Saturday, February 05, 2005
Star Wars Ep. III - Please don't be too bad
Friday, February 04, 2005
Not Yours to Give
I was impressed at the time that the company itself was no donating any company funds. Just like I am . . . Chagrined by companies the do give. And why I don't invest in companies that are "socially aware."
I don't think that a company has the right to give away funds that belong to the shareholders. That money should be put back into the company or paid out in dividends so those that have netted a profit can donate as they see fit.
I feel the same way about the government in the US too but with reservations. I mean, doing the right thing is a good thing, and sometimes it takes a business like a government to apply the money and logistics to accomplish a task in the face of emergency. But the money spent is not theirs to give. The money collected through taxes and fines and tariffs are to maintain the government. [Don't get me started on social programs in the US. That's a separate post.]
There should never be a surplus to give away. And going in to debt to assist an interest outside the US . . . I'd rather not.
The logic of course is that we vote for our representation and they vote to give whatever resources they think we would want them to give. Let's just say that they haven't asked my opinion lately and when they've made choices counter to mine . . . they don't get my vote next time around (unless of course the idiot they are running against would be a worse choice. Dangit!)
I found the story below that illustrates what I'm trying vainly to communicate:
" . . . One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it."We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis, 1884
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation: . . . ."
Baby Got Bible
BabyGotBible.avi (18MB)
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Giving Grades for effort at Benedict College
The news is old, from August of last year (oh that I were 31 years old again) but NPR must have been in need of a story and presented it this morning during "All Things Considered". [They will have the transcript posted in a few hours]
The story is this; a traditional, open, black college in South Carolina has a policy where, during the freshman year 60% of the grade is for effort. During the sophomore year, 50% is effort. For the junior and senior year the grades are based on academic performance.
Two professors have been fired for not going along with the policy.
David Swinton, president of Benedict says this:
"The logic of the SEE Policy is simple. Student learning outcomes are positively related to two factors: student learning efforts and instructional inputs. In the past most of our focus has been on instructional inputs. While we will continue to improve instructional inputs, we believe that significant gains in learning outcomes require significant gains in student inputs or efforts. Therefore, in order to improve student outcomes, all else remaining equal, we must improve student efforts. The more students work at learning the more they will learn. The SEE Policy is intended to increase the campus wide emphasis on student efforts and student responsibility to actively engage in learning activities. If the policy is successful, it will result in significant improvements in student learning and graduation rates. "
And on the surface, it's not an incorrect premise. Benedict takes in everyone, there are no grade requirements, test scores, or whatnot. You apply, you get in. Maybe these kids need encouragement. OK. Let's do that. But 60% !!
How can a graduate of this school interview for a job with this policy in their past? Blacks have a hard enough time, why shoot themselves like this?
I can't say I'm too surprised though. My experience with the elementary and high school system makes this a logical progression. We start worrying about the feelings of the children being left behind or ostracized because they are falling behind. We let them use "creative spelling" because we don't want to stifle their creativity. We give every child a ribbon for participating in events. We have multiple valedictorians or remove the position.
I'm not surprised, just disgusted.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Houston MasterWorks Chamber Ensemble
The theme was "And Say to All the World, Chants and songs: In Remembrance", inspired by the tsunami and war in Iraq. The program was a mix of readings and songs.
My favorite reading was called the Litany of Remembrance although favorite might not be the right word for the mix of joy and sadness that comes with losing someone you love.
In the rising of the sun and its going down,
My favorite musical piece of the night was "O Vos Omnes" by Tomas Luis da Vittoria (1548-1611).
Susan and I are so very proud that Sarah is singing in the chorus and in this ensemble. It appears that the ensemble is usually filled by try-outs but Sarah was invited to participate by the director.
Gwen knows cleaning
She asks how it works and we go through the process of water being pushed around.
She says how great it is that ever house has a dish cleaning machine.
I tell her that not every house has a dishwasher. Her grandmother doesn't have one.
Stunned silence.
Followed by, "So what does she do? Go to the river?"
You can't buy that kind of humor. And she's cute too!
Gwendolyn Knows the Bible
Gwen says she knows the Bible as she jumps from the chair to the ottoman to the couch and back to the ottoman.
Says she:
- Jesus was born on Christmas
- He died on Easter
- God loves us
Susan and I look at each other, nod our heads and go on with our life. Gwendolyn is right, she does know the Bible.
On a related note, she is an observant and loving kid. When we pray before bed she almost always asks God to look after someone (or someone’s’ family).that she heard about on the radio. Maybe it’s a soldier in Iraq, or someone who died in the Tsunami, or in a car accident. I love her when she does that.
It reminds me of Susan.