conservative: (definition, 2) Supporting political ideas that include less involvement by government in business and people's lives, by encouraging everyone to work, earn their own money and having strong ideas regarding moral behavior.
moderate: (definition, 2) Having political opinions or beliefs that are not extreme and that most people consider sensible and reasonable.
liberal: (definitions, 2& 3) Supporting political ideas that include more involvement by governmnent in business and people's lives, but willing to respect the different behaviors by individual people, in their private lives. Supporting, or allowing, changes in political, social, or religious systems, that give individual people more freedom.
Situations:
1. A business debits your personal checking account, without your prior knowledge or permission.
2. A business, misapplies your payment, consistently "overbills" you. You cannot change vendors for the service this business provides, partially because government regulations favor them having a "monopoly" on their service.
3. A US President, initiates a War, partially because, in a "candid statement," at the start of the war, "the leader of the other country attempted to kill his father." This President makes that statement only once.
4. Over the last 3 years, several "national politicians," most representing one party, are "caught" in "compromising moral circumstances."
5. One party is represented by "media personalities," whose main message is one of division, hate and "the big lie(s)," to influence the unwary or unthinking, to the purpose of generating increasing anger against government.
6. A political party wins a "lanslide victory" in a national election with a key "plank" of it's election promises to the electorate, of "cutting taxes." After being installed in office, this party supports continuing "special tax breaks," for the very rich, causing the general electorate to continue bearing a heavier tax burden.
This list could become as long as your memory and include more "real examples," (all the above ARE real examples) of current situations.
Put aside, for a moment, that political parties, especially one, misuses the above terms, by altering their real definitions. Forget current definitions by politicians and use the dictionary definitions.
When reviewing the dictionary definitions, above and considering them against the list of real current examples of what is "really going on now, has occurred recently and continues to occur," despite American moral integrity and tradition, which of the above 3 ways do YOU WANT TO DEFINE YOURSELF?
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Political Comment # 3: Why I (Almost) Cannot Curently Vote Republican.
Which political party is "the party of 'NO?'"
Which political is "the party favoring 'THE RICH?'"
Which political party is "the party of 'BIG BUSINESS?'"
Which political party is "MEANSPIRITED" and uses thos "meanspirited words and actions" to replace REAL LEADERSHIP?
Which political party is "the party of the WAR?"
Which political party is "the party protecting, promoting and the 'pawn' of, the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
I am a SENIOR CITIZEN, WHITE MALE, former MANAGER and MANAGEMENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATOR (with several Unions) and a resident of the State of COLORADO.
By these demographics, I SHOULD BE a "staunch" republican.
Because of the above reasons, I cannot currently vote for any republican candidate, for any political office.
Well, "almost" no republican.
If I had a chance to vote for Olympia Snow, I probably would. She doesn't always follow the "republican party line" and that's one reason why I like and respect her so much.
But she's a Senator from Maine and I live in Colorado, so I can only "wish" I could vote for her.
The "common people" (I consider myself one) almost "caught on" to the "republican act," during Nixon. I hope and pray that us commoners REALLY CATCH ON TO the republicans and prevent you from being elected to or remaining in, political office, for several years.
I am convinced that, a REAL LOSS OF POLITICAL POWER, is the only thing republicans will ever understand and therefore, become the catalyst for changing their values.
HASTEN THE DAY!! In writing this blog of political opinion, I purposely did not capitalize certain terms.
I want to vote repulican again, at least 50-50 with "the other party." But until the republicans change, they will be the "party of small," to me.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Which political is "the party favoring 'THE RICH?'"
Which political party is "the party of 'BIG BUSINESS?'"
Which political party is "MEANSPIRITED" and uses thos "meanspirited words and actions" to replace REAL LEADERSHIP?
Which political party is "the party of the WAR?"
Which political party is "the party protecting, promoting and the 'pawn' of, the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
I am a SENIOR CITIZEN, WHITE MALE, former MANAGER and MANAGEMENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATOR (with several Unions) and a resident of the State of COLORADO.
By these demographics, I SHOULD BE a "staunch" republican.
Because of the above reasons, I cannot currently vote for any republican candidate, for any political office.
Well, "almost" no republican.
