As I drifted slowly toward consciousness I had the vague sense that something was wrong. I climbed closer and closer toward wakefulness and the feeling of foreboding grew.
Something was definitely wrong. Very wrong.
My lack of health insurance and empty bank account flashed through my mind. I had been worried about how I was going to fill my gas tank, but in an instant I realized there were bigger problems in life.
I couldn't move one leg and the other wasn't moving freely. I didn't know what to do or who to call. The growing panic did nothing to dampen the feeling that the immobile leg felt as though it was three times its normal size. Both legs felt so very heavy and quite warm in the cool room.
Had I had a stroke? This seemed like an odd reaction, but what else could it be? As my brain whirled, desperately seeking answers, I came fully awake. And that's when I realized the exact cause of my predicament.
My dog was sound asleep on my legs.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
How do you break up with a friend?
Friends aren't forever.
And that's okay.
Some people do have a friend or two that they meet in the sandbox and remain friends with for life. Many people do not have such long-lasting friendships. Either way, we all have many friends throughout our lives. Usually the friendships last for a few years and then kind of fade away. This happens for a whole host of reasons: one of you moves away; your friend gets too busy with work/school/kids/hobby to stay in touch; you start dating someone who can't stand your friend; your friend marries someone you cannot stand; I could go on... and on and on. We also have a lot of situational friends in our lives: friends at a certain job or gym or dog park or apartment complex, friends at school. Sure, some of these situational friendships will stick once the situation ends, but most won't.
And that's life. We all know it. No big deal. Most of these friendships will just fade away from lack of use. A few will end with a fight. And then there are the ones that are currently on my mind: the ones you actively want--oftentimes need--to end.
These are the friendships that just don't work for you anymore, though they may still be working for the other person. Sometimes these are just unsatisfying relationships that drain your time without adding anything to your life. Other times these are actually unhealthy relationships. Here we have the friends who expect you to be there for them for every hangnail, but don't send so much as a text with a sad smiley when your grandma dies; the friends who manage to make you feel stupid at every turn; the friends who don't hesitate to tell you negative things about yourself--all in the name of honesty and friendship of course--but never seem to have a compliment ready... about anything; the friends who are so negative about life in general that they are absolutely draining to be around.
Which brings us to the title of this post, how do you break up with a friend? Do you just do the avoidy thing until enough time has gone by that you can pretend the friendship just faded away? Do you engineer a fight that you can use as an excuse to exit stage right? Or do you have a conversation with the person, telling them that the friendship is over?
That last option might seem odd and I can't say I've ever been involved in such a break up (on the giving or receiving end), but isn't that the way it should go? If the person has been a friend of yours, don't you owe it to yourself, to your friend, and to the relationship itself? After all, if you were dating the person you'd make a point of breaking it off wouldn't you? Why do we treat friendships differently? Someone you've dated for a few months gets the respect of an in-person dumping (usually, but of course there's always the jerk who doesn't bother to mention that they've dumped you or who dumps you via text; we're all above that kind of behavior though... right?!), but a friend of 2 or 3 or 4 years just gets ignored? How is that right?
But... how do you do it? What do you say? Whether we have used them ourselves or had them used on us or just watch a lot of TV, we know the standard break-up lines for romantic relationships. The most popular seeming to be "it's not you, it's me," whatever that's supposed to mean. But what do you say to a friend? The same thing? Do you get into all the whys? It seems to me--especially considering the break up I'm currently attempting--that going through the actual whys would do nothing positive for anyone and would likely lead to arguing and hurt feelings. Of course, if I don't do that, I'm not terribly clear on my options as avoidance will be difficult in this particular instance. Plus it's the coward's way out and I'm trying to be an adult about this.
If and when I manage to pull this off, I'll let you know how it went down! Meanwhile, feel free to weigh in via the comments.
And that's okay.
Some people do have a friend or two that they meet in the sandbox and remain friends with for life. Many people do not have such long-lasting friendships. Either way, we all have many friends throughout our lives. Usually the friendships last for a few years and then kind of fade away. This happens for a whole host of reasons: one of you moves away; your friend gets too busy with work/school/kids/hobby to stay in touch; you start dating someone who can't stand your friend; your friend marries someone you cannot stand; I could go on... and on and on. We also have a lot of situational friends in our lives: friends at a certain job or gym or dog park or apartment complex, friends at school. Sure, some of these situational friendships will stick once the situation ends, but most won't.
And that's life. We all know it. No big deal. Most of these friendships will just fade away from lack of use. A few will end with a fight. And then there are the ones that are currently on my mind: the ones you actively want--oftentimes need--to end.
These are the friendships that just don't work for you anymore, though they may still be working for the other person. Sometimes these are just unsatisfying relationships that drain your time without adding anything to your life. Other times these are actually unhealthy relationships. Here we have the friends who expect you to be there for them for every hangnail, but don't send so much as a text with a sad smiley when your grandma dies; the friends who manage to make you feel stupid at every turn; the friends who don't hesitate to tell you negative things about yourself--all in the name of honesty and friendship of course--but never seem to have a compliment ready... about anything; the friends who are so negative about life in general that they are absolutely draining to be around.
Which brings us to the title of this post, how do you break up with a friend? Do you just do the avoidy thing until enough time has gone by that you can pretend the friendship just faded away? Do you engineer a fight that you can use as an excuse to exit stage right? Or do you have a conversation with the person, telling them that the friendship is over?
That last option might seem odd and I can't say I've ever been involved in such a break up (on the giving or receiving end), but isn't that the way it should go? If the person has been a friend of yours, don't you owe it to yourself, to your friend, and to the relationship itself? After all, if you were dating the person you'd make a point of breaking it off wouldn't you? Why do we treat friendships differently? Someone you've dated for a few months gets the respect of an in-person dumping (usually, but of course there's always the jerk who doesn't bother to mention that they've dumped you or who dumps you via text; we're all above that kind of behavior though... right?!), but a friend of 2 or 3 or 4 years just gets ignored? How is that right?
But... how do you do it? What do you say? Whether we have used them ourselves or had them used on us or just watch a lot of TV, we know the standard break-up lines for romantic relationships. The most popular seeming to be "it's not you, it's me," whatever that's supposed to mean. But what do you say to a friend? The same thing? Do you get into all the whys? It seems to me--especially considering the break up I'm currently attempting--that going through the actual whys would do nothing positive for anyone and would likely lead to arguing and hurt feelings. Of course, if I don't do that, I'm not terribly clear on my options as avoidance will be difficult in this particular instance. Plus it's the coward's way out and I'm trying to be an adult about this.
