Failing public schools?

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” Falsely attributed to Joseph Goebbels.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

For more on both of these quotes, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels.

“Failing public schools” is a sweeping statement that implies no public school is doing its job.

But nobody ever turns it around and says much about failing parents or bad peer pressure.  If a family constantly has the TV on, how well can a student do homework?  If peers constantly bad-mouth school, how much grit does it take to ask questions in class?  If a home has lots of lead contamination, how much can schools do to increase a student’s cognitive ability?

I think the “failing schools” mantra is pushed by those who don’t want to pay taxes to educate all the children and those who want to make a profit by taking away students from the public schools.

Well, my parents were products of public schools.  My wife and I are products of public schools.  Our two children are products of public schools.  Our grandchildren are products of public schools.  Two of these are products of Japanese public schools, but they are welcome as visitors to U.S. public schools.

If public schools have failed, it is not teaching enough civics. We have to look no farther than “president” Donald Trump to learn how badly private schools have taught civics.

See also “Charter School Achievement: Hype vs. Evidence”.

Pride goeth before the fall

The full King James Version of the title is “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

Is pride always a bad thing?

Pride based on the assumption that you are better than everyone else is certainly not a good thing.  This was the pride of kings and nobility who thought they were better than the “rabble” or even the lesser “nobility”.  They lived lavishly, depending on the taxes and labor of those “beneath” them.  Some of these “haughty spirits” had a great fall.

Do we have a new “nobility” who wouldn’t have their wealth without the labor of many others?  Does this “nobility” think they earned every dollar personally, even if those who did the actual work for them lived in dire straits or worked at dangerous jobs without proper safety measures?  Their pride does cause destruction; is a fall coming for them?

Pride is a good thing when it is to bolster one’s self-esteem.  Think “gay pride” and “black pride”.  If this pride makes people think better of themselves, despite the disdain of others, then it is definitely a good thing.

Pride is a good thing when one has created something unique or solved a difficult problem.

These kinds of pride could come under the advice “Don’t hide your light under a bushel”.  Of course, one should balance between waving the light in the face of others and getting rewarded with money or fame for one’s effort.

Southern Pride has been much in the news lately.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  But is it a pride based on “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” or is it based on some real accomplishments?  If it is still fighting the Civil War, it is not a good thing.  If it is, then those who hold this attitude should consider the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell Address”.  He warned of the dangers of south against north or east against west.

Have you heard much talk of Northern Pride or Eastern Pride or Western Pride?

National pride is something many feel, but is it really justified?  I am an American but I feel neither proud nor ashamed to be an American; I just am an American.  This is my country with all of its greatness and all of its faults.

I feel no pride because many Americans fought and died to help defeat Hitler.  I was only seven years old at the time.  About the only thing I did for the war effort was to fill my war stamp book.

I feel no shame because the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with Imperial policy.  Again I was only seven at the time.  Interestingly, there are some who are proud of this attack, some of whom are also anti-abortion.  How many instant abortions were there at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I feel no pride because I am not a hyphenated American.

My name may be Irish, but I don’t consider myself an Irish-American.  In fact, when I visited Ireland, I was called a Yank.  The earliest ancestor I can find with the name Magree was in the 1830 census.  I know he is an ancestor because his son married in England and gave his father’s first name on his marriage document.  For all I know, Vincent Magree could have immigrated from Italy as Vincenzo Magri!  The 1830 census did not provide the detail that later censuses did.

Most of my traceable ancestors were from England or Germany, and possibly Poland.  But I am not English-American or German-American or Polish-American.  I am just American and happy to be so regardless of the achievements or the faults of many other Americans.

Some time ago I wrote a Reader Weekly column entitled “I live in the best house in the world”.  I poked fun at myself because I lived in “the best house in the world.”  I kept stepping up from best city, best state, and best country.  At each step I pointed out that others felt the same about their cities, states, or countries.

