I really like this article, it expresses my frustration with our gov't wholeheartedly. I will say this in response to the article - because lobbyists control so many private sector jobs, gov't sometimes has to capitulate to their will, or their constituents lose jobs. But really, in the long run, if the government did its job and held its ground, there'd be jobs to replace the ones lost.
The government is there to be the arbiter between two sets of opposing views; to be the hand that goes between the people about to fight; to be the set of rules that everyone follows; to be the entity that protects the weak from the tyranny of the strong; to be the objective viewpoint and treat everyone the same in the eyes of the laws created. That is the initial intent of government - but it becomes what it becomes because the strong are usually the ones who take control of the government and use it to oppress the weak further so no one threatens their rule.
This has happened throughout history... don't know why it upsets me now, but with us as the last bastion to tyranny, being manipulated by the people with insane amounts of money through news, politicians and other forms of media, it feels like a slap in the face. Religions have been used the same way, as a belief to cull the herd into following along and not stepping out of bounds from their complacency. Worry about the safety of the kids - buy a gun, approve this security measure, vote for the guy who's going to keep your kids safe. Worry about your car and your job and what's coming on TV tonight - what you will have for dinner - but in all cases, buy something and give us your hard earned money.
How do we stop this? Turn off the tube. Stop watching television, stop paying attention to advertisements - everything's the same as the other one, and people will try their hardest to convince you that their's is SO much better than the other guy's. We stop paying attention to news and TV, we'll start becoming more social. It's the only threat to their power anymore - ideas that catch fire. There are far more poor than there are wealthy, and the wealthy are scared of the poor's numbers. They don't want another French Revolution. They don't want the low classes to find out that THEY stole the surplus of social security, and don't have enough money to pay it back. They want us to privatize it, so the banks can gain hold of the remaining resources. They want to cut education so people have to pay to go school - making education once again a privilege, something that has not happened since the early founding days of our country - and I mean the 1600's. They want to use the new resources to pay themselves more money - the debt hounds do this.
Who gives the country money? The Fed reserve creates it and loans it out to the government so the government can pay bills. We give the government money so they can pay off the loans for what they've bought - guns, insurance and medicine, whatever. If they're paying schools and government bureaucracy, they're not paying for the loans they've taken out from the banks, or for new guns, or more of whatever else they buy.
The banks are the worst.
Question: How can the government possibly pay back a loan, when in order to do so they have to borrow more money first?
Answer: They borrow it from a different bank.
The fed reserve creates the money to begin with, and loans it to the government so the government can pay bills. That money goes to the banks to pay for the private loan the government took out to afford the bills from the previous month. The government takes out another loan from the banks, and then deposits it into a different account within the federal reserve to make sure the bills are paid on the money the federal reserve gave the government to pay the banks. In essence, our tax dollars go to pay the loans we take out from the banks, and the fed reserve. SO, to summarize the cycle of money:
fed>govt>banks>govt>fed.
There's no way to pay off the debt, especially when interest is calculated. When the Republicans talk about lowering the debt, they're talking about giving money to the rich, and cutting social programs so they can keep us working and watching TV. When they talk about the second amendment, they're helping the rich keep their money, not their guns. The lobbyists want us to believe that something else is happening - they want us to fear losing freedoms. They want us to praise the politicians who vote down gun regulation laws; they want us to trust the people who hold our currency while they rob us of social programs; They want us to all follow along and march to the same tune to keep them in power and us under foot. Corporations have the potential to be immortal; Humans don't... yet. So, while we bicker and fight over the things they talk about on TV and cable news, they solidify their power structure with laws handed to politicians and signed into law immediately. Monsanto, this gun control law from the article, It's all a play to gain total control over whatever aspect of life they can. They will control our inexpensive foods, and make sure we all get a certain chemical...it's near frightening to think on. It's time for us to take away their control, and stop giving them our money, in my opinion. It's really simple to. Do some research, find out what that company produces, and stop buying it. Simple. Find another brand.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The 'Problem' with Society
Everybody talks about it. Everyone has a different answer for that question we all ask ourselves. What is the problem with our society? Is there a problem with our society? Obviously - we have these school shootings, government building suicide massacres, and crazed bombers willing to sacrifice hundreds of potential victims for their 'cause.' It shows some sort of flaw within our social structure, does it not? I love to hear what people say. For this reason, I give an answer/fact response to what most people consider the reason why these things occur.
1. No God in School - There are several things the Supreme Court has allowed within schools, as well as disapproved. Here, you will see the various landmark cases the supreme court ruled. If one has studied the law of school, or the rights of the students within the institution, one would know that God can exist in school. However, in all cases, it must be the students doing the praying, by themselves, without coercing others through the use of captive audience privileges (i.e. praying in a speech made as an assignment; leading prayer over the loudspeaker, and so on.). Students may pray, but to themselves or in a group of like-minded students without forcing others to participate through the use of peer pressure. This decision was made to protect the religious rights of every student attending the state supported facility. By not forcing a student to pray a Christian prayer against their will - say they do not pray the same way as Catholics, or Methodists, or Lutherans; Maybe they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist - It is actually enforcing that student's right to pray on their own. School's may give a 'moment of silence' as a time for prayer, allowing their students to pray of their own accord. Whether or not they do so is their responsibility. If there is no God in school, it is because the students responsible for praying on their own are not doing so. Why? Are they not being educated at home what the religion they follow expects, or do they simply not wish to do something through the compulsion of religious guilt? Maybe we should be looking somewhere else. Maybe we should think about how socialization can be better delivered through a system of education that has now become the nanny for half of America's families. Maybe we should see what time those violent offenders went through school and what policies were in place during their tenure. That is a better place to start than No God in School. Things take time. Monsters aren't grown overnight. The change needed to end this will take generations to accomplish. Maybe we should be researching new ways to socialize our youth.
2. Gun Control - While this might seem an easy band-aid to put on the problem at large, it does not come close to addressing the real issue of what it is that causes this insanity to occur. But let's take guns - look at the amount of people trying to sell them to you. People are trying to tell you that you need them - they're for safety, to protect you from other people who have guns that want to steal your money. Thing is, how can you tell if a guy has a gun? Then, when you know he has a gun on him, how do you know if he's not going to pull on you at some point and try to rob you? Let's take two images: White man with a cowboy hat and a gun holstered at his side, and black guy in a Nike sports jacket with baggy jeans and Pumas - which one has the FOID card. Which one did you choose? I don't care, it forces a racial decision based on a prejudice built into our culture through images played out on what? Television and media. They show you the second image, with a gloc held sideways and left hand grabbing the crotch. They show you the image of the cowboy gunslinger trying to show off for his lady. But what if, in reality, the FOID card holder was the second image, not the first? Who cares? Both guys have the same potential to rob you with their gun. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the person wielding it. When our society praises the use of guns on television and in movies - heroes solving problems by blowing stuff up, or shooting their antagonist to 'have the final say' - we end up with a society that has an insane passion for guns and violence. PG movies can have thousands of bullets fired, and hundreds of explosions - as long as they don't show sex, say the five no-no's, or show too much blood - any child can see them with a parent. Cartoons have heroes fighting epic battles to save the princess, or save the world, or preserve the whatever. Video Games have people shooting victims, killing for money, stealing cars and then going on drive-by's. We become so desensitized to the reality of violence, we laugh. When it happens in life, we wonder why such a thing could possibly happen. And people say gun control is the problem?
