If you’re not familiar with the Portland/Vancouver area, you may not be aware of a bridge across the Columbia River known as The Bridge of the Gods. It’s about 40 miles east of the Portland/Vancouver metro area and it connects Cascade Locks, OR with Stevenson, WA. Although the bridge is actually named after a geologic event involving a landslide that temporarily dammed the Columbia River, most tourists assume that the name of the bridge comes from the “heavenly” views one can get of the Columbia Gorge, as you cross the bridge. Considering that The Bridge of the Gods is a two-lane bridge, opened in 1928, its present-day use really is more fitting for tourists than for use as a vital commercial link.
Destined for far broader notoriety than The Bridge of the Gods is what I am hereby dubbing The Bridge of 
One aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects the above-mentioned tyrannical determination of current elected officials was the mention of Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt and Vancouver City Councilor, Jeanne Harris, as serving on a Project Sponsors Council, advising the governors. As you may recall, Leavitt is the Mayor who opposed a toll bridge when he was running for office but he reversed that position once he was elected. And, try as she may to forget her YouTube infamy for her “Gavel Down!” performance, doing all she could to stifle any comments in opposition to the CRC scheme at a Vancouver City Council Meeting, that’s who Jeanne Harris is and who she continues to be. Being reminded of who these elected officials are should give you a pretty clear picture that they won’t be speaking up in this regard on behalf of the constituents they were elected to represent. If you want any further clarification, it should help for you to know that these same folks were recently successful in marginalizing their fellow-City Councilor, Jeanne Stewart, by removing her from any appointments where she would represent the Vancouver City Council on matters related to the CRC. In a previous article, entitled Revelations from a Town “Brawl” Meeting in Vancouver, WA, I referred to Jeanne Stewart by saying: “Thankfully, (the meeting) also featured a Vancouver City Councilor who I think typifies the very sort of Citizen Leadership our community is crying out for.” I’m sickened to know that, for now, the tyrants who call themselves her fellow-City Councilors, have silenced her voice, boldly speaking out on behalf of her constituents.
Another aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects our elected official’s tyrannical determination is that there was no mention of the U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”, scheduled to be held in Vancouver this coming Monday. I provided an overview about this meeting in a recent article entitled Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project. In announcing this meeting, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.” When I posted this article, I wasn’t able to provide details on the specific time and location of the meeting. Even today, Herrera Beutler’s Communications Director let me know that they’re still nailing down final details and that they’re not ready to publicly announce anything until the information is firmed up. However, I want to do all I can to get out the word and to encourage as many Portland/Vancouver area residents as possible to attend this meeting and to do all they can to have their voices heard. So, here is the unofficial information I have on the time and location for this meeting, which will be open to the public:
Monday, February 21, 2011
9:00 a.m to 11:00 a.m.
Vancouver Service Center
1200 Fort Vancouver Way
Vancouver, WA
I’ve begun to wonder if it will take public protests, like those recently seen in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in order to stop this local tyrannical fiasco. Perhaps we will have to show up at Esther Short Park in Vancouver and in Pioneer Square in Portland with signs reading things like:
Pull the Plug on the CRC
Stop the CRC
No CRC
Yes 192nd Ave Bridge
FastTrack 192nd Ave Bridge
No Tolls
No Light Rail
Stop the Waste
No More Debt!
Keep FREEways!
Fire the CRC!
No Bureaucracy!
No Bureaucrats!
Meanwhile, before those protests and before we send Leavitt and Harris off to Vancouver’s version of Sharm El Sheikh, show up ready to speak your piece on this topic (and wave signs like those noted above, if you’d like) at this coming Monday’s critical U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”.
Comments
bridge
Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-02-15 19:41.
0
+-Gary, there are at least some of us who are dead set against any new spending of any sort that is not absolutely urgent in nature. This bridge business is not (to my understanding) urgent. Yes, I've had to commute across it before. Is the thing seriously in danger of falling into the river from decrepitude? If not, we need to make do with what we've got until economic times improve. Which will be a while. Especially in the face of continual profligate boondoggle spending.
What very much annoys me is some of the same people who whistle endlessly about how we mustn't dare make any gov't cuts because Little Timmy will Go Hungry (or some such pabulum) will sit there and defend this kind of outlay without any apparent sense of irony at all.
What I'd like to know is who will be the financial beneficiaries of this ridiculously inflated expenditure of public funds. Which companies, which unions, which PACs funding which politicians. Them and their so-called "prevailing wage". Fie on all of them.
I'm guessing that was the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 08:27.
0
+-I'm guessing that was the same sentiment the people said before the bridge collapsed a few years back in Wisconsin, killing a number of people. Quite frankly why do we keep waiting for a major disaster to spur us to action? Why not get ahead of the problem and actually make an investment in our national infrastructure like Eisenhower did in the 1950s?
Follow the money.
Submitted by Steven J. Nelson (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 11:04.
0
+-Mike you are right. We need to follow the money trail. Check into the train manufacture's and the design firm's campaign contributions and political entanglements.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Vancouver Council’s Rush to Build “The Bridge of the Tyrants”
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project
At her first Clark County town hall meeting since taking office, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler addressed 
For my money, the most significant question dealt with by Herrera Beutler was when she was asked her view on the funding and construction of a new Columbia River Crossing (CRC). Considering that the CRC is anticipated to be the biggest public works project in the history of our area, I think it’s fair to say that this was the most significant question dealt with by our Congresswoman not just for my money but for the money of everyone living and working in the greater Portland/Vancouver area. I have to admit that I was very pleased to hear Rep. Herrera Beutler say that she supports a new bridge but that she will take her direction on the topic from her constituents. Especially in view of the “Gavel Down” demeanor of the Vancouver City Council on this matter that says, “We know what’s best for the public, no matter what they’re saying themselves”, this is very welcome news.
Of course, saying that she will take her direction on this topic from her constituents is nice. What is more important is that our Congresswoman was able to point to immediate action to go along with her words. As a member of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Herrera Beutler announced that the committee’s chairman will be in Vancouver on Feb. 21 to listen to the views of residents of the 3rd Congressional District about the CRC project. In making this announcement, Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.”
Although the specific time and location for this “listening session” has not been set, the related Press Release from the Congresswoman’s office provides the following summary of this meeting:
I’ll be doing what I can to “get the word out”, as soon as I receive the Press Release covering specifics on the time and location for this “listening session”. With that said, I want to start encouraging you now to do all you can to be present for this meeting and for you to encourage as many others as you can to do likewise. Unlike a meeting of the Vancouver City Council, Jeanne Harris won’t be present to shriek “Gavel Down!”, keeping you from expressing your views on this topic. But, if you don’t show up to take advantage of this great opportunity, the effect will be the same.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
WA Governor Prescribes More Disease as the Cure for Schools
Furthermore, I think you’ll find that Governor Gregoire’s stated Education Agenda makes good sense. And, since it’s based on the recommendations of a steering committee called Washington Learns, that seems to give it more credibility. Considering that Washington Learns is headed up by Governor Gregoire, one has to wonder whether the committee’s recommendations might be slanted to match up with Governor Gregoire’s views but, without looking into this further, I’ll consent to the legitimacy of this committee’s recommendations.
Where things don’t appear to be adding up is in real life – i.e. How is Washington’s Education System actually performing and how is management of our State’s present budget crisis impacting this? According to the American Legislative Counsel, Washington ranks 16th amongst our 50 States, with an overall grade of C+. I guess that doesn’t sound so bad, by comparison. However, when you look at specifics determining this ranking and see that, as an example, only 37% of Washington 4th Graders are reading at or above a Proficient level, while 63% are reading below that level, it’s pretty obvious that there is great room for improvement.
