Monday, January 9, 2012
Student post
Love the creativity of this young man's blog post. It's an unusual and effective way to present information one has discovered. Thanks Alex. http://alexklibisz.net/blog_details.php?recordID=48
Gearing up
Two classes up and running for a week; two more starting today; two more starting next week. This is going to be one of those barely survivable semesters. Can't help but wonder why we take on more than can reasonably be handled from time to time. I know this time it was fear, fear of not having a class next semester, that caused me to accept an overload.
This is both an energizing and paralyzing time in any semester. I've spent weeks trying to revise courses and prep other courses so they will be relevant and timely. Now I will spend many hours just dealing with all the technical difficulties that happen in the first few weeks of any online class. It's surprising to me how many students don't really know how to use the technologies so essential to their success. It's frustrating that I must do most of the technical trouble-shooting because that takes away from time I could be concentrating on teaching or prepping or even grading.
Oh, well... This is the career I've chosen, and fortunately, there are always a number of delightful students in every class.
This is both an energizing and paralyzing time in any semester. I've spent weeks trying to revise courses and prep other courses so they will be relevant and timely. Now I will spend many hours just dealing with all the technical difficulties that happen in the first few weeks of any online class. It's surprising to me how many students don't really know how to use the technologies so essential to their success. It's frustrating that I must do most of the technical trouble-shooting because that takes away from time I could be concentrating on teaching or prepping or even grading.
Oh, well... This is the career I've chosen, and fortunately, there are always a number of delightful students in every class.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Fundraiser for Roland!
You can get in on a chance to win some cool prizes, but more importantly, you can help Charles and Alexis to bring their son home. Get the details here: http://www.laeliasky.com/2012/01/06/our-fundraiser/
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Roland (Joel) needs to come home
Did you notice the Reece's Rainbow donation link at the upper right? See that "Donate" button? Well, I hope you will consider clicking on it and giving just a little toward the adoption expenses for "Joel." Right now he's still in Kiev, Ukraine, and must remain there until the funds necessary for the adoption have been raised. A Ukrainian orphanage is not a very happy place. The babies spend nearly all day every day in their cribs. Sometimes they have as few as two diaper changes a day. They have little if any intellectual stimulation. They are fed, but it's barely enough to keep their little bodies going. There is no treatment of their health issues, like the arthrogryposis Joel was born with or the Down's syndrome others have. Love is something they know only if they are lucky enough to be adopted. It's just not possible to save everyone who needs saving in this world, but right now it IS possible to help save this one precious little boy.
Imagine knowing that a wonderful little person you already love so much must wait for something as superficial as money so you can finally bring him home where he will be loved, receive the specialized care he needs, AND become an inspiration to so many others. You can help. Any little bit you can swing... please. If you can't contribute, please post a link to his page and share it with all of your friends.
When his adoption is finally arranged, Joel will become Roland Quest Wesley and join one of the coolest families I know. Okay. I might be a little prejudiced since Alexis and Charles Wesley are family. She's our niece. Then again, it's hard not to marvel at this couple and their amazing daughter, Laelia. If you'd like your heart to be touched today, read their story at the blogs they write for their children:
Laelia's life: http://www.laeliasky.com/
Roland's life: http://gettingawesleyinedgewise.blogspot.com/
Imagine knowing that a wonderful little person you already love so much must wait for something as superficial as money so you can finally bring him home where he will be loved, receive the specialized care he needs, AND become an inspiration to so many others. You can help. Any little bit you can swing... please. If you can't contribute, please post a link to his page and share it with all of your friends.
When his adoption is finally arranged, Joel will become Roland Quest Wesley and join one of the coolest families I know. Okay. I might be a little prejudiced since Alexis and Charles Wesley are family. She's our niece. Then again, it's hard not to marvel at this couple and their amazing daughter, Laelia. If you'd like your heart to be touched today, read their story at the blogs they write for their children:
Laelia's life: http://www.laeliasky.com/
Roland's life: http://gettingawesleyinedgewise.blogspot.com/
It's not so black and white
A FB friend posted a link to an article written by Ed Will. She found it "interesting" but made no comment on Will's statements. So, I thought about how I might engage Mr. Will if I were talking with him about his points, and figured my thoughts would go something like this:
According to Will (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150422574527734&set=a.98301942733.92939.541152733&type=1&theater):
“1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
My thought: No wealthy person is in danger of being legislated out of existence, but the poor often need protective legislation so they can survive. The wealthy receive many hidden and explicit benefits unavailable to the poor. If their gratitude for those benefits was passed along in the form of jobs, etc. there would be no need for protective legislation. As Henry Ford noted, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” He recognized the success of his business depended upon a population earning enough to be able to purchase his products (even if all his business ventures were not so noble).
“2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
My thought: This statement contains the assumption that only those who work give, and only those who do not work receive. I have worked beside migrant laborers who put me to shame with their industry. They would never be anything but poor regardless of how many hours of back-breaking work they were willing to do each day. And most of them were paid so poorly they qualified for government assistance. I’ve also worked beside those who had been given the best education, the best opportunities, and put in the least amount of effort to have lives of wealth beyond my imagination. It takes more than a single broad brush to paint a masterpiece.
