We are rapidly coming up to the half-way point of 2014, and we have barely reached 20 posts. At this rate, we'll finish the year with less than a hundred posts... our worst showing ever.
F Ryan is a prolific texter... I can count on at least three or four multi-page texts from him a week. I know, in the past, he has been upset (at best) or hurt (at worst) that I do not respond to his texts. I simply hate texting. If we are going to communicate with the written word, at least allow me a real keyboard, a comfortable chair and some background music to type by. Do not force me to stab at a tiny screen on my phone, while hunched over a pit stand hoping the bums on the catwalk aren't snapping 8'x10' glossy images to send down to my managers showing how much "work" I'm doing.
I just got done listening to Josh Waitzkin (of Searching for Bobby Fischer fame) in a podcast, and he talks about his work outside of chess and martial arts... and it is focused on the learning processes we all follow (or choose not to follow) and how they effect our creativity in our daily lives.
I can tell you now that I am less of a "man" since we have stopped "Bunding"... and as humorous as that may sound, it is undeniably true. Posting here on the Bund isn't simply "writing"... it is a creative and intellectual process that I think well and truly shaped my mind over the course of the last 10 years (including the mail list years, of course). The creative process isn't simply a tool, nor is it inherently available to anyone that wants it, whenever it is convenient. It is a process that requires effort and discipline, and returns many times its initial cost. If you doubt me, then ask Jambo... he can back me up.
Let's resurrect the Bund. Let's all work to make the time to voice our thoughts here. This is something I miss, and it (meaning YOU GUYS) challenges me to get better at it every time I post.
What say you?
Friday, June 13, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
I am shocked...
Damn near driven speechless, in fact.
A few tangents first, before my main point:
1) Afghanistan. You are correct, I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. As you said, I was a younger, far more naive man then. A regime that openly assisted the people that attacked the US on 9/11/01 was a clear and present danger in my eyes.
However, as you so eloquently pointed out, that was a flawed position to take. No end-game strategy was ever presented to the "People" of these United States, no clear and well-defined "grand strategy" was ever laid out to "We the People" in regards to how the conflict would be conducted, and what the conditions for a declared "victory" wold be.
How many nations, before and after 9/11, were attacked by terrorists (Islamic or otherwise) and have NOT invaded and toppled recognized sovereign national governments? ALL of them, I'd say. We did it to two of them, damn near unilaterally.
2) My greatest degree of utter surprise stems from F Ryan's confession that he "doesn't know" what the right thing to do would or should have been. This leads me to think that he has come to the conclusion that what was done was not the right course of action to be taken. Declaring that the moon was made of green cheese, and that he routinely goes there to get some for his pizza night with the boys could hardly have raised my eyebrows any higher.
However... it shocks me even more that we are in nearly total agreement.
I wasn't right in 2001, and I wasn't right in 2003... at least not for the right reasons. Our government should be operating under the limitations of the powers enumerated within the Constitution, but it is not. It hasn't for quite some time. It is only in the last year that I have really begun to see just how far outside the Constitution this government of ours is operating.
I don't care what letter is behind the politician's name at the booth, no one running in any national election, for any office, is going to do one single thing that will reduce the size and scope of government. No one one the Republican side, and no one on the Democrat side. No one. Not one.
That said, I have taken to thinking that the best course of action for me (I advocate this for no one else, mind you) is that I participate in the Federal government system at the absolute minimum level of participation allowed to me by law.
I'll pay my taxes. I'll abide by Federal laws, as long as they do not contradict my conscience or my morals. I will do nothing else. I will not vote in the coming Federal elections in November. I will not support, in my words, deeds or personal wealth, anyone running for Federal office. I will limit my franchise participation to the State, County and Municipal level, where I feel I can actually benefit from and actually measure the impact of my vote and voice. That is what I feel I can do, so that is what I will do.
Now, to my final main point:
"So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page."
Here, we are in complete disagreement.
The mess we see the region in right now cannot be blamed on anything if it cannot be blamed on the manner in which we, the United States of America, have conducted ourselves and our foreign policy over the last 70 years. Of course ethnic, religious and demographic facets must be factored in... but if US national security is at risk in the region (and from the region), then it is our policies and actions that have brought it about.
