Cuomo's "chartered" course to oblivion.

Governor Cuomo, a.k.a. "Mr Public Education" recently announced that he'd like to add 100 more Charter Schools to New York State.  His self-stated logic is simple.  New York's public schools are failing, and the public school "monopoly" on education has to be broken up.  Never mind that a handful of investment banks control our entire economy, and have already proven to be more than capable of literally destroying that very same economy, that doesn't seem to disturb him in the least.  No, the Governor feels that the greatest threat to our state's well-being is the poor performance of our public schools, and that the villain in all of this, isn't very hard to find.  It's those damn teachers! (Which I happen to be one of)

Andrew Cuomo lists the total number of good pubic school teachers he knows of in New York State on one hand. (TImes Union)

Some people may not be familiar with the workings of a charter school. Basically, a charter school is a public school that is run "for-proift."  Let's look at that again.  In other words, charter schools run off of public money, (tax dollars) but are run "for-profit".  Private corporations get to profit off of our tax dollars while educating our children.  What could possibly go wrong there?  Remember, this is a state where the former Senate majority leader and the Speaker of the state Assembly were both taken out in cuffs because of misuse of taxpayer dollars.   Proponents of charter schools like Governor Cuomo will tell you that charter schools provide a choice, or alternative to the public school in a community.  If the public school is failing, which according to our resident educational expert-in-chief, too many are, then parents now have a choice to take their children out of the "failing" public school, and put them in the thriving and successful charter school.   Why are charter schools better?  Well, for one thing, their teachers are not unionized.  According to our public sector union hating Governor, union "intransigence", the refusal of our teacher's unions to negotiate changes in our public schools in good faith, has ruined our public school system.

I always tell my children, you are judged by the company you keep. (TImes Union)

In order to have an honest conversation regarding the state of public schools in New York, and to take an objective look at what the Governor is trying to do regarding charter schools, we have to admit that there are plenty of public schools in New York State that quite honestly aren't cutting it.  But the question of why that is has to be addressed.  Is it simply because there are a lot of bad teachers who can never be fired?  Well, it's not as simple as Cuomo and other opponents of public school teachers would have you think.  There are of course bad teachers, and it's not easy to fire a union protected public school teacher,  but it's not impossible.   Charter school supporters say the union and the tenure system protects bad teachers, but that's not as simple as it sounds either.  Tenure is awarded to teachers who earn it after three years.  In that three-year period, a school is evaluating that teacher and deciding whether they are worth investing in.  They can be let go at any time without explanation or cause, which sometimes isn't very fair either.  But a teacher in a public school can  be fired if the rules are followed and all the parties do their jobs correctly.

Ark Charter School in Troy, one of several capital region charter schools that did not turn out to be improvements over the public schools. (Times Union)

Most of us have a decent idea of what constitutes a good teacher.  But all teachers know that there is nothing more important than experience.  I'll be the first to admit it took me until my third year before I really felt that I was beginning to get a handle on the job.  Nothing replaces experience for a teacher.  High teacher turnover rates are a tell-tale sign that a school has its problems.  A tenured teacher may turn out to be lazy or ineffective which is unacceptable to be sure.   But constantly breaking in new and inexperienced teachers isn't a fix to that problem by any means.  Yet, that is exactly what goes on in most charter schools.  According to the New York State Department of Education, charter schools in New York City lose far more teachers than traditional public schools, with several losing up to half of their staff.  Could it be the result of the fact that these schools are for-profit?  Veteran teachers make more money.  When the recession hit hard in 2009, many public schools were forced to make deep cuts in staffing.  Veteran teachers who make more than less experienced teachers were spared thanks to tenure.  Otherwise, far too many veteran teachers in New York state might have been out of a job.  Let us also not forget that tenure is what allows a teacher to be objective and honest in their grading and evaluation of students.  It allows teachers to resist pressure from the administration to pass students along if the teacher doesn't feel that student has earned it.  Tenure also allows for academic freedom and independence.  Social Studies teachers like myself don't  have to worry about teaching something controversial and then finding themselves fired because a parent objected.  In my HVCC Psychology class, my seniors can research and evaluate the idea that people are born homosexual vs. it being a choice.  Could I do this exercise without tenure?  Maybe.  I'm lucky in that our administration allows us academic freedom, but not every district across this nation is as broad-minded.

 (The Governor's view of a tenured teacher?)  (Getty Images)

So, besides having non-unionized teachers, (a.k.a...unprotected), why else might a charter school outperform a public school? There is definitely a myth that has been propagated by the media that says that poor and underprivileged children wait and pray for deliverance and salvation from the public schools.  They hope against hope that they will win the "lottery" and be chosen for the charter school, which, unfortunately can only take so many deserving children.  That's a heartwarming story to be sure, but does it tell the whole story?  In a public school, expelling a student, particularly if they are 16 or under, is nearly impossible, despite the fact that they have had a weapon, hit an adult,  been caught bullying or sexually harassing another student, pulled the fire alarm, or any other transgression a young "prankster" might attempt to get away with in one of our much maligned and besieged public schools.  That same student has every right to be educated until they are 21.  Now, if a school is funded properly, (Something the governor refuses to do) they can set up alternative sites, or at the very least alternative programs.  These programs have done a wonder for students (Including in my district) who do not thrive in a traditional classroom, but are more than capable of learning and achieving.  But if a public school sees vital funds being drained away by a charter school, these programs are often the first to be cut.  Do charter schools have to play by the same rules and "educate" every child who attends?

