Is history going to repeat itself as it always has? Here's hoping it doesn't.
In 1960 the United States had an election for president. The winner was the first Catholic to serve as our president. Much rhetoric was espoused about how Kennedy would do whatever the Pope told him to do. That did prove to be wrong. Our country had taken an important step forward.
Kennedy was an intelligent man. Some have said he was one of the top three/four presidents given that accolade. He didn't accept a salary while serving as president. And, I believe, he was very genuine in his character albeit marred with sexual escapades hidden by the press. (Did Clinton think he could be another Kennedy and everyone would turn their heads?)
However, Kennedy was one of the worse presidents we had in getting things accomplished in government. Check his record. His stand against Cuba and the Russian missiles was, in my opinion, the only good thing he accomplished. But when he died and Johnson moved into the White House, it was a drastic change. Johnson was a longtime member of Congress and could pass anything through the legislature—and he did.
Kennedy put "observers" in Viet Nam; Johnson sent soldiers. Kennedy pushed for civil rights legislation; Johnson made it a reality. Kennedy said "…ask what you can do for your country," Johnson gave welfare carte blanche—something for nothing for everybody.
I remember a joke circulating while we were at UF. "After you see the doctor at the free clinic, pick up your government check. I'll get my free pair of glasses and government check for school and we'll meet up at 3 p.m. to protest the government." It took three and a half to four decades to correct those Johnson giveaways.
God forbid, if anything happens to Obama, we'd have another Johnson in Biden in the White House.
Last night's celebrations were not about a Democratic president, it was about an African American becoming president. All the speeches addressed our having a first African American president. If that isn't about race, what is? People weren't celebrating what President Elect Obama is going to do as president. That—what he is going to do as president—is what scares me. I've been there and seen that already.
Obama has no experience to prepare him for the presidency. Some people say that is his plus. Even Kennedy had experience!
And what does Obama want to do with our country? Everything he has said is a return to a welfare state. Our military has not been respected by Democratic party officials since the '60s. Remember our soldiers coming home from Viet Nam and being spat upon? Have we forgotten how the Clintons and their staff treated the military personnel serving at the White House? I haven't. And have we forgotten that under a Democratic president our soldiers were financially below the poverty level in salary and housing? In 1980 our military officers were saying, "If we had to go to war, we don't have time (equipment, manpower, etc.) to pull our pants on."
Being a charismatic speaker doesn't get anything accomplished in our government. Being an African American doesn't get anything done in our government. Being a Chicago political insider doesn't get anything done in our government.
So what does work in Washington? For all the change the Democratic party touted during the election process, their members in Congress/Washington will never relinquish their power for that change—just ask Pelosi. History will rear it's ugly head again—Give me! Give me! Give me!
Then, again, being God would get things done in our government.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
All American Sport
This evening I made a detour on the way home from work to a T-ball game. The rush of wonderful baseball memories flooded over me going to, while at and going home from the game.
My draw to the game was my four and half year old great nephew--Matthew. Until his mom signed him up for the team, Matthew hadn't put a glove on his hand. I doubt he had swung a bat even. Only a hand full of players on the team had played before. The coaches did a tolerable job in getting some basics in before this first game. Watch the ball. Get the ball to a base. Hit and run to first. One foot on the base, the other a step toward the next base. While in the field, put your hands on your knees so you are ready to go after the ball. And, again, WATCH THE BALL!
Needless to say these little boys need more experience running. Playing in the yard and riding tricycles and chasing friends around help strengthen those leg muscles and give more endurance.
The game took me back 26 years to when Wally signed up and played T-ball the first time. That baseball elation kept me on an upper for six or seven years attending his games. I think I may have missed three games he had over those years.
That first team for Wally had only one boy that had played on a team before. Sure you, too, can remember these wonderful moments: The child that hits the ball and runs to first; coach yells "Keep going" so the player runs on the white line (as instructed in practice) to the outfield instead of turning to second base. And there is always the batter that hits and runs to third base. Many of the players don't throw the ball, they chase the runner down.
I remember the night Wally was in the outfield, scooped up the ball and knew he could outrun the batter. He ran all the way in with everyone yelling "THROW THE BALL." As he got just past the pitcher, he heard everyone and stopped, then he looped the ball to the catcher.
Those early baseball years were also full of lots of learning for the players. Of course the skills were developed and honed. Understanding of the game and its objectives were learned. Then there was a shift to strategy with bunting, stealing bases, throwing out the lead runner.
But the greatest growth I witnessed in those ball players was loyalty, support and camaraderie. Wally had a girl on his team for several years. She got hit by a pitch in practice one day and was skittish at the plate after that. But the boys encouraged her every time she got up to bat. I never heard one of them put her down when they lost a game because of her outs. The night she was finally able to swing the bat at a ball instead of jumping backwards, the team and all the parents in the stands went crazy for her. It was bedlam. I can't tell you if she got on base or was thrown out. It didn't matter. The boys gave her the game ball that night even though one of them had hit a home run--home runs usually garnered the game ball. I like to call it building character.
When Wally went to high school and chose NJROTC over playing baseball, I had withdrawal. Heck, he was a great first baseman. At 6 feet 3 or 4 inches with size 13 or 14 shoes, he could put one foot on first base and reach half way to second base! And run? Boy, could he run. A friend of his on another team playing third base commented after a game, "I could hear Wally coming-clomp, clomp, clomp-around second and right at me."
My love for baseball began when I was eight years old; that's when my parents bought our first television. On Saturday afternoons Daddy would sit down in the living room floor and turn on the baseball game. I'd join him. Mom loved watching the World Series every year. In fact her favorite player was Whitey Ford. Do you remember him?
In 1970 C and I moved to Cincinnati, home of the Reds. That summer the Reds moved out of their old stadium and into Riverfront Stadium. We got to some games there. And to be a name dropper--we witnessed Roberto Clemente (Pittsburg Pirate) hit an inside the park home run. I remember C saying "He was rounding second before that ball started coming down."
This was when the Big Red Machine was being built. Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Sparky Anderson, Lee May, Dave Concepcion, to name a few.
After moving south again, the Atlanta Braves took first place for me. I must add that I am a National League fan. I really was hoping the Tampa Bay Rays would be an NL team and was very disappointed they went to the AL.
Baseball is called the All American sport. I love college football and college basketball--not pro. But I love baseball from T-ball to pro.
And I love the baseball movies: Bad News Bears (1 & 2), The Natural, Field of Dreams, Angels in the Outfield, A League of Their Own, Bull Durham.
I hope my little Elliot will play T-ball in a year or two. Attending his games would be top on my list. For now I'll attend and support Matthew in his pursuit of the game.
Tonight I was beaming with pride when, at his very first T-ball game, Matthew's coach presented him with the game ball for his "two great hits." Way to go Matthew Tyler!
My draw to the game was my four and half year old great nephew--Matthew. Until his mom signed him up for the team, Matthew hadn't put a glove on his hand. I doubt he had swung a bat even. Only a hand full of players on the team had played before. The coaches did a tolerable job in getting some basics in before this first game. Watch the ball. Get the ball to a base. Hit and run to first. One foot on the base, the other a step toward the next base. While in the field, put your hands on your knees so you are ready to go after the ball. And, again, WATCH THE BALL!
