In my early days of teaching, a colleague said, "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it." The context was my inexperience with unreasonable students. I naively thought that I could reason with certain ones. Instead, it just cycled into something worse and worse.

I've mentioned a similar phenomenon here on Townhall. Instead of reasoned discussion of articles, too many posters engage in petty insults or personal attacks. They they suck in others who try to reason with them.

The truth is, some of these people "get off" on stirring up trouble. The best way to deal with them is not to feed into it. With my students, I learned to say, "We can discuss this after class." Perhaps here on Townhall, the best way is to ignore such posters. Don't even give them the pleasure of, "There's ******* insulting instead of discussing."

I am not alone in noticing this. Read Dr. Adam's recent column. Use your browsers search function to find the posts by MuscleDaddy and thoughtful_analyst and a few others. If enough of us wake up, perhaps we can begin discussing articles and our disagreements.

The Dakotas are a land of shrinking population. People are bailing out of the rural areas. The only growth is in the cities. The Western parts of these states are particularly empty.

Clearly, there's only one way to spend tax money on this region: build a new interstate!

In a region where roads are empty, travel is at 65 or even 70 miles per hour, there is a screaming need for an interstate.

Hopefully my sarcasm was clear. Instead, I wonder why these states don't look at some helpful alternatives. For example, both states have underfunded schools and both states have teachers screaming for more money. (I throw that in first because of my profession.)

Other alternatives would include property tax relief, income tax relief, or investment in things that are actually needed. Both states have roads in urgent need of repair. Both states have a meth problem. Both states need to work on their prison systems, and both states could stand to pay their police quite a bit more.

Who will benefit from this new interstate? Dickinson, North Dakota (a proposed location) is not much of a city. With an easy trip to Rapid City, South Dakota (the next city on the proposed interstate), Dickinson will actually suffer. There will be counter arguments about increased tourism in Dickinson, but, frankly, while the Dickinson area is attractive, it can't compete with the variety in the Black Hills.

Both states brag about their rural living and their love of small towns. The interstate will be a small town killer. One need only travel the small towns along interstates 90 or 94 to see that. Business drains out of them into the nearest large city because of the perception that it's no big deal to make the trip.

This is an attempt by a few people to get publicity, create jobs for themselves and, just possibly, get a road built that they can use as a springboard to bigger things all thanks to the apathetic people who didn't argue against the road in the first place but who were forced to give up land and pay taxes so it could be built.

I've mentioned before my fascination with the First World War. Today, during my regular news reading, I read an article about one of the few surviving soldiers of that war as he revisited the battlefield at Ypres, France. He is 109 years old now.

I suppose part of the fascination for me is the absolute horror that was daily life for those men. All wars are terrible, but those men lived in the nightmare, day after day.

It was a war that should not have happened and it helped form the later horrors of the twentieth century: another world war, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and many, many more horrors.

The story is hosted by the Daily Mail.

A few months ago, I wrote an entry about the need for North Dakota to get rid of some schools. As an example, I used Squaw Gap. This is a tiny school that boasts all of 2 students. One of the students is the teacher's son.

Somehow, the teacher heard of my blog. We had an E-mail exchange, part of which I reproduced on this blog. I've even cited that exchange recently as an example of intelligent discussion between two people with fundamental disagreement.

Yesterday, I visited Squaw Gap. I didn't stop and visit the teacher. I figured having a strange man who hasn't shaved in a day or two knocking on your door in the evening might be a little uncomfortable for a single woman, especially in such a remote location.



Squaw Gap does not appear on most maps and no highway sign announces it. It's a town of 3 buildings: the school, the teacher's house (a trailer), and a brick building which is apparently some sort of community center. Since the community is small, I suspect that "community" is a larger term, referring to all the ranches around.



This school is in a gorgeous, very remote setting. I thought the drive down the highway was very attractive. I met almost no vehicles. The only towns I passed through were Squaw Gap and one called Trotters (which had a single, abandoned building). I can certainly appreciate her desire to preserve her school.

I should note that by clicking on the pictures you should be taken to larger versions.