If I had a chance to vote for Olympia Snow, I probably would. She doesn't always follow the "republican party line" and that's one reason why I like and respect her so much.
But she's a Senator from Maine and I live in Colorado, so I can only "wish" I could vote for her.
The "common people" (I consider myself one) almost "caught on" to the "republican act," during Nixon. I hope and pray that us commoners REALLY CATCH ON TO the republicans and prevent you from being elected to or remaining in, political office, for several years.
I am convinced that, a REAL LOSS OF POLITICAL POWER, is the only thing republicans will ever understand and therefore, become the catalyst for changing their values.
HASTEN THE DAY!! In writing this blog of political opinion, I purposely did not capitalize certain terms.
I want to vote repulican again, at least 50-50 with "the other party." But until the republicans change, they will be the "party of small," to me.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Monday, November 29, 2010
Spiritual Law # 8: The Law of "Awareness."
My wife and I have a "best friend" who recently observed, "no one can be aware of EVERYTHING they do!"
The WONDERFUL TRUTH is, "OH YES I (YOU) CAN" be aware of everything I (you) do!
And not only aware of all I (you) do, but also the VALUES governing me (you) and the THOUGHTS, WORDS and DEEDS or ACTIONS, that are outcomes of those VALUES.
That's "TOTAL AWARENESS."
I (you) MUST be aware of all our values, thoughts, words and deeds. "Excusing" oneself from that responsibility of TOTAL AWARENESS is where we "fail ourself" in at least two different ways.
First, anyitme I refuse, say "no," "disallow," "include myself 'out,'" say, "I can't," or otherwise respond "in the negative," I close "the flow of energy" (Universal Energy) in a certain direction. Cutting off iThe Universal Flow of Energy in any direction, reduces my choices to respond, thereby reducing my power.
Secondly, "Total Awareness," of all I value, think, say and do, is the "key" to assuming personal responsibility
for my life and ownership of myself. One cannot "own oneself " and assume personal responsisbility for all that occurs with/to me, without "total awareness."
It isn't easy to achieve, TOTAL AWARENESS. If it was, everyone would be doing it.
Like so many things, achieving TOTAL AWARENESS takes practice.
Often, awareness starts with being concious of what I value, think, say and do, in the "little things."
"Why did I think that thought?"
"Where did those words come from, that's not really what I wanted to, or meant to, say?
"Why did I DO that?" "That action cost me so much!"
Start asking yourself those questions, for all you think, say and do and soon, you'll come to know yourself very, very well.
"Knowing yourself," what YOU value, that leads to YOUR thoughts, words and deeds, will empower YOU more than YOU could have ever envisioned or dreamed. Further, when you find something, perhaps a "hidden value," which you had not known was "there," inside you, that you don't "like," you can change that value.
Through YOUR ever-heightened AWARENESS, YOU can make different choices.
"Oh Yes You Can," is the slogan of one of our local automobile dealers.
To experience REAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT, make "OH YES I CAN" your slogan, supported by your VALUES, THOUGHTS, WORDS AND ACTIONS.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
The WONDERFUL TRUTH is, "OH YES I (YOU) CAN" be aware of everything I (you) do!
And not only aware of all I (you) do, but also the VALUES governing me (you) and the THOUGHTS, WORDS and DEEDS or ACTIONS, that are outcomes of those VALUES.
That's "TOTAL AWARENESS."
I (you) MUST be aware of all our values, thoughts, words and deeds. "Excusing" oneself from that responsibility of TOTAL AWARENESS is where we "fail ourself" in at least two different ways.
First, anyitme I refuse, say "no," "disallow," "include myself 'out,'" say, "I can't," or otherwise respond "in the negative," I close "the flow of energy" (Universal Energy) in a certain direction. Cutting off iThe Universal Flow of Energy in any direction, reduces my choices to respond, thereby reducing my power.
Secondly, "Total Awareness," of all I value, think, say and do, is the "key" to assuming personal responsibility
for my life and ownership of myself. One cannot "own oneself " and assume personal responsisbility for all that occurs with/to me, without "total awareness."
It isn't easy to achieve, TOTAL AWARENESS. If it was, everyone would be doing it.
Like so many things, achieving TOTAL AWARENESS takes practice.
Often, awareness starts with being concious of what I value, think, say and do, in the "little things."
