Glenn's Daily Script » Politics

Math and Science in schools

Glenn — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:27:20 +0000

This year I have been thrilled to be involved with Xander (5th grade) and his classes science program. It’s an interesting program that is trying to teach the Scientific Method through simple experiments. Xander’s teacher (Miss Hopper) is doing quite a good job guiding the kids through the curriculum. The amount of science being done is also great with 4 days a week for an hour each day (though we took December off).

It’s not always been so great though. In previous years (including Mitchell’s current 3rd grade year), the curriculum seems to have 3 or 4 short units in science which they only spend 1-2 times per week on. I’ve voiced my concern about this to the Principal and am hopeful based on Xander’s class.

Later this week, I’m also going to a School District meeting on changes to the math curriculum. I’m not sure what to expect though our state (Washington) is not in a good position in relationship to other states and it’s math curriculum. It’s very sad.

The state and local school district have done a great job over the last few decades to increase literacy. The programs around literacy and the way they use other areas (including science and math) to increase literacy is quite phenomenal. The problem though is that they have made all these gains at the cost of science and math.

I hope to see this change over the time my children attend school. Xander and Mitchell both understand how important these subjects are and enjoy both of them quite a bit.

Post from: Glenn's Daily Script (c)2007 Glenn Thompson. For Downloads, Pictures, and other great content go to Glenn's Daily Script. See Glenn's Daily Script Legal Information Page for Disclosure, Fair Use, Copyright, Creative Commons notices.

Math and Science in schools

Health care reform

Glenn — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:18:19 +0000

I just finished listening to Meet the Press and a good portion of the hour was on health care reform.

My problem with the direction that Congress and the President is taking is that they are talking about compromise and secondarily about the ultimate cost.

I, as a voter, don’t care about compromise. I care about a program that works. To me, there should be a way to get health care from the government. It could be some sort of fall back program but it needs to be there as a safety net. Also, a government or one-payer program is likely to cause some sort of price competition amongst the retailers of health care insurance. As a buyer of such programs, they need something that can control costs. I’m not saying that a company shouldn’t make money but when a company can up rates by 40%, that isn’t right. Compromise isn’t going to get us something that works. What it’s likely to do is force Congress into trying some crazy program that is only supported by some crazy theory that has little or no evidence that it works.

I do care about the cost of a program like this but I’d like more thinking going into how this program can affect cost to the tax payer both directly and indirectly. If the above government or one payer program exists, it is likely to spurn competition in the health care insurers and lower cost indirectly through that competition. Also, if this government or one payer program exists, it’s likely to require some control over actual health care costs (such as prescriptions, doctor charges, hospital charges, …) and that would be a more direct cost benefit to me as a tax payer.

Ideology and partisanship is causing the elected officials to forget what they are responsible for and that is producing legislation that works and benefits the tax payer. Right now, I’m not confidant that we will see this instead we are likely to see something that doesn’t work and satisfies no one.

Taxes

Glenn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:26:22 +0000

Yes, as an individual I would love to have less taxes. Less taxes give me more spending and saving money which makes life simpler.

In reality though, I am a bit of an altruist. This streak in me makes me want the appropriate amount of taxes for everyone.

I bring this up for 2 reasons.

First, President-Elect Obama has a recovery plan that includes tax cuts and tax credits for most of the citizenry. Yes, money for the lowest income earners could get them to spend a bit but for the middle class it won’t. Those people will spend on mortgages, food, car payments and things they are already spending on. If there is money left, they will save it in our current environment. Obama is doing what politicians always do and giving us something that he thinks will make us happy regardless of the true impact. I think given the current situation, most voters want something that will really fix the problem and not just a sugar pill.

The second reason is that I’ve seen Pelosi bring up the tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy. She wants them repealed right now. Obama wants to wait until he has the lay of the land. Again, most of the voters want a real solution. My favorite is to get rid of special interest in taxes and just go flat. It may not happen but let’s go do something real and change the tax code to get rid of special interest.

Listen to the people – don’t placate us!

