As I perused the newspaper today, a common hallmark of modern politics stood out to me. People often complain that Washington is constantly waffling around and not addressing the pressing issues that confront our country, and in the rare instances when someone grows a backbone we only get half solutions that don't solve the problem, if they don't make them worse. Why is this so? I personally would like to think that at least half of the politicians in Washington aren't womanizers and sociopaths, all though I might be a little too optimistic, and that they are really trying to do what they feel is best for the country.
The problem I believe is that our country as a whole has become so diverse and divided that effective compromise is unlikely. The founders foresaw this, and that is the purpose of a federal-style government, divided into state and national authorities. The original idea was that the national (Federal) government would assume control over issues that dealt with more than one state or the nation as a whole and that the state and local governments and the individuals would have control over all other issues. In our current mess, the Federal government has assumed authority over an ever-expanding list of "national" issues, usually using the excuse of the interstate commerce clause.
Due to this, states usually take a back seat to the Federal government and wait for them to solve problems. On the other hand, if states were expected to solve more of the problems, then the presumably less diverse individual states would be able to come up with more effective and comprehensive solutions to the various problems that face our country. Also, there would likely be a wide variety of solutions that each state would experiment with, and eventually each state could find a solution that met their needs, possibly from seeing what worked and didn't work in other states. That was another purpose of having separate state governmental entities. If each state could tackle problems like health care, immigration, medicaid and medicare, etc. it is likely that much more effective solutions would be reached.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Mediocrity
Earlier today I went over to the school and saw a 16 year old smoking on the back steps. I told him that he needed to get rid of it. He was a little defiant, but eventually complied. I told him he shouldn't smoke. He then excused his behavior in a way that has gotten me thinking, "It's hard not to when you don't have any parents." This particular student is being cared for by his aunt and uncle.
I thought it was sad that he had been taught to justify any bad behavior by his difficult circumstances. His circumstances are definitely more difficult than anything that I've experienced, and I'm sure he experiences grief that I don't understand. However, his justification was sad because he is allowing his difficulties to determine who he will become. Whoever first justified his actions and excused them because of his situation handicapped him. He isn't opening the door to the possibility of becoming more than the average person in his same situation. Why he is doing this, I will probably never know, but I think there's a lesson to be learned.
How often do I justify some bad behavior of my own because of my circumstances? "I was mad, but it was because of..." or "Sure I did that, but it wasn't as bad as what so and so did to me." We don't always have control over our circumstances. In fact, most of the time we probably don't have control. But, we can control our own responses to those. I think this is the hardest part of life. Adverse conditions don't justify misbehavior. That is why we are all guilty and have need for repentance. Otherwise, every one of us would be pure. If we could justify our bad behavior based on our situations, then that would imply that we have no power to rise above those situations or improve ourselves. How amazing it is to me that Heavenly Father prepared a way for us to not only rise above and improve ourselves, but to fully put off our past hurts, mistakes, and other baggage we carry that keeps us down. "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
We are not always as different from the malefactor as we may think. We may not always have the same struggles as another person, and we will probably never know what a person is going through. But then again, it's not our place to know or judge. Most likely, we are guilty of many of the same misdeeds. Mediocrity is not failing to become great, but failing to become greater than we started.
I thought it was sad that he had been taught to justify any bad behavior by his difficult circumstances. His circumstances are definitely more difficult than anything that I've experienced, and I'm sure he experiences grief that I don't understand. However, his justification was sad because he is allowing his difficulties to determine who he will become. Whoever first justified his actions and excused them because of his situation handicapped him. He isn't opening the door to the possibility of becoming more than the average person in his same situation. Why he is doing this, I will probably never know, but I think there's a lesson to be learned.
How often do I justify some bad behavior of my own because of my circumstances? "I was mad, but it was because of..." or "Sure I did that, but it wasn't as bad as what so and so did to me." We don't always have control over our circumstances. In fact, most of the time we probably don't have control. But, we can control our own responses to those. I think this is the hardest part of life. Adverse conditions don't justify misbehavior. That is why we are all guilty and have need for repentance. Otherwise, every one of us would be pure. If we could justify our bad behavior based on our situations, then that would imply that we have no power to rise above those situations or improve ourselves. How amazing it is to me that Heavenly Father prepared a way for us to not only rise above and improve ourselves, but to fully put off our past hurts, mistakes, and other baggage we carry that keeps us down. "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
We are not always as different from the malefactor as we may think. We may not always have the same struggles as another person, and we will probably never know what a person is going through. But then again, it's not our place to know or judge. Most likely, we are guilty of many of the same misdeeds. Mediocrity is not failing to become great, but failing to become greater than we started.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Healing Power of Music
Yesterday, my sister-in-law posted a blog about not being apologetic about who we are in our clothes we wear, movies we watch and music we listen to. Towards the beginning, she mentioned how several people had mentioned that classical music helps them to invite the Spirit. Yesterday, I made a similar re-discovery with myself.
