Respect

I'm going to start this off with a disclaimer: this isn't directed at any one specific person.  As is the case for just about anything I blog about, there have been several instances with a variety of people in these regards; recent occurrences were simply the most recent events, so I decided to blog about the general theme behind them, but not a specific incident.  I guess they could be considered the "straws that broke the camel's back" or just the most recent "incidents".

Facebook and social networking in general have been remarkable inventions in the last few years that have really revolutionized how we interact with each other and even how we express ourselves.  With very simple acts, we can share opinions, news, memories, etc. with all sorts of connections in our lives, some very close connections and some not-so-close.  But with that ease of communication comes the ease of passing less-than-accurate and sometimes mean-spirited information along too.  I've often said that this could easily be called the "Mis-information Age" as much as it can be called the "Information Age".  But it could be called the "Disrespect Age" too.

Everyone has their personal beliefs and preferences.  I get that and respect it.  I have tons of friends who do not share my political, ideological, and/or religious beliefs.  Even with that I'm still friends because we share the same basic values even if we don't have the same beliefs anywhere else.  Growing up in Kent, I was very much the ideological minority as a conservative and as a Latter-day Saint, so it's natural I made friends with many people who see the world in very different ways than I do.  That is not a problem.  I don't mind at all when we have disagreements or even spirited discussions, but I'm always somewhat surprised and disappointed when I see friends via Facebook expressing their views in such a way that it insults someone else's views.  I'm glad I know lots of people with different viewpoints and experiences because it helps me understand them better and not be so quick to lump those that disagree with me on various issues into the "us and them" categories.  I can put actual faces with the various viewpoints and I've found it's much easier to be respectful and patient that way in disagreements.  It also helps me know when to break off an argument and "agree to disagree". 

Now, I'll be the first to say that as a collective society we are offended way too easily.  Brigham Young, likely quoting Confucius, said "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."  So to clarify, when I see something that comes across as deliberately insulting or demeaning, it's not so much that I no longer wish to be associated with the person (unless it's directed solely at me) or that I'm offended so much as I'm disappointed.  Usually it's in the form of sharing an article or a status that has some type of commentary about a group, movement, idea, or belief system that is done in a way to not only show disagreement, but outright disdain.  I always wonder if they realize that they have friends who actually believe that way and with good reason or if they really care.  Sometimes we get that way in actual conversation; you know how you think those around you share the same beliefs so you let your guard down and say things (usually generalizations) about something and then realize that person is part of that. Most of us are horrified and want to apologize for making that person uncomfortable or offended in some way.  Does being sorry for doing that mean you now agree with that person's views?  Hardly.  It just means you realize that disagreeing doesn't have to be so negative and that some things (like a relationship) are more important than expressing our opinion.

One of the biggest downsides of electronic communication versus live communication is that it's much easier to say things online behind our computer screens that would we'd think twice about in person.  Would we be so quick to bash Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party members, Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Mormons, Catholics, or whoever in person if we knew someone was in the room (especially if we were speaking to a friend who was one) the way so many do online?  I doubt it.  I'm not really sure why we feel that sensitivity, good manners, and simple politeness don't apply online, but far too many people clearly believe that.  It's to the point with some of my friends that I just filter out their updates.  I still want to be connected to them and touch base when I can, but not see their angry, demeaning, or otherwise insulting commentary on a regular basis.  And no, it's not simply a case of seeing stuff I disagree with; it's a matter of it being presented in a condescending or otherwise insulting way.

I try very hard to present my views without insulting or belittling those who disagree or share the opposing viewpoint, by making it sound like those who disagree with me are merely stubborn or less educated.  I also always include logical reasons for why I believe as I do, not just spouting baseless opinions.  I'm obviously not perfect and have definitely been guilty of getting caught up in the emotion, but I am usually very careful about that. Those of you who know me know that I take it seriously. It IS possible to do all of that.  You CAN even show that you disagree or don't like something without having it come across as insulting to someone who holds the opposite view.  And no, I don't mean we need to "play nice" and pretend we like something we don't or never have an opinion, even a strong opinion.  It's a matter of HOW we express our opinions not that we have them.  That's why I have generally stayed away from saying much of anything political lately on Facebook either as a status update or post or even commenting on others' posts (I will occasionally).   It just surprises me that people would say some of the things they do on Facebook or any type of social media and not care how it may be perceived.  I highly doubt any of them would ever say that in person to anyone, especially someone they consider a friend. And really, how effective is it when you are told you're "less educated" or "narrow minded", etc?  Does it really make you want to listen to that person?  How "educated" or "tolerant" are they if they cannot even express their views without insulting and belittling those that disagree?

It disappoints me the most when I see members of the church using the same mentality on other groups they disagree with or have a bad opinion of that anti-Mormons use in that they speak badly about the church and its doctrine without ever bothering to attend a meeting, discuss it with an actual member, or make any real attempt to understand it.  They go on "what they've read" or "what they've heard." Again, doing any of those things doesn't necessarily mean that you'll agree with whatever group you have a negative impression, but it does mean you'll have a far more realistic and fuller view of them, what they believe, and why.  It just seems like many people behave in such a manner that they believe if you aren't completely hostile to the opposing viewpoint, you will be considered sympathetic to that view.  Yes, it IS possible to be respectful without agreeing in any way with the opposition.  Why is respectful and civil discourse so seemingly difficult?

Safe Spaces

I'm pretty sure I have subbed at Roosevelt for the last time this school year, unless something comes up tomorrow or next week. It's unlikely for next week since they only have three days of school and most of those days are exams. One of the things I noticed subbing there were these little stickers on many of the classroom doors that said "Safe Space". They are from the website GLSEN.org and are to mark the room as a "safe space" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students (LGBT). Being in a fairly liberal town like Kent I wasn't surprised at all to see them there, though they got me thinking about the whole concept.

As an educator, one of the things I remember having drilled into my head on many occasions was the idea of creating a safe environment in the classroom. Basically, every student should feel safe and comfortable in your classroom if you're doing things correctly. So seeing these stickers on so many doors definitely had me thinking "shouldn't they already be safe spaces for LGBT students as well as any other students at Roosevelt?" The answer is of course a resounding YES. I certainly don't have a problem with LGBT students feeling safe at school. No one should have fear going into a school or a specific classroom; fear of the teacher or the fellow students. Bullying is still too much of a problem at any school, Roosevelt included, because so much of it happens outside the view of teachers and administrators. Sadly, from my own experience in school, even bullying and similar actions that actually do occur in view of teachers is often ignored which, of course, simply perpetuates the problem. It is irrelevant why the bullying or harassment is taking place. Whether it be because of the student's sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation), their looks, their religion and/or ideology, or any other reason, it's all the same in terms of promoting an unsafe and negative environment for students. It's one thing to state that bullying and harassment aren't tolerated; it's an entirely different thing to actually enforce that rule and stop them in their tracks when they are witnessed firsthand.

Seeing these also got me thinking about the whole "gay rights" movement in general and their claims of fighting for equality. In reality, it's not so much about equality for everyone, but just for their specific group. The website that promotes and sells these stickers and other related materials is pretty specific that these are to specifically help promote safe spaces and environments for LGBT students first and foremost. Again, I'm not opposed to safe environments for any student, but why do these students need extra special attention? There are all sorts of "minorities" in a given school. I'd be willing to bet that everyone is part of some sort of minority whether it be racial, ethnic, ideological, religious, etc with some being part of more than one. To put in in perspective, as a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) I was one of just 10 students out of around 1,400 at Roosevelt High School my senior year. This year there were just 4 LDS students in the entire school. There were a lot of bizarre ideas and misconceptions about what I believed and while I never experienced any direct persecution because of my religion, I did, at times, feel uncomfortable expressing what would be considered more conservative viewpoints in a discussion. I would not be supportive if the school decided to make Mormon "Safe Spaces" like this because it would only further separate members of the church from the rest of the student body and perpetuate the "us and them" mentality. That's what I see here. In our eagerness to protect a group of our students--by all means a good thing--we are in fact separating them and potentially creating more resentment towards them. What about the 12% of the school that is black? Or the even smaller percentage of other races and ethnicities? And it bears mention...would we be so quick to bring the hammer down on name-calling and persecution towards those with conservative and/or religious beliefs? So much of the campaign against Proposition 8 in California claimed to be against the "hate" it was promoting, but one of the biggest ways too many groups "fought" this "hate" was by using hate back in the form of insults, slanders, generalizations, and even violence and property damage. Using hate to fight hate doesn't solve anything and makes the alleged victim as much a perpetrator and guilty as the people they are fighting. When you use fire to right fire, everyone gets burned.