If and when I manage to pull this off, I'll let you know how it went down! Meanwhile, feel free to weigh in via the comments.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
You're blaming who...
Someone recently asked me why Obama is being blamed for all of our current economic issues. Here's what I said...
Generally, people are ignorant (note that I said “ignorant,” not “stupid”). They don’t know enough about the situation to realize how far back these current problems go. They know that they’re hurting now, they look to who is in the White House, and they place blame.
More locally (Ohio, not actual localities), our economy was actually in something like the top 5 nationwide in terms of growth over the past 2 years. We were positioned pretty well and would likely have weathered this current dip much better than most. [Did you know that we, Ohio, actually ended the fiscal year with a surplus? A surplus that was, of course, a direct result of the last administration’s work; how often do you hear that reported?] However, in the past 2 months, that has completely changed. Why? Our governor’s budget (which went into effect July 1) has cut too much spending from too many of the wrong places and has put too many people out of work.
If you read through all of their budget documents, you see that they expected these cuts in the public sector (though they all continue to refuse to acknowledge that all of the current layoffs are a direct result of their budget; they continue to maintain that their budget is a job creator and is not costing jobs anywhere; if you can figure that one out, you let me know). Yet somehow they still expected – supposedly – the economy to grow. How you put people out of work and still grow the economy just baffles me:
Fewer people working
= less income for the state via income taxes and less spending by people in the marketplace
= less income for the state via sales taxes and large private companies reducing their orders for goods from manufacturers while smaller private outfits actually close their doors
= even more people out of work and even less income for the state via both income and sales taxes
= well, I think we all get the picture.
And of course, this leaves out the increased government spending via little things like unemployment, mediwhicheveritis, food stamps, and all the other increased social services that will be necessary given the glut of people out of work and fighting to survive.
My point being (I did have one…) that as clear and obvious as all of this is… there are still a number of people who blame this all on Obama and are using it in their efforts to avoid “Obamacare”. And some who voted for Obama are incredibly disappointed by him because he has not been the radical change they had hoped for, and so they blame everything on him. These people, in my opinion, are either fools or slept through their government classes. Obama cannot act alone. And the House and the Senate are currently incapable of getting along. So very little can be done and nothing “radical” can happen on the national stage.
So again, ignorance by most. Outright stupidity by some. And overwhelming ambition by others. That’s why Obama is being blamed.
*In the spirit of full disclosure: though I did vote for Obama in the general election, I did not vote for him in the primary. I never believed that he would bring a breath of fresh air to D.C. or that he would be an historical agent of change. Yes, of course his presidency is itself historical (as Hillary’s would also have been). However, given politics today, it takes a village to change the direction of things and D.C. is simply not prepared to work together as a village.
Generally, people are ignorant (note that I said “ignorant,” not “stupid”). They don’t know enough about the situation to realize how far back these current problems go. They know that they’re hurting now, they look to who is in the White House, and they place blame.
More locally (Ohio, not actual localities), our economy was actually in something like the top 5 nationwide in terms of growth over the past 2 years. We were positioned pretty well and would likely have weathered this current dip much better than most. [Did you know that we, Ohio, actually ended the fiscal year with a surplus? A surplus that was, of course, a direct result of the last administration’s work; how often do you hear that reported?] However, in the past 2 months, that has completely changed. Why? Our governor’s budget (which went into effect July 1) has cut too much spending from too many of the wrong places and has put too many people out of work.
If you read through all of their budget documents, you see that they expected these cuts in the public sector (though they all continue to refuse to acknowledge that all of the current layoffs are a direct result of their budget; they continue to maintain that their budget is a job creator and is not costing jobs anywhere; if you can figure that one out, you let me know). Yet somehow they still expected – supposedly – the economy to grow. How you put people out of work and still grow the economy just baffles me:
Fewer people working
= less income for the state via income taxes and less spending by people in the marketplace
= less income for the state via sales taxes and large private companies reducing their orders for goods from manufacturers while smaller private outfits actually close their doors
= even more people out of work and even less income for the state via both income and sales taxes
= well, I think we all get the picture.
And of course, this leaves out the increased government spending via little things like unemployment, mediwhicheveritis, food stamps, and all the other increased social services that will be necessary given the glut of people out of work and fighting to survive.
My point being (I did have one…) that as clear and obvious as all of this is… there are still a number of people who blame this all on Obama and are using it in their efforts to avoid “Obamacare”. And some who voted for Obama are incredibly disappointed by him because he has not been the radical change they had hoped for, and so they blame everything on him. These people, in my opinion, are either fools or slept through their government classes. Obama cannot act alone. And the House and the Senate are currently incapable of getting along. So very little can be done and nothing “radical” can happen on the national stage.
So again, ignorance by most. Outright stupidity by some. And overwhelming ambition by others. That’s why Obama is being blamed.
*In the spirit of full disclosure: though I did vote for Obama in the general election, I did not vote for him in the primary. I never believed that he would bring a breath of fresh air to D.C. or that he would be an historical agent of change. Yes, of course his presidency is itself historical (as Hillary’s would also have been). However, given politics today, it takes a village to change the direction of things and D.C. is simply not prepared to work together as a village.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Turning the clock back...
The Supreme Court recently released a decision striking down a CA ban on the purchase of violent video games by kids. In his dissent, Thomas said there’s historical evidence that shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over minor children. He said that Puritans thought children were 'innately sinful and that parents’ primary task was to suppress their children’s natural depravity.'”
And by that logic, let’s take away civil rights for women and non-whites; go back to each African-American MAN’s vote counting for only 3/5’s of a white man’s; take away the vote from all women of all colors; take away women's right to own land; take away the right of women to hold any kind of position of authority; and on and on.
And by that logic, let’s take away civil rights for women and non-whites; go back to each African-American MAN’s vote counting for only 3/5’s of a white man’s; take away the vote from all women of all colors; take away women's right to own land; take away the right of women to hold any kind of position of authority; and on and on.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Where's the revolt...
In a recent email exchange about Cleveland laying off 466 city workers due to Kasich's "Jobs Budget", a friend asked why people in Ohio aren't revolting. This was my answer.
People aren’t revolting because people don’t pay attention. And there’s also a large number of people who believe what they hear and read and only seek out “mainstream” sources of information. And mainstream sources of information these days are all too often either entertainment (there’s a problem when the news shows are fighting over ratings) or bought and paid for by people and interests with deep pockets. So if the governor says that his budget saves money and creates jobs, then it must be so.
