Mona Charen is right

      Below is, first,  the text of my letter to the local newspaper in response to a reader's letter on the op-ed page. 

     The gist of the letter was that he disagreed with a recent Mona Charen  column, citing her belief in the absolute  propriety of the main stream media holding Donald Trump responsible for his falsehoods and defending themselves against the "fake news" allegations. The writer alludes to his own experience in broadcast local media news as proof of his high ground and the correctness of his point of view, which is, apparently, that the main stream media are the true purveyors of fake news, stating that, in his opinion, there should be no editorial response to Trump's lies and that they (main stream media) are the root cause and originators of fake news, not Trump or any Far Right Media source.  Implicit in his screed is his opinion that responding to blatant and public record lies, as well as a multitude of accusations against their integrity,  should be beyond the reach of mainstream media.  Ms. Charen is a conservative, but fair minded columnist, and on the editorial board  of the National Review, America's pre-eminent conservative main stream news and opinion magazine. My letter follows:

     "A recent letter took issue with  Mona Charen's  column of several weeks ago, written from a respected conservative writer's point of view, defending mainstream media and the legitimacy of editorial reporting, proffered as such. The writer disagreed however, stating that the media's job is only to "report facts", and cites his own media experience as proof of his bona fides. If he didn't then accuse mainstream media of "fake news" he might be semi credible. Blaming  mainstream media for the invention of the Trump and Breitbart propaganda machines, voids any claim to be simply a neutral observer.

      Reporting when the nation's chief executive tells demonstrable lies which are categorically  controverted by public record is, in truth,  precisely what the mainstream press should do. It is also factual. If mainstream media failed to report the more than 60 direct, deliberate and categorical lies (not to mention the over 800 gross distortions of reality (aka "fake news") which Trump has been caught in over just the first six months of his tenure, then and only then, would they not be doing their job.

      One is left to assume that the writer's media experience must have been with Breitbart, Fox News, or a similar organization. It is worthy of note that the current civility breach between the Executive Branch and media began with the Far Right press's stunned disbelief and angst surrounding Barack Obama's election and reelection, and rapidly spiraled downward into multiple ludicrous allegations, largely ignored by a President who understood his job wasn't to pick fights with the press, but to govern. The current holder of the nation's highest office, on the other hand, continues flailing aimlessly, firing staff who refuse to be sycophants, retaining those who toady appropriately, and generally behaving like a petulant 10 year old schoolyard bully."   

          What preceded is the letter to the paper limited to 300 words. Below is a prescient quote from one of the icons of late 20th century conservatism, William F. Buckley.  

'Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.'

     Buckley is gone, and for the most part that's not all bad, since except for the dress and black pumps, he and Ann Coulter were virtually indistinguishable.  I'm not as  sure about other body part related issues. Yet, even this ultra conservative Far Right bellwether  (Buckley, in case you're still laughing about the Coulter comment) saw Trump as he was , and is. Sad, isn't it, that so many Americans for so many bad reasons , many of them character flaws, fell for the Trump travelling sideshow?"

More Puzzlements

                   More puzzlements:

Weird shit I have seen on bumpers, some funny, some just stupid.


"#1 Fan (your school here)".

How ludicrous. Clearly this moron claims to be the best/most ardent (who knows what the criteria even are?) fan ever of his school. I suspect there is room for argument, however, because every player, coach and AD is a far bigger fan, to mention just a few obvious choices. The million dollar donors who push cash at recruits under the table are also probably "bigger" fans, huh? Of course the manufacturer of said license plate (or license plate holder, or sticker, or key ring, or whatever) probably manufactured 50,000 or so. Statistically, just as with "Highlanders," there can only be one #1 fan, and I'm betting this fat 47 year old golfer isn't that guy.


"Honk if you keep up with the Kardashians"

How bereft of mental activity or challenge in one's life does one have to be before this is a relevant question? In short, If I were "keeping up with" that sorry collection of vapid oxygen wastes, I'd more than likely proceed to run over them.

