Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The pros and cons of Ebooks.
Well here we are again. I want to talk today about the virtues and issues of Ebooks like the Nook and the Kindle.
First let me consider the pros.
(1) You can carry LOTS of books all in one place. If you are going on vacation or an avid reader this is AWESOME! If you are not such an avid reader… well that’s not so important. On the other hand you can also subscribe to blogs, magazines and newspapers with your device. Which leads me to the next plus…
(2) You can easily get another book. You do not have to go to the library or the bookstore, you can just go online, find a book and have it delivered to your device, without even getting out of your bathrobe. (Some people find this to be a con though since their trips to the library or bookstore is the only outing time they get.)
(3) There are things that you can add or include in your “Ebook” which enhance the experience. You can have the device “read the book” to you, play music while you read or you can install games to play for the times you need a distraction but do not feel up to reading.
However there are cons to the whole genre too.
(1) For example, like all electronic stuff an Ebook is open to bugs. They can freeze up or run out of battery power or short out or be easily damaged if they are banged around to hard. A real book will “survive” certain things like that much more easily.
(2) Again due to their being electronic devices they can be temperamental. They require specific temperature ranges and even certain weather issues can negatively influence them, worse than a regular book would be affected.
(3) This is a biggie I think, COST. You buy a regular book and that is all the expense. You buy an Ebook and you still have to go out and buy the “books” to store and read on the device. Personally I think that it would be best if the sellers of the Ebooks would add a “free” amount of downloads. (If you buy this device we will throw in 10 books of your choice free of charge.) That way it feels like you are getting your money’s worth.
Oddly enough there is actually another con, one that I think was unintentional and, perhaps, unforeseeable
And that is the “encouragement the Ebook would give to people to write books who have absolutely NO business doing so.
I have purchased a Kindle from Amazon; actually I bought it at Target. And partly due to the cost issue already mentioned, I have found that the books I am inclined to load (free or at least really cheap) are, … well poorly written. There is no system where the books are vetted for issues like spelling or anything.
So when I am reading along and all of a sudden come across a word that makes no sense… well I get really upset sometimes.
I suppose it is almost as bad as people like me who use to many of those triple dot things.
No really, it is kind of like when I was a boy of about 12; I was reading a book I got from the school library. I remember there was a word in that book I didn’t know; Pubic, but since I never heard of that word I simply substituted another word I DID know public which seemed to me to fit only it didn’t, what the heck is a PUBLIC hair??? But fortunately because the word was spelled correctly I was able to say “wait PUBLIC hair doesn’t make sense… there is no L in this word, let me look up PUBIC and see what it means. Then after all that I was able to say AH HAH!!! And I learned something new. The problem here is that the person making the mistake, adding letters or leaving them out, are the WRITERS so how then would a boy like me have figured that out?
See I think part of the problem is that these “writers” are counting on spell check to catch their mistakes. The thing is that spell check does not care about context.
For example think of the nursery rhyme,
Mary had a little lamb,
It’s fleece was white as snow,
And everywhere that Mary went
The lamb was sure to go.
That is how it goes! Yet I could type instead…
Merry hat a lid dell lam
Its fleas was wide as no
And every ware that Merry wend
The lam was sure two go.
Ok so I wrote all that WITH spell check on. Both passed muster, but the two “poems” are totally different. In fact the second one makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. It is just a bunch of words strung together. They may sound the same as the first one they may be understood the same IF READ OUT LOUD but to read them you could get lost pretty quick.
That is a large part of the problem with the authors I have been seeing lately. Worse maybe, some of the classic books I have received in my Kindle show similar degradation of spelling.
Also some of the books I have read, the author/s have apparently HEARD a phrase or quote but never SEEN the quote. So they keep substituting what they THOUGHT they heard for the idiom wanted.
So I guess what they need to do is get an idea of what life is really like and get a dictionary.
Example “Nip it in the Bud!” I am pretty sure that the phrase I just wrote is the correct way to do it. Having gone out and seen the buds of leaves or flowers in the spring.
And having put the quote in context (stop it before it really gets started).
Then I can put together in my mind the idea that if you want to keep a flower from blooming or a tree from putting out a leaf then you NIP the branch/flower while it is IN THE BUD.
Thus you will achieve the goal of stopping the process before it gets started.
However what does NIP IT IN THE BUT do?
Do you mean nip it in the butt? And what exactly does gently biting (a.k.a. nipping) someone on his or her hindquarters do to stop a process before it gets started?
