Ever wonder what the secret is to saying or doing something stupid? It really only takes three simple steps…
Step 1 – Disconnect mouth from brain.
Step 2 – Blurt out whatever the heck you want.
Step 3 – Insert foot firmly in mouth.
One of the things that fascinate me most about the worlds of education, politics and sports is that folks often have a propensity for saying the most off-the-wall things at any given moment. When all three worlds intersect… oh boy! I’m like a kid in a candy store getting a sugar overload…
In the story that simply won’t go away, the “defection” of LeBron James from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat, we were blessed by the wisdom of Rev. Jesse Jackson equating Cavs owner Dan Gilbert’s outrage over LeBron’s move south with an escaped slave. As proud as I am for being one of Jackson’s supporters of his 1984 presidential campaign, this ranks among the dumbest things I’ve ever heard from a public figure not named Mel Gibson, and makes me cringe to no end.
We’ve all heard and read various commentaries on this topic, the best from Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star. LeBron James left the Cavs over a need to be in the one place where he, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade could all play together. Maybe he left because of money and power. Maybe he left because of frustration with Cavs management. Maybe he left for ego. Maybe he left for better weather and hotter parties. Maybe he left because he simply outgrew his hometown. Maybe he left because Bosh is a big baby who didn’t want to play near another Great Lake.
But he didn’t leave because of race. Dan Gilbert didn’t vent his spleen because of race. If LeBron James was white, the odds are high Dan Gilbert would’ve blown his gasket just the same. But because James is African-American, this invited Rev. Jackson to butt in with off-base commentary. What? Things were slow going challenging the Tea Party’s denials of racism?
Perhaps James thought his “Decision” was on par with President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but there’s no comparison. If James bothered to read a history book he’d realize how silly his place in American history is becoming. Gilbert and Jackson should’ve known better as more-educated and more-mature adults, but I guess this only further explains how parents gets into shouting matches with their kids having temper tantrums… somehow stupidity becomes contagious and you simply get sucked in.
Speaking of the Tea Party, racism and slavery, I think it finally makes sense to me why Rep. Michele Bachman (R, MN) said President Obama’s turning us into a “nation of slaves”. She must’ve been talking about LeBron. Who knew she cared about the NBA as much as overthrowing the government?
While we’ve been absorbing and processing the passing of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, I’ve been intrigued by some of the “interesting” comments some folks have shared in the media. As much as I respect Al Neuharth (USA TODAY) and Mike Lupica (New York Daily News), I did a double take as both were on the same wavelength as blowhard Rush Limbaugh. All three made mention of what a break The Boss’ passing this year will be to his children in terms of estate tax laws. Ewww, yuck! Are we that obsessed with money in this country that this is one of the first thoughts we have when a person dies? Gee, Joan, Hank and Hal… sorry for your loss, but at least George’s timing for kicking the bucket worked out. Bet you guys will be smiling all the way to the bank on this one. Uh, huh… lucky break, rest George’s soul.
Doesn’t it seem a bit odd for folks to be thinking about tax implications when a loved one dies. In fact, if The Boss was that worried about potential IRS issues, why didn’t he completely transfer all assets to his sons back in 2007 when it was clear his health was slipping? To be honest with you, I’d think the Steinbrenners didn’t have their act together if they DIDN’T already take care of asset transfer a few years ago. I may have grown up poor and lived a modest life as an educator, but even I know about planning ahead with an elderly parent when it comes to asset ownership before your parent passes away.
Speaking of taxes, did you hear the story about rich people predicting the poor will suffer the brunt from New York State eliminating the millionaire’s tax deduction? Yes, yes… it’s true; it’s true. In an editorial to the New York Daily News, Susan Hager, the president and CEO of the United Way for New York State promises gloom and doom for New York’s poor if the state legislature in Albany reduces the tax break wealthy New York residents get for making over $10-million in charitable donations. Think about it… very rich people give lots of money to good causes which are supposed to help folks the rich people wouldn’t give the time of day to, but only if the state government gives them an extra tax break incentive. If the state doesn’t give the rich enough of a reward for being charitable, well, they’re simply going to pocket that money on principle.
And you thought rich people giving to charity was all altruistic, right?
Years ago, one of my relatives told me that one New York millionaire was more valuable to the America’s economic well being than twenty regular folks. Why? Because the millionaire puts far more money into the economy than a bunch of us do. Why do I think my relative’s logic is all backwards?
You know, Ms. Hager isn’t the only one who’s whined about the pitfalls of being rich and giving. We’ve heard New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg cry this same song more than a few times during this economic crisis. Somehow New York’s benefactor in chief –make that sugar daddy – thinks the threat of wealthy people taking their money elsewhere is cause enough for state and federal politicians to cater to the rich and powerful while everyone else is held hostage.