So, if/when I have my own classroom, will I have this sticker on my door? I think the answer is pretty obvious: NO. My reasoning is that it would be inaccurate; not because my classroom would be unsafe for LGBT students, but more because it would be a "safe space" for all students including them. Do I think Roosevelt teachers are favoring LGBT students? No not really. In all honesty I don't think many have even looked at it from this angle. They see it as something good (and it is) and want to show support for diversity and tolerance but fail to see the hidden and unintended messages such a promotion sends to other groups or individuals who are also subject to persecution and harassment. In the end, every classroom needs to be a safe space for every student. And if you truly are for equal rights and equal treatment, make sure that applies to all races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, etc. and not just certain ones; even ones you may completely disagree with! If you're just for the improved treatment of a specific group, say it! Don't make it out to be all inclusive if it isn't.

Kent State and May 4

Growing up in Kent, the events of May 4, 1970 are never far from most people's minds here. If you're not familiar with those events, they are commonly referred to as the Kent State shootings or Kent State Massacre. Basically, 13 students were shot by members of the Ohio National Guard on the campus of Kent State University on May 4, 1970. 4 of those students died. Anyone who was around at that time or has been here long enough to know the story has an opinion, usually strong, about what happened and why and who is to blame. I'd say we have quite a few of the extremes here. On the far right you have those who believed the National Guard was not only completely justified in firing but "should've killed em [students/protesters] all." On the far left you have those who firmly believe the shootings were very deliberate and planned by the Government to suppress opposition to the Vietnam War. Every May 4, particularly years like this where it's an anniversary ending in 0 or 5 (this year was the 40th anniversary), the debate continues in force. It's hardly absent during the rest of the year, but it especially visible around this time of year. 2010 was no different.

Being raised in Kent I've heard quite a few stories from many different angles. Both sides of my family were living in Kent at the time, so they remember it from the townspeople perspective. Many of my teachers in the Kent Schools were students at Kent State at the time, so I've heard their perspective as well. On top of that I've read many of the published accounts and have heard a number of speakers including Alan Canfora, one of the students who was shot. He is the director of the new May 4 Visitors Center on campus and has made a living not just lecturing on the shootings, but making sure they don't become simply an historical event. He is largely responsible for keeping them in the headlines even 40 years later.

Personally, from my ideological perspective and from my study of history I think the reality of what and why is somewhere in between the two extremes, which is of course true for most issues that have very different views: the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. For the Kent State shootings I definitely feel a ton of mistakes were made on all sides and that the end result was from a "perfect storm" of mistakes and instances where emotion trumped logic. In the end, I don't think anyone deserved to die as a result, but at the same time I also don't think the deaths were purely intentional or desired on the part of the local, state, and federal governments or the National Guard. I don't buy the government conspiracy theory because I have not seen or heard any valid motive for the government to kill college students. Even the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a plausible motive for the conspiracy (an excuse to go to war), even though I think it's out in left field. I have yet to hear what the motive for shooting 13 college students at a virtually unknown college campus was. If it was a conspiracy, it was a pretty horrible and lame one. If the alleged motive for the shootings was suppressing dissent, why stop at 13 with 4 dead at one college campus? Why go after college students and not specifically target Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) or the Black Panthers? The same could be said for simply inciting fear to bring people in line. Had the shootings been one of a wide range of similar incidents, that would've been one thing, but it was for the most part isolated. Historically, it appears much more as a result of the incredibly high emotions running in the late 1960s than any coordinated government conspiracy to eliminate or damage dissent or the radical groups operating at the time like SDS. In order for a conspiracy theory to even get off the ground, it needs a valid motive. As of now, the Kent State shootings doesn't fit the possible motives I can think of very well at all.

I certainly do not have a problem with commemorating the events on a yearly basis as a memorial. The families of those killed are still around and still live with that loss. I know the sister of one of the victims and I know from my own experience with the loss of a loved one that missing someone never truly goes away even if we get used to them being gone. That said, what bothers me about May 4 is too often it becomes much more of a political rally with a specific left-wing agenda and far less a memorial service, which is why I tend to avoid campus on May 4. I feel the real lessons of May 4 are the dangers of letting emotion overrule logic and fairness. If the students and protesters had shown some restraint in their anger leading up the shootings, the Guard--who were the same ages as the students and already fatigued from addressing a violent strike just before this--would've never been called to Kent in the first place. Even immediately after the shootings, some students/protesters were so enraged they were ready to rush the Guard. Thanks to the pleadings of some professors, this was prevented otherwise many more would've likely been injured or killed and the Guard would've clearly been justified in firing out of self defense.

We still cannot say for certain WHY the Guard fired. A recording was recently released which experts claim has orders for the Guard to prepare to fire. There is no audible order to fire prior to the Guard actually firing and the recording opens more questions to me than it answers. Not only are the "orders" in a non-military standard form (the Guard uses military orders) and the recording does not let us know who is saying them, but there are other gunshots heard that are clearly not the gunshots of the rifles used by the Guard, though they could be gunshots from pistols Guard members were known to have. But hearing from Alan Canfora, you'd believe we have solved the "mystery" of why and can now fully apply the conspiracy label to the shootings. No Guard members present that day have ever stated there was an order to fire. Call it what you want, but after 40 years I hardly think any of them are simply saying that to protect anyone anymore. The commanders are all most likely dead by now and Guard members were already cleared of any charges at the Federal and Civil trials. But even then, he wants to open a new investigation to find out who gave these "orders". I'm not opposed to finding the truth, but I have a hard time believing a recording that audio experts could barely discern the "orders" from will help us know who said them. I mean, really, unless some secret memo is uncovered from James Rhodes or other government official telling the Guard to go in and kill students, there will ALWAYS be questions about conspiracy, motive, and just an emotion-driven accident.

Shutterfly book

Yeah, I'm still unhappy about the passage of the healthcare bill and have little hope the lawsuits filed by several states will do much to stop it, but right now I'd just like to focus on something else. I could go on all day about the bill and the reactions it's been getting, not to mention the unbridled (and unrealistic) idealism that seems to be returning again just like when Obama was first elected and the whole "big brother" mentality that's running rampant. People really think a government bureaucracy will be friendlier, fairer, and more efficient than bureaucracy from insurance companies. Again, based on what?!? Sigh. If the mandate forcing people to get insurance wasn't there, I don't think I'd be so vehement about it. If it was the same bill minus the mandate I'd probably look at like I see the "stimulus": action that helps some people but is largely a waste of money that does little to actually solve the problems it was designed to. It crossed the line when it forced me and those like me to buy a product from a private company. This is NOT the same as the draft (which is not all the time anyway) or even paying taxes, which some have already compared it to. Never before has the federal government forced the entire country to buy a product from a private company in the name of "universal coverage". As another blogger pointed out, it's like eliminating poverty by making a law requiring poor people to make money.