Needless to say these little boys need more experience running. Playing in the yard and riding tricycles and chasing friends around help strengthen those leg muscles and give more endurance.
The game took me back 26 years to when Wally signed up and played T-ball the first time. That baseball elation kept me on an upper for six or seven years attending his games. I think I may have missed three games he had over those years.
That first team for Wally had only one boy that had played on a team before. Sure you, too, can remember these wonderful moments: The child that hits the ball and runs to first; coach yells "Keep going" so the player runs on the white line (as instructed in practice) to the outfield instead of turning to second base. And there is always the batter that hits and runs to third base. Many of the players don't throw the ball, they chase the runner down.
I remember the night Wally was in the outfield, scooped up the ball and knew he could outrun the batter. He ran all the way in with everyone yelling "THROW THE BALL." As he got just past the pitcher, he heard everyone and stopped, then he looped the ball to the catcher.
Those early baseball years were also full of lots of learning for the players. Of course the skills were developed and honed. Understanding of the game and its objectives were learned. Then there was a shift to strategy with bunting, stealing bases, throwing out the lead runner.
But the greatest growth I witnessed in those ball players was loyalty, support and camaraderie. Wally had a girl on his team for several years. She got hit by a pitch in practice one day and was skittish at the plate after that. But the boys encouraged her every time she got up to bat. I never heard one of them put her down when they lost a game because of her outs. The night she was finally able to swing the bat at a ball instead of jumping backwards, the team and all the parents in the stands went crazy for her. It was bedlam. I can't tell you if she got on base or was thrown out. It didn't matter. The boys gave her the game ball that night even though one of them had hit a home run--home runs usually garnered the game ball. I like to call it building character.
When Wally went to high school and chose NJROTC over playing baseball, I had withdrawal. Heck, he was a great first baseman. At 6 feet 3 or 4 inches with size 13 or 14 shoes, he could put one foot on first base and reach half way to second base! And run? Boy, could he run. A friend of his on another team playing third base commented after a game, "I could hear Wally coming-clomp, clomp, clomp-around second and right at me."
My love for baseball began when I was eight years old; that's when my parents bought our first television. On Saturday afternoons Daddy would sit down in the living room floor and turn on the baseball game. I'd join him. Mom loved watching the World Series every year. In fact her favorite player was Whitey Ford. Do you remember him?
In 1970 C and I moved to Cincinnati, home of the Reds. That summer the Reds moved out of their old stadium and into Riverfront Stadium. We got to some games there. And to be a name dropper--we witnessed Roberto Clemente (Pittsburg Pirate) hit an inside the park home run. I remember C saying "He was rounding second before that ball started coming down."
This was when the Big Red Machine was being built. Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Sparky Anderson, Lee May, Dave Concepcion, to name a few.
After moving south again, the Atlanta Braves took first place for me. I must add that I am a National League fan. I really was hoping the Tampa Bay Rays would be an NL team and was very disappointed they went to the AL.
Baseball is called the All American sport. I love college football and college basketball--not pro. But I love baseball from T-ball to pro.
And I love the baseball movies: Bad News Bears (1 & 2), The Natural, Field of Dreams, Angels in the Outfield, A League of Their Own, Bull Durham.
I hope my little Elliot will play T-ball in a year or two. Attending his games would be top on my list. For now I'll attend and support Matthew in his pursuit of the game.
Tonight I was beaming with pride when, at his very first T-ball game, Matthew's coach presented him with the game ball for his "two great hits." Way to go Matthew Tyler!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Please and Thank You
For Labor Day weekend I traveled to visit Lois Ann, Craig and the boys. I had no sooner stepped in the house and tried to hug necks when Elliot started asking me a question that was certainly important to him--very important. We all hushed and LA helped him slow down and ask me, "Mamaw will you fix it please?"
No matter what IT was, I was going to fix IT! His eyes were sparkling when he ran back into the room waving a knitted hat with two pompoms on it with one pom about to fall off. "Fix it Mamaw please" was his request again. By the next morning it was in perfect shape, and Elliot promptly pulled in on his head and started shaking it. All it needed was jingle bells to fill the house with sound. "Thank you Mamaw! Thank you Mamaw! Thank you Mamaw!" brought tears of joy to my eyes.
C and I were raised to say please and thank you. We taught our children the importance of this simple courtesy along with yes/no ma-am/sir. When only C and I were at the table, we said please pass... and thank you to one another. It was part of who we were.
At dinner one night when Lois Ann was just starting to talk (Mama and Dada were the first two words), I passed her something at the table. She said "too too." We weren't sure what she meant. But we soon figured it out. She was saying Thank You--her third word. All our buttons popped! We were very proud she had learned naturally and from observing us to be courteous.
Courteousness in general appears to be going by the way side these days. Liberty Mutual Insurance is trying to re-introduce it to the masses. I love their advertisements showing people watching individuals do random acts of kindness for others. Yes, they are simple little things that, on the surface, may seem silly to some. But that is where courteousness comes from. One person being kind to another.
It is also a minimal way of demonstrating respect for another human being. Just take the time to recognize, to acknowledge and to ask with sincerity. Little Elliot did all of these.
I have no idea when parents stopped teaching their children to be well-mannered. If anyone knows of a social science white paper out there on the subject, I'd love the url.
A liberal radio station had the education-classroom topic up today. A caller stated he believed the problems in today's classrooms (i.e. poor education) started in the '70s when "we Americans" started caring more about having fun and living for the weekend instead of focusing on the importance of learning, doing a good job, etc. Could disrespect toward anyone interfering with that pursuit of frivolity have started rearing it's ugly head and destroying genteelity?
Another choice might be the women's movement in the late '60s and early '70s. During those days there were women that got vocally upset when men would open doors for them. Back then it wasn't unusual for women to be outright nasty to men for treating them politely. If you are nice to someone and they "slap" you, why would you show them respect at all?
A third possibility might be when parents started coming to school and saying to the administration, "What did your teacher do wrong this time?" It was a time when parents believed anything their child said was the truth.
Actually, this situation was the pendulum swinging too far left/right. It was a time of overreaction. But before the pendulum gets back to center, the damage is done. Parents teach their children that adults in position of power are to be treated with contempt. Could the result of that situation be fueling this time of so much disrespect?
Graciousness isn't only for sophisticated people. Being thoughtful and considerate is not a virtue with caste lines. There is no reason for anyone to be discourteous and impolite to others.
Thank you Elliot for asking with "please" and being sincere with your "thank you." You warm the cockles of my heart. But, most importantly, thank you for asking for my help.
No matter what IT was, I was going to fix IT! His eyes were sparkling when he ran back into the room waving a knitted hat with two pompoms on it with one pom about to fall off. "Fix it Mamaw please" was his request again. By the next morning it was in perfect shape, and Elliot promptly pulled in on his head and started shaking it. All it needed was jingle bells to fill the house with sound. "Thank you Mamaw! Thank you Mamaw! Thank you Mamaw!" brought tears of joy to my eyes.