What I don’t understand is this: if wealthy people have to be legislatively bribed into giving charity, why would anyone be foolish to believe supply-side economics really works, or ever worked in this country since Ronald Reagan first advocated it? I mean, how is this theory any different from a pyramid scheme? You give wealthy people as much money as possible, and they only pass money along as long as a certain proportion comes back to them. If the kickback is reduced or eliminated, they hang onto their money, not pump it back into the rest of the nation’s economy. If this is “trickle-down” economics, it sure seems like the big boys are peeing on our legs and telling us it’s raining, don’t you think?
And yet so many people in this country keep wanting to elect politicians who advocate this system! Why? You can’t tell me that wealthy Americans exclusively populate all those red states on the American map. Think about it… wealthy people have better things to do with their afternoons than listen to Rush on the radio, and watch re-runs of the Jerry Springer Show, followed by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and all the other shrunken minds on FOX News. What are all these lower-class angry white people getting out of a system that gives them the shaft every time the GOP suckers them into voting? Is it just the satisfaction that wealthier white people keep extra money away from poor non-whites? I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t get off on seeing someone else get screwed alongside of me, no matter who or what he or she is.
But I do get a small chuckle when rich CEOs feign suicidal theatrics when they lose some of their wealth as a consequence of reckless greed. Oh, too bad… poor baby… you lost a few million in the stock market? There, there… here’s one of your hundred-dollar bills to wipe away your tears. Would you like some cognac and truffles to soothe your pain?
Hell, when it’s you and me, and we lose a few thousand from our retirement nest eggs, we’re forced to reach for ice cream for emotional support, assuming one brand is on sale that week in the local grocery store.
Time for a simple science lesson, boys and girls… there are two fundamental properties of all elements on the periodic table -- electron affinity and electronegativity. The main point of both properties is this: the more electrons an atom has in its outer structural shell, the more electrons are desired, and the more likely those electrons will be acquired as opposed to given away. I often compare wealthy people and regular folks like you and me as a metaphor to atoms and electrons: the more money a wealthy person has, the more money that person wants and the greater the likelihood that person will acquire more wealth. How more likely? The odds favor the wealthy person much better than you or me, that’s for sure!
Supply-side economic theory works the same way: the more money wealthy people have, the more they want to hold onto it, so they can have more and get more. That money doesn’t come to us, and if it does it’s very begrudgingly. Give the wealthy a big tax break, that’s metaphorically extra electrons, and the more one has the more one wants and the more one gets, because more, more, more is the “American Way.” Tax breaks don’t necessarily encourage creating new jobs and hiring new employees; tax breaks encourage more opportunities for the wealthy to keep the wealth as local as possible. That’s how old money stays old money.
Why is this relevant to George Steinbrenner’s passing? For years people lambasted The Boss for spending as much money as possible on the Yankees and player payroll, escalating MLB economics to the point of being Monopoly on steroids. But as much as he resisted, The Boss did agree to revenue sharing by means of a luxury tax, meaning not only did he bankroll his own team, he subsidized all the small market teams for the best interests of MLB and foster competitive balance.
Was all the money George shared enough for these teams? We’ll really never know, because a good number of his fellow owners pocketed the money for themselves rather than invest into player salaries. Look at the Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and a few other teams that have fielded substandard teams year after year after year. Go ahead an bitch all you want about how Steinbrenner threw MLB economics out of kilter, but re-read what I’ve written about fiscal breaks for the wealthy. Unless there’s extra incentive, the money stays in pocket, not re-invested, at least not for anyone other than the wealthy team owner. If you want to blame George Steinbrenner for ruining MLB, maybe you need a fundamental refresher course in ECON 101 to see where equal blame should be.
Whose legs are being peed on this time, the players? No, the players get paid plenty relative to their talent level and major-league experience. It’s US, the fans! We’re the ones with pee running down our legs season after season after season as certain owners continue to sell us a lousy product for ever-increasing ticket prices while making sure they can turn a personal profit. The Boss may have outspent everyone else and charged fans a premium for his product, but at least he tried his best to give fans their money’s worth.
And THAT’S how the economic minds of wealthy people operate. Lesson over. Class dismissed.
Musing about estate taxes aside, Limbaugh’s most crass and idiotic comment was when he said Steinbrenner made a lot of African-Americans rich and “Crackers” (I’m not talking something made by Nabisco) even richer. Do people really talk like this anymore, or is this Rush trying to stay hip with his redneck listening audience as unofficial leader of the GOP? Michael Steele? You’re kidding, right?
