1/2 pound of chicken breast, cooked and cubed
1 large granny smith apple, cubed
1 large gala apple, cubed
1 small yellow onion, diced
1/2 cup chopped pecans
1/2 cup currants
1/2 cup mayonnaise
1 ounce apple cider vinegar
3 T curry powder
Combine all your ingredients and toss. Serve cold on a bed of butter lettuce. Watch old Muppets videos while eating -- and no comments from the peanut gallery!
NOTE: I am re-posting this recipe with a new name, having found out that Statler Chicken is an actual recipe for roasted chicken.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Fact or Opinion?
I get a kick out of thinking about the difference between fact and opinion. I recently tried to Google the difference between the two, with what I thought were rather amusing results.
Some say that a fact is universally accepted as true. But then, 600 years ago, it was universally accepted as true that the World is flat, which of course turns out NOT to be true.
You could say now that the World is round, and some would say that this is a fact, since it's not really open to debate. Or is it? The earth is not completely spherical, being a bit flattened at the poles.
Others have suggested that a fact can be PROVEN. But the Geometer in my thinks that very few things can in fact be proven. And many things that we hold as fact, simply have never been DISPROVEN.
For example, consider the Pythagorean Theorem. The sum of the squares of the two sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. Now, this of course has been proven to be true in our Universe… But like the Earth being round, who knows what we may find in the future?
Certainly the Pythagorean Theorem hasn't been DISPROVEN. But does this mean it's not open to debate? You could in fact run into someone who sees your proof of the theorem, yet still does not accept it as true.
Another idea is that facts can be confirmed with measurement. As in, this fan is blue, because the light reflecting off of it measures of a certain wavelength. But even the idea of color isn't exempt from opinion!
Consider the color turquoise. When I mention this color, each of us probably has a slightly different idea of what this color looks like, in our own mind. The color turquoise can have varying shades. Some look blue to some people, whereas the same shade might appear green to others.
In this case, it is actually conceivable that a shade most people would consider to be green, could in fact fall within the wavelength of blue. Which leads us to ponder who it was, exactly, that defined these wavelengths in the first place. Even measuring them, reflects someone's initial OPINION about which color was what.
They say that being able to determine fact from opinion is a much-needed critical thinking skill, one that needs to be taught in school. This, however, is not a fact, but a generally held opinion. I would debate this, as to me it seems counter-productive to enforce that ANYTHING can be relegated to fact.
Is there any question you can think of to ask the entire population of the World, that everyone would agree on the answer 100%? I think not (oops, and then I disappear, a-la Descartes!).
With all the infomercials out there, and all the raging political debate, it seems to me a better skill for our children might be to learn to disagree amicably. If almost everything we see, hear, and learn is suspect, and fact is not likely to be determined to 100% certainly in ANY matter, it becomes increasingly important in our World to be able to characterize WHY something is an opinion -- and then to respect the opinions of others.
And of course I realize that you might take exception to what it is I say here. You could, in fact (ACK!) think this entire article is a bunch of bunk! If that is the case, I must retort that you are entitled to your opinion!
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Crash and Burn
If we, here in the United States, don't learn from the histories of other countries, and FAST... Well, complete social and economic collapse is virtually assured in the next century. ASSURED, I say. Why?
We here in the US have a hard time understanding the idea that we are a young country. Although the continent of North America has been inhabited, and thus has had a history going back thousands of years, we in the US tend only to focus on what has transpired in the times beginning with the Declaration of Independence. And in the span of history, these past 300 years or so are the blink of an eye.
There is a certain perspective to be gained by studying the history of more "mature" governments, societies, and economies. And when I say this, I don't mean Ancient Greece, from whence we claim the birth of the ideas that govern us today, but of whom almost no visible trace remains. I am talking about Europe, our immediate predecessors in World political and economic dominance.
We study very little of Europe here in the US. While we marvel over an "ancient" 350-year-old building in St. Petersburg or Savannah, the Europeans marvel over a 700-year-old painting or 1200-year-old building that survived the bombings of World Wars. Their written histories are much more robust than ours, and date back three, four, and five times as long as that of our own country.
If you want to understand where the United States is, in the current evolution of our government or economy, the best place to look is to the previous leaders. How did dominance pass from Europe, some 400 years ago, to the United States? How have the governments of these countries, and their economies, evolved over time? What is the economic fate of their peoples, after this period of dominance?
If you look at the evolution of Parliamentary governments in Europe, one thing you will see that is strikingly different from the US is the proliferation of political parties. Countries like Britain and France, Italy, Germany and Sweden, started out with basically what we have today in the US -- a government where there were two dominant parties. Over time, these two parties became more fractious, a situation we are now seeing in the United States. The thing is, over time the disagreements of the two major political parties in many European countries, led to the formation of many other parties. In current-day Parliaments in Europe, it is not uncommon that elected officials come from a good half-dozen or more political parties.
In addition to this breaking apart and sharing of political power between numerous parties, you will see that most "mature" European Parliaments include what is considered to be Socialist parties. This is true in Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, pretty much anywhere you choose to look. And these parties, in direct contradiction to the principles of American insistence on a free-market economy, have been spawned in direct response to the ECONOMIC maturing of these societies.
Why on Earth would this happen, we are likely to ask in the United States.
Well, as societies and their economies mature, they move in the direction of the political parties. The economy in particular will become polarized, and after a time in any free-market economy, the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer. After a time, the only remaining middle class in a mature society, is the one created by government jobs. What we need to consider here is that we will eventually go in exactly this direction. Once a small proportion of the society controls a large part of the wealth, they tend to engage in "nepotism" of a sort that maintains and increases their wealth. If you don't think this is happening today, look up Senators and Cabinet members, past and present, who sit on the Board of Directors of MULTIPLE "publicly owned" corporations.
