Today I'd like to expand on something I started to talk about in the last post. I started talking about how education has to be specific to the child. This leads to a complete change in thinking about how schools work. I'll give you an example:
In schools currently most classes depend on grades. Grading on a curve is a very well known idea. Well, as Stephen Covey points out in his book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, grading on a curve "basically says that you got an 'A' because someone else got a 'C.'" He goes on to say that in this system, "No recognition is given to intrinsic value; everyone is extrinsically defined." (that's all from page 219 of this edition).
My point here is simple: if we want to change the way we think of education, we have to start with the very core ideas like grading.
Most of my experience is in mathematics, so for the remainder of this series I'm going to focus on that more than other topics simply because I have direct experience that I can reference. I've spent the last year as a tutor for various levels of students from third grade math to Trigonometry. The biggest thing that hits me is just how much is expected of students who may just be incapable of understanding these topics.
While I was tutoring a third grade student last year, I was impressed by the precursors to Algebra that were being introduced on his homework. I mean, the young man was bright, but he was eight, which just seems very young to be able to grasp such abstract concepts as Algebra. I've studied a bit about child development, and, while some children might be able to grasp abstract ideas like Algebra at the age of eight, for most kids that kind of abstraction isn't reachable until they're 10-13 years old.
Worse than that, the constant push to teach to standards and not to students gives me constant headaches. The third grader was learning multiplication, but his education on addition and subtraction was so glossed over that I couldn't teach him anything other than rote memorization of times tables without first going back and teaching him how to actually add and subtract. I deal with students in Geometry and Algebra I and II that still don't understand basic integers. I spend more time explaining to these students how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide when dealing with negative numbers than I spend on the more complex ideas of Algebra and Geometry. They were never expected to actually learn these concepts. Their teachers presented the concepts, the students were tested, then the class moved on and nothing was ever actually learned.
I spent time with one girl was used to getting A's and B's in all of her classes until she reached Geometry. Once she got into Geometry, though, she was outside of most of the standardized testing requirements, so her teacher was able to develop an independent curriculum. She needed help because she was failing, but most of her struggles were not with the actually difficult ideas being presented in the class. Her struggles were much deeper: she couldn't even work with integers, let alone some of the more difficult Algebraic concepts necessary to fully understand the Geometric manipulations she was learning about. She understood visually what was going on, but she couldn't translate that understanding into mathematic statements due to her lack of learning up to that point. This reinforces a few things I discussed above.
First, her grading was not based on any concept of actual learning. She received A's and B's because the other students in the class were either the same or worse than her in terms of being able to put on paper what a teacher wants to see on a test. The testing never actually examined her honest understanding of any concept, and since the concepts were all mandatory from a curriculum standpoint, they were never reviewed. Each concept had to be covered by a certain time, then the class was forced to move on as more and more had to be covered for the students to be able to take the state mandated examinations. She was, up until that point, used to competing with other students and being able to keep pace with her class.
Once she moved outside of that normal class distribution, though, and started dealing with students of varying ages, she was no longer able to compete, and her grades suffered accordingly. Had she been able to honestly learn the necessary topics, however, she would have easily been able to move through the Geometry course. I see this with almost every student I've worked with over the last year.
Again, I'm not finished with this topic, but this seems like a good place to stop before I get into the argument that mandatory testing is bad for students, which has been thoroughly covered elsewhere (here, here, and here for a few examples).
Monday, April 11, 2016
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Education - Part 1
This is the topic I've been wanting to cover basically since I started this blog. Heck, this topic might be the reason I started this blog. I've been scared to, though, because it's such a huge topic and I just didn't know where to start or how to fit it all in.
I've decided I can't fit it all into a single post, so I'm going to make a series of posts about it.
I began my journey as a child in the public education system, so I suppose that's as good a place as any to get started. From a young age, I was always aware that I was generally ahead of my peers at school, especially in math. My parents recognized this and fostered my learning. My teachers recognized this, with mixed reactions. Some of my teachers, like my third grade teacher, allowed me extra activities when I finished my work much sooner than other students. My fourth grade teacher allowed me to help other students in the class understand their classwork if I understood the topic already.
