It seems perverse if not downright self-destructive to develop a passionate dislike for one of the laws of physics, but I am doing it none the less. Strictly speaking, it is not Newton's First Law with which I have so much trouble, it is the fact that society and economics seem mired in it. Carefully considered conservatism, is only sensible. Idiotic investment inertia is unconscionable, and yet the law of the land, or at least the slope of the economic landscape.
News items are starting to appear about the business failures in Germany of their still nascent biodiesel industry, just because the tax break went away. Well, that and the rising costs of vegetable oils. But ringing the death knell of the industry is certainly premature at best.
On the other hand, it seems like pure leverage that Brazil is seeing in their biodiesel industry. Just as the B2 deadlines are approaching (government policy that all diesel will be blended with 2% biodiesel), prices are spiking for soy beans (the majority of Brazil's biodiesel is produced from soy beans) (Brazil is the #2 producer of soy beans in the world and soy is also one of Argentina's largest crops, by the way). Producers are claiming that the price for biodiesel, set by auction, is no longer viable based on their costs. Government officials are reportedly unsympathetic, or rather, perhaps just not too quick to respond to what they consider a rouge by producers to force prices higher. ANP, Brazil's national oil and petroleum products market regulatory agency spokespersonEdson Silva, told Reuters news agency that, "Producers are interested in gaining a foothold in the market, which has an extraordinary potential, so they may work with reduced profitability now for a while. We believe they will deliver everything that was contracted." He also indicated that he thought prices of soy would ease with the approaching February harvest season. However industry spokesmen say that prices will have to become "realistic" at the next auction or subsidies will have to be created. Defaulting on deliveries could see the producers barred from future auctions, but the government spokeman was not concerned and expected that they will deliver the contracted amounts for the program.Still, in Brazil, the Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress (BSPC), has announced they are creating a network of small local biodiesel plants to convert WVO (waste vegetable oil) to biodiesel in order to help meet the B2 initiative goals. Local citizens are expected to contribute their waste oil to these local plants. But if you think that sounds too "third world" and impractical on a larger scale, well, you might need to revise your thinking. In Kilmarock County, Scotland, they have come up with a system of trading a bucket of used cooking grease for a bus ticket, according to an article in Autogreen Blog. The bus company distributed collection containers to homes all along the routes it services. And in Murcia, Spain, in order to keep the sewer water clean enough to be used for the usual grey water purposes, a local company has distributed funnels to the citizens so that they can now take used cooking oil and grease to any school or grocery shop to be redeemed, which also recycles the plastic soda bottles they use as the standard containers for their deposits.
Biodiesel Magazine reports that the Galveston Bay Biodiesel plant that started with a 20 million gallon per year output capacity, only to immediately start expansion plans to 100 million gallons, seems to have settle US$6 million in liens from contractors for just $2 million, as well as having a US$15 left from the contribution of a new investor to apply to the expansion efforts. Meanwhile Galveston Bay Biodiesel is also suing Chevron for pulling out of the deal last year, claiming that Chevron misrepresented their intentions. Biodiesel Magazine characterizes the suit as more like a domestic dispute than a contractual issue.
Chrysler, being one of the "victims" (as well as perpetrators) of the myths that create corporate inertia in the world, points out that all of its current models of diesel engines come out of the factory capable of running fuel that is 5% ASTM biodiesel. Now I grant that with "variable geometry turbocharger" technology, your engineers might get a little nervous about whether the still ruggedly frontier-like industry of biodiesel production might jeopardize the peak performance of your carefully tuned torque. But on the other hand, here in Phoenix, Arizona, the Deer Valley Unified School District had already completed 4 million miles of proven reliable transportation in their buses and other vehicle BACK IN 2001 using biodiesel blends. And it was recently announced that one of their suppliers has won another contract to supply them with fuel, including what they call OXyG B-60, which is a little deceptive since it is "only" 20% Biodiesel blend. What is innovative (relative to the Deer Valley contract) about this sale is that OXyG B-60 is that this is a product made from WVO, not purpose produced vegetable oils.
