Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Nobel Prize
10-09-09
Which do we suppose was more inevitable? That the President would win the Nobel Peace Prize, or that I would comment on it? (Actually, I don’t think there are levels of inevitability—a thing either is or isn’t.) The Nobel committee is an autonomous organization and is free to choose anyone they want for any prize they want to award. As unbelievable as it is, they do not consult with me on these matters. Obama is the third President to be so honored, but the others had managed to do something first. Even the President’s supporters are stumped as to the choice, stumbling over themselves to let us know that it is the great hope and promise for a better, more peaceful world for which the President was selected. Jimmy Carter, another winner, came out first thing this morning to assure us all that it is the hope Obama engenders that makes him such a good candidate. Lech Walesa, another winner (for being instrumental in freeing Poland and the Eastern Bloc—an actual achievement) made a statement this morning saying that the prize for Obama was premature.
It would be possible, without a great deal of effort, to be critical of this choice. I would never do such a thing, but others are piling it on with gusto. But if I had known that all you had to do was talk about doing great things, make promises about doing great things, I would have been vying for the Prize years ago. Watch: “I hereby promise to do everything in my power and spend every waking minute (unless I’m playing basketball or vacationing or pitching Chicago for the Olympics or campaigning for re-election, etc.,) to make the world a better, more peaceful place . . . oh, and do away with all nuclear weapons.” There, now can I have my $250,000? C’mon, I promised! What more do you want?
This sounds a lot like some of my students who want to know why they are failing.
“Because you have an F on all your assignments,” I tell them.
“But I did them all! I should be passing!” Or; “because you haven’t done any assignments.” “but I come to class every day!”
This is the new idea of awarding potential rather than actual work in order to protect the sacrosanct concept of “self-esteem”. I guess Norway has jumped onboard.
Remember the good old days when merit was based on achievement? Boy, I miss all that.
If the Nobel Committee wanted to award a Peace Prize to someone, they should pick a person with a lifetime of commitment, effort, success, and achievement. I nominate Joan Baez. She has been consistently speaking out for peace and non-violence for fifty years, giving hundred of concerts as fund raisers, visiting the oppressed—sometimes at great personal risk—and enduring the ire of her fellow activists when she goes off-reservation in order to remain consistent with her principles. She is far more eligible than the President.
Obama has been President for nine months. So far he has managed to build an international cult of personality, and spend a gazillion virtual dollars. He talks a good game. And he has made a lot of grandiose promises about hope and change. But so far, he hasn’t actually accomplished anything noteworthy. (Unless you count that cool photo op with Air Force One over New York City or losing the bid for the Olympics.) I hope he accomplishes great things for this country, I really do. But I agree with Lech; this award is premature.
BTW---The deadline for nominations was last February, which means Obama had been President for less than a month when he was nominated. Go figure.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
IGM: Brilliant Idea
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Brilliant Plan
10-09-09
I was having a conversation with a colleague (who will remain nameless in order to avoid prosecution) the other day. She (or he!) mentioned something a friend’s teacher-father told her/him years ago. The teacher thought if all the teachers at a school could choose five students and “take them out” at the beginning of the year, he thought he might be able to endure an entire career of facing adolescents.
Hmmmmmm . . . I think there might be some merit to this tongue-in-cheek fantasy. Let us reason together:
Let’s say we waited until the official count in September and then had a day during which every teacher could submit five names of problem children to be removed. Three weeks would be plenty of time to ascertain existing and potential problems. We could all have a two or three-tiered list of five kids each. If two or more teachers submitted the same name, that kid would be snatched and we would be allowed to submit another student from the next tier. Say we had 80 teachers. That would be 400 students; ostensibly the worst discipline problems in the building. Class sizes would be reduced and leveling would be simpler. Time and money spent on discipline and all its attendant challenges would plummet. The consumption of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs would be drastically reduced, turn over would go down . . . there’s no down-side! Think of the money we’d save.
I suppose we don’t have to actually shoot them. We could expel them for the year and let them try again next year. Oh, and this might be effective; anyone sent home during the “Teacher day of Deliverance” would be expected to pay tuition from then on, having abrogated their right to a free education due to inappropriate and unacceptable behavioral issues. Whatever the Community College is charging should suffice. Now, all you teachers out there sit back and relax, close your eyes for a moment and think about that handful of students who are causing you such pain and misery. Imagine them gone, the class quiet and reasonably well behaved, learning taking place. Would not, in this one case, the end justify the means?
Okay, open your eyes again. Welcome back to reality.
This message was brought to you by Prozac—the “teachers choice.”
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Brilliant Plan
10-09-09
I was having a conversation with a colleague (who will remain nameless in order to avoid prosecution) the other day. She (or he!) mentioned something a friend’s teacher-father told her/him years ago. The teacher thought if all the teachers at a school could choose five students and “take them out” at the beginning of the year, he thought he might be able to endure an entire career of facing adolescents.
Hmmmmmm . . . I think there might be some merit to this tongue-in-cheek fantasy. Let us reason together:
Let’s say we waited until the official count in September and then had a day during which every teacher could submit five names of problem children to be removed. Three weeks would be plenty of time to ascertain existing and potential problems. We could all have a two or three-tiered list of five kids each. If two or more teachers submitted the same name, that kid would be snatched and we would be allowed to submit another student from the next tier. Say we had 80 teachers. That would be 400 students; ostensibly the worst discipline problems in the building. Class sizes would be reduced and leveling would be simpler. Time and money spent on discipline and all its attendant challenges would plummet. The consumption of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs would be drastically reduced, turn over would go down . . . there’s no down-side! Think of the money we’d save.
