As many of you know, I teach courses in Communication, and one thing I've always found fascinating about the study of language is how words can change meaning over the years. For example, back in the late 1800s, a baseball fan was called a "crank," and you referred to your favorite team as your "pets." A psychiatrist was called an "alienist" and an eye doctor was an "oculist."
And then there's the word "friend." When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, this word referred to someone you knew, a person in your life with whom you enjoyed spending time-- maybe going to movies, or seeing a ballgame, or just talking on the phone. But then, as time passed, along came the internet and social media, and the word took on a different meaning. Now, we all have friends we've never met-- on Facebook, I've got more than 4700 friends, in fact. No, I'm not really that popular: the majority are Rush fans, and some others know me from my radio career. But in Facebook terminology, they're all my friends.
I was reading an article a few weeks ago that questioned whether online friends are really friends at all, since, in many cases, we don't know them, other than as folks who respond to our online posts. It's a valid point: online friends are very different from people I can go have an ice cream with-- many are scattered all over the world, and I sometimes wonder whether they'd even like me if we met in person. But if a friend is someone who will be there for you and share a part of your life, then I believe the word "friend" really does apply to the folks I know on social media.
In December of 2014, I had surgery for cancer, and although I'm generally a private person about my personal life, I needed to talk about it with others who had been through it. So I posted about it on my Facebook page. And I found that many, many people could relate to what I was going through. I received a lot of online support and encouragement, which augmented the love I received from my husband, my colleagues, and other people who knew me personally.
And several weeks ago, that support was there again, when I told some folks on Twitter that the autistic guy for whom I've advocated since 1984 was gravely ill and needed to undergo several surgeries. I asked for prayers for his health, but what I also got was a lot of personal messages, and a number of folks who reached out to let me know they were there if I wanted to talk. It's been a scary couple of weeks, but he is finally getting better. I am so grateful to everyone who kept him in their thoughts.
I guess the word "friend" really has changed, because even though I've never met most of the people who sent their love and encouragement, the support was as real as if they were sitting in my living room. I understand that the internet and social media have their dark side, and I'm not trying to minimize that. But I also can't ignore the fact that sometimes, the online world can be a source of comfort and compassion. And so, I want to send my love to my online friends-- whether I know you personally or not, the friendship you have given me makes a difference. And I thank you for it.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Monday, April 15, 2019
A Lesson in Political Communication, Ilhan Omar Edition
The other night, I got a link to a post from a conservative
Israeli blogger about how "American Jews are furious with Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for
downplaying the importance of 9/11." Needless to say, I was puzzled. I'm
an American, I'm Jewish, but I'm not furious, and I didn't recall the
congresswoman downplaying anything about 9/11. And then, I saw a
similar post on a conservative website, with a demand that the
representative apologize. This was followed by various angry tweets from other conservatives. Then a couple of Fox News commentators
accused her of not really being American, and of not loving her adopted
country. And it culminated in an ugly and manipulative front
page of a conservative New York newspaper, and an equally ugly and manipulative
tweet from Pres. Trump, tying Rep. Omar to 9/11 and implying that
because she's a Muslim, she's sympathetic to those who attacked us.
Before going any further, let me say that I don't always agree with Rep. Omar, especially when it comes to her views about Israel. Let me also say I'm not shocked that she holds some anti-Israel views-- after all, she grew up in a Muslim country, and that's undoubtedly what she was taught. And no, contrary to what my conservative friends insist, opposing the current Israeli government does not mean she hates the Jews. A lot of American Jews find the current Israeli government way too conservative, myself among them; but are we all Anti-Semites? I think not. One other thing: I can agree that several of the statements she has made since being elected to congress indicate she still doesn't recognize historically anti-Jewish stereotypes; that too is not surprising, given that she didn't come here till the early 1990s and probably didn't study much Jewish history.
But downplaying the importance of 9/11? Expressing sympathy for those who attacked us? I'm a professor of media studies (including political communication), and when I heard the couple of short quotes that allegedly showed her hatred for America, I needed to hear the entire context of what she said. I know enough about how political outrage is generated, and I become suspicious when I see what looks like a coordinated strategy to make people furious; both political parties have their own provocateurs who are experts at doing it, using a process called framing. It's all about what you include, and what you intentionally exclude. So...you rip a quote out of context, create a false narrative to go along with the misleading quote, post it on social media sites your followers use, and assume you'll get away with the deception because partisans want to believe the worst about "the other side." You can easily get like-minded people angry at what the person allegedly said, plus it's also a great tactic for raising money. "Can you believe what [so-and-so] just did? Make a donation right now and help me fight against [that horrible person]!!!"
