The Curmudgeon Speaks

Bullying and cyberbullying were topics I studied during a part of my academic career. With an extremely capable graduate student, I was able to publish several articles on the topic and my colleague went on to complete a post doc with a leading school bullying researcher. Schools struggle to address these challenges and one of the established predictors of success is school climate [https://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/bullying-school-climate]. School climate which is typically measured with questionnaires might be translated as values and culture. I like to describe it as how a group thinks about itself – what kind of people are we? School culture builds over time, but on a daily basis it is developed and communicated by staff and student leaders. Efforts to promote a more positive school climate sometimes involve efforts to get student leaders to communicate that bullying our peers is not who we are. Those peers regarded as leaders are quite influential in establishing valued behaviors. 

I tend to use this model of influence to understand how appropriate behavior is modeled and communicated in society. What examples do our leaders demonstrate? What kind of people are we? President Trump’s present wife claims to share my interests. She offers a message to young people captured in her suggestion that young people #bebest. However, this suggestion comes across as disingenuous given the slurs and belittlement used as a tactic by our President. Culture tends to be controlled much more strongly by leaders than by those who watch. Those who study the phenomenon of bullying identify multiple actors in many settings involving abuse. There can be passive bystanders and encouragers. There may be those who attempt to shield the victim. As I have applied my personal interest to understand the behavior of Trump, I wonder what type of culture encourages belittling labels and racist slurs. This type of behavior can’t be discounted as the naïveté and lack of experience of middle school kids. What category of actor in a bullying scenario would you as a researcher assign to Melania? There is the message of #bebest, but then there is the silence and indifference in the face of actual behavior. Someone ignoring inappropriate behavior in a President despite the personal rejection of exactly this type of behavior seems to establish a new category – something different from passive observer. #firsthypocrite.

There is no new Republican platform this year. The 2016 platform is carried over. A set of goals broken down by area was released [https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-announces-president-trumps-2nd-term-agenda-fighting-for-you]. Here are the two goals for education (I assume K12). Not making this up.

I understand the initial goal given familiarity with the DeVos agenda. School choice is a very controversial topic assumed by many to increase the inequity in the experiences students receive. I am not exactly certain what American Exceptionalism means. I tried to locate an official definition, but on its face I find promoting that you are exceptional is offensive and encourages division rather than cooperation.

Given the challenges faced by educators coming up with these two goals shows the authors to be out of touch with the profession and the challenges as they exist and I would guess to be offensive to many educators.

For contrast, here is the link to the Democratic platform. It is lengthy and online as a pdf. This link should take you to the section addressing education – https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf#page65

I think I have written about this before, but the problem continues and offers the opportunity for an amplification or a way to reach new ears. I engage heavily in social media and welcome the chance to use such services to share my opinions and challenge opinions that run contrary to my way of viewing the world. I believe in the exchange of ideas and I believe in true debate. Of course, I don’t get to set the rules, but for meaningful conversations and debate to occur there must be rules.

One of my observations is that most issues are complex and nuanced and the tactic of simplification results in everyone becoming frustrated at the resulting waste of time. One of the most common tactics of simplification is the expression of an objection to a claim or situation by the application of a label. Recent examples associated with political discussions involve labels such as socialist, communist, or fascist. Vague appeals to religion also fit this template.

Using labels is lazy. Using labels offers the perception of making a sound argument when nothing specific comes to mind and often does not exist. Using a label is a way to communicate with others holding a similar existing view but completely useless in explaining to individuals who are neutral or who disagree why they should change their perception. 

Those who use labels open themselves up to challenges of “how is this any different from that” and rightly so. The issue that comes immediately to mind is government sponsored or required health care. Would this be socialism? If socialism to you implies the government intervenes to assure a service universal health care would represent an example. However, if you are against the government taking responsibility for a given service and believe you shouldn’t have to accept such mandates you are against military service and conscription, public education, and the postal service among many other examples. It could be argued that paying for and serving in a military operation should be a personal choice. Those of us of age in the late 60s and early 70s know that this isn’t the way our democracy works. When drafted, you don’t get to say that I won’t serve because this war is not responsibility. You can certainly complain and do whatever else is within the law to object, but you can’t reject the requirement as socialism. We all pay for education whether we have kids or not. Our taxes partially support the mail SERVICE even though the cost/benefit is very unequal depending on where we live and how frequently we use the service. A political system is clearly not either socialist or not depending on whether any given service requires a commitment from all.

So, don’t claim that democrats are trying to impose socialized medicine on all of us. Socialism has nothing to do with whether any given service can be expected of a government. If you object to a health care system that allows the political system to ignore the needs of individuals, just say that this is your position. I see protection of the country and the individuals within the country by support of the military and the protection of the country and the protection of individuals within the country from disease and injury to be commitments I accept making. It doesn’t make me a socialist to have these values. It simply means I see it my responsibility to address certain basic needs with health and protection from foreign aggression being among these basic needs.