Although Washington Learns touts itself as “a diverse group of business, community, education, government and minority leaders”, Washington State appears to be continuing with a Top-Down Management approach that is about as far from being connected at the “community” level as you can get. It is, also, obviously failing. The primary reason that Washington ranks 16th, as compared to other States, with an overall grade of C+, is because most other States are being run in a similar Top-Down manner and those States are failing too. It’s probably, also, true that today’s Proficient Level is no place close to the higher proficiency required when I was in 4th grade, in 1956/1957.
Now added to “real-life”, with Washington’s Education System, is Washington State’s budget crisis. To bring this down to a more personal level, this means, that just in Vancouver Public Schools (VPS), in the present school year, Governor Gregoire’s budget (crisis) proposal will result in a nearly $3 million shortfall. Although VPS has already trimmed nearly $1.5 million through freezing hiring, limiting travel, etc. the primary options available to VPS for addressing the balance of this shortfall pretty much adds up to a Reduction In Force (RIF). Obviously, this will result in fewer Teachers working in our Education System. Do you think the percentage of Washington 4th graders who are at or above a Proficient Level will go up or down from its current 37%, as a result of a RIF? I think even those 4th graders who aren’t reading at a Proficient Level could answer this question.
So, what is Governor Gregoire proposing to meet the challenges of our failing Top-Down Managed Education System, now severely impacted by our State’s budget crisis? Gregoire’s proposal, as summarized in a Seattle PI article on this, is to “centralize authority for kindergarten through the university level in one giant department of education.” In other words, More Top-Down Management. “How could a woman who earned a teaching certificate from UW, who gives the impression that she thoroughly understands today’s goals and challenges with our Education System arrive at this conclusion?” you ask. The “real life” answer is that she’s worked in state government almost all the time since getting her JD from Gonzaga in 1977 and she’s held elected state office, as a Democrat, since 1993. In other words, Gregoire is a Big-Government-Democrat Career Politician.
I, on the other hand, am a Limited-Government-Republican who has spent almost all of my working life in
Generally, plans for the above-mentioned reform are aimed at moving authority away from Federal and State Departments of Education and placing more authority at the School District level. The plan I favor goes a step beyond this. Here’s an overview of that plan:
Eliminate Federal and State Departments of Education, as well as School Districts.
Leave in place or establish a State-wide organization, headed by an elected official. However, this organization should have minimal authority, minimal staffing, minimal hierarchy and minimal infrastructure. Its primary purpose is to serve as sort of a nucleus for a network of schools, operating as independent businesses. Legitimate roles for this organization would be along the lines of consolidated purchasing to leverage economies of scale – e.g. purchasing paper products, negotiating insurance coverage for all employees in the network, etc. Likewise, it would be legitimate for this organization to be supported through State taxes.
Establish schools in the above-mentioned network as independent businesses according to neighborhoods served by a respective High School – i.e. A High School serving a particular area plus the Junior High Schools, Middle Schools and Elementary Schools serving that same area. It may be desirable to include pre-K Education in this plan but Higher Ed should be managed separately. Otherwise, this plan is meant to cover K-12.
Each of the above-mentioned independent businesses would be managed by a Board comprised of the Principals of the respective schools, the most competent members of their school staff, the most competent parents of their school’s students and community members from businesses, civic organizations, places of worship, etc. Each Board would select a CEO who, along with the Board, would operate their business fairly autonomously. Their responsibility would include to determine the best way to get any remaining budget needed supplied by the community they serve and to operate according to a balanced budget.
Since present Union contracts are with organizations that are being eliminated, Union relationships with our Education System would be returned to Square One. I have to say that I’m particularly fond of this part of the plan. I come from a family of Blue-Collar Workers who were Union Members. I understand the legitimacy of Unions, as a safety net for workers. But today’s Unions, especially in the public sector, have gone way beyond their legitimacy. Union membership should be completely optional for workers. And, while it is legitimate for protecting workers to be a Union’s top priority, Unions representing Educators should also be able to easily provide evidence of how they benefit Students. I can’t imagine that today’s Unions can do that.
I know this plan may seem pretty drastic to some. It’s certainly not something that could or should be done overnight. But I’m convinced it’s the right direction to go. It’s become cliché to say that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. I don’t want to say anything unkind about Governor Gregoire and I do not think she’s insane but planning to fix our failing, Top-Down Managed Education System by applying more Top-Down Management just doesn’t make sense.
Comments
Top Down Managed Education
Submitted by Phil Frommholz (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-23 16:10.
0
+-Question?? How many Federal and State levels of management are actually required to teach a child to read, add, subtract, multiply and divide? The answer NONE.
We have gotten away from basic teaching of core educational requirements to be successful in life. When we complicate it with all the other junk we impose on our school system we abandon the reason we have teachers in the classroom- to teach kids the basics. Yesterday I was in Office Depot and there were 10 of us on line waiting for one cashier. The other "sales associates were busy doing "inventory" They lost sign of their primary mission- "sales" which is in half of their title. Any time we use the word
"administrator" in the context of education , we have identified someone who is hindering the education of our children.
Washington Learns? Seriously?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-23 16:41.
0
+-You're about two years behind the curve. Washington Learns hasn't meant much of anything since they released their final report--the real action since then has all been in the Basic Ed Finance Task Force and the subcommittees that HB6696 established.
It's not me who is behind the
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-01-24 05:26.
0
+-It's not me who is behind the curve. Washington Learns is the reference on the Official Governor Gregoire Website.
NCLB
Submitted by Mark Mahan (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-24 16:20.
0
+-Gary- I agree with a lot of what you say. How does this fit in with "no child left behind"?
Great question, Mark. The
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-01-25 05:25.
0
+-Great question, Mark. The plan I referenced is, obviously, aimed at creating a different business model for our education system. Improved education is, of course, the primary goal. If NCLB didn't go away, along with the DOE, it is one of many considerations each of the independent businesses would have to make. This is a good example of why we couldn't and shouldn't move to this model overnight.
Epic FAIL
Submitted by Mike M Boyer (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-24 19:10.
0
+-Epic FAIL
school management plan
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-25 13:19.
0
+-Gary, like you I hoped Rhee would bring a fresh watch to this "education reform" project, begun in Washington State by Boeing Corp with Goals 2000 late 80's. However, with her departure due to her sponsoring Mayor's race, you described the flaw in consolidating power for Education, taking decision-making away from local Districts' elected officials.
From one of those ranks, Ellensburg School Board, I can tell you Central Planners would have their hands full passing a bond or levy in a community. You NEED electeds who meet people in the produce isle or on the soccer field, who are responsible for the local decisions.
By the bye, Business DOES have its tentacles in the mix -- unfortunately it is the politically connected fat cats who want a "competitive global workforce" that will have their way with our kids.
Gregoire = Big Government
Submitted by Bob Dean (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-25 13:32.
0
+-Gary,
Do you realize that Gov Gregoire is trying to nationalize our state education system. Gregoire wants us to adopt the new Common Core State Math Standards which were written by outsiders. The assessments for these standards will be written and controlled by unknowns in Washington DC. Whoever controls the assessments controls what will be taught in every class in America.
Gregoire wants this despite the fact that we spent over $100 million dollars changing to new math standards in 2008. Our new standards were developed and written by Washingtonians and they have been rated higher than the common core standards.
