Jon Keller gives a crack set of comments about the Lowell Spinners Political Correctness Night, where the bat boys were batpersons and the shortstops were vertically challenged players.
Keller also has a poll that highlights the killjoy nature of PC...I'm printing his poll out with my comments in red.
- Insistence on gender neutrality in all things (e.g. "selectperson" or "second-baseperson")
Where the men can now become nurses and women can now be mayors, there is no bias. When it gets ridiculous as in the above, it smacks of insecurity and avoiding reality.
- The insistence that there is no right or wrong
I graduated with a mathematics degree in 1994. Proving theorems and solving complex mathematical problems was the way I got out of writing fifteen page papers. The proof of 1+1=2 is rumored to be 800 pages long, and in abstract algebra, 1+1=2 is the result of an element in an additive ring with the operation of + acting as a collector of successive items, with 1 representing a unitary object and 2 representing the successive object.
In my current line of work, there are certain rules and regulations I must follow, and I must keep a high accuracy percentage, or else I get FIRED. That means I cannot explain my way out of my errors; I actually have to have proof that I was right before they dismiss the charge, so I'm guilty before I'm proven innocent.
'There is no right or wrong' is a cop-out when the person posing the question can't answer it either.
- Phobic antipathy toward Western civilization, its cultural works and beliefs
In other words, be really, really suspicious and jealous of stuff that was not done by the Third World, corrupt despots and bloodthirsty dictators, and things that involve science, law and other innovations...things that keep people in the Middle Ages or lesser.
- One must never do anything to damage anyone else's self-esteem (i.e. grading, tracking, testing)
Horsehockey (not to you, Jon!). Testing, grading and tracking is absolutely essential - it gauges knowledge, points out errors, and helps people to understand what is right and what is wrong. Even if you're not held to a job that expects high quality, you're still being graded, tracked and tested by your managers and supervisors to see if the hire they made (you) will be able to tackle higher assignments down the road. If you break under pressure, you may miss out on raises, and soon enough, you may be shown the door for lack of initiative.
- Feel-good environmental fads of dubious value (such as carbon footprint offsets)
Any activity that protects the elite at the expense of the non-elite is a product of guilt, guarded jealousy, and envy. The elite, in order to protect all their goodies, throw out all sorts of curve ball theories to keep the non-elite from enjoying their spoils. Environmentalism is a great example - the elite preach the gospel according to Gaia, but once the mercury-filled lights are dimmed, the elite go home in their carbon-wasting jets, drive their gas-guzzling cars, and enter their gated mansions, smugly counting their lucre behind closed doors and snickering. Any "-ism" that has been tried as a political fiat always fails and sometimes takes a human toll - sometimes at the point of a gun.
- Excessive emphasis on the "root causes" of violent criminal behavior
Analysis paralysis hasn't solved the great murders of the 20th and 21st century...but defense attorneys seem not to mind when they can bill at $300 per hour.
- Going nuclear over someone else's harmless slip of the tongue
Don Imus found out the hard way - referring to a women's basketball team as he did in passing was similar to taking down a hornet's nest with a machine gun.
On the other hand, if you're zealous in correcting people for their slips of the tongue, it would be better to keep your tongue in your mouth instead of being a pushy busybody.
- Valuing PC over the First Amendment
Free speech is not equal to saying whatever you want while the other speaker is forced to listen. Free speech is also not equal to having people accept your wacky theories or your obscenity-laden tirades.
Free speech really is saying things that people won't agree with, any may require you clarify your statement. Free speech also guarantees us saying things without fear of arrest or reprisal.
PC mutates free speech into something that is synthetic, a sort of code-word interlingua between two people who are afraid to say in public what they are free to say behind closed doors. PC euphemizes unpleasant things, incorrectly elevates dull ones, and attempts to block off all stereotypes and characterizations that people find unsettling. PC manages to take the joy out of wonderful, marvelous things and reduces them to impersonal, cold machinations, in which the joke is on the unknowing.