Speaking of "on purpose", although there has been a lot of speculation about Senator Clinton's "near tear" the day before the New Hampshire Primary, and I am not coming down on either side of that fence, I did find that Bill Maher'scomment onHBO's Real Time with Bill Maher somewhat ... (I'll save "offense" for the next subject) ... disturbing. It seemed that Bill was stuck in the 50's, comparing Mitt Romney to the Leave It To Beaver character Ward Cleaver, but also implying that Hillary Clinton's crying was inappropriate for a presidential candidate. Specifically he mocked the concept that one might choose to be, "electing a president you want to have a good cry with," while finding acceptable the "want to have a beer with," as an electability criterion. Okay, Bill's job is to be a comedian. (Bill Maher, not Bill Clinton.) (And by the way, Mike Huckabee really CAN tell a joke well, as proven on the Tonight Show recently.) But that was a blatantly sexist remark. Women, given the chance to vote for an equally qualified candidate who happened to be female, would find it completely normal and even "intelligent" to choose the candidate with whom she could imagine she might have a good cry. Heck in the last gubernatorial race here in Arizona, I would rather had sat down for a beer or any other beverage with Janet Napolitano that any of her opponents (and I liked one or two of those guys too). Still, she's endorsing Senator Barack Obama.
While in political mode, I am sorry to say that (former) Senator John Edwards has fallen from my list to even consider, though it isn't even his own fault. No, this one I blame on his lovely wife, Elizabeth. Elizabeth seems to have picked up the bad habit from somewhere of pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo kew lar", and I swear I would vote for a Republican candidate who pronounced it correctly before I would put even a spouse of someone who cannot in the White House again.
then there is THIS, a video of Republican Fred Thompson on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes talks about the assassination of Pakistan's former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. He is critical of Governor Huckabee's comment that, following the assassination, "it is a police matter, now." He ratchets up the rhetoric, and beats the drum for the "global war on terror," the standard "party line" for Bush Republicans. But while that is understandable, it clearly reveals that Governor Huckabee has a more realistic idea of how to deal with terrorism.
Just in case the embedded version of the video clip can't be seen here, you can download it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NROUayHtd3k.
It is not often that you can say that a comedy is inspirational. Occasionally a good comic movie has a serious point to make, and oddly enough, despite former White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow's claim that "none of us" know what is really happening inside those voting machines (and Mark Cuban's legitimate claim that he REALLY DOES -- he was a computer guru before he was a billionaire, and because a billionaire because he was a computer guru) (in the most recent HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher) Robin Williams 2006 movie, Man of the Year where the plot hinged on a hacker tapping into the voting boxes from Diebold (though as [former Judge, now broadcaster] Catherine Crier pointed out Diebold has now changed its name). It is a serious issue and should get some attention before we embark upon another national election, unless we want to actually live with results far more dire than those in the Robin Williams movie. At least in the Hollywood Happy Ending, they CAUGHT the tamperers.
Now hold that thought for a second. Back to politics.
E.J.Dionne, columnist for the Washington Post (and Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institute) pointed out that the Republicans haven't been in such disarray in terms of putting forth a presidential nominee since the election of 1836 when the Whigs had put forth 4 candidates in hope that at least one of them would appeal to each of the 4 geographical constituencies that would play a role in determining the next President. Politics repeating themselves is just another aspect of that old cliche that "history repeats itself" (since we seem to refuse to learn from past mistakes). That point came home to me a few weeks ago when I was called upon to teach a history class that focused on the Presidential election of 1876, which was filled with both similarities and contrasts to the election of 2000. Ohio and Florida played pivotal roles then and now, the support or lack of public support from the incumbent president and accusations of corruptions of the outgoing administration also seemed to have significant effects on the results, and the outcome was eventually decided not by the voters (winner of the popular vote did not prevail in the electoral college due to political party partisanship regarding the certificates of the electors) but by the members of Supreme Court. Even the impending inauguration date played a role in both dramas.