3. Mental Health - once again, we attempt to put a band-aid on a problem rather than find a solution, or attempt the solution. Why are so many of our children being diagnosed with depression? Why do so many go untreated? Perhaps it is due to the fact that many parents do not have access to psychiatric help. Perhaps it's the stigma of having a child with an 'issue.' Many parents who have disabled or exceptional children suffer from medical bill syndrome - as in, not having enough money to pay for treatment. They stretch themselves thin - having to have one of them with the child at all times. It becomes a trial of their lives. When such a student cannot be cared for in a certain way by the parent, they need to seek outside support. If they cannot afford it, they rely on family. If family cannot, and friends cannot either, it rests solely on the parents. It's like sitting on a time-bomb with bipolar or mentally affected children. If the child cannot be cared for appropriately in the first 3 years of its life, the stress on its body and mind can create mental issues in the future - such as severe depression and bipolar disorder. As most in our society either come from or exist in a single-parent family, the chances and risks of a child being exposed to parental arguments can imprint on it the emotional base of self. If a child is not fed properly and with nutritious foods, it does not receive the appropriate amount of vitamins and minerals to build a well-supplied brain and can have a mental health problem later in its life. Poverty does more harm to our Mental Health than anything else, and many people who need care are getting it from prison treatment facilities - which is far too late to have a real effect. We need to address the problem of poverty in the nation that controls roughly 80% of the world's wealth. Welfare is not the answer, it too is a band-aid. We need to address the problem of food nutrition in the parents as well as the kids. Who cares if the kids get a good meal at school if they go home to pop-tarts and hot-pockets? We need higher standards in our foods, and we need to adapt dieting to our psychiatric treatments to ensure proper mental support through food choices. Our stomachs may be full after a cheeseburger, but if the cow that created the hamburger was shot with steroids, fed with corn and slaughtered with a hundred others, chances are, that meat's not going to have much nutrition in its protein. The cheese was processed with loads of salt for preservation, and the bun is nothing but empty carbs and sugar for our body to handle. Twenty minutes after a fast-food cheeseburger, the hunger arrives again - because there were no nutrients received. Add the tomato, the onion, the pickle - and it makes up some - but they are so minute against the onslaught of calories from the cheese, meat and bun. Take a different burger, made with better meat, a thick tomato, a fresh onion, a whole wheat bun - the nutritional value increases. Organic farming could be a solution, one that would require millions of people to start working as farmers throughout the land. If our manufacturing jobs changed to growing organic foods instead of our stockpiles of guns and ammo, maybe we could nail two birds with one stone.
There are too many reasons to fully point out - but these are the three that are always mentioned in these horrific events. There is art in the argument - the way we all like point the finger at everyone but ourselves. Let's face it, we are all to blame for this - because we continue to do nothing about the root problem. We let it fade away until the next one happens, and then it starts all over. We act all high and mighty about our cause to bring gun control/mental health awareness/God in School to the forefront of politics - but it turns out that none of these can possibly prevent something like this from happening, ever. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they can find it - anywhere. Be in the right state, and you can buy it without questions. No matter how much we medicate the social problem, the patient can always choose not to take the pill. No matter how much we put God in school to repress our society with religion, there have always been violent offenders - they just use God's name as a reason for the act. Look at Manson, look at Jim Jones, look at 9/11 - all of these were inspired by people who wanted God's praise, or had God's plan when no else did. Religion is no cure, government is no cure, and medicine is no cure to this solution. Social reorganization is the solution to this problem - a restructuring of our priorities. Do we continue to build the weapons of war and march our kids to 'honor' and 'freedom'? Or do we finally put down our guns, our pills, and our Bibles, and look at what our neighbor really needs, rather than force upon them what we think they need. Let's turn our swords to plowshares; Stop glorifying war, and help build a positive society by supporting the people that need our resources - whether domestic or abroad.
1. No God in School - There are several things the Supreme Court has allowed within schools, as well as disapproved. Here, you will see the various landmark cases the supreme court ruled. If one has studied the law of school, or the rights of the students within the institution, one would know that God can exist in school. However, in all cases, it must be the students doing the praying, by themselves, without coercing others through the use of captive audience privileges (i.e. praying in a speech made as an assignment; leading prayer over the loudspeaker, and so on.). Students may pray, but to themselves or in a group of like-minded students without forcing others to participate through the use of peer pressure. This decision was made to protect the religious rights of every student attending the state supported facility. By not forcing a student to pray a Christian prayer against their will - say they do not pray the same way as Catholics, or Methodists, or Lutherans; Maybe they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist - It is actually enforcing that student's right to pray on their own. School's may give a 'moment of silence' as a time for prayer, allowing their students to pray of their own accord. Whether or not they do so is their responsibility. If there is no God in school, it is because the students responsible for praying on their own are not doing so. Why? Are they not being educated at home what the religion they follow expects, or do they simply not wish to do something through the compulsion of religious guilt? Maybe we should be looking somewhere else. Maybe we should think about how socialization can be better delivered through a system of education that has now become the nanny for half of America's families. Maybe we should see what time those violent offenders went through school and what policies were in place during their tenure. That is a better place to start than No God in School. Things take time. Monsters aren't grown overnight. The change needed to end this will take generations to accomplish. Maybe we should be researching new ways to socialize our youth.
2. Gun Control - While this might seem an easy band-aid to put on the problem at large, it does not come close to addressing the real issue of what it is that causes this insanity to occur. But let's take guns - look at the amount of people trying to sell them to you. People are trying to tell you that you need them - they're for safety, to protect you from other people who have guns that want to steal your money. Thing is, how can you tell if a guy has a gun? Then, when you know he has a gun on him, how do you know if he's not going to pull on you at some point and try to rob you? Let's take two images: White man with a cowboy hat and a gun holstered at his side, and black guy in a Nike sports jacket with baggy jeans and Pumas - which one has the FOID card. Which one did you choose? I don't care, it forces a racial decision based on a prejudice built into our culture through images played out on what? Television and media. They show you the second image, with a gloc held sideways and left hand grabbing the crotch. They show you the image of the cowboy gunslinger trying to show off for his lady. But what if, in reality, the FOID card holder was the second image, not the first? Who cares? Both guys have the same potential to rob you with their gun. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the person wielding it. When our society praises the use of guns on television and in movies - heroes solving problems by blowing stuff up, or shooting their antagonist to 'have the final say' - we end up with a society that has an insane passion for guns and violence. PG movies can have thousands of bullets fired, and hundreds of explosions - as long as they don't show sex, say the five no-no's, or show too much blood - any child can see them with a parent. Cartoons have heroes fighting epic battles to save the princess, or save the world, or preserve the whatever. Video Games have people shooting victims, killing for money, stealing cars and then going on drive-by's. We become so desensitized to the reality of violence, we laugh. When it happens in life, we wonder why such a thing could possibly happen. And people say gun control is the problem?
3. Mental Health - once again, we attempt to put a band-aid on a problem rather than find a solution, or attempt the solution. Why are so many of our children being diagnosed with depression? Why do so many go untreated? Perhaps it is due to the fact that many parents do not have access to psychiatric help. Perhaps it's the stigma of having a child with an 'issue.' Many parents who have disabled or exceptional children suffer from medical bill syndrome - as in, not having enough money to pay for treatment. They stretch themselves thin - having to have one of them with the child at all times. It becomes a trial of their lives. When such a student cannot be cared for in a certain way by the parent, they need to seek outside support. If they cannot afford it, they rely on family. If family cannot, and friends cannot either, it rests solely on the parents. It's like sitting on a time-bomb with bipolar or mentally affected children. If the child cannot be cared for appropriately in the first 3 years of its life, the stress on its body and mind can create mental issues in the future - such as severe depression and bipolar disorder. As most in our society either come from or exist in a single-parent family, the chances and risks of a child being exposed to parental arguments can imprint on it the emotional base of self. If a child is not fed properly and with nutritious foods, it does not receive the appropriate amount of vitamins and minerals to build a well-supplied brain and can have a mental health problem later in its life. Poverty does more harm to our Mental Health than anything else, and many people who need care are getting it from prison treatment facilities - which is far too late to have a real effect. We need to address the problem of poverty in the nation that controls roughly 80% of the world's wealth. Welfare is not the answer, it too is a band-aid. We need to address the problem of food nutrition in the parents as well as the kids. Who cares if the kids get a good meal at school if they go home to pop-tarts and hot-pockets? We need higher standards in our foods, and we need to adapt dieting to our psychiatric treatments to ensure proper mental support through food choices. Our stomachs may be full after a cheeseburger, but if the cow that created the hamburger was shot with steroids, fed with corn and slaughtered with a hundred others, chances are, that meat's not going to have much nutrition in its protein. The cheese was processed with loads of salt for preservation, and the bun is nothing but empty carbs and sugar for our body to handle. Twenty minutes after a fast-food cheeseburger, the hunger arrives again - because there were no nutrients received. Add the tomato, the onion, the pickle - and it makes up some - but they are so minute against the onslaught of calories from the cheese, meat and bun. Take a different burger, made with better meat, a thick tomato, a fresh onion, a whole wheat bun - the nutritional value increases. Organic farming could be a solution, one that would require millions of people to start working as farmers throughout the land. If our manufacturing jobs changed to growing organic foods instead of our stockpiles of guns and ammo, maybe we could nail two birds with one stone.
