EDUCATION: PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?

From teachers' point of view, working for the state has many financial advantages; a good retirement system, a decent wage that can be supplemented during the summer, good benefits such as free health care insurance, and, in some states, a strong union movement that protects all, even the incompetent ones. Public schools teachers are opposed, obviously, to the voucher idea which would allow parents to place their children in private schools. They (the parents) are often unaware that private schools don't have the same stringent requirements compared to public schools, and that the so-called government vouchers will not afford the high-end establishments which sometimes have annual fees between $15,000 and $30,000.



Experts in education generally agree that the best private K-12 schools are those run by a religious order. Among these, the Jesuits have become famous the world over as very strict and efficient school mentors. Or course, non-catholic families will shun such learning centers which promote a specific religion. The rest of the private schools, the non-denominational ones, have the reputation of forming elite mentalities in their students. Some are well-known as diploma mills, where the academic requirements are less rigorous to say the least.


As a parent of K-12 kids, I would seriously consider public rather than private schools. There are are excellent public schools, as there are excellent private ones. The main difference is that the first is free, as they are funded by our taxes and government grants. Music and athletic programs are also much larger in public schools, allowing children to chose among a wide variety of extra-curricular activities. The other consideration often mentioned by concerned mothers is personal safety. Some people say that public schools are not as safe as private ones. While it is true that students may face some unsavory characters in their schools, it is a fact that school districts are giving close attention to the matter. District police and school monitors constantly roam the halls to ensure students' safety. Cameras are placed at strategic locations to detect any unwanted behavior.

It is also a fact that public schools' teachers receive better pay and benefits than those in private ones. This allows them to attract better candidates and suffer a lower rate of rotation. Public schools' teachers' training touches on all fields of education during the whole academic year. We know that bad teachers are found in all areas, whether private or public. School districts are making a decisive effort to root out those mentors who haven't shown the dedication and vocation needed to motivate students. Another caveat for private schools is the fact that they don't have to accept children with special needs unlike public schools. If your child requires special help and treatment, such as speech impediment, loss of hearing, or learning disability, chances are that the private school will not accept him/her.

Some studies show that private schools outperform public ones in standardized tests. Remember however that private institutions select the best students, while public ones take any child whatever their skills or intelligence levels. However, other studies confirm that public schools do very well, taking into account that they serve the general population and not a specific privileged segment. If I want my child to be prepared to confront life after high school, public education is by far the best tool to do so. Let's not forget that reality does not consist of academic standardized tests; we must be ready to face any challenge and adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Public education does an excellent job in that regard.

DERANGED KILLERS AND LAX FIREARMS RULES

Anders Behring Breivik is a name that will be remembered in infamy in Norway's future history. The deranged killer with a face worthy of a Hollywood's leading man murdered more than 70 completely innocent people, from teens to older adults. He is supposedly a member of the far right in the political spectrum of his country, reminding us of another crazed killer, Jared Lee Loughner, who attacked Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona last January. Breivik claims that he acted to defend Christendom, though no sane mind can understand how killing Norwegians can help this religion.


Norway has been voted the nation with the highest standard of living in the world; if one had to choose where to live, this kingdom is the favorite. The discovery of large gas and oil deposits in offshore exploration has made Norway a rich nation, where citizens are protected from birth to the grave by a generous government. With less than 5 million inhabitants, Sweden's main neighbor has undergone several invasions throughout its history, the last one during WWII when it suffered under Nazi occupation. Its high standard of living allows us to understand why Norway refused to join the EU (European Union) on two occasions, a decision that seems prescient given the financial turmoil now occurring in Greece and other countries. In that regard, the comparison with Switzerland is inevitable, as the Swiss also enjoy prosperous economic times outside the EU (The Swiss franc is now the strongest currency in Europe).


One wonders how this crazy killing machine obtained his weapons; Norway's gun laws are generous, as they allow almost anything outside of automatic weapons. It is a nation of hunters and most families own some kind of rifle and/or handgun. Breivik  and Loughner had no trouble purchasing a handgun despite their obvious checkered past. In the U.S. we've had our share of deranged killers: Virginia Tech comes to mind. Do these tragic events mean that we should demand a psychological test for anybody who wants to own a firearm? Unfortunately, these mind probes are totally unreliable since even experts in psychiatry squabble in open court as to what constitutes madness. We would be better off asking for a complete personal history for every candidate or, even better, prohibiting the sale of handguns. They are, after all, much easier to conceal.