On the subject of inspirational comedy, perhaps the comedy of errors in both 1876 and 2000 should inspire us to action on the voting machine issue, but that is not the only inspiration I came upon this week. I had the true pleasure of watching The Bucket List, directed by Rob Reiner, and starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. The concept, the "bucket list", if you haven't seen it revealed in the publicity already, is that before you die, you should keep in mind that life is finite, and that whatever you feel you want to do, or just HAVE TO DO, should be put on a list, "before you kick the bucket." For anyone too young to recognize that phrase, it means, "before you die." The movie is a delight, and I hardly need mention that the three named individuals are master craftsmen at what they do, so quality is never in doubt. What amazed me was that it actually inspired my wife to want to create her own bucket list. That's pretty high praise from her, and I agree.
Love
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
p.s. check out the free ads from Google, Yahoo and elsewhere
at the Google Ads For Free page.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Politics Waits for No Man - New Hampshire PRIMARY today
To Ron Paul's "fans", I apologize for "promoting" him from Congressman Paul to "Senator Paul" in my previous post.
If you needed proof, Ron Paul and the courts just may provide it. The "proof" I am speaking of is that there has rarely ever been so blatant a mis-use of journalism as the slogan of "Fox News" when it claims, "fair and balanced" news coverage. CONGRESSMAN Dr. Ron Paul appeared on the Monday night edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno saying among other things that in response to being left out of the Fox News Republican Debate on Sunday (Jan. 7, 2008) that he was considering taking them to court because this was clearly an instance where they were showing bias against his campaign. He made it clear that after his showing in Iowa caucuses and still ranking ABOVE Former NYC Mayor Giuliani in public opinion polls in New Hampshire that (though he could only "speculate") that Fox did not want their listeners and viewers to hear the message he wanted to deliver.
He also delivered his most popular and inciteful platform plank that terrorists (Islamists or not) did not target Americans and New York's World Trade Center because we are free and prosperous, the stupid bumpersticker explanation and jingoistic clap trap the Bush administration has been feeding us for years. He is aware, as he states, that over 50 years of political meddling and "occupation" as he puts it, of Middle East countries and puppet dictatorships, and CIA sponsored violence (not to mention the Afghanistan War - no not "OURS", theirs against the Soviets)(aka Charlie Wilson's War in the movie version) is what make the USA a target, not only here, but at our foreign embassies and military bases, too.
To those who might have seen "American Woman's" blog who seemed to assume that I was attacking Dr. Paul, I assure you, I genuinely admire him for bringing these truths to light. There is also some value in what he says about monetary policy, especially in the month after the Fed decided to increase the M4 money supply by some 40 billion. Yes, of course that contributes to some degree of inflation, but that is far from the principal reason the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar (as Dr. Paul implied on the Leno Show).
Does Hillary Clinton Have Enough Experience?
IF experience really was the question as to whether or not a candidate will make a "good" President, there is little question that she is at least as qualified as most of the people who have held that office.
THE question of Hillary's candidacy is does her position on the issues match yours on those issues that are most important to you. Better yet, are the kind of policies that she is likely to implement (Universal Health Care, International Cooperation and Development, Debt restructing for poor nations, cap and trade carbon markets) are GOOD for the nation and the world.
Is it likely that Senator Clinton will be strong on campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of lobbyists, ending pork-barreling "earmark" budget items? Can she, with or without a majority in both Houses of Congress, be able to bring about the rather sensible concept of line-item veto to prevent earmarks if she can't get those eliminated in the first place. Senator Obama's campaign does have a point that as part of the LONG ESTABLISHED Washington political machinery, can we really expect her to work hard for those kinds of reforms.
I think that the answer is a resounding YES, but will it really be working hard enough for her to succeed on every front? It cannot possibly be that easy. At least not unless we also give her the kind of OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of elected members of CONGRESS, too. It may take that kind of solidarity to reform and reverse the damages done by the current administration, but we need to act swiftly. We need immediate action on the "War" in Iraq (remember, we cannot BE "at war" without a formal declaration from CONGRESS, not just the actions of the President and the military), and with repect to Climate Change. We need strong legislation and decisive policies and we need them as soon as possible.
If you could pick today: Obama or Clinton?
Tough question.
