Credible Is Not Necessarily Truthful

 As you read the whistleblower complaint HERE  and listen to carefully selected soundbites from today’s Intelligence Committee hearing with the National Intelligence Director, it may be useful to keep some definitions in mind.

“Credible” means something able to be believed or capable of persuading people that something did or will happen.  It is synonymous with the word “believable” which means something that is able to be believed.

“Truthful” has a very different definition from “credible.”  It means something which expresses the truth.

When a person files a complaint against another alleging some sort of injury or damages (e.g. someone alleges an injury because the person against whom the complaint is filed ran a red light), that complaint when filed with the court will be viewed as credible.  Then, facts will be investigated and the “credible” complaint may or may not be proven to be truthful (e.g., maybe the facts will show that the light was in fact green, or that there was no light, or that the light was not working, or that the person filing the complaint had no injury). 

Generally, those facts that prove something initially seen as credible to be truthful or not will be based on people with actual knowledge of the event and other direct evidence, and not on third party information.

When the whistleblower complaint was filed about the President’s phone call with the Ukraine, the allegations were labeled credible.  That is, they were able to be believed but they were not at that time proven to be truthful.    The Democrats have latched onto that word “credible” and keep repeating it over and over hoping to somehow create the impression that “credible” means that it is truthful and factually supportable.  That is simply not the case.

When you read the whistleblower complaint it should immediately strike you that the whistleblower has no direct knowledge of that about which he is blowing the whistle. While what he alleges is “credible” – able of being believed, it has not been proven to be truthful.  His sources are second and third hand and even the media.

We now have direct evidence – the actual transcript of the phone call. HERE   That proves that many of the “credible” allegations about the President’s phone call are not truthful.  There was no quid pro quo offer made; there was no attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.  The President asks if Ukraine could investigate a variety of things that involve Ukraine and possibly affected the United States, including interference in the 2016 election and the possibility that the son of a former Vice President may have received special favors.

One would think that the Democrats, so enamored of never-ending investigations, would laud the President for seeking to investigate these issues.  But, actually the Democrats only care about never-ending investigations that might allow them to remove the President from office – to overturn the will of the people because they don’t agree with the people’s choice of whom they voted for.

Reality and facts and truthfulness do not matter to the Democrats.  Credible complaints are enough for them in their war of hatred against the President.  We saw it in the Kavanaugh hearings.  We see it now.  Even with the actual transcript of the phone call in his hand, Chairman Schiff in his opening statement in the hearing portrayed the phone call as including things that were not said.  Challenged, he and other Democrats now take the position that we should all know that even though the words are not there, we should know that they were meant – there is apparently a secret code involved that only the Democrats understand.

So, we have another show trial underway in which the Democrats will hear and read and see that which is not there.  Anyone who makes allegations that are aimed against the President or his administration or his supporters will be seen as not only credible, but also as truthful, whether or not there are actually any facts to support those allegations.  They don’t care – they continue to grasp at anything in the hopes of ridding themselves of a president they do not like while at the same time destroying our country.

The Democrats' attacks on our President hurt both his administration and all future administrations.  Essentially, they are attacks on the office of president itself and as such an attack on our country.  Take for example the fact that we have now been made aware of the content of at least three conversations between President Trump and a foreign leader beginning with his conversation with the Mexican president at the very start of his term.  This must certainly have a chilling effect on both current and foreign leaders’ willingness to speak openly with the president.  Countries’ leaders need to be able to speak openly and freely with one another for the good of the entire world; the Democrats care more about destroying President Trump than they care about the good of this country or the world.

I also find it interesting that the Democrats seem to launch their new attacks or create a new media circus nearly every time the President goes abroad or is in some way engaged with foreign leaders.  This certainly is an attempt to weaken his position with any foreign negotiations or other foreign policy matters.  Their goal is not concern for our country but an intent to weaken and then destroy the President that they hate.