On to happier things! Last Friday I received my latest creation, a book from the photo service Shutterfly. My sister Becky had recently opened an account on Shutterfly (my cousin Lindsay had also done the same thing a short time earlier), so I checked out her albums and saw that not only could I store all of my photos on Shutterfly for FREE but they also had several product choices for using photos. Being able to publish photos in a book really caught my eye. My brother and sister-in-law had their wedding album made into an actual published book and I really liked it. The book I made is a little history book of Kent using mostly pictures that I've taken over the past year, plus a few from my grandpa Derby, and two from a Wikipedia user (whom I only know as "Pacificboyksu") who posted them online in the public domain. I made the book for my sister Becky and brother-in-law David as a birthday present to have a little reminder of home (well, mostly Becky but David has some connections to Kent too!) to share with their friends in Utah. I was a little worried how it would turn out given my camera. Not that it takes bad pictures, but it doesn't exactly take the best pictures either being a basic point-and-shoot camera. Well, let me tell you I was TOTALLY happy how it turned out. The pictures look WAY better in print than they did on the computer! The only problems were from my typing the text portions: there are some grammatical errors. The wizard to make the book has a spell-check, but it just says there "may" be spelling errors, so any word it doesn't recognize is counted in that. There are tons of background, text, photo border, and layout choices, so you can be really creative and make it pretty personal. About the only thing I didn't like was the inflexibility of the text boxes. You can't adjust how big they are, so your only options are to try a different layout, lower the font size, or trim the actual text. I wish I could've just adjusted the size of the box; it would've made things a lot easier.

Oh, in case you're wondering, I DID let Becky know I was going to blog about--and thus spoil--her and David's birthday present which I will bring with me when I visit in LESS THAN TWO WEEKS!!!! I also let her know about the grammatical errors since she has a degree in English and WILL notice them!

Why I am opposed to ObamaCare

I am surprised how charged up I am about this issue. It seems to be hitting me from so many angles and I've really been thinking about it a lot the past few days. Of course that's not hard to figure out why since it's been the main news all week, but still, I've been thinking really hard and really digging deep in understanding not only what I think about this, but why and if my reasons are justified.

On Wednesday I was subbing at Roosevelt for the AP US History teacher, a teacher I have really enjoyed subbing for this school year. He's a good guy, leaves a decent amount of work for the students, and he teaches all the Advanced Placement classes and a service-oriented class called Riders Taking Action. In other words, I have many of the most motivated students in the school. It makes for a pretty comfortable day for me. On top of that, this week was the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) so there was a delayed start in school and all the periods were 25 or 30 minutes long each. Anyway, the main thing the Riders Taking Action class did was watch the movie Sicko. I wasn't familiar with it at first, but all it took was about 5 minutes of watching it before I remembered what it was-- a Michael Moore "documentary" (and I use that term loosely). I was watching it with the students just because it was there, but the more I watched it the more I was like "what is this garbage?!?" So, instead of watching, I looked up Sicko on the Internet; I looked up a synopsis and I looked up the criticisms of it. Of course there was tons of praise for it from the left and tons of criticism from the right. It was hardly a documentary in telling a story; it was far closer to propaganda in my opinion than a documentary as it was clearly slanted. I've always thought of documentaries as being more neutral and letting the viewer make their own decision. There was also a book on the teacher's desk that basically sang the praises of socialized medicine in the UK, France, Japan, and Canada. I didn't have time to read it, but did have time to glance at the summary. Since I'm only in this class once every few weeks, the last thing I want to do is accuse anyone of promoting a viewpoint or giving a slanted view. That's not my point. For all I know I came in while one viewpoint was being presented and the other side will follow soon (at least I hope!). I'll have a whole other blog post on the importance of having a balanced view in school. No, that just caused me to really start thinking about my opposition to the current reform being debated (which I, like many others, refer to as ObamaCare). Why am I opposed to it and to government-run healthcare in general? Is it just because it's the "other side" and I don't want them to succeed? Or is it really not a good thing that I have rational reasons for not supporting?

I was really thinking about this a lot the rest of this week, particularly yesterday as it seems like the votes are there and the Democrats will use a voting technique to avoid a plurality and get this signed ASAP. These are the reasons I came up with as to why this isn't a good idea:

1. The biggest problem I have is the requirement for people without insurance to get insurance or pay a fine as this will directly affect me. My current job situation has me only working part-time with no benefits. What I get paid depends on how much I'm needed, so it fluctuates greatly. I barely make enough to get by with the help of my family and now, should this pass, I will be expected to buy something I cannot afford or pay a fine. And not just me, but anyone who works part-time with no benefits will be in the same boat. And government subsidies? Even if there is a subsidy that pays for ALL my insurance (which I highly doubt) we can be certain in order to qualify for it, we will need to go through mountains of paperwork to "prove" how poor we are. Having had to do that already for other expenses, I can tell you it's degrading and time consuming. In the end, I fail to see the constitutionality of forcing private citizens to buy something from a private company.

2. Next, in forcing me to buy health insurance, not only is the government telling me WHEN to buy it, but it will also tell me from whom I can buy it. So, another government bureaucracy is going to have access to my personal health information and is somehow going to magically know what insurance company I am allowed to buy coverage from. Unbelievable. Once again, the "Progressive" movement's "we know best" rears its ugly head. This goes right along with my "Brother's Keeper" post from Wednesday. It is incredibly arrogant and agency-robbing.

3. I have yet to see a large government agency actually operate with great efficiency, in budget, smoothly, while also reducing costs to those it serves yet somehow I'm supposed to believe it will be able to improve on the problems we have with insurance companies. Sorry, the track record speaks otherwise. Not only have government agencies like the Post Office been hemorrhaging money for a long time, but it was recently announced Social Security will hand out more in payments than it receives in income this year. In other words, it's broke. I even had a well-meaning friend use libraries and the military as examples of good government-run programs. Libraries aren't mainly federal responsibilities; they are mostly funded at the local and state levels, much like schools (many here are attached to a local school district). The military, as much as I appreciate and support it, is hardly an example of fiscal responsibility or efficiency. It's funny and ironic any liberal would use the military as a reason to support government healthcare given their near constant criticism of and attempts to undermine its missions. Anyone remember Walter Reed Hospital?!? Let's not forget two much smaller programs the government ran recently to "help" people out: Cash for Clunkers and the Foreclosure Relief Plan. Not only did both largely fail to actually do much of anything they were planned to do, but they were marred by endless paperwork and confusion not to mention lots more imaginary money spent. If we're going to spend close to a TRILLION dollars on something, shouldn't it be a significant improvement over what we have?? Or have we become numb to how much money a trillion dollars actually is? And again...the government demonstrated its inabilies and shortcomings in big ways with relatively (compared to ObamaCare) small programs and we want to give them MORE say in our healthcare?!? Stay the heck away from my health decisions please!

4. Another thing that bothers me is more policy and incredibly long-reaching decisions being made about healthcare by politicians almost exclusively without the input of physicians. This is not only smart for the public (what right do most politicians have in making medical-related decisions) but also for physicians. It's going to affect their careers too, careers they have invested an enormous amount of time and money in. I see the same thing in education. Many of the main problems in education come from the fact that many of the policies and guidelines (particularly from the federal and state levels) are made not by educational professionals, but by politicians. Thus, many of the standards and ideas are unrealistic when actually put into practice in a classroom. On top of that, the measurements used to see how effective a school is are hardly comprehensive and often tell only a small part of the story and then improper judgments are made about a teacher, school, and or community based on only a partial picture. I see the same thing happening with healthcare. Major decisions will be made not by doctors, but by politicians. While the bill promises not to deny anyone coverage because of a pre-existing condition, that does not mean all claims will be filled. This story is a great example of that out of Canada where someone covered under the Canadian healthcare system was denied a claim for a specific (and expensive) drug because it wasn't on the "approved" list for that ailment. And before you say, "Oh that's just an isolated case" just remember this: because it happened ONCE it can happen again and has probably happened before. Not only that, but what if YOU or a loved on were that ONE "isolated case" that puts you between death and bankruptcy? We want politicians and bureaucrats to have a bigger say in our healthcare? I thought that was the big complaint about the "Big Insurance" companies?

