We had opted to live on Base for the first year. It seemed like a good idea. We'd had such a great experience with Hunt Property Management through the Army, and we thought that going from post to base would make the adjustment easier on the Littles. We were scheduled to get the keys Monday morning at 10:30. We pulled up just in time, the weather was fine, and ...
And I'll be honest, the grossly abbreviated story that follows has soured me quite a bit. I'm working on it, because nobody wants to live with a soured heart, but I'm not there yet. (Honestly, I tried to convince Z to jettison the entire idea and go with something different in town. We could not come to an agreement, and it's really challenging for everyone to negotiate plans remotely, so we powered through on this one.)
There had been some confusion earlier (starting in July) with our application, as John turned 18 over the summer, and they wanted to know that he was a full-time student in order to allow him to live with us. A letter of acceptance for the fall term at the local college didn't count. They insisted on a verification of enrollment form showing a current schedule of registered classes totaling 15 hours (which the lady claimed is "full time" in New Mexico - heads up, it's not, it's 12 hours, just like every other public school in the lower 48 - and it's six hours for Summer Term, but she knows what she knows). Of course, most kids don't take summer classes between high school graduation and Freshman year of college, but John took 14 hours over the summer, so *whew*! He sent a verification of enrollment from Calhoun, showing full-time status in good standing. There, done.
Nope. They insisted that that wasn't full-time (???Freaks.), and even if it was, it wasn't at UNM (nothing in the rules states that the student must be at any specific institution), and we just really need to understand the rules and since he's not a student (by what metric, we couldn't discern, but they insisted), he can't live with us. Maybe we can re-apply when he's actually a student and we understand the rules. And finally,
"Oh, yeah, that's a new policy we haven't fully implemented yet. It doesn't apply to him, He doesn't have to be in school. He just needs permission from the Base Commander for an exception to policy to allow him to live with you."
So we filed that. And there was more, so much more. They wouldn't give us a lease without base IDs for everyone (but, of course, you can't get a base ID without a reason for being on base, and if your reason for being on base is that you live in base housing, you need a lease...) All of this, however, was supposedly squared away before we ever left Alabama.
We pulled up Monday morning and were told John can't live with us because (wait for it)... he's not a full-time student. (Ah, you caught us! He is not, in fact, actively taking classes BETWEEN SEMESTERS!) They lost our background checks. We have to file a new Exception to Policy form. Oh, and the policy that wasn't implemented three weeks ago was fully implemented while we were on the road, so we DO need all that paperwork, after all. But they tossed the ones we'd submitted before.
Ah, but I have photos of each of them! (Because I do catch on, eventually.)
Oh, so sorry. We have new forms, now. So you'll need to re-do those, as well. No, you cannot move in until all of that is done over. It'll only take 3-5 days, but don't worry because it's a process. Trust us. We're the government, and we're here to help!
We have spent hours each day this week getting this sorted. There was some kind of act of benevolence that allowed someone to recognize what a cluster this whole thing is and issue an order to allow us to move in by using the 30-day grace period they have (that. no. one. thought. to. mention. before...) Today is Friday, and he is finally on the lease as of 4:30 yesterday afternoon.
Of course, the badge system is down, so none of us has base IDs yet. We had to get extended temporary passes yesterday morning before Z left TDY because we can't renew without him, and ours were set to expire five hours after the office closed on Friday and one hour after he returned from his trip. So that could have been an awkward impromptu night in a hotel! Bless, bless, BLESS the kind airman who laminated our temporary passes for us so that they'll last the month! Truly, he has been the absolute highlight of the move-in process, and I hope he has a long and fruitful career in the Air Force. He's my favorite!
In the meantime, I'm playing heck establishing John's NM identity! You can't get a library card or NM driver's license without proof of residency. You can't apply for EMS licensure in the State without proof that you live here. And you can't apply for a tuition residency waiver without a NM license and proof of residency. (All sane requirements. Normally, it's not this blessed difficult to get a kid put on a lease!) But that's okay, because we still haven't been able to get him registered for classes, which start Monday.
So this particular part of the move hasn't been a hoot, I'll be upfront about that.
However, there has also been so much good! I'll fill you in on that tomorrow!
Be encouraged!
~ Dy
Showing posts with label too stoopid to govern ourselves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label too stoopid to govern ourselves. Show all posts
Monday, August 27
Thursday, May 27
Myths and Ire
M'kay... So, I saw this online the other day...
As you know, if you've read here for any length of time, I believe that teaching children is one of the most noble, powerful, worthwhile endeavors any human can engage in. While we choose not to contract with the government for the education of our children, we've also long felt that teachers should have more control over their classrooms, better pay (particularly when viewed through the School District spending, in general), and backup from the parents. Granted, as long as the Department of Education continues to expand its grip on American Education, that first bit isn't going to happen, not by a long shot.
And as long as the educational unions remain as prolific as they are, the deadlock of corruption and waste endemic in the public school systems will not be resolved to anybody's satisfaction in the foreseeable future. (And really, who can blame voters for voting down bond measures when Admin salaries or peripheral expenses go up and up and teacher's salaries stagnate, every time? We could mortgage our futures, and yet it seems the teachers won't ever see the money.)
And, really, while I'm generally pretty empathetic about teachers' salaries, the amount of sheer smarminess in this little tirade rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, who gets a baby sitter for $3/hr? Oh, I know, that's supposed to be "the point". Well, let's look at a few other points:
~ A babysitter will come to my home.
~ A babysitter will do so on my schedule.
~ A babysitter will give my child individualized care and attention.
~ A babysitter will use the materials I feel are superior, and not just what the Head Sitter has told her to use.
~ A babysitter will happily use materials I provide, if hers are not up to par.
~ A babysitter is accountable to me.
~ If the babysitter sucks at her job, I can fire her and find a competent one.
~ If the babysitter simply is not capable of interacting or connecting with my child, I can fire her and find one who is.
~If the babysitter abuses/hits on/offers drugs to my child, the sitter is out. of. here. - no "administrative leave", and certainly not a paid one! Gone. If I don't trust you, you have no business being in charge of my child. That's my call.
~ If I find out the babysitter is trying to teach my children that they, minors who can't live on their own yet, are intuitively more worldly and knowledgeable than we, their parents, are, I can fire her and find one with a functional moral compass.
~ If I have any questions or concerns about how the babysitter is doing her job, I don't have to worry about getting the run around about "standard procedures", "school policy", "protocols", or "letting the *experts* handle this".
~ A babysitter isn't obligated to some union that has my children at the bottom of the priority list.
~ A babysitter is someone I have personally chosen, based on the criteria I value and desire in the interaction and care of my children, not based on someone else's ideas of "competent", "certified", or even "professional".
~ A babysitter will pick up a bit, too, if she's really good.
~ A babysitter doesn't forget that I, the parent, AM the Ultimate Advocate for my child. Ever. (Refer to the sixth one, above.)
I'd say that's worth something.
And when you add in actually teaching, educating, my child? AND doing it well? There simply is no way to fully compensate someone monetarily for that, no matter how much blood you tax from property owners. And so, I do it, myself. And still pay the taxes so that other people have access to teachers for their children.
As with any social government program, though, public education is rife with bureaucracy, red tape, conundrums wrapped in enigmas, waste, corruption, pissing contests among all participants, political malarkey, and, of course, inefficiency. I'm really sorry the system is in such bad shape, but don't get snarky with me, expecting me to believe that more money will magically fix the problems. Clean house and sort it out, then talk. Or not. Whatever.
Just makes me that much happier that my children aren't in the hands of people with this much ire toward the rest of the world.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
I am fed up with teachers and their hefty salary guides. What we need here is a little perspective. If I had my way, I'd pay these teachers myself.... I'd pay them babysitting wages. That's right... instead of paying these outrageous taxes, I'd give them $3.00 an hour out of my own pocket. And I'm only going to pay them for five hours, not coffee breaks. That would be $15.00 a day - each parent should pay $15.00 a day for these teachers to babysit their child. Even if they have more than one child, it's still a lot cheaper than private day care.
Now, how many children do they teach a day - maybe twenty? That's $15.00 x 20 = $300 a day. But, remember they only work 180 days a year!! I'm not going to pay them for all those vacations. $300 x 180 = $54,000. (Just a minute, I think my calculator needs batteries.)
I know now you teachers will say what about those who have ten years' experience and a Master's degree? Well, maybe (to be fair) they could get the minimum wage, and instead of just babysitting, they could read the kids a story. We can round that off to about $5.00 an hour, times five hours, times 20 children. That's $500 a day times 180 days. That's $90,000....HUH???? Wait a minute, let's get a little perspective here. Babysitting wages are too good for these teachers. Did anyone see a salary guide around here??