"Why did I think that thought?"
"Where did those words come from, that's not really what I wanted to, or meant to, say?
"Why did I DO that?" "That action cost me so much!"
Start asking yourself those questions, for all you think, say and do and soon, you'll come to know yourself very, very well.
"Knowing yourself," what YOU value, that leads to YOUR thoughts, words and deeds, will empower YOU more than YOU could have ever envisioned or dreamed. Further, when you find something, perhaps a "hidden value," which you had not known was "there," inside you, that you don't "like," you can change that value.
Through YOUR ever-heightened AWARENESS, YOU can make different choices.
"Oh Yes You Can," is the slogan of one of our local automobile dealers.
To experience REAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT, make "OH YES I CAN" your slogan, supported by your VALUES, THOUGHTS, WORDS AND ACTIONS.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Passing Parade # 4: "Institutional Thinking and 'The Glass Cage.'"
"If you're part of something for more than 2 years, your thoughts, words and actions become 'instituionalized." This "observation on "life," was shared with me by a truly great philosopher, Kim Jagr.
Never heard of him? You probably wouldn't.
Kim was a sociologist in a "boy's prision" where he and I worked together, many years ago. He was one of those "beautiful blond, blue-eyed, nordic types," who seemed completely out of place, in a juvenile detention institution, whose staff and inmate population, were practically all black. He was also, one of the most intelligent individuals I have ever met and a truly "great philosopher."
"When the employees here become 'institutionalized,' they are like as if they were trapped in a glass cage. They can see, hear, speak and act, but almost everything they do reflects the 'value system' of this institution. When that occurs, there is no reasoning with them. They are so 'in a rut' with what they think, say and do, that they reject any thought that is different. That's why this place only gets worse, not better."- Kim Jagr
Have you worked for, worshiped at, shopped at, "buddied with," some employer, church, store, "hung out with" the "same (fill in the blank, here)?" If you answer "yes," you MAY BE "institutionalized."
Many and perhaps, most times, for all of us, being institutionalized in some way(s) is OK, even desireable.
I trust my Physician and s/he has treated me for a long time.
My favorite store(s) "shops comfortably" for me. I like their prices, service and personnel.
But when ANYONE comes to a point where, they BELIVE so strongly in some area, where they are a part of any institution, that they find themself "oversensitive" to criticsm, defending with "unskilled or unreasonable" arguments, thinking that they're an "insider" who knows more than anyone who is an "outsider" and thinking it's "us against an ignorant, uncaring world," they MAY have become so "institutionalized, and in a glass cage," that those around them, who are not part of (fill in the blank, here) "leave them," in some way.
The best folks they know, will take the time to discuss the situation with them or even argue with them. Those people "care".
Others, "just steal away," from that person, mentally and emotionally. They don't want to attempt and even avoid, trying to reason with them. They don't "want to confuse with facts, because their mind is already made up."
"I've been there and done that." I have become "institutionalized" and (speaking for myself ONLY here) so "addicted" to a certain institution of which I was a part for over 40 years, that I was in a "glass cage," for quite awhile, where that specific institution was concered.
"How do I 'reach' a person I love so much, when they, not only don't listen, but they get angry when I try to reason with them?"
You can't. The "shattering" of the glass cage and recovery from "institutionalization," has to come from within
the individual, themself. Sometimes this insight comes as an "aha," a "learning moment," when a "drastic something" occurs that opens their eyes.
All my "real friends," believe in me and love me, sometimes in spite of me, even when they know I'm institutionalized, in some way. In some instances, they may be "living for the day" when one of their favorite people returns from the "glass cage."
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Never heard of him? You probably wouldn't.
Kim was a sociologist in a "boy's prision" where he and I worked together, many years ago. He was one of those "beautiful blond, blue-eyed, nordic types," who seemed completely out of place, in a juvenile detention institution, whose staff and inmate population, were practically all black. He was also, one of the most intelligent individuals I have ever met and a truly "great philosopher."