Our own government is rewarding the rich in ways not reported often in the news. As a "bonus" for having served corporate interests well in Congress or the Senate, many members leave these posts and then are rewarded a nice Directorship at companies whose principal business they have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever! And then their already considerable wealth is augmented by multiple salaries of multiple corporations. These corporations, in turn, like to garner Federal contracts. And when someone serving the government helps them to do this, they are later rewarded with… OK, you see how the cycle goes.
Free-market economies also develop in a well-established way. They begin with subsistence farming that eventually produces a surplus, allowing for trade to develop. Those who work the hardest and trade the smartest, move out of farming and into larger business. These businesses require a more educated class of citizen, and thus business and education continue to develop together. Eventually, this leads to the dominance of a middle class based on production of durable goods, and the economy is ripe with opportunities for innovators and hard workers to move into the upper echelons of the economy. At some point, though, a large percentage of the wealth of a country becomes concentrated with this upper echelon, at which point the middle class begins to dwindle.
Our sad dwindling middle class at this point in time, still believes that with hard work and possibly smart investment (say, in the stocks of "publicly owned" corporations), they can break into these upper echelons. But the very administrations of these corporations now have every incentive to keep newcomers out! What can a lifelong middle manager with 2.3 children and a house in the suburbs possibly do to augment the wealth of a corporate director? Well, at this point nothing except invest their life savings in said corporation, financing their amassing of yet more wealth. And for this, he is not going to be vastly rewarded.
So, over the course of time, the mature societies developed widely disparate economic groups, separated by a very small middle class supported almost entirely by a government providing jobs of an educated but menial nature. And as the poor got poorer and the rich got richer, even the wealthy began to realize that, without some government intervention to "redistribute" some of the vast wealth owned by a small proportion of the society, mayhem would ensue. Thus, it was economics of past free-market economies themselves that spawned the Socialist movement in Europe.
We here in the US, with our reluctance to learn from the histories of others, really need to get over the cold war. Nowhere was it as intensely threatening as in Europe, which back in the day would have been the theater where weapons of mass destruction would have been first used to test the strength of the nuclear superpowers. Yet in Europe, they have well learned that a little Socialism can go a long way to protecting the integrity of your way of life.
We here in the US have to learn that the wealthy won't stay that way, when the rest of society no longer sees a need to do their bidding. We have to understand that when the government and industry is controlled by the same elite group, solely for their own benefit, that revolution really is underfoot. In this case, we will see what France saw in the 1700s and what Egypt is seeing right now. The middle ground, simply put, is to ensure that there IS a middle class that does not struggle too hard to gain subsistence in the form of housing, food, education and health care.
Basically, all of us in the middle class would be placated if our basic needs were met.
This is a sad admission for a country founded on the idea that everyone has equal opportunity to better themselves through education and hard work. It is an admission that in fact, the odds of the massive success we saw in the 1800s and early 1900s, exists in only a very rare occasion anymore. But realism demands that we face this fact, or commence some giant upheaval of our entire society, government, and economy.
Lest this begin to sound like a great idea, this sort of upheaval, I would like to point out that to do so, would relegate the United States back to the designation of a "developing" country, much like current-day China, much like we were 300 years ago. Property values would crash yet again, the value of our currency would be decimated, and any sort of existing wage guarantees or work-related benefits would disappear entirely. People would be back to subsisting off the land OR working very long hours, in bad conditions, for little pay, just as people in the early Industrial Revolution did. Just as people in developing countries do now.
So the question for the United States, over the next 50 years, is going to be this: Would you prefer full economic collapse and rebuilding, including the return of slave wages and subsistence farming? Or would you prefer a little government intervention, in the guise of redistribution of wealth (a.k.a. Socialism) to preserve a higher, yet un-fabulous, standard of living.
What would you choose?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
MOTIVATE!
The first few days of classes has always been an interesting time in the life of a teacher. We prepare for it rigorously. We set up our classrooms, we design instructional materials, we enter our rosters in the grading program and try to remember the names of all the kids.
We deal with bunches of schedule changes, pass out books, rearrange the classroom, go over the records of our new students to see where their strengths and/or weaknesses may be, and order more textbooks. We pass out syllabi and self-assessments.
But mostly we LAY DOWN THE LAW. Yes, this it has been said is the single most important thing you can do in your fist days of a new school year. Veteran teachers tell you it is the activity that will set the tone for the entire year. It can make or break you.
It will let your students know who you are and that you mean business. And they also tell you not to smile. Not until after Winter Break, it is commonly said.
In my classrooms, I have followed a lot of different paths. I have gone over classroom expectations, I have jumped right into teaching, I have conducted foofy little getting-to-know-you activities (hey, I was new once!) than most teachers seem so fond of, and that the kids are so bored with they want to gag.
I also taught a very diverse set of kids, who were of every shade known to mankind, who spoke a multitude of languages, who had vastly different ability levels in math, and who, for some reason, were "earmarked" as the kids who would have trouble with the curriculum.
Well, with hindsight, I know what I would do now.
I would ask every one of my kids in the room to write down one "prejudice" that people may have against some other group of people.
Once everyone had one, I'd write them on the board. I'd try to group them into categories first by what group of people is targeted. Then I'd try to subgroup them into classes of prejudice. You know, moral, intellectual, social, etc…
Well, once this was done, I'd try to dissect them, lead my class on a discussion. Are all black people from low-income families? Are all Spanish speakers illegal immigrants? Are boys better in math and science than girls? Are football players always dumb jocks? Are gay man not tough? Are Asians all smart? Are the kids with glasses all nerds? And so forth…
But the point here, for me anyway, would be this: I want my students to work hard and achieve. That goes for the kids who always ace math, right down to the kids who are really unlikely to pass the class!
The kids who have all the skills to succeed already still have to learn. Maybe they can learn further than the needed material. But they can also learn to communicate better, and build leadership skills.