The legislature and Gregoire authorized State Superintendent of Education, Randy Dorn, to provisionally adopt these standards last March before they were even written. Now there is legislation pending HB1443 that will make the adoption and nationalization of these standards permanent unless we can get it stopped.
State and local control of education has been at the core of our republic since its inception. Gregoire is doing everything she can to end that control and give it to those in Washington DC.
If people don't want to see this happen then they need to call and/or email their legislator and tell them to vote No on HB1443 and to vote No on adopting Common Core State Standards.
Bob Dean
Based on the actions of the
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-01-25 17:41.
0
+-Based on the actions of the WA Legislature yesterday, the subject may be completely academic ... no pun intended. The Democrat Majority is continuing on a course that will decimate the ranks of good Teachers in WA. Here's a statement on this from State Representative Paul Harris (R-LD-17):
The House of Representatives today approved a bill that would make reductions of $340 million for the current fiscal year budget. The approved legislation would still leave a $260 million shortfall for the 2009-11 fiscal cycle, which ends June 30 of this year.
Rep. Paul Harris, R-Vancouver, voted against Substitute House Bill 1086 and issued the following statement:
“I believe we must abide by the state constitution which places basic education as Washington’s paramount duty. The budget Republicans offered today would better protect K-12 education. Unfortunately, the majority party voted down our striking amendment and chose to go with their proposal, which contained deep cuts to schools. I’m especially concerned this bill retroactively goes after money that has already been allocated by our school districts for K-4 enhancement programs. As a former school board member, I know firsthand how these cuts will impact school districts. Retroactively going after dollars already allocated feels like we are breaking a promise to our schools and kids.
“I’m also concerned this spending plan still does not solve our budget shortfall this fiscal cycle. This is a continuation of what has been done the last few budget cycles – unsustainable spending. The message was clear in November: Come up with some solutions to live within your means during tough economic times just like everyone else. Pushing spending into the next fiscal cycle does not do that. We need to solve these budget problems now in a responsible manner so we are ready to take on a much larger shortfall for the 2011-13 cycle. This just exacerbates the problem.”
Our Failing, Top-Down Managed Education System
Submitted by Al Peffley (not verified) on Fri, 2011-01-28 10:15.
0
+-The national association of teachers' unions must be lobbying hard for this national education standards political power structure. This is what happens when professional unions are allowed to take over all state government departments and form centralized management systems for civil servant services. The only power the voters have is to cut off tax dollars to feed the beast, and the economy "going down the tube" was a hidden blessing to help partially derail this socialistic, progressives-driven train. The "Stimulus Money" just bought them two more years of unsurpassed education programs spending. If you control the public education system, you control the majority of the public's attitudes on politics and social entitlement programs that enslave them to whatever the people in control want (as I look back, this progressive plan has been evolving in Washington State public schools, with specially-designed textbooks, since the late 1960's.) The complete God-less secular state, with a top-down management system for everything in education, seems to have been always their highest preparation objective...
This is good and bad
Submitted by Ethan Pulka (not verified) on Sat, 2011-01-29 12:17.
0
+-First off we do need to decrease the union and all the sidelines school's use. But if we privatize them as a business who is to say that Wal-Mart or another corporations only teaches our children how to stock shelves? We need a education guideline and test to make sure these school allow all the children to learn equally.
Also if we privatize schools, will we have to pay? or will they still be public.
will we have to pay?
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sat, 2011-01-29 14:12.
0
+-Do you not understand?! We already pay. Where do you think the money comes from to fund Public Schools?! It's from taxes, taken out of my pocket and yours (assuming that you do pay taxes).
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
“Train up a child in the way he should go …”
- Carrie led each class into the school gym, wearing her Turkey costume.
- The backdrop of the stage in the gym was adorned with Thanksgiving decorations that looked like they could have come from my time in Elementary School … in the middle of the 20th Century. The decorations depicted adult and children Pilgrims as well as adult and children Indians. The centerpiece was a very identifiable Christian Church, complete with a cross on its steeple. Later, I learned that these decorations had been found at a garage sale, by Carrie’s Mother.
- Each of the kids was in a Thanksgiving costume that they had made from construction paper. The kids were grouped according to one of six costume types. Each group had specific lines that went along with the program that Carrie led. The groups and the lines they delivered, when Carrie pointed to them, included:
It was obvious that the audience (Kindergarten kids’ family members, along with other classes) thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. At the conclusion of the program, Carrie led her students and the audience in singing the American Folk Song, This Land is Your Land. I have to admit that I was grinning from ear to ear and that I had tears in my eyes throughout both program presentations. Although I recognized that there were parts of the program that some might question for “political correctness”, in the end, I don’t think there was anything that could be pointed to as inappropriate. My thoughts along these lines were, “When you pour yourself into your work the way Carrie does and you develop the sort of following she has, minor points of ‘political correctness’ are unlikely to attract much scrutiny.” Moreover, I recognized that “The Story of Carrie Newton” is something I wanted to become more familiar with and to do my part in sharing that story, for the benefit of others.
In getting better acquainted with Carrie, one of the first things I wanted to learn about was what she saw as her overall objective, with the enthusiastic approach she takes to her job. Generally, I wasn’t surprised with her responses to my questions along these lines. She said she wants her students “to love school”, “to be enthusiastic about school” and for their experience with her to be “memorable.” What did surprise me was that, to exemplify this, Carrie referenced the book Made to Stick. I was familiar with Made to Stick, as a business philosophy aimed at helping companies to make their products/services more interesting/memorable. I, also, was aware that the Made to Stick philosophy has application to teaching, both within and outside of business. But, I have to admit that I was a bit surprised at it being applied by a Kindergarten Teacher. I have to; further, admit that this revealed a prejudice on my part about the qualities of “a good Kindergarten Teacher.” Maybe, like me, you tend to think of “a good Kindergarten Teacher” as a good-hearted person who is naturally skilled with young kids, who has fun getting them started in school. If so, like me, you’re seriously underestimating the depth of “a good Kindergarten Teacher.”
By now, it should be obvious that I’ve come to think very highly of Carrie Newton. And, I’ve quickly discovered that telling “The Story of Carrie Newton” can’t realistically be done in one sitting. Her story seems to have far too much depth and texture for that. No doubt, she is much more than “a good Kindergarten Teacher.” “Exceptionally good” seems like a more fitting label. With these things in mind, it seems appropriate to begin by considering the path that has brought her to this point and to take a look at some of the facets of her classroom that further indicate her depth, “beyond the costumes.”
The beginning of Carrie’s career in Education doesn’t sound a lot different from many who work in this field … as a young woman who grew up in Washington State’s Tri-Cities, who was entering college at Gonzaga University, she knew she “wanted to help people.” At Gonzaga, she discovered a love for Special Education. Upon graduating from Gonzaga, she was given offers from three different school systems. Southwest Washington is blessed that she picked the offer from Vancouver. Though Carrie truly loved Special Education, after 10 years working in that field, her two Daughters were born and she simply found these compounded responsibilities to be too hard. However, finances didn’t allow Carrie to work only as a stay-at-home Mom. Although she did leave her position in Special Ed, in addition to her Mom-duties, she worked at providing Home-Daycare and she worked part-time in ELL (English Language Learners) classes. Eventually, as Carrie’s daughters were reaching school-age themselves, this led to opportunities to work in Kindergarten, where she discovered another love. Thus, for the past seven years, she’s been working as a Kindergarten Teacher.