It doesn’t make sense.
And of course Homophones are a big trap for these writers. I am going two the market where I will get too apples… oh and a pear to.
HUH??????
It seems they forget that some words SOUND the same while being spelled (Spelt?) differently and that difference totally makes a difference!
In a horror story am I going to be afraid of the wicked which? No but if it was a witch… oh yeah! Is it nice to have sunny whether? Um I do not think so but if the WEATHER is sunny I would like that a lot. And what is rack and ruin? When someone destroys a department store? Although WRACK and ruin… yeah that makes sense.
How about, Reek or wreak? Peek or peak? Time or thyme? Accept or except? Leek or leak? Knight or night? Bite or byte? Red or read? Plain or plane?
And then there are the times when spelling just doesn’t seem to matter. It is ok to put it in as long as it is a close approximation and the word doesn’t kick up a spell check error. (Lick instead of Like? Really?)
Anyway those are the issues I have found with “Ebooks” and those are the reasons why I think it would be a good idea to keep a hold of your paper backs (or even Hardbacks) for a while yet to come.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The way we are taxed
Just wanted to point out the way our taxes seem to work these days. Found this and thought it was a good example...
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Thank you for reading.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Thank you for reading.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Is hindsight really 20 20?
I really have to ask this question. I was thinking of an old aphorism, “for the lack of a nail, the shoe was lost. For the lack of the shoe the horse was lost, for the lack of the horse the army was lost. For the lack of the army the battle was lost, for the lack of the battle the war was lost. For the lack of the war the country was lost.”
It seems that we like to claim that “hindsight is 20-20. But is it really? Can we say with certainty what it is that works/worked and what didn’t?
We like to think so, but I wonder. I mean think about it. We claim that if such and such did (OR didn’t) happen then this is the way things would have turned out. We think we are right and we might actually BE right, most of the time. But are we always right?
Oddly this question came up because I was splaying Risk. I was doing this on my Gameboy and I reached a point where I was ready to do a turn in for troops. I was also ready to make my final move and crush my opponent.
I thought I had enough troops to finish the job without the turn in and didn’t want to waste the time or effort to do my turn in. but I chose to do so anyway.
It turned out that in hindsight I was probably right to avoid the turn in. at least that was the way it looked. I finished the game with the entire turn in worth of forces and a small percentage of other force left over.
I first thought “see what did I say”. But then I started thinking about it. In order to win I had to split my existing troops in half. And one half of those troops were destroyed in the eastern part of North America. The “bonus” troops I had received from my turn in were actually instrumental in capturing North America, because they were able to come in from the west and smash what was left after the main army half that was there was defeated. The half I lost had blunted my opponent’s force to where the back up could finish the job.
What if the back up hadn’t been there? The other half of my force could also have been overwhelmed. Just because I had a large section of troops leftover at the end does not mean that I would have had the percentage that I ended with if the “bonus” troops hadn’t existed.
In hindsight I was thinking I was right I didn’t need those troops. But in reality I may very well have needed them.
So even in hindsight there is a question as to whether they were needed or not. But I guess in the final analysis I have to turn to another saying…
“Better to have had them and not needed them, then to not have them and need them.”
It seems that we like to claim that “hindsight is 20-20. But is it really? Can we say with certainty what it is that works/worked and what didn’t?
We like to think so, but I wonder. I mean think about it. We claim that if such and such did (OR didn’t) happen then this is the way things would have turned out. We think we are right and we might actually BE right, most of the time. But are we always right?
Oddly this question came up because I was splaying Risk. I was doing this on my Gameboy and I reached a point where I was ready to do a turn in for troops. I was also ready to make my final move and crush my opponent.
I thought I had enough troops to finish the job without the turn in and didn’t want to waste the time or effort to do my turn in. but I chose to do so anyway.
It turned out that in hindsight I was probably right to avoid the turn in. at least that was the way it looked. I finished the game with the entire turn in worth of forces and a small percentage of other force left over.
I first thought “see what did I say”. But then I started thinking about it. In order to win I had to split my existing troops in half. And one half of those troops were destroyed in the eastern part of North America. The “bonus” troops I had received from my turn in were actually instrumental in capturing North America, because they were able to come in from the west and smash what was left after the main army half that was there was defeated. The half I lost had blunted my opponent’s force to where the back up could finish the job.