These are the people who think that FoxNews actually reports accurate and honest and actual news. These are also the people who are busy hating Strickland, who blame him for what was a national (international, really) economic crisis, and who didn’t notice that Ohio actually weathered the recession better than most states, including all of our neighbors. The same people who didn't notice that Strickland left office during the tenth or eleventh month of consecutive drops in unemployment and increases in jobs.* The same people who didn't notice that Ohio was ranked somewhere in the top 10 in education. The same people who didn't notice that our unconstitutional school funding formula had been changed so that it was no longer violating our state constitution. The same people who didn't notice that in his last budget, Strickland actually had a larger imbalance to deal with and he did it without raising taxes, without gutting education and local monies, and by cutting overall spending (for those not paying attention, do please note that Kasich’s budget actually increases spending; that’s part of the reason some of the cuts have to be so very deep)… and Strickland did that without his party controlling the Statehouse.
Kasich, on the other hand, is having one b*tch of a time. Votes are all too often completely along party lines (never a good thing). One of his favorite pieces of legislation, something he thought would go flying through with no problem at all, took three or four last minute committee member changes in both chambers just to get it to the Senate and House floors for votes; prompted a number of protests; and is going to be a referendum on the fall ballot. And that’s with Kasich’s party in charge of EVERYTHING in this state.
Meanwhile, thanks to Strickland’s last budget and the strengthening economy, we’re going to end the fiscal year with a surplus (how often do you see that reported on in the mainstream media?!?).
Nope, people don’t pay any attention. They know that they’re hurting and so in November they voted out everyone who was in office without paying attention to who they were voting in and what those they were voting out had actually done. And now they believe the guy they voted for when he says this is a Jobs Budget. And now they’re all about to find out that by “Jobs Budget” he actually means “Jobs KILLING budget.” And they’re not going to know how this happened. Those of us who pay some attention, take what we hear and read with a grain of salt, and seek out other sources of information, on the other hand, are all already braced because we know exactly what’s coming.
* Meaning the unemployment drop was not just due to people leaving the workforce or the state, rather, they were actually going back to work… and yes, some of this is due to the national economy recovering; however, when you start doing state by state comparisons, you have to factor in the policies chosen by the administrations in charge when it comes to doing significantly better or worse than similarly situated states.
People aren’t revolting because people don’t pay attention. And there’s also a large number of people who believe what they hear and read and only seek out “mainstream” sources of information. And mainstream sources of information these days are all too often either entertainment (there’s a problem when the news shows are fighting over ratings) or bought and paid for by people and interests with deep pockets. So if the governor says that his budget saves money and creates jobs, then it must be so.
These are the people who think that FoxNews actually reports accurate and honest and actual news. These are also the people who are busy hating Strickland, who blame him for what was a national (international, really) economic crisis, and who didn’t notice that Ohio actually weathered the recession better than most states, including all of our neighbors. The same people who didn't notice that Strickland left office during the tenth or eleventh month of consecutive drops in unemployment and increases in jobs.* The same people who didn't notice that Ohio was ranked somewhere in the top 10 in education. The same people who didn't notice that our unconstitutional school funding formula had been changed so that it was no longer violating our state constitution. The same people who didn't notice that in his last budget, Strickland actually had a larger imbalance to deal with and he did it without raising taxes, without gutting education and local monies, and by cutting overall spending (for those not paying attention, do please note that Kasich’s budget actually increases spending; that’s part of the reason some of the cuts have to be so very deep)… and Strickland did that without his party controlling the Statehouse.
Kasich, on the other hand, is having one b*tch of a time. Votes are all too often completely along party lines (never a good thing). One of his favorite pieces of legislation, something he thought would go flying through with no problem at all, took three or four last minute committee member changes in both chambers just to get it to the Senate and House floors for votes; prompted a number of protests; and is going to be a referendum on the fall ballot. And that’s with Kasich’s party in charge of EVERYTHING in this state.
Meanwhile, thanks to Strickland’s last budget and the strengthening economy, we’re going to end the fiscal year with a surplus (how often do you see that reported on in the mainstream media?!?).
Nope, people don’t pay any attention. They know that they’re hurting and so in November they voted out everyone who was in office without paying attention to who they were voting in and what those they were voting out had actually done. And now they believe the guy they voted for when he says this is a Jobs Budget. And now they’re all about to find out that by “Jobs Budget” he actually means “Jobs KILLING budget.” And they’re not going to know how this happened. Those of us who pay some attention, take what we hear and read with a grain of salt, and seek out other sources of information, on the other hand, are all already braced because we know exactly what’s coming.
* Meaning the unemployment drop was not just due to people leaving the workforce or the state, rather, they were actually going back to work… and yes, some of this is due to the national economy recovering; however, when you start doing state by state comparisons, you have to factor in the policies chosen by the administrations in charge when it comes to doing significantly better or worse than similarly situated states.
Do they ever think before they speak...
From The Columbus Dispatch, in response to the Senate’s inclusion in the budget bill of a pay cut for lawmakers:
And this from the same group that thinks that public workers (public workers who aren’t lawmakers, that is) are a bunch of leaches, sucking the state dry of all of its money through high salaries and ridiculously attractive benefits packages. Mind you, lawmakers, who are not exactly full-time workers, make more money and have better benefits than your average state worker (and let's not forget all those sweet extras they get from friendly lobbyists). And yet, per Batchelder, lawmakers are paid too little and the rest of us lowly public-sector workers are all paid too much.
Nice ego there, you jackwagon.
"I know a lot of people in my caucus who are frankly underpaid," House Speaker William G. Batchelder said yesterday.
Under the budget passed by the Senate this week, pay for the 99 state representatives and half the state senators would be cut 5 percent starting in 2013. Cuts for the other half of the Senate would start in 2015. Base salary for a lawmaker is $60,584 a year. Most earn more through stipends paid to caucus and committee leaders.Yeah, and I know a lot of teachers who are frankly underpaid. Yet your other big gripe is that the Senate took the merit pay measures out of the budget bill. Mind you, those same provisions are in SB5 and it is, frankly, dishonest to also include them in the budget. Of course, Batchelder et al. know that SB5 has a really good chance of being overturned by the voters so having it in the budget bill is really an end run around the will of the people.
And this from the same group that thinks that public workers (public workers who aren’t lawmakers, that is) are a bunch of leaches, sucking the state dry of all of its money through high salaries and ridiculously attractive benefits packages. Mind you, lawmakers, who are not exactly full-time workers, make more money and have better benefits than your average state worker (and let's not forget all those sweet extras they get from friendly lobbyists). And yet, per Batchelder, lawmakers are paid too little and the rest of us lowly public-sector workers are all paid too much.