This wasn't always the case, though. Some of my teachers actively held me back because I didn't fit into their curriculum. I struggled with other teachers because I would ask difficult questions that they either couldn't answer, or, more likely, didn't want to spend the time answering in class. For example, in Trigonometry I was a lot more interested in the derivations of the trigonometric identities than their uses, but my teacher was not interested in deriving them in class.
I spent a few years in middle school in my school's gifted program. Unfortunately, the program did not allow me to take advanced courses or test out of courses. Instead, it was a program that took me out of homeroom with my peers and put me into a classroom with other gifted students to play academic games. It was a good experience because it allowed me to befriend other students who were struggling to stay involved in the regular classroom, but it didn't allow us to get ahead in any way. We stayed in the program our first year of high school, but then the teacher in charge of the program was given other responsibilities and the program ended. At least in high school we were doing interesting things working with the LEGO robotics program instead of just playing academic games.
So, how is this relevant? Well, my experiences are fairly normal for any students outside the norm in public schools. Generally, students can find a few good teachers that really push them to succeed, but otherwise they're outsiders in the classroom. The teachers either can't teach to them or won't because they're either too far ahead or behind the rest of the class. Because the teachers leave them on the outside of their lesson plans, the other students pick up on the fact that this student is excluded and they push to exclude them as well. This leads to bullying, and many teachers either cannot or will not do anything about bullying, which leads to de facto teacher sponsored bullying.
What's my solution? Actually, it's quite simple. There's a paradigm in public education that students of the same age should be in the same classes together. Therein lies the problem. It's widely acknowledged that all children develop at different rates in different areas. If we allow children to develop at their own rates, study the areas that matter to them. If students struggle with math, allow them to spend more time in the lower maths until the understand them better before moving on. If they flourish in math, allow them to push through until them come to topics that are outside of their understanding. If students are attracted to reading/writing, allow them opportunities to read and learn creative writing techniques. Etc, etc. Right now the system crams all kids into the same classroom, and some kids are capable of doing much more than others, while some are capable of much less. Some of this is area specific, some is just developmentally specific.
The point is, there's absolutely no reason to expect that every 6 year old can expect to learn exactly the same things at exactly the same pace. The issue is that child specific learning is a complete shift from our current system, and change is something that comes incredibly slowly in this highly bureaucratic education system.
There is more I want to address on this topic, but I think this is enough for today. I'll come back to it again later to continue my train of thought.
I've decided I can't fit it all into a single post, so I'm going to make a series of posts about it.
I began my journey as a child in the public education system, so I suppose that's as good a place as any to get started. From a young age, I was always aware that I was generally ahead of my peers at school, especially in math. My parents recognized this and fostered my learning. My teachers recognized this, with mixed reactions. Some of my teachers, like my third grade teacher, allowed me extra activities when I finished my work much sooner than other students. My fourth grade teacher allowed me to help other students in the class understand their classwork if I understood the topic already.
This wasn't always the case, though. Some of my teachers actively held me back because I didn't fit into their curriculum. I struggled with other teachers because I would ask difficult questions that they either couldn't answer, or, more likely, didn't want to spend the time answering in class. For example, in Trigonometry I was a lot more interested in the derivations of the trigonometric identities than their uses, but my teacher was not interested in deriving them in class.
I spent a few years in middle school in my school's gifted program. Unfortunately, the program did not allow me to take advanced courses or test out of courses. Instead, it was a program that took me out of homeroom with my peers and put me into a classroom with other gifted students to play academic games. It was a good experience because it allowed me to befriend other students who were struggling to stay involved in the regular classroom, but it didn't allow us to get ahead in any way. We stayed in the program our first year of high school, but then the teacher in charge of the program was given other responsibilities and the program ended. At least in high school we were doing interesting things working with the LEGO robotics program instead of just playing academic games.