What if the back up hadn’t been there? The other half of my force could also have been overwhelmed. Just because I had a large section of troops leftover at the end does not mean that I would have had the percentage that I ended with if the “bonus” troops hadn’t existed.
In hindsight I was thinking I was right I didn’t need those troops. But in reality I may very well have needed them.
So even in hindsight there is a question as to whether they were needed or not. But I guess in the final analysis I have to turn to another saying…
“Better to have had them and not needed them, then to not have them and need them.”
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Are kids today Selfish?
I sometimes have to cringe when I hear people of my parent’s generation say “kids these days are so selfish.” I mean really? Are you really going there?
I mean think about it. Your generation was the one whose mottoes were things like “sex drugs and rock and roll.” Or “if it feels good do it.”
These expressions define the very nature of selfishness. It is like saying “don’t worry about the consequences full speed ahead.
Do drugs! they feel good and so we should just do it. Never mind how many people they kill, never mind the way they cause dependence and cause people to become parasites on society.
Or how about Sex feels good so go out there and do it. Have no thought for the fact that you can easily spread S.T.D.’s and the whole era of permissiveness introduced new levels of S.T.D.’s previously unknown. (Can you say AIDS? How about HIV?).
The generation that wishes to pass judgement on “kids these days” is the same one that brought all this to being.
And I am afraid that many of them have yet to grow up. They refused to take part in a war, Vietnam, which I can understand, but despised their peers who did, which I cannot understand.
When the soldiers came back from war those who refused to do their part reviled them. In fact some of the ones who didn’t go would spit at the returning soldiers.
Some of the soldiers were in Vietnam against their wishes but they had a job to do. They were not given a choice but because they had honor or they felt a duty they still did what they were told to do by a government that needed them.
To spit at those who served and punish them, even though many of them were forced to do it; How is that mature? How is that unselfish? All you are thinking of in that moment is how YOU feel and that is selfishness.
If you do not want to fight, if you do not want to serve that is your prerogative. However it is NOT appropriate to cast scorn on people who believe differently than you JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE SAME WAY.
Some people believe in honor, some people believe in duty that does not mean you can target them for abuse. In fact some day you will depend on them to stand in the way of people who have no honor. You will expect these young men and women to protect you and keep you alive. Let me reiterate… you WILL NEED them to stand between an enemy and you. And it is the very attributes that you scorn them for that will cause them to do so.
So if you want to put down my generation or the next, well this is a free country, and I suppose that it is easier to be mean to someone than it is to try to lift them up. But do not expect me to have much sympathy for you when it comes back home to roost.
I mean think about it. Your generation was the one whose mottoes were things like “sex drugs and rock and roll.” Or “if it feels good do it.”
These expressions define the very nature of selfishness. It is like saying “don’t worry about the consequences full speed ahead.
Do drugs! they feel good and so we should just do it. Never mind how many people they kill, never mind the way they cause dependence and cause people to become parasites on society.
Or how about Sex feels good so go out there and do it. Have no thought for the fact that you can easily spread S.T.D.’s and the whole era of permissiveness introduced new levels of S.T.D.’s previously unknown. (Can you say AIDS? How about HIV?).
The generation that wishes to pass judgement on “kids these days” is the same one that brought all this to being.
And I am afraid that many of them have yet to grow up. They refused to take part in a war, Vietnam, which I can understand, but despised their peers who did, which I cannot understand.
When the soldiers came back from war those who refused to do their part reviled them. In fact some of the ones who didn’t go would spit at the returning soldiers.
Some of the soldiers were in Vietnam against their wishes but they had a job to do. They were not given a choice but because they had honor or they felt a duty they still did what they were told to do by a government that needed them.
To spit at those who served and punish them, even though many of them were forced to do it; How is that mature? How is that unselfish? All you are thinking of in that moment is how YOU feel and that is selfishness.
If you do not want to fight, if you do not want to serve that is your prerogative. However it is NOT appropriate to cast scorn on people who believe differently than you JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE SAME WAY.
Some people believe in honor, some people believe in duty that does not mean you can target them for abuse. In fact some day you will depend on them to stand in the way of people who have no honor. You will expect these young men and women to protect you and keep you alive. Let me reiterate… you WILL NEED them to stand between an enemy and you. And it is the very attributes that you scorn them for that will cause them to do so.
