Education Views: Homogenity versus Heterogeneity of screwing kids up

I'll admit, its a rather wordy and pompous title, even by my standards. However I can't think of anything catchier.

I was discussing education with a coworker, and we had a disagreement over whether the federal government should have a role in it. He was all for a nationally dictated minimal curriculum. I, of course want to abolish the federal department of education and leave it as a state issue. Long term I'd like to abolish all the public schools, but the private and charitable infrastructure is not available to deal with such a radical move at the moment.

As we talked, it became apparent that similar motives and opposite views were driving us to our opposing stances. He didn't trust the state governments of other states to provide good education. I don't trust the federal government, or any of the state governments to handle education. In both cases, the concern was not for our kids (the kids he has now, and kids I might someday have), but for other kids.

The heart of his argument is that the federal government would do a good job of not screwing up kids too much. It would prevent some states from teaching Creationism. It would set reasonable achievement levels for reading and math. Individual states could hold their students to higher standards if they wanted.

The heart of my argument is any education gets something wrong. Rather than have a nation of people all with the same incorrect views on some topic, lets take steps to ensure that everyone is wrong about different things. In other words, if everyone is screwed up differently, market forces will weed out the incorrect ideas quicker. 

The Return of Imus

I was stuck in traffic yesterday morning. This was probably a good thing as I got to Listen to a good portion of Don Imus. I think it made me appreciate on some small level what he meant when he said he was thankful for being fired:

I was thinking how fortunate it was that I had been fired, because had I been there talking to them, and apologizing to them, and offering them these excuses, and still had my job.... they would have thought that I was there to try and save my job, and that might have been true, but I was there to try and save my life.

Another thing he said was he realized that when he met with the students and was "providing context" to his remarks, it was irrelevant to them. This hit somewhat closer to home. I think more people have had the experience of being forced to face their own prejudice, and find themselves saying something to the effect, "But I have (insert group here) friends!" or otherwise justifying behaviors or statements. In the end it doesn't matter.

However, does it matter that Imus had done so much good? Well perhaps it both mattered and was irrelevant at the same time. Maybe it didn't directly make up for the remarks, but taught us a greater lesson.

I sort of grew up listening to Imus. My dad mainly listened to 660 AM "The Fan" in the car when I was growing up. Especially in the morning. I don't know at what point Imus was syndicated, but really it didn't matter. From my point of view there was always Imus in the morning.

When I rediscovered AM radio on my own, I became a WABC fan. Morning Drive time was time for Curtis and Kuby. Although I had mixed opinions about the "incident," I was not reallt affected by it. To be honest, I was initially disappointed to hear that Imus would come to WABC, as I had grown accustomed to the cast of characters that I heard in the morning.

My memories of the I-man pitching his charities was first SIDs and then later his ranch. Regardless of any accusations of fund misappropriation, and the general waste of money that charitable bureaucrats can do sometimes, kids with cancer go to the ranch and have fun. It's somewhat ironic that it is a functional ranch, uet the meals are vegetarian, but hey not everyone can eat their own dog food.

A left learning person I know remarked years ago that the man is a bigot and he carries a handgun. Well I don't see a link between gun ownership and bigotry. Unless he has shot anyone we cannot link his gun ownership with prejudices. However, I think his owning a gun and behaving certain ways provided a different context for people who had negative views about Imus before the incident.

So in the end nothing has changed, but Imus's position on the dial. Oh and of course 2 black comedians working on Imus's staff. Perhaps if he makes some off color remark about non celebrity African Americans before 6am, and the two black comedians on the air don't get offended by it, that will provide some context we can all agree on. Then again perhaps not.

Observations on Parking Tickets

I get many parking tickets. This comes from growing up in an area where you could park on the street 24/7, but in my adult life having to drive to areas with things like alternate side of the street parking.

First a definition of alternate side of the street parking. Basically in New York City, neighboring Jersey City, and I'm sure many other urban areas, certain areas where you can park on the street have signs where once or twice a week you cannot park on that side of the street for a certain time period. The times are arranged so that if you cannot part your car on one side of the street today, you cannot park your car on the other side tomorrow. Hence the name alternate side of the street parking.