We will never prevent senseless killings completely, but at least we can make an effort to establish much stricter controls on those who purchase a weapon. The NRA (National Rifle Association) in our country has a very effective lobby that has stymied all efforts to prevent the sale of powerful rifles and handguns, pretexting the need to observe the Bill of Rights. They forget that 250 years ago, citizens had more primitive firearms and needed them to repel aggression by invading enemies. Nowadays, it simply does not make sense to allow the sale of a 50 caliber sniper rifle, a weapon so powerful that it can kill anything at a thousand years. Where is the hunting fairness in that? There is even a 50 caliber handgun that can penetrate the body armor worn by police. And they are completely legal. What kind of society have we become? We make it possible for bad guys to kill cops from more than a thousand yards and justify its legal approval by using the nauseating argument that the Founders of this country allowed its citizens to wear arms. When will we see a politician with the courage to ban these types of weapons once and for all?

OF SHEEP AND SHEPHERDS

A friend once told me that the human world is composed of sheep and shepherds; 99% of the former and 1% of the second.Though he is perhaps exaggerating, his point is well taken. The concept can easily be applied to religion, of course, and even more to politics, although both may fuse into one area in some cases. Thomas Jefferson famously said that he preferred to make up his own mind in all matters, and in particular in politics. Luckily for us, he and his colleagues became the shepherds of a new nation.


In today's society, some modern technologies contribute heavily to the "sheep" factor. Think advertising through television and through the web. Selling merchandise and ideas has suddenly become a lot easier since one can reach hundreds of millions of viewers, read "sheep", in a few seconds. Rare is the human being who can resist the "free gift", the "last opportunity", the "unique item", the "incredible offer", the "absolutely free" pitch, or the "become rich like me" method. The incredibly vast world of publicity and propaganda relies on most people's natural tendency to believe what they see and hear, because it is much easier to go along with other people than to forge one's own path.

In politics the same "do what they do" attitude prevails. Few congressmen (women) take the initiative to present new bills that may improve our lives as citizens. They are severely manacled by their leaders, thus limiting their field of activities. They go along or, as a fellow teacher once told me, they don't stick their heads above the water for fear of losing it. We could easily reduce the number of representatives by 50% and the country would not only save a bundle in benefits, but also in the time it takes to get intelligent ideas through the maze. Perpetual reelection is also a taboo subject, sometimes known as "term limits". Politicians prefer to follow the herd, knowing that they will be rewarded eventually by "special favors" from the all-powerful lobbies. Only the occasional sexual misbehavior can put an end to their hallowed careers in Washington.


Science does not escape the "sheep" factor. As a scientist friend once confided, 90% of people working in some scientific field or other are content to go through the motions. Any new idea that does not meet with the approval of the respective community is derided and shot down. "The Earth is not flat" assertion cost some good people their lives during the Dark Ages. Einstein met with ridicule when he first posited his revolutionary theory. Psychic and reincarnation books were an important part of Edison's personal library and, of course, he was mocked for stating that atoms possessed some kind of intelligence. The "sheep" tend to make fun of anything they don't understand, trying to bring down to their limited level any mind that dares present novel ideas.


Now that the feverish back-and-forth negotiations take place at the last minute to raise the debt ceiling, we again witness the "follow the others" behavior. Do not speak against your party members, as Newt Gingrich did recently, or forgo the opportunity to get reelected. The result is one party against the other, Republicans against Democrats, a possible stalemate that will gravely damage the ability of the United States to pay its debt. Limiting representatives to two years means that the minute they step into the Capitol they already plotting how to get reelected. Why not increase the time they serve (?) our nation to four years and limit reelection to three consecutive terms? Same for the Senate; we sometimes witness doddering members well past the age of reason still sitting in their chairs while enjoying a much needed nap. Establish the maximum age at 75 and thus avoid important votes from going astray. Isn't our nation's future more important than the ego of a few senior citizens?