When it comes to aspects of Carrie’s classroom that show what I referred to earlier as her depth, “beyond the costumes”, I discovered a revealing example one day while waiting to talk to her in her classroom. I noticed, among the many things adhered to the windows of her classroom, a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. That led to me reflecting on my thoughts and feelings about MLK, as well as considering what a challenge it must be to convey the lessons embodied by that historic figure, if you didn’t come from his time yourself. Since Dr. King was assassinated in 1968 and Carrie Newton is an Educator who was born in 1969, she is among those who must deal with the aforementioned challenge. When Carrie arrived, I pointed to the picture of Dr. King and I talked about how different things were in the days when I was a student in a Kindergarten class. I talked about the three “colored kids” who were in that class, who continued in my class through High School, with at least one going on into college with me. I, also, shared that, as a “white kid” from that time, though I now recognize that what MLK represented resulted in some much needed seeds of change being planted in my heart, it wasn’t welcomed by me initially. I went on to disclose that I will always look back with deep regret for the painful experience it must have been, growing up as one of those three “colored kids.” Without my prompting, Carrie told me that one of the methods she uses to convey these “lessons of the heart” is to have a time in her classroom when only girls are given gummy-bears, as rewards and that she lets the boys know that it’s just because the girls are girls, like her. Of course, there’s no way to fully convey what our culture was like when I was in Kindergarten. Even I couldn’t do that with today’s kids. But it’s comforting to know of the intentionality of an exceptional Educator like Carrie to teach these “lessons of the heart” and to assure that our culture continues to strive to be one that “judges people by the content of their character and not by the color of (or shape of) their skin.”
Especially, considering some details of the Thanksgiving Program described above, I was surprised to visit Carrie’s Facebook page and learn that she defines her Religious Views as “Christian - still searching”. However, I really appreciated her candor and humor about her “still searching”, as expressed in her Favorite Quotation: “What if the Hokey Pokey is what it’s all about?!” When I asked Carrie about what might seem to be a contradiction between the things expressed in the Thanksgiving program and her Religious Views, she let me know that she is certain enough about her views that she strives to teach her students to have a “basic Christian attitude” and particularly, “to be kind”. In fact, “Be kind!” is a class slogan, as she teaches her students to view themselves as part of their “classroom family” and beyond that, as part of the community. Underneath this, of course, is Carrie’s understanding that a key to her effectiveness as a Teacher is her ability to establish a relationship with each of her students. Without inappropriately sharing any personal information, Carrie told me about her relationship with one student, that illustrates this well. According to Carrie, this was a student who “came in naughty” and that this seemed to stem from some very negative circumstances in the student’s personal life. As a result of Carrie’s kind and caring attention (my words, not hers), this student learned to express himself about these circumstances in a productive way and this has led to significant positive changes that have made this student fit in well with his “classroom family.”
Based on what I’ve told you about Carrie so far, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that her interests in the field of Education don’t stop at her classroom door. She is deeply concerned for our Education system. Her first concern is for colleagues who are “losing the joy of teaching”, as a result of current pressures on those working in Education. Beyond that, she shares the concerns of many of her colleagues that, in looking for ways to improve our Education system, the public and elected officials may be in a position where they “can’t see the forest for the trees” and as a result, in looking for ways to reduce expenditures, they may end up cutting “muscle” instead of “fat”. Frankly, this is the basis for a more politically-oriented article I plan to write but I know that Carrie agrees with me that the best approach to resolving the challenges faced by our Education system is to do so from the ground up, rather from the top down. In other words, the folks who are in the best position to know the needs of the elementary school where we work are the folks who work there, not folks who work in Washington D.C. or in Olympia, WA. With that said, if you are one of those top-down folks, I heartily recommend that you do all you can to seek out those like Carrie Newton, who can benefit you with the wealth of their “where the rubber meets the road” understanding.
In closing, I want to touch on the topic of whether or not a Kindergarten Teacher like Carrie Newton can “make a difference”. Just from watching Carrie with her students, as well as with her colleagues around our elementary school, you can tell that she isn’t among those who may be “losing the joy of teaching”, as a result of current pressures on those working in Education. However, it does seem that these present circumstances have led to Carrie questioning whether or not her enthusiastic work really makes a difference. I was pretty surprised by this. Another book I’ve read for its application to business philosophy is entitled All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. Although its primary focus was on how the world would be improved if adults adhered to the same basic rules as children, I always felt that it provided an implied endorsement of the difference Kindergarten Teachers do make. Maybe I was wrong or maybe, since that book came out in the late 1980s, that understanding has been diminished. Regardless, it’s a shame. I think that the enthusiastic work of an exceptionally good Kindergarten Teacher like Carrie Newton clearly makes a difference and one easy way for our Education system to be improved is for work of this nature to be acknowledged and encouraged. In the absence of this, I felt compelled to encourage Carrie through sharing that Miss Summerlot (my Kindergarten Teacher) and numerous others, including College Professors, are still making a difference in my life. The most significant example I offered was of Laura Fasig, who taught Kindergarten Sunday School for me and before me, for my Mother. Mrs. Fasig was my Grandmother’s age and her teaching still makes a difference in my life … in my mind’s eye, I can still clearly see the scene she created, with felt cut-outs, of Jesus’ encounter with Zacheus. Sixty years from now, when I’ve had the opportunity to say “Thank you!” to my Grandmother and to Laura Fasig for the positive difference they made in my life, a man who “came in naughty”, as a student in Carrie Newton’s Kindergarten class, will be treasuring the positive difference she made in his life and the way that life contributed to our community.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Let’s Sit Together!
Although I’ve been a Contributor for Red County for nearly 2 ½ years now, I’ve continued to imagine an
I realize some may say that Udall’s suggestion is nothing more than empty symbolism. Of course, it would be symbolic but I don’t see it as being empty. I can remember participating in a TweetChat group around the time the Tea Party started forming. During one session, one participant commented on “those across the aisle” and stated that he wanted to “destroy them”. My @Reply to him was to remind him that “those across the aisle” are our fellow Americans and that aiming to “destroy them” was not appropriate. Since following Udall’s suggestion would mean that Reds and Blues wouldn’t actually have an aisle between them, it should make it easier for them to see each other as fellow Americans.
Others may say that Udall’s suggestion seems like a typical Liberal reaction, looking for an opportunity for us all to hold hands and sing Cumbayah. I suppose some may have that sense in doing this but I see it as an action that can begin to effect positive differences in the way our elected Representatives work together. My views on this come from the practical experience of having run a network of office equipment Dealers for over a decade. One of the biggest advantages to using a Dealer network, as a channel of distribution, is that you have the opportunity to have your products and/or services represented by the strongest independent office equipment companies in their respective markets. One of the biggest challenges with this is that you’re working with the strongest independent office equipment companies in their respective markets … underline the word independent … and having them work together seamlessly with their fellow Dealers doesn’t come naturally. One of the best strategies for overcoming this challenge is to get the Dealers together regularly, giving them many opportunities to socialize. When you’ve had brunch with your neighboring Dealer at the Moana Surfrider and you’ve taken a picture of him and his Wife, as they shop along Kalakaua Boulevard, it becomes much more difficult to be stiff-necked with that guy the next time a Dealer Territory dispute arises. I see Udall’s “Let’s sit together!” suggestion as holding this same potential for our elected Representatives.