Doing nothing, especially now, is the only course of corrective action that I can see working at all. Continuing our present course, we do nothing with any certainty EXCEPT create another generation of men and women who blame the US (and by extension every American citizen, involved or not) for every single woe in their lives. Doing nothing forces the region, and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, to take responsibility for their own needs. That is what the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did... they accepted responsibility for their respective States' needs, solely and totally, because no one else should or could be responsible for those needs. We chose the path of self determination, and it has worked here. France chose the path of self determination. The UK, Germany, Japan, the West in general... we found our feet on that path and have stayed there since. You cannot force someone onto that path.
By doing nothing, we can secure our own freedoms (from ourselves, it seems... what greater threat is there right now to our personal freedoms than our own government?) and voluntarily assist those that ask us, if the needs should arise. We can provide the example that we once were, and can be again... that individual freedom creates a free country. The country does not create individual freedom. If we are not a nation of free men and women, then we are no more fit to dictate policy or governmental structure than Saddam Hussein was... and I am not picking an extreme here simply for hyperbole sake. Saddam dictated to 25 million people how they would conduct their lives, and we came and removed him, and then dictated how and when they would pick a replacement. In a fundamental manner... where is the difference?
We do not lose... we win. We steal not only the means by which radicals and terrorists justify their butchery... we remove a HUGE portion of the means by which they produce their terror and butchery. By removing the onus we have placed on ourselves as the "protector of the world" we can once again focus on making this nation a place were everyone wants to be. A place where we feed, clothe, employ, house, educate, and incorporate any and all that are willing to come and participate in the great American dream. We once again become the great "melting pot" that incorporates each and every free individual into a functional, safe and prosperous society.
We are no more safe NOW then we were on 9/10/01. I really and truly feel that is true. Saddam cannot attack us. bin Laden cannot attack us. They are dead and gone. We are NOT safer because of that, though.
Even worse, I fear we are less free than we were on 9/10/01... and what is more tragic than that? How do we justify the deaths of so many thousands of Americans in both theaters and around the world, when no honest and rational American can say we are even as "free" now as we were fourteen years ago?
THAT is a tragedy... and a loss... but it isn't because of terror or radical extremism. That is our own fault.
A few tangents first, before my main point:
1) Afghanistan. You are correct, I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. As you said, I was a younger, far more naive man then. A regime that openly assisted the people that attacked the US on 9/11/01 was a clear and present danger in my eyes.
However, as you so eloquently pointed out, that was a flawed position to take. No end-game strategy was ever presented to the "People" of these United States, no clear and well-defined "grand strategy" was ever laid out to "We the People" in regards to how the conflict would be conducted, and what the conditions for a declared "victory" wold be.
How many nations, before and after 9/11, were attacked by terrorists (Islamic or otherwise) and have NOT invaded and toppled recognized sovereign national governments? ALL of them, I'd say. We did it to two of them, damn near unilaterally.
2) My greatest degree of utter surprise stems from F Ryan's confession that he "doesn't know" what the right thing to do would or should have been. This leads me to think that he has come to the conclusion that what was done was not the right course of action to be taken. Declaring that the moon was made of green cheese, and that he routinely goes there to get some for his pizza night with the boys could hardly have raised my eyebrows any higher.
However... it shocks me even more that we are in nearly total agreement.
I wasn't right in 2001, and I wasn't right in 2003... at least not for the right reasons. Our government should be operating under the limitations of the powers enumerated within the Constitution, but it is not. It hasn't for quite some time. It is only in the last year that I have really begun to see just how far outside the Constitution this government of ours is operating.
I don't care what letter is behind the politician's name at the booth, no one running in any national election, for any office, is going to do one single thing that will reduce the size and scope of government. No one one the Republican side, and no one on the Democrat side. No one. Not one.
That said, I have taken to thinking that the best course of action for me (I advocate this for no one else, mind you) is that I participate in the Federal government system at the absolute minimum level of participation allowed to me by law.