Let's face reality: Modern society needs "sheep", just as the most prestigious universities need the help of the most ordinary people. Nature is reluctant to create geniuses, one in a million may be too much, just as it is reluctant to create very low functioning humans. The Gaussian distribution places 90% of people in the middle within one standard deviation. Balance is the key in all natural fields until Man messes everything up.

A BIT OF EVERYTHING

The fan who returned the ball to Jeter is everything our society  is not: selfless (For foreign readers, this is baseball talk). He could have made a bundle by selling the baseball; instead, he gets recognition and a photo-op with Jeter, a great guy indeed. Yes, I do mind the insane amount of money made by top athletes, whether in baseball, football, basketball, or soccer. There is absolutely no comparison with a teacher's salary, a good mason's, or a policeman's (or firefighter's). Yet all of these make huge contributions to our world, a capitalist world which places the god of money ahead of everything we hold dear.



From Athens to Madrid, from Dublin to Washington, the main topic of discussion is the national debt. If they were struggling families, bankruptcy would be knocking at their doors. But of course nations cannot go bankrupt; there is no sheriff outside the home ready to seize their assets. The main difference is that politicians are spending money that is not theirs in the first place. Things would change if Congress' salaries were docked in proportion to the national debt. But since they vote their own pay increase (never a decrease), they go ahead and include all that pork without a twinge of conscience. After all, the only thing that counts is the next election.






There is nothing more irritating than a stubborn old dictator; Muammar Gaddafi (one of many spellings) clings to what is left of his former power with a handful of followers. Most people agree that he is not "all there". What could possibly motivate him to risk life and limbs for a lost cause? Pride, insanity, or greed? I believe that none of the above is correct. Maybe he refuses to go because he has nowhere to go. He probably believes in his paranoia that no matter what safe-conduct pass they give him he will end up in some court facing a stern European judge. Look at Mubarak denying that he had ordered his troops to fire on unarmed protesters. Just remember what they say: Even paranoid people are sometimes right.




Will the Google miracle business model end soon? Not according to recent profits topping $2.5B. Larry Page, the very young CEO, shows delight at the success of the new social network Google+ which threatens Facebook, the behemoth of of human interaction. Chrome, the new web browser, is also growing rapidly, as is Android, the favorite OS for smartphones for millions of young people. It seems that both Apple and Google possess the Midas touch: everything they create turns to gold. But while Apple apparently depends on the genius of one man, Steve Jobs, the Google youthful group of engineers and whiz kids don't show any sign of fatigue. Looks like a smart investment, even at today's high prices.

EDUCATION, A MATTER FOR THE STATES AND THE FAMILY

The Constitution clearly states that educating children is the exclusive domain of each individual state. I would add an important phrase:"and of the parents." A friend of many years recently complained to me that he was afraid that if he reprimanded his children the state would intervene and punish him. Such nonsense is the result of bureaucrats encroaching on our privacy and absolute right to punish our children as and when we see fit; the unwritten but well-understood rule is "without harming them."


Today's children know very well that CPS is ready to pounce on "unfit" parents and some of them blackmail their progenitors in order to obtain their wish. The problem is compounded by the laissez-faire attitude of many parents and the fact that so many kids come to an empty home after school.  Without a guide and a moral example at home, boys and girls tend to be influenced by older confused children and misguided peers. The television fare to which they suscribe for at least 4  hours a day certainly doesn't help them form a healthy criteria.


Many of today's successful and model citizens felt the caress of their dad's belt occasionally as children or the good spanking given by their loving mom. Fifty years ago, the corporeal punishment was routinely administered even in schools without any interference from the government. Nowadays, young people, with some notable exceptions, feel that they are entitled without having done the work to deserve it. "Give me" is a common phrase heard in many families rich or poor. In order to have peace at home, parents give in and satisfy the material request.


"Punish with love" is a phrase my mother often repeated as she metered out my well-deserved slap. That is the key that parents would do well to remember. A child is fully aware that he or she has misbehaved and that consequences must follow. That is just! Nothing riles up kids more than injustice; they complain loudly when their siblings seem to receive a more favorable treatment. A wise parent talks to all of them frequently and patiently, explaining the circumstances and the decision. Many teachers try to help parents in instilling moral values to their students. Only one big problem: They have between 25 and 150 kids to take care of every day. Nevertheless, their role as surrogate parents is essential in making a difference while there is a chance to mold a young mind.