So if you want to put down my generation or the next, well this is a free country, and I suppose that it is easier to be mean to someone than it is to try to lift them up. But do not expect me to have much sympathy for you when it comes back home to roost.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Nature of war heroes
Recently a couple of issues came up… well really it was one issue that presented itself to me in two different ways.
The first issue was about the men who went to Vietnam who were treated poorly and the men today who make claim to awards they did not really receive.
The first cue was actually from my mom. She commented about how the numbers do not add up. 2,700,000 + men served In country in Vietnam, 1,700,000 of those men came home. Yet over 9 million people CLAIM that they received legitimate awards for combat in Vietnam.
The second cue was an episode of the TV show “JAG”. In this show a character who is running for senate claims to not only have been a Navy Seal but to have won awards, in Vietnam, that he did not.
The character claimed that he wanted to run on a platform of “Integrity in government and Values in the home.” But obviously there can not be any integrity or values when you are lying about who, or what, you are.
Now fictional shows aside, the truth is that there are a lot of people out there who will present themselves as something other than what they were/are. They also run in all walks of life.
I remember my mom once telling me, as an assistant scoutmaster in charge of advancement in the troop where I served, that I ought to make sure… that I owed it to myself AND to those kids to make sure that they really deserved the awards or promotions they were up for.
She told me that I should not make it easier for them. This is something that they need to earn. The only way it means something is if it is something truly earned.
So now thinking back on those guys who served in “’Nam” they worked hard, they were there and some of them went through a very real version of Hell.
When they came home they were treated badly, many of them committed suicide because the stress of returning home to a country that, at best, didn’t care or worse went out of its way to belittle them, to treat them like criminals.
So now, as a new generation is coming up, as we see the results of wars like Desert storm, Desert Shield, Operation Iraqi Freedom and so on. We tend to be supportive of our troops and suddenly it is O.K. even Noble to have served or to currently serve.
And now that it is o.k. we also seem to see a lot of scum, yes I said it and I mean it, S-C-U-M!! who want to trample those men for personal gain. Some of them are politicians, some of them are just “regular joes” but everyone that lies about this casts shadows on the Real sacrifice those men made.
So back to that show I think they said it well…
A S.E.A.L. confronted that candidate, and he knocked out his lights. Later in the courtroom, while being tried for assault, the S.E.A.L. Said…
“I’m a Navy SEAL. A direct descendant of the scout and raider units that invaded North Africa in 1942,
A child of the underwater demolition teams that stormed the beaches of Normandy, I humbly follow those who cleared the way for landings on Pacific islands whose names are synonymous with words like courage, honor, country and death.
My predecessors spilled their blood in the snow of Korea, and the rice paddies of Vietnam. No Navy S.E.AL. has ever surrendered or left behind a dead or wounded comrade.
That is bravery and selflessness. That represents an ideal, as embodied by this uniform and insignia.
To me this uniform is not just made of cloth. And the insignia is not just made of metal. No they represent the flesh and blood of all those who came before.”
And Admiral Chegwidden said, “I killed men under the rules of war, that’s something I gotta live with every day. It’s made me appreciate the value of human life and the rules that guide it.”
Again fictional plots aside, I agree with the sentiments that they expressed. I have served, and I have seen friends go to war.
I have NOT gone to war and I will not claim to have done so. But that sense of pride in the uniform, the history and valor that has been performed in uniforms just like that give meaning to the uniforms worn today. And for anyone to disparage the deeds done by others just so they can look good… well that is just plain wrong.
I think we all need to honor the men AND women who have served and who have earned the awards that go on their uniforms. If the awards were truly earned they mean A LOT. We ought to leave those awards for those who have paid the penalties and debts that go with having them on their chest/s. Because those penalties/ debts are great.
Some of us may never know what it takes to watch your buddy who you slept next to ate with and laughed with taking a bullet next to you. Some of us might.
They have kept us safe, they have served us in ways that we may never know. They have done that which many of us are not willing to do. And still we have people here today who will spurn them who will spit on them. And the others steal from them. We need to stop this practice.
Oh and while you are at it, go out and find one of those who DID serve. We all know someone! And give them a hug.
The first issue was about the men who went to Vietnam who were treated poorly and the men today who make claim to awards they did not really receive.
The first cue was actually from my mom. She commented about how the numbers do not add up. 2,700,000 + men served In country in Vietnam, 1,700,000 of those men came home. Yet over 9 million people CLAIM that they received legitimate awards for combat in Vietnam.