(All students can learn, but it doesn't mean they all learn the same way or at the same pace, a properly funded school can address these needs.....Governor)  (You Tube)

The answer is no.  Charter schools can expel students much more easily.  According to the Washington Post, during the 2011-12 school year, the Washington D.C. charter schools expelled 676 students compared to just 24 in the Washington D.C. public schools.  I guess that "Lottery Ticket" can be yanked away if little Johnny sets off a firecracker in the hall way.  If you don't think this fact makes a difference in the way a classroom runs, then you've spent less time in a public school than Governor Cuomo.

What if instead of trying to drive struggling public schools out of business by setting up for-profit charter schools which line the pockets of corporations and drain resources from these often cash-strapped public schools, we turn all of these charter schools into alternative schools where students who struggle in a traditional classroom setting could learn skills that they could take into the world.  They could learn math and science and english, but in ways that would help them if they wanted to be electricians, or plumbers, or work in the exploding technical field.   Real life skills in a setting that befits their "unique" style of learning that turns them into achievers who actually like school and see a point to it.  You would create jobs and a trained work-force.  You could get local area businesses to provide grants and internships.  Students who came from economically depressed homes could earn money while they work at these internships.  This could be started in 9th grade.  The grade where more "at-risk" students drop out than any other.  Students who would have floundered their way into oblivion could now be placed on a track that would motivate them to succeed, thereby drastically reducing behavioral issues in the school.

Why not Governor?  If you were really interested in saving our "failed" education system, these are the solutions you would be pursuing.  Your move Governor.

(R-E-S-P-E-C-T...Just a little bit)  (The Hoffman Collection)

Lyrics: Good, bad, and garbled.

There's a relatively new song that came out recently where the young lady who is singing repeatedly states that she is in fact, "All about the bass..'bout the bass."  I'm not sure what she means exactly, but if I were to perform a "Weird" Al Yankovic on her chart topper, or even go all "Allan Sherman" on it, I would indicate that I am much more inclined to be "about the lyrics...'bout the lyrics."  It's not that I don't enjoy a good beat.  I can embrace the "funk" as well as the next tone-deaf middle-aged white male.  It's just that to me, the lyrics resonate much more deeply.  Why is this you ask?  Probably because I can't dance...at all...not even a little....zero.  My brain wants to make my body do certain things, much as it wants me to perform certain feats on the basketball court, or on a pair of ice skates.  Unfortunately, in all of these scenarios, somewhere between my brain, and my muscular system, something gets lost in translation.  When it comes to being "Lord of the Dance", I am not exactly Napoleon Dynamite or even "Kid Dynamite".

(I'll admit it.  I'm jealous of this guy!)  (You Tube)

While I can't sing either, (my singing is worse than my dancing) I do enjoy listening to the lyrics and thinking about what they mean.  When I was teenager, I always enjoyed listening to  my "Beatles'" albums as well as those of Billy Joel's because they always printed the lyrics on the album cover.  (Could you imagine a teenager doing that now?  Lying on their bed, no other stimulation, just reading the lyrics along to the album?)  How did I get so interested in what the singer was saying?  Well, when I was about 12, I stayed at my brother's apartment who was quite a bit older than me.  He was a huge Bob Dylan fan,  and while we were eating breakfast or dinner or something, he put on Bob Dylan's greatest hits.  I was making fun of Dylan's nasal twang, and while my brother agreed that Robert Zimmerman would starve to death if he had to depend on his talent as a singer, one thing that boy from Minnesota could do was write some killer lyrics.  My brother said, "forget the singing, just listen to the words".  The song was "The Times, they are a-Changin."

There are too many great Dylan lyrics to choose from, but consider this one, "Sometimes even the President of the United States just has to stand naked." (TImes Union)

What was so brilliant about "The Times they are a-changin"?  It was written in 1964, which besides being the greatest year ever, was at the cusp of the entire '60s movement.  The protests and uprisings of the "baby-boomers", as they proceeded to reject all that was holy to the "Greatest Generation", better known as their parents, had but barely begun.  Vietnam had not escalated yet, nor had the 1967 "Summer of Love" begun, but Dylan understood.  He realized that something was changing in America.   Check out this little doozy:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Dylan of course isn't the only great lyricist of the last 50 years.  Any assemblage of the greatest lyricists of the rock/pop era would have to include: John Lennon, Pete Townsend, Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Sting, Carole King, Robbie Robertson, Roger Waters, Neil Young, David Byrne, and let's face it, too many to list here.  My age and personal prejudices also have led me to the conclusion that over the past 15 years, very few performers, if any, can come within a million miles of any of the above listed artists, as well as many others that I have neglected to list.  Bernie Taupin or even John Mellencamp or Bob Seger.

Before we get too carried away with how great our music was, let's not forget that not all bad songs and music was made in the last 15 years. (You Tube)

It should be noted however, that not every great lyric was penned by one of the aforementioned immortals.  As for the really bad lyrics that are out there, it would be too easy to pick on some Brittany Spears or Jessica Simpson or Taylor Swift or whatever "trollip of the month" is popular with today's youth.  I'm much more interested in artists who have actually stood the test of time and written multiple hits, but have dropped a few clunkers down over the years.

So, in the interest of fair play, I thought I would compile a list of some of the best lyrics since 1964, and some of the worst.  I'm not looking at great songs so much as I'm compiling great "lines".  Feel free to disagree, it's a free country, and your right to be wrong is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  Now, in no particular order..