Bailouts

Glenn — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:37:45 +0000

In watching various interviews regarding the US Government Bailouts of the Financial Industry and the one being discussed for the Auto Industry, I have some thoughts.

One assumption that seems to be at the center of all of these bailouts is that these companies are too large to fail. I don’t agree. When a person goes into bankruptcy, they come out of it on the other end with a different perspective on money. It seems that many of the companies management teams don’t treat the money as if it was their own and so have been loose with risk. They need a perspective change. This includes executive management compensation.

Does that mean we shouldn’t do something about the situation? No, there are possibilities.

Loans are not bailouts and could go to companies that change practices. Some changes could include elimination of predatory lending and increase focus (greater than 50%) on greener transportation options. I’m sure there are other business practices that should change to but given my limited understanding of these businesses, these seem like a good start.

Also, what about buying troubled mortgages from the financial industry and then negotiating new terms for the mortgages so that people can stay in their homes. These troubled mortgages would then be healthy and can be resold back to the financial industry (yes, some cost would be involved).

We should be more cautious with the numbers that are being bandied about. A trillion dollars is a lot and we should treat it that way. It’s too much debt for our government and ourselves, children, grandchildren and so on. Our government and elected officials need a perspective change too.

What is Change?

Glenn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:26:30 +0000

Ok, we’ve just elected someone who defined himself and his candidacy based on change. What is it or really, what should change be?

I’ve heard and read discussion that change is about bringing new approaches to everything. I think these written and spoken conversations define new approaches as something truly new and never been tried.

I think that definition is inadequate. I think this for 2 reasons. First, new approaches that are untried and untested and by those definitions very risky. We want change not failure. Second, the last eight years and to some degree the last 16 (because Clinton exhibited some of these traits too) had an uncooperative legislative and executive branch that not only bordered on hostility but crossed that border often. I think based on that the change we want is something different that these last 8-16 years.

Now, that being said, I do believe that some new approaches that are untried and untested are good additions to a whole and complete approach that includes these new approaches as well as tested and true approaches.

What I’d like to see is a positive and cooperative Washington that looks out for it’s citizens rather than focusing on corporations. What I’d like to see is a Washington that has some strong successes on the issues that are important to the citizens and are not overly compromised on making the results non-useful to it’s citizens.

Change needs to be something that works for our country and it’s citizens.

Dear Mr. Obama

Glenn — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:12:02 +0000

I voted for you.

I saw and heard lots about hope and change. I certainly believe in these times we could use both.

I saw and heard bits and pieces of your policies. Many of them sound smart.

What I hope that you can deliver on though is something else.

I would like to see and hear about integrity. I would like to see and hear that the citizens of this great country are put before the interests of large corporations or the government itself. I would like to see and hear about keeping promises that are made.

Citizens have not been supported by our elected officials for far too long. This includes areas like copyright enforcement to rights to privacy.

When you make a promise, I would like to see you keep it. And when circumstances force compromises that eliminate promises or compromise the intent of the promises, I would like to see you not go the exact direction.

Integrity is difficult when you are in the position of compromising in order to do important work but still, I would like to see you act in the highest integrity. That means not compromising in the wrong areas or compromising too much. It’s a tough balance but as has said about the job you are about to take: �The buck stops here!�

Yes, I hope that you can get our troops home and help unify the world. Yes, I hope that you can solve our financial issues.

But don’t forget that while you take on these challenges, we (Americans) are looking for a rebirth of integrity, honesty and putting our interests ahead of others.

Good luck! Sincerely,
—- Glenn

Politics are aggravating!

Glenn — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:36:07 +0000

In my few years of voting, I have rarely seen that voting for one candidate versus another would radically change things. First, most candidates have little leverage to do things. Governors and Presidents may be an exception, at least somewhat. Next, even if a candidate can do things the views of one candidate overlap the others by a lot. Lastly, things in government change slowly.

This political season has most candidates in most positions fitting this history.

The aggravating part of this season though is in the race for President.

