Would You Rather Know Something about Everything or Everything about Something?

Mr. Benson, a secondary school history teacher, comes across a significant problem when reviewing his syllabus. He has simply too much to teach. History is different than most other subjects in that way as it is always being written and always changing. Two plus two and the square root of x always have and always are going to remain the same, but interpretations of history change greatly over time.

For much of the twentieth century, history was traditionally taught from the macrocosmic view, whereby for instance America would be studied by actions of the figureheads and events that created it: Washington, Lincoln, the Vietnam War, etc. However, by the end of the twentieth century an entirely different view of history had emerged based heavily on the ways that these figureheads and events impacted the common man. Now we speak not of Washington exclusively but of Washington and his troops at Valley Forge, not of Lincoln, but of Lincoln and his supporters and detractors, and not of the Vietnam War as a conflict supplementing the Cold War but of the lives of working class America that were impacted by fighting in it. Of course, the “traditional” view has not been forgotten, it has merely been connected with a second, bottom-up, view.

In addition to the changing views on how history will be seen, taught, and understood, there is the mere fact that history is being made every day. To take a personal example, I marvel at the fact that I now see history text books including the events of September 11th 2001 as part of the curriculum. We don't always see what happens today in the context of “history” as it is taught in schools. This in itself is evidenced greatly even in the case study prompt. A quote reads: “We all know that history teachers never do make it to the Twentieth Century. They always get bogged down somewhere in the boring stuff and never make it to the modern history part.” To this affect, I also agree. Much time is spent on the formation of (in this instance) the United States, its struggle with slavery, and perhaps its entrance into two world wars. Yet, rarely do teachers have enough time to focus on the material from only a single generation ago. It is this that impacts us the greatest and should be taught.

Herein lies a problem. Everything should be taught, but everything can't be taught because there isn't enough time in the semester. Option A would have the teacher breeze through the material making sure to encapsulate everything into the syllabus. But, honestly, how much could a student retain from this method? Studies show that students only actually are learning approximately one third of the time that they spend in class. In addition to that, one has to assume that they won't remember everything taught during that period. If you have fifty minutes of class time a day, five days a week, for 36 weeks, and students are only paying attention and you are only teaching one third of that time, one can certainly understand how difficult it would be to squash everything into that time.

First, the teacher needs a plan. Unlike Mr. Benson, who didn't seem to understand that he didn't have the course material under control, good teachers need to recognize the scope of material that needs to be taught. In addition to the syllabus, a teacher must also have a structure plan. They must first have a set of classroom guidelines. They must understand their students' capacity to learn and to retain knowledge. In addition to this, to be effective, teachers must install a punishment and reward system, punishing students who make poor choices (i.e. disrupt the classroom, cheat, verbally or physically abuse other students, etc.) and rewarding students who turn in their work on time, are courteous to others, and help foster a good learning environment. With this plan set in place, teaching and learning will both occur more smoothly.

In the case of Mr. Benson, the teacher must access the amount of knowledge available versus the amount of time they have to convey it. The syllabus must have realistically achievable goals. It seems that Mr. Benson spent much too much time on textbook reading and yet oddly enough didn't seem to know how many chapters the book had (hinting towards improper planning). Teachers cannot spend the entirety of class rehearsing knowledge from the textbook and neither can students spend all of their homework time reading textbooks. The classroom must encourage engagement

In other words, Mr. Benson should rework his syllabus to include activities that will interest his students. Clearly based on the responses that he had been getting from his class(es?), they are not finding textbook reading to be interesting and based on my own experience, if I don't find something interesting, I'm not going to worry about concentrating on it.