Author Unknown - it could have been any one of America's 2.5 million "overpaid" public school teachers
As you know, if you've read here for any length of time, I believe that teaching children is one of the most noble, powerful, worthwhile endeavors any human can engage in. While we choose not to contract with the government for the education of our children, we've also long felt that teachers should have more control over their classrooms, better pay (particularly when viewed through the School District spending, in general), and backup from the parents. Granted, as long as the Department of Education continues to expand its grip on American Education, that first bit isn't going to happen, not by a long shot.
And as long as the educational unions remain as prolific as they are, the deadlock of corruption and waste endemic in the public school systems will not be resolved to anybody's satisfaction in the foreseeable future. (And really, who can blame voters for voting down bond measures when Admin salaries or peripheral expenses go up and up and teacher's salaries stagnate, every time? We could mortgage our futures, and yet it seems the teachers won't ever see the money.)
And, really, while I'm generally pretty empathetic about teachers' salaries, the amount of sheer smarminess in this little tirade rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, who gets a baby sitter for $3/hr? Oh, I know, that's supposed to be "the point". Well, let's look at a few other points:
~ A babysitter will come to my home.
~ A babysitter will do so on my schedule.
~ A babysitter will give my child individualized care and attention.
~ A babysitter will use the materials I feel are superior, and not just what the Head Sitter has told her to use.
~ A babysitter will happily use materials I provide, if hers are not up to par.
~ A babysitter is accountable to me.
~ If the babysitter sucks at her job, I can fire her and find a competent one.
~ If the babysitter simply is not capable of interacting or connecting with my child, I can fire her and find one who is.
~If the babysitter abuses/hits on/offers drugs to my child, the sitter is out. of. here. - no "administrative leave", and certainly not a paid one! Gone. If I don't trust you, you have no business being in charge of my child. That's my call.
~ If I find out the babysitter is trying to teach my children that they, minors who can't live on their own yet, are intuitively more worldly and knowledgeable than we, their parents, are, I can fire her and find one with a functional moral compass.
~ If I have any questions or concerns about how the babysitter is doing her job, I don't have to worry about getting the run around about "standard procedures", "school policy", "protocols", or "letting the *experts* handle this".
~ A babysitter isn't obligated to some union that has my children at the bottom of the priority list.
~ A babysitter is someone I have personally chosen, based on the criteria I value and desire in the interaction and care of my children, not based on someone else's ideas of "competent", "certified", or even "professional".
~ A babysitter will pick up a bit, too, if she's really good.
~ A babysitter doesn't forget that I, the parent, AM the Ultimate Advocate for my child. Ever. (Refer to the sixth one, above.)
I'd say that's worth something.
And when you add in actually teaching, educating, my child? AND doing it well? There simply is no way to fully compensate someone monetarily for that, no matter how much blood you tax from property owners. And so, I do it, myself. And still pay the taxes so that other people have access to teachers for their children.
As with any social government program, though, public education is rife with bureaucracy, red tape, conundrums wrapped in enigmas, waste, corruption, pissing contests among all participants, political malarkey, and, of course, inefficiency. I'm really sorry the system is in such bad shape, but don't get snarky with me, expecting me to believe that more money will magically fix the problems. Clean house and sort it out, then talk. Or not. Whatever.
Just makes me that much happier that my children aren't in the hands of people with this much ire toward the rest of the world.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Thursday, April 16
Tea Party in Huntsville
The kids and I donned our civil disobedience garb (I kid - we just wore sensible shoes) and trekked to downtown Hunstville for yesterday's Tea Party. The police were out in force, but the biggest problem they had was keeping everyone within the boundaries of the area we'd reserved for the rally. We weren't being difficult. It's just that the turnout was fantastic, and the area we had available to us was just a might-bit packed. It was a sardine rally! Next time, we need a larger venue. The capitol building, perhaps?
We started out in the Way Back. I had Em in the stroller and Jase in the sling, and wasn’t up for wedging ourselves in. I've no desire to relive younger, concert-going days. (Not to mention, the fear I had of knocking over a sweet old lady and becoming the Problem Child of the Rally.) The big boys, however, wanted to *see* what was going on. So, they edged their way to the front. They didn’t have to edge very hard. The crowd happily let them through, and they ended up in the front row, with perfect seats to the whole thing.
They were close enough to read name tags (which I know they didn’t do, because when I mentioned to Zorak how great Dale Jackson’s emcee work was, they both said, “THAT was Dale JACKSON? COOL!”). So many things are wasted on the young, like having those big ol’ eyes and being short enough that people happily let you stand in front.
There were so many great signs, and so many friendly, encouraging people. And I really need two or three more arms. And another set of eyes. And... yep. I missed so much, just trying to make sure Smidge and Em didn't wander off to become Statistics. (My knees still ache a bit just thinking about that.) After the protest, though, I gave John the camera and turned him loose.
Everybody was helpful, friendly, and encouraging. This is the kind of change we need. The question now is whether we can keep the momentum up long enough to make it to the next Congressional Election.
Anyway, it was everything you’d expect from a rally attended by people who are big on Personal Responsibility. No vandalism, no rioting, no random fights. (Even the enthusiastic pack of Ron Paul supporters behaved quite well.*) We had to disperse much sooner than we were ready, but folks had to get back to work, and the permit for the space expired at one-thirty. However, it was great to see people from different groups all talking animatedly as they left, sharing ideas, arguing points, sharpening one another's thoughts, and lifting each other up.
Good stuff. The kids are ready to do more. And that, too, is good stuff.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
*About the Ron Paul supporters: awesome bunch!! It was the running joke, even amongst themselves, that they were the "rabble rousers", what with their unbridled enthusiasm and rampant humor. The volunteer security guys laughingly said if that was the worst of their worries, they were in for a very easy day. Completely awesome turnout from the Ron Paul crowd!!*
We started out in the Way Back. I had Em in the stroller and Jase in the sling, and wasn’t up for wedging ourselves in. I've no desire to relive younger, concert-going days. (Not to mention, the fear I had of knocking over a sweet old lady and becoming the Problem Child of the Rally.) The big boys, however, wanted to *see* what was going on. So, they edged their way to the front. They didn’t have to edge very hard. The crowd happily let them through, and they ended up in the front row, with perfect seats to the whole thing.
They were close enough to read name tags (which I know they didn’t do, because when I mentioned to Zorak how great Dale Jackson’s emcee work was, they both said, “THAT was Dale JACKSON? COOL!”). So many things are wasted on the young, like having those big ol’ eyes and being short enough that people happily let you stand in front.
There were so many great signs, and so many friendly, encouraging people. And I really need two or three more arms. And another set of eyes. And... yep. I missed so much, just trying to make sure Smidge and Em didn't wander off to become Statistics. (My knees still ache a bit just thinking about that.) After the protest, though, I gave John the camera and turned him loose.
Everybody was helpful, friendly, and encouraging. This is the kind of change we need. The question now is whether we can keep the momentum up long enough to make it to the next Congressional Election.
Anyway, it was everything you’d expect from a rally attended by people who are big on Personal Responsibility. No vandalism, no rioting, no random fights. (Even the enthusiastic pack of Ron Paul supporters behaved quite well.*) We had to disperse much sooner than we were ready, but folks had to get back to work, and the permit for the space expired at one-thirty. However, it was great to see people from different groups all talking animatedly as they left, sharing ideas, arguing points, sharpening one another's thoughts, and lifting each other up.
Good stuff. The kids are ready to do more. And that, too, is good stuff.Kiss those babies!
~Dy
*About the Ron Paul supporters: awesome bunch!! It was the running joke, even amongst themselves, that they were the "rabble rousers", what with their unbridled enthusiasm and rampant humor. The volunteer security guys laughingly said if that was the worst of their worries, they were in for a very easy day. Completely awesome turnout from the Ron Paul crowd!!*
Tuesday, November 4
I have an idea...
I just read that an estimated $2.4 BILLION has been spent on campaigning for this election. How about some real campaign finance reform for a change?
Next election, stick to one flier or program per candidate, mass-mailed to every home in the country... and put the rest of that money into something else. I don't know, reducing our national debt, perhaps?
Put it in Directly. No special interest groups. No lobbyists. No campaign managers. No paid staff. Surely, candidates with people who believe in them could rally the manpower to get ONE flier sent to each and every home without having to pay even half that much, right?
Make it tight. Make it good. Make it honest, 'cuz God help you if something you wrote isn't true - that's your only shot.
Maybe splurge in the last month and make one trip around the country. OK, that'll cost a bit more. Still nowhere near $2.4 BILLION. Because, seriously, anybody who can spend that kind of money without blinking is probably not really in touch with a single thing that takes place on Main Street, Burbon Street, or the back alleys in towns along Route 66.