5. As several "fence-sitting" Democrats have changed to "yes" it's become clear they are more concerned with the success of their party more than whether or not this is an actual improvement. Democrat Dennis Kucinich, long an embarrassment for Ohio (yet his district continues to elect him!), even cited Obama's "legacy as President" as a reason to vote yes even though the bill is "flawed". I'm sorry, NO president's so-called "legacy" is worth this. Congress was elected to work for the people, not to help build Obama's "legacy." WOW

Yesterday, I really was feeling more and more like those in the same situation I am with part-time work but no pressing medical problems are being thrown under the bus for the sake of helping other people without insurance. It seems whenever the "little guy" says to liberals (who, of course, claim to be helping the "little guy") "hey stop helping. You're screwing me" The liberals say back, "I'm sorry you have to suffer, but look at all the people that will be helped. We know better, so just be quiet and listen." Well guess what, I'm one of the "little guys" here and this will totally screw me and anyone like me. Something this large and drastic shouldn't sacrifice one group for the benefit of the other as that is really nothing different than what we already have. ObamaCare doesn't even guarantee that it will cover everyone who is uninsured. Will it help some people? Sure it will, especially those who can't get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. But as I said, it will not only cost people like me even more money that I really can't afford, but everyone else as well in taxes. As people have less money to spend, think of what that will do to the economy, in particular non-essential things like entertainment. If people who support this really do think this is part of the "much needed" first step, why does it have to cost so much? Why can't the first step be more in terms of policy and less in spending MORE money we don't have? Why does this first step have to be drastic and admittedly flawed? Why does it have to pass NOW even though most benefits for adults won't even kick in for up to FOUR YEARS? I'm not opposed to reform; changes need to be made so that everyone has access to quality healthcare. This, however, is not the answer to the problem. Throwing one group under the bus for another is not a solution, it's just a relocation of the problem. The most recent poll released yesterday finds 80% of Americans disapprove of Congress, yet onward they push with this bill. Again, the old arrogant liberal ideology "we know better" is in full force along with cries the pubic is "being misled". The public is not, of course, being misled when polls find Americans opposed to things liberals hate like the Iraq war. Then what the public wants, according to polls, is what Democrats want and they need to reflect the will of the people. Well, the people are speaking again Obama, Pelosi, Reid, & Co. Are you listening? Or do you only listen when what the public wants matches what you want?

Silver lining

I was saddened as a fan of history to find out the Arvin Olin house was torn down yesterday by the city of Akron. The Arvin Olin house was built in 1834-1835 an was a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It was located at the corner of Ravenna Road and Diagonal Road in Franklin Township just north of Kent. It had been included on the NRHP in 1995 mostly because of its age and as a rare example of the late Federal style of architecture it was. Even when nominated in 1995 it was already not being used, so that's pretty much the state it's been in since then so you can imagine what kind of shape the house was in. I took pictures of the exterior last May to include on Wikipedia and there were already places where bricks had fallen off. It was a sad sight to see then, so the demolition doesn't surprise me.

I first even noticed the house probably in 2005 or 2006 while I was working at Geauga Lake. I drove past it going to and from Aurora as Ravenna Road makes an excellent bypass around the northeast side of Kent. I'm not sure when I first really started liking the 1830s style for a house, but I really liked what I saw the first time I saw the Olin house and always hoped it would get restored or would last until I could do it myself. I actually didn't know it was on the National Register of Historic Places until recently, probably last year. I'm glad I had the time to get some pictures of it last year!

Of course the question comes up that since it is in Franklin Township, why did the city of Akron own it? Well, just a few thousand feet down Ravenna Road is the Akron Water Treatment plant and Lake Rockwell, so Akron acquired the land under the reasoning of protecting the water supply. According to the Record-Courier article, they bought it in 1990 and briefly used it to house employees of the plant. The article makes it sound like Akron really tried their best to save the structure by working with the Kent Historical Society and a descendant of Arvin Olin, but I'm pretty skeptical. Moving the house was pretty much out of the question as it was made almost completely of brick, so it weighs a lot more than a typical house. Because it had been abandoned for so long (at least 15 years, probably much longer) it was deteriorating more and more. If Akron really cared, why did they buy it in the first place? Does having someone living there really pose a threat to the water supply? Why invest money in a property like that if you don't intend to remove the house? This is just the latest example of Akron owning waaaaay too much land here. Akron owns all of the land around Lakes Rockwell and Pippen-- not just immediately around the lakes but a significant distance away from them-- so I'd estimate it owns close to 1/4 of Franklin Township. Not only does Akron prohibit any kind of recreation on Lake Rockwell, but they also restrict any use of Lake Pippen even though it is not used as part of the water supply and is actually completely separate from Lake Rockwell. That's on top of the land prevented from any kind of development due to it being near the water supply or occupied by Lake Rockwell, a man-made reservoir built in 1912. What a way for one city to control and limit the development of another. And Akron's not alone in Franklin Township; both Kent and Stow also own land and have their respective wells in the township. Thus, Franklin Township supplies water for three different cities on top of the residents who all have wells of their own.

The silver lining for me was getting a call yesterday from Roger Di Paolo, the editor of the local Record-Courier newspaper asking if he could use a picture I had uploaded last May of the house. Of course I said yes since that's why I took and uploaded them to the Wikimedia Commons (a sister project of Wikipedia) in the first place. In doing that, I gave them a Creative Commons-Attribute license meaning people are free to use the photo for anything, but just give credit to me as the author. Below is the front page and the continuation that I pasted together from the PDF. You can see my credit just below the lower picture on the right.

Big news for Kent!

First, if any of you have been watching my blog and noticed some random posts coming up and then disappearing, it's because I was moving all my old posts from my old MySpace blog to here and would occasionally forget to put the original date in. I was doing it to create a book of all my blog posts and couldn't find a place that would make a book using MySpace blogs; only Blogger, WordPress, or the other major blogging sites. I had to hide some of my first posts at this site to create the book of just my MySpace posts (as they briefly overlap) but now everything is done. It was fun to re-read all my old posts and realize I've been blogging now to some degree for almost 4 years!

Anyway, Kent got some big news Wednesday that I was very happy to find out about! The Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority (PARTA) was awarded a $20 million grant for construction of the Kent Central Gateway, better known as the "multi-modal facility" I blogged about way back in April 2008 and an idea that has been around for close to 10 years. If you do check that blog post, the facility proposed at that time was considerably larger than the one that was finally approved yesterday. This new facility will only take up about 1/3 the footprint that the initial design had and will occupy land along the north side of East Erie Street between South DePeyster Street and Haymaker Parkway. It will not involve properties along East Main Street.

Any time a large grant is received for something like this it's big news, but especially so here in Kent which has seen so many "plans" for downtown development come and go with no results over the past few decades. Of all the grants handed out, Ohio as a state only got $50 million and $20 million of that was to Kent, so this has already drawn some comparisons to Kent winning the state normal school in 1910 (which became Kent State University) in terms of surprising and landscape-changing events. Obviously a structure like this will change the look of part of downtown, but the biggest reason for excitement is the fact that this project promises to be a linchpin for even more development which, if it all actually happens, will affect most of the southeastern quadrant of downtown bordered by Haymaker Parkway, East Main, and South Water Streets. At long last, we know one of the major projects WILL happen after so many have amounted to nothing and downtown has continued to struggle. With the recent completion of the Phoenix Project last year and now this, it finally seems like downtown is turning a corner from the doldrums that it has seemingly been in since the 1970s.

As I've read the various articles online about this news and the accompanying comments, there are some major misunderstandings and false ideas out there. The most surprising are comments that basically lead me to believe the reader thinks this grant has been won to establish a bus system in Kent through this new facility. PARTA was established in 1975 and has been steadily growing the last decade, so it is hardly anything new. This facility is merely centralizing the already existing bus system, similar to what most transit systems already have. Along those lines, many commentators have wondered about the "multi-modal" moniker that is commonly used to describe the facility. It is "multi-modal" because it will provide a center for four forms of transportation: bus, car, bike, and walking. Bus transportation is obviously the biggest reason for the center, but it will also have a parking deck, which is a huge reason behind it being a "linchpin" for other downtown development as parking has long been a problem there. It will also be a stop on the Portage Hike and Bike Trail, so people can park their car and/or their bike there to access the trail. In addition to the regular local PARTA lines that will use it, PARTA will also operate their Cleveland and Akron express routes from the building and there are at least hopes to someday have a Greyhound stop there. On top of that it will have commercial space, so not only will there be additional activity besides bus traffic, but tax revenue-generating activity as well so this building is far more than just a glorified bus shelter.