So, how is this relevant? Well, my experiences are fairly normal for any students outside the norm in public schools. Generally, students can find a few good teachers that really push them to succeed, but otherwise they're outsiders in the classroom. The teachers either can't teach to them or won't because they're either too far ahead or behind the rest of the class. Because the teachers leave them on the outside of their lesson plans, the other students pick up on the fact that this student is excluded and they push to exclude them as well. This leads to bullying, and many teachers either cannot or will not do anything about bullying, which leads to de facto teacher sponsored bullying.
What's my solution? Actually, it's quite simple. There's a paradigm in public education that students of the same age should be in the same classes together. Therein lies the problem. It's widely acknowledged that all children develop at different rates in different areas. If we allow children to develop at their own rates, study the areas that matter to them. If students struggle with math, allow them to spend more time in the lower maths until the understand them better before moving on. If they flourish in math, allow them to push through until them come to topics that are outside of their understanding. If students are attracted to reading/writing, allow them opportunities to read and learn creative writing techniques. Etc, etc. Right now the system crams all kids into the same classroom, and some kids are capable of doing much more than others, while some are capable of much less. Some of this is area specific, some is just developmentally specific.
The point is, there's absolutely no reason to expect that every 6 year old can expect to learn exactly the same things at exactly the same pace. The issue is that child specific learning is a complete shift from our current system, and change is something that comes incredibly slowly in this highly bureaucratic education system.
There is more I want to address on this topic, but I think this is enough for today. I'll come back to it again later to continue my train of thought.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
3/5/16 - Getting Away with Murder
Lately, when I have free time, I've been attempting to watch the Documentary, Making a Murderer. It's been a difficult ride for me.
Let's start at the beginning: I haven't had much free time lately. Now that I am back around my friends and family, I find that I've had many things to do on a regular basis, and I've put a lot of things to the side that I was able to focus on when I didn't have as many people to share my time with. Obviously blogging was one of those things. The other has been television. I've spent very little time watching television in the last month, and I'm fairly OK with that. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I really do want to at some point finish this documentary, I wouldn't care at all about watching television.
That's the first reason I've been struggling with the program. Ten hours is a rather large commitment of time. The second reason is not much better: this is just a difficult thing to watch. I have many other things going on in my life recently and I have found it difficult to give my attention to a single thing, like an episode of this documentary series, for a full hour at a time. Make no mistake, this is the kind of show that requires one's full attention. I can't play on my phone, or check social media, or chat with someone, etc, and expect to catch all of the things going on in this program. That kind of attention span is difficult for me to begin with, and it's only been made worse by how many other things I have to think of lately.
Those two things aside, though, the biggest reason for my struggle with this show is just how utterly revolting the entire thing is. I haven't reached the end of the series yet (I think I finished episode 7 two nights ago), but I have seen enough of the shady, and often downright criminal activities of the police, prosecutor, and judge that I'm disgusted to my core. By the end of each episode I find myself needing to turn it off just because of how angry I am.
Now, as I said, I haven't finished the series yet, nor have I done any research on the subject outside of the documentary, which has an obvious skew towards Avery's innocence. However, what I have seen is enough to make me mistrust the entire criminal justice system. Let's start with the obvious things: Steven Avery was the only person ever investigated as a potential suspect. In fact, a quick search brings up an article showing that less than 3 hours after Teresa Halbach was reported missing, Avery was accused of murdering her. However, just watching the trial unfold and listening to the questions point to the fact that no other person was ever investigated. If Avery was not the murderer, than whoever was got away with it because the police had a vendetta against Avery and they focused 100% of their attention on him.
More disturbing, though, is the complete garbage testimony of Brendan Dassey. This poor young man was removed from class and questioned by police without a lawyer or parent present. In fact, his mother claims she was denied entrance to the questioning when it took place. Let me start by saying that I find it absolutely appalling that it is completely legal in our country to question a minor without a parent present and expect that they can understand and react appropriately. It was incredibly obvious in this video that Brendan did not know what was going on; he thought at the end of the interrogation that he was going to be able to return to class. I also believe that police holding anyone for an extended period of time for interrogation without a warrant should not be legal. Dassey was being questioned for 4 hours. That's 4 hours, stuck in a small room with two police officers, likely little to no food or water, and nothing to do but be constantly badgered by police. What if Dassey had understood his right to silence and chosen not to speak to the police? How long would they have held him, waiting for him to crack? It's disgusting.