So, not only would the Democrats subvert the will of the electorate, they would subvert and destroy the office of president itself if not the entire executive branch.  Think of this in conjunction with their attacks upon the judiciary and thinly veiled threats against the Supreme Court to impeach or in other ways change the Court’s makeup if the Justices render opinions that the Democrats find too conservative.

There is a hashtag #DemocratsHateAmerica.  That title “Democrats Hate America”  is a credible statement.  Sadly, the actions of the Democrats provide us with evidence that this credible statement may also be truthful.

Maybe They Are Hypocrites; Maybe They Just Do Not Care

Like Pavlov’s dogs, the Democrats jump at the sound of any bell that sounds useful in their never-ending quest to remove President Trump from office.  Do they know what hypocrites they are or do they just not care, or is it both?

The latest sound that caused them to jump for joy was the unproven claim that the President had offered something to the Ukraine in return for their investigation of Biden’s son.  They jumped at this, seeing no need to wait for facts.  But now, the documents emerge.  The truth – something that the Democrats are not well acquainted with lately.

HERE  is the full transcript of the President’s conversation with Ukraine.  Pretty innocuous – he asks that they investigate a variety of things, including the DNC server hack as well as Biden’s son.  There is no discussion of, let alone any quid pro quo of foreign aid in return for such an investigation.    But, without waiting for facts and based on their slavering hope that there was such an offer, the Democrats have once again gone off half-cocked (and yes, this gun analogy is quite appropriate for these anti-gun folks). 

But, beyond the innocuous, and certainly not impeachable transcript, is a letter written by the Democrats to the Ukraine in May of 2018.  HERE  In this letter Democrats Menendez, Durbin and Leahy specifically ask the Ukraine to investigate Trump and his administration as they continued to seek some sort of evidence of the now debunked Russian collusion.

So, it is OK for the Democrats to ask a foreign power to investigate a president that they hate and will do anything to remove from office, but it is not OK for a president to have a discussion with a foreign leader in which he asks them to investigate a variety of things with which that power is connected and which in one way or another involve our country.  Hypocritical?  YES.  Ridiculous?  YES

This is just another example that the Democrats are totally and completely consumed by their hatred of Donald Trump.  I have previously pointed to things such as prison reform, etc., which the Democrats always favored, which Trump actually got done, and which, the Democrats now no longer support, solely because it was Trump who accomplished it.  Many of the actions of former President Obama regarding illegal immigrants which the Democrats either ignored or supported are now condemned when Trump enforces the same policies and laws. 

Not only are the Democrats focused exclusively on their hatred of Donald Trump; they are happy to let that hatred hurt the American people. They will not work across the aisle, not even to further policies for which they have in the past voiced support.  They will use their time and the taxpayers’ money to hold hearing after hearing in their never-ending desire to satiate their hatred of Donald Trump.

The Democrats do not like President Trump because, though not one of them, he bested them.  They hate him for this and that hatred has taken over.  So, maybe they do not realize what hypocrites they are.  Maybe they do not realize that their hatred is hurting if not destroying America and its people.  Or, maybe, they just do not care.

The Inconvenient Truth Regarding Climate Change Hysteria

Today young people are “on strike” to prevent climate change.   Good for them for caring about their future and the future of the planet.  But, let me make a few observations and suggestions.

First, let’s not call it a protest against climate change.  Climate change is inevitable.  While we as humans do have some effect on it, the world’s climate has changed before humans ever existed and will continue to do so after we are long gone.

Second, what exactly are the protesters striking?  These school students are “walking out of class” in protest.   Not much of a sacrifice when most of the schools are giving them the day off in order to do so.  Sounds like a great way to get out of school for a day without any negative consequences.  How about if they protested after school when it might actually interfere with something and they could show us that they themselves made a sacrifice of some sort to protest because that issue is so important to them? 