In the hustle and bustle of life, I haven't turned on music to work to or just listen to in a long time. That's not to say I didn't often have a song that I was humming, whistling, or singing, as my co-workers and students could attest.
Over the past week and a half, though, I've been trying to get over a cold. It's been worse than most that I get, and I've been feeling a little rotten. Two days ago I showed my students a site that has a lot of non-copyrighted music for sound tracks, etc. We're making movies in Geography. In the process, I was re-introduced to classical music. I downloaded several tracks and began listening to them, and I have felt SO much better. It's probably partly me just getting over my cold, but psychologically I feel a lot more alive.
In the hustle and bustle of life, I haven't turned on music to work to or just listen to in a long time. That's not to say I didn't often have a song that I was humming, whistling, or singing, as my co-workers and students could attest.
Over the past week and a half, though, I've been trying to get over a cold. It's been worse than most that I get, and I've been feeling a little rotten. Two days ago I showed my students a site that has a lot of non-copyrighted music for sound tracks, etc. We're making movies in Geography. In the process, I was re-introduced to classical music. I downloaded several tracks and began listening to them, and I have felt SO much better. It's probably partly me just getting over my cold, but psychologically I feel a lot more alive.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Change for Change's Sake
Recently at my school, many of the teachers have expressed a desire to change systems and other things because of a sense of burn-out and futility. For the first concern, it's been a pretty rough year for our school on a lot of different levels, so of course teachers are ready for a break
The second concern was that students didn't do very well on a set of testing we recently did. In fact, scores dropped drastically from the fall. I demonstrated that a variety of factors made most of the test results invalid in a recent meeting, especially when compared with two other forms of testing that we do at the school. Even so, a couple of the teachers said that changing lots of things is good because, "Change is good."
Now, I will be the first to advocate fixing things if they need to be fixed, but haphazardly changing things for the sake of changing things doesn't always help and can often times do more harm than good. For my students, what I'm doing right now is apparently helping because according to most tests that I've done, they've generally all made drastic improvements. While making changes on a school-wide basis may help, what if they don't? I would much rather leave well-enough alone.
This experience has led me to reflect on the state our country is in, and has been in for the last 130+ years. There is, and has been, a faction in the populous calling for nearly indiscriminate change. Granted, each person in the faction has generally had their own pet change they wished to see, but any change was good and they supported it. This can be seen in the many demands of the Populist Party, the grasping at whatever change the progressives could get in the turn of the last century , and the shotgun approach of the New Deal. We witnessed the same desire for any change again during the last election, as just over half of the electorate voted for "Hope and Change."
Now most of us are asking ourselves, "Is there any hope in change?" Change is good, when there is an isolated problem, stated goals, and definite ways to measure progress while minimizing collateral damage. We've had none of this in the "stimulus," "Obamacare," or any other change this administration has put forward.
I don't know if this was coherent. It was just something I had been reflecting on recently.
The second concern was that students didn't do very well on a set of testing we recently did. In fact, scores dropped drastically from the fall. I demonstrated that a variety of factors made most of the test results invalid in a recent meeting, especially when compared with two other forms of testing that we do at the school. Even so, a couple of the teachers said that changing lots of things is good because, "Change is good."
Now, I will be the first to advocate fixing things if they need to be fixed, but haphazardly changing things for the sake of changing things doesn't always help and can often times do more harm than good. For my students, what I'm doing right now is apparently helping because according to most tests that I've done, they've generally all made drastic improvements. While making changes on a school-wide basis may help, what if they don't? I would much rather leave well-enough alone.
This experience has led me to reflect on the state our country is in, and has been in for the last 130+ years. There is, and has been, a faction in the populous calling for nearly indiscriminate change. Granted, each person in the faction has generally had their own pet change they wished to see, but any change was good and they supported it. This can be seen in the many demands of the Populist Party, the grasping at whatever change the progressives could get in the turn of the last century , and the shotgun approach of the New Deal. We witnessed the same desire for any change again during the last election, as just over half of the electorate voted for "Hope and Change."
Now most of us are asking ourselves, "Is there any hope in change?" Change is good, when there is an isolated problem, stated goals, and definite ways to measure progress while minimizing collateral damage. We've had none of this in the "stimulus," "Obamacare," or any other change this administration has put forward.
I don't know if this was coherent. It was just something I had been reflecting on recently.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
On Fixing American Education
Over the last couple of years of teaching, I've noticed some things about the current educational paradigm that might be changed to improve overall outcomes. I am by no means an expert, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion, right?
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Alaska Senate Race: Miller v. Murkowski
I know that there's a Democrat in this race as well, but the chances of him winning aren't good, even if all of the Republican votes are split up between these two.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Faith v. Works
I've been thinking about the debate of what brings salvation, faith or works. While personally feeling it is a false dichotomy, I decided to do a little bit of looking into it. I found the following:
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)