"When the employees here become 'institutionalized,' they are like as if they were trapped in a glass cage. They can see, hear, speak and act, but almost everything they do reflects the 'value system' of this institution. When that occurs, there is no reasoning with them. They are so 'in a rut' with what they think, say and do, that they reject any thought that is different. That's why this place only gets worse, not better."- Kim Jagr
Have you worked for, worshiped at, shopped at, "buddied with," some employer, church, store, "hung out with" the "same (fill in the blank, here)?" If you answer "yes," you MAY BE "institutionalized."
Many and perhaps, most times, for all of us, being institutionalized in some way(s) is OK, even desireable.
I trust my Physician and s/he has treated me for a long time.
My favorite store(s) "shops comfortably" for me. I like their prices, service and personnel.
But when ANYONE comes to a point where, they BELIVE so strongly in some area, where they are a part of any institution, that they find themself "oversensitive" to criticsm, defending with "unskilled or unreasonable" arguments, thinking that they're an "insider" who knows more than anyone who is an "outsider" and thinking it's "us against an ignorant, uncaring world," they MAY have become so "institutionalized, and in a glass cage," that those around them, who are not part of (fill in the blank, here) "leave them," in some way.
The best folks they know, will take the time to discuss the situation with them or even argue with them. Those people "care".
Others, "just steal away," from that person, mentally and emotionally. They don't want to attempt and even avoid, trying to reason with them. They don't "want to confuse with facts, because their mind is already made up."
"I've been there and done that." I have become "institutionalized" and (speaking for myself ONLY here) so "addicted" to a certain institution of which I was a part for over 40 years, that I was in a "glass cage," for quite awhile, where that specific institution was concered.
"How do I 'reach' a person I love so much, when they, not only don't listen, but they get angry when I try to reason with them?"
You can't. The "shattering" of the glass cage and recovery from "institutionalization," has to come from within
the individual, themself. Sometimes this insight comes as an "aha," a "learning moment," when a "drastic something" occurs that opens their eyes.
All my "real friends," believe in me and love me, sometimes in spite of me, even when they know I'm institutionalized, in some way. In some instances, they may be "living for the day" when one of their favorite people returns from the "glass cage."
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Political Comment # 2: Hillary Clinton, Sara Palin, Olympia Snow and Me
I wanted to, was committed to, voting for Hillary Clinton for President. "The Universe" had a different direction for the country (USA) so I never was afforded the opportunity to vote for her.
I can NEVER vote for Sara Palin. The only impression I receive from her, is that she is a pretty woman. OK, a "sexy" woman (accusations of "male, chauvinist pig" may be in order here). That's all, that's it, nada, nothing more.
Part of me hopes she runs for President in 2012, either as a Republican or as the 3rd party, "Tea Party" candidate. Either way, if she runs, she is likely to "split" the conservative vote. That's what part of me thinks. (Read Mona Chavez's column of November 21, 2010. Chavez is a conservative, latino, female columnist, so her thoughts on Sara Palin, the Presidential candidate, are very relevant.)
That's what SCARES Mona Chavez, the Republican Party and potential Republican candidates, like John Boehner, TO DEATH. They know she might generate the power to be nominated, but she would be highly unlikely to win a national election.
The other part of me is SCARED TO DEATH of her running for President, BECAUSE SHE MIGHT WIN.
HOLY TERRORS, BATMAN, "how low can you go," America?
I THINK I could vote for Olympia Snow, the Congresswoman from Maine. I have good impressions of her. She seems intelligent, smart, "savvy," mature, thoughtful and independent. She doesn't neccessarily "follow the (Republican) Party line" according to her voting record and I mostly agree with her votes.
I KNOW I could vote for Robin Roberts for President, if she decided to run. She's one of the hosts of ABC's (TV network) morning show. Robin seems to embody all the qualities of both Sara Palin and Olympia Snow. Her "physical presence," is stunning, her mind is sharp and quick and her personality "draws" most folks to her, rather than drawing some, while repelling others.
I don't know what "political party," to which Robin belongs, but that's not important to me. After mentally comparing Robin to MOST political Presidential candidates on the horizon for the 2012 election (John Boehner, Sara Palin, et al,), I MOST DEFINITELY, would vote for Robin Roberts. (I am PURPOSELY ommitting the most important name which would be on this list).
But Robin's not qualified, she has no government experience, she's just a TV personality, you say.
So is Palin. Yes, she was Governor of Alaska and a Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, but she resigned her Governorship and was proven a real "lightweight" mentally, during her 2008 candidacy. To me, these political "experiences" don't count.