This is not a strike; it is a school sanctioned event.  Yet rather than send students out into the streets with placards of soundbites, teachers would do better to educate their students about the complex facts, issues, and science that underlie the questions and concerns about our climate and its inevitable change. 

Subjects of discussion could include what we can do to modify negative effects we may be having on the climate, ways to educate both our and other countries about what effects their people and their way of life are having on the environment, and, perhaps most importantly, how can we be flexible and adapt to changing climates while maintaining certain aspects of life that have become in effect essential in the twenty-first century.

Of course, this takes serious study, thought, and open-minded discussion.   It demands movement beyond the politicization of the issue.   Let’s take for example renewable energy.  Solar panels sound terrific – free energy from the sun, no carbon footprint.  But wait.  The same folks who are advocating for solar power are often also advocating for animal rights and protections of endangered species.  Solar collector fields disorient migrating birds and, in many cases, essentially fry the birds until they fall dead from the sky.  Wind turbines also disrupt migratory patterns. 

Quick solutions may sound great, until one considers the ramifications and intertwining aspects of life on this complex planet. There are many things to consider, each on their own and then in combination with one another.  Is one willing to accept the possible extinction of one or another bird species in order to have solar power?  If not, then one must be willing to take the time to discover ways to avoid the problem of frying those birds.  In the meantime, one must consider what other forms of energy one is willing to accept.  That means considering all energy sources and weighing one against the other, including non-renewable and nuclear power as well as renewables.

Solar energy cannot effectively be stored, yet energy is needed in this day and age when the sun is not shining.  Are you willing to wait until morning to have your emergency heart surgery because the solar powered hospital is not allowed to use generators that do not run on renewable sources?  Similarly, when non-renewables are banned, one must consider the effect that will have on the world economy and on the many individuals whose living depends on that industry in one form or another.  The problems of climate change are far more complex that simply banning plastic straws.

The quick solution sound bites allow the politicians to virtue signal that they care about the planet more than their opponents do.   But do they really?    They give the protesters something to put on their cardboard signs and to yell in the streets.  But beyond those sound bite assertions, how much do the protesters really understand about climate change and how much do they really care?

NBC has a web page that allows one to make “climate confessions” about what they are doing or not doing to save the environment and the planet.LINK (I would, as an aside, note that that the whole issue of climate change is often conflated with pollution and environmental problems, all of which are actually separate though related issues.)   I prepared six thoughtful responses to each of NBC’s six “confession” categories (Plastic, Meat, Energy, Transportation, Paper, Food Waste;).  When I went to input these responses, I learned that one is limited to 130 characters including spaces.  So much for my responses.  Obviously, NBC doesn’t really want a thoughtful dialog about environmental issues but rather is looking for sound bites and a way to make people feel guilty for the simple and inevitable fact of climate change.

“Confessions” under plastic have many people expressing their guilt about the use of plastic straws and plastic bags.  Banning these will not save the environment.  I’ve been using cloth bags for 40 years  - so what?  Plastic is not going away any time soon in any really significant way.  It’s just a great political talking point that keeps us from addressing real problems.

The request for confessions is nothing more than a way to create an undeserved guilt that can be used to impose a variety of demands and requirements on people.  The page has people seeking absolution for things like sneaking a piece of chicken into their otherwise vegan diet or reading a paper book rather than using their Kindle (never mind that using the e-book would require energy; of course there is a separate category where they can confess their energy sins).  Let’s face it, we are not going back to a horse and buggy and not everyone can ride a bike, yet here are people confessing their necessary commute to work.

The comments also include the virtue signalers, those who post comments to let us know that they are superior to the guilty ones.  They do not use plastic straws, or do not eat meat, or use cloth not paper napkins, and use public transportation.  Yet, I wonder how many of these, along with those who invented and encourage such confessions like many of the climate protest activists and doomsayers, are fliting around the globe in their high energy, high carbon footprint jets, drinking coffee using Keurig cups, eating meals that rather than using locally sourced food use energy to fly or truck in exotic and out of season fruits, vegetables, etc.  We all live our lives, none are perfect, and we all affect the environment in our own ways. 