I'll pay my taxes. I'll abide by Federal laws, as long as they do not contradict my conscience or my morals. I will do nothing else. I will not vote in the coming Federal elections in November. I will not support, in my words, deeds or personal wealth, anyone running for Federal office. I will limit my franchise participation to the State, County and Municipal level, where I feel I can actually benefit from and actually measure the impact of my vote and voice. That is what I feel I can do, so that is what I will do.
Now, to my final main point:
"So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page."
Here, we are in complete disagreement.
The mess we see the region in right now cannot be blamed on anything if it cannot be blamed on the manner in which we, the United States of America, have conducted ourselves and our foreign policy over the last 70 years. Of course ethnic, religious and demographic facets must be factored in... but if US national security is at risk in the region (and from the region), then it is our policies and actions that have brought it about.
Doing nothing, especially now, is the only course of corrective action that I can see working at all. Continuing our present course, we do nothing with any certainty EXCEPT create another generation of men and women who blame the US (and by extension every American citizen, involved or not) for every single woe in their lives. Doing nothing forces the region, and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, to take responsibility for their own needs. That is what the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did... they accepted responsibility for their respective States' needs, solely and totally, because no one else should or could be responsible for those needs. We chose the path of self determination, and it has worked here. France chose the path of self determination. The UK, Germany, Japan, the West in general... we found our feet on that path and have stayed there since. You cannot force someone onto that path.
By doing nothing, we can secure our own freedoms (from ourselves, it seems... what greater threat is there right now to our personal freedoms than our own government?) and voluntarily assist those that ask us, if the needs should arise. We can provide the example that we once were, and can be again... that individual freedom creates a free country. The country does not create individual freedom. If we are not a nation of free men and women, then we are no more fit to dictate policy or governmental structure than Saddam Hussein was... and I am not picking an extreme here simply for hyperbole sake. Saddam dictated to 25 million people how they would conduct their lives, and we came and removed him, and then dictated how and when they would pick a replacement. In a fundamental manner... where is the difference?
We do not lose... we win. We steal not only the means by which radicals and terrorists justify their butchery... we remove a HUGE portion of the means by which they produce their terror and butchery. By removing the onus we have placed on ourselves as the "protector of the world" we can once again focus on making this nation a place were everyone wants to be. A place where we feed, clothe, employ, house, educate, and incorporate any and all that are willing to come and participate in the great American dream. We once again become the great "melting pot" that incorporates each and every free individual into a functional, safe and prosperous society.
We are no more safe NOW then we were on 9/10/01. I really and truly feel that is true. Saddam cannot attack us. bin Laden cannot attack us. They are dead and gone. We are NOT safer because of that, though.
Even worse, I fear we are less free than we were on 9/10/01... and what is more tragic than that? How do we justify the deaths of so many thousands of Americans in both theaters and around the world, when no honest and rational American can say we are even as "free" now as we were fourteen years ago?
THAT is a tragedy... and a loss... but it isn't because of terror or radical extremism. That is our own fault.
This is going to leave a mark....
So testy about text messages at the end there. Take it easy sweetheart, hike up that dress and lets go for a walk down memory lane.
I supported the Iraq invasion, loudly and often. And to boil it down I did so for two reasons. One, in the wake of 9/11 I felt the Jihadist enemy was now willing and capable of force projection here at home. Now I'm sure some CIA analysts somewhere at the time knew this already, but as a 20-something American citizen not privy to any Intel loop, it was the stark images of the towers collapsing that woke me to this realization. And given we now had an Islamic Pearl Harbor I felt it was not just possible, but likely, that Saddam either had or would eventually succeed (sooner rather than later) in his quest for nuclear weapons, and that he would in all likelihood strike the US (his primary nemesis) via handing those nukes off to terrorists for deployment on US soil. That was my primary rationale. Saddam with nukes in the post 9/11 era was unacceptable, he'd proven to be a madman that desired our fall, so we could no longer sit by as this guy rattled his saber again and again.
The secondary reason I supported invading Iraq was more general - the "drain the swamp" theory. I thought establishing a beach head of democracy in Iraq would cause liberty to spread in the Middle East. We would draw all the wanna-be jihadists into a nation filled with US Marines (as opposed to waiting for them to come here and fighting them on main street); and that after their demise this beach head could grow. As you might remember Bush said in one of his SoTU addresses, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." It worked in a nation of imperial zealots, via Japan, and it was even working on economic fronts in China (they are now feeding all 1.3 billion for the first time in their history). I fully believed in would work in Iraq.