Yesterday, I got a bit long-winded as I wrote about how to discuss issues. Responses to columns on Townhall range from the edifying to the inane to the cruel or useless. I don't seriously expect everyone to agree with me and I accept that one may hold beliefs that are the polar opposite of mine and hold them just as sincerely. What I do expect is to be able to discuss beliefs with such people reasonably and, in the end, agree to disagree.

Early in my blogging career, I wrote of a rural school called Squaw Gap and made the suggestion it should be closed. The teacher there obviously feels quite differently. We had a small exchange. Neither of us had our minds changed by the exchange, but we now understand each other better. Isn't that the point of discussing issues?

Most of us are unlikely to change our views quickly, if at all. Yet we argue as though that is possible. Worse yet, we argue as theater. Imagine a political debate where one candidate shouts down the other who attempts to be polite. Who will be perceived as the winner?

A lot of people don't like watching reasoned debate. When I was in high school (my parents had TV) I enjoyed watching Charlie Rose and William F. Buckley on PBS because they always had intelligent, informative shows with varying viewpoints. I didn't always agree (particularly with the left-leaning Charlie Rose) but I liked watching because I could learn.

If you can't win a debate on reason and facts, start some theater. Nazis and Communists always ridiculed enemies. They shouted them down, humiliated them, sabotaged them, and made it impossible to actually discuss views. This is the same mentality as those self-righteous pigs that throw pies at Ann Coulter or protest loudly during speeches with which they disagree. Ann Coulter is a conservative example. She thrives on spectacle. In her defense, I have read enough of her writing to recognize that she is capable of reasoned debate.

That is my blog for today. The rest of this is examples from a few Townhall columns. My selection is small due to my time constraints. However, a quick visit to the columnist section of Townhall will reveal much more.

**************************

Mike Adams wrote an article called Life and How to Live it Part IX. It described the path of his maturation from a boy to a man. For one of his columns, it was remarkably free of politics. It described his growth from a boy who took pride in poor grades and planned a soccer career to a family man with the Ph.D. To read the comments, one would not see this.

The first few comments are quite polite and come from both sides of the political aisle. Then we get one from a mechanic who seems to believe Dr. Adam's choice not to be a mechanic is an insult to blue-collar workers everywhere. He seems to be looking for trouble.

Maintenance Guy writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 7:01 AM
My God, doesn't this guy quit...?
Mike, Mike, Mike... What's wrong with mechanics? Can you concede that there are some folks driven to the profession of auto/truck mechanic? Or, is that your idea of where someone 'ends-up' when they're out of options? Mike, I'm happy that you were able to chase your brass ring. But pal, something desperate has happened to you in the last 60 days and it's reflected in your writing style. Do you realize that you've insulted every manual laborer who chances to read your column? I think I'm going to skip the next few, Mike, and hopefully by then your head will be screwed back on straight. Good luck, and I sincerely hope everything's okay at your end.

A little further one, one of our right-wingers leaps in  with a little sermon that seems disconnected from it all.

Abovethesun writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 8:39 AM
God
The God of the Bible is sovereign over all of creation. He defines right and wrong in His Law, the Ten Commandments, and is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient in all things. He is not a helpless, wimpering, effeminate being. He is not the creation of man's imagination or deserving of pity. He demands awed reverence. The sovereignty of God in the Scriptures is absolute, irresistible, infinite. He governs the universe, which he made for His own glory, just as He pleases. He has the right, as the Potter, to mold the clay, man, as He chooses. He is under no rule or obligation to give an account of Himself to His creatures.He gives mercy to whom He pleases, and it is not a right to which man is entitled. Mercy is the attribute of God by which He pities and relieves the wretched.The objects of God's mercy are those who deserve punishment but instead, receive what they do not deserve. God speaks to the meek, the wretched, the humble, the broken. He first revealed His Son to shepherds and travellers from afar- two of the most unlikely groups of people. The humble were singled out for great honor; the learned and elite passed by. God gives His mercy to those whom He chooses, in grace and sovereignty, and often to the most unlikely and unworthy.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensi

Then someone had to throw in a military dig that (later on) proved to be Iraq related. This was in response to a column unrelated to Iraq or politics of any kind.

soothsayer writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 11:09 AM
"It wasn't what he wanted to do"
Looks like military service is another thing Mikey Adams "didn't want to do." Chickenhawkism - the true legacy of the Bush administration!
Email It  |  Print It |

Then someone had to toss in a random dig at liberals. Apparently it was in response to another post.

phil writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 2:15 PM
religiouslib
what is the west coast? few people seem to have heard of the place- no wonder a lib has an audience -of deviates
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive

At some point during all of this, I spoke up. I suppose I was composing yesterday's blog in my head, though not yet aware of it.

Waski_the_Squirrel writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 6:13 PM
Looking for Controversy
This is a nice little article about maturity and how accidents play into that. It was not an attack on liberals or mechanics. Dr. Adams would have been unhappy as a mechanic. I would have been unhappy with what I did in high school as well. Instead, everyone seems to want to turn this into an attack. We get his military service analyzed, he is accused of whining, and a variety of other insults are tossed in from all over. People are responding to the man and their feelings toward him. They are not responding to what he wrote. It's almost as though many of the comments are written before the article.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offens

Another poster quickly responded by insulting my squirrel nature. That biased me to believe that the rest of his post was about me. Fortunately, I'm calm. I reread it and recognized it was a continued insult toward Dr. Adam's military service. Another poster said something similar to me, and he responded to that one in the next post. I'm putting both here together.

The Evil Republican writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 6:43 PM
Waski going nuts?
Waski: "Instead, everyone seems to want to turn this into an attack. We get his military service analyzed, he is accused of whining, and a variety of other insults are tossed in from all over." If you're an advocate of the war and you are of military age, you should be in uniform. It's easy to pay poor mercenaries to fight your wars for you, but if you wouldn't put your life on the line for a cause, why should you have the temerity to risk someone else's?
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive

The Evil Republican writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 6:47 PM
Body of evidence, Husker
Husker1: "How do you get to these statements based on this article?" ------------------------------------------ You don't. But it's not like the guy hasn't been one of the most prolific Townhall bloggers.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Off

Quick change! The other article I wanted to use as an example was about the intelligence of first-born children relative to their other siblings. The author pointed out the premise of the study and also pointed out that these were broad statistical trends. Said more simply, there are exceptions. I'll only post a few responses to Dinesh D'Souza's Why Firstborn Children are Smarter. I imagine my younger brother will not have read this article!

An amazing number of people wrote responses with anecdotal evidence that they believed proved him wrong. They don't understand broad trends. "Men like watching sports" is a broad trend. Are there exceptions? Yes.

One poster had to start on the insults.

CC writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 2:47 AM
Dinesh
Not so in the case of my brother. He's a liberal.
Email It  |  Print It |

Another poster (who I will not quote due to length) got into a discussion of how statistics can say anything and should not be taken seriously. They were reasonable but did not explain what was wrong with this study. I can, however, accept it as a useful contribution.

Then we get some liberal bashing.

gwco2skeptic writes:	Monday, July, 23, 2007 2:15 PM
A response to "Killer"
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals can prattle on about "overpopulation" on minute, and then declare humanity on the verge of extinction. If there is one thing the human race is good at it is survival and adapting to changing environments. There are those people in the world who do stuff, and those who complain about what those who do stuff did. The fact that an intellectual hiccup such as yourself is able to not only survive, but thrive, is a testament to the genius of those around you who make your continued existence possible. You should thank them, rather than find fault.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive

One last article was Dennis Prager's piece on animal cruelty. Once again, some genius tossed in military service.

booboolane writes:	Tuesday, July, 24, 2007 1:21 AM
This is the kind
of sophisty many have come to expect from this most "undeserving" person, who, at age 58 claims he was too young to serve in the military during the Vietnam War. He means too 'emotionally young'. What a novel excuse for a noxious draft-dodger and war-yellow. And again, Denny has invoked Godwin's Law; the thread is finito--he loses the debate.

Unrelated, once again.

