Kalleh writes: "Do we have problems with education in the U.S.? Absolutely. But we all know it, and hopefully there will be some improvements made." Of course, K's thrust is purely academic, only a part of the overriding problem

....which is, that the schools don't teach kids how to just live. Pertinent to this problem is my Letter to the Editor below. While an earlier start on the liberal arts would mainly impact the kids' moral and spiritual outlook, it might also impart a whole new attitude or intellectual approach to learning. Kids are a lot more thoughtful than we imagine; and my approach would give them something to rap on besides movies and TV.

As our local Rag of the Fourth Estate leans strongly to the Red, a bitter enemy of early exposure to matters potentially controversial, they didn't use my contribution. However, I hope that you will consider it amusing even if you do't agree with its bearing:

Now’s the Time

I’m still haunted by a Victorville, CA Daily Press LETTER to the EDITOR from Robert Wilkins 1-1-04....in which he asks, “If anyone has a cure for what ails us, now is the time to come front and center.”....I submit that obviously the main problem is: We simply need to be better people...

...while the answer lies in the Schools and the Media, especially the former.

In this connection....As a start, I propose the grade-school kids get exposed to a smattering of the liberal arts before they become case-hardened teen-agers and it’s too late. The Conservative Camp would have hissy fits at the following approach because it knows these are matters best left up to the Parents....Since the wretched state of things clearly shows how unsuccessful are Mom and Dad, however, de facto it would seem to be up to the Schools.

Therefore I propose each day, one quick classroom discussion of a single subject; with no grading:


1. Monday, religion and rudimentary metaphysics; sample topics: Who was Buddha? If there’s a God, where did She come from? Does She do miracles, and if so how? Does She know exactly what’s going to happen, and if so, why would She bother having done the whole thing? Does She always punish bad folks? Why not??

Is it all right not to believe? Why is She usually called “He”? How can you talk about these things without being censorious, judgmental or reproachful, as many editorials in some newspapers?

Did Her Daughter’s corporeal body really go to Heaven, and on the way why wouldn’t it have frozen solid?

How do you feel about Mel Gibson?


2. Tuesday, elementary psychology or philosophy; How come people do things not good for them? Who was Freud and what did he say? Did he go too far? In what ways would Plato’s Republic be better than democracy? How come folks dislike others who don’t look the same or believe the same things? Why do they all want to kill us?

How can you forgive your parents for being such klutzes? Even–some day–come to understand and tolerate, if not love, them?

Does humor have any place in politics? What are the subconscious implications of pushing organized gambling off onto the American Indians? Will it make them like us better?

Would you want Dr. Phil to be your father? Dr. Ruth your mother?


3. Wednesday, ethics, morals, and health; If you do the right thing, won’t you like yourself better? Is it all right to swear once in a while? When?

How can you psyche yourself to take better care of your teeth? Why should you want to?

Why do folks drink? Is a little alcohol really good for your heart? What happens if you drink too much? What’s the difference between depression and anxiety? Would you recognize either one if you had it?

How can you know what’s right? When they get old, don’t bad people wish they had been better? How does today’s subject tie into yesterday’s? Is it all right to castrate pigs without anesthetic? Why do 1 out of 5 Americans think it’s ok to cheat on their income tax?

In the religion pages of your Friendly Local Fourth Estate Why don’t the Clergy explain why it’s ok to torture and eat animals, eg, pigs and lobsters? or why not eat dogs and horses? Does it hurt when they pull the chicken’s head off? The chicken that is, not the farmer.


4. Thursday, politics, economics, and the law; Why should you care who is President? Do you like the one we have now? Should legislators set their own salaries and get special health care and perks denied the rest of the Middle Class? Is Lou Dobbs a real person? What does it mean to be Politically Correct? Why should you read a newspaper if high Administration Officials don’t?

Should you be allowed to do anything you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt somebody else? Why is organized gambling ok but prostitution and drugs are not?

What is a scam and how do you know one when you see it? How do you shop for the best bargains? How much should you save up? Should you trust Merrill Lynch with your savings? Or anybody, for that matter.

It is it worthwhile to sue? When is it all right to shoot somebody?