The kids that are going to struggle, need to learn some study skills that are going to take them to the next level. One that will be useful in other classes. And they need to learn that hard work does pay off.
The kids who have never seen a fraction before, don't speak the language, and have no idea how to use a calculator, are some very sad cases. But they still deserve to LEARN in my class. Maybe I'm only going to teach them some of the classroom vocabulary they will need, and some basic math and how to get it done on the calculator. Hopefully it will be enough to pass this time. If not, it's going to have to be enough so that they can be successful NEXT time!
In reality, these kids in my classes -- no matter what their ability or previous achievement level is -- their INSTRUCTION is bought and paid for. What they DO with it is up to them. And they have the choice, how it turns out.
You can work in favor of the stereotypes, or you can work to beat them. You can show that household income doesn't predict ability. You can show that your home language isn't a barrier to success. You can show that your ethnicity doesn't affect how hard you work. You can show that people of all colors, beliefs, and backgrounds can be smart, and can succeed in the classroom.
Or you can NOT. You can give up. And you can make yourself into a caricature of some stereotype someone will slap on you -- because the negative stereotypes, those exist to knock any- and everyone down.
You could be that over-privileged XXX kid who thinks everything should just be handed to him. You could be that YYY kid who clowns around to hide the fact that they are really not very bright. You could be that ZZZ kid who is lazy, because they have no discipline at home.
Plug in whatever you want for X, Y, or Z. Any one of our kids, can become any one of those. OR they can strike a blow to knock down barriers and make people think twice about pidgin-holing them.
In essence, kids going to school don't rise to the expectations of parents or teachers. They rise to the level of expectation we, as parents and educators, help them set for themselves.
At the end of class, I would ask my students, what are you going to DO this year, in your math class. Their responses could ideally help me motivate them, with their OWN ideas and their OWN goals, when the going gets tough.
Talk to your kids about this, and ask them a bigger question: What are you going to do with this WEEK? This MONTH? This YEAR? Because kids need to start thinking about setting goals for themselves. Kids, even (especially??) teenagers, are going to surprise you with the depth and thought they can bring when answering such a question.
And reminding them of these, their own goals, their own ideas about what they can achieve… Can really help them when things aren't going their way.
More Snow!
Apparently I need to be doing the snow dance! It looks like lots of people are "tuning in" during their snow days. Although I have to guess that isn't the case with our Singapore readers???
Do me a favor, and would each of you send a link for your favorite post, to just one friend you think might enjoy it? I believe that in the US, anyway, I have hit a bit of a plateau in my readership.
If you help me because you enjoy my writing, well, that is the best compliment I think I could ever receive!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
For the Vegan Baker
If you are vegan, love to bake, want to buy made-in-the-USA and are pressed for time, try this!!!
Vegan ready-made puff pastry! Stuff with some cashew-cream "cheese" and some berries and YUMMMMM!
Indian BBQ Cauliflower (vegan)
1 large head of cauliflower, cleaned and chopped
3 T veggie oil
small can of tomato paste
4 T apple cider vinegar
1 tsp ginger root powder
2 ounces tamari
2 cloves garlic, minced
1T curry powder
1 tsp chili powder
1 tsp garam masala
1 tsp cumin
1 T sugar
Pre-roast the cauliflower in a 400 degree oven, brushed with a little veggie oil, for about 30 minutes.
While this cooks, saute your garlic in the remaining oil. Add all other ingredients, and simmer for 5 to 10 minutes.
When your cauliflower is done, toss with your sauce to coat, and serve!
Chestnut-Stuffed Squash (vegan)
4 small winter squashes
15-ounce jar of cooked, peeled chestnuts, chopped
1 cup cooked wild rice
2 stalks celery, chopped
1 small yellow onion, finely chopped
4 cloves garlic, minced
1/2 cup finely chopped fresh parsley
1 T veggie or olive oil
5 slices of your favorite bread, crumbled
1 cup chopped fresh mushrooms
1T each dried thyme, sage, and poultry seasoning
Cut your squashes in half (whichever way will be best to fill them) and place cut-side down on an oiled baking sheet. Bake at 400 degrees for 30 minutes.
While these are baking, lightly saute your mushroom, garlic, onion, celery and parsley in the oil. When they are nice and done, mix with your wild rice, chestnuts, spices and crumbled bread.
Fill your partially-baked squash with your stuffing. Return to your baking sheet, cover with foil, and continue to bake for 25 more minutes. Remove the foil and bake an additional 5 minutes. Enjoy hot right from the oven!
Crazy Cashew Pesto (vegan)
1 large bunch of watercress, cleaned and coarsely chopped
3T olive oil
1/2 cup cashews
2 cloves garlic (optional)
pinch of sea salt (optional)
Saute your watercress (and garlic) in the olive oil for a few minutes. Transfer to a food processor with the cashew nuts, and process roughly, so that nut pieces are still visible. Serve over your favorite pasta, warm or cold.
The watercress is a little bit bitter, and the cashews sweet and buttery, so the combination is really nice together!
EASY Vegetarian Biscuits-n-Gravy
1 cup prepared TSP (you know if you want this recipe vegetarain!) OR
two 8-ounce packages of smoky tempeh, crumbled
1 can condensed cream of mushroom soup
1 T marmite
1/2 cup water
1 tsp corn starch
Pour your mushroom soup into a saucepan. Combine your water and cornstarch (shake well!), and add to the soup. As it heats, stir in your Marmite and soy product of choice. When it is piping hot, ladle over biscuits and serve!
Vegan "Pate"
3 T veggie oil of your choosing
8-ounce package of tempeh, crumbled (smoky is great if you can get it!)