The mere existence of the human race affects the environment and the climate, and we cannot fully eliminate our contribution to climate change without first eliminating the human race.  And even then, climate change itself would still occur.

The virtue signalers, the ones who want to control your lives, have latched onto climate change as another way to gain power and take control.  They will tell you what to eat, they will tell you what energy use is good or bad and condemn you if you do not comply, they will make you responsible for the climate and its change.  And in so doing they will make you a bad person, a person who needs them to run your life for you. 

The real inconvenient truth of climate change is that the subject is far more complex than the media and sound-bite mentality and the Left would make it.  It is indeed something to be concerned about, but instead of hysterically suggesting that the world will end unless we all go back to living live cavemen, we would do better to learn about the climate change phenomenon, its history as well as scientifically valid predictions of its future.  We would do better to understand the many and intertwining ramifications of various human and non-human activities and how these play into the ever-changing climate.  We would then do better to understand what we can and cannot live with and without,  understand in what ways the climate is likely to change, and then determine what alterations in our lives may be necessary under that scenario – things like how to adjust to differing crop growth patterns or alterations in some habitats, etc. 

Hysteria is the tool of politicians; it is useful to them in their quest for power.  It does not solve problems.  But, if you are lost in your hysteria rather than educating yourself about a problem, then you are more likely to turn your power to solve that problem over to politicians who only seek power over you, and who use climate hysteria as one of many ways to seize it.

“There are no problems—only opportunities to be creative.” (Dorye Roettger).  Rather than wring our hands that the world is ending and it is all our fault, we would do better to seize the opportunity to find creative solutions to the inevitable changes in our lives that the phenomenon of climate change will create.  The need to look deeply and objectively at the problem, without politicizing it, and to then work creatively within the reality of its existence, will do far more than hysteria to create a better future for our children and our world.

Anger and Hate are NOT the Voice of America

The Democrats are consumed by anger and hate.  Anger seems to be all they know; hate is all they can do. 

This became fully apparent following the 2016 election when they did not get the prize to which they thought they were entitled, but their hatred was there before.  Hillary was not the first to disparage those who she and other Democrats felt were somehow beneath them. Beyond her basket of deplorables we can remember Obama and his supporters dismissing middle American values as if they were something left over from the dark ages.

But, once Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats’ anger and hatred have become overwhelming.  The Democrats are unable to understand even the possibility that the people could elect someone other than them when they are so confident that they are smarter and better than the rest of us and therefore should be given power over us.  So, since that is an impossibility, since the end result – their lack of power – is in their minds clearly incorrect, then they will use any means to correct that end while at the same time feeding their insatiable anger.

So, we had (still have) Russia-gate, proven to be a witch hunt; we have had (still have) attempts to find one or another scandal, still unsuccessful; we continually have name calling (racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc.) without evidence of the epithet; we have daily spin on everything the President does to make it seem somehow negative or, if impossible to create a negative spin then credit is given to any and everyone other than the President. 

The anger and hatred are not directed exclusively at the President.  Any and all of his supporters are fair game.  Not just those who work within his administration, but the common person on the street who seems to be a supporter of the President or his policies is a possible target for the Democrats’ hate.  Those who are still brave enough to exercise their free speech rights and do such things as wear a MAGA hat do so with the knowledge that they may be the target of both verbal and physical abuse.  This, of course, is a certain way to chill if not completely silence such speech which the Democrats do not want to hear.  (The fact that this so clearly reveals their lack of respect for the founding principles of this country along with our Constitution is a topic for another post).

The anger and hatred consume the Democrats in Congress as they demand hearing after hearing on lost causes in their attempt to remove the President from office.  It consumes all the 2020 Democrat candidates as the focus of debates and stump speeches is to verbally condemn Trump – that is, Trump the man, because it is hard to condemn his policies which are all benefiting this country and its citizens.  But it is, indeed, the man that they hate because, though not one of them, he was able to fairly and honestly beat them in an election that they still believe they were entitled to win.