Behind closed doors, the freedom to be ugly and to lash out on those beneath you while in public you painstakingly choreographed the correct, inoffensive version prove you to be a phony, rather than being one of the "enlightened."
Showing posts with label Jon Keller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Keller. Show all posts
2/20/2008
The Northeast: where economic growth sputters
Jon Keller has the goods on a report from ALEC, a non-partisan forum highlighting where the economic pulse is good and bad.
According to the report, Massachusetts ranks 26th in economic outlook, which is one rung below the 50th percentile. Our saving graces: low sales taxes (5%), low income taxes (5.3%-5.95%) and "solid tort liability" (not sure what that means). Yet, we lose 330K residents thanks to a "high minimum wage" (national minimum is $5.85; ours is $7.50), high property taxes, high corporate taxes, and "forced unionism" (meaning that great "living wage" they tell you about also includes 20% or so in union dues, which promptly get spent on campaigns, strike funds, protests, and goodies for the union bosses).
A great example between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for example? New Hampshire has an outrageously high property tax, about $50 per $1,000 per home value, meaning your $250,000 home in Nashua yields $12,500 in property taxes. They also have a meals tax of 8%. On the other hand, New Hampshire has 0% income tax and 0% sales tax. Massachusetts also has the largest concentration of colleges (including 10+ Ivy League schools), universities, and hospitals, and many are world class (is there a New York Latin School? A Kentucky General Hospital? What if Harvard were in Chicago?), whereas New Hampshire has one Ivy League school (Dartmouth), one quasi-ivy league school (University of New Hampshire) and many smaller state schools. In New Hampshire, apartment rents are at least 50% lower than those of Boston, if you can find an apartment not occupied by medical students and college students AND pay the $1000+/month rent.
It all balances out in the end - the strengths of one state may outnumber the weaknesses of the other, but it's how we pay the bills that makes all the difference. If you live in Utah, no worries - except in Salt Lake City, where word has it that the mayor is a little bit weird.
In case you're wondering who ranks dead last...when the report mentioned one Bernie Sanders as an "avowed socialist...enough said," I never thought Vermont would come in dead last. No wonder some Vermonters want to secede from America - they want to make it a new Cuba!
According to the report, Massachusetts ranks 26th in economic outlook, which is one rung below the 50th percentile. Our saving graces: low sales taxes (5%), low income taxes (5.3%-5.95%) and "solid tort liability" (not sure what that means). Yet, we lose 330K residents thanks to a "high minimum wage" (national minimum is $5.85; ours is $7.50), high property taxes, high corporate taxes, and "forced unionism" (meaning that great "living wage" they tell you about also includes 20% or so in union dues, which promptly get spent on campaigns, strike funds, protests, and goodies for the union bosses).
A great example between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for example? New Hampshire has an outrageously high property tax, about $50 per $1,000 per home value, meaning your $250,000 home in Nashua yields $12,500 in property taxes. They also have a meals tax of 8%. On the other hand, New Hampshire has 0% income tax and 0% sales tax. Massachusetts also has the largest concentration of colleges (including 10+ Ivy League schools), universities, and hospitals, and many are world class (is there a New York Latin School? A Kentucky General Hospital? What if Harvard were in Chicago?), whereas New Hampshire has one Ivy League school (Dartmouth), one quasi-ivy league school (University of New Hampshire) and many smaller state schools. In New Hampshire, apartment rents are at least 50% lower than those of Boston, if you can find an apartment not occupied by medical students and college students AND pay the $1000+/month rent.
It all balances out in the end - the strengths of one state may outnumber the weaknesses of the other, but it's how we pay the bills that makes all the difference. If you live in Utah, no worries - except in Salt Lake City, where word has it that the mayor is a little bit weird.
In case you're wondering who ranks dead last...when the report mentioned one Bernie Sanders as an "avowed socialist...enough said," I never thought Vermont would come in dead last. No wonder some Vermonters want to secede from America - they want to make it a new Cuba!