Great Lyrics 

1. Bruce Springsteen (Thunder Road) - "Show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty but hey you're alright."  (It's no "I like Big Butts", but it conveys a message)
2. The Beatles (Hard Day's Night) - "It's been a hard day's night, and I've been working like a dog." (It was a Ringo line according to John Lennon.  Ringo was like the Yogi Berra of rock 'n' roll.  Also, my favorite Lennon line, "Everybody's got something to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey!".)
3. The Who (Baba O'Reilly) - "Don't cry, don't raise your eye, it's only teenage wasteland." (Has there ever been a teenager with a beer in his hand who didn't scream along with this one) (Also, honorable mention to "Hope I die before I get old", if you saw Chevy Chase on the "Saturday Night Live 40th Anniversary Special" you'll know what I mean)
4. Billy Joel (Say Good-bye to Hollywood) - "So many faces in and out of my life some will last, some will just be now and then. Life is a series of hellos and good byes, I'm afraid it's time for good-bye again."  (That one resonates more and more as we get older.)
5. The Band/Robbie Robertson (Up on Cripple Creek) - "Now there's one thing in the whole wide world, I sure would like to see, that's when that little love of mine, puts her donut in my tea."  (I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds sexy.)

Bad Lyrics

1. Steve Miller Band (Jungle Love) - "I met you on somebody's island, you thought you had known me before.  I brought you a crate of papaya, they waited all night by your door." (This one was pointed out to me by my old ZXZ fraternity brother,   Mark L. However, if papaya leads to "Jungle Love", who am I to argue?
2. Steve Miller Band (Again) (Take the Money and Run) - "Billy Mac is a detective down in Texas.  You know he knows just exactly what the facts is."  (Um, Texas isn't an easy word to rhyme with, but c'mon Steve.  Talk about taking the money and running?!)

I don't blame you Steve, I would hide my face too after some of these lyrics. (You Tube)

3. Duran Duran (The Reflex) - "You've gone too far this time, but I'm dancing on the valentine". (Ok, I'll bite, what the hell does that mean?  Actually, you should "Google" the lyrics to the entire song, it's completely inane.)

4. Bon Jovi (Never Say Goodbye) - "Remember when we lost the keys, and you lost more than that in my backseat". (Well, Bon Jovi can laugh all the way to the bank, and he's a master at writing "hooks", those choruses that get stuck in your head, but don't listen too closely to the lyrics..they're pretty silly)

5. Loverboy (Lovin' Every Minute of it) - "I'm not man or machine, I"m just something in between.  Whoa, oh, whoa, whoa. I'm all love, a dynamo, so push the button and let me go". (Ok, full disclosure, I always hated them, especially the guy with the headband.  Also, I took sex-ed, and pushing a button doesn't do anything.)

Sorry dude, I just don't like you. (You Tube)

I also want to at least give mention to those singers who may or may not be singing brilliant lyrics, since they are functionally inaudible.  In particular:

Michael Stipe/REM - "What's the frequency Kenneth @#$*^&^^*&^^@#$45"????

Elton John - "Rocket maaaan, burning like a !@@##$$%^^%$#@@"???

Michael Stipe/REM - "!@@##$$%^&*&^%$##...Radio Free Europe ##$$%^"???

So feel free and chime in.  What lyrics move you?  What lyrics nauseate you?  Have fun, and remember, "Everything under the sun is in tune...but the sun is eclipsed by the moon."

All the Presidents...man!

My usual sense of excellent timing has led me to write about something that happened two days ago,  the Federal holiday known as President's Day.  If you weren't excited leading up to the day, or over the thrill of the day itself, you are probably not sitting around on a Wednesday saying, "I wish I could turn the clock back to President's Day!"  However, the crew here at the "Hoffman Files" likes to publish on Sundays and Wednesdays, and I had already committed to a different topic on Sunday so there you have it.  Besides, even though I'm a history teacher, I always thought dates, names, and places were overrated.  If you know that World War Two took place at some point after World War One, then consider yourself more knowledgable than probably half of the planet.  In fact, compared to most of the earth's populace, you are a regular Arthur Schlesinger.  You go "girlfriend".

"Who is going to kick your ass? Me and my bow tie, that's who!" (You Tube)

At any rate, it's never too late to celebrate President's Day, I say.  In fact, many of our younger readers may not even be aware that President's Day is a relatively new holiday.  For years  the holiday was actually Washington's birthday.  Some states celebrated Lincoln's birthday as well.  Somebody decided however, "Why celebrate the Presidents who were accomplished and honorable when we could give James Buchanan ("Big Buck") the credit that escaped him in life and in every history book ever written?"  (Buchanan deserves some credit, after-all he's the only bachelor President we have ever had)

"All this talk about Secession is destroying my ability to find a Mrs. Buchanan". (You Tube)

Rating the Presidents is a fairly subjective ordeal.  However, there seems to be a general consensus among historians, and people in general that the "big four" of American Presidents are (In any order you like) George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and the Roosevelt boys, Teddy and Franklin. The next five or six on the list is open to debate, and like all other discussions regarding politics in our nation, highly polarized.  Usually the rest of the top ten according to most Presidential historians will include, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, and either Woodrow Wilson or Ronald Regan depending on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.  Rating a President is not an easy task since you often have to give history a chance to play out before you can truly declare a President either a failure, or whether you want to start carving them a spot on Mount Rushmore.  For example, George W. Bush's Presidency did not end particularly well, but, if after twenty years, Iraq is a thriving Jeffersonian Democracy where we can all go for  our family vacations, Bush's Presidency will have to be reexamined. (I'm not sure anyone other than perhaps Sean Hannity believes that.)  On the other hand, a majority of Americans born after World War Two consider John F. Kennedy to have been a great president, and he was President less than three years.  How great could he have been?