C and I were raised to say please and thank you. We taught our children the importance of this simple courtesy along with yes/no ma-am/sir. When only C and I were at the table, we said please pass... and thank you to one another. It was part of who we were.
At dinner one night when Lois Ann was just starting to talk (Mama and Dada were the first two words), I passed her something at the table. She said "too too." We weren't sure what she meant. But we soon figured it out. She was saying Thank You--her third word. All our buttons popped! We were very proud she had learned naturally and from observing us to be courteous.
Courteousness in general appears to be going by the way side these days. Liberty Mutual Insurance is trying to re-introduce it to the masses. I love their advertisements showing people watching individuals do random acts of kindness for others. Yes, they are simple little things that, on the surface, may seem silly to some. But that is where courteousness comes from. One person being kind to another.
It is also a minimal way of demonstrating respect for another human being. Just take the time to recognize, to acknowledge and to ask with sincerity. Little Elliot did all of these.
I have no idea when parents stopped teaching their children to be well-mannered. If anyone knows of a social science white paper out there on the subject, I'd love the url.
A liberal radio station had the education-classroom topic up today. A caller stated he believed the problems in today's classrooms (i.e. poor education) started in the '70s when "we Americans" started caring more about having fun and living for the weekend instead of focusing on the importance of learning, doing a good job, etc. Could disrespect toward anyone interfering with that pursuit of frivolity have started rearing it's ugly head and destroying genteelity?
Another choice might be the women's movement in the late '60s and early '70s. During those days there were women that got vocally upset when men would open doors for them. Back then it wasn't unusual for women to be outright nasty to men for treating them politely. If you are nice to someone and they "slap" you, why would you show them respect at all?
A third possibility might be when parents started coming to school and saying to the administration, "What did your teacher do wrong this time?" It was a time when parents believed anything their child said was the truth.
Actually, this situation was the pendulum swinging too far left/right. It was a time of overreaction. But before the pendulum gets back to center, the damage is done. Parents teach their children that adults in position of power are to be treated with contempt. Could the result of that situation be fueling this time of so much disrespect?
Graciousness isn't only for sophisticated people. Being thoughtful and considerate is not a virtue with caste lines. There is no reason for anyone to be discourteous and impolite to others.
Thank you Elliot for asking with "please" and being sincere with your "thank you." You warm the cockles of my heart. But, most importantly, thank you for asking for my help.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Smack-talk or Just Plain Meanness?
Electing a president in our country every four years invigorates and energizes the voters. This particular time around I am basically tired--not because of the candidates and their running mates but because of how long they have been campaigning! It feels as though 2,497 people have been asking for my vote for the past six years.
One convention down and one to go, thank the Lord!
But something happened today to raise my ire. That is what I wish to share with you.
All of you know I consider myself a republican and I am in fact registered as such in my county. This is not a call for you to vote McCain. Those who know me also know I respect the right of everyone to support and vote for their candidate.
My concern today was comments made by radio personalities and the DMC response to McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
The DMC's initial response as read on television referred to Gov. Palin as "the mayor of a city of only 9,000 people." What? This is the Governor of Alaska, not a mayor!
Proper etiquette says we are to use a person's most recent title when speaking of/to them. I don't care why the mayor title was used instead of the governor title. Sen. Obama is not Mr. Obama to me--he is a senator and should be so addressed. Likewise, Gov. Palin is a governor at this point in time, not a mayor.
On a national talk radio station taking calls from all over the country today, announcers were laughing at the fact Gov. Palin "just had a baby in April. She should be home taking care of that baby, not campaigning." That is realllllly setting women in their place! (The announcers were male and female.)
If someone talks like this in trying to convince me to vote for the other person, you just lost my respect. Bring your selected facts and your reasons for support--but be willing to let me stand by my selected facts and reasons for my choice. You won't hear me disrespecting your candidate; don't do the same to mine. That's all I'm asking.
Half the people in the country disagree with me. That doesn't bother me. The other candidate also has half the country's displeasure. What makes the difference is the number of people who take the time to vote.
My mother has voted only once in her life. (She never wanted to be called for jury duty.) What got her to register and vote was the fact she talked smack until she was challenged by C, "You don't vote, you don't talk about it to me. I won't listen to you." Mom definitely wanted to have her say, so she voted!
I find it sad that of the eligible people in our country to vote so few do so. When a country finally gets around to letting their people vote, the television news shows us voters lined up for miles! How I wish that would happen here in the USA.
One convention down and one to go, thank the Lord!
But something happened today to raise my ire. That is what I wish to share with you.
All of you know I consider myself a republican and I am in fact registered as such in my county. This is not a call for you to vote McCain. Those who know me also know I respect the right of everyone to support and vote for their candidate.
My concern today was comments made by radio personalities and the DMC response to McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
The DMC's initial response as read on television referred to Gov. Palin as "the mayor of a city of only 9,000 people." What? This is the Governor of Alaska, not a mayor!
Proper etiquette says we are to use a person's most recent title when speaking of/to them. I don't care why the mayor title was used instead of the governor title. Sen. Obama is not Mr. Obama to me--he is a senator and should be so addressed. Likewise, Gov. Palin is a governor at this point in time, not a mayor.
On a national talk radio station taking calls from all over the country today, announcers were laughing at the fact Gov. Palin "just had a baby in April. She should be home taking care of that baby, not campaigning." That is realllllly setting women in their place! (The announcers were male and female.)
If someone talks like this in trying to convince me to vote for the other person, you just lost my respect. Bring your selected facts and your reasons for support--but be willing to let me stand by my selected facts and reasons for my choice. You won't hear me disrespecting your candidate; don't do the same to mine. That's all I'm asking.
Half the people in the country disagree with me. That doesn't bother me. The other candidate also has half the country's displeasure. What makes the difference is the number of people who take the time to vote.
My mother has voted only once in her life. (She never wanted to be called for jury duty.) What got her to register and vote was the fact she talked smack until she was challenged by C, "You don't vote, you don't talk about it to me. I won't listen to you." Mom definitely wanted to have her say, so she voted!
I find it sad that of the eligible people in our country to vote so few do so. When a country finally gets around to letting their people vote, the television news shows us voters lined up for miles! How I wish that would happen here in the USA.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Reading AND Golf?
Reading is a love of mine. I like escaping into the pages and burying myself in the story/plot the author has penned. At one time I can be reading four or even five books. Like right now. I am trudging through Inventing English by Seth Lerer on the history of the English language, a great love of mine.
Bill Belleville of Sanford, Fla. has written the book River of Lakes about the St. John's River running from south Florida to Jacksonville. Growing up in central Florida, this draws my interest. Both these books are nonfiction.
A biography of John Adams by David McCullough (thank you Ann) I have been nursing for two years now. Took me so long to get through Ben Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I can't read enough about the people of our revolutionary period.
For fiction I have finally been able to start Sara Gruen's Water for Elephants. And with it I am enjoying a historical fiction/biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine by E.L. Konigsburg, A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver. Konigsburg has written several award winning young adult lit books.