Mr. Benson needs to incorporate activities into his lessons that get students to think about the topic discussed that day. His examples of the Sistine Chapel pictures and the National Geographic articles are a good start. However, the way he connects it to the actual course material will be vital. He could give them all the activities that he wanted and they would still not learn anything if he did not significantly tie it back to the subject being discussed that day.
Through the use of these activities, he should also incorporate different methods of teaching such as group work which promotes independent discovery or class discussion which promotes the exchange of ideas and the building and maintaining of a sound working and learning environment. In the case of world history, perhaps Mr. Benson can have his class come up with a list of classroom rules and guidelines when they are talking about the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights. This would serve three-fold to give students a perspective on how hard the creation of such a document can be, the experience of actually having a voice in how the classroom would be managed, and the promotion of a frank discourse between students and teachers so that everyone can understand what they want out of each other and the class. Likewise, Mr. Benson can use the last two weeks of class for group projects where each group will get to choose one topic that they find interesting from the semester and research it in greater depth for presentation to the class. By this, they learn about something they find interesting, learn how to find information on future topics of interest, and get to teach their classmates about something they find interesting in the hopes that they too will find that it piques their interests.

With these new activities and this new classroom environment, learning will be easier and students will be more apt to retain information presented. This method, or “Option B”, will make it possible for students and teacher to enjoy a positive working environment as well as allow for real learning to be accomplished. It is the sounder of the two options, where the student is actually interested in his or her own learning and has a voice in how it occurs. The biggest difference between this option and Option A is that it will be impossible, especially in Mr. Benson's case, to cover as much as you would otherwise. Of course, class must still contain some lecture-like format, simply to connect the activities together into a cohesive timeline, but for the most part, real learning will take place with in depth looks at small events along the long timeline of history.

In a perfect world, in my opinion, Option B would be implemented in all classrooms. Students would know above all that they are learning because they are interested and not because the teacher told them to. But, the world is not perfect (in my opinion) and Option B is certainly not implemented everywhere. As with Mr. Benson's case, two factors limit the usage of Option B: time and standardized tests. A teacher will not cover as much material in Option B than they would in Option A. Likewise, if a standardized test will be administered, such as the MCAS is in Massachusetts, teachers are instructed to “cover” all material that might appear on the exam. In both Mr. Benson's classroom example and all schools in Massachusetts, how well students do on those exams parallels with public funding and accreditation. If the school were to do badly on the test because they simply did not learn a wide enough breadth of information, regardless of whether they soundly grasped all that they did learn, those bad test scores could severely detriment the funding of that school or its accreditation. Why is this so? In my opinion, standardized tests as we know them today do not reward knowledge known but rather punish facts that are not known. A student may know everything that there is to know about the American Revolution, but know nothing about Industrial or Post-Industrial America and therefore fail the exam miserably even though what they did know was exemplary. This is a flaw within the test and it is this flaw that needs to be fixed.

Yet, as the flaws of standardized testing have not been fixed, classes must to some extent “teach to the test” merely for the good of the school. If they do not get funded, then they will not have the materials they need to teach adequately and their future students will not have as good of an education. Therefore, the best mode of teaching in the real world is something of an Option A-B, a combination of both techniques. Teachers must “cover” everything for the exams so that students do well and the school is seen as having exemplary students. And, the teacher must use group activities, discussions, and independent work to actually create these exemplary students that testing claims to find.

Mr. Benson was right, or at least more right, when he decided to go back and look at his syllabus again and reflect on what message he was sending his students by using an Option A method in class. He is also right to say that depth matters. Students will not get anything from glossing over dozens of subjects. Each subject must be given some meaning to the student for the student to care to learn and retain it or for him or her to even show the most general interest in the class. Depth fosters interest and interest fosters learning whereas glossing over fosters frustration and that certain haze that students seem to get about ten minutes into a lecture. While there are drawbacks to depth (i.e. you cover less) I'll argue that quality is far greater an asset than quantity.

What commander would rather take a thousand civilians into battle over five hundred finely trained soldiers? Who would prefer inane chatter to language? Who would take a handful of coal over the pristine beauty of a diamond? Then who would value someone who knows a little about everything over someone who knows everything about something?

Terrorism: Shooting From the Hip

Terrorism is the belief that the use of fear as a weapon is justified. Terror + ism = Terrorism. Attitudes towards terrorism can be defined in two ways and each definition is supported by someone based solely on their position to the reason for the terroristic idea to occur. One who believes that terrorism – the use of fear for gain – is a good thing sees the act of instilling fear in another group to be necessary to accomplish a goal. Those who hold the opposite opinion may also desire to accomplish the same goal, yet are not so taken by the by-all-means-necessary philosophy. They may disagree about the use of fear based on its ramifications, based on morals, or based on the rule of law. Likewise, those who do not desire this specific goal, will find themselves against the use of fear to accomplish it, out of sheer logic.