But when I watched her entire speech, it was pretty clear that she was not downplaying 9/11. When she said "somebody did something," she was expressing it in an awkward way, but the context of her remarks was obvious: no matter what terrible thing happens, if the somebody who did it is a Muslim, many Americans immediately suspect ALL Muslims; and after 9/11, there was so much anger and distrust that American Muslims were in danger of losing their civil liberties. She was also right about the tendency to stereotype Muslims as terrorists: if a white male commits an act of terror, few of us blame ALL white males. But when those terrorists, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia, attacked America on 9/11, many people called for a crackdown on ALL Muslims. To President Bush's credit, he insisted he was not at war with Islam nor with American Muslims. But unfortunately, political discourse has deteriorated since then, and accusing or blaming ALL Muslims has become a normal part of conservative commentary.
And that's my lesson in political communication: sad to say, there are folks on social media who intentionally create narratives that are designed to manipulate you and make you angry. Next time you see one, I hope you'll resist the temptation to "forward this to everyone you know." And in this case, it's especially urgent for everyone to stop and think. Whether you like Ilhan Omar or whether you don't, it's wrong for her to be receiving a growing number of death threats, and it's doubly wrong for her to be blamed for something she never really said. Meanwhile, it's just another day in our outrage culture; and as long as there's an audience for it, and as long as folks can get more "likes" on social media or bigger ratings on cable TV, it will probably continue...despite the potentially dangerous consequences this kind of discourse can bring.
Before going any further, let me say that I don't always agree with Rep. Omar, especially when it comes to her views about Israel. Let me also say I'm not shocked that she holds some anti-Israel views-- after all, she grew up in a Muslim country, and that's undoubtedly what she was taught. And no, contrary to what my conservative friends insist, opposing the current Israeli government does not mean she hates the Jews. A lot of American Jews find the current Israeli government way too conservative, myself among them; but are we all Anti-Semites? I think not. One other thing: I can agree that several of the statements she has made since being elected to congress indicate she still doesn't recognize historically anti-Jewish stereotypes; that too is not surprising, given that she didn't come here till the early 1990s and probably didn't study much Jewish history.
But downplaying the importance of 9/11? Expressing sympathy for those who attacked us? I'm a professor of media studies (including political communication), and when I heard the couple of short quotes that allegedly showed her hatred for America, I needed to hear the entire context of what she said. I know enough about how political outrage is generated, and I become suspicious when I see what looks like a coordinated strategy to make people furious; both political parties have their own provocateurs who are experts at doing it, using a process called framing. It's all about what you include, and what you intentionally exclude. So...you rip a quote out of context, create a false narrative to go along with the misleading quote, post it on social media sites your followers use, and assume you'll get away with the deception because partisans want to believe the worst about "the other side." You can easily get like-minded people angry at what the person allegedly said, plus it's also a great tactic for raising money. "Can you believe what [so-and-so] just did? Make a donation right now and help me fight against [that horrible person]!!!"
But when I watched her entire speech, it was pretty clear that she was not downplaying 9/11. When she said "somebody did something," she was expressing it in an awkward way, but the context of her remarks was obvious: no matter what terrible thing happens, if the somebody who did it is a Muslim, many Americans immediately suspect ALL Muslims; and after 9/11, there was so much anger and distrust that American Muslims were in danger of losing their civil liberties. She was also right about the tendency to stereotype Muslims as terrorists: if a white male commits an act of terror, few of us blame ALL white males. But when those terrorists, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia, attacked America on 9/11, many people called for a crackdown on ALL Muslims. To President Bush's credit, he insisted he was not at war with Islam nor with American Muslims. But unfortunately, political discourse has deteriorated since then, and accusing or blaming ALL Muslims has become a normal part of conservative commentary.