Consider, that many voters, in the 2008 Presidential election, voted AGAINST John McCain, because of her and many conservative voters stayed home and didn't vote, because of her. (MY LORD!! She MIGHT become President if McCain passed!)
As for me, from this "list of candidates I would have, would and wouldn't vote for," you'd have a difficult case to make for me being a sexist, racist, or male chauvinst pig, after all.
That reality MIGHT currently place me in the "underwhelming minority" among the American electorate.
"Guilty as charged."
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
I can NEVER vote for Sara Palin. The only impression I receive from her, is that she is a pretty woman. OK, a "sexy" woman (accusations of "male, chauvinist pig" may be in order here). That's all, that's it, nada, nothing more.
Part of me hopes she runs for President in 2012, either as a Republican or as the 3rd party, "Tea Party" candidate. Either way, if she runs, she is likely to "split" the conservative vote. That's what part of me thinks. (Read Mona Chavez's column of November 21, 2010. Chavez is a conservative, latino, female columnist, so her thoughts on Sara Palin, the Presidential candidate, are very relevant.)
That's what SCARES Mona Chavez, the Republican Party and potential Republican candidates, like John Boehner, TO DEATH. They know she might generate the power to be nominated, but she would be highly unlikely to win a national election.
The other part of me is SCARED TO DEATH of her running for President, BECAUSE SHE MIGHT WIN.
HOLY TERRORS, BATMAN, "how low can you go," America?
I THINK I could vote for Olympia Snow, the Congresswoman from Maine. I have good impressions of her. She seems intelligent, smart, "savvy," mature, thoughtful and independent. She doesn't neccessarily "follow the (Republican) Party line" according to her voting record and I mostly agree with her votes.
I KNOW I could vote for Robin Roberts for President, if she decided to run. She's one of the hosts of ABC's (TV network) morning show. Robin seems to embody all the qualities of both Sara Palin and Olympia Snow. Her "physical presence," is stunning, her mind is sharp and quick and her personality "draws" most folks to her, rather than drawing some, while repelling others.
I don't know what "political party," to which Robin belongs, but that's not important to me. After mentally comparing Robin to MOST political Presidential candidates on the horizon for the 2012 election (John Boehner, Sara Palin, et al,), I MOST DEFINITELY, would vote for Robin Roberts. (I am PURPOSELY ommitting the most important name which would be on this list).
But Robin's not qualified, she has no government experience, she's just a TV personality, you say.
So is Palin. Yes, she was Governor of Alaska and a Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, but she resigned her Governorship and was proven a real "lightweight" mentally, during her 2008 candidacy. To me, these political "experiences" don't count.
Consider, that many voters, in the 2008 Presidential election, voted AGAINST John McCain, because of her and many conservative voters stayed home and didn't vote, because of her. (MY LORD!! She MIGHT become President if McCain passed!)
As for me, from this "list of candidates I would have, would and wouldn't vote for," you'd have a difficult case to make for me being a sexist, racist, or male chauvinst pig, after all.
That reality MIGHT currently place me in the "underwhelming minority" among the American electorate.
"Guilty as charged."
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Monday, November 22, 2010
What's Wrong With American Education # 3: Why Delete Sports Friom the School's Curriculum?
This is a "series" of blogs, please review the first 2 on American Education.
Why delete sports from the school's curriculum? Let's count the reasons!
1. Including sports in American educational curriculum, was never an educationally sound notion.
Imagine students attending school, where the sole emphasis is on learning, Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Subjects such as Art, Instrumental and Vocal Music, Foreign Language, could also be offered.
No concern about "the big game." getting a "date" for the dance, or dealing with a "jock" culture, that behaves as if the entire school's existence, is supposed to be centered on them. Removal of all sports stimulus from schools, should help students focus on learning.
By the way, parents would focus on their child's learning, also.
2. Taxes would be lowered or remain at local current levels, for the forseeable future. No need for large gymnasiums or field houses. No need for maintenance or staff devoted to maintaining large gymnasiums, football, soccer or field hockey fields, no need for baseball diamonds, etc.