Nice ego there, you jackwagon.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Zero tolerance policies...
From a somewhat interesting article from The Washington Post about zero tolerance policies in schools:
What reasonably intelligent, rational adult (or child, for that matter) thinks that suspension for stupid things like having Advil in your backpack is actually a good idea that helps kids? This should have been one of those things that was so blatantly obvious from the get go that it never got going! That we did implement these policies and are now saying “gee golly gosh this isn’t working” is pathetic.
That we suspend kids for tardiness and absenteeism is also ludicrous. Clearly they’re not coming to school anyway. Please tell me how a suspension is going to help this? Also, can we pretty please keep in mind that tardiness and absenteeism is not always the child’s fault? When we have parents who just could not care less, how exactly does a suspension help the child?
Now, “it’s become evident that simply suspending students and putting them on the street comes back and bites you,” said Bob Wise, a former governor of West Virginia and president of the Alliance for Excellent Education.No kidding? Gee, I’m shocked. Shocked, I say.
What reasonably intelligent, rational adult (or child, for that matter) thinks that suspension for stupid things like having Advil in your backpack is actually a good idea that helps kids? This should have been one of those things that was so blatantly obvious from the get go that it never got going! That we did implement these policies and are now saying “gee golly gosh this isn’t working” is pathetic.
That we suspend kids for tardiness and absenteeism is also ludicrous. Clearly they’re not coming to school anyway. Please tell me how a suspension is going to help this? Also, can we pretty please keep in mind that tardiness and absenteeism is not always the child’s fault? When we have parents who just could not care less, how exactly does a suspension help the child?
Suspensions do not improve the behavior of students in trouble or their peers, said Dewey Cornell, a University of Virginia education professor who studies school safety. Many people assume that suspensions help students change, he said, “but they don’t.”Many people assume that suspensions change kids? Many people? Who are these people? I’d like to meet them. Actually, I probably really really don’t want to meet them because they’re clearly beyond ignorant.
The American Psychological Association reported in a 2008 journal article that research has found no evidence that zero-tolerance policies have a deterrent effect or keep schools safer.And the shockers keep on coming….
Another bad idea...
From... I think The Dispatch... about a provision that the Senate added to the budget bill:
Urban and rural districts are often the districts that are not doing so well and that don’t have any money. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that money solves the world’s problems and I don’t think that money equals a good education. Look at Ross: not a rich district, but always highly rated. That, actually, is a district that could do even more with a bit more money, so this is good for them. But when you consider districts like Upper Arlington – rich and highly rated – giving them a cash boost for continuing their good scores is just gilding the lily.
If you want to tie the money to performance, wouldn’t it be better spent by giving it to districts that actually improve their rating? Isn’t that what we do with kids themselves? The kids who are struggling along, who have to really work to improve, don’t we give them more stickers and head pats and attention and rewards when they do get a C instead a D? When the A student gets an A… whereas these kids do also deserve a pat on the head, how many stickers do we bother with? A students don’t need our praise to get As. Highly ranked districts don’t need more money to get high rankings.
How about a hybrid approach: those who increase their rating from the prior year as well as those already rated excellent or excellent with distinction that continue that rating and have funding levels per pupil that are, say, at the state average or below. So then we’re rewarding districts that are, in theory, increasing student achievement and helping out some already good districts that are a bit cash poor.
I know that the wealthy districts took the biggest hits in the original budget bill. I also know they have the most to lose and they're more able to raise what the State takes away. Yes, I've looked at the numbers. Yes, I know there are wealthy districts that lost nearly all of their state funding. I also know that a 25% hit to the poorest district in the state would likely be more devastating to that poor district than a 75% hit would be to the state's wealthiest district.
My assumption is that those in the Statehouse heard a whole lot of complaining from some wealthy and influential constituents and this is the way they chose to return some of that money. The cuts did seem to be fairly arbitrary (to my knowledge, the Administration still hasn't released the formula used to arrive at these cuts, so all we can really do is look at the numbers and scratch our heads). But I don't think this is the way to do it. If they want to restore some of the money, then restore some of the money. But don't hide it in a poorly structured "performance bonus."
The state's highest-performing schools - those rated excellent or excellent with distinction - would get a $17-per-student performance bonus at the end of next school year. The provision would cost the state $30 million over two years.So rewarding “success”. Okay, I get that. But, let’s think about what this actually means: pretty much across the board, wealthy districts are the ones doing well. So if they continue to do well, we’ll give them more money. To the tune of $30 million. So we’re going to give rich districts more money for doing what they are already doing…. ooookay.
Urban and rural districts are often the districts that are not doing so well and that don’t have any money. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that money solves the world’s problems and I don’t think that money equals a good education. Look at Ross: not a rich district, but always highly rated. That, actually, is a district that could do even more with a bit more money, so this is good for them. But when you consider districts like Upper Arlington – rich and highly rated – giving them a cash boost for continuing their good scores is just gilding the lily.
If you want to tie the money to performance, wouldn’t it be better spent by giving it to districts that actually improve their rating? Isn’t that what we do with kids themselves? The kids who are struggling along, who have to really work to improve, don’t we give them more stickers and head pats and attention and rewards when they do get a C instead a D? When the A student gets an A… whereas these kids do also deserve a pat on the head, how many stickers do we bother with? A students don’t need our praise to get As. Highly ranked districts don’t need more money to get high rankings.
How about a hybrid approach: those who increase their rating from the prior year as well as those already rated excellent or excellent with distinction that continue that rating and have funding levels per pupil that are, say, at the state average or below. So then we’re rewarding districts that are, in theory, increasing student achievement and helping out some already good districts that are a bit cash poor.
I know that the wealthy districts took the biggest hits in the original budget bill. I also know they have the most to lose and they're more able to raise what the State takes away. Yes, I've looked at the numbers. Yes, I know there are wealthy districts that lost nearly all of their state funding. I also know that a 25% hit to the poorest district in the state would likely be more devastating to that poor district than a 75% hit would be to the state's wealthiest district.
My assumption is that those in the Statehouse heard a whole lot of complaining from some wealthy and influential constituents and this is the way they chose to return some of that money. The cuts did seem to be fairly arbitrary (to my knowledge, the Administration still hasn't released the formula used to arrive at these cuts, so all we can really do is look at the numbers and scratch our heads). But I don't think this is the way to do it. If they want to restore some of the money, then restore some of the money. But don't hide it in a poorly structured "performance bonus."
Friday, May 6, 2011
Stupidity of youth or culture of fear...
