Missing the Best to Give More

My husband and I have had a wonderful life.  However, career moves that gave us the opportunity to live in several states may have made us less aware of the changes in America.  Perhaps we saw the changes as being regional changes rather than the overall changes in America.  Before Law School, I was a teacher, teaching both elementary and high school in three different states.  The career changes and the moves made me unaware of great changes in education.  I fear that two important changes have had a negative result.

One of those changes was dropping the teaching of cursive writing.  That may seem the least of education problems, but learning cursive writing had a greater impact than most of us realize.  Writing cursive stimulates a sequence of thousands of tiny micro-movements, each letter of a different shape requires the brain to utilize various problems, with fingers, wrists, and other parts of the brain working together.  Typing uses the same single movement. I have fussed about the loss of grace in penmanship, but I did not realize that an even greater loss was the reduced stimulation of the brain.  Furthermore, tests have shown that when students type, most of the brain goes silent. 

Changes in teaching and utilizing reading have changed, especially in upper grades, reducing assignments of reading to a few pages, rather that entire stories or books.  Young people are arriving at college unable to read more than a page or two, apparently struggling to retain attention to read more.  I cannot even imagine how chopping books into pieces serves a justifiable purpose.

I believe children are still curious and eager to learn the magic of those letters on a page.  Why are we missing that opportunity when children are eager to learn.  To quote Anna Quinden, "Books are the plane, and the train, and the road.  They are the destination and the journey.  They are home."  

Christopher Robin

Perhaps we are overlooking opportunities starring us in the face.  Are we giving children toys that talk rather than letting them make up their own words and their own stories.  Perhaps we are diminishing imaginations that would help children get ready for learning.    

I wrote this blog a few days ago, and since then Dolly  Parton has passed away.  She was a Hero for encouraging youngsters to read, and through her Imagination Library a gift of over 325 million books were gifted to children.  

Now, instead of encouraging children, it appears to me that too many people are actively involved in banning books when they should be delighted to see kids reading them.  When I see parents actively, and too often successfully, getting books that were childhood favorites removed from schools and libraries I want to cry.  As an adult I have collected many of those wonderful books and have gifted them to new babies.  I stopped collecting several years ago because I found too many children's books dull, obviously trying to impose a message rather than telling a good story.  When books like Charlottes Web, The Giving Tree, and Where the Wild Things Are, are banned, no wonder children stop reading.  My advice to new parents is to find the Classic Books from generations ago and read them to your children.  They can still be found in used bookstores, and many are being published anew.

I know that teachers have their hands full, doing their best.  Perhaps we have lost focus on the basics, in order to crowd in the overwhelming requirements now demanded.  Perhaps by wanting to give our children the best, we have lost track of giving them the more important things that we have left behind.         

 

 

Whose Responsibility is it?

In 1997, Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gengrich, gave his advice to the newly elected members: "If you want to be a player, ''you've got to vote with the Party."  He was not the first to say that, and he will not be the last.

 Unfortunately, that is exactly what George Washington feared.  He warned that political parties could destroy the young republic, if  instead of citizens working together for the public good, parties would divide them, creating chaos and anomality among the people.  Going in that direction, the nation would be weakened, and those seeking power could use their weakness to assume power.  Washington warned: beware Cunning, ambitions, unprincipled old men.  My only correction of his quote is that those he feared do not have to be old nor men!

Does that mean that our population has outgrown the ability to function?  We rarely know those running for election personally.  What candidates say on television has probably been drafted by professionals.  Are we left with nothing better than voting by party rather than the individuals.

Last night I visited with a candidate running for office.  He is obviously a well-trained speaker, and that was impressive, but I was more impressed when he said that he would not always vote as the party wished.  I have blogged before about research determining large amounts of outright lying by those running for and in office. Last night the candidate did not sound like a liar.   

I have had the privilege of speaking directly with an important person in a high office, and I am confident that he sometimes has voted against his principles.  Is it impossible to remain in office ethically? If so, Washington's fear has come true.

However, the truth is that we need political parties. Voters are not in a position to personally know the experience and ethics of every person on the ballot.  Then how can we stop the power of well-funded, political parties taking over?  Third parties have not fared well, but maybe the time has been reached that voters are becoming discussed with the 2-party system.  More importantly, we voters need to do our homework.  We need to show up at rallies not to just cheer for the well-coached candidates but rather to come equipped with well-prepared questions, and if the candidates ignore our questions, or give non-answer-answers, press them for a real answer or look elsewhere to find candidates willing to answer questions.  

