I love you forever
my father's letter tells her
for forty-nine pages,
from the troopship crossing the Atlantic
before they'd ever heard of Anzio.
He misses her, the letter says,
counting out days of boredom, seasickness,
and changing weather,
poker games played for matches
when cash and cigarettes ran out,
a Red Cross package—soap,
cards, a mystery book he traded away
for The Rubaiyyat a bunkmate didn't want.
He stood night watch and thought
of her. Don't forget the payment
for insurance, he says.
My mother waits at home with me,
waits for the letter he writes day by day
moving farther across the ravenous ocean.
She will get it in three months and
her fingers will smooth the Army stationery
to suede.
He will come home, stand
beside her in the photograph, leaning
on crutches, holding
me against the rough wool
of his jacket. He will sit
alone and listen to Aïda
and they will pick up their
interrupted lives. Years later,
she will show her grandchildren
a yellow envelope with
forty-nine wilted pages telling her
of shimmering sequins on the water,
the moonlight catching sudden phosphorescence,
the churned wake that stretched a silver trail.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
reaching out
Less than a week into office, Obama told Republican members of Congress to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Next step, formally implement "Fairness Doctrine" over the radio waves.
When Obama said he intends to unify Congress, did he really mean that he intends to squash any dissenting opinions?
Next step, formally implement "Fairness Doctrine" over the radio waves.
When Obama said he intends to unify Congress, did he really mean that he intends to squash any dissenting opinions?
follow-up as promised
In the world divided between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, right-wing and left-wing, stances on abortion are divided into "pro-life" and "pro-choice." While my personal and religious beliefs put me firmly into the "pro-life" camp, I always appreciated my Dad's comments that we are also "pro-choice." The choice to have pre-marital sex, protected or not; the choice to keep or adopt. Choices in our family were defined by responsibility and accountability.
The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (my church, if you didn't know), is pretty clear on this issue. It upholds standards of chastity and virtue, and is firmly against abortion, except occasionally in (rare) cases of rape, incest, or serious health implications (which does not include the liberal interpretation of inconvenience to the mother). I find it extremely ironic that pro-life protests are held at least twice a year at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Either they are unaware of the Church's stance, or they do not allow for the same exceptions, or they do not agree that members who have had the procedure may go through the repentance process. In a recent church publication, Russel M. Nelson wrote one of the best articles on the subject I have read. It says all that needs to be said, but I can't help adding some more of my own thoughts, which are mostly in response to arguments justifying abortion.
One of the biggest arguments regards our lack of understanding at exactly which moment a baby in the womb is a living baby. Church leaders and scientists don't presume to know the answer to this question. Some argue that if the baby could not in any circumstance live outside of the womb, it cannot be counted as a living thing, being wholly dependent on its mother. I won't claim to know more than church leaders or scientists, but my own experience persuades me that the fetus is "alive" in a very real sense early in the pregnancy--perhaps as early as the first heartbeat. When I saw little Jeffy at 10 weeks in his first ultrasound, he looked like a little Mexican jumping bean! He wouldn't hold still, and that hasn't changed a bit! My girls didn't move at all at that point. But at the 20 week ultrasound, still too early for a baby to survive outside the mother, each of my children showed distinct character traits. Jeff arched his back and looked visibly annoyed when prodded by the doctor to get a better picture of his organs. Emmy was the sleepiest in the ultrasound, and Camille waved her hand as if to say, "Hello!" I could feel her little fingers tickling me later on in the pregnancy, and now that she's here, she still loves to touch and tickle me. I know the anecdotal evidence of an obviously biased mother isn't scientific evidence by any means, but I cannot imagine a mother would terminate a baby if she had seen what I had seen, or felt what I had felt.
The easiest argument to deal with is the one that says a mother shouldn't be inconvenienced by a bad decision. As Ann Coulter writes in her latest book, pregnancy is not like the flu, you don't just "catch" it. This goes back to my Dad's saying that choice comes before the baby, not after. Now, if a woman does not want her baby, then I agree that she is the last person who should be entrusted with a child. But I have heard of, and personally know many couples who dream of a family but cannot have their own children. They subject themselves to invasive questioning and rigorous interviews, only to be put on an endless waiting list to adopt. I know of some who have had the dream in their sights, only to have it torn away at the last minute by a biological father who suddenly appears and takes away the baby meant for them. I know of women making big bucks to be surrogate mothers. And yet millions of babies every year are terminated.