There are too many reasons to fully point out - but these are the three that are always mentioned in these horrific events. There is art in the argument - the way we all like point the finger at everyone but ourselves. Let's face it, we are all to blame for this - because we continue to do nothing about the root problem. We let it fade away until the next one happens, and then it starts all over. We act all high and mighty about our cause to bring gun control/mental health awareness/God in School to the forefront of politics - but it turns out that none of these can possibly prevent something like this from happening, ever. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they can find it - anywhere. Be in the right state, and you can buy it without questions. No matter how much we medicate the social problem, the patient can always choose not to take the pill. No matter how much we put God in school to repress our society with religion, there have always been violent offenders - they just use God's name as a reason for the act. Look at Manson, look at Jim Jones, look at 9/11 - all of these were inspired by people who wanted God's praise, or had God's plan when no else did. Religion is no cure, government is no cure, and medicine is no cure to this solution. Social reorganization is the solution to this problem - a restructuring of our priorities. Do we continue to build the weapons of war and march our kids to 'honor' and 'freedom'? Or do we finally put down our guns, our pills, and our Bibles, and look at what our neighbor really needs, rather than force upon them what we think they need. Let's turn our swords to plowshares; Stop glorifying war, and help build a positive society by supporting the people that need our resources - whether domestic or abroad.
Friday, November 30, 2012
A Thought on Holidays
We all love them. They're the time when we get to enjoy those precious moments with family that we crave all year - you know the moments: Hearing uncle Pete burp the alphabet, watching as grandpa/grandma try to walk up stairs without falling, getting told what you should really be doing with your life/how to live your life by people who have no idea what your life is like. They're the moments we think back on, whether with frustrated rage or patient love, we all have those moments.
But why? Why do we continually celebrate these holidays? Well, two reasons, really - from my experience: Upholding traditions whether family or social, and because everyone else is doing it. Let's face it - we wouldn't be out Christmas shopping unless we thought we were getting something in return, right? You know it - it's that thought deep in the recesses of your mind while you plow through the lines on Black Friday. It's only natural to think so. By this time, every generation alive has been getting gifts for whatever winter holiday they choose to honor. From the time they are born - Baby's first Christmas - to the time they start having their own family, people expect gifts from their loved ones. When they do not receive them, there is disappointment. When they do get gifts, it's not exactly what they wanted, but they'll take it anyway, put a smile on their face and tell you they love it before they return the gift and get that thing they really want. Sometimes, they judge you by the gifts you're able to give. Even if it breaks you, maxes out your credit card, or makes you miss an important bill, that gift is important. It shows the family that you have something to bring to the table.
This is where our tradition starts - the table. The winter holiday was the most important when we began celebrating as a human culture. It was the start of a new year, when the winter was often harsh and unforgiving, and the family members that were still alive would gather with what they had stored for the winter to help each other continue on. Many times, it would involve a family feast - and every member of the family would bring something for the rest of them to eat. Those who did not have anything to bring to the table were seen as irresponsible, or selfish. By not bringing something to the table, it meant that others in the family had to compensate, or eat less than their fill.
We were also celebrating pagan gods during that time - gods of nature and the earth, the ones who controlled the harvest and the ones who controlled the weather. We also began sacrificing things - rare meats, foods, herbs, and more. The better the sacrifice, the better off you were in the eyes of the social organism. It became a status symbol. When food became more plentiful, and more easily obtainable, we turned to gifts. We stopped sacrificing meat, and started donating money to organizations that helped the poor through the tough times of winter - this happened first during the time of Rome, then again when Kings and Bishops ruled Europe.
Our holidays were created to align with certain changes in the seasons. Winter was the time of hibernation - we would give each other food to last out the remaining winter, and pray to whatever god we worshiped to see to our needs. There was a late-winter/early-spring celebration to commemorate our survival, and then Spring to honor life and the abundance of food. Early-summer/Late spring (May-July corridor) was reserved for honoring fertility and new life, as many new marriages or children would be starting their lives. After this came the celebration of early harvest - the early-fall/late-summer time, and then we would celebrate the harvest around the time of mid-late fall (October-November). Winter would set in, and the winter holidays would once again start. It was an easy routine to understand for people living with the land.
Religion had a massive impact on these holidays. Once food became plentiful enough for anyone to attain with the right ingenuity, or because they were living in the right climate zone, we needed new reasons to gather. At first, as I mentioned before, we celebrated feast days of our pagan gods - each one a representation of a different season or time of the year. As the Roman Catholic Church formed, they consolidated the holidays to the most important parts of the life of Christ - Christmas (Christ's Birth) and Easter (Christ's death and resurrection). The other holidays were put into perspective from there - Fat Tuesday (last day of the Christmas season and the beginning of Lent), Mother's Day (a feast day for Mary, mother of Christ), The Assumption (Mary's ascending into heaven), The Visitation (celebrating when the Angel Gabriel told Mary of her pregnancy), All Hallow's Eve/All Saints Day (the night and morning celebrating the passing of souls to heaven to become saints in the army of Christ). Every one of the holidays had their roots in pagan tradition.
Here's a link to each one of the holidays for verification:
Christmas
Easter
Mardi Gras
Mother's Day
Father's Day
Halloween
Others
So, why do I bring this up in a blog that tries to find the art in the commonplace of mankind? Quite simply put: They are the origin of the family tradition and have become symbols of our familial bonds. The art is in the image of the father carving the roast as his family waits eagerly for food; The mother slaving over preparations for a grand meal; The children dancing around the fire/Radio/TV/Video Games (depending on your time-line) as the elders enjoy seeing the youth abound. These are images paramount in our western civilization and culture. Norman Rockwell comes to mind, as does Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Whatever the root - whatever the image - the tradition remains alive in its new incarnation - a testament to our past struggles as a species on this unique world.
But why? Why do we continually celebrate these holidays? Well, two reasons, really - from my experience: Upholding traditions whether family or social, and because everyone else is doing it. Let's face it - we wouldn't be out Christmas shopping unless we thought we were getting something in return, right? You know it - it's that thought deep in the recesses of your mind while you plow through the lines on Black Friday. It's only natural to think so. By this time, every generation alive has been getting gifts for whatever winter holiday they choose to honor. From the time they are born - Baby's first Christmas - to the time they start having their own family, people expect gifts from their loved ones. When they do not receive them, there is disappointment. When they do get gifts, it's not exactly what they wanted, but they'll take it anyway, put a smile on their face and tell you they love it before they return the gift and get that thing they really want. Sometimes, they judge you by the gifts you're able to give. Even if it breaks you, maxes out your credit card, or makes you miss an important bill, that gift is important. It shows the family that you have something to bring to the table.
This is where our tradition starts - the table. The winter holiday was the most important when we began celebrating as a human culture. It was the start of a new year, when the winter was often harsh and unforgiving, and the family members that were still alive would gather with what they had stored for the winter to help each other continue on. Many times, it would involve a family feast - and every member of the family would bring something for the rest of them to eat. Those who did not have anything to bring to the table were seen as irresponsible, or selfish. By not bringing something to the table, it meant that others in the family had to compensate, or eat less than their fill.
We were also celebrating pagan gods during that time - gods of nature and the earth, the ones who controlled the harvest and the ones who controlled the weather. We also began sacrificing things - rare meats, foods, herbs, and more. The better the sacrifice, the better off you were in the eyes of the social organism. It became a status symbol. When food became more plentiful, and more easily obtainable, we turned to gifts. We stopped sacrificing meat, and started donating money to organizations that helped the poor through the tough times of winter - this happened first during the time of Rome, then again when Kings and Bishops ruled Europe.
Our holidays were created to align with certain changes in the seasons. Winter was the time of hibernation - we would give each other food to last out the remaining winter, and pray to whatever god we worshiped to see to our needs. There was a late-winter/early-spring celebration to commemorate our survival, and then Spring to honor life and the abundance of food. Early-summer/Late spring (May-July corridor) was reserved for honoring fertility and new life, as many new marriages or children would be starting their lives. After this came the celebration of early harvest - the early-fall/late-summer time, and then we would celebrate the harvest around the time of mid-late fall (October-November). Winter would set in, and the winter holidays would once again start. It was an easy routine to understand for people living with the land.