10/03/2007
We have met the enemy, and s/he is us (and our egos)
Pogo said it, but Jon Keller gives us an example of that very phrase: pick up with momentum of dissatisfaction with the other side of the aisle, and then bring that momentum to a screeching halt with a war surtax.
I don't think it will happen, because it will bear even more people already displeased their income taxes are going to the government for reasons they don't agree with. But if it does go through, the sacrifice should go both ways. If taxpayers are shelling out an extra 2-15% in surtax to fund the war, the senators and representatives are required to surrender 70% of their paychecks into a tax-free fund that will directly assist the soldiers' families.
At $150,000 per year, that's $56 million diverted to soldiers and their families - not chump change. With interest, this can grow into the billions, and give the families a much needed break when the savings and checking accounts are depleted. It will also call the bluff of those senators/representatives of who really does "support the troops" - literally putting a 70% tax where their mouth is, and taking note of who weasels out. With their salaries cut deeply, the senators/reps may then appreciate the value of wealth, and see the folly of socialism - through the iron gloves of income redistribution and punishing people for working hard and generating wealth.
To quote Jon Keller, they do it for "...[s]ymbolism. Grandstanding. Scoring what may well be a valid political point at the potential expense of gaining the political power to effect real change. In other words, doing what baby-boom era pols (of both parties) are notorious for doing, feeding their egos while progress goes hungry."
Jules Crittenden adds his 2-15 cents, with the money quote, "Conceptual flaw. Poor drafting skills, if you will. Lack of perspective. Dems understand that people hate taxes, because someone told them that once. But because they love taxes so much, they don’t get exactly how much people hate them, and therefore, how dumb this idea is. Nobody’s going to get, “Gee, this war costs a lot” off of this. They will get, “Those [jerks] want another 15 percent.”"
I don't think it will happen, because it will bear even more people already displeased their income taxes are going to the government for reasons they don't agree with. But if it does go through, the sacrifice should go both ways. If taxpayers are shelling out an extra 2-15% in surtax to fund the war, the senators and representatives are required to surrender 70% of their paychecks into a tax-free fund that will directly assist the soldiers' families.
At $150,000 per year, that's $56 million diverted to soldiers and their families - not chump change. With interest, this can grow into the billions, and give the families a much needed break when the savings and checking accounts are depleted. It will also call the bluff of those senators/representatives of who really does "support the troops" - literally putting a 70% tax where their mouth is, and taking note of who weasels out. With their salaries cut deeply, the senators/reps may then appreciate the value of wealth, and see the folly of socialism - through the iron gloves of income redistribution and punishing people for working hard and generating wealth.
To quote Jon Keller, they do it for "...[s]ymbolism. Grandstanding. Scoring what may well be a valid political point at the potential expense of gaining the political power to effect real change. In other words, doing what baby-boom era pols (of both parties) are notorious for doing, feeding their egos while progress goes hungry."
Jules Crittenden adds his 2-15 cents, with the money quote, "Conceptual flaw. Poor drafting skills, if you will. Lack of perspective. Dems understand that people hate taxes, because someone told them that once. But because they love taxes so much, they don’t get exactly how much people hate them, and therefore, how dumb this idea is. Nobody’s going to get, “Gee, this war costs a lot” off of this. They will get, “Those [jerks] want another 15 percent.”"
6/08/2007
Why MCAS matters, and why it won't be going away any time soon
If you work in any industry that's all metrics, all the time (and by that we don't mean kilograms, hectares and millimeters), you understand that in certain times of the week, month, or year, you must be reaching some kind of benchmark, line of reference, or company standard. Numbers are the lifeblood of your business, and the entire business is to sustain or exceed the standards and expectations of your business - and to keep a steady eye on the competition.
A great example of this are those who work on commission. Your company sets targets on what you must sell. If you sell a lot of things, you make much more commission on top of your base salary, take home a huge paycheck, and have opportunities for promotion. If you sell very little or nothing, your bosses will demand to know why, offer you help to get more commission, and if you're still not making their targets, you no longer have a job. Nothing spells humiliation like security guards escorting you out the door, final paltry paycheck and unemployment information in one hand and your box of belongings in another.
