When asked which was closer, the sun or the moon, one of the applicants to be on the show Beauty and the Geek actually said "aren't they the same thing?" Now, I realize that not everyone's parents are middle class or interested in science or understand the basic nature of the solar system by age 5, but you shouldn't be allowed to graduate from grammar school without knowing that the Sun (Sol) is enormous; Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun; the Moon revolves around the earth; Jupiter is the largest planet; Saturn's Great Red Spot is actually a storm that has been raging for over 300 years and its moon's are the most likely place for extraterrestrial life in the solar system; Neptune is the only planet which has rings that orbit perpendicular to the equator instead of a parallel manner; and Pluto is the 9th planet. Ok, that last one will no longer be true, but this lets me work in that I think it's interesting that they decided to downgrade it from a planet instead of promoting a few more Oort Cloud objects to planet status.
It's things like that answer which make me think No Child Left Behind is a good idea and that WE SHOULD HAVE A NATIONAL CURRICULUM. I get that lots of teachers (including the two generations of teachers in my family) oppose NCLB because it fosters "teaching to the test," but teaching to the test is not necessarily a bad thing. If the test is properly constructed around questions central to understanding the subject (e.g., the transitive property in math, or the proper use of semi-colons - please note irony) then teaching to the test can be an incredibly valuable tool for improving general education levels. And of course recent immigrant children should not be included in the measurement of a school's performance.
Competition is a good thing and in most cases brings out the best in people. It's also the fundamental basis of our society - we are primates and mammals after all and exhibit the same range of programmed behaviors - and would force schools to focus on education as an output, teaching as an input and administration to act like good managers - paying teachers by their merit instead of seniority and firing teachers who don't care or are poor performers.
End of Rant.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
The Problem With Thompson
isn't that he's lazy; it's that he most definitely is not the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. The comparisons with Reagan are facile at best as simply being actors and politicians does not make them the same, or even very similar.
Reagan had been active in politics and had honed his ideology and principles since his days at the Screen Actors Guild. He also was was a sucessful two-term Governor of California who almost denied a sitting the President the nomination of his party before obtaining the nomination. Thompson is a former Republican Senate Committee Counsel who engaged in a bit of political theatre that helped bring down a President. He later served as a Senator with an undistinguished record, and I would argue that his actions as a Senate staffer were as or more important than his actions as a U.S. Senator. They could not be more different in terms of the experience and commitment to firm principles.
Reagan was a strident anti-Communist and forger of a great political realignment based on the conservative ideology he developed from Goldwater's campaign. Every knew were Regan stood on any given issue because he was committed to his ideals. Thompson however is presumably a strong anti-terrorist, but we don't really know what he believes - after all he was willing to lobby to liberalize abortion laws but then claims to be 100% pro-life. He was also willing to lobby for a deposed Haitian dictator trying to get the U.S. to launch and invasion to reinstall him as the nation's leader. This rasing issues about his commitment to human rights, which has other implications in the wake of scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
As I said Thompson is Reagan. He's simply an echo of what the right yearns for - clarity of purpose derived from a coherent ideology (which we now lack) and a strong leader who doesn't betray our faith in some way.
Reagan had been active in politics and had honed his ideology and principles since his days at the Screen Actors Guild. He also was was a sucessful two-term Governor of California who almost denied a sitting the President the nomination of his party before obtaining the nomination. Thompson is a former Republican Senate Committee Counsel who engaged in a bit of political theatre that helped bring down a President. He later served as a Senator with an undistinguished record, and I would argue that his actions as a Senate staffer were as or more important than his actions as a U.S. Senator. They could not be more different in terms of the experience and commitment to firm principles.
Reagan was a strident anti-Communist and forger of a great political realignment based on the conservative ideology he developed from Goldwater's campaign. Every knew were Regan stood on any given issue because he was committed to his ideals. Thompson however is presumably a strong anti-terrorist, but we don't really know what he believes - after all he was willing to lobby to liberalize abortion laws but then claims to be 100% pro-life. He was also willing to lobby for a deposed Haitian dictator trying to get the U.S. to launch and invasion to reinstall him as the nation's leader. This rasing issues about his commitment to human rights, which has other implications in the wake of scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
As I said Thompson is Reagan. He's simply an echo of what the right yearns for - clarity of purpose derived from a coherent ideology (which we now lack) and a strong leader who doesn't betray our faith in some way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