The seed of terrorism is the idea. Every terrorist has some sort of idea or ideology that they wish to procure. Let us take the actions of the Madrid subway bombers as an example. Their desire was to create discord and chaos, fear. Then we have Osama Bin Laden who used fear-based messages and a criminal organization as a means to procure fear not only in the United States but throughout the world in general. They are terrorists, ones who spread fear.

There is a question as to whether terrorists have to actually partake in physical activities, the maiming or murdering of innocent people (on September 11, 2001 for example). This is not necessarily the case. There are many different ways to go about terrorizing and physical threat is simply the bluntest of them. If you invade a sovereign nation you are a terrorist state, like Germany during World War I and World War II. However, if you soften the blow, envelope it with politicking and self-righteous candor, you could possibly pass off blatant terrorism as something in their best interest. This pseudo-political terrorism is called imperialism and it also goes by colonialism in a slightly varied form. It is simply the invasion of a territory and the usurpation of power from one group by another.

Now-a-days however, imperialism and colonialism are looked upon as a dark stain on world history by most of the first world. Imperialism and colonialism lead to exploitation no matter the intent. The war in Iraq is a good present day example of the backlash of imperialism. The President of the United States unilaterally decided that Iraq was enough of a threat to American national security that the situation warranted an invasion and occupying force. American troops conquered Iraq and set up a stagnant democratic government. However, the government is too weak to stand and if American forces pull out, it will fall into further chaos. While before there was a dictatorship and life was for the most part bearable, now with an inept democracy one might not have a life to bear. President Bush's act of pseudo-political terrorism caused more trouble than good in the region, destabilized the American economy, and created a breeding ground for contempt of American ideals.

So far terrorism has been described as an organizational or governmental action that occurs outside one's nation of origin. However, there are also forms of “home-grown” terrorism. Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb destroying a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 and wounding at least 800 including over a dozen small children. The “Shoe-Bomber”, Richard Reid, failed to set of “shoe-bomb” explosives on a flight from Paris to Miami just three months after September 11, 2001. Likewise, terrorism can be undertaken by a government on one's own people. This was done most famously by Nazi Germany during World War II, exterminating millions of its own people (Jews, gypsies, gays, disabled, etc.) in death camps set up solely for the purpose of ethnic (and “weakness”) cleansing. It was also done by Stalin in Soviet Russia. He exterminated at least 3 million of his own people but may also directly or indirectly killed another 27 million, records are unclear. The most accepted number seems to be between 6-8 million. Again, there have been countless massacres throughout world history: Pol Pot in Cambodia, Pizarro, Cortes and the Spanish Conquistadors and the Native Americans, United States, French and British and the Native Americans, the Ottomans and the Armenian Genocide, and countless others. It is clear that throughout history, nations have killed millions of their own people and justified it.

With some examples of terrorism now given, it is also important to understand the motive behind why a person or group decides to partake in terrorism. What is clear is that as a whole, the groups or people in question seemed to feel that they have been wronged in one way or another. Whether or not they have actually been wronged is a matter for fierce debate, but the argument remains that they believe that they have been wronged nonetheless. The Palestinians for example believe that the Israeli Jews that settled in the former Palestine territory after World War I have wronged them by destroying their culture and uprooting their people. Perhaps they have a point; someone once said that if the world had any justice at all then Israel would be in eastern Germany. Yet, there are counterarguments to this statement, primarily that the Jews had been there even before the Palestinians.

Israel and Palestine, in fact, have an interesting relationship. They are terrorists against each other. Traditionally, one group or person who was wronged terrorized another group. In this instance however, two groups have wronged each other and have commenced terrorizing each other. The same had been true for Northern Ireland and Ireland as well as the conflict between Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus. Each was wronged by the other and decided that they were wronged so badly that it was worth killing each other over. This seems to be the driving point, that one must be angry enough at another that the rules of morality no longer apply.