I’ve seen the difference between when President Bush started to today. We, as a country, are not doing well financially, internationally or in regards to personal rights. I’ve also seen statistics show that John McCain has supported President Bush 90-95% of the time. I’ve also read today that former fed chair Greenspan, who supports McCain (since Greenspan is a professed Republican), said that McCain’s tax policy will further stress our economy.

With this kind of data, how can people even consider voting for McCain?

Also, I’ve seen analysis of undecided that shows even though most support everything Obama supports and nothing that McCain supports still have not decided.

With this kind of data, does this mean that they are racists?

In my life and career, I have found that experience is important but judgement, insight, and creativity are more important. McCain has more of some experience than Obama. McCain supported and continues to support all of the policies of President Bush even though they are causing problems for our economy and our lives – that is poor judgement. Obama has discussed a few items that will likely change our economy and our lives for the better. Obama has always been against the Iraq war while McCain has been supportive of it.

With this kind of data, again how can people even consider voting for McCain?

I’m far from a rabid supporter of Obama or Democrats. In fact Obama has, like many politicians, went back on a promise (the renewal of the Patriot act with the Telecom immunity).

These points confuse me and aggravate me.

Imperfect Candidate for President

Glenn — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:48:56 +0000

I was talking Presidential politics with my brother today. My brother is very opinionated and even passionate in his cynicism…errrr…viewpoint. I can’t say that all that cynicism is unfounded though.

As I’ve stated in past posts, I am rooting for Barak Obama. I even spent a bunch of time this week watching the DNC showing off. It was a good show.

Now, my viewpoint starts with the likelihood that John McCain will continue with the policies and actions of Bush. That just frightens me. I mean our economy is either in the toilet or heading there. Our rights that the Founding Fathers gave us through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being pushed aside because we, the citizens, are too fearful of things that are less likely to happen to any of us than getting stuck by lightning. Living with someone who will carry on these trends would be about the worst that I could see from our government.

Next, I see Barak Obama as an inspiring speaker. I think we’ve missed that in our President for quite a while. He talks about health care. He talks about a better focus for our military. He talks about responsibility for citizens and government. He does it in a way that inspires us to be better.

Yet, I worry that he still does things like other politicians. He promised he wouldn’t give immunity to the Telecoms yet did. He talks about the evil of ignoring Constitutional rights by Bush and his administration yet he gave them increased rights to do so (same bill actually). My brother claims that he promised gun rights but didn’t deliver (I’m not sure how true this is as I don’t follow gun rights much and I saw/heard him indicate – tonight – a clear position to ensure gun rights though not without some control/restriction). This worries me though I suspect given comments I’ve seen/heard John McCain give that McCain would be worse.

Anyway, while I support Barak Obama I understand the he is an Imperfect Candidate for President.

Decisions

Glenn — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:16:41 +0000

I’m not the sort that loves to discuss politics (outside of this blog of course) but I also don’t steer away from it.

In my occasional discussions, I find there are a few sorts of people with regards to political discussions.

One type are people that seem to relish talking politics. Sometimes, these people are knowledgeable and sometimes they aren’t. They may be open to different points of view or they may be fixed in their views. Often the passion they have for politics, or more specifically their view point can be very uncomfortable.

Another type are people that will talk politics but clearly don’t seek it out. These folks may be comfortable with their view point but also open to other views – even if those views may work towards changing their own view point. I feel that these people in many ways are the strongest democrats (not party, rather supporters of democracy).

Another type are people who run away from political discussion. I’m sure this category can be further categorized but I fear that the majority of this group is made up of people who are not very knowledgeable, do not desire to know more, and are comfortable with their uninformed view point. I suspect that the majority of the electorate may fit into this group.

I hope guesses on the last group are untrue and instead hope that our electorate is made up of primarily group 2.

Politics and Family

Glenn — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:28:52 +0000

I touched base with my folks yesterday. I probably talk to my Mom (sometimes my Dad though he’s not much of a talker and never really has been) once a week on average. They travel during the summer (since living in a dessert gets really hot during the summer) so it may be slightly less during the summer.

When ever politics come up, my Mom wants to shut the conversation down right away. This means that we have never really had a substantial or meaningful conversation on politics.