What’s the difference between Right and Left? Between campaign contribution and bribery? How can we save oil? Why try? Is it ok for the Government to support religious schools? Was it ok to bomb Iraq just because we thought they were dangerous but we weren’t sure? Or was that not it? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Who is Rush Limbaugh, and why?


5. Friday, manners and interpersonal relationships. Does it help to do the right thing? When is it all right to lie? Swear once in a while? Keep one’s mouth shut? How do you know when to be aggressive or when to back off? Should you tiptoe through life?

Shouldn’t boys respect, take care of, and protect girls? But is it ok to throw stones at them if their bible says so? In later life, should the gals have to take care of the boys? How do you get the opposite sex to like you better?

How do you know when a relationship isn’t satisfactory? How can you break it off?

The New Age advises you to just “be yourself.” But what if you don’t like yourself? Wouldn’t it be better to emulate somebody you like?


In other words, teach them to live. Call it reality education, and if you would like to discuss this, I am dalehileman@verizon.net.

Rant: I didn't realize I was so angry about Texas eduction.

We have serious education problems in my current state of residence Texas. Texans don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific theory and religious dogma. They want to "teach the controversy" of evolution, which I've read a lot of books about, and as near as I can tell, there isn't actually a controversy, except that it defies the verbatim English translation of Genesis. They also disapprove of sex before marriage, and thus don't want to teach children about sex. Now, there are fairly conclusive studies which show that children lacking the requisite knowledge are still likely to have sex, just that it will be unprotected sex, leading to more disease and pregnancy. Furthermore, many Texans don't want their daughters to be vaccinated for HPV, because it is an incentive for them not to have sex. I can't honestly think of something more appalling.

When there are legitimate differences of opinion between two sides, we have several choices, force our personal opinion down the others throat, or attempt to use science and reason to figure out what the best course of action is. Coming from the Chicago area, I didn't even realize the above things were controversial. The Catholic Church of my youth supports evolutionary theory, and unless there was a ruling I didn't hear about, support vaccination. While the church doesn't support birth control, they've never argued about teaching children about it. Ignorance never did anything for anyone.

Ok, rant over. To connect back what to Dale said, the idea is to teach children all about the intricacies of life. Nothing is black or white in any field, except perhaps mathematics (until you get to Godel). Plato, Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, they all did great work, and they were all wrong about many things. Aristotle was so revered that to question his work was heresy. Einstein knew that questioning Newton wasn't wrong, it was necessary as a scientist to advance the field, and if that meant upsetting the order, then that's what it means. Chomsky revolutionized linguistics over a fairly short period of time.

Why is abortion wrong? Because you're killing human life. Well that doesn't distinguish between an egg cell and sperm cell slowly combining DNA and an three-month old infant. Why is this such a deeply divisive issue in our culture? When they talk about this issue, CNN and Fox News rarely discuss why this is a problem. I had to figure it out for myself, and not until I was in college. If there is such a thing as a "soul", and it bestowed on a child, conception is the most likely time to do so. Of course, an omnipotent deity could just as well animate the child at birth, but then God could also foresee an abortion and not bother to give the child a soul. If you don't think there is an external soul, but that it grows out of the brain of a child, then abortion in the early stages isn't murder, because the fetus doesn't have a brain. I don't want to get into an argument about the ethics of abortion here, I simply illustrate the point that it is a tremendously complex issue that nobody really seems to talk about.

And that, I think, is the major issue. They never teach anybody about any of this! It has taking me years of reading and thinking to form opinions about them. Yes, they are controversial, but life's controversial. If these are the major issues that are being struggled with by our society, then we should teach our children about them, so that when they grow up, they will understand what the problems are.

Note: I guess when I said half-way through that my rant was over, I didn't realize I'd start another one. Off topic issues can be done with PM to try to keep this on Dale's original topic.

Well, neither of these posts is about words or language, per se, so don't worry, Sean.

Dale, I am not surprised that your letter didn't get published; I don't think it would have been published in any newspaper, so don't worry that yours is rednecked.

Both of these posts have me thinking, but I don't quite know what to say so forgive my inarticulateness.