Religion had a massive impact on these holidays. Once food became plentiful enough for anyone to attain with the right ingenuity, or because they were living in the right climate zone, we needed new reasons to gather. At first, as I mentioned before, we celebrated feast days of our pagan gods - each one a representation of a different season or time of the year. As the Roman Catholic Church formed, they consolidated the holidays to the most important parts of the life of Christ - Christmas (Christ's Birth) and Easter (Christ's death and resurrection). The other holidays were put into perspective from there - Fat Tuesday (last day of the Christmas season and the beginning of Lent), Mother's Day (a feast day for Mary, mother of Christ), The Assumption (Mary's ascending into heaven), The Visitation (celebrating when the Angel Gabriel told Mary of her pregnancy), All Hallow's Eve/All Saints Day (the night and morning celebrating the passing of souls to heaven to become saints in the army of Christ). Every one of the holidays had their roots in pagan tradition.
Here's a link to each one of the holidays for verification:
Christmas
Easter
Mardi Gras
Mother's Day
Father's Day
Halloween
Others
So, why do I bring this up in a blog that tries to find the art in the commonplace of mankind? Quite simply put: They are the origin of the family tradition and have become symbols of our familial bonds. The art is in the image of the father carving the roast as his family waits eagerly for food; The mother slaving over preparations for a grand meal; The children dancing around the fire/Radio/TV/Video Games (depending on your time-line) as the elders enjoy seeing the youth abound. These are images paramount in our western civilization and culture. Norman Rockwell comes to mind, as does Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Whatever the root - whatever the image - the tradition remains alive in its new incarnation - a testament to our past struggles as a species on this unique world.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Secession? Really?
Just read This article.
The Civil War was the last time we, as a nation, had to deal with the secession of states from the union to form national bodies of their own. It started because the Slave states of the South had become the minority in Congress and the population, and their views were on the way out. The measures they sought to pass were often blocked or denied, while northern restrictions on their well-being and business (plantations with slaves) became constrictive. The South felt they had no choice but to form their own government, their own currency, and their own exchange that saw to their needs. The Confederate States of America was formed during this time, consisting of all the states that had agreed to secede from the Union. The United States of America went to war to bring them back into the fold.
At first, the Confederacy was winning the battles. They fought and defeated several generals the North had claimed would trounce the South. The North raised army after army, and sent thousands of men to their death, while the South fought a war of attrition with what they had. In the end it came down to three major things that occurred during the war that lost it for the South:
1. 3 Gruesome and costly defeats - I'm speaking of Antietam, Vicksburg and Gettysburg. These three losses were what changed the course of the war for the South. They didn't have the population to match the North, and could not sacrifice as many as they at each battle without suffering irreparable damage to their numbers. Between the three of them, the battles took over 500,000 southern lives. When Grant took over, and used the North's 3 to 1 population ratio into effect to overwhelm the South, it proved the statement that winning battles does not win the war. The South could not compete with the loss of life like the North. They surrendered after four bitter years of struggle - grudgingly at that.
2. Raw Material Economy - Much of the South's economy was focused on the production of raw materials. Before the secession, they would ship their raw goods to the north, the north would turn them into manufactured goods, and the south would purchase those goods from the north. It was a cyclical symbiosis. Plantation owners made profits, while the common man often worked in the mines, had his own fields to plow, or worked on the sea in fishing or merchant vessels. When the secession occurred, this meant that the North had to find a new seller, and the south had to find a new buyer. It is always easier to find a seller than it is to find a buyer. The South didn't really have the industry to use their own raw materials, at the time, so they started building some. Their production didn't get too far off the ground. In essence, because they could not raise enough money as a government and country on their own, and because many of the buyers on the market were trading with the north as well, the south's economy suffered.
3. Lack of Political Alliances - Europe didn't want to get involved in the war. The South couldn't bring them over. France and Britain had their own issues, and a surplus of cotton. They didn't need the South's cotton, or other raw materials, and weren't in a situation to back either side. Russia was in full support of the Union. Because of this, the Southern economy fell, the more versatile northern economy grew, and, without friends, the south could only attempt to keep them uninterested in helping the north.
Okay - enough with the history. Let's look at it today. Right now, the federal government has a split between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Republicans (rural voice) have the majority in the former, and Democrats (urban voice) have the majority in the Senate. The Executive Branch remains in the control of Democrats. There was recently an election that affirmed the presidency of an African-American for a second term. States of the South, traditionally an ethnically prejudiced people, have just signed a petition to secede from the Union. In fact, many people from every state have signed such petitions - nowhere near the majority voice - but the conversation has gone there.
Is this a joke? Really? Has our unwillingness as a society to accept our neighbor's voice as legitimate gone to such an extent that people are willing to destroy their own country? Has the propaganda machine of the right taken this too far? Well, let's play this out, shall we?
Okay, so we let them secede. What do they have now? Untold trillions of dollars worth of debt to a foreign nation who has the most powerful weaponry on the face planet that may or may not accept your new currency that is backed by severely less population than it was before. They try to pay off the debt, but their GDP doesn't even cover the interest, so the U.S. knocks at their door with a drone and says pay up (from their bunker in Washington while they're watching the camera on the drone), or be conquered. They can't pay up, they become a colony, and have even less say in the government than before they seceded. How does that sound? Or, maybe we let them stay on as their own country, and we just blockade the interstate highways in and out - the U.S. did build them - and start charging them massive taxes on their incoming goods. Since they owe the US so much money, we can probably arrange some sort of deal where they become a protectorate, and they can start holding all of our manufacturing plants we would have otherwise built in China, because we wouldn't be paying them anything - they'd be working off their debt. Hell, that actually sounds like a good idea. Can we just enslave the whole former state that wants to secede, and then have them work off their tremendous debt to the federal government for all their nice public things - it'd be like a prison state, only a debtor's prison.
So, before you jump on this Secession bandwagon - please think. I just really can't believe that whole "The South will Rise Again" thing is still there. The "patriot" waving the flag of the Confederacy in the face of his unaccepted black president - it looks pretty sad doesn't it? Whether or not it is born of racism, the image is, in and of itself, something of racist creation. Perhaps this is the last gasp of a generation who embraced racial segregation - perhaps it is a sad look at our near future. What I am really glad about is the fact that many of those people voicing opposition are older crowds. I would have no concern about a bunch of old people taking to the streets - don't think it would last long or go very far. The March of the Walkers.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
A Solution to Social Welfare Programs
Welfare Queens, holding babies in each arm and one on the back, with three hanging onto each leg. It's the portrait our far-right society paints for those on state benefits or welfare programs. Takers, they say. They sit around on their ass collecting my hard earned money so they can keep sitting on their ass. Lazy sons-a-bitches. Who the hell gave them the right? Damn Liberals and their whining. They just want stuff from the government, they're not willing to work for it. They're not motivated to get a job, they can just sit on their ass all day collecting the taxes from my hard earned money.
This is not a productive image for the conversation as a whole, but it's where conservative viewpoints begin. I like to think of it as the safety net, but living within proximity to a social worker's nightmare has given me a bit more perspective. I have seen some of these welfare queens of which the conservative masses speak. I also understand that this dependency comes from a culture born to generational poverty. This cesspool of crack dealers, prostitutes, welfare queens and alcoholic bums (as conservatives would have you believe it is) comes from a legacy of outright racism. The city is called East St. Louis, and it is nowhere near the shape it was in 60 years ago.
But how did it get so bad? People I speak with at work tell me it's "because the blacks moved in." I cringe, and can't help but look sad at the accepted explanation. So, I did some research. Though I use wiki-links, this research was done at both the Missouri History Museum and several libraries in St. Louis and Belleville regarding the social changes. I also studied the histories of the cities surrounding East St. Louis. It's quite interesting, but in the interest of time, I will summarize the knowledge gained.