“3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
My thought: This statement implies only the “haves” are being cheated. Michele Bachman expressed this idea more explicitly when she said, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” (http://blogs.wsj.com/
A much greater concern should be the many wasteful and immoral areas of spending by our governments, federal, state, and local, that are gifted to various regions and programs based not on need but on greed. I am an American, and I support our government, so I am willing to pay my fair share even when I do not believe the funds are being used properly. As long as I have a home and food and the amazingly comfortable life that I have, I would rather be found guilty of giving too much rather than too little.
“4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!”
My thought: This statement makes little sense. Our nation is not about “multiplying wealth.” It is, however, based on a concept of fairness that extends even to the realm of opportunity. Those who have been blessed to receive a great deal should be willing to share accordingly; their blessings do not always come because of their hard work any more than a really hard working person is always assured of achieving monetary success.
“5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
My thought: This is an unfair characterization that half our nation worked hard to earn its wealth and the other half is lazy and sucking the lifeblood of those who have earned what they have. The truth is there are some taking advantage of the system to get government handouts, but the wealthy are as likely as the poor to be in that category. The difference is we call handouts to the poor “welfare” but handouts to the rich “subsidies.”
About 8% of the population received ANY sort of welfare assistance, but only 1.7% received more than 50% of its income from welfare. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
btw, in my opinion there is NO person who can possibly be worth the average $31,232 per DAY 299 CEOs of S&P 500 companies get. And, if one limits their work week to 5 days, that average jumps to $43,846 per DAY. (http://www.aflcio.org/
I am deeply disturbed by the course of our nation. We seem to be marching headlong into behaviors and attitudes I find inconsistent with the life I want to live. It's harder and harder to focus on compassion and service when the national focus seems to be more on individual materialism and power consolidation, and I see that as a problem of all political groups. We are less and less willing to see the world from the other person's point of view, and that makes us less and less willing to compromise (not on principles but on actions and directions).
According to Will (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150422574527734&set=a.98301942733.92939.541152733&type=1&theater):
“1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
My thought: No wealthy person is in danger of being legislated out of existence, but the poor often need protective legislation so they can survive. The wealthy receive many hidden and explicit benefits unavailable to the poor. If their gratitude for those benefits was passed along in the form of jobs, etc. there would be no need for protective legislation. As Henry Ford noted, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” He recognized the success of his business depended upon a population earning enough to be able to purchase his products (even if all his business ventures were not so noble).
“2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
My thought: This statement contains the assumption that only those who work give, and only those who do not work receive. I have worked beside migrant laborers who put me to shame with their industry. They would never be anything but poor regardless of how many hours of back-breaking work they were willing to do each day. And most of them were paid so poorly they qualified for government assistance. I’ve also worked beside those who had been given the best education, the best opportunities, and put in the least amount of effort to have lives of wealth beyond my imagination. It takes more than a single broad brush to paint a masterpiece.
“3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
My thought: This statement implies only the “haves” are being cheated. Michele Bachman expressed this idea more explicitly when she said, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” (http://blogs.wsj.com/
A much greater concern should be the many wasteful and immoral areas of spending by our governments, federal, state, and local, that are gifted to various regions and programs based not on need but on greed. I am an American, and I support our government, so I am willing to pay my fair share even when I do not believe the funds are being used properly. As long as I have a home and food and the amazingly comfortable life that I have, I would rather be found guilty of giving too much rather than too little.
“4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!”
My thought: This statement makes little sense. Our nation is not about “multiplying wealth.” It is, however, based on a concept of fairness that extends even to the realm of opportunity. Those who have been blessed to receive a great deal should be willing to share accordingly; their blessings do not always come because of their hard work any more than a really hard working person is always assured of achieving monetary success.
“5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
My thought: This is an unfair characterization that half our nation worked hard to earn its wealth and the other half is lazy and sucking the lifeblood of those who have earned what they have. The truth is there are some taking advantage of the system to get government handouts, but the wealthy are as likely as the poor to be in that category. The difference is we call handouts to the poor “welfare” but handouts to the rich “subsidies.”
About 8% of the population received ANY sort of welfare assistance, but only 1.7% received more than 50% of its income from welfare. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
btw, in my opinion there is NO person who can possibly be worth the average $31,232 per DAY 299 CEOs of S&P 500 companies get. And, if one limits their work week to 5 days, that average jumps to $43,846 per DAY. (http://www.aflcio.org/
I am deeply disturbed by the course of our nation. We seem to be marching headlong into behaviors and attitudes I find inconsistent with the life I want to live. It's harder and harder to focus on compassion and service when the national focus seems to be more on individual materialism and power consolidation, and I see that as a problem of all political groups. We are less and less willing to see the world from the other person's point of view, and that makes us less and less willing to compromise (not on principles but on actions and directions).
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Occupy the 1st Amendment
What direction should our nation take? Will we accept tyranny when directed at the 99% but reject it for the 1%? Hear Dr. Martin Luther King speak to and for the 99%.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Ideas from Evernote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)