Earlier in the week, I posed a question along with some potential answers:
For years, the media has been sliding more and more out of control. They now make the most mundane happening into a salacious story. They strive to make the news into something for which advertisers will pay them lots and lots of money. Stories that are actually quite dramatic on their own will be covered 24/7, will be the subject of teaser ads that run again and again during prime-time television, and will likely receive a dramatic title. Newscasters report stories about serial killers with a sparkle in their eye: a chance to increase ratings, to get noticed, to get a raise or a better time slot.
TV is filled with violence. Sex and nudity is relegated to midnight and cable. Murder and mayhem is prevalent throughout prime time. And how many high school and college kids (and likely middle schoolers as well) watch Jerry Springer and his ilk? Then there's the internet. Oy.
When kids aren't watching all of this, they're playing games, either on TV or on their phones. How many of those games are full of violence? It doesn't matter if you're the good guy or the bad guy. It doesn't matter if the goal is to be the greatest war hero ever or the baddest gansta in the hood. The point is that kids are being fed violence day in and day out. And no one's talking to them about it and no one's giving them an alternative.
We all know that kids know the difference between a cartoon or video game and real life. But that's not the issue. The issue is that when you see something over and over and over again, you become desensitized to it.
For the vast majority of these young people's lives, we've been at war. At the moment, we're up to what, three? You can watch modern warfare live on network TV. You can watch it on the internet. You can watch people jumping out of the World Trade Center. You can watch Saddam Hussein being executed (and hear him being taunted just beforehand). And you can watch it all again and again and again. You can even watch it on your phone wherever and whenever you'd like.
And on top of all of this, for nearly a decade Washington, D.C., was home to an administration that was all about fear mongering. We needed to keep emergency supplies on hand in case of attack. We needed to keep an eye on our threat level. We needed to stop taking shampoo with us on airplanes. We needed to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our homes and our stuff because there were all kinds of bad people out there in the world who wanted to hurt all of us and to take all of our stuff. We needed to loosen gun control laws so that we could all arm ourselves and protect ourselves from this Big Bad Evil.
We needed to remember at all times that we're just not safe.
This is the world these revelers grew up in. Perhaps this is the world that has led so many people to actually celebrate death. Perhaps this is the world that has led to so many people wanting to see the violent, gruesome image of a murdered man.
Is this the world that you want for yourself, for your children, your parents, your loved ones? Is this the world you want to leave to the future?
2. Have you noticed how young the people are who have gathered at both the White House and Ground Zero?But what if it isn't any of that? What if it's something else entirely?
These are people who would have been in grade school during 9/11. What's that about? Is this just an excuse for a bunch of college kids and "young people" to get together for a big ol' televised party? Is it an effort to "be a part of history"? Is this reaction due to these folks having been raised with bin Laden as their bogeyman? Those of us who are a little older, who were actual adults for 9/11, don't seem to be reacting with this party behavior. Is the difference that we remember the feeling of that day and so are more conflicted and thoughtful and reflective now, while this younger group doesn't really remember the day and is instead responding to the death of their childhood bogeyman?
For years, the media has been sliding more and more out of control. They now make the most mundane happening into a salacious story. They strive to make the news into something for which advertisers will pay them lots and lots of money. Stories that are actually quite dramatic on their own will be covered 24/7, will be the subject of teaser ads that run again and again during prime-time television, and will likely receive a dramatic title. Newscasters report stories about serial killers with a sparkle in their eye: a chance to increase ratings, to get noticed, to get a raise or a better time slot.
TV is filled with violence. Sex and nudity is relegated to midnight and cable. Murder and mayhem is prevalent throughout prime time. And how many high school and college kids (and likely middle schoolers as well) watch Jerry Springer and his ilk? Then there's the internet. Oy.
When kids aren't watching all of this, they're playing games, either on TV or on their phones. How many of those games are full of violence? It doesn't matter if you're the good guy or the bad guy. It doesn't matter if the goal is to be the greatest war hero ever or the baddest gansta in the hood. The point is that kids are being fed violence day in and day out. And no one's talking to them about it and no one's giving them an alternative.
We all know that kids know the difference between a cartoon or video game and real life. But that's not the issue. The issue is that when you see something over and over and over again, you become desensitized to it.
For the vast majority of these young people's lives, we've been at war. At the moment, we're up to what, three? You can watch modern warfare live on network TV. You can watch it on the internet. You can watch people jumping out of the World Trade Center. You can watch Saddam Hussein being executed (and hear him being taunted just beforehand). And you can watch it all again and again and again. You can even watch it on your phone wherever and whenever you'd like.
And on top of all of this, for nearly a decade Washington, D.C., was home to an administration that was all about fear mongering. We needed to keep emergency supplies on hand in case of attack. We needed to keep an eye on our threat level. We needed to stop taking shampoo with us on airplanes. We needed to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our homes and our stuff because there were all kinds of bad people out there in the world who wanted to hurt all of us and to take all of our stuff. We needed to loosen gun control laws so that we could all arm ourselves and protect ourselves from this Big Bad Evil.
We needed to remember at all times that we're just not safe.
This is the world these revelers grew up in. Perhaps this is the world that has led so many people to actually celebrate death. Perhaps this is the world that has led to so many people wanting to see the violent, gruesome image of a murdered man.
Is this the world that you want for yourself, for your children, your parents, your loved ones? Is this the world you want to leave to the future?
Quotes to note...
I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.
Jessica Dovey, 2011
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Governments do not equal businesses...
This is why you cannot run government as a business.
Corporations are not designed to care about the little guy, they are not designed to serve everyone. They choose a demographic to whom they want to appeal and then do what is necessary to get that business. The newly formed Ohio Corporation has picked their demographic and is doggedly pursuing and wooing.
And when you think about it that way, comments such as "poor people are poor because they make bad decisions" actually make some sense. After all, in the business world it is true that good versus bad decisions can absolutely make or break your business. The question is, how do you get these business-minded people to see that PEOPLE and their LIVES are not businesses and cannot be treated as such????? Whoever figures that out can save us all....
Corporations are not designed to care about the little guy, they are not designed to serve everyone. They choose a demographic to whom they want to appeal and then do what is necessary to get that business. The newly formed Ohio Corporation has picked their demographic and is doggedly pursuing and wooing.
And when you think about it that way, comments such as "poor people are poor because they make bad decisions" actually make some sense. After all, in the business world it is true that good versus bad decisions can absolutely make or break your business. The question is, how do you get these business-minded people to see that PEOPLE and their LIVES are not businesses and cannot be treated as such????? Whoever figures that out can save us all....