"Baby on Board"

Wowser, good thing I noticed that, because I was just preparing to strike you at ram speed. Of course, in some cases these signs are so small that to actually be able to read one you will also be following too closely at the same time. I also am nonplussed by the apparent idea of the sticker's owner that having this small opaque object partially obscuring their vision makes them safer.

The "stick figure" family

It's a free country, and goodness knows we all have the right to free expression, but really? You need to show us the size and makeup of your family on your rear car window? The stick dog and cat are cute, too. I love it even more when the stick woman rolls out of the vehicle.

"I love my (insert dog breed)"

I really get this one, because I also love my dog, but is sounds like a really dirty movie when it's out there out of context.

All political stickers.

Just stop it. When any such bumper sticker changes anyone's mind or makes the world a better place, then resume pasting, but until then....! This is especially applicable after the election and your candidate lost. Why not just get one to paste over it, which says "Loser?"

Puzzlements

Puzzlements

There are events and conditions which occur in the here and now which simply leave me wondering how we got here.

I. The Trump presidency:

It is troublesome, but at least answerable to reflect on how DJT got elected. The words "deplorable." "racist." and "gullible" all are applicable to one or another of his base constituency. Far more troubling is the cadre of enablers and sycophants, all far brighter than he, who, like Remoras on a Great White, cling to him, hoping for some scrap from his (its) lips or beneficence there from. (You should be proud of me for taking the high road, because "hemorrhoid" was the first analogy which came to mind, but was eschewed for the marine simbiote one.)

What appalls me, almost as much as the horribly misguided  decisions and twisted vision of America, is the fact that someone with every conceivable social, financial and experiential advantage, which Trump has or has had, turned out to be such a buffoon.

There is a Sociological construct (for want of a better descriptor) wherein social scientists conceptualize what has come to be known as "Cultural IQ." Defined, it is: "Cultural intelligence or cultural quotient (CQ) is a term used in business, education, government and academic research. Cultural intelligence can be understood as the capability to relate and work effectively across cultures." Do we see anything in said definition which should be of concern with regard to DJT?

A professor at Harvard Business School has stated, "Understanding other cultures determines effectiveness in the workplace, influences how conflicts are handled, and shapes the future. While basic social skills and respect for other cultures can be enough, cultural intelligence is especially important in stressful situations."

Clearly DJT, while allegedly having completed the requirements for an MBA from said organization, has demonstrated essentially zero grasp of several of these components which his alma mater believes to be essential to optimum performance in high level positions.

I know, I know, "That's easy to say, but what about specifics?" I get it, I really do, that some, but far too few, who voted for Trump out of some hugely misguided sense that he was the messiah come to reclaim America for White (and orange) Anglo-Saxon Protestants, are asking themselves some of the same questions. Here, then is a partial summary of things done here at home which should have caused a rational person to question the DJT suitability for any public job.

He has insulted brown people, black people, Muslim people, Jewish people. He has insulted women. He has insulted the grieving parents of a dead soldier. He has mocked a disabled person and expressed admiration for dictators. He has ham-handedly pandered to a politically critical portion of the population by posting to social media a picture of gringo Tex-Mex captioning it, “I love Hispanics!” 

He suggested he could shoot somebody and not lose votes. He made the ludicrous statement that he had "Always wanted a Purple Heart." He openly talked about the possibility of the assassination of his political opponent. Twice. He even told high ranking military officers during what was obviously a pro-forma visit to the Army-Navy football game that it was "boring." And these are just the insults, not the demonstrable falsehoods. Also , these were all prior to his election. Or try these, diametric contradictions 6 days apart:

I see NATO as a good thing.” (Washington Post, March 21, 2016)
“I think NATO is obsolete.” (ABC News, March 27, 2016)

His record is one of seemingly endless contradictions, based on his apparent belief that telling people what they want to hear absolves one from having to make and abide by a decision using one's intellect tempered by sound advice from experts. This should surprise no one, as DJT has told us prior to the election and proven afterward:

“You’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen. Does that make sense to you? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you.” (De Pere, Wisconsin, March 30, 2016)

“My motto is ‘Hire the best people, and don’t trust them.’” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)

“I love the poorly educated.” (Las Vegas, February 23, 2016)

But on to the real issue, cultural awareness. I assure you every single example below is a direct quote:

" “I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.”