The press, of course, is a part of this parade of hate.  Indeed, the Democrat politicians, not to mention their supporters, often seem to be nothing more than the lap dogs of the press.  Thus, when the NYT prints a bogus story intended to dredge up again the bogus allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, even without a thought the Democrats jump and begin a new campaign of hate against the Justice.  (And, this is no less horrific than the first campaign which was intended to ruin a man’s life along with that of his family simply because he was not one of them.  For detailed thoughts on this disgusting attack on the man and our country’s values the first time, see my earlier posts from September and October 2018, most of which address aspects of the Kavanaugh hearings. Here are a few links: LINK 1, LINK2, LINK3, LINK4,  LINK5, LINK6, LINK7, LINK8,  LINK9,  LINK10.)

This is all terribly pathetic, and one wants to dismiss this behavior as simply that of spoiled children who did not get their way, for that is all that it really is.  But one cannot do that, because in this instance the children throwing the temper fit have enough power in their hands that they can truly use that fit to destroy our country and our way of life.

That destruction has already begun.  As noted above, the strength of our First Amendment rights is being diminished.  People are berated into keeping silent if they do not spout the words and beliefs that the Democrats demand.  The Second Amendment is not even acknowledged as a right when Democrats believe they can simply create an absolute ban on all arms.  Our whole electoral process is not respected by the Democrats when every time they do not win they believe they can simply attack the result along with the winner in any and every way possible hoping to get somehow the result that they want.

When the strategy is silence the opposition, take away their rights, remove those with whom you disagree by political force rather than political process, ignore facts that are inconvenient or restructure them to support your narrative and your claim to power, then we are moving away from our Democratic Republic and toward some sort of Totalitarian system in which the people have little say in their own lives.

It is sad that the spoiled Democrats are willing to give up what makes this country great in return for holding and expanding their own power.  It is sad that the Democrats believe that they have a right to do this, based on their seeming belief that they are somehow superior to the rest of us.  The Democrats did not get the prize they wanted in 2016, but their behavior since then is proof positive that they do not deserve it.

While the Democrats seem to have chosen to be fully consumed by their anger and hate, we as a country do not need to let it consume us as well.  We do not need to accept their ugly allegations about the President, his policies, his supporters; instead we can understand that these are nothing more than their temper weapons designed to gratify their anger and give them the power they crave. 

The elected Democrats are not doing the peoples work but their own work – the sole goal being to eliminate all opposition to their power.  The media is their partner in this means justify the ends campaign.  We do not have to join in.  Their rhetoric may be persuasive, but that does not make it right or true.  We can believe it and go like sheep to the slaughter of all that our country stands for, or we can refuse to be a part.  We can continue to stand for the principles of this country that are not those of anger and hate but of fairness and justice and rule of law, of freedom and liberty, and of a voice for all the people.

Indoctrination (and the survival of a society)

The word indoctrination has a negative connotation, and while that connotation is often appropriate to the use of the word, it is not always so. 

We tend to see indoctrination as akin to brainwashing, and sometimes it is, but actually, the word indoctrinate simply means to teach. (It comes from the Latin root docere, to teach, which provides the “doc” in the word.  This root is shared by words such as docent, doctrine, and document).

Indoctrinate means to teach someone a set of basic fundamentals, ideas, or attitudes.  The teaching usually occurs via some sort of persistent and repetitive teaching.  While it can include doing so with a partisan view that does not allow for questioning of those basics, one can also indoctrinate without a demand for unquestioning acceptance and with an encouragement of critical thinking about them. 

In essence, when your elementary school teacher made you learn your multiplication tables by repeating them over and over, and telling you there was but one answer to 2 x 2 or 2 x 6, she was indoctrinating you with the basic fundamentals of multiplication.  These basic fundamentals are essential to a deeper understanding of and a progression in math.

