Random Sputterings: 12/28/2001

[elSicomoro]

Watching TV: VH-1 is doing their whole shindig with all the Behind the Musics and Heavy Metal Day and whatever...and I'm such a sucker for that shit.

So, I'm watching the 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock right now. It's like a flashback for me...all the metal and grunge bands from back in the day. Seeing Ministry at #62 and Soundgarden at #14 made my day.

Hair today, gone tomorrow: Just got all my hair cut off. Well, about 3 inches or so. As I mentioned in the CD thread, I had hair that looked damned near like the fro of Martin Gore (of Depeche Mode). Now I look normal...as normal as I can be.

I go to this little salon across the street from my apartment complex. In the past year, I've probably been over there 4 times...yet they know who I am when I walk in. I like that sense of familiarity.

The job hunt: I'm so familiar with it now, that it's almost like a game. Playing phone tag with HR people and recruiters. Thinking about the line that is going to make a company fall in love with your cover letter and resume. Making my daily rounds on the job sites.

Of course, I would prefer NOT to be familiar with all this malarkey.

Sports: I've heard of fickle fans before, but this city is ridiculous, particularly when it comes to the Eagles. One minute, the fans are drunk over Super Bowl thoughts (which will not happen), the next day they demand the head of Andy Reid (which should not happen).

When in the hell did the Cardinals sign Tino Martinez? Jesus...I HAVE been living in a void. And where on earth did the Mets get their cash from? Mo Vaughn? Alomar? Now maybe Juan Gonzalez?

Rams...no need to speak of the greatness. Although, I will be sad to see the Bears and Eagles fall in the playoffs.

Speaking of the Rams, they have won 6 Super Bowls in my current run on Madden 2002...heh.

I am a huge hockey fan, yet I have been completely clueless on the Blues and Flyers this year. Just haven't been following the NHL like I should.

2002 should be an exciting sports year. First, the Winter Olympics in February. I have a feeling this is going to be some tearjerker phenomenon, given that they are here in the States. Then, World Cup in May. I always hold hope for an American shocker. I'm also a fan of Cameroon...I liked watching them in the '94 Cup as underdogs. Problem is, I would assume that the games will either be on at weird times, or on tape delay (since the games are in S. Korea and Japan).

The Aftermath of the Holidays: So, did everyone have a good holiday? Everyone get what they wanted? The only think I asked for was Madden 2002 for PS1, which I got. (Whoohoo!)

I got several gift certificates this year, which was unusual. Wound up adding 5 CDs to my collection along with FIFA 2002. The most unusual gift was a Jim Edmonds bobble-head doll from my mother.

Quick quips: You know how people always tell you to be yourself? What if you are a natural-born asshole?

I'm glad the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took over the Philadelphia School District...mainly b/c it just pisses so many people off.

That'll do for now.

[Undertoad]

Some fine sputterings sir. I agree on the school system. How is it that they could be so annoyed about the takeover... and NOT be annoyed by decades of crappy schooling leaving behind so many people.

Warch may have something to say about that sort o' thing since (I'm not giving anything away here, am I m'dear) she spent some time working in a similar system.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad
How is it that they could be so annoyed about the takeover... and NOT be annoyed by decades of crappy schooling leaving behind so many people.

Because it's been a long time since the majority of the people still left living inside the city limits gave a rat's ass about the quality of its education system, and the majority of the parents there are neither desirous nor capable of exercising anything even vaguely resembling discipline over their children. Running a prison (even on a daytime-only basis) costs much more than running a school.

But having the state take it over implies that the city is a financial cripple, and is an intolerable affront.

This decline has been a long time coming. It was well underway by the time I hit high school. I was educated in Philadelphia Public schools from roughly1960-1970.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Some fine sputterings sir. I agree on the school system. How is it that they could be so annoyed about the takeover... and NOT be annoyed by decades of crappy schooling leaving behind so many people.

As sick as it sounds, I laughed at all those protests in the weeks leading up to last week's takeover. For the simple reason that a takeover was imminent. There was no way the City could continue the system as is.

I DO understand the concerns of the students and parents. They knew full well that the Commonwealth would pass the buck on to someone like Edison. Essentially, the kids are being sold. (And given the large number of black students in the system, I don't blame anyone for getting pissed one bit.)