Well, if recently banished Tea Party member Mark Williams is any indication, sadly, there are still folks in this country who actually maintain a lot of ol’ Dixie lingo, such as including the word “colored” in their personal vocabulary, and not in the context of I colored between the lines with my crayons. Rest assured, Mr. Williams doesn’t reserve all his invective for African-Americans. He called Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer a “Jewish Uncle Tom who would have turned rat on Anne Frank,” because Stringer favors the building of a mosque near the World Trade Center site, and as we all know, an open-minded and ecumenical Jew is a self-hating anti-Semite.
Of course, while the NAACP is quick to condemn Williams’ rhetoric, I join Stanley Crouch (New York Daily News) among those wondering why this same organization moves at a snail’s pace to react similarly to equally hate-filled rhetoric by the Nation of Islam. Is it possible that all “victims” of hate do much better dishing it out than taking it? Who knew… it really MUST be better to give than receive.
Does Limbaugh take the cake on verbal idiocy? No… Even with Williams near the top of the list, a strong challenge comes from some nitwit “Voicer” who wrote in a letter to the New York Daily News that “Steinbrenner should say hello to Satan” now that he’s passed away. And let’s also acknowledge former Boston Red Sox pitcher Bill “Spaceman” Lee who said during a radio interview it was “good” Steinbrenner died and that “if hell freezes over he’ll be skating”. Geez… I was never one of Steinbrenner’s biggest fans, but there’s a line you simply don’t cross when people die… I have an ex-wife, ex-in-laws, and former colleagues who denied me tenure as a professor, and even I can’t stoop that low, no matter how tempting it may be. There is an axiom that you don’t dance on your enemy’s grave, and if that doesn’t temper one’s thoughts, there’s always the wisdom mom gives us: if you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.
Believe it or not, LeBron James moving to South Beach didn’t exclusively inspire verbal idiocy, nor did George Steinbrenner’s passing. Just this past weekend, FOX Sports’ baseball analyst Tim McCarver said the exclusion of former manager Joe Torre from all aspects of Yankee Stadium was reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany during World War II. Holy George Orwell! McCarver is quite the sharp one, noting how Torre’s now a non-person in the Bronx. Boy, you gotta wonder how many hours McCarver, one of my favorite baseball analysts, by the way, sat up and thought about this insight for television.
And if this was the icing on the cake, then the grand cherry topping has to go to Miami Heat guard Dwayne Wade for warning reporters during an interview that the Heat could very well lose a game or two in a row this year and everyone needs to not make it seem like the falling of the World Trade Center all over again. Come again?!
And he made it WORSE the next day by saying he was misquoted or taken out of context! If you watched the interview on ESPN like I did, there’s no mistaken anything… Wade tried to make fans and media members aware that losing basketball games is nothing like another 9-11. DUH! As if none of us already knew this?! Trust me, I was traveling to Canada on September 11, 2001… I KNOW the difference between jumbo jets flying into two business towers and a cold stretch for an NBA basketball team. But lucky for us we have Dwayne Wade to point out the idiotically obvious and help us keep it all in perspective…
True story… WFAN’s Joe Benigno refused to celebrate Christmas 2000 with his family because the Jets lost 34-20 at Baltimore the day before in the season finale to miss out on a playoff berth, then spent hours whining on the radio how Vinny Testaverde and Al Groh ruined his Christmas and New Years. You see, if Dwayne Wade were sharing his wisdom ten years ago the Benigno family would’ve had a much nicer holiday. Yep…
If you think public education is free of racial rhetoric, check out the “helpful” words spoken by Ron Barfield, a Queens-based parent advocate employed by the New York City Department of Education to serve Public School District 29 and a member of the Parent Teachers Association for Public School 134. Barfield’s advice? According to the Queens Tribune and New York Daily News, Barfield said, “[Schedule PTA meetings] on Fridays, ‘cause n____rs don’t like to come out on Fridays. That’s the truth, ‘cause I ain’t coming out to nothing.”
Barfield happens to be African-American, and thought Fridays were good days to schedule PTA meetings if the Department of Education didn’t really want parents involved, especially in school districts with predominantly African-American students.
So why again did Don Imus lose his job with WFAN Radio and MSNBC? Just wondering while I’m part of the politically correct chorus…
So what real issues in the world of education truly inspire verbal idiocy? Two topics: academic standards and educator salaries. USA TODAY ran an editorial last week titled, “Is college overrated?”, and several people wrote letters in response. Apparently kids are poorly prepared for college because teachers do a lousy job and administrators try to counteract poor teaching by lowering standards and passing kids along. Why? Because failure discourages kids and rather than try to improve, they give up and drop out. So I guess we can conclude “social promotion” is and always was a pacifier for damaged self-esteem by kids who need more time to work with, master and learn the curriculum before moving ahead?