We've been among the demographics pandered to this election, and it's been disgusting. It's been like sitting in on an Andy Kauffman sketch, only there is no joke in there. I don't know how groups who generally get pandered to can put up with it. This entire election, we've heard nothing but how stoopid, how incapable, how incredibly lost we all are without the Federal Government taking care of us. And worse yet, how they're going to take care of us. It's insulting. The fact that these people think we want this kind of condescension blows my mind. The fact that there are people clamoring along with the "oh, me, too! me, too!" tirades I've also seen is mind-boggling.
We need some kind of opt-out feature. Give me an affidavit that says I didn't ask for you to look out for me, I didn't accept your "help", and I don't acknowledge your premise that I'm stoopid, incapable, or lost. I'll sign it and be on my way. I don't think I'd be alone, either. I think the candidates may actually be quite shocked to find how many signed, notarized forms they'd get back.
Gah, I'll be glad when this is over. Probably not happy with the results, but at least, for a little while, we'll have a reprieve from the onslaught of just how ridiculously incompetent We The People are.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Next election, stick to one flier or program per candidate, mass-mailed to every home in the country... and put the rest of that money into something else. I don't know, reducing our national debt, perhaps?
Put it in Directly. No special interest groups. No lobbyists. No campaign managers. No paid staff. Surely, candidates with people who believe in them could rally the manpower to get ONE flier sent to each and every home without having to pay even half that much, right?
Make it tight. Make it good. Make it honest, 'cuz God help you if something you wrote isn't true - that's your only shot.
Maybe splurge in the last month and make one trip around the country. OK, that'll cost a bit more. Still nowhere near $2.4 BILLION. Because, seriously, anybody who can spend that kind of money without blinking is probably not really in touch with a single thing that takes place on Main Street, Burbon Street, or the back alleys in towns along Route 66.
We've been among the demographics pandered to this election, and it's been disgusting. It's been like sitting in on an Andy Kauffman sketch, only there is no joke in there. I don't know how groups who generally get pandered to can put up with it. This entire election, we've heard nothing but how stoopid, how incapable, how incredibly lost we all are without the Federal Government taking care of us. And worse yet, how they're going to take care of us. It's insulting. The fact that these people think we want this kind of condescension blows my mind. The fact that there are people clamoring along with the "oh, me, too! me, too!" tirades I've also seen is mind-boggling.
We need some kind of opt-out feature. Give me an affidavit that says I didn't ask for you to look out for me, I didn't accept your "help", and I don't acknowledge your premise that I'm stoopid, incapable, or lost. I'll sign it and be on my way. I don't think I'd be alone, either. I think the candidates may actually be quite shocked to find how many signed, notarized forms they'd get back.
Gah, I'll be glad when this is over. Probably not happy with the results, but at least, for a little while, we'll have a reprieve from the onslaught of just how ridiculously incompetent We The People are.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Wednesday, October 24
Still No Card
Well, the SSA office called back. Actually, it seems I'd spoken with the supervisor, who tracked it down and made the pleasant lady I'd originally dealt with call me back. (He had asked if we'd provided a vaccination card as proof of ID, and when I mentioned how extremely unprofessional the woman at the desk had been, he said, "Oh, okay, based just on that, I know who you dealt with. OK, I can find it now." Lovely. I got his problem child. We're paying this woman to drop the ball and foist her attitude and personal philosophies on citizens. Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? Your tax dollars at work.
When she called back, she began the conversation with, "I have all the original paperwork here, and I've *just* re-faxed the copy of your birth certificate to Montgomery."
What?
"Well, sometimes faxes don't go through, and we have no way of knowing."
What?!? (I'm sorry, but the last time I worked in the corporate world, it was for Xerox, and I am very well aware that fax confirmation is a standard feature on business machines. And that was ten years ago. You know when it went through.) So what she meant to say was, "Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I never checked."
I asked if she has, oh, a phone number in Montgomery, so that she could call down there to confirm whether they received it. She said it's their policy to wait. Then she started in on how difficult it is to get a number for a child if you don't do it immediately upon birth, and that's why hospitals handle it, and really, if we hadn't waited so long...
(Sooooo, if we hadn't waited so long, you'd have checked to see if the fax went through? Or if we hadn't had a homebirth, you wouldn't have your hackles up? What, exactly, is the problem, here? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like Federal Gov't inefficiency, to me.)
I cut her off and let her know that I expect to hear from her regularly on this, and I will be calling weekly until I have a number. (What other options do I have? If there's a way to be more proactive on this, or circumvent the woman, please fill me in.)
And yes, yes I do look at situations like this and absolutely wonder at how anybody thinks nationalizing any industry is a good idea. It's a terrifying concept.
argh.
Dy
When she called back, she began the conversation with, "I have all the original paperwork here, and I've *just* re-faxed the copy of your birth certificate to Montgomery."
What?
"Well, sometimes faxes don't go through, and we have no way of knowing."
What?!? (I'm sorry, but the last time I worked in the corporate world, it was for Xerox, and I am very well aware that fax confirmation is a standard feature on business machines. And that was ten years ago. You know when it went through.) So what she meant to say was, "Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I never checked."
I asked if she has, oh, a phone number in Montgomery, so that she could call down there to confirm whether they received it. She said it's their policy to wait. Then she started in on how difficult it is to get a number for a child if you don't do it immediately upon birth, and that's why hospitals handle it, and really, if we hadn't waited so long...
(Sooooo, if we hadn't waited so long, you'd have checked to see if the fax went through? Or if we hadn't had a homebirth, you wouldn't have your hackles up? What, exactly, is the problem, here? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like Federal Gov't inefficiency, to me.)
I cut her off and let her know that I expect to hear from her regularly on this, and I will be calling weekly until I have a number. (What other options do I have? If there's a way to be more proactive on this, or circumvent the woman, please fill me in.)
And yes, yes I do look at situations like this and absolutely wonder at how anybody thinks nationalizing any industry is a good idea. It's a terrifying concept.
argh.
Dy
Tuesday, October 23
Oh, yeah, let's make it BIGGER
So, remember my little visit to the Social Security Administration, back at the beginning of September? Here's a recap, taken from an update in the comments section:
So, we're well past the three week mark. Or the six week mark. We're sneaking up on the eight week mark, and we thought FOR CERTAIN there'd be a social security number waiting for us at the post office. Nope. Not even a hint of a number, or a note, or a Dear John letter. Nothing.
I'd called in the past to check on the status, and every time, I have to hang up after five or six minutes on hold because, well, children get hungry. Or poop. Or mutiny. Today, I hung in there. Thirty three minutes on hold, but I got a human.
A human who has no record of our application, my existence, or EmBaby's birth. Mmmmm, yeah. OK, so this is working well, no? Sure! What else can we put the Federal Gov't in charge of, while we're at it? Gah.
Kiss those babies ~ legal, or not. ;-)
Dy
Well, the doctor's office put together a "packet", which they hoped would suffice. It included a vaccination card (which is empty, but it's filled in w/ the required information, and a note on the bottom that we have opted to delay vaccines). The SS lady held it up, *scoffed at me* and said, "And just where, exactly, did you get THIS from?" I got it, exactly, from the child's pediatric office, and it was one item which *your* office expressly cited as "acceptable". She furrowed her brows at me, "It's empty."
Well, hey, she doesn't have to be vaccinated in order to get a ss#. (That'll come later, under Universal Health Care.) I'm providing this as one of YOUR acceptable forms of ID. *big smile*
She wouldn't accept it. I guess it looked fake.
Fortunately, the rest of the packet, although each individual piece of evidence was dismissed, did, when taken as a whole, provide enough information that they couldn't show us the door without more effort than it was worth.
Now she'll send the copy of the original birth certificate (the copy she made, herself, from the original, there in the office) to Montgomery, where they will verify that it is "an exact copy of the original", and then they will mail us the card.
Honestly, if the use and abuse of a social security number were better monitored (and abuses prosecuted) -- if there was any validation for all of this "security", I wouldn't mind so much. But as it stands, they are holding our money (tax refund) hostage until we jump through the mystery hoops. It's ridiculous.
So, we're well past the three week mark. Or the six week mark. We're sneaking up on the eight week mark, and we thought FOR CERTAIN there'd be a social security number waiting for us at the post office. Nope. Not even a hint of a number, or a note, or a Dear John letter. Nothing.
I'd called in the past to check on the status, and every time, I have to hang up after five or six minutes on hold because, well, children get hungry. Or poop. Or mutiny. Today, I hung in there. Thirty three minutes on hold, but I got a human.