But it's obvious that the system NEEDS help. All the reports last fall about lead in the school drinking fountains is more than enough evidence. We have a shrinking school system along with aging buildings. The test scores are in the toilet. The City is still coming back from being broke 10 years ago, and is in no real position to do a complete overhaul. Would the students and parents rather continue with the status quo?

I wouldn't say Edison's track record is necessarily bad...more like unproven. They run several schools in the City of Baltimore, and the jury is still out. Based upon what Edison is doing with those schools in Baltimore (from what I saw and read while living in Washington), I don't think it would hurt to just TRY it.

I also suspect two other issues in the parents and students versus Edison. One is the fear of the unknown. Change sucks...not knowing what could possibly happen is downright scary in some aspects.

*tries to walk on eggshells for this, but can't* Secondly, I think the teachers are partly behind it too. I can understand their concern as well...they may have to reapply for their old jobs. But from what I've seen, the animosity from last year's mini-strike never seemed to completely subside. The school system has been falling apart for years, but those teachers knew that and continued to teach in the City schools. Secondly, at least IMO, teachers should not be allowed to strike during the school year...it is tantamount to police officers and fire fighters walking off the job. When they strike (as they did in Bensalem this past year), you have a bunch of kids not learning as they probably should, with parents scrambling for day care or alternate plans. Granted, I understand that these teachers bust their asses and don't get paid what they should, but I don't feel they should be allowed to call a general strike.

How much control Edison is going to get is still not known. I hope they will allow other groups to chip in and help with the process (such as charter school folks). Truth be told, if Rendell is elected governor next year, I think it would give a lot of people a sigh of relief over this.

Granted, I have no children, have no intention of having them, and would not put them in the city school system even if I did. However, many parents simply don't have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, Philadelphia is trying to "clean" its image--trying to get people to stay in the city and attract new people here. If the school system is improved, the kids that are already here will (hopefully) get a better education, hence making them smarter and keeping them here when it is time for them to start their own families. For attracting people here, if the school system is improved, it can only help in attracting family-minded people here.

Maggie, you make a few good points as well. Discipline begins in the home, and it seems like kids today get away with so much more than even I did...at the same time, maybe it has always been like that, just not as obvious.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

Essentially, the kids are being sold. (And given the large number of black students in the system, I don't blame anyone for getting pissed one bit.)

Oh, come on, syc. The *kids* aren't being sold. What a silly piece of rabblerousing that idea is. The concession to make money from trying to teach them is being sold...the government having failed miserably at the task. Again I direct people's attention to The writings of Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian for some talk about what's wrong with schools and schooling.

Maggie, you make a few good points as well. Discipline begins in the home, and it seems like kids today get away with so much more than even I did...at the same time, maybe it has always been like that, just not as obvious.

I can assure you that it has *not* always been like that...it drastically deteriorated over the time that I was in the system, and not uniformly. During my childhood the worst bit of disorder there ever was was timed paintpan droppings to annoy a substitute teacher. By the time I got to high school, there were known "good schools" and "bad schools". While I was in high school (a "bad school) we had three shootings and one bomb...not a bomb *threat*, but an actual bomb. This was in 1969.

Up until then, kids who were disruptive were suspended, with the next level of sanction being expulsion--being sent to a reform school lowered a pall of shame over an entire family. The present of a police squad car outside a school was a notable scandal.

Today, urban schools routinely pass kids through a metal detector to disarm them on the way to class. The halls aren't patrolled by teachers, but by uniformed city police. There are *way* too many parents who don't give a shit what their kids do *anywhere*, much less in school, as long as it down't interefere with the parents having a good time.

At this point in time, the same parents probably raised hell when they were in school as well..and in some cases that wasn't all that long ago. How much discipline can you expect from a mother who got pregnant at 16? If she had no sense of responsibility of her own, how can we think she will somehow convey one to her kids? How many kids like that in one classroom does it take to make education a nearly-impossible task? Again, from my own experience: not many.

We now have a society where the only constraint on the behavior of a significant cohort within the public school student population is the legal system: if it won't get you busted, go right ahead. And even if you *do* get arrested, it's only a juvie offense.