“Who the fuck knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?”

“Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.”

“Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?’”

Women: “You have to treat ’em like shit.”

Really, what a guy, huh?

Likewise. in the arena of international politics, DJT has consistently shown little or no real Cultural IQ. Examples include:

Using the words "Islamist" and "Islamic" interchangeably.

Literally shoving aside the Chief executive of another nation, Montenegro, which some believe he was unaware was actually a nation

Attempting (and failing) to out "hand squeeze" the President of France. (not to mention verbally assessing the physical attributes of Macron's wife)

In what is a blatant example of lack of historical contextual sense, he assailed German Chancellor Merkel, the de facto leader of the EU, because Germany, in his opinion, hadn't paid "their share" of NATO financing. So what's wrong with that, you ask? I'll tell you in the next paragraphs.

NATO came into existence for several reasons. The most exigent of which was concern over the demonstrated willingness of the (then) Soviet Union to attempt to subjugate and project power into central and even western Europe. The partition of Germany and Berlin, the satellite state status of Poland, Czechoslovakia , Hungary, Rumania and the Baltic states was a major concern for the US from 1946 on. It was the considered opinion among many in the US military and intelligence community that the next "war" would be the land war in Europe, fought between the US (and allies) and Soviets. It was even the subject of Tom Clancy's 1986 book "Red Storm Rising," 40 years later. The obvious answer in the minds of American policy makers was that said war, if it should come, was far better fought over the bones of an already war torn Europe, than in the United States, untouched by war since 1865.

To that end, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in April of 1949. The US, with a booming post war economy, was the prime mover behind the formation of this "mutual defense" accord. If there was an "equity" of cost to be shown, it could well be posited as the financial and human price paid by the war ravaged nations of Europe, struggling to rebuild shattered infrastructure and industry while the US sent returning soldiers to College on the GI Bill and became the world's strongest economy. Claiming financial obligation "equity" as DJT has done shows little to no actual sense of the historicity of NATO or why it exists. It is true that the "Soviet Threat" is diminished, the Soviet Union having collapsed, starting in 1989, under its own unsustainable economic weight, but recent events show that the Russian spirit of European entitlement and supremacy lives in Vladimir Putin's reptilian brain still.

All that said, and regardless of how near or far Germany and others are to "Recommended " NATO funding objectives, which are not in monetary values but rather percentages of GDP, it was clear that DJT simply has little or no real geopolitical comprehension. This was hammered home again miles away in Saudi Arabia, when he openly sucked up to the same monarchy which facilitated the entry of the 9/11 terrorists into the US.

The Saudis are the national regime which allows the Wahhabi extremist Islamist sect to not only continue to exist within their borders, but for more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It's a radically austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. The Saudi monarchy family is afraid to confront Wahhabism because they are allowed to rule in return for tolerating it.

In closing, it should be noted that few, if any, foreign officials have extended or demonstrated any real collegiality or sense of "simpatico" to Trump, his lame rhetoric or his objectives. This reflects not on them, but on the man who would be King DJT I. While I would agree that any national government should place national interest first when it is not in conflict with the majority of the rest of the world, this is far from the current situation. DJT simply doesn't care about the image of the US, since he gets all the information he feels he needs from the two to three hours of TV he reportedly watches daily. It should be noted that this is almost entirely Fox News. How tragic when a Sean Hannity can become the conduit of propaganda to POTUS!

We are fast becoming an international laughingstock, and it only continues to worsen as Far Right legislators realize that the helm of the ship of state is broken, we are rudderless, and Captain Queeg is on the bridge.

Stossel, Wrong again

       About the only absolutely valid assumption  may make about  a John Stossel op-ed piece is that somewhere in it, the apostle of free market greed will shoot himself in a body part. This Sunday's column is illustrative of that point.