Ever consider how much custodial time it takes to clean under the stands/bleachers after a game, line the football or soccer field, paint and re-surface gynasium basketball courts? Taxes pay for this maintenance of school sports facitlites.
Have you ever thought about how much it costs for sports uniforms, pads, medical supplies, shoes and other sports peraphenalia, worn or used, by each athlete? Taxes pay for much of these.
Yes, facilities would be needed for physical education, IF the school district included the subject in it's curriculum, but you don't need huge gyms to be able to teach P.E., double, triple, or quadruple sized rooms, would do.
Did you know that many school districts "subsidize" their sports program? Usually, the only sport that "pays for itself," in a school is football. In many schools, the other sports lose money, triggering a need to move general fund monies (transfers), into the sports program fund. Imagine the effect on taxes if general fund tax money would be used solely for academics programs!
How do you suppose huge gymnasiums, football, soccer and field hockey fields, and the land for them, are purcihased and built? Taxpayer supported bond issues, (more taxes) is where most are paid for. Often, these sports facilities are a component of a much larger bond issue, which includes building a school, or serious renovation. Someone, usually "sports parents" with much local power, WANTS the new facility, so they lobby to include it in a bond-issue submission to local taxpayer vote. Those of us who pay taxes, without kids in school who participate in sports, are kind enough to help these parents, pay for their kid's sports participation.
3. Most European countries separate their academic schools, from student social programs. Their schools focus solely on academics and student sports, clubs and activites, are sponsored, privately, outside the school. THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR, WITH TAXES. Those countries "beat" us on student academic test scores, consistently.
By the way, those same countries do very well in sports also. They often finish first, second or third, in many Olympic sports competitions.
4. One of the "hidden" outcomes of student sports programs, is the number and severity of injuries, suffered by kids, during competition. Some of the medical treatments for these injuries, is often paid for by tax money, through insurance, purchased by the school district. Some, but not all, of these injuries, are paid for by parents being required to pay for health insurance, covering their student's sports competition.
There are injuries sustained by kids playing sports, that end their sports career, before it has a real beginning, Occasionally, deaths are a result of student sports participation. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many kids are killed or disabled, some permanently, from sports, every year? Wouldn't it be interesting to have an accurate figure published for the cost of these injuries, paid by taxpayers?
It has become a practice in this country to "privatize" certain functions, traditionally provided by government, especially over the last 20 years. Anti-tax political lobbying, usually by conservative political organizations and politicians, supported by the "conservative media," have proven successful in generating these "provatization" efforts.
We have just presented rationale for a serious upgrade of student academic performance, while saving, lowering and using taxpayer money more wisely and privatization of an expensive, government-supported funtion. All the components of a GREAT CONSERVATIVE CAUSE. Would anyone else out there LOVE to see how conservative groups and politicians would handle this issue?
The "Social Component" of current American Education, is long overdue, for such action.
American Education can only become MUCH better for removing "Social Education," from America's Public Schools.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell-
Why delete sports from the school's curriculum? Let's count the reasons!
1. Including sports in American educational curriculum, was never an educationally sound notion.
Imagine students attending school, where the sole emphasis is on learning, Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Subjects such as Art, Instrumental and Vocal Music, Foreign Language, could also be offered.
No concern about "the big game." getting a "date" for the dance, or dealing with a "jock" culture, that behaves as if the entire school's existence, is supposed to be centered on them. Removal of all sports stimulus from schools, should help students focus on learning.
By the way, parents would focus on their child's learning, also.
2. Taxes would be lowered or remain at local current levels, for the forseeable future. No need for large gymnasiums or field houses. No need for maintenance or staff devoted to maintaining large gymnasiums, football, soccer or field hockey fields, no need for baseball diamonds, etc.
Ever consider how much custodial time it takes to clean under the stands/bleachers after a game, line the football or soccer field, paint and re-surface gynasium basketball courts? Taxes pay for this maintenance of school sports facitlites.
Have you ever thought about how much it costs for sports uniforms, pads, medical supplies, shoes and other sports peraphenalia, worn or used, by each athlete? Taxes pay for much of these.
Yes, facilities would be needed for physical education, IF the school district included the subject in it's curriculum, but you don't need huge gyms to be able to teach P.E., double, triple, or quadruple sized rooms, would do.