1/2 cup finely chopped onion
2 stalks finely chopped celery
1 large clove garlic, minced
1 cup mushrooms, cleaned and sliced
2 T tamari or shoyu
2T red wine of your choice
1-2 T cracked black peppercorns
Sautee your tempeh, garlic, onion and celery in the veggie oil until onion is translucent and starting to brown. Add your mushrooms and saute for a few more minutes. Stir in the tamari and wine, and simmer until most of the liquid has cooked off. Let this cool for at least 30 minutes.
Transfer your sauteed goodies to a food processor, and process until completely smooth. Add the cracked peppercorns after this!
Pour into a mold or oven-safe bowl, and bake at 400 degrees for about 20 minutes. Refrigerate for at least two hours after cooking, and serve cold!
Potato Leeky Quichey
pie crust (going to assume you've got this covered hehehe)
4 potatoes, peeled and sliced thin1 cup cleaned and chopped leeks
1 T butter
6 eggs, or 3 eggs and 4 egg whites (healthier)
1/2 cup milk
pinch or two of ground white pepper
Sautee your leeks in the butter. Layer your potatoes in the pie crust, with your sauteed leeks. Beat together your eggs, milk, and white pepper, and pour into your potato-leek filled crust. Bake at 350 degrees for approximately 40 minutes. YUMMMMMY!
Unusual Rapini
1 pound rapini, cleaned with stems trimmed
1 bunch of green onion, chopped
2 T yellow mustard seeds "smooshed" with the back of a spoon
2 T butter
First, you may be wondering what the heck rapini is. Well, it's the greens from broccoli, and is high in many vitamins, including K and potassium! Blanch your rapini for a couple of minutes in salted, boiling water. Drain it.
In the butter, saute your green onions and mustard seed for a couple of minutes. Add your blanched rapini, and continue to saute until thoroughly cooked and tended. ENJOY!
New Mediterranean Lamb
6 cloves garlic, coarsely chopped
2T olive oil
zest of one lemon
1/4 cup finely chopped fresh oregano
2-3 pound bone-in or boneless leg of lamb
Combine the first four ingredients. Place your lamb, fattiest side up, in a roasting pan, and score the top of the roast. Rub with mixture of garlic et al. Bake in a 325-degree oven for 20 minutes per pound, for medium rare. Let sit 10 minutes before carving.
Got Papers?
I am the direct descendant of someone who came here, to the United States, as an illegal immigrant. My great-grandfather, Paulo Biacco, was an Italian merchant marine who jumped ship in Philadelphia, with a dream of being an American.
The details are unclear, but one thing I can tell you, knowing a little about the town he was from -- people were poor! There is no way I can conceive of, that my great-grandfather could have found passage over to the United States, except as a part of his job.
Now, once he was here, he remained undocumented. These were not times of persecution in Italy. He wasn't some important political figure who was seeking asylum. He was just a poor guy from the hills who believed that in America, there was opportunity for work that would pay well, and a chance to raise a family.
So, why remain undocumented? Well, for one thing, it probably didn't occur to him at the time he arrived, that he needed papers. He never needed them in Italy. It's not like in the early 1900's, everyone had a social security card. He was able to obtain work easily, open a bank account, get married, buy a home and start a family, without any questions about whether he was SUPPOSED to be here or not.
And work and raise a family, he did. Speaking only Italian at first, he primarily worked with and lived near other recent Italian immigrants. And perhaps if he had realized he needed "papers" he still would not have understood what to do to get them.
My great-grandfather fell in love with, and married, a legal immigrant to this country -- my great-grandmother, Maddalena Ferro. SHE never felt the need to learn English, as he did. But then, she stayed at home raising the family. All her neighbors spoke Italian. And to be honest, at this time in our history, people could be downright prejudiced against Italian, Irish, and Polish peoples. So she kept to herself and worked toward that American Dream of my great-grandfather.
Well, eventually my great-grandfather got old and ill. That is when the issue of his citizenship came up. When he started looking into a proper burial, was when it became apparent that he actually NEEDED to be documented. And he did what he was supposed to do, having lived, worked, and PAID TAXES in the United States for over 40 years… He got a Social Security card. He was never naturalized.
Luckily, his children were all American-born and therefore had no impediments to their citizenship. Two wound up home-makers, and one wound up a nurse, midwife, and later a nursing home administrator who worked her entire life, and paid her taxes, and never once questioned that America is the greatest nation in the history of the World.
That would have been my grandmother, born Pasqualena Biocco, later in life to become Pauline B. Cranmer. She was tough as nails, a mother and businesswoman, and a true Patriot.
My grandmother herself had three children, who all have lived, worked, and paid taxes in the US of A their whole lives. And these three children, my mother included, have produced six more children who all live and work and pay taxes, and between us six cousins, we now have five children of our own. Who aspire one day to live, work, and pay taxes in the greatest country the World has ever known.
Yes, I know that illegal immigration is, well, ILLEGAL. And I know that now, 100 years later, the issue of secure borders is more important in ways we never imagined 100, or 50, or really even 20 years ago.
The thing is, the REASON people come here illegally, and remain here undocumented, are as varied as people themselves are. And it's really not a great idea to sweep them all into one category, "illegal", and then waste so much time and energy to root them out and send them packing. Some will really make positive contributions to their communities and our society.
Now, I would advance one idea alone, as a start, to find out who really belongs here…. DO YOU WANT TO PAY YOUR TAXES and be here legally? Yes, that is one idea, because just about all the illegal immigrants WISH they could be legal. But would you go so far as to pay your taxes, if you were granted more permanent admission?
This doesn't mean we have to grant CITIZENSHIP to every person who comes in on a travel visa and stays (a much easier way to get here than what most people think usually happens), or sneaks across the border. But work papers, and PRESTO, you are no longer undocumented, no longer looking over your shoulder and fearing deportation. Your kids are no longer worried in school that you will be found out, or that they may be separated from you. And you are now doing your part in paying for some of the benefits you receive by being here in the US.