One aspect of Udall’s suggestion that makes it more likely to be a “Cumbayah moment of empty symbolism” is that it’s a suggestion for a one time event. To really effect positive differences in the way our elected Representatives work together, I suggest that this step should be applied in general and not just for the State of the Union speech. My thinking is that, if our Senators and Members of Congress regularly find themselves in circumstances where they’re less self conscious about expressing views that may conflict with the stance of the party they’ve chosen to align with, it’s more likely that they will succeed in expressing the views of those who they’ve been elected to represent. According to Carl Anderson’s new book, Beyond a House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street and the Media, “In dealing with many high profile issues, we have found consensus where conventional wisdom would have us believe it is most unlikely: on the issues of religion in public life, abortion, marriage, and the role of government, among others.” According to this, We The People are, in fact, We The Purple. If so, all the more reason for eliminating artificial barriers that prevent this productive environment from being a reality and instead, foster a counterproductive atmosphere.
Finally, I want to suggest that, if this step can be taken, that we not stop there. One question I haven’t addressed here is: Why have our Senators and Members of Congress been sitting separately, by party, for State of the Union speeches up to now? The answer is that it’s just been a custom. There is no requirement to do so. With that in mind, I think the time is right for us to take a close look at all the routines our elected officials follow that aren’t requirements. The goal in doing this, of course, would be to determine if these routines should be replaced with methods that are more effective for our elected officials in truly being our Representatives.
Comments
Let's Sit Together
Submitted by Craig Williams (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 15:17.
0
+-Gary, I wholeheartedly agree with you! We are all citizens of the same great country and no matter what our political differences we are all due respect and civility.
Our state and country is in fiscal crisis, and fighting over deck chairs while the ship sinks is foolish.
- Craig Williams
Vancouver, WA
advocatus diaboli
Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 16:50.
0
+-Hi Gary, I'm going to not exactly disagree with you in spirit, but would like to add my observations as a neophyte in the political realm.
I have in the past (as I still do) been able to see and even articulate different sides of a policy argument, even when thinking about a policy in which I've decided my position...indeed, such thinking is needed to determine one's position.
Having said that, I see myself as a historically moderate independent who has been pushed with great force directly into the conservative camp. There are some aspects of conservative ideology that I quite frankly disagree with; however, in the face of a liberal agenda, relentlessly pursued, and which in my opinion has both the capacity and aim of destroying aspects of my freedom that I hold dear, I must choose a side and act upon that choice with vigor.
In short, my view is that the current liberal movement as embodied by the democrat party has an aim to unlawfully restrict my exercise of freedom, and the conservative movement embodied by the republicans...much less so.
In my experience, the greatest damage is done when these two groups actually are acting in concert, because it often represents an unholy compromise that yields principles to expediency.
Seating by State
Submitted by Jon Russell (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 20:30.
0
+-I think they should be seated by State Delegation. The States they represent are more important than party politics.
Seating by State
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-01-17 07:19.
0
+-Thanks for the suggestion, Jon. I very nearly included that suggestion in my article. However, I think this is a good idea for State legislatures too.
seating by delegation
Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 10:32.
0
+-I really like that idea!
It would serve as a reminder to our representatives (of both parties) that there exists within their constituency people of different opinions who are also entitled to be heard and whose concerns must be weighed.
Perhaps it would provide a better mechanism to demonstrate to them that they owe their allegiance and effort to all of their constituency, not only their base. Hard to say. Perhaps it would just make everybody really uncomfortable until someone had the gumption to propose changing the rules back to "party seating"...it would be an interesting experiment.
seating by state delegation
Submitted by Craig Williams (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 17:03.
0
+-An excellent idea Jon!
- Craig
In memory of Judge Roll in particular
Submitted by David Knight (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 18:52.
0
+-I would be more in disagreement. While I appreciate the need to keep a civil tongue, and avoid unfounded and personal accusations, there has been all too much R's and D's ganging up against the people. When politicians get along too well, all their friends get bailouts and the public gets the bill.
They are indeed a political class which walk around airport body scanners and exempt themselves from mandatory federal health plans. This is why there is a tea party. There is absolutely NO mandate for ANY more laws, especially in the realm of gun control for the little gal.
If they want to have a little friendly competition to see how many "oh so well intentioned but" repressive laws they can lift off our backs, that might be a good place to start. The FDA for instance, would make a fine consumer advisory panel - a place from which they can justify all those decisions made on our behalf - to all the other advisory organizations that will spring up to guide consumers in their quest for REAL health. They are one of the main reasons our health care system is a mess today.
Great and mighty organizations seek to mislead us - and as in the past - will stop at NOTHING to achieve their ends. In memory of the Assassinated Judge - who was a true constitutionalist and hero to our country - we could stand a bipartisan effort to return to the principles that made this nation great, the original intent of the constitution that we swear an oath to.
The enemy
Submitted by Edmundg (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-18 01:39.
0
+-Horse manure! Now, I know that there is a huge push for civility in political discourse, but it is only in one direction---we conservatives must be civil, whilst the left has no such restrictions. Consider the "Daily Kos" printing a headline shortly after the Tucson shooting: "Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin!"
What many do not yet realize is that there are very few Democrats remaining in American politics. That party has been usurped by communists. Yes, yes, I realize that they prefer other names, such as liberal, progressive, social democrat, socialist, state capitalist, etc. But you can paint a jackass with zebra stripes all you want; it is still a jackass. These are communists and they are hell-bent upon overthrowing the greatest Republic ever. Therefore, they are the enemy!
What they are doing is illegal and unConstitutional, and I resent it.
Hahahahahaha, yup, you've got
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-18 14:05.
0
+-Hahahahahaha, yup, you've got us Edmundg, we're communists, all of us. Because, as you well know there's a pretty straight line between "healthcare for poor people" and "lets overthrow the government and do only what the government tells us to". What's worse than that is that not only are we communists but we're actually attempting to destroy America. It's probably because we hate all of the good that America does, because as well as know communists are also all godless and actually are the creation of the devil to destroy mankind as we know it. It starts with protecting the poor, and who knows, after that maybe ensuring clean drinking water and then BLAMO, instant American destruction.
What's especially fiendish is that, in an age of 24-7 news coverage, we've managed to usurp an entire political party and have just lying in wait for when we can send out the secret communist signal to have all Democrats rise up and destroy the government from within. Why we didn't take over the Republican party, which would be far less obvious, is beyond me (especially since we got together as communists have been unable to do in the past and decided to take over a national political party at all levels). Oh well, what can you do...
I do hope you realize that I'm being fully facetious and am really just mocking the absurdity of your claim. I mean, at least disagree with me on issues in an intelligent manner like a rational person, but please try to stay away from the conspiracy-theory type broad-based personal attacks. They come across as rather, well, desperate.
I agree with the point of this post though, I think the idea of sitting together at the SOTU is a great idea.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
An “Off-Duty” Grandpa’s Perspective On Autism
When I say “unexpected”, one aspect of this is that I have to admit, if a basic job description for this position had been given to me before I started, it’s likely that my reaction would have been, “Whoa, that’s not for me!” That, in fact, has been a common reaction I’ve gotten when I’ve told others what I’ve been doing. It has seemed that their summary view of the job is as a babysitter for some really hard-to-be-with kids. With that in mind, I want to share some details about my experience.