Monday, May 2, 2011
bin Laden is gone...
I have questions.
1. How do people celebrate death?
I understand who he was and what he did. I understand that this is likely what had to happen. I'm not arguing with any of that. But cheering? A party atmosphere? Actually celebrating the execution/murder/death of a human being? Which brings me to...
2. Have you noticed how young the people are who have gathered at both the White House and Ground Zero?
These are people who would have been in grade school during 9/11. What's that about? Is this just an excuse for a bunch of college kids and "young people" to get together for a big ol' televised party? Is it an effort to "be a part of history"? Is this reaction due to these folks having been raised with bin Laden as their bogeyman? Those of us who are a little older, who were actual adults for 9/11, don't seem to be reacting with this party behavior. Is the difference that we remember the feeling of that day more and so are more conflicted and thoughtful and reflective now while this younger group doesn't really remember that and is instead responding to the death of their childhood bogeyman?
3. Are people really surprised that he was found in a mansion rather than a dirty cave somewhere?
I mean really, are people surprised by this? I find that I am not even a little surprised. If they do an "inside the house where bin Laden hid and was killed" feature, I will so be watching it. Because I want to see how he was living. He rejected the wealth of his family and part of his problem with the U.S. was the vast (and mindless) luxury. So how did he spend his last years, in spartan conditions in a veritable fortress or in relative luxury in a well-appointed and highly protected mansion? Inquiring minds....
4. What will the backlash look like?
How bad will it be? How soon will it begin? Where will it be focused? He's a martyr now, I find it highly unlikely that his supporters will simply allow this to be.
5. You don't really think the troops are coming home now, right?
One of the people interviewed tonight on CNN (a person on the street, not an "expert") actually said that the war on terror is now over and our troops can return home. The President even said it in his speech: the war on terror is not over. In case anyone missed it, that means the wars are not over, the troops are not on their way home. Get a grip. bin Laden or no bin Laden, we are so entrenched at this point that leaving is a long process. We cannot just up and go. Seriously. Even if the President did announce later today that the troops are returning, the logistics of getting that many people back to the States is nightmarish in scope. And he's not going to announce such a thing later today.
6. What will be produced as proof?
People are going to want proof. Something more than the President saying "no, seriously, it was him." The word at the moment is that bin Laden has already been laid to rest at sea. Though I sure wouldn't want him brought here and though I agree with the idea of not giving his followers a grave at which to enshrine and worship him, proof is going to be necessary. What will it be? Pictures? Video? And when will it be produced?
7. What's going to happen with Pakistan?
It's really, really difficult to believe that no one knew where he was living. He was in a well-protected mansion in the middle of a military town. His was the biggest house on the block. So... who knew? When did they know? What will be the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan moving forward?
1. How do people celebrate death?
I understand who he was and what he did. I understand that this is likely what had to happen. I'm not arguing with any of that. But cheering? A party atmosphere? Actually celebrating the execution/murder/death of a human being? Which brings me to...
2. Have you noticed how young the people are who have gathered at both the White House and Ground Zero?
These are people who would have been in grade school during 9/11. What's that about? Is this just an excuse for a bunch of college kids and "young people" to get together for a big ol' televised party? Is it an effort to "be a part of history"? Is this reaction due to these folks having been raised with bin Laden as their bogeyman? Those of us who are a little older, who were actual adults for 9/11, don't seem to be reacting with this party behavior. Is the difference that we remember the feeling of that day more and so are more conflicted and thoughtful and reflective now while this younger group doesn't really remember that and is instead responding to the death of their childhood bogeyman?
3. Are people really surprised that he was found in a mansion rather than a dirty cave somewhere?
I mean really, are people surprised by this? I find that I am not even a little surprised. If they do an "inside the house where bin Laden hid and was killed" feature, I will so be watching it. Because I want to see how he was living. He rejected the wealth of his family and part of his problem with the U.S. was the vast (and mindless) luxury. So how did he spend his last years, in spartan conditions in a veritable fortress or in relative luxury in a well-appointed and highly protected mansion? Inquiring minds....
4. What will the backlash look like?
How bad will it be? How soon will it begin? Where will it be focused? He's a martyr now, I find it highly unlikely that his supporters will simply allow this to be.
5. You don't really think the troops are coming home now, right?
One of the people interviewed tonight on CNN (a person on the street, not an "expert") actually said that the war on terror is now over and our troops can return home. The President even said it in his speech: the war on terror is not over. In case anyone missed it, that means the wars are not over, the troops are not on their way home. Get a grip. bin Laden or no bin Laden, we are so entrenched at this point that leaving is a long process. We cannot just up and go. Seriously. Even if the President did announce later today that the troops are returning, the logistics of getting that many people back to the States is nightmarish in scope. And he's not going to announce such a thing later today.
6. What will be produced as proof?
People are going to want proof. Something more than the President saying "no, seriously, it was him." The word at the moment is that bin Laden has already been laid to rest at sea. Though I sure wouldn't want him brought here and though I agree with the idea of not giving his followers a grave at which to enshrine and worship him, proof is going to be necessary. What will it be? Pictures? Video? And when will it be produced?
7. What's going to happen with Pakistan?
It's really, really difficult to believe that no one knew where he was living. He was in a well-protected mansion in the middle of a military town. His was the biggest house on the block. So... who knew? When did they know? What will be the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan moving forward?
Friday, April 1, 2011
To sign or not to sign...
As I was posting a comment on a blog the other day, a friend watching over my shoulder said that I should really be using an alias. That took me by surprise as I was posting with just my initials. She didn't think that was enough.
I don't use my name when I post on political blogs and I don't use my name here. And I always have mixed feelings about that. There's a fairly widely held view out there that your opinion doesn't mean a whole lot if you're not willing to sign your name to it. And I don't disagree with that. In a perfect world.
This, my friends, is not a perfect world.
I work for the government. I'd like to go on working for the government. I already fear for my job, I don't need to be signing my name to anything that is critical of the current Powers that Be. Also, I have, from time to time, had negative things to say about the very agency for which I work. No way am I signing my name to those! Because the sad fact is that in the current environment, having an opinion and being foolish enough to voice it can be hazardous for one's employment health.
Perhaps once I'm in a more stable position I'll sign my name to a comment here or there. But until then....
My best to you all,
Connect the Dots
I don't use my name when I post on political blogs and I don't use my name here. And I always have mixed feelings about that. There's a fairly widely held view out there that your opinion doesn't mean a whole lot if you're not willing to sign your name to it. And I don't disagree with that. In a perfect world.
This, my friends, is not a perfect world.