I would be pleased to discuss with you what needs you see as the responsibility of all citizens.

I hope the old style convention supporters learn things from this year’s approach. As a consequence of the face to face audience, the traditional approach is less effective in communicating with voters who will always be watching at a distance. I understand communicating with the public is not the only function of the “convention”, but in terms of influencing voters this year’s approach was very well done.

I would argue that the intended focus of the convention was to establish differences in character. The inclusion of this kid and his message made this difference so clear. There was no need to draw the comparison to Trump’s mocking someone with a disability during one of his events to make the point.

What about issues? I think a solid case could have been made promoting different positions on income inequality, health care, the environment, regard for the role and responsibilities of the U.S. within the global community, etc., but these distinctions seem obvious and vary in how individuals feel impacted. The difference in character is so obvious it probably makes the most general case for which individual is the best leader.

Michelle Obama has a podcast and it is very good. It is only available through Spotify so I am assuming there is money involved. You can listen using the free subscription version of Spotify. To be fair, the podcast is done through Higher Ground – the Obama media company – so the production value (e.g., nice music) is high. I could not help thinking this may be the initial step in an Oprah empire. While the Obamas obviously have political interests, this is not what I consider a political podcast. It involves issues and featured guests. The first full offering is Barack and Michelle talking about their life stories.

I find this kind of rhetoric to be so strange. A sitting President claiming the country to be incapable of completing an election that determines the will of the people. He is promoting the logic – if I win, I deserved to win. If I lose, I have been cheated. Promoting this kind of nonsense is damaging to the core principles on which the country operates and no leader of a democracy should be making such claims as a means of self promotion.

The 2020 pandemic is often compared to the global pandemic of 1918. Trump claimed the 1918 pandemic ended World War II, but he obviously has a seriously limited grasp of history. I read somewhere that the 1918 pandemic was made more difficult to address because some citizens refused to wear masks. I know little of history, but I found this resistance interesting in the same way the present resistance seems illogical. Searching online resources is my remedy in such cases and I found a source focused on this issue.

Because the 1918 pandemic was complicated because of a world war which would seem to create a much more complicated situation, the frustration with folks who refused to wear masks was more intense. Those opposed to wearing masks were labeled “slackers” for not being willing to support the war effort. The danger to those in military service and the production of good relevant to the war effort was obvious. The label should now be applied to those actively resisting mask use and complaining about schools not opening. A special kind of self centered.

Phil Collins is supposedly trending everywhere. The reason seems to be the result of a post from Twins the new Trend. The two teenagers have a YouTube channel they use to share their experience with all kinds of music as a way to bring people together. By chance, they played “In the air tonight” by Phil Collins. They went crazy and so did those who watched their reaction. This reaction video became so popular it bumped interest in Phil Collins.

For those of you who are not Phil Collins fans I provide the following video. Collins was a member of Genisis and an extremely popular solo artist. My family have all long been fans. This video is a good way to experience the surprises in this old song especially the part late in the song when Collins displays his drum skills. Rolling Stone ranks Collins at 43 on their list of rock drummers and the drum fill in In the Air Tonight as the greatest of the decade. It will take a while in this live performance to get to Collins on the drums, but the wait is worth it.

The pandemic has encouraged folks who can’t move about much to find other ways to amuse themselves. My new vice is Cuban Coffee and it has caught on with others in my family.

I have a fancy espresso/latte machine, but my new approach involves simple equipment and inexpensive coffee. The Moka pot is on the right. The pot on the left is a way to make a latte, but I just use the bottom part which heats and froths milk. Cuban coffee is made with a coffee ground to a size similar to espresso. The Cafe Bustelo is a common coffee used in preparing Cuban Coffee. I purchase many kinds of coffee to support my habit. For some reason, Cafe Bustelo is very reasonably priced.

Cuban coffee is similar to espresso but it is combined with a thick sugar paste. The first small amount of coffee generated by the pot is added to sugar and mixed vigorously to produce a paste that when combined with the coffee produces a froth that tops the coffee.

This coffee and paste is combined to produce Cuban Coffee. Adding frothed milk produces a Cuban coffee con leche.

The Pew Research Center just offered an interesting study considering how individuals get their news and what they have learned. Of particular interest were those who relied primarily on social media.

In general, those who rely on social media and local television for news are the least knowledgeable. Younger individuals (18-29) are the group that most heavily relies on social media and older individuals (but not the oldest) are most likely to rely on local television.

The researchers asked nearly 30 questions to estimate knowledge, but did differentiate a set of 9 questions focused on political issues. Respondents were grouped by the number of questions answered correctly with those who relied on social media were most likely to end up in the lowest knowledge group (<5 questions).

The researchers also asked about knowledge of several conspiracy theories. In this case, the social media-focused were most likely to be aware of the conspiracy theories. This study did not evaluate whether the participants believed the conspiracy theories.