The Guys
Each of my “10 little guys” has a unique story. I’d love to share their stories with you, in complete detail, in order to share the blessing I’ve received through my experience with them. However, doing that would inappropriately compromise their privacy. Hopefully, without improperly disclosing private details, the following summaries of my experience with each of these “little guys” will help you connect with my sense of being blessed through this:
- A seven-year-old whose challenges include a soft pallet – The first time I heard him speak, I had no clue what he said. Later, I learned that he is fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) and that his IQ is higher than anyone else in the class, including the adults. Corrective surgery (for the soft pallet) has been a consideration but, presently, it appears that this will self-correct, with growth. It’s great to hear him speak more clearly, daily, while seeing him progress with his curriculum and to be able to move to taking more of his subjects in Gen Ed classes.
- An 11-year-old, who is probably the most challenged kid in the class … probably more like what I and others have in mind when we say, “Whoa, that’s not for me!” Trying to work with him can be very frustrating. I’ve had more than one occasion where my sessions with him involved him slumped on the floor, while I waited for him to become compliant. On the other hand, I’ve had him go through multiple exercises for simple rewards and a high-five. My favorite times with this “little guy”, so far, have been when he just looks me in the eye and smiles or laughs or when he walks over to put his head on my chest or when his exercises are done and he can sit in his rocker while we listen to a James Taylor CD. Although I do nothing to violate the school district’s policy relative to “the separation of Church and State”, I’ve found that my silently praying for my “little guys” is acceptable and I know it’s good. As you might guess, this is how I spend much of my time with this particular “little guy”.
- Another seven-year-old, whose biggest challenge is the need for routines and dealing with any changes to those routines - Sometimes it’s possible to reason him through this and some times he just “melts down” and ends up in the Quiet Room, which is available for helping to deal with “melt downs”. My most notable experience with this involved Recess. I had marveled at the complexity of a routine that this “little guy” would follow, repeatedly, on the playground. One day, as he was running this routine, he looked at me and said, “Wap, Wap.” I asked him what he meant and again, he said, “Wap, Wap.” I, then, said, “What is that? Is it a sound?” He said, “Yes.” So, I asked what makes that sound?” and he answered, “Two Waps.” This “little guy” can be quite amusing so, at first, I sort of thought he was making a joke. Eventually, I figured out that he was telling me he was running laps (Waps) and he was keeping count. When I mentioned this to the Teacher, I discovered that this is a behavior known as “Stemming” and that it is to be discouraged. As you might expect, the first time I had to deal with discouraging this on the playground, this “little guy” ended up in the Quiet Room. Thankfully, we discovered that by taking a soccer ball out to the playground and kicking it around with him, encouraged him to use the soccer ball to interact with the other students and since then, no more “Waps”.
- One other seven-year-old is easily the most natural athlete in the class. I’ve said he is like “a Cirque du Soleil performer, in training.” Most of his time on the playground, he spends by himself on a swing. I’ve seen him swing high enough that, on the back-swing, he is looking at me over the top bar of the swing set. On one occasion, at the height of his forward-swing, I saw him dismount. As you might expect, this nearly caused heart failure in me but he perfectly “stuck” the landing. Since then, I’ve been on the lookout for a gym program where he could fit in and fully develop his athletic gifts. The flipside of this is that getting him to do anything that isn’t athletic can be very difficult and since he is “easily the most natural athlete in the class”, getting him to be compliant is a challenge … dealing with his aggression can require more than one adult. The fact that he is completely non-verbal makes dealing with this even more difficult. With all this said, when you do get him to sign a new word and he gives you an ear-to-ear smile, as you give him a reward and a high-five, you truly relish that small progress.
- The six other “little guys” in the class have their unique stories too. The biggest and oldest is still quite innocent and he knows more about dinosaurs and the eras they lived in than anyone else I know. Another 11-year-old has some genetic defects that have significantly weakened him physically and mentally. You couldn’t ask for a sweeter little guy, though. Some place along the way, he must have really enjoyed Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” Almost anytime he is asked about a name, you can hear him softly say, almost under his breath, “Gaston!” Another “little guy” has the attention span of a puppy but his graceful athleticism, his flair for the dramatic and his tendency to find anything he can find to wear as a mustache could lead him to Hollywood. A 10-year-old is one of the most difficult personalities to deal with because, when given a behavior choice, he will consistently go with the most annoying. Though it requires extreme patience, underneath that you find an ability to be quite tender with others. One other seven-year-old can be unresponsive or very slow to respond and his verbalization is very little and very subdued. When he does pay attention, though, you can tell that he has much more intelligence than you might give him credit for. Last but not least is the smallest “little guy” in the class. Although he has some challenges with socialization, communication and learning; his biggest challenge is his need for eating therapy. He’s a lovable little character and if the eating therapy can be successful, his growth and development should improve.
As I’m sure you can tell by now, these “10 little guys” had me by the heart in no time flat. By the end of my first week, I found myself thinking about things like how much I’d like to be present to see two of them (who currently do work at about the same level) walk across a stage to get their High School Diplomas. Much of this may come from the fact that I consider myself an “Off-Duty Grandpa.” I have three grandchildren who are close to being grown up, who live about 2500 miles away. Though I’ve wanted them to be a part of my life and vice versa, that hasn’t happened. I, also, have a 2 3/4–year-old Grandson who lives about 1000 miles away. We’re more a part of each other’s lives but the 1000 miles keeps that relationship from being all we would like for it to be. I guess the Net result of this is that there was a pretty good sized empty spot in this “Off-Duty” Grandpa’s heart that these “10 little guys” fit right in to.
Keys To The Lock
Although I can’t give you specifics about my “10 little guys”, without inappropriately compromising their privacy, I want to encourage you to check out some related stories that are publicly available. One of these stories can be found in a book entitled Unlocked. Coincidentally, during my first couple of weeks working with my “10 little guys”, this book was released by, a local Christian Writer, named Karen Kingsbury. A local newspaper article says that Unlocked is about “kindness that unlocked a soul” by helping a boy “… break through the barriers of Autism.”
Among the great blessings for me, working in this Special Program, has been getting to witness six other adults working tirelessly to do all that they can to help my “10 little guys” find the “keys to the locks” of their individual “barriers.” The Special Program Class that I’ve been working in is part of an, otherwise, General Education K-5 Elementary School. The class is headed up by a Certificated Special Education Teacher, who is assisted by six Para-Educators. Two of these folks are Moms who have “little guys” of their own at home who are dealing with the challenges of Autism. Another is a woman who has raised 10 kids of her own plus she has worked in Special Ed for over 12 years. These are truly amazing people that I’ve been honored to work alongside.
I’ve, also, been blessed to get acquainted with some extraordinary parents. Here too, it’s necessary for me to discuss this in a way that doesn’t inappropriately compromise privacy. So, I’ll just note that I’ve witnessed the difference a family can make, resulting in one “little guy” being among the most high-functioning in our class when his diagnosis might lead you to expect him to be more along the lines of the “hard-to-be-with kids” folks have in mind when they say, “Whoa, (that job is) not for me!”
Beauty From Ashes
As a man of faith, one of the most important related aspects to a topic like this is to address questions like, “Why would a loving God make ‘your little guys’ Autistic?” For me, the answer is pretty simple, “He didn’t.” There was no Autism in the Garden of Eden and there will be no Autism in Heaven. Autism only exists in this Fallen World. What a loving God does about that is the important observation to make. I think this is best expressed in Scripture, in Isaiah 61:3 where it says that God’s aim is “To give them beauty for ashes.”
The adults I’ve mentioned in this article are great examples of this. These are all intelligent, well-educated, attractive people who could be “doing better for themselves” in a number of other pursuits. But, they are following what God put in their hearts to lovingly pour all they can into these “little guys” in order that they can do “better for themselves.”
