

2011-09-13T23:46:00.000-05:00

Open letter to Bud Selig, Commissioner of Baseball

Dear Mr. Selig,

I have never been more disappointed in your actions as commissioner than with the way you handled the situation with the new York Mets wanting to wear baseball caps to honor those brave first responders who died on 9/11.

This was a one day request to do pay this tribute on the 10th anniversary of that attack. You, however, denied the request, and indeed threatened the team with fines if the players went ahead with their plan. Instead, you made them wear official caps which included the team logo and an American flag, which MLP happened to be selling at $39.95.

As a fan, I honestly do not understand your reasoning at all. What is also disappointing were newscasts that you were upset with this being reported in the first place. Clearly, you were more upset that people found out about your actions when you could have simply done the right thing to begin with. It seems to me that you are more concerned with your image rather than baseball's.

Why Neocons should be afraid

2011-08-14T22:41:00.000-05:00

Matthew gives us the story of doing to the least of our brothers. Sadly, too many of the neocons running the country and their followers forget the message. I am by no means the perfect Christian or human. I do, however, know that too many people only want to see the President fail and won't do anything to fix the economy until they see him out of office.

Revison of last post

2011-08-14T21:28:00.000-05:00

Back in 1980 or so, the person at the top salary in a company earned about 42 times what the median average was for the employees. Today that same person at the top earns over 300 times more than the average of the employees. If you can't see that that is just wrong and unjustifiable then you are just as morally bankrupt as the neocons who have allowed this to happen. I thought you were smarter than that. Obviously you haven't been paying attention to what the real problem is - YOU.

That more accurately reflects how I feel about how the GOP and the tea baggers are doing everything in their power to destroy the current president. They really don't give a damn about how bad the economy gets. They are f$%#ing traitors.

From Twitter

2011-08-14T00:04:00.000-05:00

Something is really wrong with this food on a stick and the Iowa State Fair. It's not the picture itself, but rather that someone actually allowed it to be taken in the first place:

Maybe this is why she one the Iowa Straw Poll?

***
Back in 1980 or so, the person at the top salary in a company earned about 42 times what the median average was for the employees. Today that same person at the top earned over 300 times more than the average of the employees. That's what happens when morally bankrupt policies are present in the private work place and worse when governmental leaders fail to see this as just wrong.

Yet, the GOP and their neocon leaders continue to say that we can't raise taxes on the "job creators." These job creators are creating jobs all right - for China and every where else they are outsourcing.

What's particularly frustrating is that many of these supposed leaders claim to be Christians, but totally ignore the part of the message of Jesus about what we "do to the least of these."

Another letter

2011-07-28T20:14:00.000-05:00

Senator Johnson responded to my email with a generic form letter that merely restated the GOP talking points, blah, blah, blah.

So I sent him another:

Mr. Johnson,

I have written you before about the budget, and your staff merely responded with a form letter that you send everyone regarding the budget.

You and your party seem intractable in your demands that any debt or deficit reduction be accomplished solely through cuts in spending. I find this approach reprehensible and at least in the case of the GOP Congressional members, duplicitous.

Earlier this year, Speaker Beohner released a report on his own website. In it numerous economists concluded that the most successful recovery programs were a consolidation of spending cuts and revenue increase. The average ratio that best accomplishes that is 85% cuts and 15% revenue increase.

Please don't send me the usual GOP talking points. Just answer this. What is wrong with that ratio? What is wrong with going along with what your own party has posted as a legitimate solution? The CBO has pointed out that simply letting the 2001 tax cuts expire will reduce the problem by over 4 trillion dollars. Those tax cuts have contributed to the problem greatly. That cannot be denied.

Those cuts have not created jobs as the GOP is so fond of claiming. Those cuts have caused jobs to be shipped overseas. Those tax cuts have caused the overall wealth of the top 10 percent of income earners to increase while 90 percent of wage earners saw their overall wealth decline.

Fifty percent of the country earns less than 30000 dollars a year. That is simply unjustifiable, yet I sincerely blame you and your party for the dire straits in which a large number of Americans find themselves.

So exactly why don't you agree with your own economists?

Some solutions are indeed possible:

Let the Bush era tax cuts expire. Eliminate the FICA contribution cap of 106000. Eliminate business tax loopholes.

Do you have the guts and courage to do this?

Again, don't send me a form letter. Respond to this one.

Sincerely,
Tim Mocarski
Racine, WI

Open letter to my Senator

2011-07-26T08:42:00.000-05:00

Senator Johnson,

Yesterday, NFL players and owners agreed to a ten year contract. Over and over during the broadcasts of the agreement one word was constantly repeated. That word was compromise. More and more it is apparent to me that your party, the GOP, has been unwilling to do that in regard to numerous bills and proposals from Democrats. Never has that been more apparent than in the recent budget discussions and the debt limit.

As a voter and taxpayer, I implore you as my Senator to bear in mind that you work for the American people, and the vast majority in every poll agree that the way to balance our budget is through a combination of cuts in spending and an increase in revenue. Through Speaker Boehner's own public release earlier this year, an overwhelming number of economists agree that the most feasible ratio to do this would be an 85 percent decrease in spending and a 15 percent increase in revenues.

During the Biden budget talks, the Democrats suggested an 83/17 percent ratio. It seems to me that it should be easy to split the difference between what your party released as an appropriate ratio and what the Democrats offered. So exactly what is the problem?

In short, Senator Johnson, compromise.

Some things that can and should be done:

--Close corporate tax loop holes.