The way they chew up this young man who is obviously not capable of understanding the situation he is in is despicable. Then his testimony is used to smear Steven Avery on public radio and television with a horrific tale that no other evidence supports in any way. Neither Avery nor Dassey were ever considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. From the start they were treated as criminals, and the entire apparatus of the criminal justice system was going out of its way to smear them and make sure they ended up in prison. For me, I don't know or really care if either Dassey or Avery is innocent or guilty. What I care about is how criminal the entire system has shown itself to be. Every person involved in this case broke their own rules, their own laws, and nothing will come of it. Avery and Dassey have had their rights taken from them because the system wanted to take them away. No one else was even considered, and the investigation was obviously biased, yet two men sit in jail after being denied the rights that should be due to them as human beings.
This is the kind of governmental overreach that I find outrageous. I can't handle seeing people being violated in such a way with no consequences to those committing the real crimes. Think of this: if Avery is in fact innocent (and it's very possible he is), his life was taken away from him because the police, prosecutor, and judge wanted to.
Who's the real murderer?
Let's start at the beginning: I haven't had much free time lately. Now that I am back around my friends and family, I find that I've had many things to do on a regular basis, and I've put a lot of things to the side that I was able to focus on when I didn't have as many people to share my time with. Obviously blogging was one of those things. The other has been television. I've spent very little time watching television in the last month, and I'm fairly OK with that. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I really do want to at some point finish this documentary, I wouldn't care at all about watching television.
That's the first reason I've been struggling with the program. Ten hours is a rather large commitment of time. The second reason is not much better: this is just a difficult thing to watch. I have many other things going on in my life recently and I have found it difficult to give my attention to a single thing, like an episode of this documentary series, for a full hour at a time. Make no mistake, this is the kind of show that requires one's full attention. I can't play on my phone, or check social media, or chat with someone, etc, and expect to catch all of the things going on in this program. That kind of attention span is difficult for me to begin with, and it's only been made worse by how many other things I have to think of lately.
Those two things aside, though, the biggest reason for my struggle with this show is just how utterly revolting the entire thing is. I haven't reached the end of the series yet (I think I finished episode 7 two nights ago), but I have seen enough of the shady, and often downright criminal activities of the police, prosecutor, and judge that I'm disgusted to my core. By the end of each episode I find myself needing to turn it off just because of how angry I am.
Now, as I said, I haven't finished the series yet, nor have I done any research on the subject outside of the documentary, which has an obvious skew towards Avery's innocence. However, what I have seen is enough to make me mistrust the entire criminal justice system. Let's start with the obvious things: Steven Avery was the only person ever investigated as a potential suspect. In fact, a quick search brings up an article showing that less than 3 hours after Teresa Halbach was reported missing, Avery was accused of murdering her. However, just watching the trial unfold and listening to the questions point to the fact that no other person was ever investigated. If Avery was not the murderer, than whoever was got away with it because the police had a vendetta against Avery and they focused 100% of their attention on him.
More disturbing, though, is the complete garbage testimony of Brendan Dassey. This poor young man was removed from class and questioned by police without a lawyer or parent present. In fact, his mother claims she was denied entrance to the questioning when it took place. Let me start by saying that I find it absolutely appalling that it is completely legal in our country to question a minor without a parent present and expect that they can understand and react appropriately. It was incredibly obvious in this video that Brendan did not know what was going on; he thought at the end of the interrogation that he was going to be able to return to class. I also believe that police holding anyone for an extended period of time for interrogation without a warrant should not be legal. Dassey was being questioned for 4 hours. That's 4 hours, stuck in a small room with two police officers, likely little to no food or water, and nothing to do but be constantly badgered by police. What if Dassey had understood his right to silence and chosen not to speak to the police? How long would they have held him, waiting for him to crack? It's disgusting.