And that's my lesson in political communication: sad to say, there are folks on social media who intentionally create narratives that are designed to manipulate you and make you angry. Next time you see one, I hope you'll resist the temptation to "forward this to everyone you know." And in this case, it's especially urgent for everyone to stop and think. Whether you like Ilhan Omar or whether you don't, it's wrong for her to be receiving a growing number of death threats, and it's doubly wrong for her to be blamed for something she never really said. Meanwhile, it's just another day in our outrage culture; and as long as there's an audience for it, and as long as folks can get more "likes" on social media or bigger ratings on cable TV, it will probably continue...despite the potentially dangerous consequences this kind of discourse can bring.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
What Joe Biden Still Doesn't Understand
I've never met Joe Biden, but he seems like a good guy. I know some folks who have worked with him over the years, and they tell me he's very generous. He has been a good senator, who tried to serve the people of his state; and he was a loyal vice president during the Obama years, the same way that Mike Pence is loyal to President Trump. (Vice presidents are supposed to be loyal. They're supposed to defend their boss. Joe Biden understood that role, as Mike Pence understands it now.) It's also well-known that Joe Biden is a family man, and he's very down-to-earth. And whether you agree with his politics or not, most of his congressional colleagues (on both sides of the aisle) will say he genuinely wants to do the right thing for the country.
But that doesn't mean he should run for president. Agreed, he probably will. Any day now, I fully expect him to enter what is already a very crowded presidential race. He's tried before, and there's no reason to think he won't try again. But as much as he seems to be a basically decent guy, I sincerely wish he wouldn't run, because in my view, he's not the right person for the job.
There are a number of reasons why I say that. But one of them is personal: I don't think his attitudes about women have modernized. I remember watching with horror during the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings at how the all-white, all-male judiciary committee badgered and insulted Anita Hill. They treated her like she was on trial, like they thought her claims of sexual harassment were utterly outrageous. As someone who has endured sexual harassment (bordering on sexual assault), I strongly identified with Ms. Hill, and I was appalled by how the men on the committee, led by Mr. Biden, showed her such disrespect. I too was disrespected and disbelieved when I reported what happened to me. I too was subjected to a committee with men who blamed me, or implied I must have done something to "lead him on" (I assure you I did not). Whether you believed her or whether you believed Mr. Thomas, the way the men on that committee patronized her brought back a lot of memories.
I could let it go and forgive Mr. Biden, since it happened years ago. People change. Times change. And yet, when asked about it recently, his response was puzzling. He said that he wished he could have "come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved, given the courage she showed by reaching out to us." He agreed that the tone of the questioning of Ms. Hill was angry and hostile, and he said he regretted it. He also repeated that he wished he could have done something. Umm, he was the Chairman of the Committee. He was in charge of the hearing. He wasn't some bystander. But even now, he talks about it as if there was absolutely nothing he could have done.
There are many people in their mid-70s who understand that we are currently in the midst of some generational shifts. There are things you could say back in the 1950s and 1960s that are probably not appropriate today. I'm not referring to so-called "political correctness"; I'm referring to actual changes in attitudes. For example, back when I was growing up, many people thought it was okay to make gay jokes or black jokes or Jewish jokes openly, or even to use slurs about those and other groups. I don't know a lot of folks today who think it's okay to do that. Or, I've written about the fact that guys used to think it was funny to grope a woman at work-- if she complained, she was told she wasn't a "good sport." I doubt that kind of behavior would be okay in most workplaces today.
But I'm not sure Joe Biden understands that times, and attitudes, have changed. He seems like someone stuck back in the 1960s or 1970s. (I often feel that way about a number of older politicians, including President Trump. The expressions they use, the way they speak, reminds me of stuff I used to hear when I was in college. Maybe people over 65 can relate to it, but I'm not sure young adults still do.) And no, I'm not trying to be ageist; after all, I'm 72 and periodically I admit I too express myself in ways that reflect the times in which I grew up, rather than the current cultural environment.
I'm not saying Joe Biden is too old to run. I'm simply saying I haven't seen any evidence that he could inspire younger voters, or make them feel he understands the issues that matter to them. There are some candidates who seem totally able to reach out to audiences of any age. And there are some who just seem like they're out of touch. Mr. Biden seems like the latter to me, and that's why I'm hoping he won't run.
But that doesn't mean he should run for president. Agreed, he probably will. Any day now, I fully expect him to enter what is already a very crowded presidential race. He's tried before, and there's no reason to think he won't try again. But as much as he seems to be a basically decent guy, I sincerely wish he wouldn't run, because in my view, he's not the right person for the job.
There are a number of reasons why I say that. But one of them is personal: I don't think his attitudes about women have modernized. I remember watching with horror during the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings at how the all-white, all-male judiciary committee badgered and insulted Anita Hill. They treated her like she was on trial, like they thought her claims of sexual harassment were utterly outrageous. As someone who has endured sexual harassment (bordering on sexual assault), I strongly identified with Ms. Hill, and I was appalled by how the men on the committee, led by Mr. Biden, showed her such disrespect. I too was disrespected and disbelieved when I reported what happened to me. I too was subjected to a committee with men who blamed me, or implied I must have done something to "lead him on" (I assure you I did not). Whether you believed her or whether you believed Mr. Thomas, the way the men on that committee patronized her brought back a lot of memories.