--Eliminate the 106,000 cap on FICA contributions. This would fund the programs and sustain them almost indefinitely.

--Let the Bush tax cuts expire. According to the CBO, those tax cuts are a main cause of the current deficit problems.

One constantly heard mantra is that government has to live within its means just as the average American family does. When the American family is in trouble, they do indeed decide on what is essential and what isn't. They also, if necessary, take a second or third job. In short, they find a combination of cuts and revenue increases to make ends me. You and your fellow Senators and Congressmen need to do the same. Compromise is what made our country work to begin with. It still can.

Sincerely,

Tim Mocarski
Racine, WI

DNC site down

2008-07-25T08:54:00.000-05:00

Okay, the DNC site is down for a while.

This post will be up there if and when there forum comes back. Hopefully whatever changes they make will make the place better.

So what have you done in the interim? Made phone calls for the candidate? Stuffed envelopes? Contributed since that was the only thing that was working when I tried to access things this morning?

I made a fresh pot of coffee. I played some golf, talked with the wife about some remodeling we are doing. Talked to the kid. Talked to the daughter. Thought a bit about what I am teaching in the fall, but did not do any preparations. Had a guy come in to do an assessment of the wife and what assistance she may need for her activities of daily living. Decided that a lot of ADLs are hard for both of us.

In other words, I did a lot of other stuff that did not necessitate my sitting at a keyboard arguing with people I probably will never meet in my life. I can do plenty of that with my neocon brother. I did not have to worry about what anybody at the DNC blog thought, the incessant bickering and sniping between a small number of Obama supporters and an equally small number of hard core Clinton supporters.

I did not have to bite my tongue or restrain my fingers from typing a pithy reply to some insipid little pissant whose only purpose on the blog is to denigrate others.

I went to the bank. I did some wash. I picked up around the house. Made some food and ate it. I pulled some weeds. I read some fiction. I read the paper.

In other words, I tried doing some of stuff of real life. Stuff that is more productive, and certainly of more value. I hope in the absence of the blog that you didn't sit around wasting time online.

2008-06-19T18:07:00.000-05:00

First let me be clear. If two people in a same sex relationship find themselves in a loving, lasting situation, all the more power to them. I know several who are. I also know several men who, because of the stigma associated with homosexuality at the time, had to keep their orientation secret and sought their relationship in the back alleys of darkness. One of them, a cousin, contracted AIDS and died from it. I suspect that many such men would be alive had they been able to find and sustain a loving lasting relationship openly and freely.

Thank goodness, some of that stigma and secrecy is being lifted. Not enough, but some. I see it in some of the students I teach. Some are not afraid and this is a good thing. Others, however, are still fearful of repercussions from family and friends. Oddly enough, it is the students themselves who, at least in the school I teach, are more accepting, and not the adults.

That said, I wish to discuss two issues here, and please allow me to play devil's advocate for a few moments. The first issue is gay marriage and the second is hate crime legislation.

A large portion of the American population is adamantly against the idea of gay marriage. Now, a lot of polls indicate that the mindset is changing. Still, people lie to pollsters. When they get behind that curtain to vote, however, they tell the truth. I am sorry I don't have the exact total, but a sizable number of states have gone to the voters and asked if gay marriage should be allowed. In almost every case, voters have said no. They said no in California. What the recent court decision effectively did was ignore the will of the voters of California. It is ironic to me that many people cite the will of the voters as a reason for supporting a candidate or a piece of legislation, but are quick to ignore that same will of the voters if the majority does not support their candidate or particular legislation. If, for example, the majority of voters said offshore oil drilling should be allowed, quite a number of people would still fight tooth and nail against any proposal to lift the current ban. To hell with the will of the voters, they would claim. That is what I see happening with gay marriage proposals. As I said above, if two people can find a loving lasting relationship, all the more power to them. But they still have to convince the majority of voters to go along with it. In effect, the in your face, cramming it down the throat of people who are opposed to it does nothing to change their minds toward acceptance. Instead it drives the anti-gay feelings under the surface where it simmers and festers and, as Langston Hughes pointed out, it explodes.

This brings me to the issue of hate crime legislation.

Gays have been beaten and killed because of their sexual preference. Blacks have suffered the same fate because of their skin color. Japanese Americans were confined to camps in WW2, Poles were beaten by Irish, Native Americans were put on reservations. One of the members here has been physically assaulted because he is gay. All because of hate and mistrust and ignorance. And that is wrong. People need to be punished for their crimes to the fullest extent allowed by law. If someone is killed, the murderer should spend the rest of his or her life in prison. A person convicted of assault should spend as many years behind bars as the law proscribes.

It is hate crime legislation with which I have a sincere concern. Maybe it's because I am such a believer in the Constitution and the First Amendment. Maybe it's something Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought only for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate.

As I said, criminals need to be punished. Those idiots who attacked the member here need to be punished. But the minute we start tacking on extra time because the crime is motivated by hate, we are stepping into dangerous territory of punishing crime for the thoughts of the person. A murder is a murder. It doesn't matter what motivated the murder.

When two of the same crimes are committed, when one is punished more it sends the wrong message. As Nat Hentoff points out in "Hate Crime Laws: The Real Message"

[...]if someone is sent to prison for a long term because it is reasonably clear that he or she is indeed bigoted [...] This still sends a message to a person who has been badly injured by an attacker without a trace of bias -- that his or her wounds are of less importance to the community.

I don't think as a nation we should be going there. As with convincing voters about gay marriage, we need to change the way people think, not putting them in prison for it.