Reading through the columns, you can find much worse than I cared to post here. There are invitations to drink drano, comments that all religious people should be lined up and shot, suggestions of boiling homosexuals alive, and other such. From time to time, Townhall does remove comments and does not seem to be censoring.

Early in my posting career, I commented on an agriculture article and made the remark that current agriculture policy wasn't working because my classroom was steadily emptying out. An unpleasant woman responded by calling me a brainwasher, union member, and that I'd never met a government program I didn't like. Ironically, we both agreed on the article, but she didn't realize it. She saw the word "teacher" and was off. Her response was removed.

A while back, I posted some pictures of the centennial held where I live. I made a movie out of it. To protect my students, I've had to "blur" some of their faces and replace some identifying features with still photographs. Still, I wanted to show off my town and my students. As I've mentioned before, I have a great voice for magazines.

Those of you on dial-up will find this a long download. You should satisfy yourself with the pictures on my earlier post.

I am a minor commenter on some of the articles. When Townhall first began to allow commenting on its editorials and articles, I thought that was a great idea. I still favor it. However, it reveals the emotionalism and lack of education that exists on both sides of the political aisle. I'm afraid this grew much longer than I expected.

Persuasion vs. Reports

I hold a Physics degree and I'm certified to teach all the branches of science as well as math. If I were more energetic about thesis writing, I'd have a degree in mathematics as well. I say all this not to brag, but to lay out my perspective. Logic appeals to me.

More recently I began judging "Speech". This is an event of competitive speaking and a bit outside my comfort zone. How someone like me got into this is another story! However, there are two events that are a good illustration: "Speech to Persuade" and "Speech to Inform."

Students have trouble with the distinction. Speech to Inform is a little dry, but fairly easy to do. One presents the information on a topic and tries to do so in an interesting way. Speech to Persuade will involve information and facts, but the goal is to convince someone of something. It is not judged on opinion. To successfully persuade someone, you must balance emotion and fact.

Many of the students are quite poor at this. I've had to sit through speeches with which I agreed and couldn't stand. Many make the mistake of reporting facts, like it's a speech to inform. Facts should be enough, but we are all emotional creatures.

Now, if you talk to these same kids informally and try to get them to convince you of something, they are likely to resort to purely emotional arguments: "Global warming is just bad!" or "It's just not fair!"

Critical Reading

When we read something or hear something, it's important to take part in it. The commenting feature on Townhall makes that possible. When we read, we should read critically. Is this argument emotional or factual? Is this fact true, slanted in some way, false?

It's easy to accept something written as true. Furthermore, we all tend to accept something we hear or is written authoritatively as true. Rush Limbaugh is successful in large part because he is confident and sound authoritative. Picture him speaking whiningly or complainingly or always questioning himself. He'd be doing something else. It would have nothing to do with the content of what he says.

The commenting feature allows the reader to amplify arguments, note errors in facts or judgement, and to debate the issues. This is a great facility for critical reading.

Arguing

I don't have TV, but I've watched Fox and CNN in motels. I've also listened to the radio. A common feature of debate is to shout down the other. They interrupt, insult, and even ignore each other. It's silly and idealistic to change someone's mind in a flash. What is realistic is to learn what the other side thinks. In time, considered honestly, this may change our own views or strengthen them. These shoutfests don't allow that opportunity.

When I read the comments on Townhall, I see the same shoutfest mentality. I see insulting nicknames used instead of proper names: "Demoncats" instead of "Democrats" and "Republifatcats" instead of "Republicans." If you start a conversation with me by insulting me, I know you're not interested in an exchange of ideas and I've already decided you're not worth listening to.

When I read comments like "Oh look, more Repub whining" I am not enlightened, just offended. What specifically is wrong with the article? I can't tell from this. When I read an editorial on education and it's followed by comments about the Iraq war, I am not helped and I get the feeling that you don't have any useful arguments against the topic. "Oh unions are bad, are they? Well you're the same people who sucked us into a war in Iraq that we're losing." Sorry, you've not informed me on the union issue or the Iraq issue.

Remember, we don't convince people quickly. It's slow and over time. Discussion should be about informing and contrasting. Emotion and reason go hand in hand in accomplishing this.