I could let it go and forgive Mr. Biden, since it happened years ago. People change. Times change. And yet, when asked about it recently, his response was puzzling. He said that he wished he could have "come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved, given the courage she showed by reaching out to us." He agreed that the tone of the questioning of Ms. Hill was angry and hostile, and he said he regretted it. He also repeated that he wished he could have done something. Umm, he was the Chairman of the Committee. He was in charge of the hearing. He wasn't some bystander. But even now, he talks about it as if there was absolutely nothing he could have done.
There are many people in their mid-70s who understand that we are currently in the midst of some generational shifts. There are things you could say back in the 1950s and 1960s that are probably not appropriate today. I'm not referring to so-called "political correctness"; I'm referring to actual changes in attitudes. For example, back when I was growing up, many people thought it was okay to make gay jokes or black jokes or Jewish jokes openly, or even to use slurs about those and other groups. I don't know a lot of folks today who think it's okay to do that. Or, I've written about the fact that guys used to think it was funny to grope a woman at work-- if she complained, she was told she wasn't a "good sport." I doubt that kind of behavior would be okay in most workplaces today.
But I'm not sure Joe Biden understands that times, and attitudes, have changed. He seems like someone stuck back in the 1960s or 1970s. (I often feel that way about a number of older politicians, including President Trump. The expressions they use, the way they speak, reminds me of stuff I used to hear when I was in college. Maybe people over 65 can relate to it, but I'm not sure young adults still do.) And no, I'm not trying to be ageist; after all, I'm 72 and periodically I admit I too express myself in ways that reflect the times in which I grew up, rather than the current cultural environment.
I'm not saying Joe Biden is too old to run. I'm simply saying I haven't seen any evidence that he could inspire younger voters, or make them feel he understands the issues that matter to them. There are some candidates who seem totally able to reach out to audiences of any age. And there are some who just seem like they're out of touch. Mr. Biden seems like the latter to me, and that's why I'm hoping he won't run.
Friday, March 15, 2019
"Big Money Got a Mean Streak, Big Money Got No Soul"
If you've ever read my blog (and I hope you have), you know that ethics are a big concern of mine. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe honesty is still an important value. I respect anyone who tries to do the right thing, not because they're afraid they'll get caught if they do something wrong, but because they genuinely prefer living an honorable life. Sad to say, these past few days were a reminder that we're living in a time when some people don't seem to feel that way.
Consider the scandal about those super-wealthy parents who made sure their kids got into college by deception: handing out bribes to coaches to give their kids athletic scholarships for sports their kids didn't even play; hiring professionals to take their kids' entrance exams; or paying people to change their kids' wrong answers...and making massive donations to the schools their kids were applying to. As these parents saw it, their kids were entitled to get into the elite colleges of their choice (although whether the kids actually chose these schools is unclear-- one kid, who has a career as a "social media influencer," promoting her own line of cosmetics, told her followers she had no interest in studying and mainly wanted to go there to party). The parents who paid millions to make sure their kids got accepted evidently gave little thought to making their kids earn their way. The goal was to get them admitted, by any means necessary, even if it meant a more deserving (and less affluent) student lost out.
Or consider Paul Manafort, former campaign manager for Donald Trump. For many years, Manafort was a well-known lobbyist, whose clients tended to be brutal dictators and authoritarian regimes. He was well-paid for his efforts, and lived an extravagant lifestyle. He also did what he could to avoid paying taxes and to hide his assets. He was ultimately arrested by the FBI, tried and convicted-- in one trial, for tax fraud, lying about having foreign bank accounts, and bank fraud; and in a second trial, for conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. Both judges noted that he showed little remorse. And although he apologized for his actions, he mainly seemed sorry he had been caught (and that now he would have to spend some time in prison).
What irritated me about the first story was I recall my own experience as a working-class kid trying to get accepted to college. My parents weren't wealthy, and they didn't know any influential people who might get me into an elite university. But then, I didn't expect that. My parents told me to study hard & get good grades; I then took my own SATs (I did okay, but not well enough to get a scholarship). Fortunately, I got accepted to the one school my parents could afford; and during the years I attended, I also worked several part-time jobs to help with tuition. I knew many other kids just like me who did the same thing. What I learned from that experience was if you want to get something, you need to do your part. It won't just be handed to you. Frankly, I think that's a valuable lesson, no matter what social class you come from.