Did you know that many school districts "subsidize" their sports program? Usually, the only sport that "pays for itself," in a school is football. In many schools, the other sports lose money, triggering a need to move general fund monies (transfers), into the sports program fund. Imagine the effect on taxes if general fund tax money would be used solely for academics programs!
How do you suppose huge gymnasiums, football, soccer and field hockey fields, and the land for them, are purcihased and built? Taxpayer supported bond issues, (more taxes) is where most are paid for. Often, these sports facilities are a component of a much larger bond issue, which includes building a school, or serious renovation. Someone, usually "sports parents" with much local power, WANTS the new facility, so they lobby to include it in a bond-issue submission to local taxpayer vote. Those of us who pay taxes, without kids in school who participate in sports, are kind enough to help these parents, pay for their kid's sports participation.
3. Most European countries separate their academic schools, from student social programs. Their schools focus solely on academics and student sports, clubs and activites, are sponsored, privately, outside the school. THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR, WITH TAXES. Those countries "beat" us on student academic test scores, consistently.
By the way, those same countries do very well in sports also. They often finish first, second or third, in many Olympic sports competitions.
4. One of the "hidden" outcomes of student sports programs, is the number and severity of injuries, suffered by kids, during competition. Some of the medical treatments for these injuries, is often paid for by tax money, through insurance, purchased by the school district. Some, but not all, of these injuries, are paid for by parents being required to pay for health insurance, covering their student's sports competition.
There are injuries sustained by kids playing sports, that end their sports career, before it has a real beginning, Occasionally, deaths are a result of student sports participation. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many kids are killed or disabled, some permanently, from sports, every year? Wouldn't it be interesting to have an accurate figure published for the cost of these injuries, paid by taxpayers?
It has become a practice in this country to "privatize" certain functions, traditionally provided by government, especially over the last 20 years. Anti-tax political lobbying, usually by conservative political organizations and politicians, supported by the "conservative media," have proven successful in generating these "provatization" efforts.
We have just presented rationale for a serious upgrade of student academic performance, while saving, lowering and using taxpayer money more wisely and privatization of an expensive, government-supported funtion. All the components of a GREAT CONSERVATIVE CAUSE. Would anyone else out there LOVE to see how conservative groups and politicians would handle this issue?
The "Social Component" of current American Education, is long overdue, for such action.
American Education can only become MUCH better for removing "Social Education," from America's Public Schools.
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell-
What's Wrong With American Education: Comment # 2; American Educations Committment to "Social Education."
Referencing my "American Education Comment: # 1: What's Wrong With American Education?" I write this comment on number 6, the "social component" of American Education.
Oh boy, "the fur is going to fly," with this essay!
The "social component" of American Education includes sports, clubs and activites.
Simply stating my opinion: All these "social components" of education in the USA, should be ELIMINATED from the school setting. Schools, should not be responsible for providing social activities for your child, especially sports.
I realize, this is "heretical" thinking. Eliminating sports from schools will cause much anger among some parents, some school alumni and long-time sports fans of whatever school.
First, too many schools make the sports program, the school's "true priority." It's "nice" if the school scores well on State Standardized Tests. It's nice if my child is "doing well" in her/his academics, but really, how does the school do in football, volleyball, basketball, track and baseball?
MY CHILD WANTS (is ENTITLED TO) a "FULL ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP," from a Division 1-A University (Colorado University, Colorado State University, Notre Dame, The Air Force Academy, etc., etc.). If her/his public-tax-supported High School, doesn't play sports, how can s/he receive a scholarship?
More than a "FREE RIDE" to a Division 1-A University, MY KID is "gonna be" a "PRO." S/HE is the BEST (fill in the blank, here: Football, baketball, volleyball, track, baseball) STAR at their school.
Most of the time, the REAL reason "sports parents," think school sports is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, to the school's (social) curriculum, is the deep conviction that their kid will "make a whole lot of money," playing a professional ("play-for-play") sport or at least, having a sport "scholarship," pay for their child's college education. Speaking from experience as a school administrator, I can't begin to relate the number of parents who, privately, stated just exactly that, to me. Don't try to "talk sense" to such parents by telling them that it is "easier for an elephant to slide throught the eye of a needle," than their kid's athletic talent, leading to a career in professional sport. THEY WON'T HEAR YOU!!