Education

At the beginning, I mentioned a lack of education. By this, I do not refer to whether one has gone to college or holds a Ph.D. I mean the ability to have facts on hand, read critically, and separate reason and emotion. In other words, can you truly use your brain?

When we resort to name calling and insults, we are not using our brains and we are not being civilized. We are animals snarling and scratching.

The columnists on this website are attempting to persuade. They are combining emotion and fact, sometimes more emotion than fact. It's unrealistic to expect that they will convince us or that we will convince readers in one editorial.

How many times has this happened to anyone: you are discussing an issue and they suddenly say, "By golly, you're right! How could I have been so wrong for so long? It's like the scales have fallen from my eyes!" The truth is, such Road to Damascus moments are rare.

I've changed my mind on a number of issues over time. I can't think of one that occurred suddenly. Frankly, I have too much pride to allow any argument to convince me on the spot. I have to feel like I cam to an opinion all on my own.

Let's have a little more civility in our comments and let's try to be useful in our comments.

As a final note, my readership is small, but I'm happy to say that the comments I've received have all been helpful and informative. A great example comes from early in my blogging career and my exchange with the Squaw Gap teacher. Neither of us changed our views, but we both understand each others' views much better and have come off as better people for it.

Schools and teachers rarely think of themselves like businesses. If I own the local hardware store, I'd better do a good job or someone will open up to take my customers. If the local school doesn't do a good job, there are only a few places in which they have to worry about losing business. Now, I'm not going to wander into the topic of vouchers today (which I favor). My focus is on another kind of accountability.

In my town, it is very likely that both the hardware store owner and the teacher live in the town they serve. My town is quite far from any other town. We're held accountable socially for our service. Of course, in a larger town or a city, nothing in this entry applies.

Suppose a teacher has a habit of humiliating students. Such a teacher is likely to have few friends. The parents of these students will have a natural grudge, their friends will have a grudge, and those who hear about this will have a grudge. As a result, many teachers who live in the town where they teach do at least a decent job.

I've always had my enemies in every town who think I'm a poor teacher, but they are balanced by either fans or those who are ambivalent about me. Other teachers have few fans and very few who are ambivalent. Some (not me) have very large fan clubs. I've worked with these poor teachers and many of them are quite lonely.

What brought all of this to mind was a story I read about some construction work on a highway between two smallish towns in California. Many people work in one or the other or else Los Angeles. As the towns have grown, the road has become inadequate. As a result, it has become necessary to widen it.

Unfortunately, a few short-sighted individuals are taking out their frustrations at the inevitable delays this causes on the construction workers. It has been so bad that the state closed the highway entirely, forcing the commuters to take an alternate route to work. Some of the commute lengths were as many as 60 miles.

There are clear environmental concerns with long commutes. However, I'm trying to imagine living in a different community than the one in which I work. I wouldn't feel like I need to be careful. I could go to a bar without students or parents seeing me, I could complain about my school, criticize the town it's in, and have no worries that way. I might have found a job in a sort of dumpy community and live in a nicer one within driving distance.

There are valid reasons for commuting. Aside from living conditions and freedom, there is also the possibility that one spouse has a job in one town and the other has a job in a different one.

However, the accountability and rewards are lost. I am accountable to my friends and neighbors for the job I do, but I also get the rewards for the job I do. I have a stake in the job I do because the kids in my classroom will someday be caring for my town. One girl even told me I'd better be nice to her because someday she'll be caring for me in the nursing home!

I've been involved in economic development, ambulance, and church. I've worked to make the towns in which I live better. By living and working locally (and walking to work) I have many reasons to care about the kind of job I do and the kind of life I lead. When I make mistakes, I have to make them right. I can't just shrug them off.

I also get environmental brownie points because I'm not causing the widening of roads, I'm not burning fossil fuels, and, by shopping locally, I'm keeping traffic off the roads and keeping businesses local so others don't have to drive as much.

The Boston Globe recently reported that in many cultures it is unusual for parents to play with their children. In America, however, this is quite common and is even considered to be part of good parenting.