A human who has no record of our application, my existence, or EmBaby's birth. Mmmmm, yeah. OK, so this is working well, no? Sure! What else can we put the Federal Gov't in charge of, while we're at it? Gah.
Kiss those babies ~ legal, or not. ;-)
Dy
Tuesday, September 4
Out of the Pile - and a Tirade
Well, nothing sets things aright like a little surprise visit with family -- the Engaged Cousins, on their way to set up their new home and prepare for the wedding. They brought their dog, Miss, who enjoyed the playtime with Balto. Well, no, strike that. Balto enjoyed some playtime with Miss. Miss much preferred to be inside, away from that pesky pup. But in all, they got on well and it was good for both dogs to have time to play.
And I'll tell ya, if you don't have children, a few days spent in a home with children coming out of every nook and cranny will either give you baby fever, or a desire to get your tubes tied at the first available moment. I forget how quirky, vocal, funny, noisy, hectic, and particularly loud our home is, until I get a moment to see it through the eyes of others. Yep, pretty chaotic, when you don't have the chance to gear up for it, one or two children at a time. But oh, when those little ones climb up on your lap for no reason other than to be near you, or hug your legs and give you unsolicited kisses, ah, that's something you don't find just anywhere. I hope the cousins left feeling loved.
Now that EmBaby has a birth certificate, I am trying to get her a social security number. This is proving even more challenging than it was with Smidge. A birth certificate is not enough to validate identity (in spite of the hoops you must jump through in Alabama to get a homebirth birth certificate). The lady at the social security office was somewhat mortified that EmBaby doesn't have a Medicaid card (*sigh*), or a "school ID card" -- a quiet reminder that the child is one and a half didn't seem to sink in.
About the only proof of identification the social security office will accept (that we have any hope in hell of obtaining) is a "medical record" -- namely, the insurance sheet/bill you get when you pay for a doctor's visit. Right. Anybody actually keep those? I mean, if you don't itemize your medical deductions, or file your own insurance claims? Just curious, because the lady at the gubmint office was quite thrown for a loop at our total lack of identification for this little person. It has to be one of those, and it cannot be expired. Did you know they expire? I asked, specifically, what constitutes an "expired" medical record. She said it can't be ten years old, or anything like that. Which, okay, sounds reasonable enough, except that we're talking about a 19 month old child. If it's even two years old, it's fake. Seriously, what constitutes "expired for a 19 month old"? Oh, well, she hemmed and hawed and finally declared that it must be issued within the last month.
*sigh* They don't even know what they want. They only know that you must figure it out if you want to get this done. I am so done with our federal government.
No, the doctor's office cannot run us off a copy from her file (it must be the *original*), and no, they will not accept a letter from the doctor's office, and well, all I have to do is get her medical records, and what's the problem...
She began to chide me for losing EmBaby's card in the first place, and how difficult it is to replace a card. I stopped her. WHOA -- this is a NEW card, a FIRST card. I explained this at the onset. "What? Why doesn't she have one yet?" Oh. You have got to be kidding me. AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, her birth certificate was just issued last week. She has nothing. She's ONE. At this point she said, "Well *exhale* the sooner you get a child into the community, the easier this is."
Ah, and there it is. The community? Oh, she's into the community just fine. They know her at church, among friends, down at the corner market and gas station, at the Pig, at the water company, and even among our homeschooling community. What this woman meant is that the sooner I get my children into gov't sponsored health care, or gov't sponsored daycare, or gov't approved activities of some kind, the easier the government will go on us. This is the way our federal government works on a daily basis, and yet people keep clamoring to the federal level with "help us", "take care of us", "provide for us". And those of us who don't, then we simply must not understand how nice it is there in the Nanny State.
Finally, in an exasperated state, the lady said our doctor's office should know exactly what they need (since she obviously didn't) and offered to transfer me "to the voice mail of the front office", where I could leave a detailed message. I left my message. I called the doctor's office. Twenty minutes on hold, and they have no idea what the social security office needs. They said they'll try to figure it out and get back with me. Like the doctor's secretary said, "Well, all we have is what you gave us? How is that going to help?" Yeah. I know. This is ridiculous.
Don't you all feel safer, now, knowing that law-abiding citizens have so much "security" to go through to be recognized by their own government? Me neither.
Ah, well, whether the government recognizes my children or not, they're here, they're legal, and they're wonderful. Hopefully, they will grow up as far from the reach of the federal government as we can keep them so that they grow up to be competent, thinking, self-sufficient citizens. It certainly won't make life easier on them, not the way this country is heading, but it will make them better off, as people.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
And I'll tell ya, if you don't have children, a few days spent in a home with children coming out of every nook and cranny will either give you baby fever, or a desire to get your tubes tied at the first available moment. I forget how quirky, vocal, funny, noisy, hectic, and particularly loud our home is, until I get a moment to see it through the eyes of others. Yep, pretty chaotic, when you don't have the chance to gear up for it, one or two children at a time. But oh, when those little ones climb up on your lap for no reason other than to be near you, or hug your legs and give you unsolicited kisses, ah, that's something you don't find just anywhere. I hope the cousins left feeling loved.
Now that EmBaby has a birth certificate, I am trying to get her a social security number. This is proving even more challenging than it was with Smidge. A birth certificate is not enough to validate identity (in spite of the hoops you must jump through in Alabama to get a homebirth birth certificate). The lady at the social security office was somewhat mortified that EmBaby doesn't have a Medicaid card (*sigh*), or a "school ID card" -- a quiet reminder that the child is one and a half didn't seem to sink in.
About the only proof of identification the social security office will accept (that we have any hope in hell of obtaining) is a "medical record" -- namely, the insurance sheet/bill you get when you pay for a doctor's visit. Right. Anybody actually keep those? I mean, if you don't itemize your medical deductions, or file your own insurance claims? Just curious, because the lady at the gubmint office was quite thrown for a loop at our total lack of identification for this little person. It has to be one of those, and it cannot be expired. Did you know they expire? I asked, specifically, what constitutes an "expired" medical record. She said it can't be ten years old, or anything like that. Which, okay, sounds reasonable enough, except that we're talking about a 19 month old child. If it's even two years old, it's fake. Seriously, what constitutes "expired for a 19 month old"? Oh, well, she hemmed and hawed and finally declared that it must be issued within the last month.
*sigh* They don't even know what they want. They only know that you must figure it out if you want to get this done. I am so done with our federal government.
No, the doctor's office cannot run us off a copy from her file (it must be the *original*), and no, they will not accept a letter from the doctor's office, and well, all I have to do is get her medical records, and what's the problem...
She began to chide me for losing EmBaby's card in the first place, and how difficult it is to replace a card. I stopped her. WHOA -- this is a NEW card, a FIRST card. I explained this at the onset. "What? Why doesn't she have one yet?" Oh. You have got to be kidding me. AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, her birth certificate was just issued last week. She has nothing. She's ONE. At this point she said, "Well *exhale* the sooner you get a child into the community, the easier this is."
Ah, and there it is. The community? Oh, she's into the community just fine. They know her at church, among friends, down at the corner market and gas station, at the Pig, at the water company, and even among our homeschooling community. What this woman meant is that the sooner I get my children into gov't sponsored health care, or gov't sponsored daycare, or gov't approved activities of some kind, the easier the government will go on us. This is the way our federal government works on a daily basis, and yet people keep clamoring to the federal level with "help us", "take care of us", "provide for us". And those of us who don't, then we simply must not understand how nice it is there in the Nanny State.
Finally, in an exasperated state, the lady said our doctor's office should know exactly what they need (since she obviously didn't) and offered to transfer me "to the voice mail of the front office", where I could leave a detailed message. I left my message. I called the doctor's office. Twenty minutes on hold, and they have no idea what the social security office needs. They said they'll try to figure it out and get back with me. Like the doctor's secretary said, "Well, all we have is what you gave us? How is that going to help?" Yeah. I know. This is ridiculous.
Don't you all feel safer, now, knowing that law-abiding citizens have so much "security" to go through to be recognized by their own government? Me neither.
Ah, well, whether the government recognizes my children or not, they're here, they're legal, and they're wonderful. Hopefully, they will grow up as far from the reach of the federal government as we can keep them so that they grow up to be competent, thinking, self-sufficient citizens. It certainly won't make life easier on them, not the way this country is heading, but it will make them better off, as people.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Thursday, March 8
Not With My Child
So our previous dentist decided he could not address John's and Smidge's dental needs (after extensive costs on our part), and recommended a pedodontist to have the work done. I called the insurance company, called the denstists on the list, and made an appointment with one whose office staff said they could certainly address the situation. When I shared my excitement with a friend, she said, "You mean you found one who would let you go back with the boys?"