The second cue was an episode of the TV show “JAG”. In this show a character who is running for senate claims to not only have been a Navy Seal but to have won awards, in Vietnam, that he did not.
The character claimed that he wanted to run on a platform of “Integrity in government and Values in the home.” But obviously there can not be any integrity or values when you are lying about who, or what, you are.
Now fictional shows aside, the truth is that there are a lot of people out there who will present themselves as something other than what they were/are. They also run in all walks of life.
I remember my mom once telling me, as an assistant scoutmaster in charge of advancement in the troop where I served, that I ought to make sure… that I owed it to myself AND to those kids to make sure that they really deserved the awards or promotions they were up for.
She told me that I should not make it easier for them. This is something that they need to earn. The only way it means something is if it is something truly earned.
So now thinking back on those guys who served in “’Nam” they worked hard, they were there and some of them went through a very real version of Hell.
When they came home they were treated badly, many of them committed suicide because the stress of returning home to a country that, at best, didn’t care or worse went out of its way to belittle them, to treat them like criminals.
So now, as a new generation is coming up, as we see the results of wars like Desert storm, Desert Shield, Operation Iraqi Freedom and so on. We tend to be supportive of our troops and suddenly it is O.K. even Noble to have served or to currently serve.
And now that it is o.k. we also seem to see a lot of scum, yes I said it and I mean it, S-C-U-M!! who want to trample those men for personal gain. Some of them are politicians, some of them are just “regular joes” but everyone that lies about this casts shadows on the Real sacrifice those men made.
So back to that show I think they said it well…
A S.E.A.L. confronted that candidate, and he knocked out his lights. Later in the courtroom, while being tried for assault, the S.E.A.L. Said…
“I’m a Navy SEAL. A direct descendant of the scout and raider units that invaded North Africa in 1942,
A child of the underwater demolition teams that stormed the beaches of Normandy, I humbly follow those who cleared the way for landings on Pacific islands whose names are synonymous with words like courage, honor, country and death.
My predecessors spilled their blood in the snow of Korea, and the rice paddies of Vietnam. No Navy S.E.AL. has ever surrendered or left behind a dead or wounded comrade.
That is bravery and selflessness. That represents an ideal, as embodied by this uniform and insignia.
To me this uniform is not just made of cloth. And the insignia is not just made of metal. No they represent the flesh and blood of all those who came before.”
And Admiral Chegwidden said, “I killed men under the rules of war, that’s something I gotta live with every day. It’s made me appreciate the value of human life and the rules that guide it.”
Again fictional plots aside, I agree with the sentiments that they expressed. I have served, and I have seen friends go to war.
I have NOT gone to war and I will not claim to have done so. But that sense of pride in the uniform, the history and valor that has been performed in uniforms just like that give meaning to the uniforms worn today. And for anyone to disparage the deeds done by others just so they can look good… well that is just plain wrong.
I think we all need to honor the men AND women who have served and who have earned the awards that go on their uniforms. If the awards were truly earned they mean A LOT. We ought to leave those awards for those who have paid the penalties and debts that go with having them on their chest/s. Because those penalties/ debts are great.
Some of us may never know what it takes to watch your buddy who you slept next to ate with and laughed with taking a bullet next to you. Some of us might.
They have kept us safe, they have served us in ways that we may never know. They have done that which many of us are not willing to do. And still we have people here today who will spurn them who will spit on them. And the others steal from them. We need to stop this practice.
Oh and while you are at it, go out and find one of those who DID serve. We all know someone! And give them a hug.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
the thing about vouchers
I recently read a post, by a public school teacher, in Facebook about how school vouchers are evil. And I had to wonder. I used to work for a public school system myself and I have to say that as a father AND as a former public school employee I would rather have the opportunity to send my children to a school where they would receive the best education possible.
In fact I probably would be against putting my kids in a public school system in many places; and judging by the broo ha ha coming out of Ohio at this time I think that state would be one of those where I would rather seek alternate education for my kids.
Let me explain a little better… You see my daughters are important to me. And as a parent I feel I have an obligation to get them the best opportunities I can. That means that I want to send them to a school where they will get the best education possible.
More than that I want to send them to a school where they will get the education that emphasizes the teaching I want them to receive!
If I want them to have more emphasis on art then that is where they will go, if I want them to have more emphasis on science where I would rather have them go is a school with that emphasis.
If I want them to have more access to physical teaching like sports or more socialization opportunities then that is the choice I will make.