Some argue that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to get it whether it's legal or not, so we should just make it legal. That's like saying kids are going to do Meth whether it's legal or not, so let's just make that legal as well. Some also say that if a woman is determined to have an abortion not legally available, she will go somewhere unsafe to have the abortion. Well, what about the safety of her baby? There is no safe way for a baby to be aborted.
There are even some who disagree with abortion, but defend the "rights" of women to have them. "Who are we to interfere with someone else's bad choice?" they say, "We cannot let government control these sensitive matters." This is all well and good if you believe a fetus to be the equivalent of a flu bug or a termite. The same people would be outraged if the government did nothing to protect chickens or dogs. But if you are like me, and believe that an embryo is a defenseless human being, the argument doesn't fly.
When speaking of the freedom of "choice," people conveniently forget that a baby is a person who if born, would get to experience freedom of choice.
The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (my church, if you didn't know), is pretty clear on this issue. It upholds standards of chastity and virtue, and is firmly against abortion, except occasionally in (rare) cases of rape, incest, or serious health implications (which does not include the liberal interpretation of inconvenience to the mother). I find it extremely ironic that pro-life protests are held at least twice a year at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Either they are unaware of the Church's stance, or they do not allow for the same exceptions, or they do not agree that members who have had the procedure may go through the repentance process. In a recent church publication, Russel M. Nelson wrote one of the best articles on the subject I have read. It says all that needs to be said, but I can't help adding some more of my own thoughts, which are mostly in response to arguments justifying abortion.
One of the biggest arguments regards our lack of understanding at exactly which moment a baby in the womb is a living baby. Church leaders and scientists don't presume to know the answer to this question. Some argue that if the baby could not in any circumstance live outside of the womb, it cannot be counted as a living thing, being wholly dependent on its mother. I won't claim to know more than church leaders or scientists, but my own experience persuades me that the fetus is "alive" in a very real sense early in the pregnancy--perhaps as early as the first heartbeat. When I saw little Jeffy at 10 weeks in his first ultrasound, he looked like a little Mexican jumping bean! He wouldn't hold still, and that hasn't changed a bit! My girls didn't move at all at that point. But at the 20 week ultrasound, still too early for a baby to survive outside the mother, each of my children showed distinct character traits. Jeff arched his back and looked visibly annoyed when prodded by the doctor to get a better picture of his organs. Emmy was the sleepiest in the ultrasound, and Camille waved her hand as if to say, "Hello!" I could feel her little fingers tickling me later on in the pregnancy, and now that she's here, she still loves to touch and tickle me. I know the anecdotal evidence of an obviously biased mother isn't scientific evidence by any means, but I cannot imagine a mother would terminate a baby if she had seen what I had seen, or felt what I had felt.
The easiest argument to deal with is the one that says a mother shouldn't be inconvenienced by a bad decision. As Ann Coulter writes in her latest book, pregnancy is not like the flu, you don't just "catch" it. This goes back to my Dad's saying that choice comes before the baby, not after. Now, if a woman does not want her baby, then I agree that she is the last person who should be entrusted with a child. But I have heard of, and personally know many couples who dream of a family but cannot have their own children. They subject themselves to invasive questioning and rigorous interviews, only to be put on an endless waiting list to adopt. I know of some who have had the dream in their sights, only to have it torn away at the last minute by a biological father who suddenly appears and takes away the baby meant for them. I know of women making big bucks to be surrogate mothers. And yet millions of babies every year are terminated.
Some argue that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to get it whether it's legal or not, so we should just make it legal. That's like saying kids are going to do Meth whether it's legal or not, so let's just make that legal as well. Some also say that if a woman is determined to have an abortion not legally available, she will go somewhere unsafe to have the abortion. Well, what about the safety of her baby? There is no safe way for a baby to be aborted.
There are even some who disagree with abortion, but defend the "rights" of women to have them. "Who are we to interfere with someone else's bad choice?" they say, "We cannot let government control these sensitive matters." This is all well and good if you believe a fetus to be the equivalent of a flu bug or a termite. The same people would be outraged if the government did nothing to protect chickens or dogs. But if you are like me, and believe that an embryo is a defenseless human being, the argument doesn't fly.
When speaking of the freedom of "choice," people conveniently forget that a baby is a person who if born, would get to experience freedom of choice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-lift-ban-funding-groups-providing-abortions-overseas/
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4757.html
I didn't really want to or plan to write a criticism of the president on his first day of office. In keeping with campaign promises, by lifting a ban ordered by the Bush administration, federal money can go towards abortions overseas. Federal money: money we've entrusted to our Government, our taxes.