So you have my two-fold reasons. Here was the two-fold mistake in that rationale:
First, we did not commit to total war as we did with Imperial Japan. I assumed we would - I was wrong. Now that sentiment may not feel accurate to any Marine taking fire at this moment, and understandably so, but what I mean is there wasn't a WWII mind set in operation. The rules of engagement, the home front sacrifice, even the unwillingness to name our enemy (always careful to parse words on Islam)... the PC nature of our war commitment cut the tendon of our right foot before we even started marching. In retrospect I believe our officials and the American populous had the stomach to start a war, but not the stomach to win at any cost, as was the case with the Greatest Generation. The problem is you don't "end" wars, you win or lose them, and we are a nation of people who want to know when the war will end, not how the war will be won. To sum this up as succinctly as possible - does anyone believe we would have the fortitude to deploy one, let alone two nuclear weapons if it meant a swift and sure success? No chance. Unfortunately our enemy does not have such commitment issues.
Second flaw... I'll start with Germany, because it's easier. The Marshall plan and the post WWII rebuilding of Germany into a vibrant, pluralistic, democratic society did not happen because the WWII generation had some secret power or formula. It happened because before Hitler the German people were a vibrant, pluralistic, open society. In other words, once we removed the scourge of Nazism the German people were capable of building this society because they knew what it looked like. The dominant religious culture of Iraq, and the Near East in general, has not progressed past the 7th century. In fact, forget a Jeffersonian democracy, they fully reject a Platoistic Democracy (or republic, as the case may be). They are unwilling to accept the gift of freedom, whether it comes from America or God. Even within the Iraqi constitution if you are Jewish you can never become an Iraqi citizen - and those are the "good guys", not ISIS. So to sum up the second flaw in my rationale - I underestimated how ill prepared and unwilling Iraqis would be to embrace freedom. Yes, thousands of them cast their vote with the inked blue thumb print, I get that. But they must be willing to fight and die for that ink, especially when their chief military patron won't even send a predator drone on a scraifing run right now. The experiment of an external "imposition" of freedom on a society from which it was not birthed naturally seems to be spiraling into a cataclysmic failure. I know Titus called that from the beginning. For my part I simply could not wrap my head around such a thing in 2003 - that freedom would not be embraced and that the Iraqis could not grasp that soldiering was about more than a steady paycheck. But then again I was raised in the West. The concept of dying for liberty here is as American, as well, apple pie.
Now here's the problem you're going to have Titus - if you accept my two points of flawed reasoning as accurate, then you must come to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake as well. Everything I wrote above can be applied to Afghanistan, and there can be no doubt of the Taliban's resurgence once we fully pull out this year. Hell, we just gave them back five of their commanders to help smooth that transition. And I don't remember you opposing the Afghan invasion.
Beyond that the question quickly becomes, "then what should we have done as a response to 9/11?" I don't know, fully anyway. I do know that going in and wiping out Al Qaeda, getting Bin Laden, and then getting the hell out appeals to me at the moment.
But the bigger issue seems to be the dark choice we - as Westerners - must make regarding the Mid East. Whether it's Egypt, Iraq, or Iran the peoples of that region seem capable of only two forms of government: A) a strong man, whom keeps jihadists at bay but in our support we betray our own principles (and that's if he doesn't turn on us, like Saddam); or B) a fundamentalist Islamic state which combines a 7th century mentality with 21st century weaponry and a white hot hate for America.
I'm being sincere in my frustration here - if supporting a strong man is untenable, and the region is impervious to external impositions of freedom, what to do? I would suggest that we do nothing, and when either form of government raises an ugly hand to strike at us we pummel them into fused glass. But it would seem we (as represented in our civilian leadership, in both parties) don't have the stomach for that either! So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page.