The article focused on babies and small children, not teenagers. I think this is because much that might constitute "playing" with teenagers is part of bringing them into adult society and adult interactions. For example, consider the pride of the father who takes his son hunting for the first time or the mother who gets her daughter ready for junior prom. For this reason, like the article, I'll confine myself to babies and children.

Why Play?

Very few will argue against the value of play. It teaches children their limits, gives them imagination, and provides physical fitness. I write science fiction as a hobby (not yet published) and it is striking to realize how much of it contains ideas and characters from a childhood of playing with spaceship legos and other imaginary play.

Play gives children an avenue to learn how things work. Building dams out of rocks in my grandparent's creek taught me about fluid flow. Catching crayfish taught me about stream ecology. Tubing and boating taught me about floatation  (and how tires work).  Children discover interests with play. I  discovered an interest in science and in teaching through play.

Finally, there are plenty of horror stories about babies who  are neglected and do not play. The grow up stunted in their ability to relate to people and in emotional development.

What is Play?

My problem with the authors of the study in the article was their narrow definition of play, though I did agree with some conclusions.

Many parents find it hard to play with their children. Some friends of mine have a 4-year-old daughter. She is entertaining in small doses, but she is a child. Playing with her is mind-numbingly boring. I play with her a little because I do like her, but it's hard to spend long with her, one-on-one.

This is the great problem with playing with children. Even her own parents and siblings get bored of playing with her. They're a great family, but are real people. Now, to some parents, this seems absolutely heartless.

However, consider this: this little girl is learning to entertain herself. She is also learning to use her own imagination and is developing independence. You can see the success of this in the two older children. Both are polite and very intelligent. Both have a lot of curiosity and compassion for others. Both are also quite capable of being on their own.

Interaction

Children need interaction, not necessarily to have adults in their little childish games. Some of my great childhood experiences include watching my father butcher rabbits. Naturally, I learned anatomy from this as he pulled out organs. More importantly, I got to interact with him one-on-one because my mother made a point of being elsewhere while he did this. It may not have been play (and he really didn't care to play with my brother and I), but it was valuable interaction.

With a baby, interaction takes the form of holding, cuddling, and talking. It may not seem that the baby gets much out of an adult talking to it, but the baby's brain is actively filing all of that for future use. Talking to babies and toddlers as adults (within obvious limits) expands their vocabulary and conversational skills. Holding and cuddling tell the baby that it is loved and wanted, even though it is too young to understand this.

I would say that interaction and experience are important to children. They need time every day. I don't see that a parent needs to feel guilty if playing dolls or trains with their toddler is too mind-numbing to keep up. Allowing children to play by themselves builds up their self-reliance and imaginations. Regular adult interaction teaches them social skills, limits, and reminds them that they are loved.

It is expected that every president will have an education policy. Mike Antonucci over at the Education Intelligence Agency reported on the NEA convention. An important part of it was that each of the Democrat candidates for president addressed the convention.

Each of these candidates proposed some level of Federal involvement in education, some level of increased Federal funding, and so on. Antonucci was surprised to report that Hillary Clinton was the least ambitious. 

Each of the Republican candidates has made various stands as well, usually involving less ambitious spending. Of course, only Mike Huckabee spoke for the Republicans, though much of what he spoke for went well beyond the others.

I started to research what had been said more thoroughly. Then I stopped. I'm busy this summer and, frankly, I don't care.

While the NEA members sniff their smelling salts, let me explain why. I don't see a federal role in education. I would be delighted to see the Department of Education eliminated. Education is one of those powers not specifically given to the Federal government. It belongs to the states.

Many will counter this argument by pointing to states like Mississippi. There is a general consensus that Mississippi has a very bad education system. The Feds can change that.

I counter with 2 arguments. The first is a comparison. My town has a terrible sewage treatment system. They need a second pump to circulate the first lagoon. Should the Feds step in and make them do this? Or could we argue that my town needs citizens who will stand up for themselves? Another argument I would offer is to ask why the Feds would do a better job? Complaining about Federal programs is a common past time among liberals and conservatives.