The subject of abortion is one I plan to address here, but it's a sensitive subject that I want to handle carefully. But it's one thing for abortion to be legal, it's another to take taxpayer money to assist the continuation of the procedure around the world.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4757.html
I didn't really want to or plan to write a criticism of the president on his first day of office. In keeping with campaign promises, by lifting a ban ordered by the Bush administration, federal money can go towards abortions overseas. Federal money: money we've entrusted to our Government, our taxes.
The subject of abortion is one I plan to address here, but it's a sensitive subject that I want to handle carefully. But it's one thing for abortion to be legal, it's another to take taxpayer money to assist the continuation of the procedure around the world.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration
Mixed feelings accompanied my decision to watch the Inauguration of President Obama this morning. With so many things to do around the house, why watch an inauguration when I've never watched one before?
I have mixed feelings still. Part of me was gratified to see the optimism of the crowd at the Washington Mall. I hope that their hopes are justified. A part of me is very fearful about the future.
Before I go into detail about the President's speech, two things must be mentioned.
The highlight of the event for me: Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Andy McGill (clarinet) and Gabriela Montero, pianist playing a John William's arrangement of "Air and Simple Gifts." I hope I can get my hands on that music someday.
Comic relief in Reverent Lowry's benediction:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.
How sad that this "poem" will be remembered more than the one given by Elizabeth Alexander.
And now, from Obama's speech:
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Love or hate Bush, he has followed his convictions. And in spite of all of the mean things Obama said about him, Bush has treated Obama with graciousness and congeniality. Dare I reference the last transition, in which the Clintons looted the White House?
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. It is possible that after a few months in the White House, Obama will find that he is not as able to break away from Bush policies as easily as he thought it would be.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. Having chosen a number of Cabinet members from among Bill Clinton's old colleagues, I am skeptical.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. I think this is what John McCain meant when he said that the fundamentals of the economy were good.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. These are wonderful ideas--but what will be the price tag? I am afraid that I am cynic who has found the ground shifted from under my feet.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. I beg to differ--I believe the question of the government's size is still a very pertinent one. However, I fully support the last bit about spending wisely and being held accountable for public money spent.
know that America is a friend of each nation I believe this is true. But not every nation is a friend to us.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. Very well said.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. We should keep this in mind when considering Ethanol production--many farmers are compelled to grow (subsidized) corn (using a lot of energy to do so) which will not go towards feeding people but for so-called energy reduction.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. But what if crazy Government intervention, such as the outlandish safety testing of all children's products, makes it impossible for us to achieve self-reliance?
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
I have mixed feelings still. Part of me was gratified to see the optimism of the crowd at the Washington Mall. I hope that their hopes are justified. A part of me is very fearful about the future.
Before I go into detail about the President's speech, two things must be mentioned.
The highlight of the event for me: Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Andy McGill (clarinet) and Gabriela Montero, pianist playing a John William's arrangement of "Air and Simple Gifts." I hope I can get my hands on that music someday.
Comic relief in Reverent Lowry's benediction:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.
How sad that this "poem" will be remembered more than the one given by Elizabeth Alexander.
And now, from Obama's speech:
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Love or hate Bush, he has followed his convictions. And in spite of all of the mean things Obama said about him, Bush has treated Obama with graciousness and congeniality. Dare I reference the last transition, in which the Clintons looted the White House?
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. It is possible that after a few months in the White House, Obama will find that he is not as able to break away from Bush policies as easily as he thought it would be.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. Having chosen a number of Cabinet members from among Bill Clinton's old colleagues, I am skeptical.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. I think this is what John McCain meant when he said that the fundamentals of the economy were good.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. These are wonderful ideas--but what will be the price tag? I am afraid that I am cynic who has found the ground shifted from under my feet.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. I beg to differ--I believe the question of the government's size is still a very pertinent one. However, I fully support the last bit about spending wisely and being held accountable for public money spent.
know that America is a friend of each nation I believe this is true. But not every nation is a friend to us.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. Very well said.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. We should keep this in mind when considering Ethanol production--many farmers are compelled to grow (subsidized) corn (using a lot of energy to do so) which will not go towards feeding people but for so-called energy reduction.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. But what if crazy Government intervention, such as the outlandish safety testing of all children's products, makes it impossible for us to achieve self-reliance?