I suppose we don’t have to actually shoot them. We could expel them for the year and let them try again next year. Oh, and this might be effective; anyone sent home during the “Teacher day of Deliverance” would be expected to pay tuition from then on, having abrogated their right to a free education due to inappropriate and unacceptable behavioral issues. Whatever the Community College is charging should suffice. Now, all you teachers out there sit back and relax, close your eyes for a moment and think about that handful of students who are causing you such pain and misery. Imagine them gone, the class quiet and reasonably well behaved, learning taking place. Would not, in this one case, the end justify the means?
Okay, open your eyes again. Welcome back to reality.
This message was brought to you by Prozac—the “teachers choice.”
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Igm Bid for the Olympics
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The bid for the Olympics
10-06-09
Well, President Obama did his best. He flew Air Force One (along with the two Air Force heavy-lifters, a dozen automobiles, a few helicopters and about a hundred people) over to Denmark in order to show the IOC how serious we all were about getting Chicago into the games. That’s what we all wanted, right? Actually, I didn’t even know Chicago was in the running so I may not have been as enthusiastic as the President might have hoped.
There has been some talk—criticism even, if you can believe it—about whether or not stumping for an Olympic bid is worthy of his time and attention. Nonsense. What else has he got to do? Health Care is tanking, he’s ignoring Afghanistan, and Michelle apparently has all the clothes and hamburgers she needs. So by all means, why not make a bid for a City—not the country mind you, just one of its cities.
But here’s the unbelievable part; he didn’t get it. The leader of the free world flies his (admittedly impressive) entourage all the way to Copenhagen, talks to hundreds of people, wines and dines them, explains why he should get things his way, and after all that, he loses.
Here’s what I think happened, and I assumed it would pan out this way the moment I heard what he was doing. The President goes out of his way to curry favor with the IOC, lending the prestige of his office and his personal cache to the effort. This had to be seen as a blatant attempt to pressure the committee into doing his bidding, and would inevitably become a pissing contest. The IOC had to save face, show the world in no uncertain terms that it was not the toady of the United States. The moment Obama paid any attention to the selection process, Chicago was doomed. It was the worst thing he could have done for the effort, and I’m surprised no one mentioned this at the time. It was poorly conceived and poorly executed. At this point a lesser person would make some kind of cheap shot about this kind of thing becoming a trend with this administration, but not me. It’s a tough job requiring high levels of skill, intelligence, wisdom and experience. I’m sure the President will develop these traits eventually.
Still, I can see how it would be tempting to go to bat for one’s home town, or even adopted hometown. There is a certain amount of pride involved, and I have to ask myself the question; if I were President would I do the same for Las Vegas, which is where I was born? And I have to be honest. The answer is no, absolutely not. Such a stunt would be unseemly and distracting, especially in the midst of war, severe economic challenges and domestic debates of national importance.
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The bid for the Olympics
10-06-09
Well, President Obama did his best. He flew Air Force One (along with the two Air Force heavy-lifters, a dozen automobiles, a few helicopters and about a hundred people) over to Denmark in order to show the IOC how serious we all were about getting Chicago into the games. That’s what we all wanted, right? Actually, I didn’t even know Chicago was in the running so I may not have been as enthusiastic as the President might have hoped.
There has been some talk—criticism even, if you can believe it—about whether or not stumping for an Olympic bid is worthy of his time and attention. Nonsense. What else has he got to do? Health Care is tanking, he’s ignoring Afghanistan, and Michelle apparently has all the clothes and hamburgers she needs. So by all means, why not make a bid for a City—not the country mind you, just one of its cities.
But here’s the unbelievable part; he didn’t get it. The leader of the free world flies his (admittedly impressive) entourage all the way to Copenhagen, talks to hundreds of people, wines and dines them, explains why he should get things his way, and after all that, he loses.
Here’s what I think happened, and I assumed it would pan out this way the moment I heard what he was doing. The President goes out of his way to curry favor with the IOC, lending the prestige of his office and his personal cache to the effort. This had to be seen as a blatant attempt to pressure the committee into doing his bidding, and would inevitably become a pissing contest. The IOC had to save face, show the world in no uncertain terms that it was not the toady of the United States. The moment Obama paid any attention to the selection process, Chicago was doomed. It was the worst thing he could have done for the effort, and I’m surprised no one mentioned this at the time. It was poorly conceived and poorly executed. At this point a lesser person would make some kind of cheap shot about this kind of thing becoming a trend with this administration, but not me. It’s a tough job requiring high levels of skill, intelligence, wisdom and experience. I’m sure the President will develop these traits eventually.
Still, I can see how it would be tempting to go to bat for one’s home town, or even adopted hometown. There is a certain amount of pride involved, and I have to ask myself the question; if I were President would I do the same for Las Vegas, which is where I was born? And I have to be honest. The answer is no, absolutely not. Such a stunt would be unseemly and distracting, especially in the midst of war, severe economic challenges and domestic debates of national importance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)