But there are people in Ohio, most notably in the public schools, who seem to be adamant in stating that it is “unfair” for people to have that opportunity. And I have to wonder, why?
I want the best for my kids, and when I worked for a public school system that is how I worked. The kid/s always came first. The school system is supposed to be there for the KIDS not for the teachers, not for the administrators not for the janitors and not for the bus drivers. The whole focus of ANY school system needs to be on how to do the best for the KIDS and, I am sorry, but as I see it a voucher system, properly administered, does EXACTLY that.
A voucher system would first allow parents to go out and find the absolute BEST education for their child/ren, based on the standards that the parent has. (And let’s face it, the parent is usually going to have more interest in seeking the best for their little darling then some stranger sitting in an office a hundred miles away.)
Second of all it would cause schools, public AND private, to start becoming more competitive with each other which in turn means ALL students will benefit. After all the schools will seek to improve the way they teach in order to draw more parents, and their kids, to those schools.
But I still see these teachers and other school officials fighting the idea. And, at the risk of being redundant, I have to wonder why?
I guess we need to address how I see the voucher system. As I understand it, a voucher system is where the government takes the tax dollars and, instead of giving it directly to the schools, instead assigns the monies, in the form of vouchers, to the parents of the student. The parents then get the option of using those vouchers to take their children to the school of their choice.
So with that understanding, I have to believe that the more these people fight the idea of a voucher system the more they are trying to hold onto a status quo that is apparently failing.
If you, as a teacher, are arguing against a voucher system because it will take money away from your school, I have little sympathy.
No offense intended but frankly I do not care about your school, neither do I really care about your job. What I am concerned about is MY CHILD’S FUTURE and honestly I want my child to go to a school where they are not going to whine about their jobs but rather they will fight for the right/s of the children.
In fact if you are arguing that you will lose your job because you or your school cannot compete in an equal environment with another school then, even more, I will want to pull my child out of your school because you are basically admitting you are incompetent and useless.
Why can you NOT compete on an equal playing field with equal funds with another school? Why are they providing a better service than you? You receive the same amount of money per child you have access to the same opportunities… the only excuse for you not being able to compete is simply because you are incompetent, incapable or simply substandard.
If that is true then I really do not want my child being taught by you. I want the best. Arguing you will lose students because you cannot perform as well is simply telling me that you are not the best and the voucher system needs to be employed faster and ought to have been the way we always have done it to begin with.
In fact I probably would be against putting my kids in a public school system in many places; and judging by the broo ha ha coming out of Ohio at this time I think that state would be one of those where I would rather seek alternate education for my kids.
Let me explain a little better… You see my daughters are important to me. And as a parent I feel I have an obligation to get them the best opportunities I can. That means that I want to send them to a school where they will get the best education possible.
More than that I want to send them to a school where they will get the education that emphasizes the teaching I want them to receive!
If I want them to have more emphasis on art then that is where they will go, if I want them to have more emphasis on science where I would rather have them go is a school with that emphasis.
If I want them to have more access to physical teaching like sports or more socialization opportunities then that is the choice I will make.
But there are people in Ohio, most notably in the public schools, who seem to be adamant in stating that it is “unfair” for people to have that opportunity. And I have to wonder, why?
I want the best for my kids, and when I worked for a public school system that is how I worked. The kid/s always came first. The school system is supposed to be there for the KIDS not for the teachers, not for the administrators not for the janitors and not for the bus drivers. The whole focus of ANY school system needs to be on how to do the best for the KIDS and, I am sorry, but as I see it a voucher system, properly administered, does EXACTLY that.
A voucher system would first allow parents to go out and find the absolute BEST education for their child/ren, based on the standards that the parent has. (And let’s face it, the parent is usually going to have more interest in seeking the best for their little darling then some stranger sitting in an office a hundred miles away.)
Second of all it would cause schools, public AND private, to start becoming more competitive with each other which in turn means ALL students will benefit. After all the schools will seek to improve the way they teach in order to draw more parents, and their kids, to those schools.
But I still see these teachers and other school officials fighting the idea. And, at the risk of being redundant, I have to wonder why?
I guess we need to address how I see the voucher system. As I understand it, a voucher system is where the government takes the tax dollars and, instead of giving it directly to the schools, instead assigns the monies, in the form of vouchers, to the parents of the student. The parents then get the option of using those vouchers to take their children to the school of their choice.