If we could set a time frame so that all people who were undocumented, and passes a criminal background check, could get a Social Security number and green card… Well, then MAYBE we could start requiring SCHOOLS to ask for proof of legal residence when kids enroll. Because right now, THEY DO NOT!
Most people would be shocked to hear this. And many think that kids of foreign nationals are a big drain on our economy. Maybe they are. But do the police have time and financial resources to waste, finding all these peaceable, otherwise law-abiding "illegals"? Heck NO! And do the States mandate that schools help? NO! So there is a common misconception that illegal immigrants are waltzing in here and lying to get their kids in school.
Well, they aren't lying to get jobs, either. A free-market economy pretty much ensures that people who want to hire below minimum wage, can. They hire contract workers from someone less scrupulous, who themselves are legal, but employ people here illegally. And we can try to root out these employers, but again, do our police have lots of spare time and money for this?
This practice reaches into every area of our lives. These immigrants are not largely out there telling a bunch of lies to gain the benefits of our society. They are going where people who speak a language they understand, tell them they can get work right away to feed their families. And they want their kids to go to school so they don't have to do manual labor their whole lives!
Oddly enough, I hear people who are SUPPOSED to be in the news business, saying this politician or another are courting the vote of illegal immigrants. Well, guess what? The illegal ones aren't voting! DUH! You need either a Social Security number or Driver's license to register to vote… And either of these would require that you provide proof of legal residency! OK, so maybe some folks here illegally are getting fake driver's licenses… BUT if they did, and got caught with it, or tried to use it to register to vote -- they would be found out. AND guilty of a crime. Think they are risking that?
Now, say we give all the "illegals" two YEARS to get the paperwork in. THEN we start requiring schools to ask for proof of legal residency. All of a sudden, we can spot MANY illegals this one simple way; they have a school-aged child at home with them!
In just about any neighborhood, a kid who is 7 or 10 or 15 and not going to school, is going to stand out like a sore thumb. And THEN we have some cause to go inquire. Because it's the LAW that the kids go to school. And if you have some idea that the kids are NOT in school, then there's your precedent to go pay a visit. And ask why the kids aren't in school. And then come back in a month and check.
When these kids STILL aren't in school, then you have a reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. And you haul them in for questioning, etc.
Now, who does this NOT catch? Clearly the people who come here illegally for something OTHER than to work and raise their family. Maybe some unattached 20-somethings. Or maybe it misses the people who are really here to do us harm. And then it nets a bunch of families that are relatively peaceable and hard-working. BUT they still aren't paying their taxes, darn it! THEN I do not feel quite as sorry for them.
Yes, if my great-grandfather had come here not 100 years ago, but today, he would not have been able to remain so undocumented. But he wanted to be legal, and was given the chance. And he PAID taxes. And he has brought about 15 future taxpayers by his living here.
Had he not wanted to pay taxes, this plan would, with my plan, cause him a lot of pressure to get legal, or get out. Because then he could not have gotten a free education for his three children, without getting "legal".
KEEP the people who WANT to be legal AND contribute. Too bad for the rest. It's a different World and different country than it was 100 years ago. We can't be as free with our borders or our tax dollars. But we can't waste all that money hunting them down, either, without some change in the way we do business, and without some "just cause" to isolate who may be here illegally.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Race to the Top
In case you were wondering about the President's quip about Race to the Top in the State of the Onion address...
It seems to me like this could be a good thing, and has certainly helped in Georgia. Now if we can get Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, and Maine to jump on board, that would be nice too!
Founding Fathers
Who the heck were our Founding Fathers, and what did they personally believe in?
Well, for one thing, they were all well-educated, many remarkably so for their time, and they also were relatively financially successful people. And they weren't all a bunch of Free Masons, as many conspiracy theories, books, and movies would have you believe. When they framed the Constitution, there are several things they had in mind.
One thing they considered was religious freedom. The general consideration of the day, was that they wanted to see decent, educated people with strong Protestant values elected to office. Yet they were sensitive to the issue of religion, and wisely deemed that neither religion nor morality, should be questions directly addressed by the budding American Constitution.
Another consideration was educational requirements of voters. They favored people being able to read, if they were to be able to vote. This, in a time when adult literacy rates among adult white males in the US was less than 60%. That would mean approximately 25-30% of the people inhabiting the newly minted United States, would be eligible to vote.
Some also wanted people who wished to vote, to own land. Well, that wasn't typically exclusionary at the time… Unless you are considering women and slaves!
You see, our Founding Fathers wanted the people who would elect their own government to be smart, hardworking landowning men. Because of the prevailing social context of the day, it was never really considered that women have the vote, nor anyone not of European descent. At the time, the standing of a black male was in question, as to whether or not he would qualify as a "man" under the eyes of the law.
But times change, and luckily our Constitution had a built-in capacity to change with the times. Thank goodness that now, more than 95% of the law-abiding adult citizenry can vote, thanks to Amendments. Thank goodness that people of all colors are considered equal under the law, thanks to Amendments. Thank goodness that now, we don't squander our nations intellectual resources by providing inadequate education to a large part of the population, because of Amendments -- because now we are all truly equal.
But it's really easy to fall into a trap of thinking our Constitution, or the men who wrote it to be the amazing document that it is, was perfect as written. It was not, and the Founding Fathers knew this. This is why there was a provision for Amendments to be made. To take care of any of these little details that might come up later!
So, in historical and social context… In America in the 1770s and 1780s, it was very likely that most people feared a tyrannical government. They of course were thinking of the British. And so the Founding Fathers did a pretty magnificent job of ensuring that no foreign forces would want to come in and take over against our armed population.
And armed we were. Most households outside of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the likes, relied on hunting to provide for their families. And some intrepid folks lived out on the fringes, on the frontier. It was quite likely that they might sometime confront a bear or mountain lion in the wilderness, an angry buck or stampeding buffalo even. These were the realities of the day. Guns made a lot of sense!