Eh-ra, "Ich bein ein...Wunderbar!" (Associated Press)

The first five Presidents definitely had it amongst the most difficult.  They were starting from scratch.  Washington in particular, despite his high-ranking, is in many ways underrated. Nobody had ever done what he was about to embark upon.  He just kept making things up, and they were so good, every President who came after him just kept doing the same things.  He really created the Presidency, and that's not too shabby.  On the down side, four out of the first five Presidents were also passionate defenders of slavery, as were several others who followed the original five.   Students will sometimes ask me if this makes them racists.  To be fair, certainly by our standards of 2015, of course they are.  But we have to judge all people by the time period in which they lived.  For their time, most of these men were not particularly more racist than the average American or European landowning male.   This is no excuse of course, but it helps explain why the father of our country, the man who wrote the "Declaration of Independence" and the man who wrote the "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights" were all slave owners.  Only John Adams was anti-slavery.  A man well ahead of his time., he was also universally loathed by all who knew him due to his "prickly" personality.  He was kind of like the Larry David of the "Founding Fathers".  Brilliant, but difficult.

("Oh Abagail, when I see you in that bonnet and corset, me thinks you look pretty...pretty good.")

(Times Union)

John Quincy Adams is sort of the George W. Bush of the early 19th century.  He tried to one-up a demanding father and ended up making everybody miss his father even more.  Andrew Jackson really stood as the last great President before Lincoln.  He had a lot of nicknames, ("Old Hickory", "Sharp-Knife", "Andy-Boy", "Action Jackson", "Old Turnip Breath") he killed a lot of Indians, (Directly and indirectly), he won a battle in the War of 1812 after the war ended, he killed a man in a duel, and was basically like a "superhero".  He was both loved and hated, perhaps more-so than any President in history.  After Jackson, things tail off pretty badly.  Martin van Buren had good sideburns, but not much else.  William "Tippecanoe" Henry Harrison is famous for only being President a few weeks.  As the oldest President who had ever been elected, (He was 68) he wished to show his critics that he was full of "piss and vinegar".  He gave a lengthy inauguration speech without his coat on in the freezing cold, and died of pneumonia a few weeks later.  He may not have been too old, but he was apparently too stupid.

Lincoln, like FDR, was defined by the challenges he inherited.  Lincoln should have asked for his money back because the country he inherited was broken.  Previous Presidents seemed unwilling or unable to keep the nation whole.  Lincoln, who arrived with very low expectations based on his one unsuccessful term in the House of Representatives, showed that until a man (or woman) is tested, you don't really know what they are made of.  Lincoln's ability to walk the tight-rope of slavery in the border states, while issuing the Emancipation Proclamation goes down as one of the great acts of political skill in American History.

Following Lincoln's bad night at the theater, he was replaced by "Doofus Emeritus", Andrew Johnson,  followed by the befuddled Ulysses S. Grant, (His real name was Hiram.  He was such a go-getter, that when the administration at West Point mixed up his paperwork and didn't include his real name, he didn't even bother to tell anybody) and a series of Presidents named "Rutherford B. James -Arthur- Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland.  They all seemed to be the same person.  Big "Duck-Dynasty" beards, big bellies, few ideas, and a passion for doing as little as possible.  How bad was it?  When Garfield was killed, nobody noticed that Chester Arthur was President for over six months, and that included Mrs. Garfield.

Quick quiz: James Garfield was killed by...

A - Gus Anosopolous

B - Charles Guiteau

C - Leon Czolgosz

D - Kent Hrbek

The Answer was "B".  Guiteau hated Garfield, loved Mondays, and despised Lasagna.

After William McKinley was killed by an anarchist, the Presidency got the shot of adrenalin it desperately needed.  Enter Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt.  The Republicans had placed Roosevelt on the ticket with McKinley for the Vice-Presidency figuring he couldn't do any damage there, unless..heh, heh, McKinley were to be killed in office.  Roosevelt seemed to understand that the Presidency contained oodles of power, and that in the hands of the right man,  that power could actually be used to  accomplish things that would benefit the people, while at the same time, avoid tearing down the mechanisms of big business.  Roosevelt walked away after eight years and handed the reins to his protégé', William Howard Taft.  "Big Willy" is famous for having his own bathtub built into the White House due to his girth.  Taft's other claim to fame is that he is the only President to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  It is unknown whether his bathtub came with him.

(Oh Willy, not the "whites"!  Dark colors only, preferably with vertical stripes)  (Associated Press)

The modern 20th century Presidents are better known to us, warts and all.  Some were racists like Woodrow Wilson, some were paranoid and power-hungry like LBJ and Nixon.  Some were great stage performers like Clinton, Kennedy and Reagan.  Some were good people, but not cut out to lead, like Ford, George H. Bush and Jimmy Carter.  FDR and Truman are my personal favorites.  Truman for the tough if unpopular decisions he had to make, in addition to the immense challenge of replacing FDR.  This task is  comparable to replacing Vince Lombardi as coach of the Packers.  (It was Phil Bengston)  FDR didn't fix the "Depression", as some like to say, but he did something much greater.  He maintained the American people's faith in Capitalism and Democracy at a time when some were saying, "Hey, that Hitler guy seems to be doing a good job in Germany.  Maybe we should try that?"

 ("Don't sweat it Phil, just keep winning championships.")  (Associated Press)

Obviously it's too early to know how history will judge Obama.  But if you think the job is easy, or even manageable, consider this.  On Monday, CNN released a poll that said 78% of the American people want to see Congress authorize Obama's request for fighting ISIL.  In the same poll, 57% of the American people said they disapproved of the way the President was handling ISIL.  This means that a majority of the American people support the idea that Congress should follow the President's plan that the American people apparently disapprove of.  Hail to the Chief!