One concern, though, I've thought a lot about is the fact the funding comes from the controversial "stimulus" bill, which I have hardly been short on criticism for. I think here, this could actually be a case where the funds stimulate a local economy by creating a structure which not only improves transportation, but spurs other development. So much of the "stimulus" has been to projects that improve something, but do little to stimulate actual economic growth beyond temporary construction jobs. Indeed, only time will tell if this project actually does stimulate any economic activity in Kent beyond the construction jobs to build it, but from the looks, it would appear at least headed that way. And while I still have a problem with the massive amount of debt Congress is piling up, in the end, these grants would've been given out whether I liked them or not, so it's nice to see some of it come back to Kent for once. It is also refreshing to see leadership in Kent that sees the bigger picture of town-and-gown relations and is actually doing something to help Kent and KSU mutually improve for the benefit of both. I've always thought there was so much potential here and now it seems we're finally seeing it. Go Kent!

Below I included a link to a map of the area now for reference. The marker "A" is the end of Erie Street where it currently dead-ends at Haymaker Parkway. The new building will be to the left of the marker on the north side of the street. The other pictures I included came from PDF files of PARTA's presentation materials to get the grant, which were included on Kent city manager Dave Ruller's post "Beating The Drum" on November 11, 2009. I cropped and labeled both pictures with street names and the red oval on the conceptual map and captions on the building renderings.


View Larger Map

Hate crimes

It's been a rough few weeks here in the Tree City dealing with some pretty horrific news. A few days ago, a 23 year old Kent State student was attacked in downtown Kent, apparently for no specific reason, and beaten severely enough to put him in a coma. He died a few days later. The suspects arrested were not from Kent (both are from Akron and one was a student at the University of Akron), but a few days later there were reports of armed robberies on the KSU campus. While I'm disturbed by this to say the least, the issue that jumped out at me and several other readers has to do with race. The KSU student attacked was white, while the two men charged with the initial assault are, you guessed it, black. The same was true with the robberies on campus: white victims, black assailants (those 4 men were all young, ages 17-18, and three of them are KSU students). What I've seen in the article comments got me thinking as a lot of people are calling for these to be labeled "hate crimes". There is truth to the fact that if this were the other way around (white assailants and black victims) racism would most certainly be called in as a factor. No doubt about it. Why it doesn't happen when the victim is white is beyond me. Of course the investigation is ongoing and we still have to learn what the real motive was behind this horrible crime. Was it racially motivated? I honestly don't know. My gut feeling tells me it isn't; that it was more random. But what's really been on my mind is the whole "hate crime" thing.

Hate crimes are basically something done solely as a result of someone's race, religion, ideology, gender, sexual orientation. Just recently, a bill was made law that extended "protection" to people based on their sexual orientation. But honestly, do we even need hate crime legislation? I honestly don't believe we do. In the end, a crime is a crime and should be punished accordingly regardless of the motive. Whether someone was killed because of their race or because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time is irrelevant; all that matters is that they were killed senselessly. Hate crime legislation is just a way for us to pat ourselves on the back and feel like we're protecting the little guy. It's also a way for politicians to pander to specific groups to appear to champion their cause. In the end, however, it doesn't protect the little guy any more than already existing laws that govern crime. Why should someone get a lesser punishment for murder because it wasn't racially motivated? I mean, really, the only place it should come up would be in arguing self defense. But beyond that, motive shouldn't affect how a criminal is punished. It's either a crime or it isn't; it's not more of a crime because it was motivated by hatred for something like race or gender. And why is hatred of someone because of their race, age, gender, etc. so bad, but simply hating someone because you hate them is "less" of a crime? Sorry, cold-blooded murder regardless of motive is still cold-blooded murder and should be dealt with accordingly.

Hate crime legislation has also been shown to not be a deterrent in preventing the very thing they are designed to. Why? Because the people who commit hate crimes are criminals; they don't care about the punishment, otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. This comes from the super-liberal website, SocialistWorker.org published 9 August 2009:

In 1999, some 21 states and the District of Columbia had hate-crimes laws on the books. Today, 45 states have enacted hate-crime laws in some form or other. Yet the trend has not been a lowering of hate crimes. In 2006, 7,722 hate-crime incidents were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2006--an 8 percent increase from 2005.

The data: 2,640 were anti-Black (up from 2,630 in 2005); 967 were anti-Jewish (up from 848 in 2005); 890 were anti-white (up from 828 in 2005); 747 were anti-male homosexual (up from 621 in 2005); 576 were anti-Hispanic (up from 522 in 2005); 156 were anti-Islamic (up from 128 in 2005). Hate groups also appear to be on the rise. According to the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups has increased by 54 percent since 2000.

The full article can be found here. This next quote comes from a column written in the Washington Post by Richard Cohen. He wrote this column 4 August 2009 shortly after the shooting this summer at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. I felt his column pretty much summed up exactly what I was thinking, so you should have a read!

Let us assume that the "community" is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn's attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

So, while I am saddened immesely by the death of this KSU student, his murderers should be punished according to the laws dealing with cold-blooded murder, not as a hate crime. I really don't care why they did it; the fact is they did it and now must pay the penalty. I also want to send my condolences and deepest sympathies to the family of the victim, Christopher Kernich. I hope and pray they are able to again find some peace and that justice is served. Our community has been attacked and this crime has truly saddened me even though I did not even know Mr. Kernich existed until a few days ago. No family should have to worry about sending their loved one(s) to a college town like Kent or anywhere for that matter. May God bless and comfort you in your time of need.

Not just "any job"

I had a brief conversation with my grandmother the other day when I stopped over to pick up my sister that got me thinking and had me a little irritated. Somehow the topic of jobs came up and my grandma asked if I had heard about jobs in Las Vegas. Of course I said yes because EVERY teacher knows that there are teaching jobs available in Las Vegas. There always seems to be a teaching shortage there as they are opening several new schools every year. The problem is first, I have no desire to live in the desert, especially a city that gets as hot as Vegas. On top of that, the cost of living in Nevada is much higher than here in Ohio and teacher pay is not higher, so moving there would set me back as much as it would move me ahead. The same is true with Utah, which also came up. Apparently, my grandparents' across the street neighbors, who are also members of my local LDS ward (congregation), told her that the cost of living in Utah is significantly lower than here in Ohio, so despite the fact that Utah ranks 45th in average teacher pay, that is allegedly offset by the "low cost of living." I disputed that because when I lived in Idaho and was in Utah frequently, I didn't notice much of anything being significantly cheaper there than it was in Ohio. Things like gasoline were usually more expensive (though that can vary greatly) and groceries tended to be more expensive because of Utah's regressive sales tax on food (Ohio does not have a sales tax on food). All in all, I found the cost of living there was roughly the same as Ohio; it certainly wasn't lower.

The thing my grandma said that got me was "I'd think in this economy you'd want any job." While it's true I want a job and I need a steady job, how would moving across the country be financially sensible for some crap job in Utah or Vegas? I'd have to sink myself further into debt for a job that could barely keep me afloat. How would that be smart? As it stands now, it looks like I'll be subbing for this school year. While that's less than ideal, it is much better than doing nothing. On top of that my Derby grandparents are OK with me staying here as long as I need. Why rush "in this economy" to get my own apartment if I don't absolutely need to? Believe me, I want to get my own place ASAP, but I also understand the situation. I would much rather take it carefully and well-planned than moving far away and hope for the best. That said, as much as I wouldn't mind staying in this area, I am not opposed to moving anywhere for the right job. But that's just it; I won't move for "any job" unless that job is worth the time, effort, and money it will cost to relocate.