There is a second reason for terrorism however that has nothing to do with being wronged and that was the example offered by Hitler: ethnic cleansing. These instances are not based on particular wrongs, but rather general wrongs, that the Jews were responsible for a plague or a famine, or some other stereotype. Racism is a powerful tool for terrorism. This shines true in many African nations, the conflicts in the Congo and Darfur to name two. Ethnic cleansing is also the goal of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan that believes that America should only be for white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants and that all others are below them and below the reward of democracy. In truth, there does not have to be a specific wrong, a general wrong, a societal bias, is all that is needed to foment the ideals of terrorism and thereby the actors and actions of terrorism in kind.

Now finally, the question remains: Is terrorism justified? Yes and no. If you have been wronged then yes terrorism is a viable option, provided that you have been wronged enough. However, if you have not been wronged enough, or taught to think that you have been wronged enough, you will probably not see terrorism as a viable option. You may be against it or simply ambivalent to it. The only other view of terrorism is that of an outsider or of the group or person being terrorized. In these cases, the answer is always: No. Terrorism is never an option from their points of view either because they are affected directly by it or because they see it as barbaric and do not understand the blatant wrong committed on this group of people as they see it with their own eyes.

Most people are outsiders to terrorism or have had terrorism in some way affect their lives, their families, or their country, religion, or ethnicity and therefore are likely to hold the belief that terrorism is wrong. Regardless of whether a nation is democratic majority will rule. If a majority of people say terrorism is wrong then it is wrong. It is morally, ethically, and ideologically wrong. It is wrong to take an innocent life to make up for a personal loss. It is wrong to instill fear in another for any reason even if they seem to have justifiably deserved it. In terrorizing one merely continues the cycle of wronging and the cycle of pain and suffering. Nothing good comes out of this.

That ideology is essentially the unofficial official world doctrine on terrorism. A majority believes that it is wrong. It is wrong. The habit of violent solutions must be broken before you can rid the world of violence. For the habit to be broken, the cycle of wronging must also be broken. There have been many examples of terrorism throughout history and each has its own wrongs attached to them. Sometimes too there are wrongs attached to the solutions. In the end, the solution must be to treat terrorism like organized crime, because that is what it is. You must break the cycle of wrongs and bring these people to fair justice. Only this way will each party get what they want, retribution and justice. But, until the world understands that terror begets terror, there will be a lot more terrorism in the future.

Fairness and Equality

Wow, it's been a long time since my last entry. Let's make the most of it...

Logic is something that people have a lot of trouble with. People don't like logic, especially when it dismantles their long-held beliefs. God, religion, marriage, politics, the whole gambit really, I've made myself clear on. I've argued logically and I've been dismissed. I give proof but they say that it isn't true even if I can back it up. These people sneer in the face of reasoned argument and logical debate. They believe things that make them feel good, make them feel safe, and over all make them feel accepted. God, religion, marriage, politics in general, and a million more topics. It's a wonder why I haven't stopped yet. Maybe it is just to damn important.

Who has the right to stop children from getting an education? Really, who is it that has the right to tell someone that they cannot gain a proper education? Who is it that tells someone that they can or cannot marry someone else? Who is it that could possibly be allowed to hold a lean on the definition of such an idea? Who can tell someone that they are not allowed to be healthy, not allowed to survive and live a normal, long, healthy life?

More importantly, what KIND of person tries to stop children from getting an education? What KIND of person tries to stop two loving people from getting married? What KIND of person has the right to tell the ill that they cannot get well again? What KIND of morally and ethically unscrupulous individual was allowed to do these things?

How about this... What kind of person are you if you refuse a child an education? What kind of person are you if you intentionally refuse to help a child get an education if you can? What kind of person are you if you refuse to recognize not only love but two adults ability to understand their own personal emotions? What kind of person are you if you intentionally refuse to accept the marriage of two people solely based on the fact that you don't believe that they are or could be in love? What kind of person are you if you refuse medical care to the sick? What kind of a person are you if you intentionally refuse to help a sick person get care if you have the means to do so?

How does abject refusal of these subjects justify your moral and ethical standing? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you refuse to help children grow up to be functioning members of society to the fullest of their ability? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you believe that you above all others knows what's right for everyone regardless of what they believe, feel, or understand? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you refuse to grant medical treatment to the ill when it is certainly in your power to do so?