Interference by the state government in family affairs should be limited to serious cases of criminal behavior such as leaving kids in a hot car, physical violence between parents, drug use, prostitution, sexual abuse and neglect. A simple phone call by an 11-year old claiming abuse should not result in a show of force by law enforcement and CPS. It should be handled discreetly, so as not to publicly humiliate innocent parents. We often forget that the media sometimes contributes to the public condemnation of innocent people by publishing their photos on the front page. Let us work with local agencies and law enforcement to determine whether a child has been criminally mistreated before we splash the case on the local television channel.


We have become a complacent nation with regard to education; we forget that kids need strict guidance and superior role models. We are limiting the power of parents and teachers to enforce discipline, a value that is essential in a successful adult life. It is natural for kids to test their boundaries, to explore, to talk back, to disobey their elders, to misbehave. We have to show them, with love and care, that there are limits and that society expects them to follow certain rules. Parents, teachers and local agencies should all work together to make sure the message is understood.

FRENCH POLITICS

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the infamous ex-president of the International Monetary Fund, is now free to roam the best restaurants in New York, as he has not yet received permission to return to France. A opinion poll conducted in his country - let's remember that he was favored to win the presidential election in 2012, revealed the following mood of the French voters (survey conducted on July 4 and 5, 2011): Do you favor the candidacy of DSK on the presidential ballot next year was the question answered by approximately 1,000 persons. A remarkable 35% of the people as a whole answered "yes", while a more surprising 55% of the members of the Socialist Party approved the idea. Clearly, the accusations of sexual assault against DSK have not dampened support among his followers to the point where he simply has to give up his political ambitions. Even more surprising is the fact that 36% of French women expressed the desire to see him compete. Do you think John Edwards could post such high numbers in a similar poll in the United States? (Rhetorical question, obviously, with a strong taste of vinegar)





As a native born European (French part of Switzerland), I delight in studying the major cultural differences between the "Puritan" atmosphere in American politics and the laissez-faire among French voters. We have had our exciting share of philandering politicians; the uncontrolled and immature sexual impulses of ex-Congressman Weiner, the out-of-wedlock fathering by Schwarzenegger, the infamous Clinton affair, the roving eye of John F. Kennedy, Senator Ensign's chest baring, the mysterious trip of Governor Sanford, Congressman Mark Foley and his fondness for young pages, the list can go on and on; in every case, except for President Kennedy, the politician was disgraced in the public eye. Had these men been French, they would have elicited an amused smirk and continued their career as if nothing had happened.


While Americans thoroughly enjoy sex scandals, especially those involving politicians, the French prefer to focus their attention on other more important (in their opinion) matters. The political class in France is fed up with the continuous tabloid-like coverage of the Dominique Strauss affair. They strongly resent the humiliation brought by the New York District Attorney when he ordered DSK's public arrest and parade in handcuffs from the airport to jail. They feel, not without reason, that DSK was not a flight risk due to the preeminence of his high position. Discretion should have prevailed argue well-known French politicians. To which American law enforcement argue that DSK was treated the way any other common person, foreign or local, would have been dealt with. Democracy at its best!



The French don't have to go very far to signal the preferential way the rich and famous have been handled in the U.S. American courts have shown leniency time and again when movie stars or famous singers were involved, even in serious cases. Lindsey Lohan's name comes to mind. From battery charges to physical assault, from drug use to driving under the influence, there is little doubt that money and a good lawyer can make a huge difference. Why wasn't DSK treated with more deference? After all, in our country a person is deemed innocent until proven otherwise, unlike the judicial system in France where the accused must prove his/her innocence.



I don't want to present Mr. Strauss-Kahn as a white, innocent dove. He apparently has quite a reputation for seducing much younger women, despite being "happily" married. Until recently, however, he had not being accused of actual rape and his accusers seem to be looking for a big payday rather than for justice. We will find out within the next year and a half whether these alleged crimes have actually taken place and whether DSK could, just could, end up being the President of France.