With that said, I just finished Carl Hiaasen's nonfiction and latest issue The Downhill Lie. Yes, it is a golf saga, but uniquely written from a journal he kept over 18+ months. At 19 or 20 years of age, Carl gave up golf and didn't pick up the clubs again for 32 years. Having swung a few clubs myself, having a father, brother, husband and son that all played the game, I found "...a hacker's return to a ruinous sport" (subtitle) delightful.
"Ever wonder how to retrieve a sunken golf cart from a snake-infested lake?" And "...the third most distressing thing we witness on the course is a mangy seagull stripping a fish from the talons of a bald eagle--our majestic national bird, being mugged by the avian equivalent of a garbage rat."
Full belly laughs, chuckles and chortles come with every page turning. I even got the innuendos. I felt his pain.
Will those costly lessons shave a few strokes off the score? And how many special putters or drivers are needed to carry in your bag on the course? What about karma? Can expensive pills improve one's game? Tried any lucky hats, watches, amulet, shirts lately?
But the story Carl weaves is more than just golf. It is also about relationships, about father-son-son and husband/father-wife-son and mother-son.
What a wonderful escapade I've been on the past few days with Carl. My appetite is whetted, so I've picked up Skinny Dip, one of Carl's adult fiction books. One of these days soon I'll have to crack it's cover and delve in to more humor set in my Florida. Will my eyes hold on for a few more years? Here's hoping.
P.S. As I write this, Book TV has Joseph Wheelan, author of Mr. Adam's Last Crusade, talking about his new book. Guess I'll have to add it to my list.
Bill Belleville of Sanford, Fla. has written the book River of Lakes about the St. John's River running from south Florida to Jacksonville. Growing up in central Florida, this draws my interest. Both these books are nonfiction.
A biography of John Adams by David McCullough (thank you Ann) I have been nursing for two years now. Took me so long to get through Ben Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I can't read enough about the people of our revolutionary period.
For fiction I have finally been able to start Sara Gruen's Water for Elephants. And with it I am enjoying a historical fiction/biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine by E.L. Konigsburg, A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver. Konigsburg has written several award winning young adult lit books.
With that said, I just finished Carl Hiaasen's nonfiction and latest issue The Downhill Lie. Yes, it is a golf saga, but uniquely written from a journal he kept over 18+ months. At 19 or 20 years of age, Carl gave up golf and didn't pick up the clubs again for 32 years. Having swung a few clubs myself, having a father, brother, husband and son that all played the game, I found "...a hacker's return to a ruinous sport" (subtitle) delightful.
"Ever wonder how to retrieve a sunken golf cart from a snake-infested lake?" And "...the third most distressing thing we witness on the course is a mangy seagull stripping a fish from the talons of a bald eagle--our majestic national bird, being mugged by the avian equivalent of a garbage rat."
Full belly laughs, chuckles and chortles come with every page turning. I even got the innuendos. I felt his pain.
Will those costly lessons shave a few strokes off the score? And how many special putters or drivers are needed to carry in your bag on the course? What about karma? Can expensive pills improve one's game? Tried any lucky hats, watches, amulet, shirts lately?
But the story Carl weaves is more than just golf. It is also about relationships, about father-son-son and husband/father-wife-son and mother-son.
What a wonderful escapade I've been on the past few days with Carl. My appetite is whetted, so I've picked up Skinny Dip, one of Carl's adult fiction books. One of these days soon I'll have to crack it's cover and delve in to more humor set in my Florida. Will my eyes hold on for a few more years? Here's hoping.
P.S. As I write this, Book TV has Joseph Wheelan, author of Mr. Adam's Last Crusade, talking about his new book. Guess I'll have to add it to my list.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Cleaning out the mail
The other day I had so many emails in my inbox I had to start deleting/saving items. Some things I needed to keep because--well, just because.
But what were all those emails about? I was able to break them down into a starting sort of five categories: notes/letters/"check out this link;" notifications; subscriptions (news, politics, etc./businesses); The "Guess what?/Did you know?/This is funny!/Isn't this terrible?!; and the guilt-list of petitions/pass-alongs. I'm sure by the time I finish this entry several more possible categories will come to mind.
I love the notes/letters group. Friends and family touching base and letting me know what is happening in their lives. There are many that have pictures attached. Personal files for a division of these emails help me keep the ones with information I need (or think I need). It is hard to delete any that have photos if I don't download them to my gallery.
Next in the list are notifications. Since I notify my high school classmates of information about fellow EHSers and their families and upcoming events, I look forward to receiving these mailings myself. One of the churches I have been visiting has me on the mailing list for the prayer chain. In comes the request; up goes the lifting. These, too, are treasured.
What about the subscriptions? Well, most of them I put myself on. No one to blame but moi. The catalogue sites selling things I'm hesitant to drop because I just might need them one day. However, many of those I have never placed an order with. And JoAnn's fabrics sends coupons I just might use one of these days. And I need all the ammunition I can get from the GOP in this election year!
Now I get to the emails that sometimes rub me the wrong way--the Guess What? etc. set. The funny ones I check out and delete on the spot. I do enjoy a good laugh the same as everyone else. And I have received awesome photos in this category, especially the ones of earth from the shuttle showing the night/day over north Africa and Europe and , recently, a link to a WWII European theater map with active info.
Also in this division are the "Isn't this terrible?!" spammings. If the sender had taken a moment to check snopes.com (urban legend), they would have chucked it. Most of these are false. If I have time to check them out, I do so and forward (reply all) the link to show the error. Not too many of these items get passed along from me to others these days.
Bottom of the list and at number five is petitions and pass-alongs (great things will happen; bad luck will strike you; "If you believe in God..."). First off, snopes.com reinforces the notion that petitions being signed online are never effective--can't be. So why send them at all? Dump them now and stop the bleeding.
As for guilt laid out on those who don't forward a particular email--just forget it. If you just think about it: Who's going to know? I am more offended by the cutline than the email's original message.
There are also the "erase my answer and put your answer in" and pass along. If I have time and the list is not too long, I MIGHT do it for you, but I will rarely pass it along to others. Guess I'm getting too tired. Besides, no one responded to the last on I forwarded (lol).
A couple of years ago I passed along an email spam I agreed with. I was selective with my chosen recipients. One of them wrote back and said, "You don't need to pass along your agenda to me" (more or less). It caused me to take a second look at what I was sending to whom.
There is a journalistic reminder that "if in doubt, take it out" applies in editing articles. In this instance when editing emails, I would say "hit the delete key."
But what were all those emails about? I was able to break them down into a starting sort of five categories: notes/letters/"check out this link;" notifications; subscriptions (news, politics, etc./businesses); The "Guess what?/Did you know?/This is funny!/Isn't this terrible?!; and the guilt-list of petitions/pass-alongs. I'm sure by the time I finish this entry several more possible categories will come to mind.
I love the notes/letters group. Friends and family touching base and letting me know what is happening in their lives. There are many that have pictures attached. Personal files for a division of these emails help me keep the ones with information I need (or think I need). It is hard to delete any that have photos if I don't download them to my gallery.