Several things irritated me about the second story, and none of them are political. They have to do with ethics. For one thing, Manafort was willing to lobby on behalf of some of the world's worst dictators; he took money from governments that did horrendous things to their citizens, yet he seemed fine about it as long as he could buy more mansions or cars or expensive clothes. I like to make money as much as anyone does, but I'm not sure I'd work for an autocratic regime or a brutal dictator. Similarly, I hate paying taxes, but it frustrates me whenever I read about some super-wealthy person or corporation that doesn't pay anything. It doesn't prove they're clever-- it proves they don't want to pay their fair share, which hurts the rest of us.
Those of you who are Rush fans know I quoted some of their lyrics in the title of this post. Of course, money itself is neither good nor bad. It can help people, or hurt people. But I've also quoted St. Paul before, and it's time to do it again-- he was right when he said the love of money is the root of all evil. For too many people, they seem to love money (and power) more than they love ethics. Unfortunately, the love of money can bring out the worst in people. And in a media culture that glorifies the lifestyles of the rich and famous, it's easy for some folks to get the impression that money is all that matters... even when the love of it can have disastrous results.
Consider the scandal about those super-wealthy parents who made sure their kids got into college by deception: handing out bribes to coaches to give their kids athletic scholarships for sports their kids didn't even play; hiring professionals to take their kids' entrance exams; or paying people to change their kids' wrong answers...and making massive donations to the schools their kids were applying to. As these parents saw it, their kids were entitled to get into the elite colleges of their choice (although whether the kids actually chose these schools is unclear-- one kid, who has a career as a "social media influencer," promoting her own line of cosmetics, told her followers she had no interest in studying and mainly wanted to go there to party). The parents who paid millions to make sure their kids got accepted evidently gave little thought to making their kids earn their way. The goal was to get them admitted, by any means necessary, even if it meant a more deserving (and less affluent) student lost out.
Or consider Paul Manafort, former campaign manager for Donald Trump. For many years, Manafort was a well-known lobbyist, whose clients tended to be brutal dictators and authoritarian regimes. He was well-paid for his efforts, and lived an extravagant lifestyle. He also did what he could to avoid paying taxes and to hide his assets. He was ultimately arrested by the FBI, tried and convicted-- in one trial, for tax fraud, lying about having foreign bank accounts, and bank fraud; and in a second trial, for conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. Both judges noted that he showed little remorse. And although he apologized for his actions, he mainly seemed sorry he had been caught (and that now he would have to spend some time in prison).
What irritated me about the first story was I recall my own experience as a working-class kid trying to get accepted to college. My parents weren't wealthy, and they didn't know any influential people who might get me into an elite university. But then, I didn't expect that. My parents told me to study hard & get good grades; I then took my own SATs (I did okay, but not well enough to get a scholarship). Fortunately, I got accepted to the one school my parents could afford; and during the years I attended, I also worked several part-time jobs to help with tuition. I knew many other kids just like me who did the same thing. What I learned from that experience was if you want to get something, you need to do your part. It won't just be handed to you. Frankly, I think that's a valuable lesson, no matter what social class you come from.
Several things irritated me about the second story, and none of them are political. They have to do with ethics. For one thing, Manafort was willing to lobby on behalf of some of the world's worst dictators; he took money from governments that did horrendous things to their citizens, yet he seemed fine about it as long as he could buy more mansions or cars or expensive clothes. I like to make money as much as anyone does, but I'm not sure I'd work for an autocratic regime or a brutal dictator. Similarly, I hate paying taxes, but it frustrates me whenever I read about some super-wealthy person or corporation that doesn't pay anything. It doesn't prove they're clever-- it proves they don't want to pay their fair share, which hurts the rest of us.
