Nothing but Cottontail...

There's nothing wrong with me.  At least not overall anyway.  I'm not likely to make a commitment though.  I recently thought that I wanted to, but I, well we were mistaken.  I don't really want to hash it all out.  I have certain expectations in a relationship and there was a deal breaker in the mix.  I'll take the blame.  I'm a commitment phob most of the time and I'll admit that I may have little patience if certain things don't fit.  I joke that I expect that trifecta--emotional, intellectual and physical.  But it's really not a joke and recently I've realized that those three ingredients are more difficult to find, let alone define.  I'm certainly not one to claim that I am perfect.  I'm so flawed sometimes I am amazed at how I have survived.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not some wanting reject either.  I'm funny (albeit a little sarcastic), pretty smart (overall), can get by in any group or crowd, am open minded, a little bit wild and a little bit reserved.  I'm a pretty good mix overall.  Can't really complain.  But, I am most definitely not some sort of perfection.  My commitment phobia is part of that "flawed" portion I suppose, or it is from my point of view anyway.  Like I stated in the last blog, maybe it's time I figured out why that phobia is there.  We've established that it has nothing to do with fear of infidelity.  The phobia was there before my ex's infidelity, so while it didn't improve it, it certainly didn't create it.  Of course, when I look back, lots of people were offering to scoop me up like I was an ice cream selection at Baskin Robbins at one point.  I just wasn't into the idea.  Like I've stated before, three times I would've gone there, and I'm starting to think that maybe the fact that I ever wanted to go there--make a lifetime commitment to anyone--means that I am most certainly capable.  Maybe I'm not even truly a commitment phob.  Maybe I'm just not interested in getting myself into any situation that isn't well suited for me and I'm pretty sure that would be a good thing.

"Alex would be married if she wanted to be."  That's what an ex-boyfriend's brother told him that knew me pretty well.  I suppose that was a very true statement to some degree.  I definitely could've been married if I wanted to be married to one of the guys I had dated, and I'm sure that there were at least one or two that would've dated me if they had gotten the chance.  In their minds, they may have even thought if they ever dated me that I would be "the one" that they wanted to spend their lives with.  I've had quite a few guys that wanted to marry me in the past.  I was one of those women that it seemed like everyone I went out with wanted to get serious with me.  Some friends assumed it was because I was a bit of a tease.  Some thought it was because I was a lot like "one of the guys".  Others would ponder that it was because I was completely inaccessible--a commitment phob.  Another words, some guys were drawn in just because I was uninterested.  I'll be honest that last one crossed my mind and has often been the one that I genuinely have concerns about.   Afterall, who wants to be with someone that only wants you because they can't have you?  The guys that I showed any interest in at all often turned tail and ran...usually only to turn around as soon as I had moved on.  The others that showed interest that I didn't reciprocate seemed to make like desperate ditches to try to get my attention.  In truth, usually when guys turned tail and ran, I was bored quickly.  I have the attention span of a gnat sometimes, and game players usually didn't keep my interest very long.  The main problem wasn't just my attention span though.  I would find something "wrong" with them.  Players are the easiest to find something "wrong" with, and the minute I found anything wrong, and I do mean anything, bam!!!  Nothing but cottontail.  By the time the guys had realized I was gone, nothing they could do would change my mind.  So the statement, "Alex would be married if she wanted to be" only took into account what the guys were thinking....not what I was thinking.  No one sided description does a complicated animal like me justice.

Did, do I want to be married again?  Honestly, sure I do.  I like the idea of commitment and I like the idea of sharing my life with someone and vice versa.  I'm not the Ozzie and Harriet type by any means, but news flash:  neither are most of the men or women on this planet.  No life could be that perfect and that's the beauty of it when it comes down to it.  Frankly, that "perfection" could be exhausting and tedious.  However, the fact that I would like to make that commitment to someone is probably proof positive that I'm not actually the commitment phobic that I claim to be or that some of my friends might profess me to be.  So, the concept isn't a problem for me.  I like, heck honestly, love the idea of sharing my life with someone.  I've put off a lot of the things that I would like to do just because I want to do those things with someone else.  Or they just don't seem as important on my list of to do because I want "to do" with someone.  I've done a lot of things with my boys--amusement parks, hockey games, hiking, beaches.  I did these things with them while they were growing up because I love to do with them and because I loved sharing those moments with my boys.  There's little point in me spending a long weekend in St. Augustine by myself, even if it is one of my most favorite places in the world.  I'm definitely not afraid of being alone but it really isn't my preferred status.

The problem is that it is simply not as simple as a guy wanting to marry me and me wanting to marry him.  I mean it should be and I think once you find the right person it truly is that damn simple.  However, I've had guys think I'm the one and me think "not just no, but hell no".  I've had one that I know of that thought "nope" when it came to me even though I might have.  I suppose that's another reason that most of my friends would agree with that ex-boyfriend's brother.  I've had plenty of times that I could've made the commitment to someone.  But then we get into something truly more complicated.  Why didn't I want to when I've had these opportunities?  Well, that really is the question isn't it?  I want an intellectual match.  I'm not the brightest light bulb, nor am I the dimmest setting on the light switch.  I've found several guys that I've dated are within the acceptable range of intellect.  In fact, every last one of them.  That seems to be easy schmeesy there.  I want a physical match.  I wrote in a previous blog about the study conducted about physical appearance.  I've been more than willing to drop down a number or two even for someone I thought was a good match, but the truth is that has often caused more problems than it's worth.  Physical appearance and compatibility should be the least important in the grand scheme of the trifecta, but I've dated a guy that was well below what anyone would think I should date (appearance).  He turned out to be one of the most heinous, horrible jerks I've ever known, and honestly I'd never date anyone that I was not physically attracted to ever again because of him.  I can be treated like shit by a guy I'm attracted to; I'm sure as hell not going to put up with it from some guy that I'm not really attracted to.  Still, while physical attractiveness and compatibility are definitely deal breakers, it's not the top priority.  It's like the third place horse for the trifecta.  So two of the horses in the race can be easily placed as the second and third place ponies.

The emotional compatibility seems to really be where the problem starts and ends then by process of elimination.  I expect my friends, male and female, to have my back and vice versa.  So it's not a surprise that I expect a man to have my back, stand by me, protect me, and know that he's there for me whether good, bad or indifferent.  As a great friend of mine put it, "In public a man is supposed to have your back no matter what.  He can tell you in private you were wrong, but he'd damn well better not tell you in public.  If you're under attack, then he better draw swords.  If you stumble, he'd damn well better lift you up."  To her point, a man is supposed to be a man and just because I can stand up for myself, I'm strong, self-efficient and capable, I can still expect a man to take the lead in public.  Men don't typically show vulnerability but to a very few; sometimes, they don't even show their closest male friends.  It's often the women that they are committed to that get to see their "softer" sides.  I'm fine with that, and in fact, to a large degree expect it.  Pretty much every guy I've ever dated more than a couple dates is that.  If I see that waver, nothing makes me turn tail and run faster.  It might take me a couple months or so to recognize the problem, but after that I'm going to bolt.  There's only been one, and I mean ONLY one, that I gave a pass when he failed to defend me, but in all fairness, I didn't realize it at the time.  He ended the relationship because he knew he wasn't doing it.  AND, he defended me tooth and nail for a while afterwards--at least according to some people.  That particular instance might have been far more complicated also than the norm.  However, I know if some of the guys I've dated in the past are reading this, they're thinking "that wasn't my issue".  They're probably right.  There were other emotional considerations.  My ex-husband got kicked to the curb for cheating and more importantly for continuing to cheat after being caught.  Nothing screams a man has no respect for you than cheating.  I dropped a guy like a hot potato because I didn't like his friends--not my job to choose his friends or change him.  Like him the way he is or cut him loose.  I dropped a guy because I didn't like his family.  Again, like him the way he is (and his family if he's close to them) or cut him loose.  I dropped a guy because he made me feel like I was his mother--nothing is a bigger turn off to me than a man with "mommy issues".  I dropped one of my best friends because he was an alcoholic.  I dropped another because both his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend he had kids with would call screaming at him on a regular basis.  If it had been one, probably not, but two?  I dropped one guy because he was such an arrogant ass even his "friends" said that they just agreed with him because it was easier to do so.  So there could any number of a thousand emotional reasons that I'll walk away from an otherwise decent match but I also think all of them are reasonably justifiable.  At least from my point of view.  There are some emotional things that I overlooked that friends of mine wouldn't.   So I think it's really a question about what I am or am not willing to live with,  and that's no different than anyone else.  I just haven't managed to find that emotional connection that is a truly good match.