After the Great Migration north (there's a link in East St. Louis note), the the race riots - where a mob of 3000 white men went around and randomly beat black men for fraternizing with white women - and the industrialization of East St. Louis with American Steel and Aluminum Ore, as well as the shipping yard expansion, East St. Louis became a booming city. What happened? Well, on the Missouri side, this was about the time that North City also began booming. The booming industrial jobs were creating a black and white middle class that could compete. Things were going well. Until the jobs moved out of town. A new Interstate highway system was being proposed and was running straight through East St. Louis to create a new Poplar Street Bridge. Because so much of East St. Louis was consumed by the new interstate, the people that could move out did. Of course, those people were the whites. Blacks didn't make a high enough wage to afford to move out. Some people stayed. They tried to keep going, but the jobs moved south, west and east - mainly because the Eads Bridge was no longer of any value for shipping, and East St. Louis and North St. Louis were both using it as their min artery in the shipping businesses. North St. Louis and East St. Louis dropped in population right about the same time. The industry and jobs moved west, several of the citizens couldn't. They got stuck working other jobs that didn't pay as much. Eventually, they couldn't care for their property, and things got bad. Property values dropped, jobs left, poverty rose, and crime began to seep into the system. Civil Rights passed, Welfare passed. Jobs were coming and going, but nothing like the old days. The people that left created their own communities, or built onto existing ones. Fairview Heights was created in the 1960's, just after the Interstate was built. It had a mall, and a huge up-welling of citizenry right about the same time East St. Louis dropped, same as many of the cities surrounding it, using it's Interstate exit/entrance as a source of life. It could be considered a diaspora of sorts... former communities of East St. Louis "sticking together" after the big split. What does this have to do with Welfare? The people that got 'left behind', so to speak.
Eventually, after decades of job loss in that city, generational poverty began taking hold, and people became dependent on government aid to get by. Why? Because of where they're born and to whom they were born. They took advantage of welfare to pay for the things the needed (sometimes alcohol or drugs) and lived in Sec. 8 housing while receiving food stamps. Everything was seen to for them. They're on Medicaid now, too, so you know that means they're clogging up the Emergency room for flu treatments. How do we stop this?
Remove the money from the system. Include resources. Give them resources. Pay for rent, utlities, medical bills, transportation through public systems, and food, but don't pay them cash. Increase the food stamp allotment, and expand food stamp purchases to include hot food, clothes, toiletries and other essentials of daily living (i.e. utilitarian items - broom, dustpan, mop, sponges, etc.). This way, all essential necessities of living are provided. The increase is paid for by the decrease in cash allowance. Take the $800 or so cash and spread it out between living expenses and healthcare costs. This resource based approach to government aid programs can help change the way our society works. Now, if someone wants cash, they either go sell some crack on the side of the road, or they get a job. Either way, it's not my cash they're using for their stuff. What this would need is to say that if someone took a job that earned 100% poverty income, the benefits would end. So, people could have a job and receive benefits, too. That way, the system is being supported through their own work, and the people sleep safe knowing that some lazy-son-of-a-bitch isn't using their money for drugs.
I can also suggest a work-for-cash-benefits program where people on welfare can have a chance to simply work for the money they once received. Those that become a part of the program would be merged with the city works unit and employed to clean litter, mow abandoned fields, care for neglected properties, or be added to the roster for some sort of city works labor unit, depending upon qualifications.
This is a simple change, but one I think will never get implemented. Why? Our economy thrives on money. Having money, spending money on something you shouldn't - it's a thrill. Our society has allowed us to believe that we need it - money, that is. By giving people cash benefits, we provide the market with stability, a ground floor from which to start. The beneficiaries can go see movies, buy a cellphone, pay for an iTunes account, whatever. They spend it. The advertising exposure increases, they stay where they are because they're comfortable, and the economy has a solid consumer for life. Throw in food stamps, and someone is making $1,000 or so dollars a month, which can buy whatever they want in both food and other items. It's a freedom of purchasing power, but it's also poverty. It's dependency, and with that dependency comes votes. Vote for the guy who gives you cash - that's how conservatives tell it. That's why it will never change. Both sides win - business and government - when people have cash and buy "stuff."
But here's what they don't show you.
The mother who raises multiple kids on her own, and has no time to work, or can't find work with a fitting schedule. She gets government aid, provides the kids a home base, and helps them onto their own feet so they can get out of the ghetto in which they might live. The kids go away to college, find a job and move on to bigger and better things. Why don't we ever see this picture coming from the right? Is it because they're so embroiled with the idea of racial stereotypes that they completely ignore the stories and just think of all black people they meet outside their paradigm as welfare dependents, or is it because they're so angry that the Liberals created it and are benefiting from it electorally? If it's such a horribly run program, why don't Republicans ever try to fix it, rather than just cut the funding to it? Wouldn't a Constitutionalistic approach to government include welfare, now that it's a law and all? Wouldn't one, instead of ending or cutting something, attempt to solve the issue at hand with common sense?
If we don't like the system, then we need to fix what we don't like about it. People I know complain about the cash benefits. End them, spread the funds throughout the remainder of applicable benefits, and expand those benefits. Cash, in order to fix the system, must come from the work of their own hands, and not from tax dollars. The Imagery of welfare must change in order to please the image based culture of the right.
This is not a productive image for the conversation as a whole, but it's where conservative viewpoints begin. I like to think of it as the safety net, but living within proximity to a social worker's nightmare has given me a bit more perspective. I have seen some of these welfare queens of which the conservative masses speak. I also understand that this dependency comes from a culture born to generational poverty. This cesspool of crack dealers, prostitutes, welfare queens and alcoholic bums (as conservatives would have you believe it is) comes from a legacy of outright racism. The city is called East St. Louis, and it is nowhere near the shape it was in 60 years ago.
But how did it get so bad? People I speak with at work tell me it's "because the blacks moved in." I cringe, and can't help but look sad at the accepted explanation. So, I did some research. Though I use wiki-links, this research was done at both the Missouri History Museum and several libraries in St. Louis and Belleville regarding the social changes. I also studied the histories of the cities surrounding East St. Louis. It's quite interesting, but in the interest of time, I will summarize the knowledge gained.
After the Great Migration north (there's a link in East St. Louis note), the the race riots - where a mob of 3000 white men went around and randomly beat black men for fraternizing with white women - and the industrialization of East St. Louis with American Steel and Aluminum Ore, as well as the shipping yard expansion, East St. Louis became a booming city. What happened? Well, on the Missouri side, this was about the time that North City also began booming. The booming industrial jobs were creating a black and white middle class that could compete. Things were going well. Until the jobs moved out of town. A new Interstate highway system was being proposed and was running straight through East St. Louis to create a new Poplar Street Bridge. Because so much of East St. Louis was consumed by the new interstate, the people that could move out did. Of course, those people were the whites. Blacks didn't make a high enough wage to afford to move out. Some people stayed. They tried to keep going, but the jobs moved south, west and east - mainly because the Eads Bridge was no longer of any value for shipping, and East St. Louis and North St. Louis were both using it as their min artery in the shipping businesses. North St. Louis and East St. Louis dropped in population right about the same time. The industry and jobs moved west, several of the citizens couldn't. They got stuck working other jobs that didn't pay as much. Eventually, they couldn't care for their property, and things got bad. Property values dropped, jobs left, poverty rose, and crime began to seep into the system. Civil Rights passed, Welfare passed. Jobs were coming and going, but nothing like the old days. The people that left created their own communities, or built onto existing ones. Fairview Heights was created in the 1960's, just after the Interstate was built. It had a mall, and a huge up-welling of citizenry right about the same time East St. Louis dropped, same as many of the cities surrounding it, using it's Interstate exit/entrance as a source of life. It could be considered a diaspora of sorts... former communities of East St. Louis "sticking together" after the big split. What does this have to do with Welfare? The people that got 'left behind', so to speak.
Eventually, after decades of job loss in that city, generational poverty began taking hold, and people became dependent on government aid to get by. Why? Because of where they're born and to whom they were born. They took advantage of welfare to pay for the things the needed (sometimes alcohol or drugs) and lived in Sec. 8 housing while receiving food stamps. Everything was seen to for them. They're on Medicaid now, too, so you know that means they're clogging up the Emergency room for flu treatments. How do we stop this?
Remove the money from the system. Include resources. Give them resources. Pay for rent, utlities, medical bills, transportation through public systems, and food, but don't pay them cash. Increase the food stamp allotment, and expand food stamp purchases to include hot food, clothes, toiletries and other essentials of daily living (i.e. utilitarian items - broom, dustpan, mop, sponges, etc.). This way, all essential necessities of living are provided. The increase is paid for by the decrease in cash allowance. Take the $800 or so cash and spread it out between living expenses and healthcare costs. This resource based approach to government aid programs can help change the way our society works. Now, if someone wants cash, they either go sell some crack on the side of the road, or they get a job. Either way, it's not my cash they're using for their stuff. What this would need is to say that if someone took a job that earned 100% poverty income, the benefits would end. So, people could have a job and receive benefits, too. That way, the system is being supported through their own work, and the people sleep safe knowing that some lazy-son-of-a-bitch isn't using their money for drugs.