I would argue that every parent by necessity indoctrinates their children with certain necessities of that family’s way of life.  Certain basic hygiene, eating, safety, and other behaviors are instilled in children from the time of their birth. Children learn that certain behaviors are expected of them in the home and later as they venture out of the home.  Some are necessary for survival; others to be a functioning part of the family unit.  If certain rules of interaction within the family were not shared (indoctrinated) via the parent-child relationship, then the family would likely be less peaceful and lose some of its stability and cohesion. 

I would argue that the same is true within societal groups and communities.  Without a certain amount of shared ideas and attitudes, a stable group will become unstable and eventually lose that which has tied the members of the group together.  The indoctrination of these basic ideas and attitudes are implicit in parent-child relationships but are more overt within larger groups.

Humans are social animals and are shaped not only by their parents but also by a larger cultural context of the society in which they live.  It is certain shared basic concepts, instilled within the children of a particular society at an early age, that allows the society to hold together and effectively work as a unit for the good of its people.

Different societies have always held different doctrines, fundamentals, and traditions.  It is these things which both set them apart from other societies and hold them together as one.  In the first century BCE, the Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus is alleged to have said “what is food to one, to others is bitter poison.” 

Those doctrines, fundamentals, basics of any society must be conveyed to new generations in order for the society to work.  We often think of this as some sort of necessary “socialization,” a word that generally has a better connotation than indoctrination.  Yet, the repeated teaching and practice of a society’s fundamentals is, indeed, indoctrination.  Regardless of label, the point is, that to maintain social order within any given society there must be some teaching and instilling of the basic doctrines of that society.

These basics are often conveyed via such things as:  shared holidays and manner of celebrating them; shared foods; shared folk songs, traditions, dances; shared games; etc.  Some are more substantive:  shared knowledge of the society’s history; shared basic values of how one will treat other citizens of the society and how the society will be governed.  The key is that the teaching of the basics of things such as these, the indoctrination of them into the society’s children, are necessary to make the group within that society feel that they share a history and a future with their group and hence will unite, working together to maintain and improve that society.

Elementary schools in this country used to teach American folk songs and folk stories from our history.  Children grew up knowing and having these stories and rhythms in common.   For many these national fundamentals were accompanied by fundamentals of their own smaller groups – a region of the country, their cultural heritage, their individual family practices.  While some of the traditions of smaller, included groups might vary, all Americans also had certain American traditions and values in common. 

Because we used to truly be a melting pot, we celebrated holidays in common, though with ethnic variations based on our ancestry.  We had civics classes that taught us about our form of government.  We learned American history, our accomplishments and our failures.   

This was all a form of indoctrination, but, because it was also accompanied by instruction that America protects diverse viewpoints and the ability to speak them, we were not being brainwashed that there was only one acceptable view.  Instead, just as the math teacher who teaches the multiplication tables as facts also teaches that these can be used in creative and diverse ways, children used to learn certain foundations and history of our country while also being taught that these foundations allowed them to have their own views and use their mind and their creativity to better themselves and the country which they share with those both like and different from them.

We no longer have that in America.  America has always been a multicultural society, but it is no longer a melting pot.   That is, immigrants have always come to America with their cultural heritage, but upon arriving have also desired and been able to assimilate into American culture while still maintaining that heritage.  Americans, in addition to other fundamentals of American culture, were indoctrinated with the fundamental concept of respecting others with differing viewpoints and different heritages than one’s own. 

In entering the American melting pot, all joined in those basic fundamentals that are shared by all Americans and which make up the fundamentals of American society;  by so doing, America while rich and diverse culturally, has maintained its identity as one united country.