The thing is, tell me when the ownership of guns by most of the population, could have saved us from some tyrannical government? Well, hmmmm, an armed population really didn't do jack SH%T to prevent 9/11. So that one is out.
Oh! We were attacked at Pearl Harbor! No, wait, arming the population at large really wouldn't have been terribly effective then, either.
I'VE GOT IT! That war of Northern Aggression thing! YEAH! That's when it was a good thing that most people owned guns. Oh, wait, that tore our country apart and was a complete disaster.
So it is just SLIGHTLY possible that the INTENT of our Founding Fathers, that we be able to defend ourselves if Britain or France or Spain wanted to make a move on us, just MAYBE isn't as relevant as it was 250 years ago.
Sure, we still have to confront bears and mountain lions here on the Frontier in Virginia. If by that you mean the one person in one million who will be robbed or assaulted at knife point.
Then again, the need to defend your honor against A$SH0$ES cutting you off on the toll-road or those annoying guys with the white shirts and bicycles, is ever-present. As is the need to eliminate that neighbor's dog who won't quit barking. Or that damned politician who beat my guy in the last election.
Today, of course, these needs are pressing and we have to consider that these offensive elements might, themselves, be armed. So, in order to truly protect ourselves from them, we need BIGGER, FASTER guns. We need M-16s and AK-47s and semi-automatic handguns with clips that hold 30 rounds. Because you just never know about those damn LDS kids on their bikes.
And you know, I'm pretty sure that, even though homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, and even though it is a part of History back to ancient Greece -- I'm pretty darn sure that the Founding Fathers didn't take THAT into account. And even if they had, homosexuals would probably faced the same fate as many a suspected Witch in Salem did 100 or so years before.
Needless to say, the Founding Fathers really didn't give much thought to who was, and was not, considered a "man". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but we had a bunch of pretty liberal-minded yet devout Christians framing our Constitution. And I can't really say that, other than wanting voters to be smart enough to, say, pick up a leaflet or newspaper and read about the issues, the candidates, the platforms -- I really can't see that they wanted to be discriminatory.
That "woman" could be considered the equal of "man" one day, just wasn't a concept they were familiar with. That "black man" could be equivalent to "man" one day, wasn't something they were familiar with. In our times, I think it is safe to replace the term "man" with "human being".
So, I have to wonder…. If a man is gay, does that mean he is NOT a human being? Not a "man"? Or is a gay woman not also a human? The government is set up to provide Rule of Law. NOT Rule of Church, or even Rule of Morality. Back when the Founding Fathers wrote the basis of all our current Law, adultery or even pre-marital sex would have been considered a serious threat to one's standing in the community, let alone a reason for impeachment from any public office. Today, we scoff at elected officials having relations outside of marriage.
Although adultery is still a crime in 20 States, it usually results, if proven in a court of Law, in a fine. And oddly, most of these laws went on the States' books in the early 1900s, not when our Founding Fathers lived and breathed.
You see, Morality is and always has been a personal matter. Until your immorality adversely affects someone else, it's your business. Our Founding Fathers would have seen it as between you and God -- because that was the social context of the day. They did not INTEND to codify Morality into Law… That is not the business of a government of man.
Regardless of how you view homosexuality, it exists. And regardless of how you view the Law, it too exists. There is no language in our Constitution barring any identifiable group, to be denied basic rights of citizenry. And the only omissions, were those just not foreseen at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.
So unless you deny the very HUMANITY of gay, lesbian, transgender or bi-sexual people, it would be unlawful to discriminate against them. Period.
Judge not, lest you be judged!
And further, the Constitution does not say anything about guaranteeing an education to all of the citizenry. Maybe this too, was an oversight. With more than 85% of children nationwide, graduating from high school, I can see where this argument could be made.
Certainly, if ANY government, at the County, State, or National level, is going to fund some sort of public education system -- it must be free of bias, for or against any groups. It should be totally unacceptable, for instance, to deny an education to the child with a disability, or to deny them one that is relevant to their needs. It should be unacceptable to have segregated schools. It should be unacceptable to force the child who does not believe in God, to utter the word "God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance. And it should be unacceptable to enforce our standards of morality on students -- even ones who are gay, who follow Islam, who speak Spanish, who have a lisp, who get pregnant at 13, or (GULP!) think Hitler was a genius.
And clearly, the Constitution did not expressly bar people who are functionally illiterate from voting. Or people who are bigoted. Or fundamentalists in any religion. Hallelujah, yes, even the ignorant -- be it through their own devices or otherwise, are eligible to vote in our blessed country! Nope, you don't have to be able to pick up a newspaper and read it, much less understand the Constitution OR what any of the candidates for office are saying, in order to have YOUR say in our government. Good intention of the Founding Fathers notwithstanding.
In fact, there are some people who still have to demonstrate literacy and understanding of our Constitution and government, in order to vote. These would be naturalized citizens. Because, of course, we sure don't want any darned illiterate ignorant immigrants coming in here and messing up our country! But if you were born here, of course you understand all these things inherently. Of course.
As an American, you have to take the bad with the good. Because that's what we, the human race, are. We are a big mixture. Of beliefs. Of religions. Of languages, sexual orientation and sexual activity, of political leanings… Of good and bad. And our country represents us, all.
Benjamin Franklin, no formal education past age 10, identified himself as a Deist, and was a slave owner briefly, but turned into an anti-slavery advocate.
George Washington, educated only to age 15, attended Anglican/Episcopalian, Catholic, and Quaker services, and was a slave owner.
Thomas Jefferson, attended college at William and Mary, admitted to the Bar, and was Anglican/Deist and a slave owner, but also signed into law the end of the slave trade in Virginia.