I've been watching the debates, and some of the candidates positions, and I think that Hillary's experience in dealing with the Washington process, which is, after all, a process of compromise to arrive at the best solution that can be achieved which is acceptable to both sides, is a really important factor. When she is "accused" of falsely claiming to have represented the US in foreign trips, and the claim is made that Madelaine Albright (as Secretary of State) was the "real" voice of our country in the rest of the world, these attacks are essentially unfounded, and worse, the attackers know that they are unjustified slights on the work Senator Clinton did as First Lady. She was the soft persuasive voice, one of the "back channel" channels the news people like to talk about who often are the "real" diplomats that bring about compromise on the more visible side of the world stage.
We recently saw picutres of Mrs Clinton and Mrs Benazir Bhutto walking together. I doubt that either of them could bake a pumpkin pie, nor were they likely to be exchanging recipes. Yes, clearly they could be talking about raising their children (and the special nuances of doing so with millions of people watching), but I rather suspect that they were more likely discussing microfinance and its ability to provide economic opportunities to impoverished women to start businesses that not only sustain families, but can bring about relative prosperity rather rapidly. Both of the Clintons were very active in this field for decades now.
That is not to say that Obama is not appealing, and for some similar reasons. He too has been working (or did, in the past) to better the lives of less fortunate citizens. He too got things done by "political" means of compromise and forging agreements between groups with conflicting interests. He also brings his youthful enthusiasm and eloquent speaking style. He can be very persuasive on the mass scale of public speaking, which, as many people know, is what brought him to national attention through his speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. I like, too, that Senator Obama comes as half of a highly capable couple. Michele, like Hillary, is a highly educated, articulate and dynamic partner in their marriage, as we have already seen on the campaign trail.
So how would I vote? Well, I recognize that there are those who will have negative reactions to each of these two candidates, but given an absolute freedom to vote the way I would want, I would "VOTE" for a Presidential "ticket" of Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as her Vice-President, and hope that we might see President Obama emerge from the 2016 election.
I have not doubt that Obama can be a GREAT President, but I would like to see him take on that task after an apprenticeship under the very capable tutelage of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton. With 8 years of that kind of guidance, and experience, I truly believe he could be the greatest US President of ALL TIME, or at least maybe second after Jefferson.
Love
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
p.s. If you didn't catch my posts elsewhere, I am tickled pink (some of my more conservatives friends think I'm a little pink, tickled or not) that we now can get Arabic language television via satellite in the USA through DISH Network
p.p.s. I am also really pleased to have found a new diet, even though I am planning on opening a website at http://undietlifestyle.winfotech.com soon. (It may not be working yet, but it should be "soon")
If you needed proof, Ron Paul and the courts just may provide it. The "proof" I am speaking of is that there has rarely ever been so blatant a mis-use of journalism as the slogan of "Fox News" when it claims, "fair and balanced" news coverage. CONGRESSMAN Dr. Ron Paul appeared on the Monday night edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno saying among other things that in response to being left out of the Fox News Republican Debate on Sunday (Jan. 7, 2008) that he was considering taking them to court because this was clearly an instance where they were showing bias against his campaign. He made it clear that after his showing in Iowa caucuses and still ranking ABOVE Former NYC Mayor Giuliani in public opinion polls in New Hampshire that (though he could only "speculate") that Fox did not want their listeners and viewers to hear the message he wanted to deliver.
He also delivered his most popular and inciteful platform plank that terrorists (Islamists or not) did not target Americans and New York's World Trade Center because we are free and prosperous, the stupid bumpersticker explanation and jingoistic clap trap the Bush administration has been feeding us for years. He is aware, as he states, that over 50 years of political meddling and "occupation" as he puts it, of Middle East countries and puppet dictatorships, and CIA sponsored violence (not to mention the Afghanistan War - no not "OURS", theirs against the Soviets)(aka Charlie Wilson's War in the movie version) is what make the USA a target, not only here, but at our foreign embassies and military bases, too.
To those who might have seen "American Woman's" blog who seemed to assume that I was attacking Dr. Paul, I assure you, I genuinely admire him for bringing these truths to light. There is also some value in what he says about monetary policy, especially in the month after the Fed decided to increase the M4 money supply by some 40 billion. Yes, of course that contributes to some degree of inflation, but that is far from the principal reason the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar (as Dr. Paul implied on the Leno Show).
Does Hillary Clinton Have Enough Experience?