I, of course, did a little digging on cost of living and teacher pay too. Earlier this month I found a study that ranked the states for teachers where cost of living and teacher pay were factored together to make a "teacher comfort score." This is a much better indicator than just comparing how each state ranks in average teacher pay since cost of living can vary, particularly on the east and west coasts. So, while Ohio ranks 13th in average teacher salary and 19th in starting teacher salary, it ranks 6th in "comfort" when cost of living is factored in. California, on the other hand, which ranks 1st in average salary and 9th in starting salary ranks 44th on the comfort index because the cost of living is so high. The same was true for a lot of the higher paying states; they ranked high on starting and average salary but low on comfort because of high cost of living. Utah, on the other hand, didn't fare so well in ANY ranking. It ranks 45th in average starting salary, 45th in average teacher salary, and 39th in comfort index. So much for the low cost of living! The best state was Illinois: it ranked first in comfort, 4th in starting salary, and 3rd in average salary. The worst was Hawaii which ranked 50th in comfort, despite being ranked 9th in starting salary and 15th in average salary. Oh, and wonderful booming Nevada? They ranked 45th in comfort , 25th in average salary, and 38th in starting salary, so not much better than Utah. Again, why would I want to go into that? Sounds like I should look in the Land of Lincoln!!

• See the study here: Teacher Salaries By State

As for cost of living, I found an interesting study. It doesn't rank the states, but does do a comparative chart index using numbers from 2006 and 2008 as well as the housing numbers for the same time. The average for the US is 100, so the index tells how close each state was above or below the national average. I first looked at Ohio, which was at 95.4 in 2006 and 93.4 by 2008, so just below the national average. Housing was a different story. Ohio was at 84.3 in 2006, but fell to 74.9 by 2008. Not really any surprises there. How about Utah and their "low cost of living" according to my fellow ward members? Not true: Utah was at 96.1 in 2006 and 95.0 in 2008. Housing was at 95.2 in '06 and 92.1 in '08. So yes, Utah is below the national average in COL and housing, but it is not less than Ohio; it's right about the same though slightly higher, which I always suspected. Tennessee was very low: 90.8 in 2006 and 88.3 in 2008. Housing was even better: 79.3 in '06 and down to 75.8 in '08. Not bad even with a high sales tax! Nevada wasn't too great: 107.4 in '06 and it went up to 109.2 by '08. Housing was even worse: 119.8 in '06 and up to 126.4 in '08. Yikes. The worst states for cost of living and housing were the coastal states on both coasts (Hawaii is the worst in all categories: COL of 162.8 in '08 and housing index of 252.5 in '08 followed in both categories by California. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Alaska also were very high in all categories), though even the mountain west and southwestern states didn't do so hot either. The best are the south followed by the midwest.

• See the study here: Cost of Living by State

Let it be?

My title is inspired by the song I'm currently listening to...Paul McCartney's "Let it be," a song I could blog about because of its history which I find intriguing. That aside, as I thought about writing this post, I was thinking, "when will I be able to blog about something really positive, exciting, and uplifting?" I guess the answer is "not yet..." So it seems, one catastrophe after another. On the good side I have entered week 3 of student teaching. So far it's been about what I expected, though I could do without all the politics and details. To say student teaching has excited me to have my own classroom would be lie because it has me seriously questioning whether I really want to do this for the rest of my working life. It's definitely not my students that have me questioning myself; they're all great for the most part. Yeah, some of them give me a headache at times and make me want to scream, but in the end I can't really complain. I'm currently teaching the 6th grade general music class full time and have slowly been taking over the 5th and 6th grade choirs as well as the 8th grade general music class. By next week I should have all 4 classes full time. I think my biggest problem is I'm far more lax on talking than my cooperating teacher is, so it's hard for me to really crack down on it as much as he wants me too, mostly because I'm not as aware of it as he is. So, problems he sees don't really seem like such big problems to me. So in a way, I feel like I'm being more judged on how well I mimic my cooperating teacher than on whether I would be a good enough teacher myself. Anyway, I can't really complain about my cooperating teacher much as he's given me a ton of feedback to help me be better and is supportive of me trying new approaches (he really liked my little PowerPoint presentation today in 8th grade music). True, we definitely have differences of opinion on strategy, but I know he wants me to do well.

Today has been an interesting day to say the least. Teaching went OK, though I am still suffering from the effects of a cold, so I have a stuffy nose and a cough which is worst in the morning. It's magnified the stress I already have for sure! It was after school that things got interesting as I finally had a follow up with my professor from last semester. I was nervous, but tried to be cheerful and smiling without being wishy-washy. Basically, the meeting was ice cold and she kept re-iterating that I "earned" the low grade (a D+) and didn't want to get in a "philosophical discussion" when I protested that such a grade is not an accurate representation of my actual comprehension level in the class, which is how will people will interpret such a grade (isn't that what grades are supposed to measure?!?). She had absolutely no sympathy or leniency for what happened (review: I accidentally left out the book reports from our final project when I turned it in and received no repsonse when I contacted her to try and correct the problem) and simply assumed that I blew off the assignment. So, someone who is supposed to be teaching us how to be better teachers and try to reach "special learners" and make sure no one gets left behind had no problem with me getting left behind and had no interest in helping make it right. To review, the Tuesday after it was due (it was due the week before finals week) I discovered the printouts of my book reports and immediately e-mailed her to see if I had accidentally printed out a second copy. I received no response until her "courtesy" e-mail notifying me that I had received a D+ since I didn't turn in the final reports. I got that e-mail on Thursday or Friday of finals week.

She considers herself highly considerate and gracious for giving me an "incomplete" after I sent my e-mails in December and indeed, I will give her credit for that. However, the end result is that I have to write 15 additional book reports and turn them in by the end of the month. I thought "how annoying" but since no matter what I said she had already made up her mind, I just went along, trying to be pleasant the whole time. She never smiled once at me and the only nice thing she said was complimenting my hair when I came in (she didn't recognize me at first it seemed). Not only was it an ice cold meeting, but it was also rushed. I got the impression that my meeting with her was an annoyance and an inconvenience (she even said she had another appointment after a whole 5 minutes or so (I arrived just after 3 coming straight from school and was done by 3:16) and didn't even close her office door while we talked. The relationship was obvious: she was the lord; I was the feeble minion begging for mercy. I also got a taste of what she thinks of me as a student, and probably as a teacher, when I asked why it didn't seem to bother her that I hadn't turned the assignment in and had apparently blown it off. I said it told me a lot about what she thinks of me as a student and she basically agreed. So, she really doesn't like me, thinks I'm a poor student, and I'm supposed to believe that when I turn this "assignment" (read: busywork) in in 2 weeks that it's going to be graded fairly?!?

As I walked out, I basically decided to just get it done and over with and be done with her once and for all. As annoying as such an "assignment" would be (writing the first 15 was not a pleasant experience) I figured just getting it done wouldn't be that difficult. I still intend to do it, probably this weekend since I have a 4-day weekend (yes!). Of course, it's never that simple. After walking out, I called the MAT director to inquire as to why I hadn't heard from my supervising teacher yet. My cooperating teacher had asked my professor (who is also the director of student teaching for the School of Music and the liaison between the MAT and the School of Music) and she had said it was the MAT's responsibility to get me a supervisor. Well, the MAT director called me back and told me to call the Office of Student Teaching & Field Experience and they said it was the School of Music's responsibility since the Office of Student Teaching is a College of Education office and is therefore not qualified to evaluate me as a music teacher (something I had assumed as well). The person in charge seems to have it under control and has the ball rolling as it appears I "fell through the cracks" being the first music student to go through the MAT in 10 years (she even thanked me for bringing this to their attention). But that begs the question: why is it OK for my professor to botch something of this magnitude (had I not called, it could've been catastrophic in terms of my student teaching), but I'm not allowed to turn in an assignment late because of an honest mistake in a stressful day and week? And let me just say, this is not the first time my professor has failed in her duties as liaison and as my advisor due to her not being familiar with the MAT program. I have been incredibly lenient and understanding with her as I've dealt with problem after problem and frustration after frustration in trying to find answers and make sure I can graduate, most of which have been caused by her not being up to date (i.e. attending relevant meetings) with the program requirements. Seriously, she didn't even know that the program was just a year long until I told her last fall and thought I was still an undergrad!