Those of you who are Rush fans know I quoted some of their lyrics in the title of this post. Of course, money itself is neither good nor bad. It can help people, or hurt people. But I've also quoted St. Paul before, and it's time to do it again-- he was right when he said the love of money is the root of all evil. For too many people, they seem to love money (and power) more than they love ethics. Unfortunately, the love of money can bring out the worst in people. And in a media culture that glorifies the lifestyles of the rich and famous, it's easy for some folks to get the impression that money is all that matters... even when the love of it can have disastrous results.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Things I Don't Understand (Bryce Harper Edition)
I was sitting at my desk, working on some research for an article I'm writing, and something occurred to me: I'm in the wrong line of work. If only I were a professional athlete, instead of a professor, then I might really be making the big bucks. It was announced earlier today that the Philadelphia Phillies are about to pay free-agent outfielder Bryce Harper $330 million for a thirteen year contract. And last week, another outfielder, Manny Machado, signed with the San Diego Padres and got a contract that pays him $300 million for ten years. And it's not just major league baseball: over in the National Basketball Association, the highest paid player is Golden State Warriors point guard Stephen Curry, whose $36 million annual salary may not sound like much, but it's part of a $201 million, five year contract. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I don't begrudge top athletes a huge payday-- although as a fan, it frustrates me that the price of tickets continues to climb. At Fenway Park in Boston, for example, the cheapest seats (way out in the bleachers) can cost about $30 (not including parking or food); grandstand seats are about $60; and box seats can be as much as $90, depending on who's playing. (Many other parks are just as expensive.) In other words, if parents want to take their kids to see a major league game, it can end up costing nearly $300... not something the average working person can afford. And here's how things have changed: when I was fifteen years old, back in 1962, my father took me to a major league game and he paid about $2.25 each for grandstand seats. Those were the days.
But this is what absolutely mystifies me: why do we pay professional athletes so much, and teachers and professors so little by comparison? Yes, I know there are so-called "celebrity professors" who make huge salaries, but they are the exception. Salaries for college instructors are often so low that they have to cobble together assignments at three or four schools, just to make ends meet. As for elementary, middle-school, and high school teachers, their salaries in some cities are as little as $40,000 a year. And as I've mentioned on more than one occasion, many teachers have to pay for school supplies out of their own pocket. And let's not even get into how little we pay the folks who teach for Head Start, or work in daycare centers. (By the way, teachers at Charter Schools aren't exactly getting rich either.)
And yet, as a culture, we claim that children matter. We insist we want the best for our kids. We say we want them to have good teachers and go to successful schools. And we expect that the teachers will work long hours and produce students who get good test scores. (By the way, test scores are not the only way to measure whether kids are learning, but that's a topic for another day.) So, how do teachers feel when professional teams come up with the money to pay a star athlete millions of dollars, but most school districts are constantly expecting teachers to do more with less? What message does it send when we value star athletes so much more than we value the folks whose job it is to educate our children? I'm happy for Bryce Harper, and other talented professional ballplayers. But I truly don't understand why we wouldn't want to spend $330 million fixing up old public school buildings, buying new books and supplies, and upgrading teacher pay. I'm sure someone has a good explanation for such skewed priorities. I'd be eager to hear it.
I don't begrudge top athletes a huge payday-- although as a fan, it frustrates me that the price of tickets continues to climb. At Fenway Park in Boston, for example, the cheapest seats (way out in the bleachers) can cost about $30 (not including parking or food); grandstand seats are about $60; and box seats can be as much as $90, depending on who's playing. (Many other parks are just as expensive.) In other words, if parents want to take their kids to see a major league game, it can end up costing nearly $300... not something the average working person can afford. And here's how things have changed: when I was fifteen years old, back in 1962, my father took me to a major league game and he paid about $2.25 each for grandstand seats. Those were the days.
But this is what absolutely mystifies me: why do we pay professional athletes so much, and teachers and professors so little by comparison? Yes, I know there are so-called "celebrity professors" who make huge salaries, but they are the exception. Salaries for college instructors are often so low that they have to cobble together assignments at three or four schools, just to make ends meet. As for elementary, middle-school, and high school teachers, their salaries in some cities are as little as $40,000 a year. And as I've mentioned on more than one occasion, many teachers have to pay for school supplies out of their own pocket. And let's not even get into how little we pay the folks who teach for Head Start, or work in daycare centers. (By the way, teachers at Charter Schools aren't exactly getting rich either.)
And yet, as a culture, we claim that children matter. We insist we want the best for our kids. We say we want them to have good teachers and go to successful schools. And we expect that the teachers will work long hours and produce students who get good test scores. (By the way, test scores are not the only way to measure whether kids are learning, but that's a topic for another day.) So, how do teachers feel when professional teams come up with the money to pay a star athlete millions of dollars, but most school districts are constantly expecting teachers to do more with less? What message does it send when we value star athletes so much more than we value the folks whose job it is to educate our children? I'm happy for Bryce Harper, and other talented professional ballplayers. But I truly don't understand why we wouldn't want to spend $330 million fixing up old public school buildings, buying new books and supplies, and upgrading teacher pay. I'm sure someone has a good explanation for such skewed priorities. I'd be eager to hear it.