Besides, I've been willing to make a lifelong commitment to three different men.  Honest and true commitments.  So it's not that I'm incapable.  It's not that I'm not willing to compromise and share.  It's that I'm unwilling to settle for less than I've had in the last of those three relationships.  Each one of those was better than the last and the last one was very, very easy.  We never talked about the relationship; it just seemed to work (granted until we broke up).  I felt confident and secure and safe in the relationship...again, until it ended.  We matched intellectually and physically, but ultimately, we became incapable emotionally.  It's probably debatable who's fault, if either of us were at fault or even whether it was just circumstances.  Who knows.  Doesn't really change a damn thing in my current circumstances other than nothing has come close since.  A friend pointed out that I may never find anything close to it again.  I might have argued that point with her a year ago...hell, she might've argued against herself a year ago.  However, I am simply unwilling to settle for less.  Why would I?  It's not that I'm comparing.  I've thought about that too.  It's that I'm not willing to go backwards.  If there was a relationship that worked that well for me, then there has to be one that will work as well or better.  That's faith, I suppose.  Of course, one of my atheist friends would tell me that faith is ridiculous and there's no such thing as "the one".  I'd argue as I argued in a previous blog about the mathematical probability of randomness.  There are theorems that prove that random points are in fact fixed points that will occur no matter what.  Since we will never "prove" that those random points are not what people base their "faith" on, I'll just suffice that I have faith that everything happens for a reason and eventually everything works itself out the way it's supposed to.  I just haven't reached that point in time where it's completely inevitable in spite of the appearance of being random happenstance.

Basically it comes down to this:  I'm not really a commitment phob.  I'll make a commitment.  I have in the past and it doesn't seem to stop me from trying because commitments that I've made seemingly have failed.  I don't blame or feel angry that things haven't worked; I'm not a man hater or some other ridiculous stereotype because of any past transgressions.  I'm just waiting on that one perfect random moment that the stars all align or some mathematical theorem that guides my life comes to its apex.  Or more easily stated, I have faith that everything happens for a reason and when it's right it will just happen.  Until it's right, well, when it's not right, nothing but cottontail...

Cottontail Syndrome

I don't claim to give advice and I'm not one to try to.  I sometimes get asked for my opinion, and I tend to make sure that my "advice" is expressed as it's just my opinion.  Some friends want advice; some just want an ear to ping stuff off of.  Sometimes, neither.  I suppose it also comes down to who do you trust enough to talk to, and most of my friends, in spite of my blog, know that I'm not running around telling every Tom, Dick and Harry their business.  I often tell the stories as they affect me and only to the effect that I believe that lots of people experience similar situations.  Those similarities are what touch us and make us feel connected and less alone in our situations.  I think that loneliness can be overwhelming at times.  I've been there, and I know for sure that I am not the only one.  One of the hardest times for most people I think is to be in a relationship that they find no longer tangible.  No one wants to give up on someone that they have invested time in, but at the same time, no one wants to be in a relationship that they feel stifles them.  I've joked that I'm the epitome of commitment phobic.  I suffer immensely from "cottontail syndrome"...run rabbit, run.  Some people I know suppose that is because I was the victim of a bad relationship with infidelity at its worst.  I'm not really sure.  So perhaps, I need to explore this possibility.

I have a lot of friends in less than satisfying relationships.  I know you have to take the good with the bad, but I sometimes wonder if the bad is even worth the good when I observe their experiences.  The ones that are married tend to stick it out longer, and sometimes, make it work in spite.  I have a buddy who's been married over 20 years.  I'll admit I adore him--mainly because we are like two peas in a pod.  However, there is a major difference between us.  In his marriage 20 years ago, he was the cheating dog, and I was the married to a cheating dog.  He and his wife survived his infidelity, mainly because of her.  As anyone that is a regular reader of my blog knows, my dog got kicked to the curb.  Our conversations are often pretty frank, since both he and I suffer from honesty syndrome--sometimes we can be too honest for our own good.  (How he got caught by the way.)  Perhaps his infidelity was too much, seems like karma kicked his ass, because he's now impotent.  There's an irony there that just grabs you.  He's also coping now with his wife cheating.  I'm not sure if her cheating started before or after his issues started, but it's a strange twist of events to be sure.  He jokes about it once in a while like it's so matter of fact and there's not anyone that doesn't know about it--although other than when he brings it up, no one acknowledges it.  It's become an unwritten rule to a large degree.  I asked him once why he stayed.  His response was a long, long awkward moment of silence followed by, 'It is what it is."  It is what it is.  It is what it is?  It is what it is!  The words resonated in my head.  Wow.  Complacency?  Like I stated, he and I are two peas in a pod.  There'd be no 'it is what it is' for me.  Of course, where we differ is that very few women suffer from not being able to perform.  Most women that don't perform choose to not perform.  And, I've never been the cheating dog.  In his shoes, after a long time considering his position, I suppose he's right.  He still loves her with all his heart and vice versa, and like me, he firmly believes what comes around goes around.  This is his around.  It is what it is.

Honestly, I know several couples that stayed together after infidelity.  In most, it was the man that cheated, and the women did the ever faithful stand by your man routine.  In most of the cases where it was the woman that cheated, the marriage ended.  Most men simply will not stand for that, because their egos just won't take the blow.  In the cases where it's the man though, there is a myriad of possibilities of the outcome.  One friend has stuck it out after her husband cheated and now he's an absolute loon when he gets worried over the possibility of her leaving him.  He's much like Chris Rock says in one of his comedy skits.  Men worry after their own infidelity that they've given the woman a free pass.  Another stuck it out, and over the years she became more and more bitter over the way he treated her.  I'm not sure the infidelity ever came to a complete stop.  Her loyalty was repaid by him being gone 5 nights a week for various meetings with his Masonic brethren.  What I know about the Masons, I thought they were supposed to be striving to be better men.  I don't see how infidelity falls into being a better man.  Perhaps the Masons are more smoke and mirrors than they let on.  I'm not even sure that he was actually going to Masonic meetings, and I don't think she bought it either.  But, I never understood her standing by him.  She loved him at some point, but she became so bitter for a while that I tend to believe that lead to her early passing.  The heart can only sustain so much bitterness, anger and hatred.  There truly is a fine line between love and hate.  I actually would love to close this paragraph with the "happy ending" version of these stories, but I simply don't have one.  I have one acquaintance, I suppose she thinks were friends, who is as happy as she thinks she can be in spite of her husband's cheating.  Of course, she's a very shallow, money focused woman.  She doesn't work, and her husband makes plenty of money.  She's perfectly content with him cheating because to paraphrase a conversation we had once, she wouldn't want his ass all over her anyway.  I asked if she worried at all that he would ever leave her high and dry and possibly broke.  She laughed.  The prenuptial that he had insisted on cut both ways.  Since she could prove his infidelity, she would walk away with a minimum of half of everything.  Plus, he loved her in his own way.  OK.  My assessment is that it is simply a marriage of convenience now, regardless of whatever it was before.  I'm not sure, but I guess I knew myself better than I thought I did 18 years ago.  I kicked my dog to the curb, and while I'm positive that might not be the best for someone else, it was definitely the best for me.

There are times that I've wondered if infidelity is the reason that I am such a commitment phob.  I mean amongst my friends my phobia is notorious.  I'm simply unwilling to make a real long term commitment to anyone other than my children.  Even the dog (and by dog, I mean my famous Akita) should be worried whether or not I can make a long term commitment to him.  I'm already trying desperately to pawn him off on my oldest son--well, in truth, the dog is supposed to be his and his brothers.  Still, when they decided to pawn him off on me, the first thought was to drop his ass off at the pound and call it a day.  He's only still living with me because my boys would kill me if I did that and that stupid "but I love you Mom" look that he picked up from my kids.  Of course, I'd be lying if I said I've never wanted to make that commitment.  I was engaged when I was young--by young I mean 19.  I'm not sure how long that relationship would've lasted in retrospect, but I was totally head over heels.  Of course, the problem with puppy love is that sometimes it doesn't become the real thing.  The second time that I really wanted to get married, well, I married him.  And, when they say there's a fine line between love and hate, that's not an understatement.  Yes, love can skip over that rope so fast it will make your head spin.  Of course, since I find hate a useless emotion, it didn't take me long to get over it.  I have friends that have been divorced for years, both male and female, and still hate or obsess over their exes.  They writhe from the thought of the cheater being happy.  My response to them is no cheater is happy.  If they were happy, they wouldn't be cheaters.  The third time, yes believe it or not there was a third time, I just never discussed it, never brought it up, and put it in the back of my pea brain.  Although I would've gone there in a heartbeat, I simply didn't want to ruin what I had and figured it would work itself out in the short or long run.  Since I'm still single, you can pretty much guess how that ended.  It never occurred to me that he even might cheat, and even if it had, I suppose the heart wants what the heart wants.  The relationships that I've had since, well, I'll admit that sometimes the heart wants something and then it changes its "mind".  The luster, or maybe the lust, washes off.  Or maybe the relationship, no matter what the heart wants, becomes intangible.  My friends will tell you I might even choose the intangible over the tangible simply because I prefer to run away like a scared rabbit--nothing but cottontail.  Of course, in those cases, infidelity or even the hint of a possibility of infidelity, have absolutely nothing to do with my desire to run.  So while I've wondered in the past if it was my "problem" with commitment, it's not.  Whatever my phobia stems from, it simply is what it is.