It's no different in the school system. If students learn and succeed, getting straight A's (and some with B's) and actually going beyond what they learn in school, they will get praise and four year scholarships. If the students don't care, getting F's and getting held back in certain classes, or getting held back entire grades, they will find themselves without skills, relegating them to permanent entry-level job status or intermittent unemployment...and by then, they'll have regretted not getting even C's in their classes.
Hence, the MCAS: a test for students to measure what they're learning, how their learning, and what teachers and administrators can do to maintain their good status, and how to improve the bad status. We're not endorsing or damning the MCAS here - but we have some notions and understanding why (a) certain classes of people resent it, (b) why certain cities want it abolished, and (c) why MCAS won't be abolished any time soon.
First, Jon Keller gives an overview of the MCAS and its genesis: without accountability (which is the mother of benchmarks and standards), the quality of students' educations were as flimsy as tissue paper. Students got their diplomas, and when they began in their college work, even the straight "A" students struggled mightily to get a "D" or even a gentleman's "C". Those who didn't go to college went into the workforce, found jobs without a college degree lacking, and end up in menial, low-paying, dead-end jobs - or went unemployed for a long spell. The teachers who weren't wowing their students with self-indulgent, happy-pill pep-talks were regaling students with tall tales and guilt trips about American history and culture, and how to foment a neat little armed revolution. The remaining teachers were so deep into tenure they couldn't be fired, no matter how corrupt or incompetent they were, because the teacher's unions
had the administration by nose. The MCAS, in this instance, was the great leveler: take away all the cute little quirks that damaged the students education, and make them strive for excellence.
The richer school districts have students who are already striving for excellence: they're succeeding like crazy, and have excellent teachers who encourage their students to aim high but reach higher. The dark side - the richer districts are quite the snobs, as they would rather not compete or be lumped with students in poorer school districts, and the MCAS forces these students - who will do outstanding even outside the MCAS test - to be brought down from their lofty perches that none of the poorer school districts can ever hope to reach, crashing to Earth. This time, all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts must now prove that their students are competent and knowledgeable, and the richer school districts can't charm, protest, or buy their way out of it.
This leads us to why certain cities and towns want the MCAS abolished, and why these towns don't want anything to do with standardized testing. The teachers in the richer cities and towns must set aside their pet curricula to help students pass the MCAS test. This means for several weeks, students must learn the three Rs - boring subjects that don't involve indoctrination, conspiracy theories, Paul Bunyan-like retellings of American history, bashing politicians, soldiers and others like overeager gossip columnists, praising stifling ideologies and brutal leaders, or silenced people or discussions on how cowardice and submission to your enemy is more noble than fighting back. One anti-testing person from Brookline wrote several letters to the editor of the Boston Herald, demanding that Governor-elect Deval Patrick get rid of that pesky MCAS test once and for all. Governor Patrick liked the idea, and said, "hey, why be part of my Cabinet and we can get rid of it together?"
We hate to break her bubble, or dry the ink out of her pen, but eliminating testing or standards, either in the schools or in the workplace, is a sign of weakness and fear - and no flotilla of weasel words ("onerous, demoralizing, racist, damaging to students' self-esteem", as Jon Keller puts it) will hide that fact. Not making students and teachers accountable, letting them absorb whatever fairy tales the teachers can stitch together, and letting the administrators pocket the cash for junkets instead of textbooks and computers, has already proven to be a disaster. We recommend the movies Lean on Me and Stand and Deliver as examples - the former for what happens when standards are eliminated, and how a principal must bring order out of chaos, and the latter for what happens when a dedicated teacher discards traditional methods and makes students from the barrios of Los Angeles succeed in a kind of high stakes examination.