What? I didn't even ask. What kind of a set-up would that be? I'd heard of the occasional dentist not permitting parents to go back, and the reasoning usually ran along the lines of "I am the child's care provider, and he needs to develop a relationshp directly with me." (Parents get in the way, essentially.) Well, ok, if a parent chooses to submit to a policy like that, that's fine and dandy. I'm not among them, so I thought I would call to confirm.
Good thing I called. But now, they've changed their line of reasoning. "It's a HIPA ruling. It's the law."
It's "the law" that the parent of an unemancipated minor cannot be present during exams and treatment? Um, no. Not exactly.
Firstly, HIPA addresses "privacy" with regard to the patient's files. It does lay out the framework for very specific cases in which a parent may not retain the rights and responsibilities of a minor's legal representative. Of the 60+ pages I've read of the Act thus far, suspected neglect/abuse, court order giving representative rights to someone other than the parent, and treatment for mental health when the child desires it and the parents do not are the only three specifically named conditions wherein a parent's right of representation may be removed by third parties. Parental consent to release responsibility is the fourth. All of which are set forth very clearly, and with precedented understanding and foreknowledge by all parties. I'm not going to tackle HIPA itself today, but only this specific point:
Nothing in HIPA authorizes a health care provider to deny a parent the rights of representation for the minor without cause.
Do not let a health care provider tell you that you cannot be present for your child's treatment due to HIPA privacy acts. If you allow it, then you have rescinded your rights under one of the specific provisions in the Act: express permission for the provider to bypass your representation. I have yet to find anything that cites rectification of the process when that permission was given based on faulty information, and I suspect that future searches will yield the same results.
When a provider denies you the right to be present for treatment, consultation, or examination right off the bat, that provider is acting unethically, if not unlawfully. If that provider tells you that it is the law, find another provider. You are being duped. Unfortunately, we are all too often unaware of our rights, what few remain, and our ignorance is going to completely strip us of our rights and responsibilities, in the end. When a harried parent is informed by a brusque staff member that something is a federal regulation, how many parents are readily armed with subsection and paragraph citation to counter it? (I also wonder how properly the staff are being educated. This isn't to say there is an onslaught by receptionists nationwide to participate in the Agenda of removing parents from the parental role. I honestly believe they are simply taught this, and thus propgate it.)
You can read the full text here. (It's a .pdf file.) Truthfully, the devils are in the details.
But not with my child, they won't. And we did find a dentist who isn't on the Gov't in loco parentis bandwagon.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Dy
What? I didn't even ask. What kind of a set-up would that be? I'd heard of the occasional dentist not permitting parents to go back, and the reasoning usually ran along the lines of "I am the child's care provider, and he needs to develop a relationshp directly with me." (Parents get in the way, essentially.) Well, ok, if a parent chooses to submit to a policy like that, that's fine and dandy. I'm not among them, so I thought I would call to confirm.
Good thing I called. But now, they've changed their line of reasoning. "It's a HIPA ruling. It's the law."
It's "the law" that the parent of an unemancipated minor cannot be present during exams and treatment? Um, no. Not exactly.
Firstly, HIPA addresses "privacy" with regard to the patient's files. It does lay out the framework for very specific cases in which a parent may not retain the rights and responsibilities of a minor's legal representative. Of the 60+ pages I've read of the Act thus far, suspected neglect/abuse, court order giving representative rights to someone other than the parent, and treatment for mental health when the child desires it and the parents do not are the only three specifically named conditions wherein a parent's right of representation may be removed by third parties. Parental consent to release responsibility is the fourth. All of which are set forth very clearly, and with precedented understanding and foreknowledge by all parties. I'm not going to tackle HIPA itself today, but only this specific point:
Nothing in HIPA authorizes a health care provider to deny a parent the rights of representation for the minor without cause.
Do not let a health care provider tell you that you cannot be present for your child's treatment due to HIPA privacy acts. If you allow it, then you have rescinded your rights under one of the specific provisions in the Act: express permission for the provider to bypass your representation. I have yet to find anything that cites rectification of the process when that permission was given based on faulty information, and I suspect that future searches will yield the same results.
When a provider denies you the right to be present for treatment, consultation, or examination right off the bat, that provider is acting unethically, if not unlawfully. If that provider tells you that it is the law, find another provider. You are being duped. Unfortunately, we are all too often unaware of our rights, what few remain, and our ignorance is going to completely strip us of our rights and responsibilities, in the end. When a harried parent is informed by a brusque staff member that something is a federal regulation, how many parents are readily armed with subsection and paragraph citation to counter it? (I also wonder how properly the staff are being educated. This isn't to say there is an onslaught by receptionists nationwide to participate in the Agenda of removing parents from the parental role. I honestly believe they are simply taught this, and thus propgate it.)
You can read the full text here. (It's a .pdf file.) Truthfully, the devils are in the details.
But not with my child, they won't. And we did find a dentist who isn't on the Gov't in loco parentis bandwagon.
Kiss those babies!
~Dy
Dy
Thursday, February 8
Categories and Labels?
What categories have you found to be the most useful, if you use them? What a silly thing to give so much attention to, but, well, we all do silly things from time to time. I could be mopping the floor, but truthfully, I'd prefer to do it at night so that it will stay pretty for a few hours before the children emerge.
I like categories that are actually helpful for people who are looking for something specific. For instance, wheat-free, or food. Books are a helpful category. What else have you found helpful? Or do you ignore them? Or do you also obsess over them and find yourself either giving every single entry a category of its very own, or trying to much things into pathetically vague categories, like lumping your homeschooling, political activism, latest reading lists, cute kid stories, and latest kitchen fiasco all into "education"? C'mon, fill me in, here.
Kiss those babies (and which category do you put them in?)
~Dy
I like categories that are actually helpful for people who are looking for something specific. For instance, wheat-free, or food. Books are a helpful category. What else have you found helpful? Or do you ignore them? Or do you also obsess over them and find yourself either giving every single entry a category of its very own, or trying to much things into pathetically vague categories, like lumping your homeschooling, political activism, latest reading lists, cute kid stories, and latest kitchen fiasco all into "education"? C'mon, fill me in, here.
Kiss those babies (and which category do you put them in?)
~Dy
Thursday, January 25
Argh!
Just thought of some other points I wanted to add with regard to the discussion about Murray, but we got sucked into one of those movies that just sucks you right in, and... well, there ya go.
Let me throw this out there, while Zorak's making more coffee.
I would never, ever, under any circumstances, support any legislation that attempted to guide, restrict, edit, or oversee the education of any child based on IQ, potential, or any limiting device others may view as a means to streamline our educational system.
We offer the opportunity for education to all. That is a beautiful and unique thing. It is what allows us to remain free, to remain dynamic, and to remain hopeful for the future. We cannot force children to learn, regardless of a number on a piece of paper. Nor should we limit what they may learn.
It just hit me while discussing this with Zorak today that some of the concern over acknowledging or accepting an inequality of educability is that it may well lead to governmental oversight. You know, "for the children".
That's a long, nasty slide we don't want to take.
OK, back to the movie (he did it!! I didn't think he'd done it! Ugh... )
Dy
Let me throw this out there, while Zorak's making more coffee.
I would never, ever, under any circumstances, support any legislation that attempted to guide, restrict, edit, or oversee the education of any child based on IQ, potential, or any limiting device others may view as a means to streamline our educational system.
We offer the opportunity for education to all. That is a beautiful and unique thing. It is what allows us to remain free, to remain dynamic, and to remain hopeful for the future. We cannot force children to learn, regardless of a number on a piece of paper. Nor should we limit what they may learn.
It just hit me while discussing this with Zorak today that some of the concern over acknowledging or accepting an inequality of educability is that it may well lead to governmental oversight. You know, "for the children".
That's a long, nasty slide we don't want to take.
OK, back to the movie (he did it!! I didn't think he'd done it! Ugh... )
Dy
Intelligence, Potential and School, Oh, My!
I am feeling better tonight for the first time in about a month, so let's play!
Murray's articles (linked in the comments section here, if you haven't read them and would like to) have brought up discussions of all kinds, ranging from "ditto" to "NOOOO", and, fortunately, delving into deeper waters on both fronts: agree, disagree... OK, three fronts if you count the, "well, partially agree/disagree" front. What's got me giddy is that there is discussion. People are thinking, articulating, questioning and answering. We're INGing, folks, and not just the ugly ones, like gesturing and skulking. These are good INGs. Anyhow, for fun, I'd like to invite anyone who has written on this subject to please leave a comment and link to it. All sides welcome. I think there's plenty of interest, and it would be fun. So link away, cyberfriends!!