But, now, no one is taught (yes, indoctrinated) in those basic fundamentals.  In today’s multicultural America, the cultures no longer mix; they have little other than their basic humanity to share and hold them together as one society.  Those American fundamentals that children used to learn in school are no longer taught for fear of offending someone or some ethnic or cultural group, or simply because one group objects to celebrations that do not belong to their own group.   There is no willingness to assimilate. There is no tolerance for diversity within a greater and cohesive whole.

We no longer have a melting pot that unites us all; instead we have a completely unmixed salad where each culture or identity group maintains its own complete and unique identity within the land of America but without any joining together in the fundamentals that have always made America a unique and united society.

It is easier to hate a country that you have never learned to love.  Note, I am talking about the country itself and not whichever politician or political party happens to be in power at any given moment.  Throughout their history, Americans have always exercised their First Amendment rights to protest various activities and policies of those in power.  But, the difference today is that along with such protests there seems, on the part of many, to be a genuine hate against the country itself.

Without basic fundamental commonalities, a society loses its cohesiveness.  It falls apart into separate societies; those societies can sometimes live peacefully side by side but can also just as easily slip into warring factions. 

America has been and will always be multiracial and multicultural.  The question is, are we willing to include some teaching – some indoctrination - of all our citizens in basic fundamentals that will hold us together as one, or are we going to allow every different group to maintain its own and separate fundamental doctrines while objecting to those of others so that we lose our cohesiveness as one nation and instead devolve into separate and  competing tribes?

We must not be afraid to indoctrinate our children with those American fundamentals that allow them to hold a pride and an identity in America as their country.   Those fundamentals may evolve, even change as they have done over our history, but they are necessary to creating the melting pot, the glue that holds us together as one people.  Indoctrination is not always a bad word and it is a necessary piece of any successful nation.

On Education – Attitudes and Effects

This week, if not before, children are returning to school, so it seems an appropriate time to talk about education.  Not just superficially or about such things as curriculum, testing, etc., but about the role and the effect that education has on society and its success or failure in that regard.  This, I suggest, all begins with the attitude that we display towards education, for that attitude has an effect on the respect and value that we accord to education.

Coincidentally, while we were celebrating Labor Day on Sept. 2 this year, all the children all across Russia were returning to school on what is there called “The Day of Knowledge.”  The children all show up in what we once would have referred to as their “Sunday best.”  Elementary children are wearing “party dresses” and little suits.  The girls have their hair in pigtails or similar, tied with ribbons and decorated with flowers.  And every child has a bouquet of flowers for the teacher

 

After the opening ceremonies the children sit at their desks, focused on the teacher and ready to learn.

 День знаний [Day of Knowledge], Russia

Now, I don’t want to get into a discussion of what these children might or might not be learning at their Russian schools.  What I do want to suggest is that this making the first day of school a national event and a celebration reflects a respect, appreciation, and a valuing of education. 

Is this all superficial?  Yes, perhaps, but superficialities often reflect what is also below the surface.  

In his column on parenting today, John Rosemond states that “the most important thing parents should teach [during children’s preschool years] is proper manners" which he notes are “the sorts of fundamental courtesies that form the backbone of civilized social behavior.” (CITE)

Why is this important?  Because if our children don’t understand how to respect their teachers and their fellow students, if they don’t know how to listen without interrupting, if they don’t value the fact that their teacher and their school experience is providing them with valuable lessons in both academics and life, then they are not going to learn.

Here is a picture of American students arriving for the first day of school in Minneapolis last year (photo credit: Elisabeth Flores – Minneapolis Star Tribune).   It is typical of first days of school across America.  These students also look eager, but one wonders how actually prepared they are to learn.  Greeted by the superintendent, beyond that indication that this is a very special and exciting day, a day that begins an exciting journey of learning, what other signals do these children get that learning is important and worthy of respect?

Rosemond, in his column, also notes that since the 1960s, parenting has become all about having a good relationship with one’s children.  That is, in essence, parents and parent figures want to be the kid’s friend.  Rosemond notes that “as a result, parental leadership…has gone by the wayside.”  I would add that respect, too, has gone.  Children come to school with no sense of respecting authority figures, of taking and carrying out reasonable orders from those figures, even if they are not something that the child wants to do or finds entertaining or fun. 