God has seen to it that my own story falls under this heading too. Earlier, I said, “If you’re surprised to learn that I’ve been working in this capacity, I’ll provide some explanation later.” Well, a full explanation will require another article but here’s a bit about that. When Ruth (my Wife) and I decided to move to this area from Southern California, about 5 ½ years ago, we felt led by the Lord to do so. Our plan and expectation was that, with our changed circumstances, we would be fine financially with me working at a mid-level Sales or Sales Management job, while Ruth wouldn’t have to work, if she didn’t want to. After more than two years of things not going the way we expected for me, we decided it would be prudent for Ruth to go back to work. As you might expect, we were regularly wondering why God had led us here and why things weren’t going the way we had expected them to. My first glimpse of starting to understand this involved the job that Ruth ended up in. Actually, I need to be circumspect about that too. Let me just say that her job involves working with some youngsters whose epitaph, according to me, would surely be “Never Had A Chance!”, if it wasn’t for the work that Ruth and her colleagues are doing. When I started hearing some of the successes coming out of that environment, I started recognizing why God had called Ruth out of Orange County. Eventually, I even recognized that “things not going the way we expected for me” was a circumstance God had used to get Ruth where He wanted her. Since I’m not the “quick-study” in our family, it took me another three years to get where I am. There are numerous details that I could share about what went on with me in those three years but the important thing is that I finally found the door that the Lord had opened for me and on the other side, I found an “Off-Duty” Grandpa and “10 little guys” who really needed each other.
Before moving on from how my story falls under this heading, I want to share an important aspect about how some folks have reacted to my doing this work. My background is primarily in Sales. In recent years, I’ve developed a minor reputation as a Writer. Considering that and how different it is from the work that I’m doing as a Para-Educator, it’s understandable that this has taken some folks by surprise. Beyond that, I’ve sensed that some may think that, in using my time to do the work I’m doing, I’m wasting “greater talents.” This came out most poignantly for me, when I attended an event where a wealthy friend of mine was featured as the Keynote Speaker. One thing I admire most about this friend is the metaphor he uses to express his view of the wealth God has blessed him with. He views himself as “One of God’s UPS Drivers” and he says, “As long as I deliver what He puts on my truck where and how He wants it delivered, He keeps putting more stuff on my truck.” While this friend was speaking, at the event I mentioned, another friend and I were commenting on what a wonderful job the Keynote Speaker was doing of using the talents God has blessed him with. Then, she leaned over and whispered in my ear, “You should be doing the same with your talents.” I didn’t ask but I think she had my writing ability in mind. Anyway, I responded by leaning over and saying, “You’re familiar with the metaphor that (the Keynote Speaker) uses about being one of God’s UPS Drivers?” She nodded “Yes.” Then I said, “Well, He gave me a school bus. It has 10 really important packages on it. It was totally unexpected but that’s what He gave me.”
Your Turn!
When working with these “little guys”, especially the non-verbal ones, it’s not uncommon to show them how the task before them is done and then to say, “Your turn!” In closing, I want to encourage as many as I can to consider how you can take “Your turn!” and be the source of kindness that can “unlock” souls by helping our children break through their individual barriers.
In case you haven’t noticed, my “10 little guys” are all guys. I think it was my second day on the job when I asked the Teacher, “Where are the girls?” The answer is that Autism is mostly found in boys. Not long after that, I thought about the staff and the opposite question struck me, “Where are the guys?” Aside from me, the rest of the staff is female. In fact, there are 51 employees at our school and only seven are male. Sadly, it’s all too common to hear stories like that of Emily Colson ... a child is born, who is Autistic and the Dad disappears. Hopefully, something I’ve said about my “10 little guys” and how working with them has blessed me will inspire others to do likewise. But, I really want to encourage more guys to do so. Seeing a good example of an adult guy being an adult guy can make a world of difference to these “little guys.”
If you’d like to learn more about Autism and start getting a better idea where you might fit in and help, a couple of good places to start are Autism Speaks and the Autism Society of America.
Especially For My Pro-Life Friends
“Life in the Balance helps readers discover answers to the difficult issues covered by the evening news (street violence, abortion, autism, genocide and stem-cell research).”
Perhaps not so coincidentally, Chuck Colson wrote the Foreword for Life in the Balance. In that, Colson says:
“Joni will teach you how to fight on behalf of those who are quietly being targeted for extermination.”
My encouragement to my Pro-Life friends is, if you’re already involved in helping to provide for the needs of babies born with Autism, remain diligent and be alert to the mounting threat alluded to in Life in the Balance. And, obviously, if this is a topic that has eluded your attention to some degree, I want to encourage your awareness and your activism.
Late Breaking News!
One detail I’ve left out here is that I actually came into this role as a Substitute Para-Educator. The woman who was doing this job moved, with her Husband, to another part of the country. After my first week on the job, the Teacher asked me to continue as a Sub, until the job was filled permanently and she asked me to apply for the job. I did but a person who is already a full-time employee in the school district also applied and of course, she had seniority. So, it looked like my sixth week would be my last week with my “10 little guys.” Surprisingly, the other applicant decided to stay in her current job. The job was formally offered to me, I accepted and since then, I’ve been working as a full-time Special Program Para-Educator. Yay!!!!!!!
Saturday, November 27, 2010
An NPR-like Press – A Next-Key-Element in the Liberal Agenda
It was interesting to watch the recent dust-up between Ted Koppel, the 42-year veteran of ABC News and Keith Olbermann, the one-time Sportscaster and Current MSNBC Commentator. Probably like many Conservatives, I have to admit to some perverse pleasure derived from watching a couple of flaming Liberals trying to knock the soup out of each other. Unfortunately, that entertaining aspect of the story obscured an underlying theme where it seems many Liberals are in agreement – i.e. A State-run Press is the ideal (Utopian) solution to the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism.
Although a State-run Press is the consistent solution offered up by Liberals, their views on the cause are
often diametrically opposed. In Koppel’s case, corporate profits are seen as the villainous cause. Ironically, the other most common cause cited by other Liberals is the lack of corporate profits. This may be best detailed in a book entitled The Death and Life of American Journalism.Koppel’s perspective on “villainous corporate profits”, as leading the way to the deterioration of the American Press, is summed up in his Washington Post article entitled The case against news we can choose, where he says:
“What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence.
Network executives were afraid that … the Federal Communications Commission (would) suspend or even revoke their licenses.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable. Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its ‘60 Minutes’ news magazine in 1968.
Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”
My reaction to this echoed Jack Shafer’s opening observation in Slate, in an article entitled Ted Koppel, Bad Reporter, where he said:
“I know of no more sorry a spectacle than the wizened newsman weeping with nostalgia for the golden age of journalism—which just happens to coincide with his own glory days.”
Shafer’s general assertion in his article is that Koppel is just “dead wrong” about certain claims he makes. However, he doesn’t address Koppel’s declaration about “the heart of good journalism being facts, along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.” I think he’s “dead wrong” there too. Just think about Harvest of Shame, the 1960 documentary hosted by Edward R. Murrow, the leading Saint of American Broadcast Journalism to Koppel and his peer-group. No doubt, Harvest of Shame is a great example of American Journalism shining the light of truth on the sordid conditions of American migrant agricultural workers of that day but to say that the related facts were presented “without fear or favor” isn’t even close to the truth. In fact, one might argue that the “fear” and “favor” aspects of that documentary were essential for the positive impact of that journalistic effort. Regardless of the good that I believe resulted from the work of Murrow and his colleagues, with Harvest of Shame, I think the “fear or favor” evident in that work should give us all pause, to consider the implications of Koppel’s comment that “Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”
The primary target of Shafer’s “dead wrong” assertion, however, is Koppel’s claim about those “villainous corporate profits.” To support his assertion, Shafer cites Michael J. Socolow’s paper, in Journalism, that details “The myth that network news didn’t make money (until Don Hewitt birthed 60 Minutes) owes its origin to artful bookkeeping.”