James Madison, educated at what is now Princeton, an Anglican/Episcopalian and slave owner.
John Adams, attended Harvard and was an Episcopalian/Anglican or Unitarian in different periods of his life.
Alexander Hamilton, attended Queens College and was most closely affiliated with the Presbyterian church, and was an anti-slavery advocate.
Samuel Adams, attended Harvard and was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
Patrick Henry, educated at home, was considered Catholic or Anglican.
John Hancock, attended Harvard and was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
Thomas Paine, elementary school education, considered a Deist.
Roger Sherman, grammar school education, was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
John Jay, attended what is now known as Columbia, and was Episcopalian/Anglican and an anti-slavery advocate.
Gouverneur Morris, who had attained a Masters degree, was not a fan of "organized" religion but who was identified as a Deist.
AND
James Wilson, studied at various colleges in Scotland without attaining a degree, and was an Episcopalian/Anglican.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Monday, January 24, 2011
Got Turkeys?
You know, as a kid, our family moved all the time. I had to change schools and make new friends almost every year, for about 5 years in a row, at one point.
As a young adult, i suffered through my parents getting a divorce.
With the birth of my first child, I learned that I was never going to have another. I was never going to be able to have those three girls I thought were in my future… Katie, Leah and Maggie. Yes, I had the names picked out.
I was the victim of both an assault and a sexual assault in the past. I knew, loved, and lost all four of my grandparents. I have had jobs and bosses that reduced me to tears.
I have had a dislocated clavicle, a dislocated shoulder, even a dislocated hip. I have torn a rotator cuff twice, broken my nose three times, and had countless other broken bones, cuts, scrapes, and trips to the emergency room.
And you know what? I have NOT suffered any more in this life, than anyone else. My pain has been no more, or no less, real than any other person's. It has been no greater and no less.
There had been this saying, in the 70's and 80's… Don't let the turkeys get you down. This was Boynton, to be fair. And it's something my Grandma, God bless her soul, used to tell me.
But this silly idea, the funny saying, has a deeper meaning for me.
Every time someone is mean to you, disrespects you, insults you, tries to crush your dreams -- respond with kindness. When someone tries intentionally to hurt you, be it physical, financial, emotional, whatever -- it is OK to hurt a little. But don't let them know it!
Don't let the pain of life, harden your heart. Don't let the meanness of small-minded people, make you stop trusting. Don't' wear your hurt as a badge. Don't disengage.
I know, this sounds so great as advice, but who can really follow it themselves, when the chips are down? When life is sucking at it's hardest?
If you ALLOW yourself to become hard, closed-off, disillusioned, cynical, or wary of people… Then the TURKEYS have won! Misery, it is said, loves company. How can you let them do that to you!
So, the next time life throws you a curveball, gets you down, hands you lemons… Look it right back in the eye and say "Is that all you got?". If you have someone who loves you, your health, and even maybe children to treasure… DO NOT let the turkeys win!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A Quickie...
QUICK! Name a brand of FRESH FRUIT!
OK, who said Chiquita banana? Who said Dole pineapple? Did anyone go as far as POM pomegranates?
Once you've done that, scroll down. Yes, be patient with me...
The BRAND of our produce, many times, isn't expressly told to us. SO, how did you KNOW? I would venture a guess that, unlike many fresh fruits and veggies, we have seen COMMERCIALS for these few things. And it left an impression.
Now, that isn't to say all my bananas, pineapples, or even pomegranates are branded. They probably aren't. But those few commercials left their mark.
And do we argue that advertising works, or doesn't work? Better yet, who is most susceptible to that advertising? Well, has anyone ever gone into the grocery store and had their kids just BEGGING, pleading for some Cap'n Crunch or some Cookie Crisp? OK, so the kids are young. And we make our best attempt to steele them against corporate brainwashing in the form of advertising, as they learn and grow.
Can we argue with the success of QVC or HSN, which are basically retain outlets, hosting one infomercial after another just to make sales? Who is most susceptible to THESE marketing attempts?
Did you think of the elderly, who live alone and really don't have any contact with the outside World, other than the occasional family member coming to visit? Maybe they don't get out to WalMart much to see what prices are really like, or to realize that the As Seen on TV things are in fact available everywhere. Or maybe they are just bored, and react to these commercials because it's the closest thing they are going to get, to true human interaction -- when they pick up the phone to place the order.
Maybe you thought of the uneducated, who might find it difficult or even impossible, lacking a basic understanding of math or economics, to make wise buying decisions. These folks, in the absence of any other argument to the contrary, might say "Well, that sure seems like a good idea to ME..." and buy, not even knowing there is a better, cheaper alternative somewhere.
Or did you think of the slightly off-center people, who can be talked into just about anything given time. Those of infirm mind, who are less able to fend off a persistent message, even if they have had the education and social experiences that SHOULD have allowed them to politely say "No thanks.".
Well, there we have it... Advertising works. Not just on the children and elderly, the uneducated or infirm. But those groups might be more susceptible than many.
So now, go back to the part you scrolled down to, and replace the idea of advertising with political vitriol, or suggestions to "take aim at" and "take out" your opponents, or 2nd Amendment remedies, or something of that ilk. Put in with those, the idea that providing healthcare to more people or limiting the accessibility of extended clips for semi-automatic weapons, as being "tyrrany".
And then just stop to think for a second: Who would be most susceptible to THOSE messages?
I would go so far as to say that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sharon Angle, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are NOT to blame for any mass shootings. But the fact remains that they are ADVERTISING violence. And who is that message most likely to stay with and affect the most?
You get someone who is most susceptible to advertising, and you send out a barrage of this violent message, and eventually, someone's gonna buy it.
So is it their FAULT? Well, no, of course not. But to prevent this sort of idea to "take back our government from the forces of tyranny, by whatever means necessary" from being acted on, without limiting these's people's rights to free speech... We're going to have to outlaw being really young, really old, really ignorant, or really unbalanced.