How does that happen?  After all, don’t we repeatedly tell children “school is important”?  Perhaps.  But it is much more likely that children see how important it really is based upon our actions.  And many of those actions are reflected in the superficial as well as in the more general approach that we may have to the structures of society.

Because many parents are more concerned with being their child’s friend and in agreeing with the child that he or she is never wrong,  they do not support their children’s teachers but instead will argue whenever the teacher tells the student he or she is wrong or demands work which the child is not inclined to do.  Moreover, some parents have a way of demonstrating that school is something that gets in the way of their lives; their trip to the beach or to Disney Land may be more important so that they pull their children from school for the vacation.  Such action must certainly signal that school is not really that important.

Dress is indeed superficial, but it is also a statement.  When teachers show up dressed in T-shirts or similar ultra-casual dress, it does not reflect a respect for learning.  Perhaps they feel that allows them to "relate" with their students, but a truly good teacher will teach the students and be respected by them whether or not he or she “relates” or is their good friend.  And, while I don’t expect students to come to school in their “Sunday best” I do think that they can dress in a professionally casual way that reflects some respect for school and learning, a way that reflects that they recognize school and the learning therein as something special.

When I was in (public school) ninth grade my Latin teacher repeatedly reminded us that we, as human beings, had a “thirst for knowledge” that was unquenchable. .  It is that thirst for knowledge in and of itself that gives us a true joy in learning.  I believe that to be true, but I also believe that young students must be shown that thirst and encouraged to experience it and its resultant joy in pure learning; as students grow that thirst must not be extinguished or replaced with some sort of quest for prestige or power or financial gain.

While those goals can also be a part of someone’s life, if the quest for knowledge is extinguished, one will lose the joy of learning simply for the sake of learning.  And, if that interest in simply learning is extinguished, then how will students ever be able to openly, objectively, and fully listen to not only their teachers but their peers.  And if we cannot listen to one another then how can we ever solve the many problems that every society, culture, and generation faces.

The simple passion for learning used to be found by many in the liberal arts.  Reading, discussing, and simply enjoying ideas for their own sake.  But, now, political correctness has told us that many of the reading material that used to be among the foundations of a liberal education are no longer appropriate for one reason or another.   And, rather than ideas being exciting in and of themselves, many students are led one way or another to see education as simply some pathway to some sort of material gain. 

We tell students they should go to college, not because they can enter an academy of learning that will satisfy that thirst for knowledge for its own sake, but because it will get them a job.  A job with which they will be able to purchase a vast array of material goods.  And so, “The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.”( William Deresiewicz CITE )

Education is a crucial part of our lives.  It teaches us about our society, its history and its rules and how we are expected to behave within it.  It teaches us about the arts, their history and how we can create our own art.   It teaches us to understand ourselves and others, especially those who are not like us.   It teaches us about the many STEM subjects with which we can create new innovations and it teaches us philosophy and critical thinking so that we can evaluate those innovations and their potential effects upon us and our society and the world.  It teaches us to write so that we can effectively communicate our thoughts and, most importantly, it teaches us to think.  Simply to think, deeply and creatively, and with joy.

Education and educators should never forget this.  But, for students to accept this teaching, they must come to that education with an open mind and with respect for learning and for knowledge itself.  And if those around them do not care, show little respect for education, then why would we expect the children to sense that education is something to be respected or to value?

I watch school districts throw money at their schools because “the children are not learning or not succeeding.”  But money will not change a basic attitude, the attitude of respect for and valuing of education, that is a key ingredient necessary for schools to successfully perform their necessary functions.  Attitude begins at home and with the little things that we do that demonstrate how we feel about education and schools and teachers and learning itself.  Perhaps we could begin by simply celebrating knowledge.