Some parents state openly and loudly, to all within the range of hearing, they think their child is a potential "pro," who will make an obscene amount of money, playing a professional sport.
Some parents are more cautious and "cloak" their sports-program EXTREME support, in educational terms. "Sports teaches competition." "Sports makes my child really, physically fit." "All my child's friends are out-for or on, the team" (Aha! Back to the social part of the school). Much of the arguments for sports and the social component, being included in the school's curriculm, is "hogwash."
If school administrators and teachers "know what's good for them," they'd better support the sports program (or, at very least, not speak of it at all ESPECIALLY in negative terms). Lots of American Educators feel compelled to give the school's sports program, "lip service." In the case of school principals and superintendents, since they are "at will" employees of the Board of Education, they are VERY aware, they would (not, could) lose their jobs, if they didn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY, support the sports program. Any teacher is courting an organized parent group, to get them fired from their job, if they don't support the school sports program.
This is no exaggeration, in too many American Schools.
Here's the TRUTH: The day sports and other "social" components is removed from the school setting, will be the day AMERICA begins to compete globally, with other countries, in achieving EXCELLENT results in student learning.
See my blog: What's Wrong With American Education, # 3: Why Delete Sports From the School's Curriculum?
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Oh boy, "the fur is going to fly," with this essay!
The "social component" of American Education includes sports, clubs and activites.
Simply stating my opinion: All these "social components" of education in the USA, should be ELIMINATED from the school setting. Schools, should not be responsible for providing social activities for your child, especially sports.
I realize, this is "heretical" thinking. Eliminating sports from schools will cause much anger among some parents, some school alumni and long-time sports fans of whatever school.
First, too many schools make the sports program, the school's "true priority." It's "nice" if the school scores well on State Standardized Tests. It's nice if my child is "doing well" in her/his academics, but really, how does the school do in football, volleyball, basketball, track and baseball?
MY CHILD WANTS (is ENTITLED TO) a "FULL ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP," from a Division 1-A University (Colorado University, Colorado State University, Notre Dame, The Air Force Academy, etc., etc.). If her/his public-tax-supported High School, doesn't play sports, how can s/he receive a scholarship?
More than a "FREE RIDE" to a Division 1-A University, MY KID is "gonna be" a "PRO." S/HE is the BEST (fill in the blank, here: Football, baketball, volleyball, track, baseball) STAR at their school.
Most of the time, the REAL reason "sports parents," think school sports is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, to the school's (social) curriculum, is the deep conviction that their kid will "make a whole lot of money," playing a professional ("play-for-play") sport or at least, having a sport "scholarship," pay for their child's college education. Speaking from experience as a school administrator, I can't begin to relate the number of parents who, privately, stated just exactly that, to me. Don't try to "talk sense" to such parents by telling them that it is "easier for an elephant to slide throught the eye of a needle," than their kid's athletic talent, leading to a career in professional sport. THEY WON'T HEAR YOU!!
Some parents state openly and loudly, to all within the range of hearing, they think their child is a potential "pro," who will make an obscene amount of money, playing a professional sport.
Some parents are more cautious and "cloak" their sports-program EXTREME support, in educational terms. "Sports teaches competition." "Sports makes my child really, physically fit." "All my child's friends are out-for or on, the team" (Aha! Back to the social part of the school). Much of the arguments for sports and the social component, being included in the school's curriculm, is "hogwash."
If school administrators and teachers "know what's good for them," they'd better support the sports program (or, at very least, not speak of it at all ESPECIALLY in negative terms). Lots of American Educators feel compelled to give the school's sports program, "lip service." In the case of school principals and superintendents, since they are "at will" employees of the Board of Education, they are VERY aware, they would (not, could) lose their jobs, if they didn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY, support the sports program. Any teacher is courting an organized parent group, to get them fired from their job, if they don't support the school sports program.
This is no exaggeration, in too many American Schools.
Here's the TRUTH: The day sports and other "social" components is removed from the school setting, will be the day AMERICA begins to compete globally, with other countries, in achieving EXCELLENT results in student learning.
See my blog: What's Wrong With American Education, # 3: Why Delete Sports From the School's Curriculum?
Dr. Walter Wayne Hopewell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)