I can also suggest a work-for-cash-benefits program where people on welfare can have a chance to simply work for the money they once received. Those that become a part of the program would be merged with the city works unit and employed to clean litter, mow abandoned fields, care for neglected properties, or be added to the roster for some sort of city works labor unit, depending upon qualifications.
This is a simple change, but one I think will never get implemented. Why? Our economy thrives on money. Having money, spending money on something you shouldn't - it's a thrill. Our society has allowed us to believe that we need it - money, that is. By giving people cash benefits, we provide the market with stability, a ground floor from which to start. The beneficiaries can go see movies, buy a cellphone, pay for an iTunes account, whatever. They spend it. The advertising exposure increases, they stay where they are because they're comfortable, and the economy has a solid consumer for life. Throw in food stamps, and someone is making $1,000 or so dollars a month, which can buy whatever they want in both food and other items. It's a freedom of purchasing power, but it's also poverty. It's dependency, and with that dependency comes votes. Vote for the guy who gives you cash - that's how conservatives tell it. That's why it will never change. Both sides win - business and government - when people have cash and buy "stuff."
But here's what they don't show you.
The mother who raises multiple kids on her own, and has no time to work, or can't find work with a fitting schedule. She gets government aid, provides the kids a home base, and helps them onto their own feet so they can get out of the ghetto in which they might live. The kids go away to college, find a job and move on to bigger and better things. Why don't we ever see this picture coming from the right? Is it because they're so embroiled with the idea of racial stereotypes that they completely ignore the stories and just think of all black people they meet outside their paradigm as welfare dependents, or is it because they're so angry that the Liberals created it and are benefiting from it electorally? If it's such a horribly run program, why don't Republicans ever try to fix it, rather than just cut the funding to it? Wouldn't a Constitutionalistic approach to government include welfare, now that it's a law and all? Wouldn't one, instead of ending or cutting something, attempt to solve the issue at hand with common sense?
If we don't like the system, then we need to fix what we don't like about it. People I know complain about the cash benefits. End them, spread the funds throughout the remainder of applicable benefits, and expand those benefits. Cash, in order to fix the system, must come from the work of their own hands, and not from tax dollars. The Imagery of welfare must change in order to please the image based culture of the right.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
The Educational Problem: What it is; How I Think We Can Fix It
Okay - this, is gonna be a big one, yet another, so make sure you get your drink before you read on, or have time where you'll be interested, because I have a lot to say on this issue. It is my belief that education is the central crux of our social society, and having public access to such a thing is not only a gift, but a way to build our social organism. That being said, go get your drink...
Welcome back, or thanks for reading on. If you would like to be both welcomed and thanked, feel free to consider yourself both.
So, there are several issues that are central to our problems with education. I will address those I feel are the most important in the line of issues plaguing the public education we know and experience.
1. Money: Each year, Schools vie for money, applying for grants from the state and federal government so they can continue to provide the same education they have been providing, or improve/adjust based on raises/cuts. They have a committee of teachers that work on grant-writing for each area of educational focus. They gather the data and the numbers and present it to the writing team, who then formalizes it and presents it to the local Board of Education (depending on the school) and Superintendent for approval. They then present it to the state/federal government, and wait for approval/denial. When the money is given, the schools can continue working bonus programs that supplement the learning done in or out of class. Otherwise, the schools get a percentage income based on the PROPERTY VALUES of the homes within the district. They do this because they receive their money from the taxes on the land. You pay for your school when you pay your property taxes.
So, the state gives each school a certain number of dollars based on the total amount of taxes divided by the total number of students. This creates an issue of equity. In a wealthy district, the school is given more money per student. They will have more money to provide for the kind of education people in poorer districts struggle to maintain. The logic of this is: If a wealthy school has more money, they will not need the grants for which poorer schools apply. Therefore, the poorer schools will match the funds of the wealthier schools by earning grant money from the state/federal government. But logic isn't followed by everyone.
Vouchers: While this, at first, seems like it would be a benefit to the overall educational experience, these are a detriment to the public school system as we know it. Why? Well, it just so happens that because the ADA passed, as well as IDEA, all government buildings now need to have specially designed facilities to aid the physically or mentally impaired. This is a good thing. I wholeheartedly encourage the example it sets. However, this requirement does not apply to parochial or private institutions of learning. They do not need to supply the facilities. Because many do not, it gives the parent of an exceptional student only one option: public school. What does this do? Traditionally, exceptional students do not perform well on standardized tests when they take them. Many do not. But those with middling conditions often find themselves generalized due to the demands of IDEA. Because the general ed population consists of these students, teachers have to adjust their lessons accordingly in order to be in line with the IDEA guidelines. What does this do? This allows students who would not normally be considered eligible for state exams to be eligible. This also means that those students with behavioral disorders, not considered severe enough to warrant separate attention, also take these tests - right alongside Sally Smartypants, Class Genius. This, in turn, creates numbers that do not reflect the teacher's ability, or many of the students, but the school altogether as whole. These numbers are printed in the newspaper - we see them. We say, well, Sally got a good score, but the school got an average score. We don't stop to consider why - we jump the gun. We say that these bad numbers mean it's a bad school. What happens then? People become less likely to move into the district...land values drop...people take their kids, move, and go to the successful school district that has consistently high scores. Or, they stay where they are, get a voucher - which takes money from the taxes that would have gone to the school, though not all - and send their kid to the private school that has consistently high performance numbers.
Now, the intelligence pool at the school has dropped because X amount of students left after hearing the bad scores. Those that do not send their student away now send their student to a school where his chances of educational success have just dropped by a percentage relative to the value X. Even more so, the prestige of the neighborhood and value of their home have both dropped because their school is less desirable.
Answer: To remove the inequity within our school organization, we must first remove the inequity in funding. Every school gets the same amount per pupil - based on an average of the state as a whole. To say one child will receive $7,700, and another receives $4,200, is to say that the child in the district receiving the greater portion of dollars has more worth and value than the child in the lesser. This is dependent upon where the parent lives. If both pupils go to the same schools for 10 years - 7-17 minimum - you see a difference of $35,000 between just those students. Imagine how many students stay in their districts from start to finish during the course of their public education, then multiply that by $35K. That's a big difference in the type of education and extra-curricular supplements a school can offer - all because of where you live. Now, if each student received $5,950 instead, each school would be able to offer the same things. Only a federal curriculum would be needed after that to fully make each school provide equal education across the board.
2. Keeping Kids On Task: We, as a society, have begun to do things to our kids that are reprehensible. It is inherent within the social structure of our society and comes in the form of television and video games, as well as smartphones. We have allowed them to become distracted - we have allowed them to take charge. Many times, teachers and parents complain that one or the other is not doing enough, when clearly, both are trying very hard. They do not think to place the blame on the student for slacking off so he could web-surf/game/text on his/her smartphone/pc/game platform. When they do, the student does what the student needs to do to succeed, and continues about life interested in his/her hobby. Where does it start? How can we stop this? Simple, enforce both parental and school rules, and restrict the use of electronic devices. Studies have shown that the students of parents who limit the amount of electronic exposure their students experience often have students with higher IQ's and higher grades.
Studies have also shown that less exposure leads to students having higher attention spans - in that the reverse relation is observed. Students with higher attention spans will be less likely to be distracted during a lesson in class and excel in areas of learning concerning math and reading (which also effect comprehension of science). These students also aid the teacher in tutoring other students to success as well - I can tell from experience.
Answer: By restricting the amount of electronic entertainment to which a student is exposed, one can passively encourage academic growth within one's student. This being said, we must also be the example so it is less easy for the student to dip back into old habits. Yes, that's right, sometimes, we have to turn off the TV and play with the person we brought into the world. Isn't it so difficult?
It really is, though isn't it? This answer comes with much more complication than the first. The further we delve into the reason of our children's successes or failures, we see why. We have a couch and TV based society. Every night, we get home, we hug our loved ones, sit on the couch and snuggle as the show of night comes on - or some facsimile thereof. Not everyone likes the show of the night - some people have their own. So, they go set up their own couch and TV area. Or, we have two jobs to put food on the table, and have to work, so the kids are watched by the babysitter, or the oldest sibling... which means TV or video games for the night. Whatever the situation, as technology becomes more accessible, it becomes harder and harder to limit control of the imagery to which our children have access. Enforce what you can.