Two to start you off:
Kids Out and About's Deb Ross has written her thoughts on why she disagrees with Murray's basic premise.
Steph also wrote on this topic, from the perspective of agreement with Murray's thoughts.
In general, I do agree with Murray. I'll say upfront that I think we're asking the wrong questions, and so the answers aren't going to mean much. I'll also put it out there that I don't have all the answers, to any of these questions, right or wrong. My sphere of influence begins with the children I am responsible for, and rapidly decreases in strength as it spreads beyond that arena. Those whose lives I impact, I try to impact in a positive way, in an encouraging way, not because I think we are all equally educable (I don't) but because I believe we are all equally valuable, and thus, worthy of encouragement. As one of my mother's doctors told her, "Ideally, you'd eat better, exercise more, quit drinking and smoking, and stop being so grouchy. But my job is to work with you where you are, and that's what I'm going to do." These sorts of dialogues often beg a utopia that does not now exist, has never in the past existed, and most certainly will not in the future exist, neither through legislation or funding. Ever. That much I do know.
So. Not everyone is equally educable. Yes, it's difficult to say that without offending someone, somewhere. Although I hold this belief, I found myself a little stunned when my sister-in-law (whom I love but generally disagree with on everything political, social and spiritual), said that not every child can be taught to read well. What?! You're a reading advocacy, pro-federal funding, NEA-backing, reading teacher! How can you say that? Turns out, she's run into many children who simply haven't got it in them to learn to read with fluency, let alone an any given grade level. Wow. That certainly sounds like a harsh condemnation of a child's future. Immediately, the mind begins reeling, sifting through files, ideas, programs, medical data... there must be some way, we tell ourselves... It's not a good feeling, in our guts, to think that, in a society which has put such an elevated status for "higher education" onto the field, some people cannot attain proficiency to a degree that will allow (advancement? access? _______? - this portion often remains empty in these discussions.) And yet, I had to agree with her. We know people who are like that. The matter (grey matter, IQ, potential, whatever you want to call it) simply is not there to work with. So, no, I don't believe everyone is equally educable. I've seen enough examples of that than to be able to claim otherwise. But I'm going to ask whether that ought to be the focus? Should we spend our resources trying to make everyone equally capable in all areas? Should we find fault with anyone who asserts that not everybody is smart enough to be a rocket scientist? Or, take that a bit further, is there any shame in not being the smartest, in knowing there are those who are smarter?
I would say that much of the negative reaction to the premise of educable inequality is grounded in a suspicion that anyone who believes there are levels of educability must consequently believe there's a direct correlation to value as a human. (Period. I'm not talking about contributions to humankind, but simply as. a. human.) I'd say it's wrong to make that assumption. The very few people I've encountered who believe that intelligence equates to superiority as a person, believed both that they were inordinately intelligent and superior to others, and were, in fact, neither. However, it might be somewhat naive to say that those of lesser ability can be anticipated to make greater achievements. More on that, later.
I like what Aunt B has said, "We're all just one accident away from not having a good brain." She's right. All of us. Nobody's exempt from that, and the fact that you've avoided The Big Konk on the Head does not imbue you with superpowers, or First Citizen status. It simply means you haven't been dealt that hand. Yet. That's all.
But unless, or (God forbid) until, you get the Konk, you've got some matter to work with. How much? And that's where the breakdown occurs. The measurable IQ, as defined by science (Murray uses the term, g, in speaking about this amount of matter), hasn't been shown to be dynamic over the long run. It simply hasn't. People ask, to what extent are external forces, such as diet, exercize and environment, or the internal point of attention you choose to give to any given thing, able to affect your matter? A slacker, with any amount of matter, is not going to achieve much. However, a brilliant and highly-mattered slacker is likely to achieve more, with less effort, than a mildly-mattered individual with a relatively good work ethic.
Does this variance come into play? What about long-term results? Would the stamina required for high level educability weed out even the most talented slacker? Does it matter, or is that factor zeroed-out in this discussion? I don't know. I'm not certain what the definitions are, to be honest. When dealing with education, we're usually talking about return on investment. Where will each individual, and society, be best served by the use of the resources available for education? Is that why people get antsy, feeling that somebody won't feel empowered to hear he's not the academic equivalent of star quarterback material? I'm not sure.
So we speak of inclination, of "natural abilities". "Natural ability" could well be the layman's method of gauging intelligence. We don't have ready access to psychometric methodology or laboratories, so we go with what we can see, what we can tangibly use for our models. Again, I don't know. But, in looking at natural ability, you may be more inclined in one direction than another. Most of us are. You may be able to look at an abstract of a rocket engine and put together a prototype with a dremel tool and a safety pin, while the rest of us stand around, scratching our behinds and trying not to look lost. If that's the case, couldn't an argument be made that more of your matter is dedicated to that direction? Or even, that you've got more matter to allocate? People do have different abilities, differing skills, and widely varying levels of each, a fact which, in our society, it's near-heresy to say.
To take a physical, rather than mental, example, let's look at me. I'm not what you'd call a weakling. But I'm nowhere near as strong as Zorak. Nor as coordinated. If you need something extremely heavy moved via an indirect route that will involve an elevation change, I'm pretty useless as anything other than a witness for the EMTs. I could focus, train, work hard, and dedicate everything I am and everything I have to becoming the absolute strongest I can be... and Arnold Schwarzenegger could still knock me out in three seconds flat. I couldn't even pretend I could outrun the man. It would be over before it began.
I have no doubt there are people who could do the same thing with me cognitively. I'm no idiot, but I am not a genius. No amount of study could make me such. I could, with an exorbitant amount of effort and focus, become an engineer. My home would suffer, my children would be without on many fronts, my husband would wonder if I'd left him completely. I would have no time, effort, or energy left to engage in any other activities that make me a productive, contributing member of this society. And in the end, I would have a degree, and be an engineer. No guarantees, even at that point, that I would be a good one. Would it be worth it? What would be the benefit, both to myself (would I be a better, more fulfilled person? a better woman?) and to my society (would I be a better citizen? voter? wife? volunteer?) Perhaps those are the questions we should be asking.
Perhaps, rather than asking whether it's wrong to try to level the playing field, or whether it's right to put inordinate amounts of energy into making us all college scholars, we ought to look at what we can invest in each child to help him become the most productive, responsible, contributing, and yes, fulfilled citizen he can be.
And within my sphere of influence, I have set the bar high. Not so high that they can't clear it, but high enough that they'll have the satisfaction of a Job Well Done when they have cleared it. One of the benefits of individualized education, and personalized goals for education, I suppose.
Murray's articles (linked in the comments section here, if you haven't read them and would like to) have brought up discussions of all kinds, ranging from "ditto" to "NOOOO", and, fortunately, delving into deeper waters on both fronts: agree, disagree... OK, three fronts if you count the, "well, partially agree/disagree" front. What's got me giddy is that there is discussion. People are thinking, articulating, questioning and answering. We're INGing, folks, and not just the ugly ones, like gesturing and skulking. These are good INGs. Anyhow, for fun, I'd like to invite anyone who has written on this subject to please leave a comment and link to it. All sides welcome. I think there's plenty of interest, and it would be fun. So link away, cyberfriends!!
Two to start you off:
Kids Out and About's Deb Ross has written her thoughts on why she disagrees with Murray's basic premise.
Steph also wrote on this topic, from the perspective of agreement with Murray's thoughts.
In general, I do agree with Murray. I'll say upfront that I think we're asking the wrong questions, and so the answers aren't going to mean much. I'll also put it out there that I don't have all the answers, to any of these questions, right or wrong. My sphere of influence begins with the children I am responsible for, and rapidly decreases in strength as it spreads beyond that arena. Those whose lives I impact, I try to impact in a positive way, in an encouraging way, not because I think we are all equally educable (I don't) but because I believe we are all equally valuable, and thus, worthy of encouragement. As one of my mother's doctors told her, "Ideally, you'd eat better, exercise more, quit drinking and smoking, and stop being so grouchy. But my job is to work with you where you are, and that's what I'm going to do." These sorts of dialogues often beg a utopia that does not now exist, has never in the past existed, and most certainly will not in the future exist, neither through legislation or funding. Ever. That much I do know.