Danger, Danger! He possesses a little information.

Some people say that there is nobody so stupid as someone who thinks they're smart.  I would also add that there is nobody so uninformed, as someone with a little information.  Unfortunately, in our society where information is so readily available, we often find ourselves pontificating about things that may very well be either blatantly untrue, or that is dubious to say the least.

Case in Point: Although I haven't blogged about "Facebook", (I'm sure I will at some point) it's such a commonly shared experience by now, that I'm not sure if there's anything left to say about it that hasn't already been said.  However, if I may, a couple of years ago, I found myself reacting to a lot of the more political posts that were appearing with great regularity on "Facebook".  Some of it consisted of people's opinions, while some of it was re-posted from other political websites, both conservative and liberal.  Other postings dealt with current events that some viewed as controversial.  Eventually, two things occurred to me that have for the most part caused me to cease involving myself in these "debates".  Firstly, I started feeling a little guilty.  The way I saw it,  somebody had taken the time to reach out to me after 20 or 30 years without seeing me, and within a few weeks, we're arguing about whether Obama is a good President or not.  That began to strike me as a colossal waste of time.  Secondly, I found myself in rather nasty and heated arguments with friends of these "virtual" friends  who I didn't even know.  These strangers seemed to have no problem in telling me what a complete coward I was in not thinking that everybody should have unlimited access to assault rifles after the Sandy Hook massacre, or that I was anti-police when I questioned some of the high-profile deaths that have occurred in the news recently.

I eventually found the taunting I received on "Facebook" to be unbearable. Especially when I was accused of being a "wiper of other people's bottoms." (You Tube)

There is one posting however that I have come across on "Facebook" that for some reason (which I hope to explain) gets under my skin to the point that I feel compelled to respond to it.  It's a posting that includes the "Pledge of allegiance".  Underneath the Pledge  it states that as a child, the said supporter of the Pledge used to say it in school everyday.  But, according to the posting by "Redstate.com",  out of fear of offending somebody, it's no longer said.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'd be interested to hear what others think about this, but I have taken this to mean that it's no longer said in school, or at school functions.  After-all, how many places, times, and activities that you find yourself involved in on a daily basis, do you find yourself pausing to say the Pledge?

• "I'm going to sign a lease agreement for this car, but first, the Pledge."
• "Before we sit down to play "Yahtzee", we have to first say, the Pledge."
• Before this "Lady Gaga" concert begins, let us all rise and say, the Pledge."

I feel this is a classic example of an "urban myth" that has been used to draw a wedge between liberals and conservatives, and to the best of my knowledge, it is an out-and-out lie.  I have been a public school teacher for 25 years.  That includes four years in ultra-liberal New York City, two years in fairly conservative Schalmont, and 21 years in fairly liberal Rensselaer.  (I know I suck at math, but I'm not a complete baffoon, the reason it doesn't add up is that there was some overlap in my time spent at Schalmont and Rensselaer)  Not once, NOT ONE TIME, have I ever seen a student who wanted to say the Pledge, become "shamed" into not saying it.  Not once!   Please keep in mind, besides homeroom, I have seen and participated in the Pledge being said at concerts, assemblies, sporting events etc..In fact, I bet I'm in the top 100 all time, of people who have said the Pledge between my time as a student, parent, and teacher.

Not even Halloween can get in the way of a good Pledge! (Getty Images)

This isn't to say that there aren't challenges involved in the saying of the Pledge.  The fact is, the real challenge for myself and all homeroom teachers in the majority of schools, is to get the kids to at least stand for the Pledge.  Students complain that they are tired, or they forgot.  I've even had students claim that they don't have to stand due to their religious beliefs.  The argument I use on them is the one related to saying grace.  What I tell them is that even though you and your family don't typically say grace before a meal, when you're eating at somebody's house who does, you don't dive in and take the good pieces of chicken while they give thanks to their lord.  You wait silently, patiently, and maybe out of the corner of your eye, you start planning your frontal assault on the juicier pieces of chicken.  But you show respect.  The Pledge may not mean something to everybody, but as long as it means something to somebody, you stand out of respect.  That usually settles the religious question.

Apparently in the 1930s, there was something called the "Palms up" version that became used when saying "The Pledge". It looks a little too much like...you know. (You Tube)

A more significant issue regarding the Pledge, is that it has been so "over-memorized", that most kids don't even really know the words.  For most students, the words of the Pledge become more like sounds they've been trained to make from rote memory.  On one of the first days of school, I have my 11th grade U.S. History classes write out the Pledge from memory without saying it out loud.  I won't even let them mouth the words.  You would be surprised (or perhaps not) how many have trouble writing down the words accurately.  After they write it out, we take the next big step in seeing if they actually know what the words mean.  Most do not.  So I then proceed to break down every word in the Pledge for them.  The Pledge is in reality, a student's first social studies lesson.  It is a lesson in citizenship.  A student at a very young age makes a "pledge of allegiance", a promise of loyalty, to the flag, a symbol of our nation, and to the republic, our form of government.  They learn that we are one nation, under an all-powerful creator with the promise of freedom and equality under the law...for all citizens.  Most students are amused as they ponder the fact that they've been "coerced" as a kindergartener to take this "loyalty oath".  Most seem to like the idea that at least they know what they've been saying for the past twelve years.