2007-09-03T20:09:00.000-05:00

I teach. Every year I go back and wonder if I make any difference. Then I remember that one person can make a difference. This is not about me. It's about one person.

This guy makes a difference, year after year after year...until it's over.

Would that we all learn his lesson.

The experience of becoming President

2007-08-17T20:42:00.000-05:00

15 Senators have moved on to the Presidency. Only two have been sitting Senators.

18 governors have moved to the highest office.

19 served in the House of Representatives. Only one was a sitting Representative.

12 had "general" in their military title

Only 11 have not had any military service of any kind.

Only 24 were lawyers.

We have had a teacher and an ordained minister become President. We have had a farmer, a newspaper owner and a university president rise to the highest office. A Pulitzer Prize winning author has become President.

One served in his state legislature, had a single term in the House of Representatives and a loss in a race for the Senate before he became president.

No matter what the background, some Presidents have been bad, some good, some horrendous, and some great.

So what's all this hoopla and talk about experience? Being a Senator for any length of time doesn't mean the having the necessary experience to run the nation. Neither does being a lawyer. Experience seems to me to be all over the place in our history. And congressional experience seems to have no bearing on effectiveness as a leader of the country.

I don't think people really pay any attention to what office a person has held. They vote for the person who they think can do the best job. Experience it seems pays little role in the ability of a person to lead.

If we look at history, the likelihood of a person being elected President based on their current position in Congress, the chances are slim. Only three people in history have gone from the House or Senate to the White House. Others who have serve in either house have been out of the political arena before they came back in. I think that voters really do look at that and are wary of the Washington influence and prefer their candidates somewhat removed from it if not entirely so.

***

This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

What an independent looks for

2007-08-11T23:04:00.000-05:00

At the DNC blog, a user named D. Tree eloquently posted a discussion about what he perceives as the myths or dangers of moving the party to the center. This was my response

This is more a response to D. Tree's post about centrist myths. I am sure D will probably come up with other fine writing about this topic and look forward to whatever he comes up with.

I call myself a centrist libertarian for a number of reasons. One is that I am an independent and my vote goes not to a party by allegiance. Rather, my vote goes to the person whom I think will do the best job at that particular moment in history for that particular job, be it a national, state, or local position.

Second, I really don't care if the person is Democratic or Republican, conservative or progressive, or a member of the Blue Man Group. This is probably related to the first reason I mentioned above.

By centrist, I don't mean someone who is middle of the road, or even compromising. For example, I am very uncompromising when it comes to the Bill of Rights and will never forgive Bubba Clinton for starting the evisceration of Constitutional freedoms. I find it unconscionable that that evisceration has been made even worse by the current administration.

By centrist, rather, I mean someone who takes a conservative view on some issues facing us as a nation and as a people, and a liberal view of other issues that are equally important to us and just as worthy of debate and discussion. Regardless of my view on the issues, however, I do not look for compromise on the issues. If I come to hold a stance or believe in something I tend to hold that stance or believe in it strongly, so much so that it takes as long for me to change my mind on something as it did for me to come to my stance. To me, gray areas are a sign of weak thinking and I tend to look at absolutes. There are indeed things that can and should be boiled down to right or wrong. And yes, I think we can, and should, as a nation say that something is wrong. We have become far too unwilling, even afraid, to tell each other that we are full of hooey.

In candidates, I realize, there are no absolutes, so I look for consistency. I don't expect candidates to necessarily believe as I do, nor even that they see the same problems that I see. I have yet to see, for example, any candidate from any party say, as I believe, that all life is sacred, which is why I am against abortion, the death penalty, and not just this war, but all war. I filed for conscientious objector status during Vietnam because I know that the willful taking of a human life, any human life, is wrong. And yes, I believe that extends to the womb.

This, however, is not a discussion of my views. It is meant to respond to D.Tree's far more eloquent message on centrist myths.

I do expect the candidates to state simply and clearly without obfuscation where they stand on things and what specifically they plan to do about it. In short, I want a candidate to say, "This is what I believe. This is what I plan to do to change things."

Then I will make my choice.

It is healthy, honest, and open debate that helps me form my opinion on something. It is healthy, honest, and open debate that is part of the process that gets me to decide for whom I vote. That debate, too, is part of the process of not only our elections, but the way we make our laws (or at least should be), indeed the way we make it through every day.

I want a Democratic candidate that stands for something, and in that regard I happen to agree with D. Tree. Because I am an independent, because I am a centrist, I want a candidate who isn't. I have said here a number of times that the winner of the next election needs to garner the independent vote, and as D. Tree pointed out some think that the way to do that is to move the Democratic party to the center. D. disagrees. I think he is right.

Will I get a person in office that thinks like I do on most things? Probably not. But moving to the center, being wishy-washy, standing on the fence and not on principles? Well, that is the surest way to not get my vote.

***

This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

What health care crisis?

2007-08-09T15:54:00.000-05:00

My wife became disabled at age 46, judged so by the Social Security administration. She sees lots of doctors. Because I still work, my health insurance is considered primary by Medicare. So I know a little about the ballyhooed "health care crisis" and the strain that funding health care, dealing with insurance companies, and Medicare puts on any family.

It is not easy to be sure.

A doctor needs to know what he or she is doing, listen to the patient, be available, be patient with the patient, and do all the things that are right and good about the health care field. Finding a doctor like that is not always easy. Finding clinics like that is not always easy. My wife has been lucky. She called one of her doctors who was out of town on vacation. His staff gave us his cell phone number. And he called us back that day. Not many docs or staff are that understanding, unfortunately.