So. Not everyone is equally educable. Yes, it's difficult to say that without offending someone, somewhere. Although I hold this belief, I found myself a little stunned when my sister-in-law (whom I love but generally disagree with on everything political, social and spiritual), said that not every child can be taught to read well. What?! You're a reading advocacy, pro-federal funding, NEA-backing, reading teacher! How can you say that? Turns out, she's run into many children who simply haven't got it in them to learn to read with fluency, let alone an any given grade level. Wow. That certainly sounds like a harsh condemnation of a child's future. Immediately, the mind begins reeling, sifting through files, ideas, programs, medical data... there must be some way, we tell ourselves... It's not a good feeling, in our guts, to think that, in a society which has put such an elevated status for "higher education" onto the field, some people cannot attain proficiency to a degree that will allow (advancement? access? _______? - this portion often remains empty in these discussions.) And yet, I had to agree with her. We know people who are like that. The matter (grey matter, IQ, potential, whatever you want to call it) simply is not there to work with. So, no, I don't believe everyone is equally educable. I've seen enough examples of that than to be able to claim otherwise. But I'm going to ask whether that ought to be the focus? Should we spend our resources trying to make everyone equally capable in all areas? Should we find fault with anyone who asserts that not everybody is smart enough to be a rocket scientist? Or, take that a bit further, is there any shame in not being the smartest, in knowing there are those who are smarter?
I would say that much of the negative reaction to the premise of educable inequality is grounded in a suspicion that anyone who believes there are levels of educability must consequently believe there's a direct correlation to value as a human. (Period. I'm not talking about contributions to humankind, but simply as. a. human.) I'd say it's wrong to make that assumption. The very few people I've encountered who believe that intelligence equates to superiority as a person, believed both that they were inordinately intelligent and superior to others, and were, in fact, neither. However, it might be somewhat naive to say that those of lesser ability can be anticipated to make greater achievements. More on that, later.
I like what Aunt B has said, "We're all just one accident away from not having a good brain." She's right. All of us. Nobody's exempt from that, and the fact that you've avoided The Big Konk on the Head does not imbue you with superpowers, or First Citizen status. It simply means you haven't been dealt that hand. Yet. That's all.
But unless, or (God forbid) until, you get the Konk, you've got some matter to work with. How much? And that's where the breakdown occurs. The measurable IQ, as defined by science (Murray uses the term, g, in speaking about this amount of matter), hasn't been shown to be dynamic over the long run. It simply hasn't. People ask, to what extent are external forces, such as diet, exercize and environment, or the internal point of attention you choose to give to any given thing, able to affect your matter? A slacker, with any amount of matter, is not going to achieve much. However, a brilliant and highly-mattered slacker is likely to achieve more, with less effort, than a mildly-mattered individual with a relatively good work ethic.
Does this variance come into play? What about long-term results? Would the stamina required for high level educability weed out even the most talented slacker? Does it matter, or is that factor zeroed-out in this discussion? I don't know. I'm not certain what the definitions are, to be honest. When dealing with education, we're usually talking about return on investment. Where will each individual, and society, be best served by the use of the resources available for education? Is that why people get antsy, feeling that somebody won't feel empowered to hear he's not the academic equivalent of star quarterback material? I'm not sure.
So we speak of inclination, of "natural abilities". "Natural ability" could well be the layman's method of gauging intelligence. We don't have ready access to psychometric methodology or laboratories, so we go with what we can see, what we can tangibly use for our models. Again, I don't know. But, in looking at natural ability, you may be more inclined in one direction than another. Most of us are. You may be able to look at an abstract of a rocket engine and put together a prototype with a dremel tool and a safety pin, while the rest of us stand around, scratching our behinds and trying not to look lost. If that's the case, couldn't an argument be made that more of your matter is dedicated to that direction? Or even, that you've got more matter to allocate? People do have different abilities, differing skills, and widely varying levels of each, a fact which, in our society, it's near-heresy to say.
To take a physical, rather than mental, example, let's look at me. I'm not what you'd call a weakling. But I'm nowhere near as strong as Zorak. Nor as coordinated. If you need something extremely heavy moved via an indirect route that will involve an elevation change, I'm pretty useless as anything other than a witness for the EMTs. I could focus, train, work hard, and dedicate everything I am and everything I have to becoming the absolute strongest I can be... and Arnold Schwarzenegger could still knock me out in three seconds flat. I couldn't even pretend I could outrun the man. It would be over before it began.
I have no doubt there are people who could do the same thing with me cognitively. I'm no idiot, but I am not a genius. No amount of study could make me such. I could, with an exorbitant amount of effort and focus, become an engineer. My home would suffer, my children would be without on many fronts, my husband would wonder if I'd left him completely. I would have no time, effort, or energy left to engage in any other activities that make me a productive, contributing member of this society. And in the end, I would have a degree, and be an engineer. No guarantees, even at that point, that I would be a good one. Would it be worth it? What would be the benefit, both to myself (would I be a better, more fulfilled person? a better woman?) and to my society (would I be a better citizen? voter? wife? volunteer?) Perhaps those are the questions we should be asking.
Perhaps, rather than asking whether it's wrong to try to level the playing field, or whether it's right to put inordinate amounts of energy into making us all college scholars, we ought to look at what we can invest in each child to help him become the most productive, responsible, contributing, and yes, fulfilled citizen he can be.
And within my sphere of influence, I have set the bar high. Not so high that they can't clear it, but high enough that they'll have the satisfaction of a Job Well Done when they have cleared it. One of the benefits of individualized education, and personalized goals for education, I suppose.
Thursday, May 13
Wow.
Evidently I am posting "hateful, racist crap" and someone out there finds it both "frightening" and "disgusting" that I would blend my "hateful, racist crap" with snippets of domestic life...
Hmmm. OK. Well, the manner in which the message was conveyed leaves quite a bit to be desired. And the, um, tone, shall we say, was rather out-of-left field. However, if someone feels vehemently enough that I am espousing hateful, racist remarks that they feel the need to deride me publicly, then I would certainly like to address that...
Since there was nothing in particular pointed out to me, I had to go back and re-read the most recent entries to try to figure it out.
Geneva Convention? Neuremberg? ACLU? Probably not, although admittedly I'm not usually in bed w/ the ACLU (or any union-like organization for that matter).
The Japanese under Hirohito while he was still considered "god"? Was that racist? I certainly didn't mean it to be, nor was anything there anything other than historical fact. The behavior was barbaric.
OK, I think this is it- the head-lopping, raping, etc.? I am not saying that all Muslims are this way, nor did I, nor will I. But is the Middle-East in large part manipulated by these particular sects? You betcha. Do I take issue with religious groups (of ANY persuasion) that are going to oppress and murder? You betcha. Do I care what color, nationality, or creed they are? Not a whit. Do I hope for more for the women and children of these war-torn countries? With all my heart. For their men, as well. If my comments were taken as anything other than I intended, then certainly the fault lies with me. Mea culpa. Please forgive me. If I have somehow missed the boat, I sincerely apologize.
Wow. A hateful racist. THAT is certainly not something I would have expected to see today. To the lady who posted her thoughts on the issue, thank you for opening my eyes somewhat, and I will endeavor to be more cautious of how my words may be interpreted.
And to my other readers who may also have taken offense, I apologize to you, as well.
Dy
Hmmm. OK. Well, the manner in which the message was conveyed leaves quite a bit to be desired. And the, um, tone, shall we say, was rather out-of-left field. However, if someone feels vehemently enough that I am espousing hateful, racist remarks that they feel the need to deride me publicly, then I would certainly like to address that...
Since there was nothing in particular pointed out to me, I had to go back and re-read the most recent entries to try to figure it out.
Geneva Convention? Neuremberg? ACLU? Probably not, although admittedly I'm not usually in bed w/ the ACLU (or any union-like organization for that matter).
The Japanese under Hirohito while he was still considered "god"? Was that racist? I certainly didn't mean it to be, nor was anything there anything other than historical fact. The behavior was barbaric.
OK, I think this is it- the head-lopping, raping, etc.? I am not saying that all Muslims are this way, nor did I, nor will I. But is the Middle-East in large part manipulated by these particular sects? You betcha. Do I take issue with religious groups (of ANY persuasion) that are going to oppress and murder? You betcha. Do I care what color, nationality, or creed they are? Not a whit. Do I hope for more for the women and children of these war-torn countries? With all my heart. For their men, as well. If my comments were taken as anything other than I intended, then certainly the fault lies with me. Mea culpa. Please forgive me. If I have somehow missed the boat, I sincerely apologize.
Wow. A hateful racist. THAT is certainly not something I would have expected to see today. To the lady who posted her thoughts on the issue, thank you for opening my eyes somewhat, and I will endeavor to be more cautious of how my words may be interpreted.
And to my other readers who may also have taken offense, I apologize to you, as well.
Dy
More thoughts
OK, so little Lindie is crying "chain of command"- as if we could expect anything noble from this little one? One word: Neuremberg. Ring a bell? How about putting your jail time toward some history lessons. You can, and actually must, refuse certain orders. History has borne this out. The UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, and probably the ACLU will back you up for taking a morally appropriate stand.