So, if better teachers alone fails to improve our schools, and grade inflation hides problems that only get worse as kids move along in their education, is it possible we’re running out of things to blame while we keep seeing schools continue to graduate poorly-prepared kids for college and/or the workforce? I mean, is it just me, or are we going around and around in circles on what’s wrong with public schools and how to fix them? Granted, the arguments hardly rank up with the verbal gems I’ve already discussed in this column, but isn’t a sign of idiocy repeating the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?
I happen to be an odd duck, so give me some latitude when I say that one of the biggest problems we have in education are the fallacy that having a diploma, degree or credential makes you an educated person. No it doesn’t. It makes you the possessor of a piece of paper. Years ago, when I was still early in my teaching career, a few colleagues and I used the term “certified ain’t qualified” to describe some of the woefully incompetent teachers we saw in our schools. A teaching license doesn’t automatically mean you know how to teach or should be allowed to teach. Any academic credential doesn’t automatically mean you have a legitimate knowledge base to justify your credential. In other words, if you don’t know how to use your knowledge you probably aren’t particularly educated. Sorry, but that’s the cruel truth.
Another big problem in education is that we think student grades are a legitimate indicator of knowledge or learning. No, it isn’t. I know plenty of college graduates with superb grade point averages who have far less of a clue about their field than graduates with somewhat mediocre grade point averages. For example, when students score 100 percent on an exam, that doesn’t mean they’re perfect students; it means they answered all the questions correctly for that particular exam. After 25 years of teaching, I can design a chemistry or physics exam to allow everyone in the room score at least 80 percent, or I can design the exam to make sure no one scores above 50 percent. The number means absolutely nothing except for artificial purposes for student ranking and administrative bookkeeping. We’re so pre-occupied with exam scores and student ranking for the purpose of ranking schools, city school systems, counties, states and nations that we’re simply turning education more and more into an entity akin to training baby seals to play horns. It’s all a game, a gimmick, and we keep fooling around with one component or another without really changing or improving the system that’s most critical for any nation’s long-term viability.
Last, but not least, I give you the State of New Jersey and its newest challenge for fiscal recovery: taming the salaries of school district superintendents. According to the Bergen Record, Gov. Chris Christie seeks to put a cap on superintendent salaries, some which are quite astronomical. The governor’s logic is that school districts are spending too much on top-level salaries, which drain the budget and impose more on local homeowners who pay enough property taxes already. I’m all in favor of this measure, and this is one part of the Christie agenda I support. We have way too many small and individual school districts in New Jersey, and the days of “Home Rule” need to give way to consolidation and elimination of redundant upper-level jobs.
However, the governor might want to re-think his delivery on the few good ideas he has. Gov. Christie earns $175,000 per year as governor, and he probably doesn’t win too many bonus points by saying “[school superintendents] should not earn more than the governor.” While I agree with his logic, the governor probably shouldn’t put himself on such a pedestal, especially when he’s already taken too many pot shots at New Jersey’s pubic schools, teachers, their salaries and the teacher’s union. Perhaps a little history lesson for the governor is in order. In 1929, Babe Ruth reportedly earned $60,000 playing for the Yankees, then the highest salary in baseball or any professional sport. When asked why he earned more money than president Herbert Hoover, Ruth replied, “I had a better year than he did.” Just a thought, governor, but only your expanding waistline is of Ruthian proportions in this state and your administration so far.
Now, naturally, one would expect New Jersey’s school superintendents to be a tad unhappy at the prospect of a salary cap and salary cuts in order to make this cap a fiscal reality. Remember, these are the same superintendents who coaxed their own teachers into accepting salary freezes in order to save jobs and ease taxpayers from more property tax increases. But I’m going to offer you one superintendent’s reaction so you can ponder your own views about public education. James Montesano, the superintendent for the Paramus school system, earns $223,600 per year to lead a K-12 system serving 4,224 students. By comparison, here are three other superintendents of larger K-12 school systems in Bergen County:
Garfield – Nicholas Perrapato (4,555 students, $182,000/year)
Hackensack – Edward Kliszus (5,014 students, $197,600/year)
Ridgewood – Daniel Fishbein (5,675 students, $216,500/year)
All are quite well compensated, but Mr. Montesano earns more salary leading fewer students. This inequity in salary alone is reason enough for some form of salary cap. But I’m not going to focus on this inequity, or even focus on the fact that one of Mr. Montesano’s family members is the superintendent of the Mahwah K-12 district, leading 3,432 students at $210,912/year. I’d like to focus on the fact that Mr. Montesano told the Bergen Record that a salary cap would influence his decision on where he will work after his contract expires after the 2012-2013 academic year – “Its goal is to make New Jersey more affordable… but I don’t think it will be an attractive place for quality school leaders to practice their profession.”
And you thought NBA free agency was obscene?
No comments:
Post a Comment