Next in the list are notifications. Since I notify my high school classmates of information about fellow EHSers and their families and upcoming events, I look forward to receiving these mailings myself. One of the churches I have been visiting has me on the mailing list for the prayer chain. In comes the request; up goes the lifting. These, too, are treasured.
What about the subscriptions? Well, most of them I put myself on. No one to blame but moi. The catalogue sites selling things I'm hesitant to drop because I just might need them one day. However, many of those I have never placed an order with. And JoAnn's fabrics sends coupons I just might use one of these days. And I need all the ammunition I can get from the GOP in this election year!
Now I get to the emails that sometimes rub me the wrong way--the Guess What? etc. set. The funny ones I check out and delete on the spot. I do enjoy a good laugh the same as everyone else. And I have received awesome photos in this category, especially the ones of earth from the shuttle showing the night/day over north Africa and Europe and , recently, a link to a WWII European theater map with active info.
Also in this division are the "Isn't this terrible?!" spammings. If the sender had taken a moment to check snopes.com (urban legend), they would have chucked it. Most of these are false. If I have time to check them out, I do so and forward (reply all) the link to show the error. Not too many of these items get passed along from me to others these days.
Bottom of the list and at number five is petitions and pass-alongs (great things will happen; bad luck will strike you; "If you believe in God..."). First off, snopes.com reinforces the notion that petitions being signed online are never effective--can't be. So why send them at all? Dump them now and stop the bleeding.
As for guilt laid out on those who don't forward a particular email--just forget it. If you just think about it: Who's going to know? I am more offended by the cutline than the email's original message.
There are also the "erase my answer and put your answer in" and pass along. If I have time and the list is not too long, I MIGHT do it for you, but I will rarely pass it along to others. Guess I'm getting too tired. Besides, no one responded to the last on I forwarded (lol).
A couple of years ago I passed along an email spam I agreed with. I was selective with my chosen recipients. One of them wrote back and said, "You don't need to pass along your agenda to me" (more or less). It caused me to take a second look at what I was sending to whom.
There is a journalistic reminder that "if in doubt, take it out" applies in editing articles. In this instance when editing emails, I would say "hit the delete key."
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Living in 3D
I saw my first 3D movie in the '50s. Those paper glasses were a hoot. But they brought the pictures right up to your face. I really didn't see too many of them though. Not that many 3D movies came to our State Theater. We did get lots of B movies (Doris Day and Rock Hudson over and over and over again!) and some westerns.
Then along came Disney in the '70s to central Florida bringing 3D and the paper glasses to the forefront again. They added special affects with wind, water and tickles that made the experience lots of fun.
Being able to see in and out and around the "objects" gave multiple views in the scenes. "Did you see that?" "No, but did you see this?" What fun--and insight.
Trailers for the movie Vantage Point caught my eye this year for the same concept: multiple views of an event. I still haven't seen it but plan to do so. Which angle really did get the truth of the attempted assassination?
And a Law and Order show began with a shooting with loads of witnesses. But for some reason no two witnesses were in agreement about what went down. How could this be?
Actually I believe this really is possible. Our individual observation of an event has our particular priorities of focus/influence. One person may be zoned in on fashion and use that angle for relating his facts. But another person may be cued to electronics and add his two cents worth from that perspective. These examples can go on for ever.
Let's consider taking this model and applying it to other issues such as politics, religion, education, war and peace, economics, globalization, environment--whatever. Each of us has our opinion on these and countless other things. And each of us has our own set of priorities at issue when deciding where we stand and why on the topics. Is one more correct/right/accurate than another? It depends on whether you agree with that person or not.
There are people that look at gay marriages and say yes because--legal rights are at issue; or yes because--pursuit of happiness should not be denied; or yes because--physical attraction shouldn't be denied. Then there are those who say no because--the definition of marriage is one male one female; or no because--the Bible says it is sinful; or no because--even the animal kingdom rejects such unions.
When we each get down to the nitty gritty of our personal reason for our preference, we think that is the only right way to believe on the subject and everyone else just doesn't get it. I remember Daddy use to say, "I might not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
The next step, I think, is in accepting the fact that everyone has a right to his own opinion and priority of focus on all matters. If our debate skills are unsuccessful in changing a person's mind, it is time to agree to disagree.
How many countries in the world allow individual thought among its citizens? What types of government do they have? For all the heated rhetoric bombarding us in the US this election year, I pray we respect one another's right to disagree--no matter how wrong we think they may be.
Then along came Disney in the '70s to central Florida bringing 3D and the paper glasses to the forefront again. They added special affects with wind, water and tickles that made the experience lots of fun.
Being able to see in and out and around the "objects" gave multiple views in the scenes. "Did you see that?" "No, but did you see this?" What fun--and insight.
Trailers for the movie Vantage Point caught my eye this year for the same concept: multiple views of an event. I still haven't seen it but plan to do so. Which angle really did get the truth of the attempted assassination?
And a Law and Order show began with a shooting with loads of witnesses. But for some reason no two witnesses were in agreement about what went down. How could this be?
Actually I believe this really is possible. Our individual observation of an event has our particular priorities of focus/influence. One person may be zoned in on fashion and use that angle for relating his facts. But another person may be cued to electronics and add his two cents worth from that perspective. These examples can go on for ever.
Let's consider taking this model and applying it to other issues such as politics, religion, education, war and peace, economics, globalization, environment--whatever. Each of us has our opinion on these and countless other things. And each of us has our own set of priorities at issue when deciding where we stand and why on the topics. Is one more correct/right/accurate than another? It depends on whether you agree with that person or not.
There are people that look at gay marriages and say yes because--legal rights are at issue; or yes because--pursuit of happiness should not be denied; or yes because--physical attraction shouldn't be denied. Then there are those who say no because--the definition of marriage is one male one female; or no because--the Bible says it is sinful; or no because--even the animal kingdom rejects such unions.
When we each get down to the nitty gritty of our personal reason for our preference, we think that is the only right way to believe on the subject and everyone else just doesn't get it. I remember Daddy use to say, "I might not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
The next step, I think, is in accepting the fact that everyone has a right to his own opinion and priority of focus on all matters. If our debate skills are unsuccessful in changing a person's mind, it is time to agree to disagree.
How many countries in the world allow individual thought among its citizens? What types of government do they have? For all the heated rhetoric bombarding us in the US this election year, I pray we respect one another's right to disagree--no matter how wrong we think they may be.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Now that the primaries are over...
I have read editorials, op-ed pieces and columns written to agree and support or disagree and gripe about the primary process of our two major political parties here in the US. People seem to agree/disagree based on what their personal agenda is, i.e. why my candidate should have won.
The first part of this supposed problem lies with understanding why there are DNC and GOP primaries in the first place. And, please get the facts straight, the two parties do things differently--that means they don't do their primaries the same nationwide. On top of that, each state can and does do the primary the way their state party wants it done.