"Welcome children, welcome to your first social studies lesson!" (Getty Images)

I guess the other thing that irks me in regards to the "nobody's allowed" to say the Pledge post is that it makes me wonder how many of these concerned citizens were jumping out of their seats in homeroom when they were in school to say the Pledge with vim and vigor?  I honstly don't remember too many of my classmates swelling up with pride over the Pledge.  I can remember many a year in homeroom, watching lethargic students having to be nagged everyday to get up and say the Pledge.  Mr. Pello, my 8th grade health and homeroom teacher would say the same thing every morning back at Packard Middle School.  Mr. Charlie Myers would start the announcements with a hearty "Good Morning" to the students, and Mr. Pello, with his massive forearms would look at us and say in his deep monotone, "Up, up...everybody up!"  Hardly a tear inducing show of patriotism to be sure.

Full disclosure, I am as guilty as anybody when it comes to running with a little information.  A few months ago, I discovered what I believed to be a ridiculous quote from noted "states-woman" and reality television star Sarah Palin.  I posted what I thought was a legitimate article on her where she claimed that Jesus celebrated Easter while he was on earth.  I posted it on Facebook, all proud of myself.  My friend Scott D. did a little research and pointed out that it was a joke, (He even admitted it was a funny one) in the satirical online magazine known as "The Onion".  I felt foolish.  I had run with a little information because it was something I wanted to believe.  Scott also chastised me for going after Palin as she is,  "low hanging fruit".  I thought about what he said, and I eventually came to believe that he was right.  We shouldn't be so quick to pass on "fast-food" information just because it plays to our prejudices.

Forgive me "Mamma Grizzly", I shan't give in to weakness again. (Times Union)

The Internet,  (like the Wizard of Oz) is a great and terrible thing.  I was once trying to look up something regarding Rosa Parks, and I ended up on a White supremacist website.  Apparently they don't see Ms. Parks to have been the hero that many Americans believe her to be.    Like the "Wizard", the Internet has a lot of "bells and whistles", but when you pull back the curtain, it may not be everything you were led to believe.  The lesson here is, when one is looking up information on the Internet, the  best or most accurate information isn't always the most convenient or easiest to find.   Going with the most available information however does make it easier to jump to conclusions, such as:

• All Teachers are lazy and incompetent, even though some districts have over  70% of their students on free and reduced lunch due to poverty, their students should do just as well as those students who live in affluent suburbs  on standardized tests.  (At least according to Mr. Public Education...Andrew Cuomo)
• Most violent crimes are interracial (Fact, the vast majority of  violent crimes are black on black or white on white)
• More people die from cancer than heart disease.  (Nope, heart disease is still the number one killer)
• Most politicians are crooked and uninformed. (Wait, that one is probably true)

So beware the Facebook "Post".  It is not a trustworthy source of information.  If you want to know the facts, keep reading my blog!  Actually, what we really need is a "Town Crier".  Those guys were spot on in their reporting.  How else could the good people of Salem, Massachusetts know who to burn at the stake?

Call me crazy, but I trust this guy. (You Tube)

No "Instant Karma" if you're Tom Brady

"That's karma baby, right there", exclaimed my wife when Seahawk receiver Jermaine Kearse made the circus catch to end all circus catches in Super Bowl XLIX.  The Patriots appeared to have been "served".  Once again their cheating ways would come back to haunt them as justice would not be denied.  The whole world knew that the Patriots cheated in the AFC Championship game against the Colts by deflating their footballs, making it easier for "Pretty Boy" Tom Brady to grip them in a frozen rain storm and throw the ball all over the field.  Now it was time for karma to take the Patriots down.  Kearse's circus catch is one of the greatest in Super Bowl history, and if you make a catch like that, you can't possibly lose the game?  Can you?

(You can't unless your coach proceeds to throw a dangerous pass at the goal line when you have the most unstoppable running back in football.  Then, sure you can lose after that catch)  (You Tube)

Yet, despite my wife continuously playing the "Karma Card" all night long, the bad guys won.  Notwithstanding this set-back, many people will still cling to karma as a "thing".  The idea behind karma is a relatively simple one that says if you do something bad, you will have something bad happen to you.  It's a shame we can't quantify this phenomenon.  There are statistics for everything.  ESPN is consistently trying to invent new stats to explain why some such baseball and/or football player is better than the other.  Maybe they can put their interns on this and let them figure out how often somebody or some organization, or some country that has done something dishonest, eventually received their just comeuppance.  (This is already flawed since there are a plenty of people who believe the Patriots to be innocent of any wrongdoing and feel that karma was on their side, and that's why they won)

(He could at least get a zit on his nose or something?  Right!?)  (Times Union)

Karma is a word that a lot of people use, but are we using it correctly?  Well, for both Hindus and Buddhists it refers to, "The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."  I'm not sure that most people mean to delve that deeply into the metaphysics of it all when they proclaim that it's "Karma", when a cranky neighbor slips on a banana peel. (Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw somebody slip on a banana peel?  A couple of times in the Mackin Complex Dining Hall in SUNY Oswego, my friends and I put banana peels on the ground to see if in fact, someone would slip on it.  Our research netted zero results.)  Religion, whether you are "religious" or not, spends a lot of its efforts based on the idea that if you are good in the present life, there will be rewards in the next.  Most religions hold the opposite to be true as well.  Those who aren't so good in this world, will be in for a load of suffering in the next.  In fact, very few religions do not preach this basic concept.  How is it possible that there are so many different cultures in the world, with so many of these cultures seemingly at each other's throats, and yet, the basic teachings that make up their systems of faith, preach basically the same thing?  Do unto others, honor your parents, and the good in this life will be rewarded in the next.  What the hell are we fighting about anyway?