Our Constitution is truly under threat.  We have a responsibility to show our children how it is supposed to work, not only just with candidates but also with those in office.  Let them know that their responsibility is to the constitution more than to any person or political party.     

     

 

Thinking of Others

Two years before the Vaccine.

 In a 1955 interview, Dr Jonas Salk was asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine.  It was the same day his polio vaccine was officially declared safe and effective.   He replied, "Well, the people, I would say.  There is no patent.  Could you patent the sun?"  Six pharmaceutical companies began producing his IPV, (Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) but Salk did not profit.  His goal was the elimination of polio, and that required availability universally at low cost or no cost.  

The example he set for the world must be remembered by all of us, that when we make a decision about our own health, we are impacting others.   You might ask, what business is it of theirs?  This blog shares answers to that question. 

Our American approach to freedom of choice for ourselves is something we value.  Yet, decisions about how we feel and act about our own health with regard to contagious diseases can never honestly be no one else's business.  Remember back to school, lining up in a row to pass by for shots?  I still have a faint reminder on my shoulder from one of those shots.  

In an interview of Robert H. Hopkins, Jr, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases he said, "One of the most important steps families can take before the new school year is making sure children--and the entire family--are up to date on back-to-school vaccines.  Vaccines help protect students from illness that spread easily in the classroom."

Times have changed since I was in school!  As Americans, we have always valued our rights, but it seems that more recently we guard our rights with greater indifference to the impact on others.  Of course, there are people with medical reasons that prohibit fascinations.  They must rely on community immunity to protect them from the spread of disease.  However, if too many choose not to be vaccinated, the community immunity weakens or fails. 

You might be surprised to learn that Public Health Priorities were first argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1905.  The Court ruled the defendant's argument that he had the right to care for his own body did not supersede the protection of public health.  People of faith sometimes objected to health requirements, and in some states, accommodations have resulted in significant numbers of sick unvaccinated school children.  The beliefs of those parents are real, but their decisions can have a greater impact than just on their own children.

Several years ago, a British physician named Andrew Wakefield suggested that single vaccinations were better than combining them.  His insistence brought him nothing but trouble.  

The combined vaccinations have been common in America.  While single vaccinations may be somewhat better, the combined vaccinations also have their advantages.  It reduces the number sticks during a single visit to the doctor.  It reduces the number of health care appointments needed to keep children fully protected.  Also, in families where both are working, one trip to the clinic is appreciated.  

Another important consideration is that the saying "one and done" applies.  Three appointments in a busy family are less likely to be accomplished in a timely way, if at all, than one vaccination.   

                           Happy back to school and be careful to watch for the street crossings!

 

 

 Several years ago, my husband and I attended a party.  The hosts collect art, primarily paintings, but we noticed a small figure of a woman.  Because a three-dimensional form was unusual in their collections, we inquired about it.  We learned that it was a model of a friend.  That was my introduction to the capability of producing three-dimensional forms. Today, there are many uses for 3-D modeling.

Recently, however, what just appeared in the news was a use that went beyond other common uses.  The capability of creating fake nude images without the consent of the person whose head is being used to create the fake full body nudity was the issue.  

The immorality of such use seems obvious to me.  However, Elon Musk was taken to court to determine his right to do just that.  The claim of Musk that he had the right to use the woman's head without her permission for his false depiction on the grounds of Freedom of Speech was denied by the Court.    

I could not help but remember that not long ago, Elon Musk was given access to all sorts of private information. As technology makes available so many things that not long ago we could never imagine, we must face those unimagined things.  We have rushed past so many things that can be done without slowing down to consider what should or should not be done.   

Musk's inappropriateness seems obvious.  The First Amendment guaranties all Americans the right of privacy.  The Minnesota judge may have been the first to ban what Musk did, reinforcing the severity of Musk's abuse with a fine of $500,000 per violation.  I am sure that the richest man in the world can afford to pay the fine.  However, he may also have enough money to challenge the ruling.

Other cases involving free speech verses the right of privacy may be on their way.  The clashes of those two rights are not uncommon.  In general, free speech will take priority over privacy claims, particularly when thoughtful information is shared in public view or the issue of political interest is involved.  However, using an image of a person's head fixed to the body of another person went too far.  If this case goes to higher courts, I hope privacy prevails.  As unbelievable things now are becoming possible, our responsibilities as humans become more important and more challenging.