And it doesn't have to be that way. In terms of discipline and maintaining order, the schools in the Upper Merion School District today are much like the Philadelphia Public schools were up to about 1967. Don't tell me it's a matter of money; that's bullshit. No amount of money in the school district budget will fix what's *culturally* wrong with the kids in Philly schools today.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Oh, come on, syc. The *kids* aren't being sold. What a silly piece of rabblerousing that idea is. The concession to make money from trying to teach them is being sold...the government having failed miserably at the task. Again I direct people's attention to The writings of Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian for some talk about what's wrong with schools and schooling.

You can call it rabblerousing...I call it a fair and legitimate concern. From a parent and student perspective, their city is selling their educational rights to Edison, a "for-profit" company. From that perspective, it would seem that the city is trying to "cash in" on their students. I am well aware that the city is essentially hiring someone to run the "system." But what is the primary focus of the system? Educating children. The children don't have an option. The parents don't really have options either (move outside the city, try to get their child into a charter school, or pay for private school). So, you have the City of Philadelphia (and the Commonwealth) giving a company (most likely Edison) x amount of dollars to control the education of 200,000 kids. In a way, yes, the kids *are* being sold.

I can assure you that it has *not* always been like that...it drastically deteriorated over the time that I was in the system, and not uniformly. During my childhood the worst bit of disorder there ever was was timed paintpan droppings to annoy a substitute teacher. By the time I got to high school, there were known "good schools" and "bad schools". While I was in high school (a "bad school) we had three shootings and one bomb...not a bomb *threat*, but an actual bomb. This was in 1969.

I'll concede that the discipline factor has deteriorated. At the same time, "the proper way" to discipline children has dramatically changed. You give your child an ass-whipping now, and you're likely to receive a visit from your local child protection agency. The time in which you went to school was also a dramatic time of social change in this country.

At the same time, there are other factors that can be attributed to the degradation of discipline, both inside and outside the home.

We now have a society where the only constraint on the behavior of a significant cohort within the public school student population is the legal system: if it won't get you busted, go right ahead. And even if you *do* get arrested, it's only a juvie offense.

This is not necessarily true anymore. More and more teenagers are being charged as adults, beyond just murder.

Don't tell me it's a matter of money; that's bullshit. No amount of money in the school district budget will fix what's *culturally* wrong with the kids in Philly schools today.

Granted, it is more than a money problem, but money IS a huge part of it. I never specifically said it was all about money...it's about overall improvement in the end. Furthermore, you really can't compare Upper Merion and Philadelphia...they're two different worlds.

[MaggieL]

Apparently the software here can't cope with nested quoting....let me see if I can deal:

You can call it rabblerousing...I call it a fair and legitimate concern. From a parent and student perspective, their city is selling their educational rights to Edison, a "for-profit" company

Um....it might be "selling their children" if the city was taking money (and delivering children). As it is, the city is *paying* money to subcontract a job they've demonstrated they can't handle, and the kids go home at the end of the day. The "educational rights" that the kids have is a right to attend a public school at public expense...and that will not change. It does look like the "right" of some folks to belly up to the School District trough may get trampled on a bit...and I suspect *they* are the ones printing the "don't let them sell our kids" signs for the next protest.

"The city is selling our children" is a bald-facedly emotional appeal designed by those with an interest in the status quo to generate hostility and anger, which bearing little relationship to what's actually happened. The city has run the school system into the ground, and then constantly run to the state for more money to throw at the problems--if indeed that's where the money was actually thrown; I rather suspect it wasn't. Again, read TUG.

If the city paid to bring in private trash haulers, would you accuse the city of "selling your trash"?

At the same time, "the proper way" to discipline children has dramatically changed. You give your child an ass-whipping now, and you're likely to receive a visit from your local child protection agency.

You're saying there's a discipline problem because the kids haven't been beaten? My parents never whipped my ass, and I never whipped my children's asses. We all seem to have turned out OK. It is indeed *difficult* to raise responsible, well-behaved kids; it requires patience and persistance to inspire respect in a child...the ability to indulge in "ass-whipping" without interference from a social agency isn't required. Furthermore, I suspect the most disruptive kids in the school system *have* been beaten, to no good end. "The proper way to discipline children" hasn't changed; it never involved physical abuse.

"Dramatic social change" over the time period in question? I'll tell you what the most dramatic change was: the change to the home rule charter where the City took over appointing the school board and the operation of the school district in 1965. The school boards elsewhere in the state are elected officials, not political appointees.

