The Occupy Wall Street movement seems more a call for chaos than substantive change. I don’t mind a protest per se but please, have a point and a solution. The people who are protesting throughout the country range from the sincere (a seeming minority) to the absurd and dangerous. The trashing of buildings and public grounds to the destruction of private businesses are not messages against the bankers and those who supposedly have fleeced the American public. This is about the opportunity to act outside the bounds of common decency and the democratic spirit. So the bankers and the businessmen are the reason they are out in the street, destroying, trashing and complaining? A student of mine, during a class conversation, compared the movement to those who blamed Jews in Germany for the economic troubles of the 1920s on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. While not the same in spirit, it is in intent. Who will be the next target of this rabble? I’m a teacher and not a member of the “1%.” However, there is not a single banker or Wall Street employee responsible for any American without a job. These protests, far and gone from the Tea Party group despite some attempts at comparison, are the end result of “class warfare” demagoguery. Did people think that months of blaming a particular group for all the ills in society would not have an impact?
On to the election front. Not to toot my own horn, but I ask the reader to revisit my assessment of the 2012 Republican candidates for president. Governor Perry has certainly lived up to the idea that he is not quite ready for “prime time.” He will not be the nominee but it will not be because of his inability to articulate his message. We’ve had presidents before of who it can be said were not well-spoken. Herman Cain has shown the weakness of a man with no experience. Some of the “intelligentsia” have used the opportunity of Mr. Cain’s ascendency to throw out terms like “Uncle Tom” and the like, but the candidate is merely showing the signs of one not use to the intensity of the spot light and sadly, we will see an apparently decent man cast aside. However, if the charges against him are true, it will not be the reason he does not get the nomination. We’ve had presidents before with a proclivity towards illicit or illegal behavior towards women. On one observation, I might be wrong and I hope I am. I wrote earlier that Newt Gingrich was likely the smartest one in the room – the one adult in the room, but would not win the nomination. He is climbing in the polls and he could be poised to make a move. His comment to the moderator of a recent debate that it was ridiculous to sum up what to do with health care in thirty seconds shows both his seriousness and experience with complicated issues. It might be enough.
On the other side of the political aisle, I would like to consider the candidacy of President Barack Obama. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has a president been re-elected with such an abysmal economy. However, I have a solution that might ignite more interest in his bid for re-election. I’m betting there are those in President Obama’s campaign who have already considered this idea. Vice President Joe Biden should step down for the good of the party. While no one should question his commitment to his country and the service he has rendered, he has been so marginalized over the last couple of years, it is a wonder he still wants the job. Yet, he still manages to take the limelight with his ill-advised remarks. The administration will likely say it has something to do with his wanting to spend more time with his family or perhaps, health issues. Either way, it would open the door to one the president and his staff would have more confidence in and be able to use more often and effectively. Just a thought.
Lastly, this past week was the anniversary of the debut of PBS’ “Sesame Street.” I’m like many who grew up on its lessons and its characters. However, as a teacher, I see the program in a different way. I challenge the reader to search the teachings and philosophies of the great educators of world history – Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, the Jesuits – and one would never come across the need for or importance of “fun.” However, what “Sesame Street” did was integrate the necessity and appropriateness of entertainment with education. The two have nothing to do with one another but often, I’m asked by my superiors or “experts” in the field to be as much an entertainer as a teacher. Perhaps, more so. Generations of children have incorporated the frivolous and superfluous nature of “fun” with the pursuit of knowledge. When these children arrive at elementary school, they are embraced by and surrounded with an extension of that form of education. However, when they enter middle and high school and the need for education to take a more serious approach is presented, they rebel and they lose interest. That is because they have not been trained to see the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic thing. Instead, the entertainment element of education, as typified by “Sesame Street,” promotes extrinsic motivation to the pursuit of knowledge. When a three year old is in the back yard inspecting a blade of grass, it is an intrinsic drive that pushes them onward. The “fun” is in discovery and curiosity – not something contrived from without.
No comments:
Post a Comment