So, now I am debating what to do. I could tell it bothered my professor immensely that I went "above" her, but as of now I feel that's what I need to do again. Not so much to get out of the assignment (though I wouldn't mind), but to make sure a formal complaint has been made and because I do have a legitimate fear of retribution in the form of my grade. I can understand honest mistakes, but this is incompetence and pure indifference on her part towards me, not to mention letting her own prejudices and personal feelings affect how she evaluates students.

Wow this was long and I still haven't even gotten into my student teaching experience yet! Guess I'll save that for next time!

Enduring to the end

As I was shoveling the snow and using all of my strength to try and get Katie's car to move yesterday (I'm now sore and coming down with a cold, by the way) I couldn't help but think about the hell this year school year has been for me in so many ways. Going in it seemed pretty straightforward: go to school for a full, intense year, graduate, and get a job. Simple enough. But like just about anything in life, it hasn't exactly gone quite as planned and potential roadblocks still linger off on the sides. Not only do I need to successfully complete student teaching (which as I mentioned has gotten off to a fairly good start in my view, so I'm not too worried), but I still have to resolve the grade issue I blogged about in December. Now, I will start off by admitting that I waited a little too long to get back in touch with my professor in regards to meeting once break was over to come to a decision. It was mostly because I felt a bit overwhelmed with student teaching started, but even then I could have easily e-mailed her and set up a time. Well, as I started student teaching Monday my cooperating teacher asked me about an "outstanding assignment" (outstanding meaning incomplete) of mine that my professor, who is also in charge of student teaching for the School of Music, let him know about. So I had to explain what happened since I could tell he was somewhat concerned. I found out today she had said more as he had asked her if there was anything he needed to do. I e-mailed my professor on Tuesday, but didn't get a response back until today when I resent it from my kent.edu account. This is what I said:

Hello [professor]-

I hope you had a restful and enjoyable break and are off to a good start this semester. I need to schedule an appointment with you to meet about the issues surrounding Elementary and Secondary Music Methods. I do not know what your schedule is this semester since I am only on campus once a week, so all I can let you know is that I am available after 3 PM except on Wednesdays as school is done at 2:25 and I need at least 20 minutes to get back to Kent.
Please let me know when you have available times in that timeframe or any other options.

I did send you an electronic copy of the article reviews back in December shortly after I realized I had failed to turn in the hard copies. Also, for future reference, I would appreciate you e-mailing me directly in regards to any class issues rather than going through [my cooperating teacher]. This is a private and internal matter and is none of his business.

After sending it again today from my KSU e-mail account (I e-mailed someone else on campus the other day and they said they never got it, so I'm suspicious) I got this response:

Hello Jon,

I can meet with you on Monday (February 10) or Tuesday (February 11) between 3:00-4:00 PM. Whether or not you student teach is indeed [cooperating teacher]'s business; we can discuss in person. Please be advised that had I recorded the grade you earned rather than the grade of Incomplete, you would not be out student teaching this semester. Courtesy on your part would be appreciated. Please make an appointment.

Rather than rattle off a long response, I simply stated that I would like to meet on Monday February 10 at 3 PM. There is so much going through my head right now. Am I wrong to feel like this is a threat? How bout the "grade I earned?" Earned? Earning would imply that I didn't do the work and/or didn't show a high enough level of comprehension to warrant passing. That is what a grade is for, to let the student and others know where they stand in their understanding of a certain subject. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, many teachers, college professors in particular it seems, use grades as weapons; weapons of submission, power, and belittlement. Not only did I do the work in question, but after realizing I hadn't turned it in I sent her an electronic copy, which she has yet to acknowledge.

There are other e-mails that I received from my cooperating teacher in regards to this that he forwarded me. I don't feel like posting them all. I do question why he had to even know (and for the record he has been cool about it). True, there is a small chance I could be removed from student teaching if her grade would stand, but why concern him with something that isn't likely to happen? (And if I were removed from student teaching you can bet I would be taking some serious action.) I could tell he was concerned when he mentioned it, plus I have no idea how it has affected or altered his perception and/or opinion of me. I just want to graduate so I can move on with my life. It's just one thing after another on top of having no money and the house situation to add to it, hence enduring to the end and not blissfully gliding to the end!

True character?

I was driving home this evening from a boys basketball game and heard an interesting bit of information as I listed to the radio on Cleveland's WTAM 1100 AM. They were doing the 10:00 news and mentioned that several Republican lawmakers had expressed problems with President Obama's and the Democrats' latest economic "stimulus" package. Honestly, I can't blame them for having problems since I think this is the exact thing NOT to do to help the economy. Well, the person reporting the news stated that there was a White House meeting on the subject with those lawmakers and that while Obama said he'd "listen" he also said that didn't mean he'd actually do anything about it. OK, good start, I thought. At least he's listening, right? At the very least he can hear other viewpoints and at least feign the appearance of bipartisanship and "working together." Well, the next sentence was the kicker. "Obama reminded the lawmakers who won the election in November." Yes, we ALL know the Democrats won pretty handily in November, not only the presidency, but also picking up additional seats in Congress. The fact that he even said that, to me, shows his true colors. What, does he honestly think they don't know they're in a minority and that they KNOW they don't have the votes to stop it? That's why they came to him...to express concern and to make sure their voices are heard. Why does Obama feel like he needs to add that?

I'll be the first to say the Republicans basically did the same thing in 2004 after Bush got re-elected by a larger margin than anyone thought and the Republicans gained additional seats in Congress. While I was happy with their victories in '04, I wasn't happy with how they handled themselves after it. When stuff like that happens we start hearing words like "mandate" and "will of the people." Funny, when the majority chooses something liberals don't like (like, say, supporting Proposition 8 in California) then they instantly jump to the defense of the minority. When the majority supports their side, however, then the minority conservatives just need to "accept" the will of the people. Truth is, neither 2004 or 2008 was an overwhelming majority victory for either side, so it hardly represents a broad consensus or anything close to a unified electorate. Further, when will politicians understand that winning an election does not mean voters give them a free pass to do whatever the heck they want to? Voters expect those whom they support to fulfill campaign promises and work to benefit as many people as possible in the areas those politicians represent. For a party who harked so much on the public disdain for the Iraq war as a reason to end it, why aren't they paying attention to the public disgust with all this bailout and stimulus nonsense? And all this talk of unity, as I mentioned in November, sure sounds nice, but rings hollow. When a party owns a clear majority, they don't need unity. Again, where were the Democrat's calls for unity in 2004 when they were on the losing end of the elections? Anytime a majority power calls for unity-- whether Republican or Democrat-- that really translates to "submission." What better way to quash opposition than to make it look like they're not willing to work together and are fighting "unity?" Come on politicians...I don't care what party you are a member of; I just want you to do what is best for the country without thinking about how it will benefit your stupid "party."

Inauguration hoopla

I, for one, am happy that the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president is over. Over the last few days, but especially yesterday and today, I have felt like it's been shoved down my throat. Just today our local newspaper had something like 15 articles related to the inauguration. I've never really gotten into any inauguration, though I am fully aware of the historical significance of this one. Even with that, the event wasn't all that significant to me, so being in class as it was happening was no big deal at all. Some of my classmates watched via the Internet during our lunchbreak, but I passed. Pretty much everything President Obama does will be historical and there will be tons of "firsts." While I am happy that we have at least appeared to reach a point in our nation's history where someone can be elected without regard to race or gender (I guess we're still working on electing a woman...), I don't think we're quite where we need to be, nor do I think this election was some kind of turning point. Blacks have tried to run for the presidency before, particularly recently. Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson come to mind right away. Unfortunately for them, all who had run up to now weren't popular enough to become serious contenders. Was it purely because of racism that they were unsuccessful? I don't think so as there are many reasons why they weren't elected (personality, idealogy, etc., just like all the white guys who also ran and didn't make it out of the primaries), though I'm not naive enough to believe that racism has disappeared from American life (from ALL races, not just whites) or that it didn't affect the choices of some voters. Nothing has been stopping blacks from running, but we just didn't have one who was very charismatic or far-reaching beyond a small pocket of voters. I mean, come on, if Jesse Jackson is the best you can do, you have some major issues!