The way they chew up this young man who is obviously not capable of understanding the situation he is in is despicable. Then his testimony is used to smear Steven Avery on public radio and television with a horrific tale that no other evidence supports in any way. Neither Avery nor Dassey were ever considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. From the start they were treated as criminals, and the entire apparatus of the criminal justice system was going out of its way to smear them and make sure they ended up in prison. For me, I don't know or really care if either Dassey or Avery is innocent or guilty. What I care about is how criminal the entire system has shown itself to be. Every person involved in this case broke their own rules, their own laws, and nothing will come of it. Avery and Dassey have had their rights taken from them because the system wanted to take them away. No one else was even considered, and the investigation was obviously biased, yet two men sit in jail after being denied the rights that should be due to them as human beings.
This is the kind of governmental overreach that I find outrageous. I can't handle seeing people being violated in such a way with no consequences to those committing the real crimes. Think of this: if Avery is in fact innocent (and it's very possible he is), his life was taken away from him because the police, prosecutor, and judge wanted to.
Who's the real murderer?
Thursday, February 4, 2016
2/4/16 - Change of Pace
I know I generally take a more political slant on this blog, but I'd like to change pace a bit for the time being. I'm having a really difficult time trying to keep up with the day-to-day minutia of the current political climate, and it's really been wearing me down. On my recent trip across the country, which I discussed on my personal blog, I made the conscious decision to avoid all political podcasts and talk, and turned instead to expanding my mind through NPR's TED Radio Hour Podcast.
Last week I listened to two very interesting episodes about Why We Work and What Makes Us Happy. The two were more intertwined than one might initially believe. To begin with, it turns out we work because we need to find meaning in life. Finding meaning in life is also something that makes us happy. We want to be appreciated, which also makes us happy. Essentially, the idea of a work/family split doesn't exactly match the human experience.
I like these new ideas and I've been looking into ways to put some of them to work for me and the company I work for. In my day-to-day life I look for ways to go out of my way to put effort into my routines. Things that I have always done relatively mindlessly or without really caring about the outcomes are things that I've been allowing my mind to wander during. Well, as it turns out, allowing one's mind to wander contributes to unhappiness. Just spending my time paying attention to what I'm doing has been incredibly life changing.
Beyond that, it's contributed to helping me feel better about my work. Because I'm paying more attention to what I'm doing, I feel more confident in my work. I feel like I've accomplished more, and I see the effect my work is having. Suddenly things that I've done for years without caring about or thinking about are important to achieving goals for myself and my company.
Another episode that really challenged my thinking was actually a two-part episode about how technology is changing our lives. Listening to those two episodes made me re-evaluate the way that I've been interacting with screens for a long time. For example, I never realized until recently how much attention I give to screens. When I walk into a room, I find the screens, even if they're not pertinent to me. I watch any screen with a picture on it, even if I'd rather be having a conversation with a person right in front of me. I also have begun to notice just how much time other people spend paying attention to screens. I spent a day at the mall without my phone, and I was completely taken aback by how many people were on their phones. People would walk with phones in their hands. Kiosk personnel were scrolling through their devices while waiting for customers. I was so taken aback by one of the sales people making eye contact with me that I actually allowed her to make her whole pitch to me; usually I would have just brushed that off.
I think that, perhaps, our screens are helping to contribute to our wandering minds. When we are eating, we are on our phone or computer or watching TV. When we're watching TV, we have a phone in our hands. Just about every aspect of our lives has had a screen injected in it recently. Even right now while I'm writing this, I am listening to a TV that is on right behind me. I am consciously trying to ignore it, but it is stealing some of my attention even now. My phone is sitting on the table next to me, and a single notification would take me away from writing this post. I have got to learn to be less focused on my screens.
To that end, I am looking for a some time to go off the grid for a bit a few times this year. I am planning a few hikes where my phone would only be in my bag for emergency usage. I am looking at spending a few days away in a cabin without any screens at all. I think that it will help me live more in the moment, pay more attention to my work, and generally break my dependence on screens. All of these should make me a happier person.
Last week I listened to two very interesting episodes about Why We Work and What Makes Us Happy. The two were more intertwined than one might initially believe. To begin with, it turns out we work because we need to find meaning in life. Finding meaning in life is also something that makes us happy. We want to be appreciated, which also makes us happy. Essentially, the idea of a work/family split doesn't exactly match the human experience.