Why have a primary? Over the years, decades, scores of years, the parties have asked for input from the electorate as to whom they would like to see on the the top of the party's ticket. Remember your American history--it hasn't been that many years since the candidates were selected in smoked-filled rooms. FOR SHAME! How dare they!
And as this shocking and appalling process made headlines, people rose up and demanded better of their political parties. Everyone wants a voter's vote to mean something--count every vote. Is that really necessary? Should the non-political voter be allowed to have his wishes supersede those of political savvy party elite? In other words, selecting a party's presidential candidate needs to be made with knowledge (not wishes), finesse and expertise. Is that possible with a primary system?
There are lots of reasons to give the voters who will be voting in November an opportunity to let the party machine know who and why they support one candidate over another. But should that be binding on the convention delegates?
Evidently the Republicans say yes. Note: McCain has "enough delegate votes" to clinch the nomination. How could the GOP go into their convention and NOT put McCain on the top of the ticket this year?
However, it appears to me the DNC doesn't like the idea of the voters telling them what to do. In addition to delegates selected by the voters, they have super delegates--that is people that get to vote on the issue above and beyond what their membership wants. The super delegates are the politically experienced people who should be allowed to "correct the mistakes" made by their voters. "But can that person get elected?" "We will lose states A, B and C if we go with that candidate."
And we are only just getting started.............
Each state has its own Dem party and Repub party. Are they independent of their national organization? Well, the national group can penalize the state groups if they don't "follow the party line." We certainly experienced that here in Florida this year. The DNC and GOP both told the state parties not to change their primary date to earlier in the year. So where is the problem? Easy, in Florida the parties don't control the date of the primaries--the state legislature makes those decisions. So, is the Florida legislature bound to the dictates of the national political machines? Absolutely not. And don't you know that pissed them off big time! "How dare Florida do what it wants to!"
Let me take a moment here and enlighten those who just don't have enough of the facts. Yes, the Florida legislature upped the date of its primaries because they wanted Florida's voters to have a stronger say to the rest of the country who we believe should be on the tickets. And we want more campaigning in our state by those seeking the nominations. And we want more of the money for the ads to be spent here in our state for our votes. Right now Iowa and Vermont--two lower-population-numbers states--carry a heavy weight in directing the political needle for the other state primaries. Also, those two states garner more visits and ads and monies from the get-go. Why have the two political national committees blessed these two states' voters with that honor? We don't care; we'll position ourselves without their help.
Is this a good enough reason for the Florida legislature (and the state of Michigan) to stand up to the national committees and say, "We'll do what we want to for our state and voters"? Each Florida voter will have to answer that question for himself when the legislature is up for re-election.
Now, the primary system has still another wrinkle in it--caucuses. What really is a caucus and how does it get delegates for candidates? Caucuses are "town meetings" where everyone present speaks up for whom and for why a candidate should get the blessings of their group. Delegates are then selected to attend the national conventions and vote the voice of his group. I don't know of any caucuses within the GOP for primary decisions. There may be--I just don't know about them. BUT I do know some Dem state organizations choose to use caucuses with and without direct vote primaries.
How about another rumple in the process--precinct by precinct delegates or winner takes all delegates? Shades of the electoral college. Those who know me know I strongly support continued use of the electoral college process for electing our president. That is another article all together. (Did you know we do have some [2 or 3] states that ratio their electoral college delegates?)
Again, each state political party organization decides how they want their delegates to be selected/rationed. As I understand it, the republican state groups tend to go with the winner takes all for the entire state. And the Dems seem to prefer "one person, one vote" type decisions--get to the smallest possible form--thus precinct by precinct.
If you stand back and compare the two systems, the GOP primaries are simpler, the DNC more complex. Shades of overall philosophy by the parties, too--that is, IMHO.
You know, accountants will tell you, if you want to embezzle money from a company, all you have to do is go in and double or triple the number of accounts in the bookkeeping system so numbers/money can be hidden. Sorry, but I see this happening with the DNC system. If you want to control the decisions of the voters, just make the process more accessible to "number pushing" by the top execs.
The first part of this supposed problem lies with understanding why there are DNC and GOP primaries in the first place. And, please get the facts straight, the two parties do things differently--that means they don't do their primaries the same nationwide. On top of that, each state can and does do the primary the way their state party wants it done.
Why have a primary? Over the years, decades, scores of years, the parties have asked for input from the electorate as to whom they would like to see on the the top of the party's ticket. Remember your American history--it hasn't been that many years since the candidates were selected in smoked-filled rooms. FOR SHAME! How dare they!
And as this shocking and appalling process made headlines, people rose up and demanded better of their political parties. Everyone wants a voter's vote to mean something--count every vote. Is that really necessary? Should the non-political voter be allowed to have his wishes supersede those of political savvy party elite? In other words, selecting a party's presidential candidate needs to be made with knowledge (not wishes), finesse and expertise. Is that possible with a primary system?
There are lots of reasons to give the voters who will be voting in November an opportunity to let the party machine know who and why they support one candidate over another. But should that be binding on the convention delegates?
Evidently the Republicans say yes. Note: McCain has "enough delegate votes" to clinch the nomination. How could the GOP go into their convention and NOT put McCain on the top of the ticket this year?
However, it appears to me the DNC doesn't like the idea of the voters telling them what to do. In addition to delegates selected by the voters, they have super delegates--that is people that get to vote on the issue above and beyond what their membership wants. The super delegates are the politically experienced people who should be allowed to "correct the mistakes" made by their voters. "But can that person get elected?" "We will lose states A, B and C if we go with that candidate."
And we are only just getting started.............
Each state has its own Dem party and Repub party. Are they independent of their national organization? Well, the national group can penalize the state groups if they don't "follow the party line." We certainly experienced that here in Florida this year. The DNC and GOP both told the state parties not to change their primary date to earlier in the year. So where is the problem? Easy, in Florida the parties don't control the date of the primaries--the state legislature makes those decisions. So, is the Florida legislature bound to the dictates of the national political machines? Absolutely not. And don't you know that pissed them off big time! "How dare Florida do what it wants to!"
Let me take a moment here and enlighten those who just don't have enough of the facts. Yes, the Florida legislature upped the date of its primaries because they wanted Florida's voters to have a stronger say to the rest of the country who we believe should be on the tickets. And we want more campaigning in our state by those seeking the nominations. And we want more of the money for the ads to be spent here in our state for our votes. Right now Iowa and Vermont--two lower-population-numbers states--carry a heavy weight in directing the political needle for the other state primaries. Also, those two states garner more visits and ads and monies from the get-go. Why have the two political national committees blessed these two states' voters with that honor? We don't care; we'll position ourselves without their help.
Is this a good enough reason for the Florida legislature (and the state of Michigan) to stand up to the national committees and say, "We'll do what we want to for our state and voters"? Each Florida voter will have to answer that question for himself when the legislature is up for re-election.
Now, the primary system has still another wrinkle in it--caucuses. What really is a caucus and how does it get delegates for candidates? Caucuses are "town meetings" where everyone present speaks up for whom and for why a candidate should get the blessings of their group. Delegates are then selected to attend the national conventions and vote the voice of his group. I don't know of any caucuses within the GOP for primary decisions. There may be--I just don't know about them. BUT I do know some Dem state organizations choose to use caucuses with and without direct vote primaries.