My sister often advises me to be sure that I'm happy in the relationship whenever I'm in one.  After all the years of observing the bad to great relationships of my friends, I do understand that being happy in a relationship is the only reason to be there.  If you're not happy, perhaps it's a temporary thing.  In that case, you can ride out the rough spot.  If you can't see yourself reaching that point, well, maybe you need to wait until the "emotion" has died down a little so that you can see the forest through the trees.  The reality though is that if once it's over you feel, or the other person feels, that a huge weight has been lifted off of the proverbial shoulders, then the relationship simply was going to eventually end in misery.  No reason to force something that isn't tangible.  It simply won't work.  I kick myself sometimes.  I do sometimes think I'd be better off if I could've made the tangible relationship, but then I also realize that status quo, staying somewhere where I'm not happy, just wouldn't work for me.  My one friend says the problem isn't that either.  She points to that third time that I would've made a lifelong commitment and not given it a second thought.  Looking back she asked me to ponder and decide if I would've changed my point of view on that now.  That's a serious thought.  It's been on my mind for months now.  Several months.  Would I change or even think of changing the outcomes of other relationships I've been in?  Those that didn't work, didn't for a reason, right?  That is my logic most of the time.  Why didn't I marry one of my best friends several years ago instead of entering into a pact that would likely never come to fruition?  Wow.  The answer is scary.  I wouldn't because my pea brain didn't let go of something that was intangible.  I ran away from the fact that I didn't want to see and I never quite resolved it.  Infidelity while it might be a misery factor is not the reason that I'm a commitment phobic.  I'm a phobic because my heart set itself on one thing and my brain and heart have never reconciled since.  I'm not sure what to make of that answer.  I suppose it makes me a little stupid somehow.  The one thing I can say is that I've finally reached a reconciliation--or at least the heart and head have.  It's not that I'm a commitment phob; it's that the heart wants what the heart wants.  Until it accepts that what it wants isn't tangible, it simply is what it is.

Reign of the Inept

Oh, I know I've said I was sick of Obamacare, the shutdown and the rest of it, but I'm just sick of people that think Obama is all that just because he's a minority, half black, whatever.  I'm part Chinese; doesn't mean that I'm the smartest thing since sliced bread.  That's an ignorant stereotype, as is the idea that a black man, part black man, is the epitome of American success story because he managed to attend a prestigious school, do a little volunteer community service, and lie his way into political positions.  He's Rico Suave.  I get it.  I was duped in 2008 also.  Look back through my blogs if you don't believe me.  I wrote a blog before the 2008 election where I said that he and John McCain were probably the most honest, "good" politicians that we have ever seen the two parties present to the American public.  I considered either win a toss.  I saw Obama as youthful, articulate, and hopeful.  I saw McCain as experienced, also articulate, maybe a little hardened.  I'll admit I still voted for McCain.  I was a McCain supporter in all of his bids for the Presidency.  I'll admit though that I genuinely considered voting for Obama.  I finally opted for the decades of experience, although I wasn't sure that McCain could resolve the National Debt, which Obama promised to resolve.  When Obama won the Presidency, I had faith that he would take that promise to heart and try to bring it to fruition.  With the economy collapse, I thought that a real effort to reduce the National Debt might be a really good thing for the overall GNP and ultimately with growing pains would create a better national and global economy.  I was OK with that.  But let's look at Obama's reign so far and figure out really if that is what has been going on.

For one, let's deal with his primary campaign promise in 2008--the National Debt.  He's done nothing to decrease it.  Zero, zilch, nada.  Not a damn thing.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The huge stimulus package.  Obamacare.  Bottom line.  The fact is that as of March of this year, the National Debt has increased by over $6T, yes trillion, since Obama took office, and before you rant and rave about how much it increased under other Presidents, it increased by $4.9B under GW Bush.  We financed two wars during his 8 years. Obama is on track to double the National Debt by the time he leaves office--one war gone, another seriously downsized and yet we're on track to double the National Debt.  In fact, only half way into his second term and the National Debt is already both in dollar amount and percentage increased by Obama more than any other President...including the New Deal.  Now, Obama bangs on his chest about increasing the debt ceiling, and I'm wondering how so many people forgot how important it was to lower the National Debt according to him, for our children and for future generations.  Yet, no one, especially the staunch Obama supporters, are asking WTF?  Well, I am.  

Let's consider one of the huge contributors to the National Debt.  The large stimulus package added to the National Debt and did nothing to actually stimulate the economy.  The Stimulus package had the huge fiasco "Cash for Clunkers" which only allowed cars that were built in the 2000s basically.  Cars that were pre-2000s in general are of course the "worst" for pollution, value, et cetera.  The automotive dealers made a fortune.  At first, it looked like salvage yards would see huge gains also.  Except all those cars being turned in were ruined and wouldn't need those parts.  The car companies really didn't see any real benefit, as most of the plant closings are a testament of.  In fact, taxpayers--you and me folks--paid an average of $24,000 per vehicle turned in for "Cash for Clunkers" and a total of 690,000 vehicles.  For those of you that are too lazy to use a calculator, the final tally being over $16.5B, yes BILLION.  Time Magazine, Money (CNN), and other various news sources called it a failure.  Everyone has heard of, although they might not know any real details, about the $20B lost on solar energy companies.  No one ever looked into what really happened with all that money.  The general answer has been companies fail all the time, except these were companies that were not in good financial shape in the first place.  While the money invested in the car companies--GM and Chrysler--was a low risk gamble, investing in those solar companies was considered worse than high risk.  They're financials prevented them from being able to get any financing from any other source, and this is where the Obama Administration decided to put the money?  While we're on that topic, we did NOT save GM and Chrysler or Ford.  The Big Three were considered "good to great" risks with restructuring and could've gotten the money for restructuring through bankruptcy court like so many companies have done in the past.  Proof is in the pudding.  The two that did borrow government money have already repaid their debt--which since that was technically borrowed money, I'm wondering if that went back to the debt it increased?  It also included tax breaks for companies hiring people that were unemployed for 6 months or more.  At the time though, companies were downsizing and barely could take advantage of the $4000 tax credit.  That minuscule amount wasn't going to justify a full time employee making $25K with benefits which ultimately costs a company about $35K a year.  The concept alone was laughable--spend $35K for $4K.  That might work for the US Government, but the private sector just can't do that.  Speaking of laughable, the stimulus package also included government summer jobs for kids between the ages of 16 to 24, because they had an estimated 50% plus "unemployment" rate.  Did you hear about this?  Of course not, these jobs went to kids whose parents were somehow tied to the administration or to the people that were handing out those jobs.  The reason they had a 50% unemployment rate is simple; when people--hourly or salary--start losing our full time jobs we stop spending as much money for the extras--no fast food, eating out less, buying less stuff at the malls and shops.  More importantly, 16 to 24 kids that aren't gainfully employed do absolutely NOTHING to feed the economy.  Who gives a crap if they are unemployed compared to the bigger problem?  I hate band-aid mentality and that's band-aid mentality.  (Band-aid mentality is throw a band-aid on the gaping wound instead of dealing with the real problem.  Yes, it's an Alex-ism.)  The great stimulus package also included money and funding for national civil engineering projects--road improvements, bridge improvements, and other construction projects.  Sounded great.  Except...For the states to get the money, there were all kinds of bureaucratic red tape and getting the money became more of a hassle than just leaving well enough alone.  Plus, the pay rates and the construction payments were regulated by the law making it difficult for states that were suffering because of jobs lost and reduced incoming tax money to fund their "share".  In fact, most states found that they couldn't afford to pay the higher wages required because the bids came in that much higher.  I don't know what you would call it.  I'll call it a fail.  We already "knew" the stimulus package would fail on top of it.  Japan had passed a similar package in the 1990s.  It was a failure there.  Our bright light bulbs in Washington thought that since we aren't Japan it would work here.  Bwahaha.  Seriously.  Who did they think Japan modeled their economy from in the first place?  Let's suffice to say, most of us realize that this was not really a great plan.  The Great Stimulus fiasco, that's what we should call it.