So with that understanding, I have to believe that the more these people fight the idea of a voucher system the more they are trying to hold onto a status quo that is apparently failing.
If you, as a teacher, are arguing against a voucher system because it will take money away from your school, I have little sympathy.
No offense intended but frankly I do not care about your school, neither do I really care about your job. What I am concerned about is MY CHILD’S FUTURE and honestly I want my child to go to a school where they are not going to whine about their jobs but rather they will fight for the right/s of the children.
In fact if you are arguing that you will lose your job because you or your school cannot compete in an equal environment with another school then, even more, I will want to pull my child out of your school because you are basically admitting you are incompetent and useless.
Why can you NOT compete on an equal playing field with equal funds with another school? Why are they providing a better service than you? You receive the same amount of money per child you have access to the same opportunities… the only excuse for you not being able to compete is simply because you are incompetent, incapable or simply substandard.
If that is true then I really do not want my child being taught by you. I want the best. Arguing you will lose students because you cannot perform as well is simply telling me that you are not the best and the voucher system needs to be employed faster and ought to have been the way we always have done it to begin with.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
It IS hard to say goodbye
So last night I was listening to some music at work and the song “hello - goodbye” started playing and I realized two things.
(1) This song has more meaning to me now than it did when I first heard it.
(2) It is the anniversary of Corine’s passing.
Let me explain the first point. The lyrics in the song go like this…
Where’s the navigator of your destiny,
Where is the dealer of this hand
Who can explain life and it’s brevity
Cause there is nothing here that I can understand
You and I have barely met
and I just don’t want to let go of you yet.
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
And so I hold your tiny hand in mine
For the hardest thing I’ve ever had to face
Heaven calls for you Before it calls for me
When you get there save me a place
A place where I
(a place where you and I)
Can share your smile
(I can share your smile)
And I can hold you for more than just a while
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
OHHHHOHHHHOHHHOHH
I’ll see you on, I’ll see you on,
I’ll see you on I’ll see you on the other side
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
Repeat
Now I remember hearing this song a long time ago. And I remember reading the story behind it.
Apparently some friends of Michael W Smith’s Had a baby they named Noah. He was born early or with a defect (can’t quite remember which) and died shortly after he was born.
The story made me cry back then! How much more now that I have had a similar experience right?
The thing is last night was not the first time I heard that song since Christina’s miscarriage. But with the nearness of the anniversary it really hit me.
Especially since this seems to be my usual pattern.
It took me about three years after my dad passed away for it to really hit me. Same with my grandma’s death and other tragedies like 9-11.
So last night, I guess my point is, I had a good cry, I substituted Corine’s name for Noah and the whole thing hit me good and hard.
Although it might be a good idea for me to find out how to address my grief sooner. ANYWAY
Until next time.
(1) This song has more meaning to me now than it did when I first heard it.
(2) It is the anniversary of Corine’s passing.
Let me explain the first point. The lyrics in the song go like this…
Where’s the navigator of your destiny,
Where is the dealer of this hand
Who can explain life and it’s brevity
Cause there is nothing here that I can understand
You and I have barely met
and I just don’t want to let go of you yet.
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
And so I hold your tiny hand in mine
For the hardest thing I’ve ever had to face
Heaven calls for you Before it calls for me
When you get there save me a place
A place where I
(a place where you and I)
Can share your smile
(I can share your smile)
And I can hold you for more than just a while
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
OHHHHOHHHHOHHHOHH
I’ll see you on, I’ll see you on,
I’ll see you on I’ll see you on the other side
Noah hello goodbye
I’ll see you on the other side.
Noah sweet child of mine
I’ll see you on the other side.
Repeat
Now I remember hearing this song a long time ago. And I remember reading the story behind it.
Apparently some friends of Michael W Smith’s Had a baby they named Noah. He was born early or with a defect (can’t quite remember which) and died shortly after he was born.
The story made me cry back then! How much more now that I have had a similar experience right?
The thing is last night was not the first time I heard that song since Christina’s miscarriage. But with the nearness of the anniversary it really hit me.
Especially since this seems to be my usual pattern.
It took me about three years after my dad passed away for it to really hit me. Same with my grandma’s death and other tragedies like 9-11.
So last night, I guess my point is, I had a good cry, I substituted Corine’s name for Noah and the whole thing hit me good and hard.
Although it might be a good idea for me to find out how to address my grief sooner. ANYWAY
Until next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