If I had any recommendation for dealing with the health care nightmare that some people have, it would be to find a doctor whose first name isn't "doctor."

I'm not going to go into a long laundry list of the problems my wife deals with. But here's a story, true.

She is seeing a new doctor in a few weeks. A new round of some tests and maybe treatment plan. That's nothing new for the past ten years. It's old hat to us now. So this new doctor, in order to save us some office time, sent us a bunch of forms to fill out. Again, that's not unusual and we have the filling out job down to computer printouts and we simply write down "see attached." (That's another tip I would give to those entering the morass of paper work of health providers. Taking some medication? Make a list and save it. Give it to the doc every time you go, update as needed. Medical history, list of surgeries, other routine questions that every doc asks every time? Print out your list and say, "see attached.")

This time, however, the new doctor threw us for a loop with a form. We've seen "Family Medical History" forms before, but not like this one:

Look at it closely. See the sections for brother and sisters, sons and daughters. Last time we checked, there were no gender identity problems on either side of our families. Are we really supposed to determine if her brothers and our son are male? Or her sisters and our daughter are female? Uh, aren't those family members a particular gender by definition?

At least they figured out that a father is male and a mother is female, but maybe with same sex marriages they should try to differentiate between the sex of the parents and who is the wife or husband in that type of relationship.

Seems stupid to me and got me wondering.

There are big problems in our nation's health care system. Maybe, though, we have bigger things to worry about.

***

This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

Some things from the DNC

2007-08-08T09:16:00.000-05:00

These two posts were from the DNC site where I tend to get ripped for being an independent by some of the people there:

I'm getting tired of the apologists for the Democrats who claim that the passage of the "Protect America Act," the infamous S. 1927 that Feinstein and other supposed liberals voted for 60-28 is not "that bad." I've read the act. It is THAT BAD."

The ACLU pointed out several myths about the bill before it was rushed through Congress without any real debate. Please read their analysis here.

Perhaps one of their spokespersons said it best:

"Democrats were elected to stop a president who is out of control - not grease the wheels for further abuse. Hopefully it won't take the full six months to pass legislation that will protect American communications. With any luck, congressional leadership will grow a spine before then."

***

I also posted this cartoon:

Non Sequitor is becoming one of my favorite strips. For sheer nonsense, though, I still prefer B.C. and will always miss Johnny Hart. I am glad his family is continuing the strip.

***

This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

Why I tend being an independent

2007-07-26T23:50:00.000-05:00

I grew up in Chicago, was there in the park for the convention of 1968. My old man didn't want me there, but understood why I had to be.

I was also in Chicago when a few years before that Martin Luther King was doing some housing marches and one of them was down Fullerton Avenue in our very Catholic, very Polish, and very white neighborhood.

In the days leading up to the march, our neighbors and their children, the guys I hung with and played pickup ball games with, could be heard mumbling the typical racist remarks. "What's that n--ger think he's doing?" "Let's go throw rocks at that n--ger and all his n--ger friends."

My Dad took me aside. I think he did the same with my two brothers. He told me in no uncertain terms that if I went anywhere near Fullerton Avenue, the barber strop he had hanging in the closet would be used not to hone any razor, but would definitely hone my bottom. He never took that strop out of the closet, but we all knew it was there.

He told me, "The man has a right to walk where he wants, to say what he feels."

It was the first time in my life, in that time, in that neighborhood, that I had ever heard a black man referred to as a man and not the pejorative term. I guess I never really listened to my old man before. I thought he was just like all the other yahoos in the neighborhood. Man, was I ever wrong.

My old man taught me tolerance before it was chic. He taught me the value of free expression before I read the opinions of Oliver Wendell Holmes and others. He taught me to think for myself and not let my friends, or neighbors, or relatives, or anybody change what I know is right and good in my heart and soul and mind.

I like to think that my thoughts and beliefs and political leanings are a product of my own making, my own education, things I have seen and experienced over the years. And in part those things have made me an independent. Mostly, though, it was my upbringing, my old man. And maybe a barber strop that was never used.

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

I don't like Hillary

2007-07-26T00:02:00.000-05:00

Over at the DNC site, someone named Jim in a recent post asked for unfiltered attacks on Hillary, which he later tempered by asking that I, and others, give reasons why Mrs. Clinton should not be President.

I apologize for not answering sooner, but, as you know, life got in the way of this less weighty endeavor. And the time away gave me a chance to mull over my thoughts before replying blithely.

Mrs. Clinton is definitely qualified to be President. She, as does any of the candidates, meets the Constitutional requirements. She has served as a Senator for more than one term. She has introduced and cosponsored legislation which she believes is for the betterment of the country. She is no more, nor less, "qualified" than any of the other candidates. They all have a record of public service and life experiences on which to draw. So, Mrs. Clinton is qualified.

But, I will not vote for her.

Some have touted her trips to foreign countries as first lady. This, some say, make her eminently qualified on foreign policy. Uh, she was hardly anything more than a tourist on those trips. As far as I, or the American taxpayers, know she had no policy making role on any of them.

No, I will not vote for her.

At the most recent debate among the current Democratic candidates, she chided Mr. Obama as being naive for suggesting that he would meet with leaders of countries that right now are considered as problems, such as North Korea. She said something to the effect that such meetings could be used for propaganda purposes by such countries. Isn't that exactly what the Bush administration said when the Speaker of the House made an overseas visit to an unfriendly country? And didn't Mrs. Clinton say she would open diplomatic conversations with these same countries back in April? Sounds like talking out of both sides of her mouth to me.