I like these new ideas and I've been looking into ways to put some of them to work for me and the company I work for. In my day-to-day life I look for ways to go out of my way to put effort into my routines. Things that I have always done relatively mindlessly or without really caring about the outcomes are things that I've been allowing my mind to wander during. Well, as it turns out, allowing one's mind to wander contributes to unhappiness. Just spending my time paying attention to what I'm doing has been incredibly life changing.
Beyond that, it's contributed to helping me feel better about my work. Because I'm paying more attention to what I'm doing, I feel more confident in my work. I feel like I've accomplished more, and I see the effect my work is having. Suddenly things that I've done for years without caring about or thinking about are important to achieving goals for myself and my company.
Another episode that really challenged my thinking was actually a two-part episode about how technology is changing our lives. Listening to those two episodes made me re-evaluate the way that I've been interacting with screens for a long time. For example, I never realized until recently how much attention I give to screens. When I walk into a room, I find the screens, even if they're not pertinent to me. I watch any screen with a picture on it, even if I'd rather be having a conversation with a person right in front of me. I also have begun to notice just how much time other people spend paying attention to screens. I spent a day at the mall without my phone, and I was completely taken aback by how many people were on their phones. People would walk with phones in their hands. Kiosk personnel were scrolling through their devices while waiting for customers. I was so taken aback by one of the sales people making eye contact with me that I actually allowed her to make her whole pitch to me; usually I would have just brushed that off.
I think that, perhaps, our screens are helping to contribute to our wandering minds. When we are eating, we are on our phone or computer or watching TV. When we're watching TV, we have a phone in our hands. Just about every aspect of our lives has had a screen injected in it recently. Even right now while I'm writing this, I am listening to a TV that is on right behind me. I am consciously trying to ignore it, but it is stealing some of my attention even now. My phone is sitting on the table next to me, and a single notification would take me away from writing this post. I have got to learn to be less focused on my screens.
To that end, I am looking for a some time to go off the grid for a bit a few times this year. I am planning a few hikes where my phone would only be in my bag for emergency usage. I am looking at spending a few days away in a cabin without any screens at all. I think that it will help me live more in the moment, pay more attention to my work, and generally break my dependence on screens. All of these should make me a happier person.
Friday, January 8, 2016
1/8/16 - Arguing with My Wife Over Oregon
First, I must apologize for my lack of posting. I am currently undergoing a cross-country move for my company and my life has been a little busier than usual lately.
I needed to go ahead and write this weekend, though, because of what happened this week. I heard about the Oregon Militia Standoff last weekend on Twitter, but didn't really think much of it until I listened to Jason Stapleton's podcast Monday about it.
I listened to the podcast Monday on my way home from work. When I got home, I asked my wife if she had heard about it, and she said she had seen it on Facebook but didn't really look that deep into it, so we talked about what I had heard on the podcast and did a little research to look into a few things I was still confused on. This is where the difference of opinions came in, and I must say, this time I was surprised.
My wife, whom, as you might remember, thinks that people who do drugs should go to jail "because they know they're doing something illegal," took the stance that what the militia members are doing in Oregon is good. I was completely thrown off guard, as I am more under the impression that this isn't the correct way to go about protesting anything the government has done to this point.
What surprised me most, however, was exactly how my wife came to this conclusion. She was likely on my side to begin with, but when she heard about the two ranchers who were put in jail for terrorism, her opinion swung wildly to, "well then good for the Bundy's; they're doing the right thing." How she said it, though, it came off more like, "Yeah! F*ck the government!" We even talked about how this might come to head and become an honest armed rebellion, to which she said, "Well, maybe that's what needs to happen." My jaw dropped.
Let me go back a bit and explain my point of view. I think that what the government did to the Hammond's is completely egregious and well oversteps it's bounds. I completely agree that something should be done to protest this and many other pretty awful things that the BLM does. I also agree with the militia group that there should be no land owned by the federal government. However, given all this, I do not believe that the overtaking of a federal building, even an empty one on ostensibly stolen land, is the right way to go about protesting. I mean, there is a part of me deep down that agrees with my wife's, "You go guys;" however, when I think about it logically, I can't find a rational reasoning for an armed theft of a building, even one built on stolen property by a more than intrusive government.