I work for the government. I'd like to go on working for the government. I already fear for my job, I don't need to be signing my name to anything that is critical of the current Powers that Be. Also, I have, from time to time, had negative things to say about the very agency for which I work. No way am I signing my name to those! Because the sad fact is that in the current environment, having an opinion and being foolish enough to voice it can be hazardous for one's employment health.
Perhaps once I'm in a more stable position I'll sign my name to a comment here or there. But until then....
My best to you all,
Connect the Dots
Thursday, March 24, 2011
testing...
I had a feeling I could blog on the go, but had not yet investigated. This would be a completely annoying way to post anything of substance, but it is good to know that the option is available for corrections and the odd comment.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
What matters...
Kasich quote of the day:
I've given myself a headache trying to figure out what private-sector workers have sacrificed that public-sector workers have not. Last I heard, private-sector workers were still eligible for pay raises (and gigantic bonuses for those private-sector workers who happen to run failing banks or investment houses or other Wall Street type joints that deserve a significant portion of the blame for the current economic woes that Kasich and Co. claim SB5 will help to correct) and weren't required to take 10 furlough days.
Don't get me wrong, I know things are hard all over. But to suggest that private-sector workers have been out there sacrificing while public-sector workers have been getting fat and sassy on the public teat is just laughable. That Kasich and his followers completely ignore the lack of pay raises over the past couple of years and the actual pay cut that was doled out to all in the form of furlough days makes it clear that SB5 is not about saving money but rather is a political ploy.
Whether their main goal is to get people so fired up over this that they'll be somewhat more docile over the coming budget or to break down a major source of funding for their opponents in future elections doesn't even matter.
What matters is that we don't let it work.
What matters is that we continue to make it clear that he has underestimated the people of this state.
What matters is that we keep sending letters to the media and to our elected officials.
What matters is that we keep showing up at the Statehouse.
What matters is that we do not sit silently, meekly waiting to see what "they" decide is best for "us".
What matters is that in this democracy, we must not go back to the apathy that allowed these people to attain office.
What matters is that we continue to make our voices heard.
Whether or not SB5 passes (in any form), Kasich and Co. misjudged us. It's a whopping two months into Kasich's term and he's doing one heck of a job... of dividing us, of disrespecting us, of weakening us. He cannot be allowed to destroy our great state.
So keep reading and writing and talking and sharing. Keep letting everyone know that we will not sit down and shut up and give up our futures to the self-crowned kings and queens in Columbus.
And most of all, remember that "we" and "us" is all of us. I am not a union member. I am, however, a proud Ohioan who will not sit quietly by as Kasich and his cronies destroy my home state.
"You think about the private-sector workers and what they've sacrificed. They've given up a lot," he said. "There needs to be equity."He said this at a press conference on Sunday; read more here. Again he's attempting to defend SB5 and explain why it's so very needed.
I've given myself a headache trying to figure out what private-sector workers have sacrificed that public-sector workers have not. Last I heard, private-sector workers were still eligible for pay raises (and gigantic bonuses for those private-sector workers who happen to run failing banks or investment houses or other Wall Street type joints that deserve a significant portion of the blame for the current economic woes that Kasich and Co. claim SB5 will help to correct) and weren't required to take 10 furlough days.
Don't get me wrong, I know things are hard all over. But to suggest that private-sector workers have been out there sacrificing while public-sector workers have been getting fat and sassy on the public teat is just laughable. That Kasich and his followers completely ignore the lack of pay raises over the past couple of years and the actual pay cut that was doled out to all in the form of furlough days makes it clear that SB5 is not about saving money but rather is a political ploy.
Whether their main goal is to get people so fired up over this that they'll be somewhat more docile over the coming budget or to break down a major source of funding for their opponents in future elections doesn't even matter.
What matters is that we don't let it work.
What matters is that we continue to make it clear that he has underestimated the people of this state.
What matters is that we keep sending letters to the media and to our elected officials.
What matters is that we keep showing up at the Statehouse.
What matters is that we do not sit silently, meekly waiting to see what "they" decide is best for "us".
What matters is that in this democracy, we must not go back to the apathy that allowed these people to attain office.
What matters is that we continue to make our voices heard.
Whether or not SB5 passes (in any form), Kasich and Co. misjudged us. It's a whopping two months into Kasich's term and he's doing one heck of a job... of dividing us, of disrespecting us, of weakening us. He cannot be allowed to destroy our great state.
So keep reading and writing and talking and sharing. Keep letting everyone know that we will not sit down and shut up and give up our futures to the self-crowned kings and queens in Columbus.
And most of all, remember that "we" and "us" is all of us. I am not a union member. I am, however, a proud Ohioan who will not sit quietly by as Kasich and his cronies destroy my home state.
The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.-Robert Hutchins
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Kasichisms of the day...
From Newsweek:
And from Plunderbund (this is in response to someone asking him why he won't just sit down and talk to the union peeps):
The most that Kasich would say was that “timing may be an issue” and that unemployment may remain high through the next election. “We have a long way to run,” Kasich confessed. “If the jobs come in ’13, then God bless them.”Funny, that's not what he was saying during the campaign. Then he was saying that we had to boot Strickland out of office because he was not bringing the jobs to Ohio and that we must instead vote for him, Kasich, because he'd lower unemployment and get us all back to work.
And from Plunderbund (this is in response to someone asking him why he won't just sit down and talk to the union peeps):
Kasich, obviously annoyed, responds by admitting he’s never actually met with anyone from the unions (though ‘his people’ have) and that he’s already made a decision and will not be sitting down with anyone.Nice way to govern. Making hardline decisions without talking to the most vital stakeholders involved, decisions that happen to be completely against what the voters clearly want. What's that called again? Hmmmm... not democracy..........
Monday, February 28, 2011
Study supports SB5...
Senate Bill 5 saves $1.3B, study says
That's the headline of an article that ran in Saturday's Dispatch. The State's been in an uproar for a couple of weeks now. There have been 20+ hours of testimony before the Senate committee, several days of protests at the Statehouse, tons of water cooler talk, coverage in all the papers and on all the networks, and we've even made it onto The Colbert Report, and yet just days before the committee is to vote, there is suddenly talk of a study that supports SB5?
And The Dispatch is the only entity in the whole darn state who knows anything about the report?
C'mon, really? Seriously? Who believes this... crap?
The study supposedly tallies the millions that would have been saved in 2010 without the automatic pay increases that SB5 would eliminate. Um... what automatic pay increases would those be? The ones that the current union contracts did away with?