Nope. She ain't getting my vote.

A recent poll of registered voters, both Democratic and Republican showed that 52 percent of them won't consider voting for Mrs. Clinton.

Seems to me that a lot of other people ain't voting for her either.

When her husband was running for President he made much of the fact that we would be getting a twofer deal. So, I think I am safe in assuming that much of what he did can also attributed to her then, and now. I was not a big Bubba supporter. During his presidency, Nat Hentoff, a respected writer and expert on the Bill of Rights, called Clinton a "serial violator of the Constitution" and referred to him as the worst President in history for the Bill of Rights. Given his penchant for attacking Bush regarding Constitutional violations, I would think that Hentoff has probably revised that assessment and moved Bill down to number 2 on the list of worst ever. Still, I find it ironic that those who rightly decry what Bush is doing to the Constitution never acknowledge that the guy before him was engaging in the evisceration of our rights, too. I simply do not trust Hillary to do the right thing regarding civil liberties. And I don't think she will do a thing to correct the mistakes of her husband or the current President.

Much has also been said about economic growth during the Clinton terms. I teach. The national average salary for teachers doubled during the Reagan years. By the NEA's own statistics, teacher salaries during the Clinton years remained stagnant. So from a personal economic standpoint, I don't see anything that Hillary has proposed that will do much for me, and if we're honest, that is what any voter really considers when pulling that lever.

Almost all politicians get their money to run from donors with some type of special interest. Hillary is no different. She is getting larger donations from drug companies and the health care industry. They will expect her to back their interests, and I suspect that she will. She is not stupid and will do what is necessary to keep the money rolling in to her coffers.

In short, I do not like her. There. I've said it. I think she will be bad for the country, bad for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I most definitely will not vote for her.

Somewhere in the comments in Jim's original post, some one said "I have no tolerance for independents..." I think that is a mistake. Yes, any election is about winning it. But recent elections have been decided by independent voters, not partisan ones. Members of the Democratic party will vote for their candidate, pretty much regardless of who it is. Members of the GOP will do the same. But the independent voters will have to be convinced about who to support and turn out for. Right now, for me, it ain't Hillary and won't be.

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

A passing

2007-07-21T16:00:00.000-05:00

This has nothing to do with politics or candidates, nor should it.

In World War 2, my wife's grandmother became the first Gold Star mother in Wisconsin. Later she became the first three Gold Star mother. She lost three boys in the conflict and one lost his legs and later took his own life. Two other sons were in that conflict. One passed away five years ago and the last one two months ago. One of her daughters gave birth to the woman who has been my wife for nearly 35 years.

The lines of her family have given the lives of its men to the service and honor of this nation. That tradition carried on with other men and women in the military, even today, with our nieces and nephews in the reserves and regular Army.

It is with great sadness that I note that my wife's mother, part of that long line of women who understood passing of loved ones, has now also passed into the next life, into the loving arms of her Creator and those loved ones who preceded her.

She was 84. Her great heart and loving spirit went in peace. She was the last of that Gold Star mother's children, but that line, that spirit, that stalwart American soul lives on. I see it the woman I love and in our children. It will not fade away.

My vote counts more

2007-07-21T01:02:00.000-05:00

My vote counts more than I think.

I was doing one of those online survey/test things related to politics. I forget the web address, but it was one of those things that are supposed to reveal your "true" political leanings. I've taken several such things and, without much variation, I always come up with some slight leaning to the left, but mostly stick around the middle, which is why I refer to myself as a "centrist libertarian." I'm not sure why, but it makes me evaluate where I stand on things, particularly when election time rolls around. And I look for candidates come close to where I am.

I'm not a sycophant, dutifully adhering to a party line with my vote. I can honestly say that I have never voted a straight party ticket, and can't envision myself ever doing so. I've said here before that I think the key to 2008 is the independent vote. It always is. I think, too, that a strong third party candidate can, depending on how he or she is perceived by independents, swing an election one way or another. Bill Clinton probably won his first term as President because Ross Perot took voters away from the first George Bush. Al Gore, although he garnered more popular votes, lost to the second George Bush in part because of Ralph Nader running for the Green Party. For that, Nader was vilified by most Democrats for running again in 2004.

I truly do want to vote for a Democrat next year, but my vote is not guaranteed. It is precious to me. I'd rather heed the advice of Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

Obama gets cheered in Detroit

2007-07-13T00:54:00.000-05:00

Obama drew cheers at the NAACP convention in Detroit as stated in this AP report: Link

But I found this part of the story troubling:

After the forum, Fox News microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said.

Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said, then thanked Obama and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich as they walked by. Turning back to Edwards, she added that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and "we've gotta get back to it."

I say the more options out there for voters to choose from, the better. I want to hear Kucinich and Gravel and all the rest, not the arrogant, canned pabulum of the top.

***
This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

Our real economic future?

2007-07-09T18:16:00.000-05:00

Maybe all those dire predictions about our impending doom globally are correct. But, if we put our stock in all those climate "experts," should we not also put stock in the financial "experts" who also have a doom and gloom outlook for this country if we continue on the entitlement course we have set for ourselves?

The US Comptroller General David Walker is forecasting a future of dire consequences for failing to act fiscally responsible. 60 minutes originally aired this in March and rebroadcast it on July 8.