(Hey look, they have a golden rule too.  Who'd a thunk it?) (You Tube)

Most of us would certainly like to believe in karma since it gives us all a chance to believe that the people who screwed us over or did us wrong in some way will have to pay for their transgressions.  I think it's one of those ideas that actually allows us to cope with people who hurt us or do things that upset us.  In movies, the villain almost always "gets it" in the end.  Movies where the bad guy doesn't pay for his crimes leave us feeling unfulfilled and unsatisfied.  (Like eating carrots and celery instead of chips)  This is of course fiction.  In fiction, we need bad people to pay for their sins.  We can wish for this with a clear conscious.  Is it the same in real life?

Well, first, let's explore where this need for karma comes from?  I've been teaching Psychology at my High School through Hudson Valley Community College for over 15 years.  One of the main themes we explore in this class is the concept of "Nature vs. Nurture".  In other words, which of these two ideas better explains human behavior?  Is it "Nature", the idea that we are genetically predisposed to think, act, feel, and behave a certain way?  Or is it "Nurture", that all of your behavioral traits are learned from your parents and environment?  When I first started teaching, I believed it was a combination of both.  As the years have gone by though, I find myself leaning towards the idea that most of our behaviors are predetermined.  Nobody taught you to have a good sense of humor or to be heterosexual, so it's entirely possible that we are born with a need to see bad acts balanced out by some form of judgement or vengeance.

(Only someone "Born to be Bad", could in fact be, "Bad to the Bone")  (You Tube)

When was the first time you found yourself wishing for justice in the form of karma?  I'll wager it was pretty early on in your life.  It might have been the first time you were bullied in school.  I remember I got into a fight on the bus in kindergarten on my way home from Robert E. Picken Elementary, and I got my new coat dirty.  My mother who viewed dirty clothes the way the medieval church viewed lost chastity, was not going to be happy about this.  Of course, my coat would not have gotten so dirty if I hadn't lost the fight, and I recall wishing many bad things should befall this individual.  I don't believe any of these things transpired, and he seemed quite at ease with himself the next day when Miss Aranoff picked him to go first in "Duck, Duck Goose!"  (Karma really failed me during this whole escapade since my antagonist would only be in my home room every year until the end of my senior year!)  I couldn't even ask my older brother David to beat him up for me since the boy who kicked my butt had a brother who was bigger than my brother.

Hoffman low muscle tone: 1

Karma: 0

(In fairness, the prodigious amount of "School" my mother put in my hair made bobbing and weaving in a fight, a moot point.)  (The Hoffman Collection)

Have you ever sat back and thought about the people you didn't like or that were mean to you, or were just jerks in general and thought about what they are doing now?  Did you find yourself gaining any satisfaction over the fact that their life was not all that great?  Does that make you a bad person?  And if so, will it cause you to have bad karma?  I have wished bad karma on several businesses after I thought they were jerks to me or had inconvenienced me in some way.  I hated the "Builders Square" in Clifton Park, and sure enough it went out of business.  I took credit for that!  It's one of my super-powers, wishing retail stores into oblivion.

The fact is, we need the concept of karma as much as we do any facet of organized religion.  What would happen to humanity if we didn't believe that our actions could cause either positive or negative outcomes for us in the future.  If we all really believe that life was just a series of non-related coincidental activities, then what would compel you do the "right thing"?  It would appear that a lot of our behavior is outcome based, which would mean that B.F. Skinner, the father of behaviorism (outcome based behavior) was right.  Which would mean that "Nurture" does matter.  Which means that my premise might be wrong?  Screw you Skinner!

Maybe Sigmund Freud was right, that all of our behavior is based on breast-feeding and "potty" training?  But my mother bottle fed us and according to her, we were all "potty" trained in about 20 minutes.  This would explain how well-adjusted and normal my brothers and I have turned out.

(Yeah...maybe not)  (You Tube)

Paging Dr. McCarthy...Dr. Jenny McCarthy?

One of the many things that Republicans and other critics of President Obama love to point out is how the President doesn't believe in a concept called "American Exceptionalism".  It's an idea that basically says that we are the best country in the world, and should never have to apologize for anything we do or have ever done.  While it is debatable whether we as Americans should apologize for our past transgressions, most Americans do see our country as the best place in the world, and it is irksome to many that the President is hesitant to make this pronouncement.  Now that we are in the middle of a measles epidemic, in a nation where measles were basically eliminated  by a vaccine back in 1963, we can understand why perhaps President Obama isn't ready to crown us "greatest country ever", just yet.

Why may one ask, are we suffering through a measles outbreak when the vaccine was introduced over 50 years ago?  Well, it appears that some people don't think the vaccine in necessary.  Through the combined efforts of junk science, discredited medical reports, the internet, anti-government conspiracy/freedom nuts, and Hollywood  ultra-liberal "experts", a small, but sizable minority has decided not to immunize their children against this perennial scourge of mankind.  I will give credit however to the "anti-vaccine" faction for one impressive feat.  It is one of the few issues that can bring together far-left liberals and far-right conservatives.  Left-leaning liberals are against it because they feel the vaccine is filled with all sorts of unnecessary toxins that may cause Autism and other side effects in children.  They feel it is another example of our society over-medicating, injecting too many chemicals into our children's bodies and ourselves.  Far-right libertarians don't like the idea of the government making them do anything, even if it's something that could save their children's lives.