What frightens me most about Federal control is that it removes education from citizens. I am active in North Dakota. I helped write the standards and the test. I helped set the cut scores for several of the tests for prospective teachers and for 11th grade students. While the job could have been done better, I say that because I didn't get MY way. Nevertheless, I had an important voice. Were this done at the Federal level, I would have no voice.

The carrot (and stick) that the Federal government uses is money. They have successfully argued in court that if their money is accepted, those accepting the money must also accept the regulations and other strings that go with it.

Two colleges, Grove City College and Hillsdale College went all the way to the Supreme Court on this issue.  They  chose to withdraw entirely from federal entanglement. They are better for it and prove that it can be done.

Unfortunately, our states and schools lack the spine to follow them. I don't understand this because it is such a small piece of education funding yet such a huge part of the paperwork and rules.

The best president is the one who is willing to allow states to do the job on education and withdraw the federal government from it. Unfortunately, this will not play well in our current political climate.

Just lately Townhall has had a flurry of editorials on card check. I want to spend a little time looking at how it will affect American workers. While I am opposed to it, I think there has been an awful lot of hyperbole as to what it is.

The Good

What is good about it is that it will have not effect on unionized workplaces. My school is unionized, so card check to gain members will not affect us at all. Also, at the moment, card check does not require union membership in right-to-work states.

The Bad

At present, if a group of workers decides to unionize, they must vote to do so in a secret ballot. In some states that forces everyone into the union. In right to work states, it does not.

The idea behind this is that there can be no reprisals against a worker by the union or by the employer based on the vote. I enjoy this privilege in the ballot box when I occasionally vote for non-Republican candidates. The Republicans around North Dakota cannot harass me for not voting for their candidate.

Card check changes all this. Your vote is no longer secret. Instead, you simply mark a card. Union organizers have as long as they want to collect marks and they may harass workers all over: at home, at work, in the parking lot, when shopping... They may do so over and over until the worker marks the card to end the harassment.

It has not been noted much in the conservative media, but this also eliminates the protection the worker had from his employer. Even in unionized workplaces, employer harassment can and does occur. This will make it easier to target specific workers.

The Ugly

I know that my little headings lack originality. However, they fit because of the fundamental dishonesty behind card check. It is touted as a way to protect workers. The reality is that it is an attempt to strengthen unions.

Union membership is declining, except in the public sector. Because union organizers can continually harass specific workers with an unlimited time span, it becomes much easier to unionize a workplace.

Card check won't affect unionized workplaces. It will, however, bring a lot of ugliness back into union organization. Saddest of all, Americans are not screaming for it. A specific interest group, the unions, is screaming for it. This is blatant special interest politics.

There is a school somewhat closer to the edge of the Earth than the one in which I teach that recently closed. This school closed because rural America is hemorrhaging population. The town boasts one paved street, a minute selection of businesses and a setting in a narrow valley between steep buttes that might attract tourism were it not so isolated and so lacking in amenities.

I'm drawn to areas like this. That's why I teach in rural North Dakota. I started my career in a similar school (albeit slightly larger and a newer building). As I've mentioned before, I would love to teach in a small school like this, but it isn't practical. The dream is there, but there are financial realities. Such schools generally have a lower pay scale  and there is the real risk that they won't stay open.

One of my colleagues has taught in 4 schools that are now closed. Admittedly, she is slightly older than I am. I take pictures of abandoned schools. Her first one  is in my collection of pictures. The outside walls are still standing, but the interior has collapsed.

I know that I've posted on this topic before. Tomorrow, some friends are visiting from one of the small towns where I used to teach. The school is still open, but enrollment has dropped to really scary levels since I've left. I miss the town quite a lot. Admittedly, it was not one of my favorite schools. There were some issues there which I prefer not to discuss in a public blog. However I loved the town and still believe that it was the nicest lab I've ever taught in.

I'm going to close this blog by embedding a Youtube video of the old school I started off discussing. I visited it because I was hired to inventory the chemical stockroom. The science teacher who had been there was incredibly organized, but the chemicals are toxic waste.