CBS sixty minutes report

I am reminded of the FRAM oil filter commercials about paying now or paying later. What is it going to take to get both Democrats and the GOP on board to deal with this before we all end up flat broke and busted?

Now before everyone gets bent outta shape about Walker, it should be noted that he took office in 1998 during the Clinton administration, and the Comptroller General serves a term of fifteen years, designed to keep the General Accounting office bipartisan and not prone to cronyism and political bias. The office deals with the numbers, and in this case, the numbers don't lie.

It seems to me that we are in deep doo doo, and our elected officials, from Washington on down aren't doing diddly to solve the problem. When we talk about what we are leaving our children and grandchildren, isn't this legacy just as important? Is any candidate speaking to this really or just paying lip service and skirting the issue?

***
This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

My Vote

2007-07-04T12:28:00.000-05:00

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

I get a kick out of the way some people have accused me of being a GOP plant. The only plants around here are those non-thinking individuals who will blindly follow the leader no matter where he or she will take them.

I suppose it could be said that that is the mark of a good leader, one people will follow blindly without question. Bubba Clinton has his adherents no matter how many flaws he had as a person and a President. They will go to their graves denying that he ever did anything wrong. But, I think one's own moral compass is what should determine one's vote, not the leader or the party.

My moral compass is not either of the major parties. My moral compass is me.

I see strength in my own moral compass every time someone accuses me of being a conservative. I see it when my neighbor accuses me of being a liberal. I see that this is where 2008 will be decided and I am kind of enjoying this sense of power. I can now understand why the GOP wants power and wants to keep it. I can now understand why the Democrats want the same thing.

My power is in my vote and, yes, I have made up my mind already for whom I will not support nor vote �" ever. I have stated numerous times that I cannot find anything in Hillary Clinton to support. I have not seen anything in any of the GOP announced candidates either. And the more I learn about the potential candidates of both parties, I do not like any of them either.

Does that mean that if the Dems put up Hillary I will not vote for her? Yes, it does. So what? It is my vote and I will cast it for the person I want to lead this nation. And I consider almost any of the announced Democratic candidates far more suited than Hillary Clinton to run the show. And, save her, I consider almost any of them infinitely superior to any of the announced GOP candidates.

So if the Dems want Hillary, that will be their choice. Come November, 2008, I will make mine. It won't be her. It won't be the GOP either. I will vote, but I will look at another lever to pull. Now that is real power, and I am really looking forward to exercising it.

Another "Live" Concert

2007-07-01T17:09:00.000-05:00

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

On July 4 we celebrate yet another year of our independence as a nation and as a people. Almost every person, regardless of age, race, religion, or gender has heard, or knows by heart, Jefferson's words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Over the years I have been on this planet, and a citizen of this great nation for those same years, we seem to have forgotten those words and what they really mean or should mean.

So it's disheartening to read stuff like this:

Live Earth is a musical show being put on ostensibly to bolster the global warming alarms being raised by Al Gore and other environmentalists. Former Vice President Al Gore, whose Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" jump-started the debate about global warming and environmentalism, says Live Earth will be the start of a "worldwide, mass persuasion communications campaign" that will last up to five years. (Link)

What happened our right to Liberty? The liberty to think what we want without having to have a "mass persuasion?" Are the holes in the global warming theory (and make no mistake, it is a hypothesis, a conjecture of what might happen) so big and the evidence so flimsy that we now need to be persuaded on a mass, global basis?

I'm sorry. People can believe Al Gore all they want. They can start buying Priuses or other energy efficient vehicles, cut their lawns and shovel their sidewalks by hand, recycle, and whatever else they want to do to save the planet. All the more power to them.

But when people like Big Al start talking about "mass persuasion" it should be a big red flag to people who truly believe in freedom of thought. It's just propaganda. And propaganda is nothing more than brain-washing. And woe to anybody who disagrees with the propaganda.

And some people want Al to enter the race for 2008? He scares me more than Hillary sometimes.

Who Really Decides?

2007-06-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

The numbers may be a bit off, but about 200 million people will be eligible to vote for President in 2008. About 170 million of them are registered to vote. About 43 percent of those are registered as Democrats. About 33 percent are Republicans. More than one quarter of registered voters choose independent or no party affiliation at all.

As always, people who vote for the person not the party will decide the next election. Those are the people that both parties need to go after and convince that their nominee is the right choice. That is how I will vote in the next election, certainly not along party lines, and certainly not for a candidate merely because he or she belongs to a certain party.

A recent Mason Dixon poll showed that Hillary Clinton is the person people are least likely to vote for. 52 percent of Americans would not consider voting for her if she were the Democratic nominee. That same poll showed that 60 percent of independent voters will not consider Clinton either, and it is they who will really decide who is in the White House next year. That should, more than anything, put up a red flag to Democrats as they go to the primary elections. If they truly want to control every branch of government, they need to put up a candidate that independents want.

For all the talk about voter manipulation, corruption, and election stealing, the one thing the GOP has done is put up candidates that the independent voter will consider. And then they sold the person. Democrats would do well to remember that, and not nominate Hillary.

voter fraud runs both ways

2007-06-29T09:31:00.001-05:00

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

I found it interesting that someone in DNC's open thread posted this link

The woman is a Democrat involved in voter fraud. Now this might be construed as Democrats punishing their wrong doers, but more than likely the GOP will latch on to this and other similar stories to point out instances of voter fraud.