3. The Grading Scale: We have this philosophy we preach in schools to children that as long as you give it your best effort, you'll do fine. But we don't give examples of best effort outside of grades. How can we really know if someone's A was because of their best effort and not because the questions were just that simple? What happens if someone doesn't know how to give his/her best effort because they are not given an example of what it is outside of grades? Children don't see their parents giving their best efforts at work - mainly because the kids aren't at their parents' workplaces. Whatever the case, the grading scale attempts to place value on the knowledge presented in the work of the student. Whether the student understands by test time is up to the teacher. If that student doesn't understand the knowledge, he receives less than an A and the teacher moves on - maybe the student is tutored on the side.
The grade is placed; That grade has value. That student sees the grade, and places the value on themselves. Many times, it discourages progression in the area of weakness.
Answer: This is the biggest one, and simplest - Stop using it. Hire more teachers, lessen the class load on each, better fund educational institutions to meet the growing needs, and allow the teachers the time necessary to ensure that each student understands the principles explained. Administer tests, but only for record of progression as opposed to placing value on student performance, and make sure the tests are fair for the students involved. Big load of work there - easy to say, harder to do. This is why I place this last.
These are just three of the problems public education is facing - and there are many more.
Where is the art? Outside the inherent struggle that comes with trying to understand the universe, or the Thinker posing on his rock, there is the teacher surrounded by eager students...too many to teach all at once. The face of desperate hope in the shadow of a problem too large.
Welcome back, or thanks for reading on. If you would like to be both welcomed and thanked, feel free to consider yourself both.
So, there are several issues that are central to our problems with education. I will address those I feel are the most important in the line of issues plaguing the public education we know and experience.
1. Money: Each year, Schools vie for money, applying for grants from the state and federal government so they can continue to provide the same education they have been providing, or improve/adjust based on raises/cuts. They have a committee of teachers that work on grant-writing for each area of educational focus. They gather the data and the numbers and present it to the writing team, who then formalizes it and presents it to the local Board of Education (depending on the school) and Superintendent for approval. They then present it to the state/federal government, and wait for approval/denial. When the money is given, the schools can continue working bonus programs that supplement the learning done in or out of class. Otherwise, the schools get a percentage income based on the PROPERTY VALUES of the homes within the district. They do this because they receive their money from the taxes on the land. You pay for your school when you pay your property taxes.
So, the state gives each school a certain number of dollars based on the total amount of taxes divided by the total number of students. This creates an issue of equity. In a wealthy district, the school is given more money per student. They will have more money to provide for the kind of education people in poorer districts struggle to maintain. The logic of this is: If a wealthy school has more money, they will not need the grants for which poorer schools apply. Therefore, the poorer schools will match the funds of the wealthier schools by earning grant money from the state/federal government. But logic isn't followed by everyone.
Vouchers: While this, at first, seems like it would be a benefit to the overall educational experience, these are a detriment to the public school system as we know it. Why? Well, it just so happens that because the ADA passed, as well as IDEA, all government buildings now need to have specially designed facilities to aid the physically or mentally impaired. This is a good thing. I wholeheartedly encourage the example it sets. However, this requirement does not apply to parochial or private institutions of learning. They do not need to supply the facilities. Because many do not, it gives the parent of an exceptional student only one option: public school. What does this do? Traditionally, exceptional students do not perform well on standardized tests when they take them. Many do not. But those with middling conditions often find themselves generalized due to the demands of IDEA. Because the general ed population consists of these students, teachers have to adjust their lessons accordingly in order to be in line with the IDEA guidelines. What does this do? This allows students who would not normally be considered eligible for state exams to be eligible. This also means that those students with behavioral disorders, not considered severe enough to warrant separate attention, also take these tests - right alongside Sally Smartypants, Class Genius. This, in turn, creates numbers that do not reflect the teacher's ability, or many of the students, but the school altogether as whole. These numbers are printed in the newspaper - we see them. We say, well, Sally got a good score, but the school got an average score. We don't stop to consider why - we jump the gun. We say that these bad numbers mean it's a bad school. What happens then? People become less likely to move into the district...land values drop...people take their kids, move, and go to the successful school district that has consistently high scores. Or, they stay where they are, get a voucher - which takes money from the taxes that would have gone to the school, though not all - and send their kid to the private school that has consistently high performance numbers.
Now, the intelligence pool at the school has dropped because X amount of students left after hearing the bad scores. Those that do not send their student away now send their student to a school where his chances of educational success have just dropped by a percentage relative to the value X. Even more so, the prestige of the neighborhood and value of their home have both dropped because their school is less desirable.
Answer: To remove the inequity within our school organization, we must first remove the inequity in funding. Every school gets the same amount per pupil - based on an average of the state as a whole. To say one child will receive $7,700, and another receives $4,200, is to say that the child in the district receiving the greater portion of dollars has more worth and value than the child in the lesser. This is dependent upon where the parent lives. If both pupils go to the same schools for 10 years - 7-17 minimum - you see a difference of $35,000 between just those students. Imagine how many students stay in their districts from start to finish during the course of their public education, then multiply that by $35K. That's a big difference in the type of education and extra-curricular supplements a school can offer - all because of where you live. Now, if each student received $5,950 instead, each school would be able to offer the same things. Only a federal curriculum would be needed after that to fully make each school provide equal education across the board.
2. Keeping Kids On Task: We, as a society, have begun to do things to our kids that are reprehensible. It is inherent within the social structure of our society and comes in the form of television and video games, as well as smartphones. We have allowed them to become distracted - we have allowed them to take charge. Many times, teachers and parents complain that one or the other is not doing enough, when clearly, both are trying very hard. They do not think to place the blame on the student for slacking off so he could web-surf/game/text on his/her smartphone/pc/game platform. When they do, the student does what the student needs to do to succeed, and continues about life interested in his/her hobby. Where does it start? How can we stop this? Simple, enforce both parental and school rules, and restrict the use of electronic devices. Studies have shown that the students of parents who limit the amount of electronic exposure their students experience often have students with higher IQ's and higher grades.
Studies have also shown that less exposure leads to students having higher attention spans - in that the reverse relation is observed. Students with higher attention spans will be less likely to be distracted during a lesson in class and excel in areas of learning concerning math and reading (which also effect comprehension of science). These students also aid the teacher in tutoring other students to success as well - I can tell from experience.
Answer: By restricting the amount of electronic entertainment to which a student is exposed, one can passively encourage academic growth within one's student. This being said, we must also be the example so it is less easy for the student to dip back into old habits. Yes, that's right, sometimes, we have to turn off the TV and play with the person we brought into the world. Isn't it so difficult?
It really is, though isn't it? This answer comes with much more complication than the first. The further we delve into the reason of our children's successes or failures, we see why. We have a couch and TV based society. Every night, we get home, we hug our loved ones, sit on the couch and snuggle as the show of night comes on - or some facsimile thereof. Not everyone likes the show of the night - some people have their own. So, they go set up their own couch and TV area. Or, we have two jobs to put food on the table, and have to work, so the kids are watched by the babysitter, or the oldest sibling... which means TV or video games for the night. Whatever the situation, as technology becomes more accessible, it becomes harder and harder to limit control of the imagery to which our children have access. Enforce what you can.
3. The Grading Scale: We have this philosophy we preach in schools to children that as long as you give it your best effort, you'll do fine. But we don't give examples of best effort outside of grades. How can we really know if someone's A was because of their best effort and not because the questions were just that simple? What happens if someone doesn't know how to give his/her best effort because they are not given an example of what it is outside of grades? Children don't see their parents giving their best efforts at work - mainly because the kids aren't at their parents' workplaces. Whatever the case, the grading scale attempts to place value on the knowledge presented in the work of the student. Whether the student understands by test time is up to the teacher. If that student doesn't understand the knowledge, he receives less than an A and the teacher moves on - maybe the student is tutored on the side.
The grade is placed; That grade has value. That student sees the grade, and places the value on themselves. Many times, it discourages progression in the area of weakness.