         In a column headlined "School Inc." Stossel makes the childishly simplistic statement that all that is "wrong" with American public education is covered by two or three simple factoids. Factoid 1: "The US should emulate Chile, Japan, Korea, the UK and Sweden in Education planning and control." Factoid the second: What is wrong with Education is government control and curriculum setting efforts. Finally: The system is a monopoly and resists change.

        Let's start with the second and third assertions combined first. Yes, every single organization has within its rank and file those who hate change "for the sake of change."   That said, there are, admittedly many of those in education at the grass roots level (where I toiled happily for 20 years) who will, and do,  eagerly embrace meaningful change with actual student positive outcomes as the objective. At this juncture, it needs to be shown that Stossel (intentionally?) fails to differentiate between levels of government. This is probably because he wants the reader to believe that most of what fails or has failed in US Public Education is top down directed.

        Other than the moronic "No Child Left Behind" effort of Bush 43, who I guarantee doesn't read on grade level (listen to any speech and recall he has an MBA, courtesy of daddy's legacy at Yale), there is little classroom day to day influence from Washington other than the odd small infusion of grant monies here and there. Why call NCLB "moronic?" Because it essentially imposes  the statistically impossible mandate that all children will be at least "average," regardless of actual ability. This ain't Lake Woebegone! (deep NPR reference)

       Most actual legislative educational impact comes from the State capitol and is implemented at the county or similar subdivision level, even to the "town" in some New England states. This insures that most real law related to schools in any state is enacted by politicians. It is proper to point out that for many of these elected politicos, education is analogous to the way the Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer used to describe his occasional spats with his equally great Hall of Fame manager, Earl Weaver. He said, "All Earl knows about pitching is that it's hard and he can't do it." Such it is with just about all state legislators. As an aside, many of these persons also have relatives who would love a bigger slice of the charter school pie!

        By the time it gets to the District (using the Florida model which is county based as most are) this one size fits all model and funding is spread over such divergent political entities as Miami-Dade (profoundly metropolitan) and  Sumter County (mostly agricultural). While there may well be great teachers in both regions, they also may be, as in Orange County, handcuffed by the edict from on high to adopt whatever "flavor of the month" method of teaching/lesson planning/ thoughtful reflection/etc which was popular in California five years ago. To cite most recent examples, this could well mean being mandated to follow  a system which is being sold at a price by one or another of an army of traveling educational hucksters who don't teach, but sell "how to" books.   Perhaps The most egregious example, a fraud named Marzano, has never taught a year of school, but is willing to tell you exactly how to do so. Undoubtedly, there may well be the odd good piece of  advice/structure/guideline/pedagogy hidden in the greater mass of such copyrighted and expensive material, but it is usually shoved wholesale down the throats of good or outstanding teachers who already get excellent results with finely honed skills derived from the actual classroom experience. The best thing to do to help a good or great teacher is get the hell out of their way. This has nothing to do with standard curricula and is invariably locally driven.

        Second factoid: and the place where Stossel's hypocrisy shines like the sun

        "The US should emulate Sweden, Korea, Japan, Chile, and India."

       First issue: In all those countries, the vast percentage of the students are fluent in one language, which is the language of instruction, in several, most students take separate, at cost English" classes as well. I taught in a school with more than ten different languages as the home or birth language of a student.

        Next: Stossel, in classic "ignore the facts if they're contradictory" fashion, fails to mention that all these nations except India have very strong, centralized governmental control of education. Remember, "Government control baaad!"  They all have cabinet level Education posts and except for India, all those positions are held by qualified educators with advanced degrees!

        Then, let's individually consider what Stossel compares to US education:

        Korea:

Teachers make, on average, 1/3 more than their US counterparts. (Stossel says we spend too much here).     

National education funding per pupil as a percentage of GDP is 3 times that of the USA! (yeah, three times)

        Korean parents stress education and pay huge sums for tutors. Many pay an average of $8000 annually for tutoring. One, a TV tutor and on line math guy makes about $4 million annually! 

When Stossel in the column says "Some Korean teachers make millions." he isn't (but he wants you to think he is) referring to classroom teachers, but more like Bill Nye or the guy mentioned above. Golly, I tutored for free, who knew?

