What Education?

When I was a student in the public schools, educated women did not have many options.  Consequently, I had some of the best and the brightest teachers, who, together with my mother, awakened me to the challenge of learning.  So many of my teachers were responsible for my intellectual development, for making me feel valuable as an individual, for setting me on a course where learning was truly a gift.  Unfortunately, once more opportunities for women opened up, the best and the brightest moved into more lucrative professions.  I believe that this was the beginning of the dumbing down of the educational system.  The teachers I had would never have put their own interest before that of their students nor would they blame the parents for their failure.   The best and the brightest would not have needed job security because they possess that inner security in themselves and what they were contributing.  They did not need the teachers union.  Recently, I began to wonder how many leaders in the teachers unions were ever amongst the best and the brightest.  My guess would be there were and are very few. 

Some time agao, I learned that Finland holds their teachers in such high regard that they are paid at the rate of doctors and lawyers.  In Finland, only the top of the class are selected to teach.  In the United States teachers come from the bottom of the class and are paid at a rate commensurate with their contribution to society.  From time to time a good teacher is produced, gets hired, and excels at her job, but when the budjets are cut she is the first one fired because the unions insist on protecting the more senior, mostly ineffective teacher.  You might say I am painting the problem with a very broad brush and you might be right.  I am sure there are excellent teachers with tenure who have made a difference in a child's life.  But given the quality of the education provided our children, I don't think the brush is that broad.   The teachers unions balk at merit pay because everyone is equal and therefore worth the same.  We all know that this is not true and any good teacher has to cringe at this notion.  While merit pay is good, the real solution is to do whatever is necessary to get back the best and the brightest.

Obama's State of the Union Address

I watched Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday and once again he demonstrated his great orator skills and once again I asked myself "where the beef"?  Obama has had three years (two of which with a majority in both chambers) to effectuate meaningful improvement to our dismal economic situation, yet he spent his capital on a failed stimulus and healthcare.  Now that he is up against a Republican House, dominated by the Tea Party, and a do-nothing Democratic Senate, all he can do is deliver good speeches.  The middle class has been shrinking and the hope that the so-called American dream will be realized has been fading for over thirty years now. It did not start with George W. Bush. This problem ran through the Reagan and Clinton Administrations.  The rich got richer and the rest of us didn't notice that we were not making more only borrowing more to get those granite kitchen counter-tops.  Obama promised change.  Within a year of Obama's becoming president, his grand plan for change consisted of gimmicks like cash for clunkers, a poorly thought out mortgage program, a tax break so measly that most Americans didn't even know they got one, and shovel ready projects that were not shovel ready.  Still his Tuesday night speech was impressive.  All we need now is a leader who can turn a laundry list into results.  This gets me to Mitt Romney.

I think Romney is a doer and a fixer.  He has succeeded in almost every venture he has taken on, including establishing a first rate, highly successful private investment firm, turning around a corrupt and failing Winter Olympics in Utah, and turning a budget deficit into a surplus when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Unfortunately, he is now lumped together with a bunch of clowns and the most laughable one is Newt Gingrich.  Actually, it isn't Gingrich who bothers me; it is the people who are voting for him.  I am so disgusted with this side show that I have left the Republican Party and if Gingrich is nominated I probably will vote for Obama.

Gingrich needs an audience

Did you hear that Newt Gingrich is threatening to pull out of future debates unless his supporters are allowed to applaud?  I am not surprised that Gingrich doesn't do well without an audience considering how tongue tied he got last night during the first Florida debate.   If he becomes president, perhaps he can recruit some members of the community in South Carolina who voted for him to cheer him on during his talks with the Iranians. I was a member of the Republican Party until last year when it became too embarassing to tell anyone. The Party's hate for Obama has reached such a fever pitch that it will drive any right thinking person into the arms of the Democrats. South Carolina proved that overt racism has become respectable again, so much so that even well meaning people are afraid to stand up against it.  This is how really bad stuff starts.  Soon we will all need to watch our backs. 

Why Iowa?

Last Tuesday I stayed awake long enough to learn that Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus by beating out Rick Santorum by 8 votes.  By Wednesday afternoon I was asking myself why I stayed awake long enough to learn that Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus by beating out Rick Santorum by 8 votes.  What is there about Iowa that I should care who some predominately white evangelical Christians think should be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  One fact seems to be clear, based on the past results of the Iowa Republican caucus, the one thing these mostly white evangelical Christians do decide is who will probably not be the next President of the United States.  While Romney has long been considered the most electable of all the candidates, that fact has little if anything to do with: 1. whether he secures the nomination; or 2. whether the 75% of Republicans who want anybody but Romney will show up at the polls and vote for him. 

I do not think we have a true two party system because Democrats like winning at whatever cost and Republicans like to prove a point.  This is a good reason why we need a third and maybe a fourth party.