Answer: This is the biggest one, and simplest - Stop using it. Hire more teachers, lessen the class load on each, better fund educational institutions to meet the growing needs, and allow the teachers the time necessary to ensure that each student understands the principles explained. Administer tests, but only for record of progression as opposed to placing value on student performance, and make sure the tests are fair for the students involved. Big load of work there - easy to say, harder to do. This is why I place this last.
These are just three of the problems public education is facing - and there are many more.
Where is the art? Outside the inherent struggle that comes with trying to understand the universe, or the Thinker posing on his rock, there is the teacher surrounded by eager students...too many to teach all at once. The face of desperate hope in the shadow of a problem too large.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Argument For and Against God... (To get this out of the way)
Faith is an interesting thing the humans have, the belief that some being of great power is watching over them...keeping track of their every move. This belief has affected many things, including art, society and politics... as if I had to tell you.
It is not that this belief goes without challenge. In fact, many people have argued against it. The picture of the early 20th century existentialist atheist comes to mind, bespectacled and whatnot. The whole "God is Dead" thing Nietzsche brought about during his time - basically saying that we have outgrown and no longer need it as a social drive as it existed - comes to mind. There are a lot of philosophers who weigh in on the conversation about the existence of God or the definition thereof.
So, what is God? The western concept presented is "something that which nothing can be greater," with the qualities of omnipotent, omnipresent, all benevolent, all knowing, yadayada. You know the guy - God. Okay... so this God creates a Universe, and in this universe is the existence of evil, which is a counter-principle to the all-benevolent God. Why does God not eradicate this evil with his righteous will?
Well, as it turns out, when God created this universe, he gave mankind and all sentient species possible the gift of Free Will. Because we choose to do evil, it is our will that creates the evil. Because God is all-benevolent, he will not destroy the life creating the Evil, but rather asks us to apologize and not do it again.
But, if God KNEW giving us free will would create something counter to its ultimate will, and cause suffering among those of its creation, then why did it give us free will? Why not remove the free will altogether to save us the pain of awareness and existence?
Because it needs our true love, not forced love.
Wait a minute...what? So, this God gave us free will so that we could choose to love it, knowing that it would cause suffering and harm to its creation through evil. This either negates the omnipotent aspect of the God, meaning that God needs a specific type of emotion to sustain itself, or the all-benevolent, meaning it would sacrifice its own creation's well-being to ensure its continued power. If the first is true, then there is something greater than God. If the second is true, then God is not all-benevolent...why worship?
In comes the eastern based notion - a change in the definition of God: "The sum of all things."
I think somewhere it was written that what is done to one of God's people is done to God. If the new definition applies, then it makes sense in a very different way than before, doesn't it. What about the one about gathering the flock together - makes a whole new meaning.
In this definition, the "sum of all things" would include good and bad. The image of the Yin-Yang comes to mind. But good and bad are subjective qualities - what could be good for one may be bad for another. Why would an omnipresent, omnipotent being even consider what is good and bad when it is beyond morality? It would not consider a hurricane bad if it was created to release pressure in the atmosphere to avoid a greater catastrophe later. The "sum of all things" sees beyond the here and now, where we exist. To attribute human conditions is to deny the very existence of the being itself. If God is "the sum of all things" then we are one collective cell of God in the greater picture of the universe at large.
The Hindu philosophy has two separate entities of the God - one in the self, giving us awareness, and one greater collective ocean thing. The one in the self is the Will of of God, the other being the source of all life. If one were to believe this notion, and apply the new definition, one would find that philosophical thought has us all being God's hands on earth. If we are the will of God, then the collective decisions made are most certainly decided by God. Everyone would be considered a small piece of God's greater puzzle.
But the Christian churches don't like this idea. They cling to the old hierarchies even when their own philosophies mesh so well with the new definition. The Holy Trinity is a perfect symbol of the correlating relationships - God the source, God in Humanity and God through All. Christ, if one might believe in his existence, spoke of freeing the self through God - to love God with all your heart. mind, body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. Would God being the "sum of all things," not correlate to mean that loving your neighbor as yourself would be to love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul?
So, yeah, the God argument. It's a wonder that we waste our time as a human species trying avoid this possibly imaginary being's wrath when it could be a falsehood. Who knows? Personal experience is the only deciding factor. This is where the art is found, in our willingness to believe regardless of doubt: the hope of a doctor who prays God helps him/her find a treatment (using medical science which was once considered impeding the will of God) that will work for their patient, or the biogeneticist who loses a brother due to the lack of donors for a transplant and swears to God he will work on a safe way to clone human organs so no one else has to suffer.
In the end, it is our decision what we believe. I think what I think, as do you. No one is wrong, no one is right. Whosoever discovers the truth will not be around to speak it.
It is not that this belief goes without challenge. In fact, many people have argued against it. The picture of the early 20th century existentialist atheist comes to mind, bespectacled and whatnot. The whole "God is Dead" thing Nietzsche brought about during his time - basically saying that we have outgrown and no longer need it as a social drive as it existed - comes to mind. There are a lot of philosophers who weigh in on the conversation about the existence of God or the definition thereof.
So, what is God? The western concept presented is "something that which nothing can be greater," with the qualities of omnipotent, omnipresent, all benevolent, all knowing, yadayada. You know the guy - God. Okay... so this God creates a Universe, and in this universe is the existence of evil, which is a counter-principle to the all-benevolent God. Why does God not eradicate this evil with his righteous will?
Well, as it turns out, when God created this universe, he gave mankind and all sentient species possible the gift of Free Will. Because we choose to do evil, it is our will that creates the evil. Because God is all-benevolent, he will not destroy the life creating the Evil, but rather asks us to apologize and not do it again.
But, if God KNEW giving us free will would create something counter to its ultimate will, and cause suffering among those of its creation, then why did it give us free will? Why not remove the free will altogether to save us the pain of awareness and existence?
Because it needs our true love, not forced love.
Wait a minute...what? So, this God gave us free will so that we could choose to love it, knowing that it would cause suffering and harm to its creation through evil. This either negates the omnipotent aspect of the God, meaning that God needs a specific type of emotion to sustain itself, or the all-benevolent, meaning it would sacrifice its own creation's well-being to ensure its continued power. If the first is true, then there is something greater than God. If the second is true, then God is not all-benevolent...why worship?
In comes the eastern based notion - a change in the definition of God: "The sum of all things."
I think somewhere it was written that what is done to one of God's people is done to God. If the new definition applies, then it makes sense in a very different way than before, doesn't it. What about the one about gathering the flock together - makes a whole new meaning.
In this definition, the "sum of all things" would include good and bad. The image of the Yin-Yang comes to mind. But good and bad are subjective qualities - what could be good for one may be bad for another. Why would an omnipresent, omnipotent being even consider what is good and bad when it is beyond morality? It would not consider a hurricane bad if it was created to release pressure in the atmosphere to avoid a greater catastrophe later. The "sum of all things" sees beyond the here and now, where we exist. To attribute human conditions is to deny the very existence of the being itself. If God is "the sum of all things" then we are one collective cell of God in the greater picture of the universe at large.
The Hindu philosophy has two separate entities of the God - one in the self, giving us awareness, and one greater collective ocean thing. The one in the self is the Will of of God, the other being the source of all life. If one were to believe this notion, and apply the new definition, one would find that philosophical thought has us all being God's hands on earth. If we are the will of God, then the collective decisions made are most certainly decided by God. Everyone would be considered a small piece of God's greater puzzle.
But the Christian churches don't like this idea. They cling to the old hierarchies even when their own philosophies mesh so well with the new definition. The Holy Trinity is a perfect symbol of the correlating relationships - God the source, God in Humanity and God through All. Christ, if one might believe in his existence, spoke of freeing the self through God - to love God with all your heart. mind, body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. Would God being the "sum of all things," not correlate to mean that loving your neighbor as yourself would be to love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul?
So, yeah, the God argument. It's a wonder that we waste our time as a human species trying avoid this possibly imaginary being's wrath when it could be a falsehood. Who knows? Personal experience is the only deciding factor. This is where the art is found, in our willingness to believe regardless of doubt: the hope of a doctor who prays God helps him/her find a treatment (using medical science which was once considered impeding the will of God) that will work for their patient, or the biogeneticist who loses a brother due to the lack of donors for a transplant and swears to God he will work on a safe way to clone human organs so no one else has to suffer.
In the end, it is our decision what we believe. I think what I think, as do you. No one is wrong, no one is right. Whosoever discovers the truth will not be around to speak it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)