Monday, September 03, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
The experience of becoming President
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.
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.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
What an independent looks for
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 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.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
What health care crisis?
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Some things from the DNC
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.
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.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Why I tend being an independent
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 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
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.
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.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
A passing
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.
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
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.
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.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Obama gets cheered in Detroit
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.
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.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Our real economic future?
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
My Vote
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.
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.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Another "Live" Concert
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:
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.
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.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Who Really Decides?
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.
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
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.
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
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.”
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
reading on cd
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Difficulties in a school year
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.
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.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)