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush's presidency
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206685391388221.html
I caught the last few minutes of President Bush's departure speech. Personally, I think it was one of his best--and I don't mean that in a "hurray, Bush is gone!" sort of way. The biggest moment of his speech for me came when he said, "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did." I guess I agree with most that Bush is a man who has followed his convictions, with or without support from others.
As I said before, everyone has their idea of how things should be run, and American History books are full of compromises. So, no, I don't agree with everything Bush did as president. But I agree less with the Bush-bashing which has become so popular.
I caught the last few minutes of President Bush's departure speech. Personally, I think it was one of his best--and I don't mean that in a "hurray, Bush is gone!" sort of way. The biggest moment of his speech for me came when he said, "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did." I guess I agree with most that Bush is a man who has followed his convictions, with or without support from others.
As I said before, everyone has their idea of how things should be run, and American History books are full of compromises. So, no, I don't agree with everything Bush did as president. But I agree less with the Bush-bashing which has become so popular.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Peaches or Plums, by Alan Michael Parker
Oh, how I hate my mind,
all those memories
that have invented their own memories.
Take my first love, for instance,
how after Mass we'd kneel
underneath the back stairs
and kiss and kiss and kiss and.
Were her lips like peaches or plums?
She was Catholic and she wanted
to be bad, and I loved her
more than baseball,
but all the other days
divided us, carry the one,
nothing left over. So strange,
only to kiss on a Sunday,
to hold my own breath again
for a week, another 10,022
minutes of wretched puberty,
until she moved to Iowa
or Ohio or the moon.
Oh, I can still remember
nothing about her,
only kissing, and the impossible
geometry of the descending stairs
that rose to the church kitchen,
her breath like hot nutmeg
and a little like the ocean;
and once, oh my god, she bit me,
a first taste of my body,
blood in her smile.
all those memories
that have invented their own memories.
Take my first love, for instance,
how after Mass we'd kneel
underneath the back stairs
and kiss and kiss and kiss and.
Were her lips like peaches or plums?
She was Catholic and she wanted
to be bad, and I loved her
more than baseball,
but all the other days
divided us, carry the one,
nothing left over. So strange,
only to kiss on a Sunday,
to hold my own breath again
for a week, another 10,022
minutes of wretched puberty,
until she moved to Iowa
or Ohio or the moon.
Oh, I can still remember
nothing about her,
only kissing, and the impossible
geometry of the descending stairs
that rose to the church kitchen,
her breath like hot nutmeg
and a little like the ocean;
and once, oh my god, she bit me,
a first taste of my body,
blood in her smile.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Something to protest
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123189645948879745.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264507
I wasn't even aware of this law until a couple of friends referred to it on Facebook. It has certainly been buried under more sensational news, but when the law goes into effect, we will all be hit pretty hard, whether we make children's products, sell them, or buy them. Not to mention the effect it will have on the economy--and who knows but that we will be asked to donate even more of our children's money to bail out those who will have lost their businesses.
It's not the first time, but it is a perfect illustration of how the government makes rash, ill-conceived laws which create havoc for many, which will have to be addressed in the future, only to have even more rash and ill-conceived laws put in place to undo the damage.
oops, when I initially published, I made a mistake on the links. Hopefully it's better now.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264507
I wasn't even aware of this law until a couple of friends referred to it on Facebook. It has certainly been buried under more sensational news, but when the law goes into effect, we will all be hit pretty hard, whether we make children's products, sell them, or buy them. Not to mention the effect it will have on the economy--and who knows but that we will be asked to donate even more of our children's money to bail out those who will have lost their businesses.
It's not the first time, but it is a perfect illustration of how the government makes rash, ill-conceived laws which create havoc for many, which will have to be addressed in the future, only to have even more rash and ill-conceived laws put in place to undo the damage.
oops, when I initially published, I made a mistake on the links. Hopefully it's better now.
Monday, January 12, 2009
I saw this article coauthored by Joel Klein and Al Sharpton entitled "Charter Schools Can Close the Education Gap."
I thought, hm, will I find myself agreeing with Rev. Sharpton? Until I read the first paragraph, and saw, "Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer in America."
If he's talking about making quality education available to everyone, (and by "everyone", I mean legal residents of the United States), fine. But what I am reading into it is the concept of promoting mediocrity.