I supported the Iraq invasion, loudly and often. And to boil it down I did so for two reasons. One, in the wake of 9/11 I felt the Jihadist enemy was now willing and capable of force projection here at home. Now I'm sure some CIA analysts somewhere at the time knew this already, but as a 20-something American citizen not privy to any Intel loop, it was the stark images of the towers collapsing that woke me to this realization. And given we now had an Islamic Pearl Harbor I felt it was not just possible, but likely, that Saddam either had or would eventually succeed (sooner rather than later) in his quest for nuclear weapons, and that he would in all likelihood strike the US (his primary nemesis) via handing those nukes off to terrorists for deployment on US soil. That was my primary rationale. Saddam with nukes in the post 9/11 era was unacceptable, he'd proven to be a madman that desired our fall, so we could no longer sit by as this guy rattled his saber again and again.
The secondary reason I supported invading Iraq was more general - the "drain the swamp" theory. I thought establishing a beach head of democracy in Iraq would cause liberty to spread in the Middle East. We would draw all the wanna-be jihadists into a nation filled with US Marines (as opposed to waiting for them to come here and fighting them on main street); and that after their demise this beach head could grow. As you might remember Bush said in one of his SoTU addresses, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." It worked in a nation of imperial zealots, via Japan, and it was even working on economic fronts in China (they are now feeding all 1.3 billion for the first time in their history). I fully believed in would work in Iraq.
So you have my two-fold reasons. Here was the two-fold mistake in that rationale:
First, we did not commit to total war as we did with Imperial Japan. I assumed we would - I was wrong. Now that sentiment may not feel accurate to any Marine taking fire at this moment, and understandably so, but what I mean is there wasn't a WWII mind set in operation. The rules of engagement, the home front sacrifice, even the unwillingness to name our enemy (always careful to parse words on Islam)... the PC nature of our war commitment cut the tendon of our right foot before we even started marching. In retrospect I believe our officials and the American populous had the stomach to start a war, but not the stomach to win at any cost, as was the case with the Greatest Generation. The problem is you don't "end" wars, you win or lose them, and we are a nation of people who want to know when the war will end, not how the war will be won. To sum this up as succinctly as possible - does anyone believe we would have the fortitude to deploy one, let alone two nuclear weapons if it meant a swift and sure success? No chance. Unfortunately our enemy does not have such commitment issues.
Second flaw... I'll start with Germany, because it's easier. The Marshall plan and the post WWII rebuilding of Germany into a vibrant, pluralistic, democratic society did not happen because the WWII generation had some secret power or formula. It happened because before Hitler the German people were a vibrant, pluralistic, open society. In other words, once we removed the scourge of Nazism the German people were capable of building this society because they knew what it looked like. The dominant religious culture of Iraq, and the Near East in general, has not progressed past the 7th century. In fact, forget a Jeffersonian democracy, they fully reject a Platoistic Democracy (or republic, as the case may be). They are unwilling to accept the gift of freedom, whether it comes from America or God. Even within the Iraqi constitution if you are Jewish you can never become an Iraqi citizen - and those are the "good guys", not ISIS. So to sum up the second flaw in my rationale - I underestimated how ill prepared and unwilling Iraqis would be to embrace freedom. Yes, thousands of them cast their vote with the inked blue thumb print, I get that. But they must be willing to fight and die for that ink, especially when their chief military patron won't even send a predator drone on a scraifing run right now. The experiment of an external "imposition" of freedom on a society from which it was not birthed naturally seems to be spiraling into a cataclysmic failure. I know Titus called that from the beginning. For my part I simply could not wrap my head around such a thing in 2003 - that freedom would not be embraced and that the Iraqis could not grasp that soldiering was about more than a steady paycheck. But then again I was raised in the West. The concept of dying for liberty here is as American, as well, apple pie.
Now here's the problem you're going to have Titus - if you accept my two points of flawed reasoning as accurate, then you must come to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake as well. Everything I wrote above can be applied to Afghanistan, and there can be no doubt of the Taliban's resurgence once we fully pull out this year. Hell, we just gave them back five of their commanders to help smooth that transition. And I don't remember you opposing the Afghan invasion.
Beyond that the question quickly becomes, "then what should we have done as a response to 9/11?" I don't know, fully anyway. I do know that going in and wiping out Al Qaeda, getting Bin Laden, and then getting the hell out appeals to me at the moment.