In 2004 a Democratic fundraiser bought cigarettes for some Milwaukee homeless people to get them to go vote, a clear violation of a Wisconsin law that prohibits giving anything of value for a vote. In that same election, Democratic workers slashed the tires of vans in GOP parking lot. These vans were rented to get people to the polls. Recently, in a local aldermanic race, the Democratic incumbent and eventual winner now sits in jail because of voter intimidation and other irregularities.

I am not saying that the GOP doesn't commit voter fraud or rigging, but having grown up in Chicago, I know the Democratic party has a much longer and more sordid history of election shenanigans.

If the democratic party doesnt clean up its own act, they can expect the GOP to keep harping on cases like the ones above and Chicago's history.

The Supreme Court Gets It Half Right

2007-06-29T09:22:00.000-05:00

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

Two recent Supreme court rulings, both of which were decided by 5-4 votes, upheld and diminished first amendment rights of citizens. Both rulings were supported by the GOP and lambasted by Democrats.

The first ruling is the "Bong Hits for Jesus" ruling. A young man held up a banner with those words on a sidewalk from his school. The principal said this violates the school's mission statement and suspended the boy. The Supreme court agree with the school district in what is, to me, some pretty shaky, and dangerous, logic. If the boy was on school property, the court might be making sense, but this ruling allows the school to punish speech even off school property. I think the ruling is full of hooey.

The second ruling involved a Wisconsin anti-abortion group running an ad that violated the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. According to the act, no interest group is supposed to airing any ads pertaining to an election. This supposedly removes the impact of soft money on elections. Soft money is used by both parties to run ads under the guise of “issues.” In the case of the anti abortion group, the court ruled that such strictures violate the first amendment. I agree with the ruling. Most democrats I know don’t.

Most democrats I know also don’t agree with the first ruling. I think the Supreme Court got the first amendment half right, and maybe in baseball batting .500 is great, but in this case they should be batting 1.000. The problem with the GOP supporting both rulings is that they are not being consistent. If they are truly for the first amendment, they’d be supporting the kid on the street with the banner. The democrats, too, are being inconsistent. If they are truly for the first amendment, they’d be supporting the anti-abortion group.

I liken it to the Klan marching in Skokie case. Both parties would do well to revisit Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment, more than any other, it is the principle of free thought; not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

“The ultimate test of a belief in free speech should be whether it can be extended to people you hate.”

reading on cd

2007-06-13T12:23:00.000-05:00

For the past few years, I have been "reading" books on tape. Things I have read before and things that are new to me. As an educator, I think the sound of a turning page, the smell of paper, and curling up in bed with a book is worth the price of admission to anything in print. And it is indeed a ticket to a form of entertainment unlike any other.

Don't get me wrong. I love a finely crafted lyric line in music. I love fine art, at least art I know what it is when I am looking at it. I can never get into things like Picasso putting a woman's nipples where her nose should be, and I do think that Chicago got ripped off when it put up that metal thing in Daley Plaza, but good art, like Picasso's "Blue Guitarist" I can look at for hours and get enjoyment.

Still, it is books that thrill me more than other art. They are a work of the language, communication at its lowest and highest level at the same time. They force my mind to imagine, to think, to see things as they are and as they aren't.

I can't curl up with a laptop and read a book. I need the sound and smell of the page. I need to bookmark where I left off and come back without any effort other than opening the book to the spot where I last left off before I lay it on the coffee table or night stand. I love going to the bookcase and looking at titles, the act of reaching with one finger to pull the selected volume into my grasp, to stand there leafing through the pages to see if something in them wants me to take that one to read next. (That more than anything is a reason to keep every darn library in America open.)

Still, I have taken to listening to books on tape, or rather mp3 files on the car sound system to and from work. Some are rather good and capture the essence of the word, particularly with a good reader. Some are just somebody reading with no emphasis, no change in tone or voice at all. But, I drive to work an hour every day, it is a way to pass the time and not listen to the mindless drivel of talk radio.

Difficulties in a school year

2007-03-20T18:50:00.000-05:00

One of the most difficult times of a school year is not when grades are due or when budget numbers are once again inexorably heading toward oblivion. Sure, students are scrambling to get work done expecting their teacher to accept something that was due three weeks ago and done only now in a half-hearted attempt at a modicum of quality because almost anything is better than having a zero average in. And, yes, those same students may whine and complain that the teacher is being unfair and have their parents call to whine and complain that the teacher is being unfair. That, however, is all part of the job of being a teacher, trying to keep kids doing their work and striving for excellence.

So, too, is putting up with constant budget cuts in education. New programs, new technology, new ideas and an entire slue of other factors stress any organization's cash flow, be it a big business or a small school district.

***

I heard a radio talk show this morning on the way to church. Yes, I go to church. Every Sunday. Religiously. Is that redundant? When I go to Mass, at the part where we're to add our intentions or our prayers, I always ask God to make me a better husband, father, and teacher; in short, to make me a good person.

I tend to go off on tangents sometimes, sort like stream of consciousness, although I don't think anybody including James Joyce actually knew what it means as writer. I mean just try reading Joyce's Finnegan's Wake! I'm still on Chapter 1 and only know for sure that Finnegan died. Joyce wrote a little bit about going to church which is where I was headed when I heard something on the radio that relates to the school at which I teach.