How about another rumple in the process--precinct by precinct delegates or winner takes all delegates? Shades of the electoral college. Those who know me know I strongly support continued use of the electoral college process for electing our president. That is another article all together. (Did you know we do have some [2 or 3] states that ratio their electoral college delegates?)
Again, each state political party organization decides how they want their delegates to be selected/rationed. As I understand it, the republican state groups tend to go with the winner takes all for the entire state. And the Dems seem to prefer "one person, one vote" type decisions--get to the smallest possible form--thus precinct by precinct.
If you stand back and compare the two systems, the GOP primaries are simpler, the DNC more complex. Shades of overall philosophy by the parties, too--that is, IMHO.
You know, accountants will tell you, if you want to embezzle money from a company, all you have to do is go in and double or triple the number of accounts in the bookkeeping system so numbers/money can be hidden. Sorry, but I see this happening with the DNC system. If you want to control the decisions of the voters, just make the process more accessible to "number pushing" by the top execs.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Reading and loving it
As an avid reader and lover of the written word, I have found it dismaying that so many school children today don't want to read. Realizing that too many students out there don't have all the skills for good reading, I've tried to help by teaching them what they have left behind. That old adage--you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink--comes to life.
What can be done by parents, teachers and society to get these young people to want to read? And, when did they lose the desire to read? Why should we even care if they can/do read?
Without an answer to the last question here, the other two questions don't matter. I remember in my history and democracy classes being told that our form of government can't exist and work for the masses if the masses aren't educated so they can make knowledgeable decisions in the voting booth. That would certainly be an up front reason to want our progeny to be able to read.
Yes, a lot can be said for common sense. But common sense will only get you so far. If you don't know and understand the system, you are at a loss to make much of a difference in changing the world, if only in our won back yard, for the better. Isn't that what we want--a better life for everyone? So, here in the US we have free (mandatory) education for everyone.
Another reason I want my fellow Americans to be able to read is that most of them will become drivers on our highways. I want to be sure they can read the signs out there! To get a driver's license you have to take a written as well as driving test. Can't read--How do you answer the questions accurately?
The IRS needs every worker to be able to read so they can file their annual tax forms. Yes, you can take all the papers to a service and let them file for you, but are you sure what they do for you is accurate? Please file and pay your fair share just as I do. We've got to pay for this government one way or another.
These are just several reasons I want my fellow Americans to be able to read.
The next question in the list going backwards is, when do students stop learning to read? The education system has been working hard to get its hands around this issue and correct it.
Have you ever watched little (pre-school) children with books? They love to be read to. They love to look at the pictures. When they get to chapter books, they love the stories being told in the books. Whole new worlds open up to them on the pages of the books. So what happened to stifle this adoration of the written word? When do children stop checking books out of the library?
I honestly believe this occurs in elementary school when children are required to read as a learning tool--i.e. third grade. Suddenly textbooks are on their desks. They have to read to learn about science, math, civics, music, etc. Teachers tell students what they are reading, so students don't want to take the time to do the reading. Short cut--just tell me.
Science has lots of new words to learn. Math has (LORD HELP US!) written problems to figure out. Civics, including geography and history, tells us lots of stories along with introducing new information about the world we live in. And with music we suddenly have to READ the words of the song rather than memorizing them. What a shock for the pupils.
How can we--parents, teachers and society--change this situation? There are many things we can and are doing. (My hat goes off to the teachers for trying day in and day out to promote a love of learning.) First and foremost, everyone must stress the need and importance of reading. Browbeating won't accomplish this. What about using expectations?
Placing high expectations on students has worked in the past. It needs to be tempered with positive support and praise. Drop the criticism and introduce evaluation: "This is what you are doing right, this is a problem for you and this is how you can change that." Put-downs without examples of how to do it right just turn people, in general, off to whatever you say.
A good next step is to mirror the reading you expect from the children. Just read in front of them. Let them see you reading the newspaper and magazines and books. Let them hear you discuss what you have read with other people. If you don't share what you have read, why should they think it is important? It goes without saying that reading to them is also paramount. No one is too old to be read to. We need to let children see that we love to read so they know it is okay for them to love reading too.
My children had the wonderful opportunity to have a third grade teacher, Mrs. Marx, that brought the love of reading into the classroom. She would read to them about the Greek and Roman gods. The students were in awe of the stories! It wasn't anything they had to remember for a test. It was just fun.
My children also had the example of their parents that were avid readers--newspapers, magazines, books (fiction and nonfiction & textbooks), signs along the road, writing on TV screens, tee-shirts. If it was written, we read it. This can reinforce a sense of naturalness in reading.
However, I grew up in a house where my father seldom read anything. My mother read every word ever written on the newspaper every day! My father read books to me when I was little. And he took me to the library to get my first library card and start checking out books. He supported my reading. When Mom would complain that I was reading instead of doing household chores, he would nudge me to put the book down--not chastise me for it. Saturday mornings I walked to the library to return books and pick up new ones. Sometimes Dad drove me downtown to the library. He always supported and encouraged us children to read.
I think we also fall short with the pupils in elementary school when we don't reinforce many reading skills directly--we sort of take it for granted they are "doing" what they need to for understanding what they are reading. Example: Comprehension. You read the words and you know what they say so you can answer the questions on the written test. Vocabulary. Don't know what a word means, then go to the dictionary. What about defining the meaning from context? Fluency. Reading out loud is not required of all students. And the ones that don't want to read out loud are the ones that really need to practice it! Knowing and understanding the use of punctuation helps with the comprehension and fluency.
Reading is a cornerstone to knowledge. We need to do everything within our power to see our next generation can read and, best of all, love to read.
What can be done by parents, teachers and society to get these young people to want to read? And, when did they lose the desire to read? Why should we even care if they can/do read?
Without an answer to the last question here, the other two questions don't matter. I remember in my history and democracy classes being told that our form of government can't exist and work for the masses if the masses aren't educated so they can make knowledgeable decisions in the voting booth. That would certainly be an up front reason to want our progeny to be able to read.
Yes, a lot can be said for common sense. But common sense will only get you so far. If you don't know and understand the system, you are at a loss to make much of a difference in changing the world, if only in our won back yard, for the better. Isn't that what we want--a better life for everyone? So, here in the US we have free (mandatory) education for everyone.
Another reason I want my fellow Americans to be able to read is that most of them will become drivers on our highways. I want to be sure they can read the signs out there! To get a driver's license you have to take a written as well as driving test. Can't read--How do you answer the questions accurately?
The IRS needs every worker to be able to read so they can file their annual tax forms. Yes, you can take all the papers to a service and let them file for you, but are you sure what they do for you is accurate? Please file and pay your fair share just as I do. We've got to pay for this government one way or another.
These are just several reasons I want my fellow Americans to be able to read.
The next question in the list going backwards is, when do students stop learning to read? The education system has been working hard to get its hands around this issue and correct it.