But the bigger issue seems to be the dark choice we - as Westerners - must make regarding the Mid East. Whether it's Egypt, Iraq, or Iran the peoples of that region seem capable of only two forms of government: A) a strong man, whom keeps jihadists at bay but in our support we betray our own principles (and that's if he doesn't turn on us, like Saddam); or B) a fundamentalist Islamic state which combines a 7th century mentality with 21st century weaponry and a white hot hate for America.
I'm being sincere in my frustration here - if supporting a strong man is untenable, and the region is impervious to external impositions of freedom, what to do? I would suggest that we do nothing, and when either form of government raises an ugly hand to strike at us we pummel them into fused glass. But it would seem we (as represented in our civilian leadership, in both parties) don't have the stomach for that either! So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page.
I'm going to answer a question with a question...
F. Ryan asks: "Can you imagine being an OIF veteran watching Mosul fall as ISIS closes in on Baghdad?"
My response: Did we, any of us, actually think it was going to turn out any differently?
Let's look at that tired old chestnut of an argument just one more time... and we can forget all the tangential crap about WMDs and terror connections, because it has almost nothing to do with the actual question being raised... and that argument is "Should we have gone into Iraq in 2003 in the first place?"
Knowing what we do about American and Western history over the last fifty years, can we honestly say that the US, or any Western nation, had the fortitude and determination to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad AND replace it with a functioning system of government before the money and public support ran out? I don't care who is in office, either... Republican or Democrat... no one was going to command the sort of long term support it would have taken to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people enough to establish a functional democratically elected government in Baghdad. Period, end of story.
I'm sorry, but I feel more and more vindicated about my concerns that I voiced all the way back in 2003 and since.Ten plus years wasn't enough to do it, and thousands of American lives wasn't enough, and two million civilian deaths wasn't enough... so what would it have taken? Would ANY of it have been worth it at any time?
I want an answer here, by the way... not in a text.
My response: Did we, any of us, actually think it was going to turn out any differently?
Let's look at that tired old chestnut of an argument just one more time... and we can forget all the tangential crap about WMDs and terror connections, because it has almost nothing to do with the actual question being raised... and that argument is "Should we have gone into Iraq in 2003 in the first place?"
Knowing what we do about American and Western history over the last fifty years, can we honestly say that the US, or any Western nation, had the fortitude and determination to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad AND replace it with a functioning system of government before the money and public support ran out? I don't care who is in office, either... Republican or Democrat... no one was going to command the sort of long term support it would have taken to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people enough to establish a functional democratically elected government in Baghdad. Period, end of story.
I'm sorry, but I feel more and more vindicated about my concerns that I voiced all the way back in 2003 and since.Ten plus years wasn't enough to do it, and thousands of American lives wasn't enough, and two million civilian deaths wasn't enough... so what would it have taken? Would ANY of it have been worth it at any time?
I want an answer here, by the way... not in a text.
Friday, February 7, 2014
"It is not because things are difficult that we hesitate to do them..."
"... it is because we hesitate to do them that things are difficult." Seneca, 1st Century AD
I heard a statistic today on the way home from work that staggered me. Floored me. Amazed is too small a word.
I was listening to a show on the radio that was discussing the latest news concerning the Pittsburgh Independent School District and its $40 million dollar grant from the Gates Foundation. You can read the article and follow-up on the story at your leisure, but I am going to continue on the assumption that you know the meat and potatoes of the piece.
In a nutshell, the discussion was on the present failings of education in PA specifically, and the entire US in general, since the turn of the century (i.e. the Bush Administration). The subjects were many and quite varied, but the part that prompted this post was simply this:
Homeschooling is, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, growing at an absolutely AMAZING rate. In the 2007-08 school year, 1.9% of all students in PA were being homeschooled. In 2011-12, that percentage had reached 5.1%... nearly 60,000 students between the ages of 5 years and 18 years were outside of the public education's "brick-and-mortar" system. In that same 2011-12 year (the last I have hard data for), that same 5.1% of PA students being "home schooled" had more than 91.2% of its membership make the top standardized testing scores acheived by ANY students in the entire State!!!! These kids are blowing the rest of the "brick-and-mortar" system kids out of the water, if the scores they are putting up are any indication. (source HERE)
Now, think back... it isn't all that long ago that "home schooling" was what religious zealots and hippies did. This was NOT mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination. Now, it is something I am considering nearly each and every day that my 11-year-old continues to go to the "brick-and-mortar" system.