As I continue reading, I find that a lot of stuff makes sense--like not bowing to the will of teacher unions to protect incompetent teachers. However, they seem to be proposing more Government intervention, more national standards that sound a lot like "No Child Left Behind." I have mixed feelings about "No Child Left Behind," incidentally. Anyway, I have little confidence that lawmakers can improve education whatever their good intentions. Especially if they site studies I can't agree with. Like the following:
"Study after study shows that good teachers have, by far, the highest impact on student learning. "The single most important factor in determining [student] achievement is not the color of [a student's] skin or where they come from," you stated on the campaign trail. "It's not who their parents are or how much money they have -- it's who their teacher is." We couldn't agree more. To close the achievement gap, start with a three-word solution: Teachers, teachers, teachers."
What studies? Can they be more specific?
I'm not arguing against teachers necessarily, good teachers have had a profound impact on my life. However, I've had a lot of bad teachers too. What has been the most important factor in my achievement (I'm going out on a limb by assuming that I fall into the "successful" category) is my parents--and they raised me without a lot of money, too. More and more, I see the government trying to take the responsibility of raising children away from the parents.
I thought, hm, will I find myself agreeing with Rev. Sharpton? Until I read the first paragraph, and saw, "Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer in America."
If he's talking about making quality education available to everyone, (and by "everyone", I mean legal residents of the United States), fine. But what I am reading into it is the concept of promoting mediocrity.
As I continue reading, I find that a lot of stuff makes sense--like not bowing to the will of teacher unions to protect incompetent teachers. However, they seem to be proposing more Government intervention, more national standards that sound a lot like "No Child Left Behind." I have mixed feelings about "No Child Left Behind," incidentally. Anyway, I have little confidence that lawmakers can improve education whatever their good intentions. Especially if they site studies I can't agree with. Like the following:
"Study after study shows that good teachers have, by far, the highest impact on student learning. "The single most important factor in determining [student] achievement is not the color of [a student's] skin or where they come from," you stated on the campaign trail. "It's not who their parents are or how much money they have -- it's who their teacher is." We couldn't agree more. To close the achievement gap, start with a three-word solution: Teachers, teachers, teachers."
What studies? Can they be more specific?
I'm not arguing against teachers necessarily, good teachers have had a profound impact on my life. However, I've had a lot of bad teachers too. What has been the most important factor in my achievement (I'm going out on a limb by assuming that I fall into the "successful" category) is my parents--and they raised me without a lot of money, too. More and more, I see the government trying to take the responsibility of raising children away from the parents.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Asking for Directions, by Linda Gregg
We could have been mistaken for a married couple
riding on the train from Manhattan to Chicago
that last time we were together. I remember
looking out the window and praising the beauty
of the ordinary: the in-between places, the world
with its back turned to us, the small neglected
stations of our history. I slept across your
chest and stomach without asking permission
because they were the last hours. There was
a smell to the sheepskin lining of your new
Chinese vest that I didn't recognize. I felt
it deliberately. I woke early and asked you
to come with me for coffee. You said, sleep more,
and I said we only had one hour and you came.
We didn't say much after that. In the station,
you took your things and handed me the vest,
then left as we had planned. So you would have
ten minutes to meet your family and leave.
I stood by the seat dazed by exhaustion
and the absoluteness of the end, so still I was
aware of myself breathing. I put on the vest
and my coat, got my bag and, turning, saw you
through the dirty window standing outside looking
up at me. We looked at each other without any
expression at all. Invisible, unnoticed, still.
That moment is what I will tell of as proof
that you loved me permanently. After that I was
a woman alone carrying her bag, asking a worker
which direction to walk to find a taxi.
riding on the train from Manhattan to Chicago
that last time we were together. I remember
looking out the window and praising the beauty
of the ordinary: the in-between places, the world
with its back turned to us, the small neglected
stations of our history. I slept across your
chest and stomach without asking permission
because they were the last hours. There was
a smell to the sheepskin lining of your new
Chinese vest that I didn't recognize. I felt
it deliberately. I woke early and asked you
to come with me for coffee. You said, sleep more,
and I said we only had one hour and you came.
We didn't say much after that. In the station,
you took your things and handed me the vest,
then left as we had planned. So you would have
ten minutes to meet your family and leave.
I stood by the seat dazed by exhaustion
and the absoluteness of the end, so still I was
aware of myself breathing. I put on the vest
and my coat, got my bag and, turning, saw you
through the dirty window standing outside looking
up at me. We looked at each other without any
expression at all. Invisible, unnoticed, still.
That moment is what I will tell of as proof
that you loved me permanently. After that I was
a woman alone carrying her bag, asking a worker
which direction to walk to find a taxi.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
thinking out loud...