Ok, so let's focus on Obama for a second.  President Obama is a minority, right?  African American?  Well, let's get this on the table.  He's an American citizen.  I know Hawaii wasn't a state at the time he was born, neither was Ohio when Rutherford B. Hayes was born.  I do believe he took advantage of his father's foreign status while attending Columbia, but I've had friends that were military brats with one non-American parent.  They have had the options to take "advantage" of the system, so while I may question his true loyalties, I'm not going to argue whether he actually had the right to do so.  He wasn't really raised in the United States though, and I'm not referring to Hawaii.  He was raised for several years in Malaysia, so while he might be American, he doesn't necessarily understand being "American".  We are by nature a product of our environments, and while he might have a very unique perspective, it is not going to be the same as someone actually raised stateside--much like Californians have a very different perspective from Georgians.  So, it would be debatable whether he truly grasps what it is to be an American in the classic sense of those of us actually raised here.  I believe he and his election team understood this and it's really too bad that McCain is a "good" guy or his team might have brought this out more during the election.  But, here's actually good news.  What has he done for black people?  Nothing.  Yep.  Nada, zilch, nil.  That's right.  For all of his wife's racial charges in her youth about how unfair the minorities in this country are treated, they've done absolutely nothing for the minority, including the African American, communities.  That's actually a good thing.  Everything that he has passed affects all Americans equally and he's really done nothing to help any one community.  In fact, it's even debatable whether the ACA, also known as Obamacare, actually helps or hurts the poor.  The Black Caucus in Congress has lamented over the fact that he hasn't actually helped race relations either.  As the first minority president, many, regardless of race, thought he would help make strides to improve race relations.  In fact, some lament that because of the way he has handled some situations that he has actually deteriorated the strides made.  Honestly, good that he hasn't done anything drastic to "improve" minority circumstances--that would increase the divide.  On the other hand, he hasn't done anything to improve race relations either.  My personal opinion is still the same.  Since he wasn't raised here in the US, whether Hawaii, Cali, the Deep South or the Great Lakes, he simply doesn't understand our issues with race.  Honestly, neither do I most of the time and I was raised here.  So, while I probably think a minority president should've been able to improve race relations to the next level, I'll take status quo rather than have him make it any worse.  The real problem that I see is that even the educated minorities have a low opinion of him.  The Black Agenda Report, a far left African American news and analysis source, has been attacking his legacy already.  Their accusations include that he's done nothing for the urban landscape (true), set a precedent to bail out banks and speculators (true), enacted cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (partially true),  lament that the ACA is in fact not "affordable" (true), has increased US military presence to over 30 African countries (true, and bet you didn't know that one), has made it so the US President can murder without announcement of cause using drones or mercenaries (true), actually has increased the possibility of public schools becoming privatized (true-ish), and they accuse him of unjust and abuse of power that originally the Black Caucus has always "fought" against.  Social Security cuts, military presence in over 30 African countries, opposition to the ACA, the questionable usage of drones and mercenaries and the abuse of power are already things that the far right have been screaming about for years.   If this trend continues, he'll become the least popular president in history. 

The Affordable Care Act...well, the thing is rolling out.  The current estimate is that it will add $109B to the National Debt.  Yes, it took a lot to find that in the Congressional Budget Report, and I suppose it doesn't sound that bad compared to the $6T Obama has already added.  Except...the report is notorious for having the most "positive" numbers regardless of which party proposal it looks at.  In fact, it's usually 30% minimum below actual costs, and in some cases has been only one-tenth of what actual costs turned out to be.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid estimates have been the most notorious for being way, way, way under-estimated.  So based on history, I'd guess the government has no idea how to guess accurately where any healthcare funding could possibly land.  Enough said about it.  We already paid $360M for a website that can't even keep count of how many visitors it has, and to give you perspective, that's more than it cost for the development of the Apple iPhone.  

While I understand that some people simply don't want to admit that they might have misplaced their trust and faith in Obama, I'll have to equate it to religion at this point.  I have faith there is a God, but no one has really ever came up with solid examples that cannot be countered to prove that there is absolutely no God.  Example after example after example of failures of Obama's Administration do not warrant the continued faith that some people show him.  Even the far left African Americans and the Unions are bailing on him.  I'm hugely disappointed on Woodward's accounts of him storming out of meetings like a spoiled child not getting his way.  I'm very concerned about his extensions of Presidential powers, particularly the fact he can send drone attacks without notifying Congress or who he intends to use the drones on.  I'm concerned that Obamacare really punishes the poor that can't afford healthcare and forces them into the Medicaid system.  That's twofold.  We're increasing a system that we can barely afford now (Medicaid) and pushing people into buying something that they might not be able to "afford" anyway.  I'm concerned that the government is now in the retail insurance business.  I'm concerned that Obama has caused a severe divide between the left and right that might take decades to repair.  I'm concerned that he has any family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood--I wouldn't want someone who has ties to a KKK cousin in the presidency now either.  I'm not concerned that he lied about fixing the National Debt.  I'm shocked that he has the audacity to ask to increase it.  I'm concerned that the Reign of the Inept will have lasting ramifications on the National Debt that will be worse than we already were looking at before he took office.  

Punishing Our Children....

I promised this week's blogs would be dedicated to education, and I'll admit I was wondering how to close off this week with a "bang", so to speak.  I know there are a myriad of things that I could cover--funding, teachers' pay scales, teaching techniques, choosing colleges, the ACT/SAT, bullying, internet learning, the importance of a high school diploma, why get a trade or university education after high school...I could go on forever.  Picking one was driving me nuts and giving me writer's block.  Then like a Sign out of nowhere:  "Teenager arrested for picking up drunken friend from a party".  Wow!  Really?!?!  I know that society has gotten a little ridiculous with our laws and I'm not sure if it's trickling down to the kids, it's across the board or if our society is breeding it into our kids so that it will permeate all walks of our lives, their lives and generations to come.  I just can't imagine punishing a good student with proven leadership abilities for answering a text from a drunken friend and after getting off work picking up that friend and getting them home safely.  That's the story in a nutshell.  When I was this girl's age, there were six of us drunk pulled over because one of us was in the ditch puking.  One of our town's cops pulled up behind us and realized that we were all snookered.  He pulled the car into a nearby parking lot after another cop arrived, and the two of them took us home to our families.  It was not a pretty sight in any of our homes.  There was no such thing as designated drivers, although there were laws in place for drunk driving thanks to MADD, but it was really still at the officer's discretion how to handle the situation.  My friend had her car taken from her by her parents for the duration of the school year and the rest of us varied from grounded for a couple weeks to an *ss whooping for at least one of the guys.  Was that enough?  Perhaps, perhaps not, but I don't think that's the point.  The officer and our parents were trusted to make a decision on what punishments would be doled out.  Now, the officer would have to take us all in; he/she has little discretion when it comes to alcohol laws.  Our parents would have to get attorneys.  The prosecutor might not even be able to make judgement calls because various alcohol laws mandate what they can or cannot do.  AND, because most schools have implemented "zero tolerance" rules for alcohol and drugs, all of us would be suspended and/or expelled--whether valedictorian level or barely passing.  The alcohol examples tend to be the most extreme but those extreme laws are just the tip of the iceberg.   It's the world the Baby Boomers have created for our kids.  What will we, GenX, do as we start to take the reigns in the next decade?  Well, that's what I'm wondering, but I want everyone to start wondering.

Let's start with examples of what we, our schools, are punishing kids for--not just teenagers, but even young children.  There's plenty of clothing suspensions nowadays, but think about that for a second.  When were GenX (if you were in high school in the 80s or 90s, you're GenX basically) kids suspended for inappropriate clothing?  I got sent home once for my mini-skirt being a quarter of an inch shorter than my fingertip with my hand stretched down by my side.  Sent home to change, not suspended.  And think about what we wore:  alcohol tee shirts, Malcolm X tee shirts, yellow/green/red anti-apartheid tee shirts, gothic pendulums, rebel flags, a fuzzy green Qbert looking thing flipping the finger, Friday the 13th tee shirts, cropped shirts, Dio and Black Sabbath "devil worshipping" t-shirts.  We didn't get sent home usually unless it involved marijuana, was skin tight spandex club wear or didn't meet some specific measurement of length.  Our kids are not just coming home to change; they're going to be suspended...over a t-shirt.  Students in 2010 were advised they could no longer wear pink bracelets that had the word "boobies" that were sold locally for Breast Cancer Awareness or they would be suspended for a minimum of 3 days.  Not that I don't disagree that some things are offensive or might even be disruptive, but in our need to make the whiners happy, we've started taking even the simplest version of free speech away from our kids.  Clothing seems nominal though.  Who cares?  The suspension seems a little rough, but well, those are the rules.  What will be the impact of those rules?

OK, so try these on for size then:

A kid that was being bullied was punished for drawing in his notebook anime cartoons of an angel punishing the bully.  For drawings.  I used to write short stories about people I liked and didn't like when I was in high school.  At the time, I used their names--first names anyway.  In one story, I wrote about the heroine pushing another girl off a cliff.  Today, I'd be suspended or expelled and possibly looking at criminal charges for threats because I used the name of a girl I didn't like.

Several kids I know were punished for having Midol, aspirin, and energy pills on them with varying degrees from 3 day to 6 month suspensions.  "Zero tolerance" means those kids too.  I feel sorry for the school nurse because even for OTC drugs she had to have permission slips and maintain the bottles sent from home in her office.  The school district finally saw fit to lift the total ban after enough parents complained.  That is the trick though; enough of us have to express outrage or threaten legal action to get more reasonable rules.  