Secondly (and then I'm done and will move on to more uplifting thoughts), I read in the paper that she claims she was told to pose for the pictures for "Psy Ops"... uh huh. OK, so if your friend's creepy brother tells you that if you'll let him take polaroids of you and the dog in compromising positions he can get you a modeling contract... are you gonna BUY that? Puhleeze!
The thing that is getting farther under my skin is that our military, a proud and mighty institution, filled with wonderful men (I admit I do have a beef w/ women in the military and Lindie is just one shining example of WHY), who are willing to lay down their lives for freedom, are being dragged through the mud as a whole. They permit us to be heard, to educate in our own way, to learn a foreign language as part of a chosen course of study and not due to a recent Occupational Edict... if you see a servicemember today (man or woman), please give that person your support and encouragement to stand strong, continue to be a good representative of these great United States, and come home with dignity and honor because we miss them. What was done was wrong, yes. It was already addressed. Why is this not mentioned or highlighted more clearly? It was done by a few idiots, not the entire military? Oh, but no, we don't want to mention that. And finally, it was humiliating, YES, but it was NOT torture, and I don't want to hear another simpering, whiny victim-minded moron try to compare the two. Stop. Get a clue.
OK, ok, I lied. One more. Jessie Jackson. ROFLOL! Oh, when is Satan going to collect on that man's deal and leave us in peace? War crimes. Heee heee. I'm sorry. I can't help but laugh.
Secondly (and then I'm done and will move on to more uplifting thoughts), I read in the paper that she claims she was told to pose for the pictures for "Psy Ops"... uh huh. OK, so if your friend's creepy brother tells you that if you'll let him take polaroids of you and the dog in compromising positions he can get you a modeling contract... are you gonna BUY that? Puhleeze!
The thing that is getting farther under my skin is that our military, a proud and mighty institution, filled with wonderful men (I admit I do have a beef w/ women in the military and Lindie is just one shining example of WHY), who are willing to lay down their lives for freedom, are being dragged through the mud as a whole. They permit us to be heard, to educate in our own way, to learn a foreign language as part of a chosen course of study and not due to a recent Occupational Edict... if you see a servicemember today (man or woman), please give that person your support and encouragement to stand strong, continue to be a good representative of these great United States, and come home with dignity and honor because we miss them. What was done was wrong, yes. It was already addressed. Why is this not mentioned or highlighted more clearly? It was done by a few idiots, not the entire military? Oh, but no, we don't want to mention that. And finally, it was humiliating, YES, but it was NOT torture, and I don't want to hear another simpering, whiny victim-minded moron try to compare the two. Stop. Get a clue.
OK, ok, I lied. One more. Jessie Jackson. ROFLOL! Oh, when is Satan going to collect on that man's deal and leave us in peace? War crimes. Heee heee. I'm sorry. I can't help but laugh.
Tuesday, May 11
What a delicious day!
The boys started the day with music lessons. An hour later, we had to stop before we fell over from hunger. (I didn't expect that they'd want to keep going like they did! I swear they are little intellectual camels!) Tonight the boys played for Daddy. (Cheryl, why didn't you beat me about the head with this whole music thang a year ago? *grin*)
It is such a wonderful feeling to pile onto the floor after supper, the baby clamboring over me, my husband sitting next to me (beaming from ear to ear), the boys proudly and excitedly playing their chosen pieces. John showed Zorak how to play B, G, and A on the recorder. Repeatedly. He was quite excited about that. James played Merrily We Roll Along and Hot Cross Buns. Then Zorak and I played for the boys (hey! we aren't half-bad!) and the boys finished the performance by showing Daddy how to clean their instruments properly before returning them to their cases. *awww* (They listened! They really really listened! Yippee!)
We did our Math (another hour, what is it with MUS? They love it! Do anyone else's children do that?), Plants Grown Up, History (will we ever be done with Egypt? Just when we think it's gone- ahhhhhh, there it is! Run Away! Run Away!)
James had already rummaged through our new Latin materials before I awoke this morning. He blew his cover when he said (in a giggly tone) before we prayed, "Oremus". Ahhh, evidently it's not too soon to begin Latin.
At six o'clock, we were still not done with school. Well, we were done, but then the FedEx man showed up with a new cursive workbook for James! He yelled out the front window, "Thank you, FedEx man!" The driver was mostly around the van already, so all I saw was his shoulders shake as he laughed. James did two pages in Handwriting Without Tears before supper. I think that's another winner.
Supper was a nice light grilled chicken (the boys made the seasoning! Yum!) with green beans, hoppin' john w/ jalapenos, lemonade... and for dessert a delicious wheatfree shortcake topped with chilled fruit and cool whip! Mmmm, there is something to be said for the cuisine that develops in muggy, hot weather.
Aside from my Bible study, which I had to sneak in during lunch time, I've not read anything edifying or enriching today. Well, nothing above a fourth grade level, anyhow. It is hot and sticky. I cannot concentrate when I can't just sweat and get it over with! (To be perfectly honest, I believe mammals ought to hibernate in humid summers. It makes the most sense, if you think about.)
Oh! And score one for the good guys! Have y'all been following the case at Cal Poly in Kalifornia? It's too funny, really. Well,no, it's sad and disgusting, but the school has agreed to settle out of court, pay court costs and legal fees, and permit the student to pass out flyers. How big of them. WOO HOO! Let's hear it for putting a little of the "sense" back in "common sense"!
While you're at it, check out Mason Weaver's Homepage and go get his book!
Alrighty, folks, it's late and Zorak wants to communicate with the outside world. Time to relinquish my spot and go find a book to curl up with... and more coffee... must have more coffee... (where did I put my cup?)
It is such a wonderful feeling to pile onto the floor after supper, the baby clamboring over me, my husband sitting next to me (beaming from ear to ear), the boys proudly and excitedly playing their chosen pieces. John showed Zorak how to play B, G, and A on the recorder. Repeatedly. He was quite excited about that. James played Merrily We Roll Along and Hot Cross Buns. Then Zorak and I played for the boys (hey! we aren't half-bad!) and the boys finished the performance by showing Daddy how to clean their instruments properly before returning them to their cases. *awww* (They listened! They really really listened! Yippee!)
We did our Math (another hour, what is it with MUS? They love it! Do anyone else's children do that?), Plants Grown Up, History (will we ever be done with Egypt? Just when we think it's gone- ahhhhhh, there it is! Run Away! Run Away!)
James had already rummaged through our new Latin materials before I awoke this morning. He blew his cover when he said (in a giggly tone) before we prayed, "Oremus". Ahhh, evidently it's not too soon to begin Latin.
At six o'clock, we were still not done with school. Well, we were done, but then the FedEx man showed up with a new cursive workbook for James! He yelled out the front window, "Thank you, FedEx man!" The driver was mostly around the van already, so all I saw was his shoulders shake as he laughed. James did two pages in Handwriting Without Tears before supper. I think that's another winner.
Supper was a nice light grilled chicken (the boys made the seasoning! Yum!) with green beans, hoppin' john w/ jalapenos, lemonade... and for dessert a delicious wheatfree shortcake topped with chilled fruit and cool whip! Mmmm, there is something to be said for the cuisine that develops in muggy, hot weather.
Aside from my Bible study, which I had to sneak in during lunch time, I've not read anything edifying or enriching today. Well, nothing above a fourth grade level, anyhow. It is hot and sticky. I cannot concentrate when I can't just sweat and get it over with! (To be perfectly honest, I believe mammals ought to hibernate in humid summers. It makes the most sense, if you think about.)
Oh! And score one for the good guys! Have y'all been following the case at Cal Poly in Kalifornia? It's too funny, really. Well,no, it's sad and disgusting, but the school has agreed to settle out of court, pay court costs and legal fees, and permit the student to pass out flyers. How big of them. WOO HOO! Let's hear it for putting a little of the "sense" back in "common sense"!
While you're at it, check out Mason Weaver's Homepage and go get his book!
Alrighty, folks, it's late and Zorak wants to communicate with the outside world. Time to relinquish my spot and go find a book to curl up with... and more coffee... must have more coffee... (where did I put my cup?)
Thursday, May 6
Will be returning soon.
Well, it seems as though the time has come. I have to admit that this time, it feels different. Still, I'm not happy with the way my other "home" treated fellow bloggers. All Standard users were simply locked out of their blogs without notice nor explanation. I can appreciate the need to restructure, but why burn consumer bridges in the process? Bad capitalist move, imho. So, I've got to re-sign up for comments, register with Walagata (or some other file hosting service for pictures- open to recommendations) and then just take a deep breath and m-o-v-e. (I hate moving- both virtually and in real life.)
Dy
Dy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)