IF experience really was the question as to whether or not a candidate will make a "good" President, there is little question that she is at least as qualified as most of the people who have held that office.
THE question of Hillary's candidacy is does her position on the issues match yours on those issues that are most important to you. Better yet, are the kind of policies that she is likely to implement (Universal Health Care, International Cooperation and Development, Debt restructing for poor nations, cap and trade carbon markets) are GOOD for the nation and the world.
Is it likely that Senator Clinton will be strong on campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of lobbyists, ending pork-barreling "earmark" budget items? Can she, with or without a majority in both Houses of Congress, be able to bring about the rather sensible concept of line-item veto to prevent earmarks if she can't get those eliminated in the first place. Senator Obama's campaign does have a point that as part of the LONG ESTABLISHED Washington political machinery, can we really expect her to work hard for those kinds of reforms.
I think that the answer is a resounding YES, but will it really be working hard enough for her to succeed on every front? It cannot possibly be that easy. At least not unless we also give her the kind of OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of elected members of CONGRESS, too. It may take that kind of solidarity to reform and reverse the damages done by the current administration, but we need to act swiftly. We need immediate action on the "War" in Iraq (remember, we cannot BE "at war" without a formal declaration from CONGRESS, not just the actions of the President and the military), and with repect to Climate Change. We need strong legislation and decisive policies and we need them as soon as possible.
If you could pick today: Obama or Clinton?
Tough question.
I've been watching the debates, and some of the candidates positions, and I think that Hillary's experience in dealing with the Washington process, which is, after all, a process of compromise to arrive at the best solution that can be achieved which is acceptable to both sides, is a really important factor. When she is "accused" of falsely claiming to have represented the US in foreign trips, and the claim is made that Madelaine Albright (as Secretary of State) was the "real" voice of our country in the rest of the world, these attacks are essentially unfounded, and worse, the attackers know that they are unjustified slights on the work Senator Clinton did as First Lady. She was the soft persuasive voice, one of the "back channel" channels the news people like to talk about who often are the "real" diplomats that bring about compromise on the more visible side of the world stage.
We recently saw picutres of Mrs Clinton and Mrs Benazir Bhutto walking together. I doubt that either of them could bake a pumpkin pie, nor were they likely to be exchanging recipes. Yes, clearly they could be talking about raising their children (and the special nuances of doing so with millions of people watching), but I rather suspect that they were more likely discussing microfinance and its ability to provide economic opportunities to impoverished women to start businesses that not only sustain families, but can bring about relative prosperity rather rapidly. Both of the Clintons were very active in this field for decades now.
That is not to say that Obama is not appealing, and for some similar reasons. He too has been working (or did, in the past) to better the lives of less fortunate citizens. He too got things done by "political" means of compromise and forging agreements between groups with conflicting interests. He also brings his youthful enthusiasm and eloquent speaking style. He can be very persuasive on the mass scale of public speaking, which, as many people know, is what brought him to national attention through his speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. I like, too, that Senator Obama comes as half of a highly capable couple. Michele, like Hillary, is a highly educated, articulate and dynamic partner in their marriage, as we have already seen on the campaign trail.
So how would I vote? Well, I recognize that there are those who will have negative reactions to each of these two candidates, but given an absolute freedom to vote the way I would want, I would "VOTE" for a Presidential "ticket" of Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as her Vice-President, and hope that we might see President Obama emerge from the 2016 election.
I have not doubt that Obama can be a GREAT President, but I would like to see him take on that task after an apprenticeship under the very capable tutelage of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton. With 8 years of that kind of guidance, and experience, I truly believe he could be the greatest US President of ALL TIME, or at least maybe second after Jefferson.