More staggering than all of that though...
(drum roll)
Imagine the numbers continuing to climb, both here in PA and nationally. When the numbers near (and possibly surpass) 25% of all students... the education system in America can no longer function as it is now. The system breaks down completely. The Federal money that goes to the "brick-and-mortar" institutions no longer is enough to fund what must become a greater and more expensive effort each and every year, thus driving more and more parents to take on the duties themselves, and (hopefully) driving the homeschool test scores up and up in comparison to those of the standard systems.
What does that mean?
I really don't know... but the possibilities are fascinating to ponder, aren't they?
I heard a statistic today on the way home from work that staggered me. Floored me. Amazed is too small a word.
I was listening to a show on the radio that was discussing the latest news concerning the Pittsburgh Independent School District and its $40 million dollar grant from the Gates Foundation. You can read the article and follow-up on the story at your leisure, but I am going to continue on the assumption that you know the meat and potatoes of the piece.
In a nutshell, the discussion was on the present failings of education in PA specifically, and the entire US in general, since the turn of the century (i.e. the Bush Administration). The subjects were many and quite varied, but the part that prompted this post was simply this:
Homeschooling is, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, growing at an absolutely AMAZING rate. In the 2007-08 school year, 1.9% of all students in PA were being homeschooled. In 2011-12, that percentage had reached 5.1%... nearly 60,000 students between the ages of 5 years and 18 years were outside of the public education's "brick-and-mortar" system. In that same 2011-12 year (the last I have hard data for), that same 5.1% of PA students being "home schooled" had more than 91.2% of its membership make the top standardized testing scores acheived by ANY students in the entire State!!!! These kids are blowing the rest of the "brick-and-mortar" system kids out of the water, if the scores they are putting up are any indication. (source HERE)
Now, think back... it isn't all that long ago that "home schooling" was what religious zealots and hippies did. This was NOT mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination. Now, it is something I am considering nearly each and every day that my 11-year-old continues to go to the "brick-and-mortar" system.
More staggering than all of that though...
(drum roll)
Imagine the numbers continuing to climb, both here in PA and nationally. When the numbers near (and possibly surpass) 25% of all students... the education system in America can no longer function as it is now. The system breaks down completely. The Federal money that goes to the "brick-and-mortar" institutions no longer is enough to fund what must become a greater and more expensive effort each and every year, thus driving more and more parents to take on the duties themselves, and (hopefully) driving the homeschool test scores up and up in comparison to those of the standard systems.
What does that mean?
I really don't know... but the possibilities are fascinating to ponder, aren't they?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
I thought I was done, but...
I can't get this Snowden thing off my mind lately. Now, granted... it isn't Snowden so much as it is our own government willingly pushing aside our individual and collective rights to better "protect" us from real or imagined harm... but I'll continue to call it the "Snowden thing" for my own personal convenience.
In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:
" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"
When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).
The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security". If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al. If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran? Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.
Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think: I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked. That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do. If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten? Is the baker not still a thief?
And yes, of course I see the parallel here. Snowden broke the law. He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal. My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong. What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.
My question now becomes:
Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not? I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight. I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.
I contend that it is better off now than it was. He did the right thing.
In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:
" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"
When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).
The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security". If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al. If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran? Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.
Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think: I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked. That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do. If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten? Is the baker not still a thief?
And yes, of course I see the parallel here. Snowden broke the law. He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal. My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong. What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.
My question now becomes:
Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not? I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight. I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.
I contend that it is better off now than it was. He did the right thing.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The perks of a northern Wisconsin childhood...
So, it's Wednesday. I'm off. I'd like to sleep in, but that simply doesn't happen here at the Chateau de Lieteau, so it was up and at 'em at 6 AM. One of the Wednesday chores is garbage, so I bundle up and drag the near unimaginable amount of trash to the street.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