Another aspect of pride is “school spirit”.  I never did like the term.  I went to the schools that I did because they had to let me in or I chose them for my own convenience.  Sure, I participated in a couple of varsity sports and I cheered on my friends in the sports they chose.  I also donate annually to the two colleges that I went to.  Others paid a large portion of my tuition then, and so I support those who study there now.  The pile of literature that I get from both includes what the sports teams are doing.  I could care less.  I do care that the students are learning important and useful stuff.

I find it amazing or amusing that so many get wrapped up in the doings of sports teams, both scholastic and professional.  If the locals win, they are overjoyed; if the locals lose, they are dejected or even derisive of coaches or players.

My attitude is “who are the Bulldogs”?  Yeah!  Yeah!  I know, but I have no idea what their schedule is.  I  just wish the band would play a bit quieter so that I didn’t hear it at my house three-quarters of a mile away.

Finally, when someone asks me about the Vikings, I reply, “Vikings!!  Hide the gold!  Run for the hills!”

OK!  I have no shame!  I am done rambling.  You can use this page to wrap fish.

Also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-10-08 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/07/6053_pride_goeth_before_the_fall.

One speech worth listening to again and again

You can listen to Charlie Chaplin's speech from "The Great Dictator" at http://www.upworthy.com/the-one-speech-every-human-being-on-earth-should-hear.

It includes many visuals to back up his words.

I'm a bit pessimistic about it's effectiveness.  Chaplin made the movie in 1940 as a counter to Hitler, and Hitler got worse.  Let's hope at least a few no-shows have their minds changed by this speech and show up at election time.

Heroes or victims

Nation after nation makes heroes of those who fight in the wars these nations engage in.  But it is rare that those who do the actual fighting made the decision to go to war.  The decision makers are far behind the lines, exhorting even more to join as fighters.

Often a war is cloaked in patriotic terms as defending the country against foreign enemies, but the war is often not fought on the land of foreign enemy or even the land of the country claiming defense.  The war is fought on lands either loosely allied with one side or the other or even on lands that would rather be neutral.

Those who are opposed to these wars are often called unpatriotic, but they may really be the patriotic ones who see the folly in expending lives and treasure.  These "unpatriotic" may be executed or imprisoned in some countries or may be sidelined or ostracized in more "gentle" countries.

Some wars are instigated for conquest and masked as being for the greater glory of the nation.  Anatole France, commenting about past French wars in "L'Île des Pingouins" could just as well have been predicting Adolph Hitler.  A visitor stood in front of a statue of Trinco.  Trinco has conquered and lost half the known world in thirty years of war.  The guide finishes a description of Trinco's victories and defeats with, "Mais il nous a donné la gloire."  The visitor responded "Il vous l'a fair payer cher!"  And the guide responds "La gloire ne se paye jamais trop cher."

"But he gave us glory."
"He made you pay dearly."
"One never pays too dearly for glory."

Some wars are fought for a "national interest" but cloaked as a defense of freedom.  The national interest could be protecting shipping, access to resources, or some other interest for which the greatest beneficiaries are nowhere near the front lines.  Ironically, to protect freedom the freedom to protest the war is the first freedom to go.

The true test of the value a nation places on its heroes is how the veterans of war are treated when they return.  Is the country willing to raise sufficient funds to fully treat all physical and psychological injuries?  Think of Ira Hayes, fêted as a hero until he lost his usefulness as a war bond promoter.  Think of the dismal state that Walter Reed Hospital was in a few years ago.  Think of all the homeless vets who just can't make it on their own.  Until a government fully addresses these issues, many of its heroes are victims of the folly of war.

To Boycott or not to boycott, that is the question

Because of China's crackdown on Tibetan dissidents, some are calling for a boycott of the Olympics and others are saying that engagement is a better policy.

I think the decision should rest with the individual athletes and not governments. A boycott by hundreds of athletes would have a greater impact than a boycott by one or several governments. What purpose was served by the U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics?

Suppose the U.S. had boycotted the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Then Jesse Owen winning a gold medal would not give lie to Hitler's Aryan supremacy.