"Americans are so lucky to be "free", they don't have to get vaccines if they don't want to." (Associated Press)

Which brings me to Jenny McCarthy.  For those of you not familiar with her, she's a former Playboy "Playmate" and current "TV Personality". (Which is what you call people on television who don't have any particular skill, but continue to show up on a variety of programming)  Some years ago, McCarthy gave birth to a little boy, who she announced was autistic.  She then proceeded to go on a publicity tour basically stating that it was vaccinations that caused her child to become autistic.  She and many others like her pointed to a paper that was written (that would eventually be retracted) as proof that vaccinations were linked to autism. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html?)

While it would be easy for me to call McCarthy out on the carpet for using her celebrity status to popularize a discredited theory which may have influenced people to forego immunizing and therefore endangering their children, I do have to give her credit for one significant achievement.  So many beautiful women complain that men and even some women don't respect their intelligence because they are so attractive.  McCarthy however due to her absurd ideas made people forget about her looks and concentrate on her intellect.  (Though not in a positive way)

"I received my PhD while chilling at the "Grotto", in between filming "Singled Out". (Times Union)

There is something far worse going on in our society that supersedes the fact that some are taking medical advice from Playboy "Centerfolds".  We as a society have begun to lose faith in our institutions.  In other words, many of the things we used to trust as a society are now seen as untrustworthy, unreliable, or tainted to the point where they can no longer be trusted. It would be easy to simply pin it on the Internet, or Facebook, or other sources of "fast-food" information, but this situation actually predates those phenomena, at least according to one expert.

Back when my eldest brother worked for a certain reference book in the 1980s, he managed to have several sit-downs with John Chancellor.  For those of you too young to remember, John Chancellor was an esteemed anchorman for NBC.  He was also a reporter for them. He is somewhat remembered for being physically thrown out of the 1964 GOP convention in San Francisco.  (I wonder if the GOP would have another convention in "Liberal" San Francisco?)  Chancellor wasn't exactly a colorful news anchor.  He was the stereotypical Anchorman from the 1970s and 1980s.  Chancellor had a solid if unspectacular tuft of "salt 'n' pepper" hair, thick glasses, a pleasant voice, (more like a high school Principal than one of those "deep-throated" radio guys) and the medium build of every middle-aged man who reported the news for generations before body-builders and "Victoria Secret" models...a.k.a., "Fox News Reporters" began to populate the screen.

I do believe he could have easily been a high school Principal. "Smoking at the handball courts again...hmm Mr. Hoffman?" (Getty Images)

At any rate, my brother met John Chancellor for lunch several times.  In their conversations, Chancellor said to my brother words to the effect that, "You're lucky, people respect you and the book you edit, we (the television news media) have lost that trust."  What's fascinating about his statement is that it was said before the internet had even reached the homes of any Americans. (I'm not even sure Al Gore had invented it yet?)

The television media is only one of many areas in our society that we as a people, have lost our faith in.  The New York Times used to be the official paper of record for our country, now, when you tell people you read something in the Times, they do a little snicker.  Even if a paper like the New York Times is factually accurate, some people assume it comes with an "agenda", and is therefore not to be trusted.  It would appear that we have become a cynical, conspiracy obsessed society, and it doesn't appear to be getting any better.  I've even had people come up to me and tell me that they think the Super Bowl was fixed.  How else could anyone explain Pete Carroll's horrible call as the Seahawks appeared poised to score the winning touchdown?

The areas in life that are no longer accepted as credible would fill thousands of angry bloggers postings.  For example:

1. Unemployment Numbers
2. Baseball Statistics
3. Presidential Elections
4. Health and purity of our food supply
5. The Holocaust
6. Cable Companies
7. Olympic Judges, particularly Russian Judges (I actually believe this one)
8. Cancer Cures
9. Oil and Gas prices
10. And my all-time favorite, the JFK Assassination

Perhaps it is the JFK Assassination that began all of this distrust.  The murder of President John F. Kennedy in November of 1963 ended the nation's innocence in a myriad of ways.  Young Americans believed in JFK.  They saw him as one of their own, and he inspired a belief in young people that they had the power to change the nation for the better by working through the system.  Kennedy's shocking death in Dallas, Texas was a bitter pill that many Americans found far too difficult to swallow.  It had a rippling effect that sent a message to the generation coming of age in the 1960s that if you couldn't work through the system, then perhaps you have to tear down the system.  JFK was taken from a generation of young Americans who revered him, and now their faith in the system would forever be shattered.  Whatever faith Americans may have had  left in our institutions would be decimated once and for all by the lies of L.B.J. in Vietnam, and by the crimes of "Dick" Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

"Trust is overrated, wouldn't you agree....Dick"?

It says a lot about our lost sense of innocence that as a people we couldn't accept the official version of the JFK assassination.  The idea that one solitary "loser" could take down the leader of the "free-world" with a couple of "lucky" shots from a cheaply made Italian bolt-action World War Two rifle simply seemed too random for the American people to accept.  It had to be a conspiracy!  It had to be a sinister plot, launched from the bowels of our government in order to stage a coup d'etat and wrestle control from our democratically elected leader, (Although he probably cheated) and hand it over to the evil, nameless, faceless, Military Industrial Complex!

One shot from a strip club owner, and a nation's paranoia is set ablaze! (You Tube)

Now we get to the really difficult part.  How do we get this trust back?  The President used to be the most respected person in America.  My mother used to tell me that when FDR spoke on the radio in her home, her father would demand silence, after-all, the President was speaking.  I wonder if there is person or institution today that could command that type of respect and that level of trust?  It would have to be somebody who has delivered without compromise.  Someone who produces results.  An individual whose body of work has stood the test of time.  Who?  Who could that be?  Of course....