Friday, February 15, 2019
The Importance of This Moment
As some of you know, my birthday was on Valentine's Day. My husband took me out to a well-known French restaurant, where we had a wonderful meal. And in the midst of enjoying a dinner that was fit for a gourmet, I couldn't help but notice something: people were busy talking to each other. I saw nobody on their phone, nobody texting, and nobody live-tweeting about their food.
I have to admit it made me smile, because it's something I don't see very often. Whether it's a rock concert, or a nice dinner, or a movie, it seems some people can't leave their devices alone. They can't just enjoy what they're doing, and be happy with the moment they're in. There's selfies to take and instant messages to send and emails to answer... and it absolutely has to be done NOW. And don't get me started about folks who feel they must respond to every text, even if they're driving. Never a good idea.
I understand wanting to share an experience with friends. If I see a great concert, of course I want to let people know. But I want them to know later-- after I get home. I mean, why spend your time texting instead of relaxing and immersing yourself in the event? I've been to see some amazing bands, and instead of enjoying the show, some folks seemed like they were preoccupied with posting comments on social media. I know because I saw their comments later on. (But I must admit, given the price of tickets these days, not watching a show you've paid for really makes no sense to me.)
Before I became a professor, I was in broadcasting and journalism. I often had high-stress jobs, plus I always liked to get a lot done. But even back then, I realized there were times when it was good to take a break. As a radio consultant, I visited many different states; and my clients often wanted to show me the sights their city was famous for. I learned there was a time for business meetings, but there was also a time to enjoy a national park or a local museum or a popular place to eat. And while it might have been nice to take a photo with my smartphone, I'm glad I wasn't texting my way through each experience. Sometimes, rather than preserving an event, the device can distract from it.
And that brings me back to my birthday dinner. I rarely eat out at fancy places-- I'm more of a casual kind of person, and my tastes are pretty simple. But every now and then, it's nice to do something different, something special. However, for me, the experience itself was enough, and I had no desire to interrupt the mood by texting or tweeting about it. Agreed, I'm not a famous person, so perhaps few people care where I ate or who I saw. But my point is sometimes, the best thing to do is to enjoy the moment; allow yourself to experience it, and be grateful you're there. That's what I did on my birthday, and I was glad to see I wasn't the only one.
I have to admit it made me smile, because it's something I don't see very often. Whether it's a rock concert, or a nice dinner, or a movie, it seems some people can't leave their devices alone. They can't just enjoy what they're doing, and be happy with the moment they're in. There's selfies to take and instant messages to send and emails to answer... and it absolutely has to be done NOW. And don't get me started about folks who feel they must respond to every text, even if they're driving. Never a good idea.
I understand wanting to share an experience with friends. If I see a great concert, of course I want to let people know. But I want them to know later-- after I get home. I mean, why spend your time texting instead of relaxing and immersing yourself in the event? I've been to see some amazing bands, and instead of enjoying the show, some folks seemed like they were preoccupied with posting comments on social media. I know because I saw their comments later on. (But I must admit, given the price of tickets these days, not watching a show you've paid for really makes no sense to me.)
Before I became a professor, I was in broadcasting and journalism. I often had high-stress jobs, plus I always liked to get a lot done. But even back then, I realized there were times when it was good to take a break. As a radio consultant, I visited many different states; and my clients often wanted to show me the sights their city was famous for. I learned there was a time for business meetings, but there was also a time to enjoy a national park or a local museum or a popular place to eat. And while it might have been nice to take a photo with my smartphone, I'm glad I wasn't texting my way through each experience. Sometimes, rather than preserving an event, the device can distract from it.
And that brings me back to my birthday dinner. I rarely eat out at fancy places-- I'm more of a casual kind of person, and my tastes are pretty simple. But every now and then, it's nice to do something different, something special. However, for me, the experience itself was enough, and I had no desire to interrupt the mood by texting or tweeting about it. Agreed, I'm not a famous person, so perhaps few people care where I ate or who I saw. But my point is sometimes, the best thing to do is to enjoy the moment; allow yourself to experience it, and be grateful you're there. That's what I did on my birthday, and I was glad to see I wasn't the only one.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
So Much to Do, and So Little Time
I was lying in bed reading last night, and an article in the Washington Post caught my eye-- it was about how most Americans these days are sleep-deprived. There are many reasons the article gave, and I thought of a few others. For adults, we are often expected to take work home with us: there are projects we need to finish, or preparations we need to make before a morning meeting or a class. There are emails and messages we feel we have to answer; social media posts to catch up on; and for many of us, commutes are getting longer and we have to get up earlier to make sure we're at work on time. For students, there is homework to do or reports to write (the assignments they've often left till the last minute); and let's be honest-- even if parents try to prevent it, many kids stay up too late chatting online with friends or playing video games. And a word should also be said about those of us with health issues-- sometimes, we're in a lot of pain, and that too can keep us from falling asleep.