To read the article, it's as though the salaries and benefits in question are nothing but numbers in the state ledger. Could we please remember that there are people behind those numbers?! When certain folks like to go on about how overpaid state workers are, I never ever see them quote numbers or salaries. The only mention I've seen in the recent coverage was a commenter talking about the salaries of administrators. So all of our bosses. You know, the non-union upper management. Cutting the salaries and benefits of the actual workers doesn't touch those salaries. And overpaid upper management -- as everyone should realize -- does not equal overpaid worker bees.
Though it's "merely" anecdotal, again and again I've watched my professional friends either ignore the public sector altogether or leave the public sector for the private sector. Why, you ask? Because most of the time you make more in the private sector. Period. End of story.
Oy.
That's the headline of an article that ran in Saturday's Dispatch. The State's been in an uproar for a couple of weeks now. There have been 20+ hours of testimony before the Senate committee, several days of protests at the Statehouse, tons of water cooler talk, coverage in all the papers and on all the networks, and we've even made it onto The Colbert Report, and yet just days before the committee is to vote, there is suddenly talk of a study that supports SB5?
And The Dispatch is the only entity in the whole darn state who knows anything about the report?
C'mon, really? Seriously? Who believes this... crap?
The study supposedly tallies the millions that would have been saved in 2010 without the automatic pay increases that SB5 would eliminate. Um... what automatic pay increases would those be? The ones that the current union contracts did away with?
To read the article, it's as though the salaries and benefits in question are nothing but numbers in the state ledger. Could we please remember that there are people behind those numbers?! When certain folks like to go on about how overpaid state workers are, I never ever see them quote numbers or salaries. The only mention I've seen in the recent coverage was a commenter talking about the salaries of administrators. So all of our bosses. You know, the non-union upper management. Cutting the salaries and benefits of the actual workers doesn't touch those salaries. And overpaid upper management -- as everyone should realize -- does not equal overpaid worker bees.
Though it's "merely" anecdotal, again and again I've watched my professional friends either ignore the public sector altogether or leave the public sector for the private sector. Why, you ask? Because most of the time you make more in the private sector. Period. End of story.
Oy.
Calamity days in Ohio's schools...
"When a high school varsity athletic game or match is canceled because of snow, more than likely it will be rescheduled. We should expect no less of our children’s classroom time."*
For anyone who doesn't know, "calamity days" are days when the schools are closed for things like snow, flooding, power outages, illness, and so on. Once you pass the allowable number of calamity days for one school year, the district has to make up the time. For years, the number of allowable calamity days per school year was five. This school year (2010-2011), that number changed to three. What many don't realize is that without further action by the General Assembly, the number would have returned to five for next school year (so 2011-2012).
In their infinite wisdom, the current General Assembly has decided to change the law back for this school year. (This hasn't actually passed yet, but I'm guessing that it will.)
This is ludicrous. If they want to continue to allow for five days, then extend the school year (something that should be done anyway). Why we're still following a school schedule that was set up in the days when kids didn't go to school when they were needed in the family fields is just beyond me.
*This quote comes to you from an editorial in the TimesReporter.com.
For anyone who doesn't know, "calamity days" are days when the schools are closed for things like snow, flooding, power outages, illness, and so on. Once you pass the allowable number of calamity days for one school year, the district has to make up the time. For years, the number of allowable calamity days per school year was five. This school year (2010-2011), that number changed to three. What many don't realize is that without further action by the General Assembly, the number would have returned to five for next school year (so 2011-2012).
In their infinite wisdom, the current General Assembly has decided to change the law back for this school year. (This hasn't actually passed yet, but I'm guessing that it will.)
This is ludicrous. If they want to continue to allow for five days, then extend the school year (something that should be done anyway). Why we're still following a school schedule that was set up in the days when kids didn't go to school when they were needed in the family fields is just beyond me.
*This quote comes to you from an editorial in the TimesReporter.com.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Scientific controversy my... toe...
From Evolution education update: January 21, 2011, an email newsletter from NCSE:
House Bill 1551, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a
first reading on February 7, 2011, is apparently the fourth
antievolution bill of 2011, and the second in Oklahoma, joining Senate
Bill 554. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom
Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational
authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present
the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"
and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and
scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the
course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as
controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning."
Scientific controversies. I have a problem with this wording (I have so many problems with such legislation that I'm not even going there). It implies that there is question within the scientific community. There isn't. Scientists the world over agree. The controversy arises when politics and religion enter the picture. If you as an individual chose not to believe that evolution occurs, that's up to you. But that does not turn the issue into a "scientific controversy."
The same is true of global warming and human cloning. Global warming is a fact of life on Earth. It has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. The controversy, once again and as usual, arises when politics and religion get involved. Sure, we can talk until the cows come home about whether/how much humans impact global warming. But to debate it's very existence? Again, scientists the world over agree on this point.
Human cloning as a scientific controversy? Please. The controversy here is all about politics and religion. What I find the most interesting about this particular controversy is how "they" always manage to connect cloning and abortion. Given that you can do the first without doing the latter makes it quite clear that those opposed to cloning are arguing for the sake of either politics or religion, not science.
Let's reserve "scientific controversy" for those issues upon which the scientists themselves are actually unsure or disagree. For the other issues, let's call them what they are: political-religious controversies. Then try to get your bill passed!
House Bill 1551, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a
first reading on February 7, 2011, is apparently the fourth
antievolution bill of 2011, and the second in Oklahoma, joining Senate
Bill 554. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom
Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational
authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present
the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"
and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and
scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the
course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as
controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning."
Scientific controversies. I have a problem with this wording (I have so many problems with such legislation that I'm not even going there). It implies that there is question within the scientific community. There isn't. Scientists the world over agree. The controversy arises when politics and religion enter the picture. If you as an individual chose not to believe that evolution occurs, that's up to you. But that does not turn the issue into a "scientific controversy."
The same is true of global warming and human cloning. Global warming is a fact of life on Earth. It has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. The controversy, once again and as usual, arises when politics and religion get involved. Sure, we can talk until the cows come home about whether/how much humans impact global warming. But to debate it's very existence? Again, scientists the world over agree on this point.
Human cloning as a scientific controversy? Please. The controversy here is all about politics and religion. What I find the most interesting about this particular controversy is how "they" always manage to connect cloning and abortion. Given that you can do the first without doing the latter makes it quite clear that those opposed to cloning are arguing for the sake of either politics or religion, not science.
Let's reserve "scientific controversy" for those issues upon which the scientists themselves are actually unsure or disagree. For the other issues, let's call them what they are: political-religious controversies. Then try to get your bill passed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)