Love
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
p.s. If you didn't catch my posts elsewhere, I am tickled pink (some of my more conservatives friends think I'm a little pink, tickled or not) that we now can get Arabic language television via satellite in the USA through DISH Network
p.p.s. I am also really pleased to have found a new diet, even though I am planning on opening a website at http://undietlifestyle.winfotech.com soon. (It may not be working yet, but it should be "soon")
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Why This Is the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT PAGE on the INTERNET
You might not agree with me, and generally that's okay with me. There are certain to be no shortage of people who disagree this is, or ever will be, the second most important page on the internet. And if you think that the title is the most egotistical title you have ever heard then you probably have never read my book, The Day I Changed the Shape of the Universe, have you? Indeed if you decide to pick up a copy and read that book, that alone could eventually make this page THE most important page on the internet because some day some bright young (well, probably young, since young people seem more open to new ideas) person will read that book, and it will change the future of mankind because of the understanding it gives them about the nature of matter, energy and gravity. But that is only incidental to the purpose of this page.
It is my intent to make changes in the world. Small and personal, bold and radical, evolutionary and revolutionary, changes that will make the world a better place and life less of a frightening battle between hunger, starvation and poverty, illness and death for at least a large number of people who see little else in their lives because that is the whole of the reality they live in. I plan to bring some of that about as a direct result of what appears on this page (and I plan to put this page on more than one of the "social networking sites" to make it more widely available too).
I am going to talk about things that you might not have thought about, some that have bothered you for years, and some that are on the tip of everybody's tongues (because they are in the "news" at the time I write about them).
But, in particular, I want to help people whose children are having difficulty learning. I have already written two books for students in the "middle school" grades (6th, 7th, and 8th) who are not reading up to their grade level. These books are depicted in the "header" graphic for this page (on the wordpress.com blog at least) and have sold rather poorly thus far. They use several techniques to "lure in" the poorer readers of middle school based on observations I personally made of that type of student in the classrooms. They tend to gravitate toward books that are "picture books" and in particular look like they are written for the lower (primary) grades. That is exactly what Puppyfish and Puppy Goes to Lambergarten do. They are written at a reading level of an advanced 4th grade reader, so can also be used as challenging reading for very advanced 2nd or 3rd graders too. But they are specifically designed to be used for middle schoolers by attracting them to the format of colorful illustrations of cartoon style animals on the cover, and continuing the illustrations in the pages of the book, yet introducing them to "chapter book" style content, not the one or two sentences they expected to find in primary grade reading materials. The stories are simple and easy to follow, but the text is extensive.
One of the best ways to employ these books is to turn these children who are struggling themselves into the "tutors" for children in primary grades, especially using these books (or books like them)(I can't write them all). If the middle school students are given these books to read out loud to primary grade children as part of a mentoring program for those younger children, the responsibility of being chosen for this "honor" will strengthen the middle school student's self-esteem. It will help motivate them to learn to read better, and indeed in some cases, they may find that the younger students actually end up mentoring the middle schoolers on how to work out pronunciation through phoneme recognition or just having a more extensive established vocabulary.
If you have a pre-teen who is struggling to keep up with school work because of their difficulty reading up to grade level, you might want to become a regular reader here. Not everything on this blog will be just on that one subject, but it will probably serve as the freely available “newsletter” for http://helpkidsread.winfotech.com as well as http://remedialreaders.winfotech.com and http://whykidscantread.winfotech.com (which for the present at least, all point to the same content). Those sites will also have suggestions for members on products to buy, reports to read, and techniques to help young readers to be better readers.
READING is FUNDAMENTAL to ALL SUCCESS. Reading MORE is IMPORTANT so developing ENTHUSIASM for READING is almost more important than developing the mere reading skills. The LOVE of READING will teach someone to read far faster and far better than any formal technique. And that is why this page is so important. We want to promote the LOVE of reading as well as the ABILITY to READ.
The “people of tomorrow” cannot be expected to make RESPONSIBLE, INFORMED and INTELLIGENT DECISIONS about themselves, their families and their future without being able to read and understand the choices and the arguments for both sides of any decision, as well as recognize the difference between an irrational emotional appeal and a logical convincing statement of an informative nature. Any hope for democracy surviving as more than a sham, a mere appearance of participation in government will be lost unless we can raise both awareness and intelligence in the citizens who will be voting in elections in just a few years from now.
Those “people of tomorrow” are the students of today. Imagine the horrifying prospect of the majority of citizens who have never had the benefit of reading books like BRAVE NEW WORLD, or 1984, or SOYLENT GREEN, being drawn into an emotional appeal to “save your children” by cutting off all social assistance programs to persons over the age of 80. “What do you want, healthy children or drooling, grey-haired vegetables in wheelchairs? Save the National School Lunch funding! Vote for the New Neocratic Party candidate in your district.”