Unfortunately, I have a face for radio and a voice for magazines. However, it's interesting to see how many tax dollars were spent on a building that will now sit empty. Those of you on dial-up connections may wish to content yourselves with the pictures (link above) as this embedded video is on Youtube.

The ultimate goal of school is to produce moral, self-sufficient, independent citizens. Unfortunately, not all students begin with the same foundation. Schools somehow have to help these students without resorting to social engineering. It may sound liberal, but it really is cheaper to help students than it is to deal with them on welfare or in jail.

Poverty (not poor) students cannot be treated the same way as middle class students. One major reason is that the poverty students do not have the structure at home that values education. They don't have the skills they need to succeed in school: skills that we take as a given.

Organization

Many of the true poverty students lack organization. As a teacher, I can assure anyone that the more organized students tend to also be the successful ones. We don't come into the world with organizational skills. For many of us, our parents taught it to us.

Poverty students were not taught these skills. Organization is not an important survival skill for those in poverty. A high poverty school I was reading about made color requirements for folders and notebooks: science is green, math is red, etc. There were articles in the paper about how silly this was and interviews with parents complaining that they didn't have the money for this.

The reason for this color coding was to keep the students organized. Elementary students especially respond better to color than labels. I believe the colors may have even been chosen to match the textbooks. Students without organizational skills will stuff papers anywhere. I've tried to help kids with notebooks in which math and social studies appear on the same page. They may have done their homework, but cannot find it in the mass of papers stuffed everywhere in the notebook, textbook, and bottom of the locker.

Now, more organized students chafe at this type of structure, but it does not hurt them. Frankly, even many middle-class students (and their teachers) could use some lessons in organization.

Language

A few years ago, conservative commentators spent a long time on a California school that wanted to teach in "ebonics". This was the name for the way students there spoke English. Quite correctly, it was ridiculed.

Schools are successful with poverty students when they teach students that there are different ways of speaking in different places. There is "home language", "school language", "church language", "work language", and many others. We talk different ways depending on who it is and who we are talking to. This concept has never even occurred to many poverty students because their parents never taught it. It's a good solution because it does not devalue anyone's culture. It simply says that you act differently in different places.

Another important part of language is vocabulary. Poverty students tend to start school with a much lower vocabulary than other students. Unfortunately, the way vocabulary is often taught is not helpful to either group. It is not a list of terms to memorize. I always had a great vocabulary, and I hated doing that. It should be in context. For poverty students, especially, a word needs an experience to go with it. If they get the foundation in elementary school, they will be prepared for the more abstract as they get older.

Discipline

Many poverty students grow up without adequate discipline at home. Their parents lack self control and thus cannot teach it to their students. These schools require a lot of structure in their environment. Certain things are done in a predictable way and at a predictable time. While structure and procedures are important for any school, they are absolutely vital in a high poverty school. These students come from a home without structure and this makes school a "safe" place for them.

This is not to say teachers should be frightening harridans just waiting for a child to smile at the wrong moment or get slightly out of line moving down the hallway. Discipline and love should go hand in hand.

Change the Family Tree

If schools can give students the skills they need to better themselves, many of them will. They will promote themselves to a higher socioeconomic status. This, in turn, will get passed on to their children. Certainly there are a lot of failures, and too often this becomes politicized. However, by understanding poverty as not simple laziness can empower schools to truly end it and create true citizens.

Isn't that a worth conservative goal?

**************************

As a quick plug, I want to cite Ruby Payne's work. She has done a lot of research on poverty, and a lot of what I've written here is based on her work. She is a bit more liberal than I am, but she is a realist, not an idealist. She recognizes that welfare perpetuates poverty. She also recognizes that the real world does not slap people awake to get themselves out of poverty. A particular mark in her favor is that she equally offends liberals and conservatives.

Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty

In Malta, headless corpses of Crusaders washed ashore. Later, those heads were used as cannonballs.

This article describes a bloody battle in a bloody time. Humanity has come a long way in its treatment of humanity. It is frightening to realize that there are still those out there who continue this barbaric treatment of their enemies.

When I read something like this, I wonder how I would have reacted.

History's bloodiest battle