This image of children and parents held hostage doesn't fly for me either--no one has had a gun held to their head and been forced to become parents, or been forbidden to leave the city. This change may actually *improve* education in Philadelphia; for the first time there will be an entity that could actually be held accountable for results.

I'll be interested to see what Edison is allowed to do with the most disruptive students, though...they're bad for the bottom line.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Um....it might be "selling their children" if the city was taking money (and delivering children).

Essentially, they ARE doing this.

It does look like the "right" of some folks to belly up to the School District trough may get trampled on a bit...and I suspect *they* are the ones printing the "don't let them sell our kids" signs for the next protest.

I don't disagree with that. Look at how the city threw a fit over the Parking Authority...those precious patronage jobs now in the hands of the state...which probably makes John Perzel grin with glee.

"The city is selling our children" is a bald-facedly emotional appeal designed by those with an interest in the status quo to generate hostility and anger, which bearing little relationship to what's actually happened. The city has run the school system into the ground, and then constantly run to the state for more money to throw at the problems--if indeed that's where the money was actually thrown; I rather suspect it wasn't. Again, read TUG.

I did read some...I found it a bit convoluted.

Certainly. Better to let someone else take charge than let the city completely let it go to hell. Again, the whole point of what I was saying is, "Hey, I understand your concern. But something HAS to be done to try and fix the mess. Whether you (the parents and students) like it or not."

If the city paid to bring in private trash haulers, would you accuse the city of "selling your trash"?

Different situation, IMO. Teaching school children is a much more personal situation than hauling trash away.

Although, you raise an interesting conundrum. Several states (and DC) either pay other jurisdictions to take care of some prisoners or hire a for-profit company to do the work. *shrugs* I dunno...I guess I look to the children as having a better chance for the future.

You're saying there's a discipline problem because the kids haven't been beaten?

It was an example. Kids are, IMO, a lot smarter these days. I think they ARE able to exude greater control over their parents, thereby making discipline (as a whole) harder.

I don't envy anyone who has children in today's world. It was a different world for my brother than myself (and we're only 7 years apart). Fortunately, my parents were able to cope and adjust their parenting accordingly. Unfortunately, I don't think that a) all parents have that ability to adjust and b) the newer generation of parents can raise their children the same way they were raised (whether it was good or bad).

"Dramatic social change" over the time period in question? I'll tell you what the most dramatic change was: the change to the home rule charter where the City took over appointing the school board and the operation of the school district in 1965. The school boards elsewhere in the state are elected officials, not political appointees.

Many large urban school districts suffered the same problems as Philadelphia during the 60s and 70s, and elect their school boards (such as St. Louis). I don't know the whole history of the school system in this city (or the city as a whole), but I would be willing to wager that the change in the home charter was nothing compared to the social changes that plagued many cities during the above time period.

This image of children and parents held hostage doesn't fly for me either--no one has had a gun held to their head and been forced to become parents, or been forbidden to leave the city. This change may actually *improve* education in Philadelphia; for the first time there will be an entity that could actually be held accountable for results.

Does the city have an "alternative" school setup? Where the most troubled kids go and are helped with their problems beyond the classroom?

I can agree on not having children. All I'm saying is that the people that are affected the most didn't have much of a say, beyond protests and what not.

I'm willing to see what Edison can do. I don't think enough people in the city really looked at the big picture. Right away, they heard about a "for profit" company taking over and went nuts. Quite frankly, I think it sucks that Edison felt a need to "market" themselves (through TV ads) in the days leading up to the takeover. I think they were unfairly labeled from the get go and deserve a chance to try and right things.

[MaggieL]

Again, the quoting mechanism sucks here.

But again I'll say: the kids were not sold. The conession to teach them was let. The city is not making any money here---*they're* paying for a service; nobody paid the city anything.

The analogy to private trash hauling *is* germane. If Edison said: "Let us have the kids for eight hours a day to do with as we please and we'll pay you X dollars a head" you might be on-target. But the deal is "Pay *us* to meet on your behalf your responsibility to give the kids a free education". If you can still call that "selling our kids", then there's nothing further we can discuss on that score...and I can also see why TUG is "too convoluted" for you. Mitchell's writing does require more thought than a Pepsi commercial.