Now it is true that I did not vote for Obama, so that added to my lack of interest in the inauguration. Call it sour grapes or being a sore loser, but just remember: I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 and did not watch the inauguration for him either. One big reason I really wasn't interested is because more and more I get the feeling that many who voted for Obama did so because of his race. I'm getting that from all the emphasis on his race-- versus his qualifications-- in him getting elected. People seem to be more proud of him being black than actually being qualified to be president. Sorry, if it's wrong to not vote for someone because of their race, why is it OK to vote for someone because of their race? Now, let me state again that I truly hope I am wrong about his qualifications and what lies ahead. So far I haven't been overly impressed with Obama, but I haven't been overly bothered by his actions either. He seems to at least give the impression of someone who wants to do what is right for everyone (a more "centrist" stand) and appears less concerned with going along with the far-left that seems to be controlling Congress. Even with that, his silence on the recent Israel-Gaza conflict was deafening. What's interesting is the Arabs now aren't so warm on Obama (he's already had efigys of him burned in the Middle East!). I think Obama is quickly learning that 1) you can't please everyone; and 2) it's one thing to campaign, but it's an entirely different thing to govern and fulfill campaign promises.

I think the deepest reason I wasn't into this inauguration specifically (besides having it shoved down my throat on a daily basis) was that it represents something entirely different to me. During the campaign, I remember seeing people who didn't support Obama labeled as racist as if the only reason to not support Obama's bid to the presidency was simply because of his racial background. It couldn't possibly be disagreements over ideology or lack of national or executive experience, no, people who didn't agree with Obama and supported McCain were just close-minded bigots who hate and oppress black people. With that in mind, I wonder how much that will carry over into the presidency. Will any dissent instantly be labeled as racism? Are we allowed to disagree with President Obama without being labeled as anti-black? I wonder. I also found it ineteresting that liberals were the ones always bringing up the race issue in accusing supporters of McCain of simply being anti-black. I remember reading an entire blog post after the election that analyzed voter trends and "experts" concluded it "proved" racism even without anything beyond simple demographic data of which groups supported each candidate this election and last. Maybe it was racism, but maybe it wasn't. And no, white people are not the only ones capable of being racist. Some of the most racist things I have seen in my life have been towards white people.

I've seen a lot of optimism lately-- at least from liberals-- and that is good psycologically. Lately all we've been getting is bad news, so it's only human nature to hope for and want better things down the road. But with that I've also seen unbridled idealism and people completely out of touch with reality. Seriously, how many people were already saying what a great job Obama was doing when he hadn't DONE anything? I have read some articles talking about the incredibly high expectations Obama is coming into and that he's "sure to disappoint." I see it as a lot of people are willing to look past it. After all, many were easily willing to look past Obama's lack of experience not only in the Senate, but also his complete lack of ANY executive experience. I see many simply seeing the magnitude of the situation and will kind of give him a "free pass" for much of his first term. Heck, most have been blaming Bush for everything under the sky that's bad for the last 8 years, what's another 4? What people need to realize is that the President of the United States is not God, nor is he a dictator or monarch. He has powers, but many limitations. As extraordinary as the circumstances are that Obama steps into, so too are many of the circumstances President Bush had to deal with which no one seems to give him a "free pass" on and that he is somehow to blame for. You know: terrorist attacks on American soil and the War on Terror,Hurricane Katrina, and not to mention economic trials from around the world. No, the trials we face as a nation and a world are no more the work of one man than they can be fixed by one man (outside of Jesus Christ himself!). I hope people will understand that and judge both Obama and Bush according to the circumstances and not simply use hindsight or assume that a president can simply order whatever they want. It doesn't work that way. No one is perfect.

OK, the inauguration is over and no, I DO NOT care about every movement the Obamas make! Can we just move on and get to business?!?

God Bless America!

Feeling like Rexburg

The last 2-3 weeks of weather is really bringing back memories of being in Rexburg, a place I lived in the better part of three years while I attended BYU-Idaho. For anyone who is currently experiencing this winter here in northeast Ohio and has experienced one in Rexburg, you know what I'm talking about and I have mentioned it to several friends and family members already. For those who don't know, it has been very cold here for about 2 weeks, especially this weekend. Friday morning the temperature was right around -10 F (-23 C) with wind chills around -40 and the high barely got above zero (of course I was in Bloomington, Indiana that day where it was a whopping 5 degrees). While sub-zero temperatures certainly aren't unheard of in these parts and we usually get a few each winter, they aren't that common and double digit sub-zero temps are actually pretty rare. The last time I remember it getting this cold was in January 1994 when the low temps bottomed out at -24 F (-31 C) with highs not even reaching zero and wind chills at night as low as -55 F. This lasted about 3 days in an event that has been referred to as the "deep freeze."

Now, how is this like Rexburg? In Rexburg, during this part of the winter the temperature will stay below freezing for an extended period of time (a month or longer at times). Seemingly every night new snow will fall; an inch here, 2 inches there so after about a week near a foot of snow is on the ground. The three years I was there we never got anything more than 4-5 inches of snow at once and most nights it was just an inch or so; enough to make the roads (which were rarely plowed) slippery. So, for a month or longer it's freezing and usually there's a week or longer when the temperature is well below zero with a nice strong wind to make it even more painful. Such has been the case here. Although we got the bulk of the snow over a week ago (about 8 inches from the storm on January 9-10), we have gotten more and more, just a few inches at a time mixed in with some more extreme cold and no days above freezing. Usually we'll have a week or two where it gets very cold and snowy and then we'll have a brief warmup and all the snow will melt before the cycle starts again. So far that hasn't happened with this latest snow and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight, though we may get close to 32 F (0 C) sometime later this week, but not before more snow and temperatures in the single digits.

The garage on the left...you can see how much snow is on the roof and the windows are all frosted; At right, the old air conditioning unit behind the house is a good measure of how much snow is on the ground! I also can't help but notice how much heat seems to be leaking from the walls as evidenced by the low snow cover closest to the house.

The picture on the left was taken today; the picture on the right was taken after our first major snowfall back in November (which I blogged about). Note the bushes and how weighed down they are with the latest snowfall, not to mention how the porch seems level with the top of the snow! The large amount of snow on the roof is actually a great second insulator! On the far right of the latest picture you can barely see the top of our well sticking out. It's about a foot to a foot and a half tall.

I took a few pictures of the house in the snow. In case you were wondering, yes, that is indeed the flag of Israel flying on the pole my Ohio flag is usually on. I have a growing collection of flags and recently acquired the flags of Israel and Australia. In light of the current situation with Israel (tentative ceasefire is on), I thought it would be my way of showing support and expressing my opinion rather than shouting anti-Hamas slogans at a rally, holding a picket sign, painting my face, or burning a Hamas flag in public. And I do have to say; the flag of Israel looks really nice flying!

Useful information

A friend of mine passed along some a very useful information about a YouTube channel for any of you who would like to get Israel's side of the current conflict in Gaza. The channel is run by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson's Unit. Most of the videos are in English with a few in Arabic with English subtitles. In the e-mail my friend sent (he currently lives in Israel and has joined the military), he ended with a quote I thought was oh-so-true: "The moment those terrorist groups and extremist Arab nations will decide to put down their weapons, there will be peace in this region...The moment Israel will put down its weapons... there will no Israel." I couldn't agree more and it's about time the rest of the world figured this out. Below is one of the many videos. I highly recommend checking the channel out when you have a chance, especially if you value getting both sides of the story. It can be found here: IDFnadesk.