In two different cases, in different states, two kids were punished for letting school officials know that they had mistakenly brought weapons on school property.  In one case, a teenager was dropped off for a football game and realized he had a pocket knife on him.  Since there were no metal detectors or pat downs, he could've simply not said anything and attended the football game.  Instead he went to the security guard, turned over the knife and explained the mistake.  He was suspended.  In another case, a young man had a shotgun from hunting still in his truck.  He realized his mistake and went to the office to let them know so he could either take it home or have a parent come get the weapon.  He was expelled and arrested with criminal charges for being honest.  The school wouldn't have even known if he had just hidden it under a seat until the end of the day and removed it when he got home.  

A bully brought a knife to school and attacked, was bullying, another student with it.  A third student, also bullied previously by the bully, stopped the argument  The third student was suspended for even getting involved in any altercation.

Same bully scenario, minus the knife, only second student was a mentally challenged student being picked on.  A third student intervened and was suspended for getting involved.

A third party student was punished for videotaping a school fight.  The circumstances are unclear whether the kid was attempting to capitalize on the video, but from various accounts, it was helpful to the authorities and the school and district were more concerned about how it made staff look.

A public school had a professional abstinence speaker come in and speak.  The video of the professional speaker shows that she threatened students in order to push abstinence (and she did this with school sanctioning--seriously).  A student followed this by speaking out "against" abstinence, really more for reasonable and responsible sexuality and was suspended.

A student was given a writing assignment.  She wrote about God.  She was suspended not because it was inappropriate for the assignment but just because of the fact she chose to write about God.

A high school student was performing a legitimate, school science project that had some undesired results.  She was suspended pending an expulsion and was arrested on several felony charges for "bomb making".  My lab partner and I screwed up a chemistry lab in high school where smoke and crap bubbled out all over the place too.  Fortunately for us, no one was worried that our screw up was illegal.  And what school is punishing an assigned project?!?!

A homeless teenager was living in his car.  It is unclear where the parents were, but the teenager was suspected (or accused by the school to cover this fiasco up) of being an illegal immigrant.  The school suspended a student for purchasing food from the school cafeteria and giving it to the homeless teenager.

On a school bus, a teenager brandished a real gun and made threats.  The school suspended the student that took the gun away from the kid who had the gun.

Kindergartners in several states have been suspended for making toy guns with paper or legos, playing cops and robbers using finger guns, and/or talking about playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.  Can you even imagine being suspended as a kindergartner in the 70s or 80s???  Or as a kindergartner at all?!?!

Now, here's the even bigger shocker now that you've read all of those.  These are all recent; most in the last year.  YES, the last year.  To be honest, I had expected when I committed to this idea that I'd come up with a dozen or so examples over the last ten years.  Instead, after just an hour's worth of research, I had enough to fill my next 3 or 4 blogs with Draconian examples from the past year.  I just didn't know what to say, so I included the ones above hoping that you now are thinking that we might have a serious problem.  Think about those examples and think about what freedoms and trust we had as kids that are now gone.  Do we really want to punish kids for things that we ourselves thought were harmless?  Or for telling the truth?  Do I get the "no weapons on school property"?  Yes, I do.  But in all honesty, I know several of the farm boys I went to school with had gun racks in their trucks and their guns were in plain sight in the parking lot and that didn't mean they were using them.  Still, we are taking punishing kids to an extreme.  There are several examples of pre-teen and teenagers being arrested for various pranks that we took for granted as kids.  In the last couple of years, kids have been arrested for toilet papering yards, throwing water balloons, missing curfews and for acting as the designated driver for party-goers.

We've become grossly hypocritical in the whole "do as I say, not as I do".  We didn't even have laws for curfews in most areas when we were kids and pranks were pranks.  Toilet paper would deteriorate or could be cleaned.  No one went to jail for it.  Could they have arrested us for vandalism in the 80s and 90s?  I suppose since the kids have been arrested under standing vandalism laws.  But would an officer then do it?  Would they be instructed to?  No, I never heard of such lunacy until now.  Instead of the officer spending a half an hour to an hour getting those kids to parents, he/she will spend three to five hours processing kids into juvenile detention.  Does that make any sense?  Then we wonder why we can't afford police or have enough available for real crimes?   We've started punishing kids for "group failures" also.  Many teachers have been taking group grades and picking the groups putting less than stellar students with more talented students.  This increases the overall GPA, but denies those students that are talented appropriate grades.  Since college entrance is solely based on the individual student's grades, this should be totally inappropriate.  Mainstreaming, as discussed previously, has resulted in mentally challenged students adversely affecting other students' classes, but more importantly, schools have started making severer punishments for them and other students in order to deal with "uncontrolled" behavior.  The example I gave in a previous blog of the student beating himself against a wall has some school districts taking those children in an attempt to adjust their behavior and/or protect other students and placing them in small rooms by themselves for hours a day.  Often these mentally challenged students have urinated on themselves or acted out even more aggressively.  These methods of dealing with mainstreaming are grossly unfair to the mentally challenged students, but it also means that administrators and teachers have less patience with their regular students.  In fact, an A student was punished by being isolated for some in class indiscretion by being isolated for several hours, or we would not even know that the mentally handicapped students were being punished that way since they often lack the communication skills to explain what's happening.  Those Draconian approaches being easier and easier to implement each time.  Why have we gotten so extreme as to how we handle "normal" children and teenager behaviors?

Some schools have begun taking Draconian to a whole new level.  In 2010, a whistle blowing teacher was terminated for identifying that her school district was spying on kids via school issued laptops' webcams.  Think about that.  Do you want someone from your kids' school watching your kid and what's going on in the background, perhaps activating the mic and listening in on your discussions with your child?  You may think, 'I've got nothing to hide', but if your kid isn't home, left the computer on, you just got out of the shower and run across the house to get a towel out of the dryer...Do you want a school administrator to have access then?  Do you want a school administrator listening in to the discussion you and your child have about a school crush?  About Grandma's health?  About your daughter's period?  Watching your son or daughter undressing before bed?  You've got nothing to hide, but it doesn't mean that everything in your child's life, or yours for that matter, is their business.  Think about that for a second, because all schools now have punishments in place for kids' behaviors off campus and outside of school hours.  Kids have been suspended and/or expelled for shoplifting, for drinking alcohol at a weekend party, and other transgressions that in the 80s and 90s were none of their business.  We talk about "Leave No Child Behind", yet we seem to be finding ways to eliminate and weed out any kid that is not in complete compliance with rules that we ourselves didn't live with.

Since the main issue in this girl's case is alcohol use, let's focus there for a second.  Alcohol is a "Zero Tolerance" in almost every single school district across this country.  Yet, we all know it's going on still and with good kids--this good student was just punished for picking up her drunk friend, for cripe's sake.  It's the "Zero Tolerance" policies that dictate this punishment.  Now, I'm going to offend some people, I'm sure, but I want you to think about some things and there's no getting around offending some people in the process.  First, think about the teen movies of the ages.  The 80s, there was "The Breakfast Club" and they talk about getting "hammered" (drunk) at a party the upcoming weekend and smoke pot on screen.  In the 90s, there was "Varsity Blues", "The 10 Things I Hate About You", "Clueless".  In the last 10 years, "Mean Girls", "John Tucker Must Die", The "American Pie" Series.  All of these have teenagers partying no different than every generation before them.  No different than our generation, no different than the Baby Boomers, no different than the Silent Generation.  Yet, we've made it impossible for these kids to learn to drink responsibly; we've made it where they have to learn for themselves and from each other.  While I agree with not allowing them into bars until they're 21, I have issue with allowing them to vote, allowing them to join the military and die for this country and not legally allowing them a beer.  I have a huge issue with us having laws that will punish parents for serving their own teenagers in their own home, or even at a restaurant over dinner.  We want kids to learn to "drink responsibly" yet we don't want anyone to teach them to drink responsibly.  In fact, we don't even want adults to drink responsibly.  Our laws now state anyone over 0.08 BAC is legally impaired and will be charged.  That's not even a beer an hour for the average female.  For the average adult female, that is a beer or glass of wine every hour and an half.  While MADD had a very valid point in the 1980s, they have continued to push for more and more Draconian laws on the adults in this country.  So what else would we expect from the high schools on the teenage kids?  A teenager can be punished for not drinking, but just for being in attendance--even briefly--at a party where alcohol was present.  They can be suspended or expelled, regardless of circumstances.  Why should this be such a shock?  In the early 90s, MADD drunk (excuse the pun) with power had achieved it's goals of punishing habitual drunk drivers and getting states to putting at least 0.15 BAC limits in place.  They began trying to end run around the 5th Amendment because they thought too many people were "getting off" by refusing to take BAC tests.  So they began to push for legislation where there would be mandatory punishments on drivers' licenses regardless of the legal system.  MADD has pushed for other laws too like ones that make it illegal for you to serve your own teenagers in a restaurant, make it illegal to purchase it for kids, and even that make it illegal for you to serve your own kids in your own house.  MADD wants "Zero Tolerance" for adults and has been very successful.  (In fact, they are pushing now for 0.04 BAC.)  So, why would we expect the schools to behave any differently than what we as a society have already begun to accept as appropriate?  If your kid was at the party, drinking or not, they should be expelled.  But, the truth is, and no one wants to say it, high school kids are still going to drink.  The data that says they don't is skewed because kids are not going to answer those surveys at school honestly.  We wouldn't back when I was in school and there were no Draconian rules in place where we'd be expelled.  We sure can't expect them to be honest in this day and age.  Many are beginning to question the effectiveness of "Zero Tolerance" and I really want all of you to start thinking about it also.  What is it's impact on our kids?  On our society as a whole?