Before digging into how The Death and Life of American Journalism conflicts with Koppel, in terms of the cause of the present decline of the American Press and its congruence with Koppel’s views on the paramount solution for this predicament, it’s important for me to share a bit about my experience in reading this book. If you’re wondering why a vocally Conservative guy like me would be interested in reading a book which, as I stated earlier, addresses the most common cause cited by Liberals for the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism, you’ll be puzzled further to learn that the answer is: Because another Conservative friend recommended it. In recommending the book, though, my friend said, “You may not agree with all of the ideas the book offers.” My response was, “So this is an instance where I should be prepared to chew the fruit and spit out the seeds?” My friend’s reply was, “That’s a good way of putting it.” It didn’t take long for me to understand why this book would have significant portions that, for me, would be “fruitless.” In the Preface, the co-Authors (McChesney and Nichols) set aside an entire page to acknowledge Contributors. These include folks such as Phil Donahue and Arianna Huffington; and the dedication in this section says: “… when we are asked to provide an example of the journalism we seek, we respond … with a single name, Bill Moyers.” With that backdrop, let me share with you what I saw as “fruit” and “seeds”, relative to the subject at hand.
First, when it comes to “the heart of good journalism being facts”, McChesney and Nichols seem to be in agreement with Koppel that this should result in “… relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.” In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols frequently state “facts” about the GWB Administration that they, apparently, “believe the public need to know.” These “facts” include statements such as: “When the United States geared up to invade Iraq in 2002, commercial broadcast news media, with only a few brave exceptions, parroted Bush administration talking points for war that were easily identified as lies.” Since these “facts” are presented as just that, “facts”, without any reference at all for their basis in fact, these were the first “seeds” I spit out.
The area where McChesney and Nichols are in complete disagreement with Koppel is the cause for the ongoing decline of “traditional” American Journalism. Koppel says it’s corporate profits. McChesney and Nichols say it’s just the opposite … the lack of profits. I’m in agreement with McChesney and Nichols on this. The one area where I’m in agreement with Koppel, as well as with McChesney and Nichols, is that the entire “traditional” American news-media system is disintegrating. When it comes to the State-run Press that these Liberals have in mind as the solution for this dilemma, as you might expect, my position diverges dramatically from theirs.
In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols attempt to build the case for a State-run Press by stating that doing so is in alignment with the “Founding Principles” of our nation. The first “seed” to spit out here is in noting that McChesney and Nichols first speak of a “Free Press”, then they equate that with their definition of a “Functional Press” and from there forward, they use the terms interchangeably.
Next, McChesney and Nichols state that, “… government in fact created the free/(functional) press … with aggressive and often enlightened policies and subsidies.” They, then, go on to “… argue that Americans need to embrace this tradition as they respond to the present crisis.” A typical line of reasoning the Authors use here is the one about the U.S. Constitution giving the government the responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” According to McChesney and Nichols, when Post Roads were first built there were tolls for their use but publishers were allowed free access. For McChesney and Nichols, that adds up to the government subsidizing the press. When you stop and think about it, giving publishers free access to Post Roads isn’t much different from publishers (along with everyone else) having free access to the Internet today. However, in both the case of the providers of Post Roads, as well as the case of the providers of the Internet, allowing free access to the channel of communication doesn’t mean the provider should be given influence over the communication itself. As you read more about the plan these Liberals have in mind, you’ll see that their idea for a State-run Press is much more far-reaching than just giving the government authority over the Press’ channels of communication.
To more fully understand the Utopian solution our Liberals friends have in mind here, let me give you a synopsis of the four-part proposal presented in The Death and Life of American Journalism:
1) Immediate measures to sustain journalism, each of which transitions to a permanent subsidy if successful;
If nothing else, one has to be concerned for: Whose definition of “journalism” and “successful” would be used here?
One of the specific subsidies proposed would include a “News AmeriCorps”, a New Deal style organization for producing “the great investigative reporters, editors …” The obvious question of concern here is: By whose standards?
The proposal that troubles me the most here is one for “a dramatic expansion of funding high-school newspapers and radio stations.” Is it just me or does this sound like something you’ve read about before under the heading of a Goebbels-led program for Hitler Youth?
2) A plan to convert the collapsing corporate newspaper into what we term a “post-corporate” digital newspaper, with print versions at the very least until there is ubiquitous broadband;
Actually, I see this as “fruit” but it’s already happening as the result of the forces at work in the American economy. In other words, the Laissez-faire approach is working fine and nothing State-run is needed.
3) Converting public and community broadcasting into genuinely world-class civic and democratic media;
Much as with point 1), one has to be concerned for: By who’s standards?
and 4) Spawning a vibrant, well-funded, competitive and innovative news-media sector on the Internet.
Here too, it seems to me that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority. And, what should we do about the time after/beyond the time of the Internet? At the turn of the last century the Laissez-faire approach seemed to work fine in addressing the challenges presented by the decline of the once-thriving Buggy Whip Industry. I’m betting we can count on it to be just as effective in dealing with the transition to whatever we develop beyond the Internet.
Although I firmly believe that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority, McChesney and Nichols do offer one proposal here that I saw as having “fruitful” potential. It’s a proposal for an L3C Model – a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation – to attract significant investment in projects that seek to serve charitable or community interests. Of course, even with this, one should be concerned for whose definition of “charitable” and “community interests” would be used. However, I’m aware of business owners who are interested in developing “digital newspapers”, as alternatives to declining “traditional” newspapers and this L3C Model could be a worthwhile catalyst for sort of turbo-charging those interests.
At the end of The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols sum up their proposal by stating that the need is to move from Public Broadcasting to Public Media and they pose the rhetorical question, “Why the state?’ Their answer is, “It is the American way.”
My answer is, “No, it isn’t!” McChesney and Nichols claim that the answer is “the State” and that “It is the American way” is another of their claims that has no basis in fact. Liberals, simply, believe that “the State” is the answer for everything. The continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism has painful aspects to it for us all. It’s always going to be that way with a truly Free Press. This is well-exemplified in Voltaire’s quote about Free Speech … “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Living that out often requires what can be some pretty painful patience. But, it has consistently proven to be worth the price. I think it’s more realistic to view American Journalism as being in a state of metamorphosis, rather than a state of decline that equates to its death throes. I’m in full agreement with McChesney and Nichols that a Free Press is essential to the survival of our Republic but I say, “No more NPRs, thank you!” Generally, my suggestion for the current metamorphosis of American Journalism is the same as what has proven to be best with the metamorphosis of a caterpillar … when it goes into its cocoon, leave it alone (Laissez-faire)! If you don’t, you’ll really screw up the beautiful butterfly that would emerge, otherwise.
Comments
LinkedIn Comment
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2010-11-30 05:26.
0
+-This Comment, left on LinkedIn:
Susan Bender Phelps We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newpapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.
Free Press
Submitted by Susan Bender Phelps (not verified) on Wed, 2010-12-01 13:20.
0
+-We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, but it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newspapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.