How does this work for these lucky Korean kids? Here are some things Stossel would rather not discuss.

   • The Korean Educational Development Institute reports that the majority of university students lack the ability to ask questions to instructors primarily  due to an education system that promotes examinations and instructors having too many students to handle.

  •  While an international educational poll ranks Korean students at the top for academics, they're at the bottom for happiness.

   • A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most.

 • Suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth.

Be careful what you wish for, John.

 Sweden:

Again heavy handed government control. Cabinet level minister with education degree.

Homeschooling frowned upon as national policy.

All curricula state mandated and regulated.

        Japan:

Nationally established curricula, attendance requirements

All students (99.9%) speak one language (Japanese) fluently

University costs only about $10,000 annually

Curricula and years of attendance are nationally set and enforced.

Again, huge parental emphasis on education, student resultant stress.

7,000 teachers or more are assaulted annually by students.

  

      Chile:

Curricula and attendance government run and enforced

1/3 of universities (about 25) are Government run/regulated. They outperform private universities and that gap is increasing.

Cabinet level minister, Master's in Education

College admissions tests government controlled and written

Student loans 2%, 15 yr. payoff for University

       India:

Almost 30% of schools private, expensive, stratified by class/money. 

Tuition many times the amount spent per student in government schools. Calling them "Public Schools" doesn't make 'em public if your parents have to go into big debt to get you there.

Very much like the British system (on whom modeling was done)

Regulated by the state (Indian political subdivision)

        So, what have we learned? we learned that once again Stossel has bullshat the reader, by alleging that the above  nations' schools are better, when in fact all have far more stringent national government controls, which he says is the reason US schools underperform. This is of course a set up for speaking glowingly of charter schools - you know those schools  to which we send state dollars into the black hole of private and largely unregulated educational spending? These schools are also frequently run by religious groups or entities. This is odd, considering almost 200 years of rock ribbed opposition in America to sending any public monies to Catholic schools , even though they actually teach.

       What doesn't Stossel get? He has apparently not really looked hard at the mediocre overall record of Charter schools, choosing instead to cherry pick those who are very successful for many reasons having to do more with a select student body than any other single factor.

        Here's my op-ed take on the subject:

        The factors which separate high performing schools from those who do less well are several, and curriculum is a mere nit in the group. Likewise, where the regulators live is not really very important either, but they should be people who are at least conversant with their client base and the issues surrounding their lives. Example, when Jeb Bush was running for Governor of Florida he visited Boone High School, where I taught. This was a prep school, trust fund child of privilege, nodding and smiling as if he could identify with public school students. He could not and cannot, nor could his brother Alfred W Bush.

        The countries Stossel compares to the US except for India,  have some truly monumental advantages. They are relatively compact, relatively homogeneous in population and students and their parents have a strong understanding of the critical importance of effort in education. Teaching is a highly paid and respected profession, and most educators in all the countries mentioned do so as a career. Compare that to the "stepping stone" which many US college graduates seem to feel Public Education represents, since most won't last past five years. 

       When  trying to make a great blueberry pie, the baker must start with top notch fruit. We in public education get our fruit (in many cases) bruised, hungry, even under ripe; but we take them, love them and do what can be done to teach them. The students who don't thrive in our system are, in the great majority, students whose  families cannot afford, and in too many cases, have little regard for the value of, a tutor, private school, or whatever. Additionally, those of us who love the profession deserve to be paid as professionals and given the tools , but not have the skill set dismantled by the edict of some "expert" with a briefcase who has never faced our challenges.

         If you read this and feel, as some will, that I am in error here, do this. Go be a volunteer in a Title I school and watch and learn. Walk a mile or two in the shoes of a dedicated teacher whose students come to school hungry and with little or no parental encouragement. Then consider the messages which advertising sends, from every electronic medium available, regarding what's important and who's important to success in life.  Contrast the impact of a Kardashian with that of a Dickens or Roosevelt in the minds of the media/money/me generation. Then reread what I have written  and what others have written about the Korean, Swedish, Japanese  and other nations' systems. Of course  they also have, at the top of that government food chain, educators, not Tupperware ladies.