The biggest problem is that we are hypocrites and the laws and rules we are putting in place are actually rules and laws that we ourselves are unwilling to abide by.  I know police officers that drink more than BAC allowed level when they are out.  Well, duh, look at the damn level now.  Even our law enforcement can't keep to that standard, because even some guys can't if they go and have a single drink.  But we're complacent as long as it doesn't directly affect us at that moment.  So what if the high school policy book says they will suspend or expel our kids for this or that...my kid's not going to get suspended or expelled.  He or she is a good kid.  Sadly, even good kids can be caught by these rules and like the adult alcohol laws, the teachers and administrators have to abide by the "Zero Tolerance" rules.  Yes, in that case, you're "good kid" who's worse transgression is that they don't keep their room clean can be nailed for picking up a drunk friend after they get off work because they wanted to make sure that their friend got home safe.  The school asked her about this, of course, and like a couple of the earlier examples, she was honest about taking a drunk friend home.  If only she had lied.  The biggest problem with Draconian, cut and dry, black and white laws that are very stringent, is that it forces even honest people to lie.  Don't believe me?  Think about prohibition in the 1920s.  Even churches were breaking the law to have wine for communion and other religious ceremonies!!!  Like I stated a little bit ago, alcohol is the best example, not just because it's where this girl's suspension started, but because we as a society have a history that we can look back on and correlate what is happening now to then.  Everyone, even law enforcement, became criminals when it came to alcohol in the 1920s (remember having it and even drinking it was a crime).  There are other Draconian rules out there that we argue and debate on occasion even now, but none of them have such a great correlation.  The end game to severe and harsh laws is lying.  We're hypocrites, teaching our kids it might be better to lie, join the "dark side" than face Draconian punishments.

That's a pretty big accusation, I know.  We're teaching kids to lie because we don't want them drinking alcohol and don't want them having weapons at school--but that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that we are tightening our grasp so drastically, when we already know that will not work, and forcing our society, teaching our kids, that it is better to lie than to tell the truth because the consequences can ruin them.  In this young lady's case, she is captain of volleyball team, well, was.  No university wants to offer a scholarship to a student that was suspended, let alone expelled.  This one decision, that we all will agree was the right decision, is now possibly the end of her college hopes and dreams too.  Seriously, think about that too.  If you were her parents, you'd be making a scene out of it too.  Yet, if her and her friends lied, who would've been the wiser.  Yes, I would argue that we are teaching an entire generation to lie, because while rules and laws have to be in place to uphold order, we don't have to make them completely improbable of being followed, let alone impossible, forcing anyone and everyone to lie when they are confronted with it.

Earlier, I stated this will be GenX's problem to resolve.  It will be.  The Baby Boomers have had the Presidency for almost 20 years now.  In that time, we've seen society re-polarize like it was during the 1960s.  It's a whole different blog discussing the bi-polar Baby Boomer generation, but think about some of them that you know--look at the fiasco in Washington right now.  Now consider how when we are complacent, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.  I mentioned that MADD has probably already gone too far and is still pushing for more Draconian rules.  (They are not the only ones, but again, the best fitting example in this girl's case.)  We have rolled those rules out to our kids and into our school systems, and they are NOT working.   I remember when someone told me about the new possible "Zero Tolerance" policies.  My boys were in elementary school, so it didn't affect me and I didn't give it a second thought.  I'm betting neither have you.  I'm betting neither did the parents of this young woman, but we all know that they are thinking about it now.  The purpose of this blog is simple:  Are you thinking about it now?  Are you worried now that it might be your child, his/her college dreams, your hopes and aspirations for your children, destroyed because of a Draconian rule that might deteriorate their chances or even destroy it?

25 Education Quotes for Critical Thinking....

So last blog I said I was going to dedicate this week's blogs to education.  Here are 25 quotes on education, my thoughts on those quotes, and hell, do some critical thinking of your own on those quotes.  Think about them and my thoughts on your own and feel free to comment with thoughts of your own.  What does education truly mean?  Or at least decide what it truly means to you.  Since I don't want any preconceived notions affecting your critical thinking, I'm not including who said it.  (You can always Google it if you fall in love with one though.)

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."  I agree, but it's not just education.  I can "educate" a child to believe complete hogwash if I want to and call it education.  In that respect, it really could be used as a weapon.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."  Probably not true for the general population, but for true genius, it might be very applicable.  Obviously a quote from a true genius, not a card carrying Mensa wanna be genius.

"It is well to remember from time to time that nothing worth knowing can be taught."  Experience and time sometimes are the only way we can explain somethings.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence."  I disagree.  Education is a building block that has little to nothing to do with personality, self control, and in fact, nothing to do with self confidence.  Personality is a gift from birth.  Self control is learned by observation and with maturity.  Self confidence might be improved with education, but true self confidence is made up several things--and not necessarily any formal education.

"The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth."  Yes-ish and no.  The advancement of knowledge, yes-ish, through the sharing of knowledge and critical thinking and ideas exchange.  The dissemination of truth?  No.  Absolute truths are in mathematics and sciences.  Truth in historical analysis, political assessments and analysis, philosophical debates, sociological research...well, sometimes, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder, just like "history is written by the winners" or by the people who can play the media, the sheep and the uneducated, the best.  Sometimes, those truths simply are never written.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."  Yes, but knowledge is not necessarily education.

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."  We would hope.  I wish all teachers and administrators would understand this.  Education should not be to learn to regurgitate; it is to spark the curiosity to acquire knowledge.

"He who opens a school, closes a prison."  Probably not.  It's far more complicated than that, because education is only one piece of the puzzle.  If you don't understand that, watch a 90s movie starring Wesley Snipes called "New Jack City".  Ironically, the person quoted here comes from an era where people looked for very, very simple answers to very, very complex questions.  Very rarely do complex problems have simple solutions.

"Don't limit a child to your own learning for he (she) was born in another time."  No doubt.

"A liberal education is at the heart of a civil society, and at the heart of a liberal education is the act of teaching."  I've tried it without the liberal...An education is at the heart of civil society and at the heart of education is teaching.  Still sounds like double talk without a real meaning to me.

"Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom."  Yes.  Where there is ignorance, there is the ability to end freedom, enslave either literally or metaphorically.  Education is a way to enlighten those that are otherwise ignorant.

"The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change."  At it's face value, it sounds so limiting.  However, how to learn and change means one can continue to "educate" themselves and develop themselves.  Poignant.

"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad."  Doesn't say much about our society of the time or now.  My rose colored bubble would prefer to think that not everyone is a criminal.  Might say a lot about society of the person quoted here.  Hell now that I think about it, it might say a lot about the 1980s.

"(Education) is being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't know."  Education should give you the building block needed to know the difference, but the educational building block needed is critical thinking.  We fail to teach people how to "know" what they do versus what they "don't know", and they assume that they can read a paragraph off "The Onion" and know exactly what is going on.

"The roots of education are bitter but the fruit is sweet."  An education can be work.  I'm sure any college kid can claim it's bitter at times.  However, education while it should be "tough" should spark a sense of continued curiosity if we want people (kids) to continue to grow and expand.  Again, perhaps a statement of the times of the quoted person here.

"...always be intolerant of ignorance but understanding of illiteracy."  Sort of agree.  Ignorance is not always by choice either; some people know nothing but the ignorance they were taught.  Choosing to be ignorant versus being illiterate is grossly different.  Some ignoramuses are literate, but don't bother to take advantage of the fact they could be more educated.  Poignant from one point of view, but as most education quotes, only applicable in a limited range.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  Yes.  Being able to reason and think allows one to be open to other's ideas and opinions without being lead...and without being a regal *ss about it either.

"A child without an education is like a bird without wings."  Yes.  Define education though.  That's the real trick, isn't it?

"When educating the minds of our youth, we must not forget to educate their hearts."  Or we will fail in helping them have sympathy and be able to understand another person's plight.  Compromise comes from understanding another's view, plight or circumstance.  The mind is only as good as the heart that supplies its nourishment.

"There are two educations.  One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live."  In practice, the two are usually closely intertwined.

"The secret in education lies in respecting the student."  Sometimes.  Sometimes kids need to be lead, but like the proverbial horse to water, sometimes they need to be respected and trusted enough to drink on their own.

"Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten."  Metaphorically, yes.  What should remain is the ability to think, consider things and apply oneself.  If that is what is left, then someone has been educated.  If that is forgotten, or worse yet never learned, then what was forgot was memorization with no value add to the person's life.

"America believes in education:  the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week."  Yea, not just in America folks.  Professional soccer players in most countries are paid the same enormous paychecks.

"Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading."  That's the truth.

"Good teaching is one fourth preparation and three fourths theater."  Presentation, at least.  For children and teenagers, the favorite teachers are always the ones that engage their minds--generally with theater, presentation and/or bribery.  Nothing screams do a good job more than a break on homework over the weekend.

One thing that wasn't a circus...

I'm sick of the government shutdown, so I have no intention of talking about it anymore--or at least not today.  However, with the government shutdown come discussions on what should or shouldn't be financed and the impact on various things that we never give a real care to.  When was the last time you ever heard anyone talking about the Federal or State parks and how much money they get or who's money?  It was only a blurbage that Wisconsin refused to close the parks and moved the barriers themselves since over 80% of the Federal parks in Wisconsin are financed by state funds.  Schools are also being affected which I find interesting since schools are primarily funded by real estate taxes in their districts--unless you live in Ohio, then some of them are financed through state, county and city income taxes also.  Why would schools be affected now?  Well in the 1970s, the Federal government passed laws about mainstreaming the schools.  In the 90s, they took that a bit further with minimum requirements that all American public schools' curricula must included and standardized testing that was/is supposed to ensure that the students in a school are meeting the minimum requirements.  With those changes, there also was an influx of Federal tax dollars into the states' educational systems.  Many of the states needed that funding; some truly did not.  However, before you get too excited, some of the states that truly didn't need the money at the time, need it now and vice versa.  Some of the states that needed it then truly don't need it now (we are not going to debate whether there's ever enough money at this point for teachers' salaries).  Is it a good thing that the Federal government got involved?  Is standardized testing a good thing?  Are minimum curricula requirements good?  Are there downfalls and what do we do about those?  While we sit and wait for two sides to open up to debate and deciding whether or not to compromise on a law that both sides have already conceded is flawed, I want to discuss something else that the Federal government has crammed down our throats, without even a flutter of the debate that we have now.  Our children in this case have been less important than our pocketbooks.  So let's consider what we already have.

For one these were bipartisan plans that have been passed in regards to the Federal mandates for the public education system.  So while one side had certain goals, the other side had other goals, and the two compromised to come up with the best system that they could come up with--at least in the 90s.  In the 70s, a fully liberal Congress pushed the mainstreaming through, although it wasn't even a blip when it comes right down to it, and because it was a blip the Congress had no reason not to sit down like adults and have some amount of compromise.  Plus, no one went back in the 80s and reviewed it, no one was fighting to repeal it with the zeal that we see right now as our personal finances are going to be affected.  So it's a stark contrast to what we have right now.

Let's cover some of the 1970s changes.  President Carter is considered one of the less successful presidents.  Not for lack of trying, but he was a young president and his Democrat Congress did whatever they wanted.  It is hard to blame Carter for the policies of the day, but yet, it was near impossible for him to get them to do anything that he wanted.  Congress ignored his requests for legislature protecting farmers and subsidies to help guarantee the farm lands would remain fertile by paying farmers to cycle their fields and other things that would help the American farmers survive.  (Historical note: This plan eventually became known as FarmAid and was pushed through by President Reagan, who saw the benefit and pushed it through in spite of it not being his plan.  That, my friends, is called leadership.)  Most people remember high gas prices (if you think they're high now, you have no idea), gas lines, the Iranian Hostage stand-off.  President Carter's administration suffered immensely.  He wasn't the right President for the time, perhaps.  However, President Carter also had another major focus, and in that focus, he was successful.  He created the Department of Education.  He continued to push the desegregation of the schools, that ultimately has lead to the ability for a "black" man to serve as President of the United States.  (Carter was from Georgia, in case you didn't know or couldn't remember.)  He also supported mainstreaming students.  By mainstreaming, they hoped to break down the divide of the social classes and how drastically different the educational system could be due to social make-up of a school district or state.  These were effective overtime.  Minimum requirements for graduation were also levied, although often still ignored.  Of these social changes to the educational systems, the majority of the impacts were positive.  Children could change schools and still be able to graduate on time, the curricula mandate ensured that all schools were following at bare minimum similar requirements.  In the 1980s, the fluidity of society--most educated people moving at least twice during their careers, divorces forcing school changes, etc.--became predominant.  These requirements allowed the children to see minimal impacts during rough changes in their lives.  It also started programs that focused on the gifted and talented children, the 2% to 5%, that accelerate beyond their peers and require more intellectual challenges at a faster rate than the majority.  There were no longer those handful of kids in the schools that needed fully individualized attention or were stuck with no attention to their intellectual ability.  President Carter, while his legacy overall was poor (Presidency, not his achievements following), had one major success.  

Like all successes, there was a failure in mainstreaming.  It is very rare for everything to be all good.  Not all school districts could afford special education schools, so parents of the day had to find and locate to a district that had a special ed school or pay for private education.  Some districts would agree to fund a special education school and all the children from several districts might attend the one school.  Mainstreaming lead to the elimination of most public funded special education schools.  For that reason, many of our children today sit in classes with children that are what we politely call "slow" and sometimes crudely, sometimes accurately though, "retarded" children.  Two of my boys had a kid in their classes that when he got frustrated would get up out of his seat and start beating his head on the wall.  Thanks to mainstreaming, his parents had the right to have him in the regular school.  There are very few public schools in any districts anymore to address his particular special needs, and regular children were exposed to him beating himself on some occasions until he started bleeding.  I was livid when I found out and expressed it to the principal who told me why it was the way it was.  I had wondered why in the late 80s almost all of those special needs schools were gone.  Now, I knew why.  Worse yet, because of the Federal law, the parents of this special needs child could sue if the child was not "mainstreamed".  I was frank.  Take my boys out of those classes and place them in equal or better classes or I will go to every parent with a child in that class and get a class action together demanding that the boy be moved to a better location.  Federal law doesn't mandate that such behavior be tolerated.  It doesn't address it at all.  In fixing the social issues involved with poorer areas, we had left behind the needs of special children that simply cannot be mainstreamed without adverse implications on the average students.  While I do feel sympathy for the parents' of special needs children, exposing the majority to the adverse effects of severe learning problems is not the best answer.  This is the one failure in those efforts that really needs to be re-addressed.  

In the 1990s, it became very apparent that some states were simply doing the bare minimum and that many of the poorer, more rural and inner city schools were still not getting "equal" education benefits, although no one was really sure how far behind those schools actually were.  The ACT and SAT scores were a small help in determining how great the issues were or even where the deviation started.  It was just apparent by the low percentage of students even taking the tests that some states had to be "leaving behind" a large number of students.  The major hurdle:  There was very little testing conducted by the states overall as far as various milestones.  Some states conducted no testing whatsoever and left it up to their districts, and even if they had testing, they were not able to definitively compare to other states.  South Carolina was one of the worst states in the nation for percentage of students taking college bound testing, had some districts with drastically low graduation rates, and was consistently ranked at the low end of the 40s in comparison to the rest of the 50 states which many in the state argued was an unfair ranking.  The "Leave No Child Behind" legislation created Federal mandated testing.  It helped gauge programs from state to state, district to district, and helped parents look at the quality of the school(s) in an area before they committed to living there.  All bonuses.  Many states now could see where they truly stood in comparison to other states and internally also.  Another big bonus.  It also forced many schools at the bottom of the rankings to start teaching the tests.  That is not education.  That is memorize and regurgitate.  Most teachers were drastically upset by the measures, because now their curricula was even more controlled than ever.  It also didn't allow for children that learned by different methods.  It forced the teachers to teach as the test was laid out.  Of course, I'll be frank.  I have friends that are teachers and school administrators.  At first, at some schools, maybe even for a majority, this is probably true, regardless of the quality of the school.  However, over time, a teacher and/or program that truly wishes to engage the students is going to put forth the effort to start teaching and let the testing guide what is included in their course agendas without diminishing the quality of education.  It sounds very easy on paper.  I assure you that it is not.  It takes a lot of dedication and sometimes our teachers are only teachers because they get summers off.  But in 10 years, South Carolina has gone from the bottom in the Federal mandated comparison data to a Top 20 state.  I consider that an epic achievement.  The mandatory testing showed where they were lacking and a strong commitment from the state, the school districts and most importantly, from their teachers and administrators has resulted in leaps and bounds improvement in just a decade.  They are no longer doing the bare minimum, but are exceeding other states in educational quality because of the ability to compare and see exactly where they stood within their state and to the rest of the nation with a distinct measurement.  That simply wouldn't have happened without Federal mandate.