First I think these concepts are just too complex for children. High school aged and college aged kids could handle them. Grade school and middle school kids (grades 1-8 in the U.S.) are struggling with transitioning between thinking in the concrete to thinking abstractly. It usually begins in 4th grade, but as with everything with humans, it varies. Once in high school, I do think some of these issues are discussed. At least my kids (who, granted, went to a wonderful high school) did discuss some of the issues that Dale brought up. They discussed religion from various perspectives, abortion pros and cons, being gay in our society, when lawsuits can be valuable or when they are whimsical, etc. (I am not going through everything). My 2 girls each were debaters, and, again, many of the political, economic, societal issues, etc. were debated weekly. Similarly, my son was involved in after-school activities where they discussed controversial issues. However, college is probably where students can get any of this, depending of course on their desires and majors.

Dale, where I feel you have fallen short in your analysis is in your evaluation of the average parent. I disagree with you that the answer to being better people is with the "schools and the media." The media? My, my. I had to delete my original response to that, out of common courtesy (day # 5 lectures ). The media, in my opinion, causes more problems in its hurried interpretation of the news. Too often they don't analyze, critically think, or logically reason...instead they make their proclamations based on what their readers will read. Even the great newspapers, like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, literally never surprise you with a political analysis. Wouldn't a Republican, just once, be the right candidate for the NYT? Or vice versa with the WSJ? Do they really think we are so stupid that we can't see through that kind of nonsense? So the media would be about last on my list for making kids "better people."

The schools? Their job is to teach, not to raise our children. Yes, there are parents who fall short (but there are teachers, too!). It is our duty as a community to do everything we can to identify troubled children and to help them, However, the great majority of parents are good people who do a good job of raising their children. You sell parents and our whole society short when you say that the schools (and the media???!!!) would do a better job of raising our kids.

I guess mine was a bit of a rant, too. Perhaps it's even self-serving since my husband and I raised 3 children.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

our local Rag of the Fourth Estate leans strongly to the Red

As an onlooker in the matter of US politics, I am slightly baffled by this statement. Red is the colour historically attributed to revolutionaries and in particular to Communists. However, Dale's context seems to imply that the local press is conservative, rather than seized by revolutionary fervour.

Is Dale perhaps using the "Red State" term (indicating, oddly enough, that the state votes Republican) to say that the newspaper is Republican (and therefore conservative in outlook)?

quote:

Red is the colour historically attributed to revolutionaries and in particular to Communists.

Dude, that is so Eighties.

Sean, K: Thank you for your support

I didn't mean the media are doing a better job than the parents, any more than the schools are, only that they could

...while I still maintain that K's post notwithstanding parents do the worst job while by puberty the kids are so thoroughly indoctrinated--K's excepted--that no amount of liberal eduction does most of them much good

...while arnie: Red and Blue are undergoing a semantic shift where eventually the former will mean conservative and evangelical; the latter liberal and secular

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

I don't think it comes from the red and blue states, arnie, but it also doesn't come from the Communist red. I am not sure, but it must have something to do with being "rednecked," which is the term I use to describe people or media that are overly conservative.

In some ways they aren't all that different from Communists, in theory (but not in principle), because each is very, very extremist.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I believe Red and Blue are in reference to CNN maps showing the states by political majority. But getting back to the Media, pursuing K's suggestion that some if not all of the older kids are reachable, following was the tail end of my opening letter:

However, some adults are reachable too; but how? The media in general and especially the local press could do a lot more to address the many implied concerns. First, I encourage the media to directly educate us on political matters. For example, we need to be reminded from time to time how districting works so that we can be alert for stories candidates impinging our own interests–indeed, maps would help.

Lesser candidates deserve better coverage. I’m surely not the only voter who upon scanning his sample ballot, has never heard of many school-board judicial, or other non-partisan candidates. I can imagine a standard tag line: “Voters in the XXth congressional district, which includes Victorville, Adelanto, …..may have to decide upon (insert subject’s name) a potential candidate for (some office).” Those of us who care enough, could clip such pieces for future reference.

Editorial pages tend to be grim and angry but always sanitary and politically correct. To stimulate readers’ interest, editorial columns should contain a much wider range of opinion; while letters of more original, innovative, offbeat, provocative, and even humorous style, should be encouraged.

No, there is not the slightest chance that any of this will come about and hence there can be no uplifting of mankind. But remember, you asked.

quote:

Dude, that is so Eighties.

Eighties in what century? Red has been associated with revolutionaries since at least the time of the Jacobins, probably earlier.