Things I want to explore in my "Thesis", if I can ever put together enough sources to back my positions:
Public education methods: "Traditional" vs. John Dewey (an old argument, but not all that out-dated)
Do we really need ART in our public schools? "Support ART in our schools" is a popular position, but is the defense convincing? Why is Classical music losing ground (or so we hear) year after year? If it is true, is it the fault of schools?
Are the failures of our children compared to those in other countries fairly pinned on our schools? While I am planning to be critical of Education in America, I don't think it is to blame for all of our problems, and I believe throwing more money at it isn't going to help.
Public vs. Charter vs. Private vs. Homeschooling and my dilemma. While disillusioned by the rhetoric which gives so much credence to Public Education, I am not wholly opposed to it. Partly because Boise doesn't offer a ton of options without a ton of inconvenience to myself. I believe that kids do need peers, and they benefit from other perspectives besides mine. I also cannot deny that as a parent, I have already gone against conventional wisdom that says TV is bad for kids...so can I be entrusted with their learning? Confession that I still have a lot of self-serving ambitions that are "on hold" until my kids are in school. Will I be able to look at this objectively?
Public education methods: "Traditional" vs. John Dewey (an old argument, but not all that out-dated)
Do we really need ART in our public schools? "Support ART in our schools" is a popular position, but is the defense convincing? Why is Classical music losing ground (or so we hear) year after year? If it is true, is it the fault of schools?
Are the failures of our children compared to those in other countries fairly pinned on our schools? While I am planning to be critical of Education in America, I don't think it is to blame for all of our problems, and I believe throwing more money at it isn't going to help.
Public vs. Charter vs. Private vs. Homeschooling and my dilemma. While disillusioned by the rhetoric which gives so much credence to Public Education, I am not wholly opposed to it. Partly because Boise doesn't offer a ton of options without a ton of inconvenience to myself. I believe that kids do need peers, and they benefit from other perspectives besides mine. I also cannot deny that as a parent, I have already gone against conventional wisdom that says TV is bad for kids...so can I be entrusted with their learning? Confession that I still have a lot of self-serving ambitions that are "on hold" until my kids are in school. Will I be able to look at this objectively?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
public education
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748933977852023.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122912779960403217.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990457567925243.html (teacher strikes in PA)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128805154659199.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/EdFeulner/2009/01/09/school_choice_the_real_test?page=full&comments=true
http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/628253.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301897611717947.html
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=21976999949&h=Lrfw-&u=_wBRw CO experiment
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457271366086479.html Jeb Bush on education and other things
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698751663025791.html
I've been thinking a lot about public education, and doing a lot of reading. Some links are above. I have some opinions forming, but am not ready to organize all of my thoughts into a coherent thesis. The more I think about it, but more I feel like I could write a whole paper on. Anyway, you (my vast readership, haha) have been warned about what may be to come. Actually, I'm mostly interested in doing this for myself.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122912779960403217.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990457567925243.html (teacher strikes in PA)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128805154659199.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/EdFeulner/2009/01/09/school_choice_the_real_test?page=full&comments=true
http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/628253.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301897611717947.html
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=21976999949&h=Lrfw-&u=_wBRw CO experiment
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457271366086479.html Jeb Bush on education and other things
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698751663025791.html
I've been thinking a lot about public education, and doing a lot of reading. Some links are above. I have some opinions forming, but am not ready to organize all of my thoughts into a coherent thesis. The more I think about it, but more I feel like I could write a whole paper on. Anyway, you (my vast readership, haha) have been warned about what may be to come. Actually, I'm mostly interested in doing this for myself.
Friday, January 2, 2009
What party do I belong to?
I have been confused at the number of arguments going around about the merits of a two-party system, or the lack thereof. I'm with many who consider themselves "conservative" as opposed to Republican, but I also recognize that "conservatives" alone don't have the power or money to make a difference against the status quo. While most of the Libertarian philosophy rings true to me (though I disagree with some), it is looked at with so much contempt by the media, it's a real uphill battle. The truth is that each and every citizen has a different idea of how things should be run. Actually, some have no idea at all, but for those of us who do (and I admit my understanding is limited), we have to work with one another to come up with solutions, and we will not be able to get our way 100% of the time. Unfortunately, conservatives will not be able to get our way 40% of the time in the next few years, and my best hope is that "we" will be able to prevent extreme liberalism from running rampant. Anyway...these are thoughts I have been forming as I have been reading informed blogs like Kannie's, and watching the news. The WSJ had an article I read today that I can support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)