Think about it.
READ.
Love,
Stafford “Doc” Williamson
It is my intent to make changes in the world. Small and personal, bold and radical, evolutionary and revolutionary, changes that will make the world a better place and life less of a frightening battle between hunger, starvation and poverty, illness and death for at least a large number of people who see little else in their lives because that is the whole of the reality they live in. I plan to bring some of that about as a direct result of what appears on this page (and I plan to put this page on more than one of the "social networking sites" to make it more widely available too).
I am going to talk about things that you might not have thought about, some that have bothered you for years, and some that are on the tip of everybody's tongues (because they are in the "news" at the time I write about them).
But, in particular, I want to help people whose children are having difficulty learning. I have already written two books for students in the "middle school" grades (6th, 7th, and 8th) who are not reading up to their grade level. These books are depicted in the "header" graphic for this page (on the wordpress.com blog at least) and have sold rather poorly thus far. They use several techniques to "lure in" the poorer readers of middle school based on observations I personally made of that type of student in the classrooms. They tend to gravitate toward books that are "picture books" and in particular look like they are written for the lower (primary) grades. That is exactly what Puppyfish and Puppy Goes to Lambergarten do. They are written at a reading level of an advanced 4th grade reader, so can also be used as challenging reading for very advanced 2nd or 3rd graders too. But they are specifically designed to be used for middle schoolers by attracting them to the format of colorful illustrations of cartoon style animals on the cover, and continuing the illustrations in the pages of the book, yet introducing them to "chapter book" style content, not the one or two sentences they expected to find in primary grade reading materials. The stories are simple and easy to follow, but the text is extensive.
One of the best ways to employ these books is to turn these children who are struggling themselves into the "tutors" for children in primary grades, especially using these books (or books like them)(I can't write them all). If the middle school students are given these books to read out loud to primary grade children as part of a mentoring program for those younger children, the responsibility of being chosen for this "honor" will strengthen the middle school student's self-esteem. It will help motivate them to learn to read better, and indeed in some cases, they may find that the younger students actually end up mentoring the middle schoolers on how to work out pronunciation through phoneme recognition or just having a more extensive established vocabulary.
If you have a pre-teen who is struggling to keep up with school work because of their difficulty reading up to grade level, you might want to become a regular reader here. Not everything on this blog will be just on that one subject, but it will probably serve as the freely available “newsletter” for http://helpkidsread.winfotech.com as well as http://remedialreaders.winfotech.com and http://whykidscantread.winfotech.com (which for the present at least, all point to the same content). Those sites will also have suggestions for members on products to buy, reports to read, and techniques to help young readers to be better readers.
READING is FUNDAMENTAL to ALL SUCCESS. Reading MORE is IMPORTANT so developing ENTHUSIASM for READING is almost more important than developing the mere reading skills. The LOVE of READING will teach someone to read far faster and far better than any formal technique. And that is why this page is so important. We want to promote the LOVE of reading as well as the ABILITY to READ.
The “people of tomorrow” cannot be expected to make RESPONSIBLE, INFORMED and INTELLIGENT DECISIONS about themselves, their families and their future without being able to read and understand the choices and the arguments for both sides of any decision, as well as recognize the difference between an irrational emotional appeal and a logical convincing statement of an informative nature. Any hope for democracy surviving as more than a sham, a mere appearance of participation in government will be lost unless we can raise both awareness and intelligence in the citizens who will be voting in elections in just a few years from now.
Those “people of tomorrow” are the students of today. Imagine the horrifying prospect of the majority of citizens who have never had the benefit of reading books like BRAVE NEW WORLD, or 1984, or SOYLENT GREEN, being drawn into an emotional appeal to “save your children” by cutting off all social assistance programs to persons over the age of 80. “What do you want, healthy children or drooling, grey-haired vegetables in wheelchairs? Save the National School Lunch funding! Vote for the New Neocratic Party candidate in your district.”
Think about it.
READ.
Love,
Stafford “Doc” Williamson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