I suspect the reason has 2 major parts. First, on subjects that I am informed, I can be a persistent debater.

Second, my parents approach on politics is that they are emotion based and don’t get a thoroughly fact based understanding of the candidates (this gives a person an insecure feeling on their choice). I don’t think my parents are unusual in their approach and have seen evidence that people in all demographics follow the same approach.

I am far from an expert on politics or any particular candidates but I do follow various political sources. When the election closes in, I do further research especially for candidates that I have yet to have enough data to push me one way or another.

I’m a Barak Obama supporter at this point. I like his position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Energy, Taxes. I’m luke warm on his Health Care position. I’m down right upset over his position on Security (specifically his vote to support the Domestic Surveillance bill which included telecom immunity). I am a bit concerned about his experience but feel that he is intelligent and can work through it. During the primaries, I never felt that Hillary’s claim to have more experience was false since I don’t believe that being a First Lady is experience valid for being President. I do tend to think that Governor’s have a more valid basis for experience than do Congressmen.

I do not like John McCain. I admire his service through elected office and especially his service during Vietnam (I was young enough not to have an opinion of that war though after the fact, it was clearly a bad choice for our country). I did like his previous approach to the Presidential campaigns though what I have seen is not the same approach for this election. I do not like his positions on Iraq, Taxes and Economy, Security. I’m uninformed on his Health Care position. It seems that he has flipped recently on Afghanistan and Energy which can be ok but in this case seems like he doesn’t really know the topic or maybe just is going with a more popular position. I think as a senior Senator, he has potentially more knowledge than Barak Obama on a variety of topics but given his support (nearly blind support) for Bush and Bush’s policies, he seems weaker.

I would have enjoyed the conversation with my Mom – maybe she’ll read this (or not).

Pixar doesn’t care about Copyrights

Glenn — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:50:41 +0000

What a great post that Crunchgear made regarding how Pixar violated copyright law.

Apparently, they don’t respect the current copyright laws and are, by example, telling us to not respect the laws either. Maybe we should re-write the existing laws so they work in today’s world to increase content creation rather than limit it.

The Pixar copyright violations stem from the use of a movie and it’s soundtrack being copied and replayed many times. This element of Wall-E were important at first to show loneliness and later to show romance.

FISA, Renewal, and Obama

Glenn — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:42:19 +0000

There have been some negotiations in Congress regarding the FISA renewal.

FISA is the law put into place after 9/11 that gave US Government agencies extraordinary powers to investigate people. To me, the law is not only not necessary but also puts our government on a direct path to a police state. No, it’s not one with this law but once you enable the discardment of individual rights, you will start asking for more invasive and offensive rules.

The renewal is bad enough since we have a Democratically controlled congress. Democrat’s seem to be unable to distance themselves from the tactics of fear that we have seen from Bush’s administration. Yes, we need tools to investigate crimes, terrorism and such but those tools existed before and FISA, for the most part, just eliminated oversight.

Not only is FISA being renewed but they are adding immunity to the Telephone Companies for participating in an illegal activity. Our representatives in political office are finding it impossible to not to take the interests of Corporations over the citizens that elect them. Even candidates that start off talking the talk about citizens and their rights make too many compromises for Corporations.

The most disappointing person to do that recently has been the Democratic presumptive nominee, Barak Obama, who has come out in support of the current FISA Renewal bill which again is bad in what it enables but also includes immunity for the Teleco’s.

When will we get a politician that can be elected, stay elected, and have influence over other politicians and the electorate that will stand up for citizens rights including privacy, fair use, and the multitude of other issues that have been sacrificed to the Corporations?

UPDATE: Ok, here is at least one politician out there doing the right thing. Check out NM Sen. Tom Udall via Daily Kos and here is some of what he said:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

UPDATE 2: I just saw that Barak Obama has issued a statement (perhaps to clarify) that he supports the FISA renewal bill but will work to remove the section granting immunity to the Telephone Companies. This is partially good news but again, he’s taking fear pressure and accepting that we need the FISA rules at all.