Have you ever watched little (pre-school) children with books? They love to be read to. They love to look at the pictures. When they get to chapter books, they love the stories being told in the books. Whole new worlds open up to them on the pages of the books. So what happened to stifle this adoration of the written word? When do children stop checking books out of the library?
I honestly believe this occurs in elementary school when children are required to read as a learning tool--i.e. third grade. Suddenly textbooks are on their desks. They have to read to learn about science, math, civics, music, etc. Teachers tell students what they are reading, so students don't want to take the time to do the reading. Short cut--just tell me.
Science has lots of new words to learn. Math has (LORD HELP US!) written problems to figure out. Civics, including geography and history, tells us lots of stories along with introducing new information about the world we live in. And with music we suddenly have to READ the words of the song rather than memorizing them. What a shock for the pupils.
How can we--parents, teachers and society--change this situation? There are many things we can and are doing. (My hat goes off to the teachers for trying day in and day out to promote a love of learning.) First and foremost, everyone must stress the need and importance of reading. Browbeating won't accomplish this. What about using expectations?
Placing high expectations on students has worked in the past. It needs to be tempered with positive support and praise. Drop the criticism and introduce evaluation: "This is what you are doing right, this is a problem for you and this is how you can change that." Put-downs without examples of how to do it right just turn people, in general, off to whatever you say.
A good next step is to mirror the reading you expect from the children. Just read in front of them. Let them see you reading the newspaper and magazines and books. Let them hear you discuss what you have read with other people. If you don't share what you have read, why should they think it is important? It goes without saying that reading to them is also paramount. No one is too old to be read to. We need to let children see that we love to read so they know it is okay for them to love reading too.
My children had the wonderful opportunity to have a third grade teacher, Mrs. Marx, that brought the love of reading into the classroom. She would read to them about the Greek and Roman gods. The students were in awe of the stories! It wasn't anything they had to remember for a test. It was just fun.
My children also had the example of their parents that were avid readers--newspapers, magazines, books (fiction and nonfiction & textbooks), signs along the road, writing on TV screens, tee-shirts. If it was written, we read it. This can reinforce a sense of naturalness in reading.
However, I grew up in a house where my father seldom read anything. My mother read every word ever written on the newspaper every day! My father read books to me when I was little. And he took me to the library to get my first library card and start checking out books. He supported my reading. When Mom would complain that I was reading instead of doing household chores, he would nudge me to put the book down--not chastise me for it. Saturday mornings I walked to the library to return books and pick up new ones. Sometimes Dad drove me downtown to the library. He always supported and encouraged us children to read.
I think we also fall short with the pupils in elementary school when we don't reinforce many reading skills directly--we sort of take it for granted they are "doing" what they need to for understanding what they are reading. Example: Comprehension. You read the words and you know what they say so you can answer the questions on the written test. Vocabulary. Don't know what a word means, then go to the dictionary. What about defining the meaning from context? Fluency. Reading out loud is not required of all students. And the ones that don't want to read out loud are the ones that really need to practice it! Knowing and understanding the use of punctuation helps with the comprehension and fluency.
Reading is a cornerstone to knowledge. We need to do everything within our power to see our next generation can read and, best of all, love to read.
Friday, May 16, 2008
They always have an answer
Here in the USA we are said to have a democratic republic. We elect from our peers people to make decisions for us concerning our governance--city, county/parish, state, country. What do we expect of these officials we have just elected?
Well, it depends upon our feelings about the individual issues on which they make determinations on our behalf. Sometimes these issues are put on ballots so we make the decision in place of them. Isn't that democracy in its purest form--all having a say on what will or will not be? The majority (of those voting) win!
I remember my government teacher, Mr. Dandridge, in high school saying this isn't always right. Why not? Because the needs of the minority must be respected and protected and taken into consideration when decisions are made. Majority rule was not always right.
I still have issues with that focus on many topics facing our governments. Protection, sure. But to deny the majority their choice doesn't sit well with me; it appears then that we have minority rule?
Over the years I have listened to our reps tell us why they have voted on items before them the way they have. "You elected me to vote for what YOU want." Ah, democracy with majority wins! "You elected me to gather the facts and make the decision FOR you." Uh oh. What we, the majority, told you to do you aren't going to do? "You elected me because of what I believe (political party?) should be the focus of our government." Majority OF THOSE WHO VOTED gets to determine how things go? [This is not a true majority since so few eligible voters here in the US actually do vote.]
Have you noticed, as I have, that our reps flip around all three of these reasons to suit their needs? Whatever fits.
No wonder so many people don't vote. How can you feel your vote really counts for anything when the elected choose to do whatever they want to do? But, even with all these bumps in the process, by voting we still get to let our governments know what we want. And with term limits we get to oust those that don't do the job the way we want.
In a culture of instant everything, it is difficult for us to accept that government isn't an instant thing. It can take 10 to 20 years-with many changes in reps-before issues can be resolved by our elected officials and then 10 to 20 more years to see the results we wanted in the beginning. That's half a lifetime! Geeze, waiting nine months for a child was too long for many of us.
There is always a ready reason for why things in governments just don't get done or done the way we want them. But if we don't vote we don't have a right to complain. So vote and then you too can complain or praise the workings of your governments. Better yet--why don't you run for office in any of your governments.
Well, it depends upon our feelings about the individual issues on which they make determinations on our behalf. Sometimes these issues are put on ballots so we make the decision in place of them. Isn't that democracy in its purest form--all having a say on what will or will not be? The majority (of those voting) win!
I remember my government teacher, Mr. Dandridge, in high school saying this isn't always right. Why not? Because the needs of the minority must be respected and protected and taken into consideration when decisions are made. Majority rule was not always right.
I still have issues with that focus on many topics facing our governments. Protection, sure. But to deny the majority their choice doesn't sit well with me; it appears then that we have minority rule?
Over the years I have listened to our reps tell us why they have voted on items before them the way they have. "You elected me to vote for what YOU want." Ah, democracy with majority wins! "You elected me to gather the facts and make the decision FOR you." Uh oh. What we, the majority, told you to do you aren't going to do? "You elected me because of what I believe (political party?) should be the focus of our government." Majority OF THOSE WHO VOTED gets to determine how things go? [This is not a true majority since so few eligible voters here in the US actually do vote.]
Have you noticed, as I have, that our reps flip around all three of these reasons to suit their needs? Whatever fits.
No wonder so many people don't vote. How can you feel your vote really counts for anything when the elected choose to do whatever they want to do? But, even with all these bumps in the process, by voting we still get to let our governments know what we want. And with term limits we get to oust those that don't do the job the way we want.
In a culture of instant everything, it is difficult for us to accept that government isn't an instant thing. It can take 10 to 20 years-with many changes in reps-before issues can be resolved by our elected officials and then 10 to 20 more years to see the results we wanted in the beginning. That's half a lifetime! Geeze, waiting nine months for a child was too long for many of us.
There is always a ready reason for why things in governments just don't get done or done the way we want them. But if we don't vote we don't have a right to complain. So vote and then you too can complain or praise the workings of your governments. Better yet--why don't you run for office in any of your governments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