And one other factor the Washington Post article didn't mention: many people are having trouble sleeping due to worry or insecurity. During the recent government shutdown, many politicians (especially those who are wealthy) seemed surprised that large numbers of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. No, most of them aren't wasting money on stuff they don't need. The problem is how expensive daily life has become in many cities: rents have sky-rocketed and affordable housing is in short supply; medicines are outrageously priced (with little competition to bring prices down); and unskilled or semi-skilled workers are barely able to keep up with how much groceries cost. In addition, even people who make a good salary can be driven into debt by an unexpected crisis (like a car accident, hospitalization, or... 35 days without a paycheck).
But whatever the reason for the lack of sleep, it's a national dilemma. Kids are coming into early morning classes so sleepy that they're dozing off in class (which never makes their teachers very happy). Adults are feeling more stressed and more exhausted (and making more mistakes as a result). As many reputable medical sites point out, lack of sleep can lead to accidents (drowsy drivers get into car crashes more frequently than those who are not half-asleep); it can lead to being less effective at work (if you're feeling drowsy, you are probably not mentally sharp); it can even lead to medical conditions like high blood pressure. And the less sleep a person gets, the more likely they are to feel anxious, impatient, or short-tempered.
In 1942, the average person got about 7 and 1/2 hours of sleep a night. These days, surveys show that large numbers of folks are living on 5 to 6 hours; some even get less than that. There are relaxation techniques that sleep experts suggest, which work for some people-- though not for everyone. The experts also say you shouldn't keep your devices in your bedroom, where you'll be tempted to stay awake and use them. I've also read about various changes in diet that are supposed to help, like limiting alcohol or caffeine or sugar. But frankly, I think this is a cultural issue-- until we as a society make getting enough rest a priority, I doubt much will change. As long as too many of us feel constantly pressured, as long as we feel we have to cram so much activity into so few hours, folks will continue walking around exhausted. I'm one of them, and I'd be interested in what others are doing to deal with this very real problem.
And one other factor the Washington Post article didn't mention: many people are having trouble sleeping due to worry or insecurity. During the recent government shutdown, many politicians (especially those who are wealthy) seemed surprised that large numbers of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. No, most of them aren't wasting money on stuff they don't need. The problem is how expensive daily life has become in many cities: rents have sky-rocketed and affordable housing is in short supply; medicines are outrageously priced (with little competition to bring prices down); and unskilled or semi-skilled workers are barely able to keep up with how much groceries cost. In addition, even people who make a good salary can be driven into debt by an unexpected crisis (like a car accident, hospitalization, or... 35 days without a paycheck).
But whatever the reason for the lack of sleep, it's a national dilemma. Kids are coming into early morning classes so sleepy that they're dozing off in class (which never makes their teachers very happy). Adults are feeling more stressed and more exhausted (and making more mistakes as a result). As many reputable medical sites point out, lack of sleep can lead to accidents (drowsy drivers get into car crashes more frequently than those who are not half-asleep); it can lead to being less effective at work (if you're feeling drowsy, you are probably not mentally sharp); it can even lead to medical conditions like high blood pressure. And the less sleep a person gets, the more likely they are to feel anxious, impatient, or short-tempered.
In 1942, the average person got about 7 and 1/2 hours of sleep a night. These days, surveys show that large numbers of folks are living on 5 to 6 hours; some even get less than that. There are relaxation techniques that sleep experts suggest, which work for some people-- though not for everyone. The experts also say you shouldn't keep your devices in your bedroom, where you'll be tempted to stay awake and use them. I've also read about various changes in diet that are supposed to help, like limiting alcohol or caffeine or sugar. But frankly, I think this is a cultural issue-- until we as a society make getting enough rest a priority, I doubt much will change. As long as too many of us feel constantly pressured, as long as we feel we have to cram so much activity into so few hours, folks will continue walking around exhausted. I'm one of them, and I'd be interested in what others are doing to deal with this very real problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)