So, the fact is, I was completely thrown aback when my wife was all down for this. In fact, when the talk came to a potential armed rebellion, and possibly even true civil war, my wife said, "Well, wouldn't you take up arms and fight back against this horrible government?" I didn't know how to respond to that. I mean, I guess if it honestly came to that, I probably would, but the idea of living through a civil war in this day and age terrifies me.
I'd like to talk more on this topic, but I need to do a bit more research. Besides that first episode of Jason Stapleton's podcast and one other, I've done very little to look into this entire situation. I'm still under the impression that a bunch of outsiders coming to this area and potentially putting themselves and all the people who live there at risk of a federal response is a bad idea, but, as I said, deep down I'm hoping somehow I'll be convinced that their cause is a good one.
To that end, if anyone has any worthwhile podcasts or articles I could check out to help me form a more complete opinion, I would certainly appreciate it if you passed them along to me.
It may be another few weeks before I can post again as my actual relocation is taking place this coming week, but as soon as I am able I have resolved to be more consistent this year.
I needed to go ahead and write this weekend, though, because of what happened this week. I heard about the Oregon Militia Standoff last weekend on Twitter, but didn't really think much of it until I listened to Jason Stapleton's podcast Monday about it.
I listened to the podcast Monday on my way home from work. When I got home, I asked my wife if she had heard about it, and she said she had seen it on Facebook but didn't really look that deep into it, so we talked about what I had heard on the podcast and did a little research to look into a few things I was still confused on. This is where the difference of opinions came in, and I must say, this time I was surprised.
My wife, whom, as you might remember, thinks that people who do drugs should go to jail "because they know they're doing something illegal," took the stance that what the militia members are doing in Oregon is good. I was completely thrown off guard, as I am more under the impression that this isn't the correct way to go about protesting anything the government has done to this point.
What surprised me most, however, was exactly how my wife came to this conclusion. She was likely on my side to begin with, but when she heard about the two ranchers who were put in jail for terrorism, her opinion swung wildly to, "well then good for the Bundy's; they're doing the right thing." How she said it, though, it came off more like, "Yeah! F*ck the government!" We even talked about how this might come to head and become an honest armed rebellion, to which she said, "Well, maybe that's what needs to happen." My jaw dropped.
Let me go back a bit and explain my point of view. I think that what the government did to the Hammond's is completely egregious and well oversteps it's bounds. I completely agree that something should be done to protest this and many other pretty awful things that the BLM does. I also agree with the militia group that there should be no land owned by the federal government. However, given all this, I do not believe that the overtaking of a federal building, even an empty one on ostensibly stolen land, is the right way to go about protesting. I mean, there is a part of me deep down that agrees with my wife's, "You go guys;" however, when I think about it logically, I can't find a rational reasoning for an armed theft of a building, even one built on stolen property by a more than intrusive government.
So, the fact is, I was completely thrown aback when my wife was all down for this. In fact, when the talk came to a potential armed rebellion, and possibly even true civil war, my wife said, "Well, wouldn't you take up arms and fight back against this horrible government?" I didn't know how to respond to that. I mean, I guess if it honestly came to that, I probably would, but the idea of living through a civil war in this day and age terrifies me.
I'd like to talk more on this topic, but I need to do a bit more research. Besides that first episode of Jason Stapleton's podcast and one other, I've done very little to look into this entire situation. I'm still under the impression that a bunch of outsiders coming to this area and potentially putting themselves and all the people who live there at risk of a federal response is a bad idea, but, as I said, deep down I'm hoping somehow I'll be convinced that their cause is a good one.
To that end, if anyone has any worthwhile podcasts or articles I could check out to help me form a more complete opinion, I would certainly appreciate it if you passed them along to me.
It may be another few weeks before I can post again as my actual relocation is taking place this coming week, but as soon as I am able I have resolved to be more consistent this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)