It is your fault if this child grows up to become a statistic. It is your fault if they become a drain on the system, having not the means to raise their families or pay their bills, clogging the prison system costing the taxpayers millions more a year, or draining funds from the medical community because they are not able to hold down a job that provides insurance.

What kind of person are you?

It is your fault if hate is brought upon two people who want to marry. It is your fault if these people are dissuaded from the truth and assuage their true self with a mixture of gin, a loveless marriage, and clinical depression and self denial.

What kind of a person are you?

It is your fault if money is drained from the economy because you are unwilling to help someone who is ill before their situation become dire. It is your fault if their impending illness is left uncured and their families flirt with bankruptcy as a means to escape crippling drug payments. It is your fault if they fail to set up a proper environment for their children who then don't amount to anything and turn to a life of crime or substandard work with no insurance or benefits. It is your fault if they infect others with their illness unknowingly or unstoppably because of lack of proper treatment or counseling.

What kind of person are you?

This is why we need universal education for as far as they can advance. This is why we need to dump the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why we need not-for-profit health and dental insurance.

It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the ethical thing to do. And only you can do it. Vote for the only candidate who supports these measures in the upcoming primary election season. Dennis Kucinich.

On Government and Budgetary Manner

Government today holds many duties and there are many others in contention. However, there has to be a reasoned approach, a ranking system, delineating worth amongst these optional duties, as at the present rate of taxation all is impossible.

There is a fundamental flaw in the way we have set up government in this regard. That is, government has been made a top-down system, whereby federal ranks over state, and state ranks over local. While this is useful for the retention of a Union, it is unhelpful in regards to budget spending. Economically, government would work more smoothly in a bottom-up fashion whereby local leaders receive first dibs on funds, state second, and federal third. In this fashion, society would work more fluidly with schools funded, roads paved, and so forth first. Likewise funds would exist for city police and firefighters at a higher, yet still necessary, rate.

Contentions would be had to the lack of funds left available on state and federal levels after the city finished its budgeteering. This just goes to show how in need the local level is under our current system. I contend that this would be beneficial however. To get funds the federal government would need to raise taxes. This increase on useless items and agendas would remove from office Congressmen and Presidents, Governors, and State Legislators by the vote of the people in the next election.

Of course, a system is all well and good on paper, in practice it will need regulation and purpose. What is the purpose of government? Government is an assembly that represents the people of the nation. Therefore, it is responsible solely to the people. However, this is not a means for the majority to enslave or rule over the minority. Actually, the opposite is also false. The minority does not get favored treatment over the majority view either. However as the government represents all people individually it must also represent all of their interests individually. Rights are not bargainable and there are no such things as liberties, that is, government approved rights don't exist. Rights are universal and eternal as the government is not a body other than a shadow representation of the will of the people and cannot restrict rights just as one person could not restrict the rights of another for reasons other than criminal activity, and even therein only for an acceptable, fair amount of time.

In addition to this, we must understand the economic role of government. What should the government raise money for and who should get to decide where it goes? The government, as a mass-representation of the individual will, can only raise funds (that is tax) for the means to achieve goals that cannot be achieved by single people and small groups of people. Government money cannot be used to support or refute partisan causes as by definition government serves all people individually and to do so would infringe on that notion.

Thus, funds move from bottom-up, working for small causes first and the biggest, most important causes last. In this fashion, tax hikes will be made for important (people-willed) goals and their local goals will too be served an everyone will be happier. Large goals will also be accomplished if they are important because they tend to be vitally important or virtually fluff or baselessly useless. Local government will deal with local issues, then states will deal with state-wide issues, and finally the federal government will deal with national issues. Because of the constraint on usage of funds for states and federally, they will restrict themselves in order to their own business. And, by a simple rule, lower levels will not interfere with actions that extend outside their jurisdiction. Therefore, each body has their duties, each has its constraints, voters have power over taxation, and thereby they also have power over the budgetary matters of their city, state, and nation at a higher rate than they currently do. This system will lessen budgetary problems by giving the weakest the most power and the most powerful the least strength. Accountability will exist for taxation and wasteful spending will be shrunk back to the local level, where inherently it will be cheaper. Then our government will make economic sense.