And I'm not sure I buy your assesment of the plight of "the people most affected" either, even if we ignore the people who have been *paying* for all this; surely they are affected too. The parents *had* a voice in this: they had their say when they elected the city and state governments.

I don't think kids are any smarter these days than they ever were. It's quite possible--likely, in fact-- that the average parent is dumber, though. That's partly the fault of the educational system...one of whose jobs is to teach critical thinking. Of course, folks like [Mayor] John Street will find their life's work of accumulating power and dispensing patronage easier if the voting populace *isn't* all tuned up with the skills of critical thinking, and able to be manipulated by empty slogans like "They're sellling our kids".

And I better not catch anybody trying to "exude control over" me...it sounds messy.

[Undertoad]

There's a rule of thumb in political consulting: if you go personal, you lose. Mags, sorry you lose this time.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
But again I'll say: the kids were not sold. The conession to teach them was let. The city is not making any money here---*they're* paying for a service; nobody paid the city anything.

And I'll say it again: In essence, the children of the Philadelphia School System were sold.

I was merely expressing a viewpoint in the whole argument. My personal opinion, as a whole, is that the school system needed to be taken over, regardless of how the situation may look to some.

If you can still call that "selling our kids", then there's nothing further we can discuss on that score...and I can also see why TUG is "too convoluted" for you. Mitchell's writing does require more thought than a Pepsi commercial.

Maggie, I don't see this situation, and a lot of other things, from your point of view. We simply have different ideologies. It's what keeps this country going. We could have a blast on "Politically Incorrect." But what gives you the right to insult my intelligence?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad
There's a rule of thumb in political consulting: if you go personal, you lose. Mags, sorry you lose this time.

&lt shrug &gt I'm not a political consultant. Nor am I running for office.

"They sold our kids" is a completely empty emotional appeal, nothing more than a slogan--a Pepsi commercial, metaphorically speaking: indended to appeal to an emotion, but semantically baseless.

If the kids were sold, who bought them? Remeber this must be someone who paid for the privilege...that can't be Edison. Edison is *being* paid, contracted to do a job.

And who *sold* the kids? Remeber that the sellers must have been paid by the buyers. The city isn't being paid anything by anybody, so they can't be the sellers. The only money changing hands is going *from* the government *to* Edison.

This just did not happen...not even "in essence". The claim "They sold our kids" is completely bogus, intended only to enflame. And it works--who could possibly defend "selling children"?

Obviously *some* sort of transaction is going down...but calling it "selling children" is a smear job, trying to equate it to a reprehensible act it actually resembles not in the least.

If the trash hauling hypothetical isn't "personal" enough, let's try this one: a wife hires a hooker to stand in for her in the marital bed. Perhaps the husband might demand "specific performance" in the terms of contract law, insisting that he'd bargained for the services of his wife specifically and not some random subcontractor. But could he accuse the wife of "selling her husband"? No, that is just not what those words mean.

[elSicomoro]

No, the city is not making money directly from the school takeover (although the city could make money off this in the end), as they are paying Edison. By traditional definition, it is not a "sale." If "sale" sounds too much like a "smear" tactic, then we can call it a "give away." I don't consider it improper to call it a sale though...semantics aside.

While I am glad some of the mess is out of the city's hands, I worry about the future implications of this. Some may think that if we can't depend on the city to educate its children without outside help, how can we depend on it for other services? Of course, the city is a business, and many businesses know the value of contracting some of their work outside the "company."

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore
No, the city is not making money directly from the school takeover (although the city could make money off this in the end), as they are paying Edison. By traditional definition, it is not a "sale." If "sale" sounds too much like a "smear" tactic, then we can call it a "give away." I don't consider it improper to call it a sale though...semantics aside.

Semantics is the study of the meaning of language; I don't see how you can "put it aside", although I suppose you can ignore it. That's a rather "non-traditional definition" for "give-away" too...if I give away a book, I don't expect to hand over cash as well. Do let me know if you're "giving away" away anything under your non-traditional definition. :-)

If the city can manage to make a profit here by collecting more in taxes earmarked for education than they end up paying out under the new scheme, my hat's off to them. But if it happens I'd check the temperature in hell. :-)

Renting. They're fucking renting.