As a taxpayer, what is your best solution? Do you want to pay for policing peoples ability to make good decisions and stay above the influence of public personas advocating violence? Or do you want to limit the accessibility of assault weapons. Do you want to give a test to every American, young and old, periodically to make sure they are mentally up to the challenge of preserving peaceful discussion, and not resorting to violence or the threat of it? Or do you want to make it unacceptable for ELECTED OFFICIALS to actively incite people to take up arms?
Just because someone is not at fault, doesn't mean they didn't contribute. And it doesn't mean we can't aspire, as human beings or as a Nation, to higher standards of conduct.
Friday, January 21, 2011
BAD Teacher!
When I was teaching, I had sort of a different philosophy than most high school math teachers, it would seem.
Ask any college-bound senior in high school today, what the formula for success is, and they will tell you it's remarkably easy. If you do the work, then you will get the grade.
The thing is, neither a senior-level college course, or life, works this way. Nor should it.
In life, and hopefully in any senior-level class in college worth a pound of salt, it's more like UNDERSTAND the main idea, and get the grade.
The impetus shifts, then, from "do like I do and you will be fine" , to "know what the hell you are doing, and why, and you will be fine.".
As usual, I credit the culture of standardized testing -- which has only gotten worse with Bush's No Child Left Behind -- with the emphasis being all wrong in American high schools today.
If your goal is to produce a bunch of mimickers who can successfully take a multiple-choice test… Then is it any wonder that our kids are graduating without ANY of the skills they are going to need to be successful at work?
The problem is magnified in math classes. So many of us struggled through them with little-to-no explanation of what the math was supposed to MEAN. And then, as now, when you asked your math teacher "When am I going to use this?" or "What is the point of doing a problem like this?", you got a fairly unsatisfactory answer.
This fact, that even your math teacher can't tell you when you would USE the math, makes students even more likely to become little trick monkeys instead of going for the real understanding. Where are you going to gain that understanding, if not in class?
Well, how does this happen? Where are these math teachers COMING from, that they can't answer a simple question like that?
I'll tell you! These teachers were the kids who always "aced" math with little or no instruction. Many of them never really cared for the WHY part of the math, but they saw what was done and could replicate it with great success.
Because they LIKED math, but didn't UNDERSTAND it, they went for an education in math in college… Where they again aced their classes, but were left to care or not, as the case may be, what the hell the math MEANT.
Upon graduating from college, these math students soon realized that, although they could DO the math, they didn't know what to do WITH the math. So, they went back to school and got a Masters in Education.
After having spent 16 or 17 years in a wholly educational environment, these math majors of course went into teaching. Most believed that it was going to be a piece of cake, since math was so easy.
And then, they were tasked not only with teaching kids who had previously struggled in math, but those who were actually curious as to WHY we study math.
So, in order to keep up their "numbers", these ill-equipped academians did one of two things. Either they failed miserably in teaching, got out, and found a nice retail job… OR they cracked down on the dumbasses they were given to teach, ruled with an iron fist, and said "DO WHAT I SAY BECAUSE I SAID SO!".
What a way to get people to learn.
Sadly, we have Teacher Cadets in our school system in Virginia. These are high school students who one day, want to become teachers themselves. And the vast majority, seem to have been the "Teacher's Pet" who always got the grades. These kids were told, on the basis of their ability to mimic and/or take test well in many cases, that they should think about a career in teaching.
These guys of course needed a recommendation, to get into the program. And the ones who got them, were always the A students. Who are not necessarily the kids for whom UNDERSTANDING is the prime focus.
I took exception to that, too. Only in a very quiet way.
Time and again, as a teacher, I would argue that we needed to include real-life examples of math problems that kids would see in the "Real World". Time and again, I would advance that if they kids understood what the math was FOR, they would understand the how so much better.
And time and again, I was told "We don't have TIME for that". Understanding is so very much secondary, in the American high school, to making the grade. And time and again, I was told that "If I had gone to school for education, I would understand…", or that if I wanted to deal with "applied" mathematics, I should just quit and go back to Engineering!
I'm not saying it was the regular, struggling, caring classroom teachers dumping this on me. This was the message that was hammered into me all the time, FROM THE VERY TOP.
It seemed to me that, in order to be successful as a TEACHER, you would have to forgo being a successful EDUCATOR. To this day, that idea haunts me. As cynical and horrific as it sounds, my best advice to anyone who wants to be a successful EDUCATOR is this: Become a parent. That is going to be your only opportunity, with kids under 18 anyway, to impart true learning and understanding.
I have to tell you, I think I made a terrible teacher. But I'd sure like to think that, based on my nominations from students for Awards, and the number of kids who have told me AFTER HIGH SCHOOL, how much I have helped them… Well, I'd really humbly like to think I was a decent Educator.
The thing is, it's really difficult to be both. In six years, I am not sure if I ever really found the way. I was close, but close is NOT good enough.
What I really want to know here is, who has had this type of teacher? The one who rules by fear and encourages you to mimic instead of understand?
And who has had that teacher who really tried to make you see the POINT?
I don't just mean in math, but in English. In History. In Science. Who took the time to explain that in any job, to be successful, you would need to COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY. Who tried to show you that, if you don't study History, you would have to reinvent the wheel instead of drawing on successful strategies from the past?
And what did each type of teacher mean to you, personally? How did they affect your achievement in school, and AFTER?
And even more, once you understand the distinction… WHO is dreaming of being a teacher (as opposed to an educator)? Surely no one we would want teaching our own children!
As strongly as I feel about this idea of UNDERSTANDING, I grant that I might just be a dumbs myself. I might be missing the point. It's happened in the past, and I'm sure it will again in the future.
But for right now… Can someone tell me, which way is what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)