A great example of this are those who work on commission. Your company sets targets on what you must sell. If you sell a lot of things, you make much more commission on top of your base salary, take home a huge paycheck, and have opportunities for promotion. If you sell very little or nothing, your bosses will demand to know why, offer you help to get more commission, and if you're still not making their targets, you no longer have a job. Nothing spells humiliation like security guards escorting you out the door, final paltry paycheck and unemployment information in one hand and your box of belongings in another.
It's no different in the school system. If students learn and succeed, getting straight A's (and some with B's) and actually going beyond what they learn in school, they will get praise and four year scholarships. If the students don't care, getting F's and getting held back in certain classes, or getting held back entire grades, they will find themselves without skills, relegating them to permanent entry-level job status or intermittent unemployment...and by then, they'll have regretted not getting even C's in their classes.
Hence, the MCAS: a test for students to measure what they're learning, how their learning, and what teachers and administrators can do to maintain their good status, and how to improve the bad status. We're not endorsing or damning the MCAS here - but we have some notions and understanding why (a) certain classes of people resent it, (b) why certain cities want it abolished, and (c) why MCAS won't be abolished any time soon.
First, Jon Keller gives an overview of the MCAS and its genesis: without accountability (which is the mother of benchmarks and standards), the quality of students' educations were as flimsy as tissue paper. Students got their diplomas, and when they began in their college work, even the straight "A" students struggled mightily to get a "D" or even a gentleman's "C". Those who didn't go to college went into the workforce, found jobs without a college degree lacking, and end up in menial, low-paying, dead-end jobs - or went unemployed for a long spell. The teachers who weren't wowing their students with self-indulgent, happy-pill pep-talks were regaling students with tall tales and guilt trips about American history and culture, and how to foment a neat little armed revolution. The remaining teachers were so deep into tenure they couldn't be fired, no matter how corrupt or incompetent they were, because the teacher's unions
had the administration by nose. The MCAS, in this instance, was the great leveler: take away all the cute little quirks that damaged the students education, and make them strive for excellence.
The richer school districts have students who are already striving for excellence: they're succeeding like crazy, and have excellent teachers who encourage their students to aim high but reach higher. The dark side - the richer districts are quite the snobs, as they would rather not compete or be lumped with students in poorer school districts, and the MCAS forces these students - who will do outstanding even outside the MCAS test - to be brought down from their lofty perches that none of the poorer school districts can ever hope to reach, crashing to Earth. This time, all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts must now prove that their students are competent and knowledgeable, and the richer school districts can't charm, protest, or buy their way out of it.
This leads us to why certain cities and towns want the MCAS abolished, and why these towns don't want anything to do with standardized testing. The teachers in the richer cities and towns must set aside their pet curricula to help students pass the MCAS test. This means for several weeks, students must learn the three Rs - boring subjects that don't involve indoctrination, conspiracy theories, Paul Bunyan-like retellings of American history, bashing politicians, soldiers and others like overeager gossip columnists, praising stifling ideologies and brutal leaders, or silenced people or discussions on how cowardice and submission to your enemy is more noble than fighting back. One anti-testing person from Brookline wrote several letters to the editor of the Boston Herald, demanding that Governor-elect Deval Patrick get rid of that pesky MCAS test once and for all. Governor Patrick liked the idea, and said, "hey, why be part of my Cabinet and we can get rid of it together?"
We hate to break her bubble, or dry the ink out of her pen, but eliminating testing or standards, either in the schools or in the workplace, is a sign of weakness and fear - and no flotilla of weasel words ("onerous, demoralizing, racist, damaging to students' self-esteem", as Jon Keller puts it) will hide that fact. Not making students and teachers accountable, letting them absorb whatever fairy tales the teachers can stitch together, and letting the administrators pocket the cash for junkets instead of textbooks and computers, has already proven to be a disaster. We recommend the movies Lean on Me and Stand and Deliver as examples - the former for what happens when standards are eliminated, and how a principal must bring order out of chaos, and the latter for what happens when a dedicated teacher discards traditional methods and makes students from the barrios of Los Angeles succeed in a kind of high stakes examination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)