Hillary Clinton

Glenn — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:01:00 +0000

I’ve pointed out before that I’m a supporter of Barak Obama. With regards to my support, nothing as changed.

With regards to Hillary Clinton though, I’ve recently discovered something has changed.

First, a few things have not changed regarding Hillary.
1) I would support her if she were the Democratic Nominee.
2) I do not like her much but think that she’s the better alternative to any Republican.
3) I certainly do not like the way she is running her campaign and find it dishonorable and dishonest.
4) I do believe that an honorable person would have found it in themselves to drop out for the sake of the Democratic Party and the success of it’s nominee.

So with all that has not changed, what has changed?

Well, I’m sick of the news and blogging world beating up on her. That’s not to say she doesn’t deserve a little beating up on given the way she has run her campaign but she really doesn’t deserve the news cycles that it gives her by all the blogging and news people constantly talking about her.

I’m just done with her part of the story and would like the world to move on.

Of course, I’m giving her cycles now so… shutting up now!

Running Thoughts

Glenn — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:36 +0000

For most of the week, I’ve been busy with working on the multitude of Guitar Scale Sheets (I talked about them in the last post) and so had no clear ideas for posts. I’ve always worked with the notion that I must have some additional ideas to bring to any conversations that I jump in on (with the exception of posts that are short and links into conversations that I think are important to at least observe). When I get busy, it is harder to add my voice and ideas to these conversations, at least in a timely manner.

I still need to upload my Guitar Scale Sheets so I hope to do that shortly but this next week is also busy. I have a meeting with our financial advisor and I’m going on a field trip with Xander’s class. Hopefully I can jump in on a conversation or two during the week.

This past week has had several conversations that were worth jumping in on.

One issue that popped up was that Obama talked about his observation that people who are not getting their issues addressed by our Governments are bitter about elected officials. Clearly, he chose some inappropriate peripheral observations – or at least was careless about the words he chose – whether or not they were true (I’m specifically referring to the notion that bitter people cling to other areas of their life and he noted that this often is guns, religion, and fear of those who are different – again this may be true but …). Clinton and McCain both jumped in to criticize Obama though to me, their observations were pretty empty. I do think that Obama’s opponents discussing this is OK though again, their thoughts being added were empty/hollow.

Another issues that was discussed in the media is our local NBA basketball team (Sonics) was planned from the get go to be moved by the owners that bought them. Well DUH! The owners were from Oklahoma and they wanted the team local. Clearly the owners lied and misrepresented everything but it was obvious what they wanted from the outset. The state government is trying to try some legal wrangling to get them to stay. I will be sad to see them go though nothing has surprised me. I do believe that we shouldn’t build a new stadium though a few dollars put into improve the existing arena would be fine.

I’m sure there are other items but that is quick glimpse into a couple that I thought were important this week.

Clinton caught but redirects

Glenn — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:20:13 +0000

I don’t get to watch news programs much because my boys are busy with homework and such around news time. I did read on a few blogs that today Hillary Clinton was asked about Reverend Wright. Up till now, she has deftly avoided answering these questions. It was the right thing to do to stay out of the race issue and also stay away from the perception of slinging mud. Today was different though.

Over the last year, Clinton has been spinning a story about how she was in a war zone under sniper fire and how brave she was. The problem was that it wasn’t true. Over the course of the year, more and more evidence mounted against her. Some of it was from people who went on the trip with her like the comedian Sinbad and the most recent was video show the actual incident that she described totally wrong. The problem is that she claims she misspoke. I would agree if she told the story once but over the course of the year, she told the story many times (I’ve seen it reported that she told it more than 4 in public speeches). That is not misspeaking. That is a planned wrong doing.

Now that she has been outed though, she needed to redirect attention from her to someone else. Even though Barack Obama has done very well to show that race should be placed in a different conversation with perhaps the best speech in a generation, Clinton is showing that she will do anything including the destruction of her own party to redirect bad attention from her.

I truly hope (and I believe) that the American voters are too smart to fall for this deception even if there will be members of the press who will be intentionally or un-intentionally duplicitous in the deception.