The reason for this is to designate a time period that the street cleaning trucks can clean the street. The penalty for failing to move your car is of course a parking ticket. Also, if they actually clean the streets that day, you get a sticker on your windshield letting you know that the streets are dirty because of you. In addition to all of this are of course areas you just cannot park during weekday daytime hours because the extra lane is needing for moving cars or the area is designated no standing except for commercial vehicles. Violating those signs means getting towed.

I've received several parking tickets, and gotten towed once. I've never gotten a sticker on my windshield, but did once watch a street cleaning truck drive around my car and quickly moved it before someone came to apply the sticker and write the ticket. I've even gotten towed once. These I can all attest to personal irresponsibility However, there is one ticket I attribute to personnel responsibility.

I was hanging out at a bar that was then called Central Ales in Valley Stream. The location of the building is shown below.


View Larger Map

While I was there, a couple of friends I don't see often showed up. They said they would give me a ride home and my friend the manager said he would give me a ride to my car in the AM. So I did a few shots of Jagar and hung out for a few hours before being dropped off at my residence.

The next day I saw a pink slip on my windshield. It said my crime was parking between the hours of 03:30 and 05:30. The merits of such a law on quality of life is questionable to me. Then again I find the concept of wanting to forbid parking on the street for the sake of forbiding it quite elitist. Generally it means people can park on the street to visit homes and residences, but need to secure a private parking spot if they reside there. Of course, the way the law is written, the main culprits are those that frequent bars in the area, and the law has the unintended consequence of encouraging drunk driving. Now in addition to having to go back and get my car the next day, and pay for a cab, I have to pay a ticket if I decide that I had too much to drink and want to do the right thing.

I never paid the ticket, but that is another story. I should have fought the ticket, because I feel so strongly about the law being wrong in this instance that I should have made my feelings public record.

Sensationalism in the media.

I site here watching the News Channel 4 at & in NYC Tonight. As usual there is a story that is teased throughout the broadcast that is one of the last stories shown.

This one seems like a first amendment issue to the uneducated, but is not. However, there might be federal fair housing laws that are applicable. I'm not quire sure of the constitutional validity of these laws, but I'm pretty sure most federal laws these days are unconstitutional.

The issue is a co-op board banned religions statues in residents front yards. A co-op board is a private organization, and therefore may make any sort of rules it wants to. They can erect a giant burning cross or a statue of Xenu, and any lawsuit based on the first amendment regarding the matter would not make it anywhere near the US Supreme Court.

I believe in religious freedom. Part of that is allowing people and private organizations to express religions views, or lack of religious views. Personally, I don't believe in going out of my way to not offend people. So I would not want to be a part of this co-op board. However, I don't exactly I'm co-op material in general.

So while I don't support this decision, I support the co-ops bord right to make it.

Camera's in the Supreme Court

Recently Clarence Thomas has published a book called My Grandfather's Son, a book in which he tells the story of being raised by his grandfather. I've yet to read it, but I plan to. However, I heard most of an interview he gave to his former supreme court clerk, Laura Ingram as part of his promotional tour.

One of the topics he is asked about in the interview is cameras in the supreme court. He said he does not see a benefit to the process from them, and therefore would not place them in the court room.

This bothers me. I'm a fan of transparency in process, for government and the private sector. I've contributed to wikipedia, and make an effort to always do so while logged in. My behavior online generally occurs while logged in. I encourage others to do likewise, and to publish their work on the internet, especially when they think its of no value.

Thats not to say that I do not support privacy. I accept the necessity of Wikipedia's allowing anonymous edits. I hope to never be compelled to edit wikipedia anonymously, but cherish my ability to do so if necessary. While I store a large amount of data on googles various services including gmail, this blog, and my entire search history. I'm a fan of allowing court records to be sealed after punishment is served. I also have plenty of my own secrets that I attempt to limit knowledge of.

I feel he is asking the wrong question. If it were my decision, the question I would I would ask would be, "Would having cameras in the Supreme Court hurt the process of judicial review that occurs there?" Also if so, why? If a court is afraid to reveal its process, that is cause for alarm.

I don't refer to the "closed door meetings" that are necessary in any dealing making process. People have to be allowed to caucus. Small subgroups have to be able to reach consensuses to sell the idea to the group at large. However, I feel that the actual process of lawyers arguing their briefs should be a matter of public record.