In addition, the Leave No Child Behind Act meant that parents didn't have to have their children attend schools that couldn't meet the minimum testing standards.  This at first sounds like certain schools would be overwhelmed by requests to opt out of the worst schools in a district.  This is true, but in application, most parents were unaware so the effect was minimal overall.  In order to deal with these shuffling children, many school districts implemented magnet schools that began focusing children's innate talents.  In most cases though, the quality of those schools that were below standards was improved through improved requirements for the teachers and the administrators.  Quality teachers and quality administrators makes a huge difference in the quality of a school, not the location.  The quality of teachers and the minimum standards for teachers were also upgraded.  While there are still school districts in this country that allow a person with only a high school diploma to act a substitute teacher, there is not a single staff teacher in this country that doesn't have a Bachelor's Degree and a minimum certification completed.  While this doesn't guarantee the quality, it does guarantee that each teacher has minimum requirements.  If you only have a high school diploma and you barely understand Algebra, should you be teaching it?  (Incidentally, why I do NOT support at home schooling.)  While students from lower income areas are still at a greater risk, the quality of the staff of those schools has improved exponentially.  It's too bad we can't improve the parents with some simple legislation.  I'm painfully aware that some parents could care less.

Perhaps some of the parental indifference though is to the amount of homework most kids and particularly teenagers have to complete now.  The truth is the downfall to improved quality of teachers who want to ensure their students are meeting the bare minimums is that the average kid does two to three times the amount of homework as their parents did.  It's frustrating both to the kids and the parents, who in actuality have probably forgotten more than they learned.  My over-achiever has 5 to 6 hours of homework a day, after an 8 hour day of school.  It's overkill.  He's that 2%, the "gifted", that will achieve and overachieve regardless, and even though he somehow has that innately, I see him often being exhausted and just walking away from it.  The goal should not be to wear down the best of the best.  Likewise, one of his brothers is above average smarts and does pretty well on tests...in spite of the fact that he does the bare minimum when it comes to his homework.  His overall grades are often adversely affected by his choice to blow off some homework.  I just can't bring myself to force him to do 3 to 4 hours of homework a night.  I'll take the Bs and Cs, rather than crush his love of learning and the fact he performs well overall.  He's a curious kid and was advanced and talented.  However, the excessive homework started to drown him and make him hate school.  We were lucky to have a Guidance Counselor that understood him better than I did that helped us choose a program that engaged him and got him interested in learning again.  He still blows off some homework, but when he's struggling, he'll do the homework diligently.  I'll take it.  Somehow with all this intervention, we've forgotten kids are still supposed to be kids.

While kids are supposed to be kids, we really don't understand how to reach some parents.  I've been accused of not being engaged with my children's educations because I stopped attending parent-teacher conferences at open house seminars.  Well, yes, I refuse to go.  I'm not good in pushy crowds and the last parent-teacher open house/conferences that I attended I was shoved while walking down the hall into a wall--not intentionally, but like a lot of people, and moreover a lot of veterans, these open houses can be harrowing.  It might not be that the parents aren't engaged or wanting to be engaged.  It just might be difficult and that can be for a myriad of reasons.  We simply don't know what keeps parents from being more engaged.  There are no studies on the parents, no comprehensive understanding, no actual data to explain the perceived parents' apathy, indifference or unresponsiveness.  We have some teachers giving empirical information based on their observations.  That's not really good data.  Like before the Federal testing standards were actually instituted, we only have people's observations that are skewed by their own internal opinions and concepts.  Many thought that states were wrongly ranked before the Leave No Child Behind standardized testing.  It was a wake up call for many.  We don't have that wake up call for the parents of our children.  We know of various excuses--work hours, single parents, parental apathy, et cetera.  But we really don't know for sure, and we really can't address issues when we haven't even begun to understand the problem.  The problem definition for parental involvement hasn't been addressed, so therefore all the darts that teachers and administrators throw at the problem doesn't necessarily fix it.  In addition what would fix it in one case, might be completely inaccurate for another family.  A single parent who is a high school dropout is going to have very different issues that affect their kid's education than a single parent who was married for 10 years and is reentering the workforce.  The impact on the kids might have similar outward responses, but the "cure", the way to address those problems, comes down to what started the stress on the kid.  We simply cannot think that one solution will fit all family situations.  We take the "case by case", but that is exhaustive.  We need to start understanding the similarities in parental issues that can impact their children's educations, and start providing a way for administrators and teachers to help the kids.  Can this even be legislated?  I'm not sure it wouldn't do more damage than help given the draconian turn society has been taking.  No matter how good or bad legislation can be, there are simply some things that laws may just make worse.

Basically, education in the United States has taken a downward trend, or so they tell us.  I'm not sure about that.  I think that we might have different gauges than other countries, just as our individual states did prior to the Leave No Child Behind Act.  However, I also know while many other countries provide "free" education that is not all accolades and roses.  In many countries, once a child fails (a relative term--a C by our standards may be considered a fail by theirs), the child takes that education to that point and goes to work--whether a sixth grade equivalent education or a high school diploma.  Some countries have massive, exhaustive testing after completing high school that a pass means a "free" college education and a fail means the end of your education, regardless.  No going back to school in your 30s because you've matured and want better opportunities or a better life or whatever motivation.  A single failure (again failure being relative) is the end of all future educational possibilities.  So when I hear someone say that we need to change our system to allow only kids that are engaged or only kids of parents who are engaged, I cringe.  Such ignorance should be duct taped, put on a plane and shipped over to one of those countries in trade for someone who would love a second chance at an education.  Our educational system is not perfect, but in comparison, we afford all citizens greater opportunities than the majority of the rest of the world.

Are there changes that I would make?  Well, hell yeah.  I think we've forgotten as the world has gotten smaller how important learning another language and culture is.  Ironic right?  Would I teach it at the high school level?  Culture yes, language no.  I'd teach the languages in kindergarten through fourth grade when the mind is a sponge for language.  Culture, well, that should be in middle and high school range--the age where we start to appreciate differences.  Perhaps that way our kids could learn compromise by appreciating differences in societies, and thus learning to appreciate differences in people in general.  Music and the arts are very important to creativity and opening the mind to appreciate the differences in life also.  Again, better to start at a young age and continue though the significant teen years.  Yet, we are killing off music and art programs left and right in this country.  I'd teach all teenagers critical thinking.  Many schools teach this to the gifted and accelerated children.  They kind of assume that the average child is incapable.  Such bullsh*t.  Any child, short of retardation (yes, I call it retardation--slow learners are not retarded), is capable of learning critical thinking.  For those of you that don't understand what critical thinking is, it is the ability to observe, read or otherwise be exposed to and make reasonable conclusions.  There are so many people incapable of this right now, and we assume that is because they can't.  It's not that they can't.  It's that we have wrongly assumed that they haven't the ability.  I have a friend that argued that she couldn't do that.  She couldn't debate or any of these things.  Yes, critical thinking is a fundamental skill needed in debate.  However, if you've ever read a mystery novel and recognized who the culprit was before the last chapters, then you have engaged in critical thinking.  Much like most people don't understand that they use Algebra in everyday life, most people use critical thinking but never understand that is what they are doing.  I'd also make sure that all education in high schools had real world application examples.  It wouldn't be any skin off a teacher's back to show that Geometry could help you buy tile for a bathroom or that Algebra is actually how you decide to buy 3/$5 or 4/$4.  We make statements that we should learn from our past mistakes; any high school world history class should be able to contrast the League of Nations concept to the United Nations and ask any kid what the lesson there is.  Some might use critical thinking to argue that even with or without the League of Nations WW2 was inevitable or they might be able to argue that it might have been like the United Nations helping to avoid many conflicts.  The great thing is that neither argument is ever going to be right or wrong.  However, it does offer the opportunity to show teenagers how learning from our past mistakes, even if they were not ours specifically, can change a world.  Also, as the Principal of my boys' high school now believes, high school should be "fun".  The kids should look back on those years as the best.  It's the last years that they get to be "kids".  We have no business taking that away from them with our fears and draconian controls.  Is the American education system on a downward trend?  I don't buy it.  Are there still improvements to be made?  Yes, and some of them rest solely on our approaches and our own limited views.

Perhaps, I'm a little nostalgic when I hope that we can make high school "fun" again.  But I believe that we are still selling our kids short even though I believe that most of the Federal mandates over the years have actually resulted in great strides and improvements overall.  However, we are still missing the point when we start making cuts to the arts, music, languages--those things that create the spark of mental curiosity in the first place.  We are still selling our kids short by assuming that only the gifted and accelerated can be taught critical thinking.  Yet, these are the children that will take over the world someday.  I often end these types of blogs with an applicable quote and yet there are so many education quotes.  What I can say is that critical thinking requires our kids to learn to take in the information, process it for themselves and then come to a conclusion based on their own analysis.  It doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong--sometimes it just helps them formulate their own opinions.  But when you are confident in your own opinion, you can respect another's opinion, whether in opposition or not.  We talk about wanting better politicians--then we say perhaps we need better constituents that are not easily lead like sheep...We want better laws, compromise and adult behavior in DC.  Perhaps that is truly the most important impact of better education.  At least let's hope so, because the back end of the Baby Boomers and the beginning leadership of GenX are definately leaving something to be desired.  Fortunately for us, educational arguments in the Federal government don't take on very much attention.  From current observations, that's probably a good thing.  When they can't make a circus of it and compromise, seems like they come up with pretty decent plans overall.