Although the radio show was about business, the discussion centered on something that I think is still important for a principal or any administrator to understand. Communication and trust. Communicate and keep everybody in the loop. People will understand the ups and downs, the joys and disappointments of any job. The key is not to micromanage everything. Rather trust people to do the job you hired them to do. At the school where I work, the adminsitration does not communicate, and tries to micromanage everything. When a prinicpal calls in the parents of several students who are not passing and tries to understand why they don't do the work, that is micromanaging. When an adminstrator dismisses department chairs because they are too negative or critical of the administration, that is micromanaging and not trusting people to do the job. Instead it is surrounding oneself with "yes" people and only fosters more discontent.

That is the real difficulty of a school year. When the adminstration comes up with ideas without any real input from a staff and without any consideration of how it really affects students.

Instead they create programs which are designed to help a small number of students, pull out programs that segregate students and ignore the vast majority. The vast majority see that some are gettting special treatment and start thinking, quite naturally, that they are getting the short of the stick educationally. Pull out programs stress class size and upper level electives when staff is allocated to deal with them. That is just wrong.

And that's the real problem with adminstrators not trusting their staff to do the job. Instead of accepting legitimate criticism, the bad administrator tries to silence it.

2007-02-15T12:41:00.000-06:00

I think that the principal of a high school should be the one who is the leader, the, God Almighty I'm going to use a Star Trek reference, the Capt. Picard of the school.

Picard would face yet another crisis in the galaxy and unlike Kirk, who would kick Picard's butt in a fight, would gather all his team together and say, "Hey team, we have another crisis in the galaxy." The team consisted of Riker the handsome rugged first mate, Trois the fetching psychic, Jordy the blind engineer, and Data the green skinned robot who tried mightily to become the human in humanoid. The team would gather around the table in Picard's stateroom and discuss the situation. After listening to everyone's comments, he would pick the best course of action and then say, "Make it so."

The principle of a high school should be that type of leader. Unfortunately most don't see that true, real, and effective change comes from the bottom up and not from the top down. Teachers need to be able to come up with ideas and try them out without fear of repercussions or reprisals for going against the ideas of the principal. Of course teachers shouldn't be doing something illegal or immoral in the classroom, but that is not what we are talking about here.

Instead of saying to teachers, "We are going to do this...," principals should be saying, "We have this problem, what should we try to do to fix it." Supposed, for example, a building has an influx of at risk students who have very limited English speaking or writing abilities. Instead of coming up with some program or class for those students, the principal should ask the staff first what might be tried. Then see if that works or not before trying something new or mandating something that only a relatively few support or even understand.

Dumbya's dumb move

2005-09-05T14:29:00.000-05:00

President Bush today nominated/renominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Yeah, I know he already nominated Roberts for the Court, but with the death of Rehnquist, Bush decided that Roberts should be the Chief Justice. The reason this is a dumb move is because it will reopen the whole confirmation arguments. Roberts was pretty much a shoein to be confirmed by the Senate. The Democrats and lefties were not ecstatic about Roberts, but the opposition was minimal. Their argument will now be, "Well, he was okay as an associate justice, but we're having second thoughts about him as the Chief." The argument is not specious, and it will still be made.

I think Bush should have just named Scalia. Whatever happened to loyalty and reward for service? I agree with the argument that the Dems will make regarding Roberts. He does not have the judicial experience to be Chief Justice. I have no problem with him being on the Court, but not in the head role. Now Bush will have to make two arguments for Roberts. One that he is qualified for the bench, and two that he is qualified to be the head of the bench. It will be harder to do that.

News stuff

2005-08-27T13:44:00.000-05:00

The rest of the world is seeing the best and worst of the United States in the aftermath of the hurricane that hit the coastal south areas this past week. Images of looting and muggings filled the television screens around the globe as some people, mostly black as shown on TV, gave way to the baser human drives, not of survival but of greed.

And, yet, images of bravery and human selflessness, too, have found their way to our television screens. The Coast Guard choppers from almost the time the levy broke until even today, they have lifted out nearly 10000 stranded residents. Doctors and nurses at the risk of their own lives and safety staying behind in hospitals to care for patients.

***

I saw today a guy wading through the streets of New Orleans. He was, like that old Pete Seeger song, waste deep in the Big Muddy. And here he was keeping his arms above water, strolling along, wading as if without a care in the world. He was smoking a cigarette. I couldn't help but wonder where he got a cigarette in the middle of a flood, and how the hell he got it lit and kept it dry.

It's going to be a long season

2005-08-26T20:56:00.000-05:00

It's going to be a long season for Green Bay Packer fans if preseason is any indication. I'm used to it. I follow the Cubs, too. Talk about a lost season, 2005 is definitely it. Injuries, and just flat ou† horrible play by all but a few of the players is the reason for any losing season. The Cubs are in that boat. The Packers may be, too.

Last day for day golf

2005-08-26T12:47:00.000-05:00

I played my last morning round of golf today. Shot okay for nine holes, not horrible, not great. Some nice saves for par, some stupid putts, too.

As long as school starts, and thus my work, I will now be relegated to the status of weekend golfer, and then usually not every weekend. And that is only until they close the courses up here in the North Woods of Wisconsin. Most close my the end of October, but the past couple of years have seen some people playing into December. I did that about three years ago, actually played 18 holes on my birthday and shot in the low 80s for the round.

I have to play to stay in golf shape, Some people can put away the clubs for several months and then come back and play the same as they did before. I can't. I have to play to maintain any semblance of my golf game, as meager as that may be.

***

This blog is a lot easier to maintain, I suppose, than my original journal site, but that is because this just automatically does the posting and I just do the typing here. I don't get to use ftp or html or much of that unless I really want to get into that stuff.

Maybe I should just transfer the stuff here?