Every Child Left Behind!

The goal of the "No Child Left Behind" program is to ensure that all children going through the education system get a good and more standardized education. Putting standardized and good education in the same sentence, to me, is an oxymoron. Standardized testing, for the most part, means multiple choice. This type of testing does not give room for analysis of information, only it's regurgitation. With standardization come streamlining, and that means the teachers do not have the chance for individualism and creativity. Without these key ingredients, students will not only not want to learn, but will not remember what they have.




One prime example I would like to bring up, is hand writing and language. Students are no longer taught cursive writing in school. This type of writing is a window into a more creative form of writing. At the very least it allows the student to developed a more personalized, and perhaps better, handwriting. As a child who learned to write before going to school, I know how this can negatively effect handwriting skills. The teaching of cursive writing gives a second look at those skills at a later age. I think that by skipping over this key part of a child's education, we will not only allow a part of our culture to die, but allow the downgrading of handwriting and even writing etiquette.

I have already mentioned that with standardized testing, we loose the testing of our children's ability to analyze. As a TA at a university, I saw first hand the negative effects of the over use of multiple choice style testing. Writing and indeed thinking skills have gone out the window. What is worse, is that even though we have lowered the expectations in the high school classroom, it doesn't stop there. Having encouraged every child to go to college, and even convinced them that it is their right to do so, we now are feeling pressure to lower the standards there as well. With so many holders of bachelor's degrees, the worth of such an achievement has plummeted. On top of that degradation by the sheer force of numbers, we add to it the "dumbing down" of the curriculum. I do not like to discriminate people who are less fortunate and may have special needs, however, there is a place within conventional grade school level education to make allowances and special privileges to ensure their ability to learn and inevitably function in society. What I do not believe in, is that we need to make special allowances in order that they not only can go to college (and probably at a lower cost), but are allowed to graduate only due to special allowances and exceptions.


With each generation, the educational standards seem to be lowered further and further until every child will be left behind. The whole country will have left real education behind.

To wash or not to wash

How many of you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom?  How about when you have touched uncooked or old food?  Those sound like logical times to wash your hands in order to prevent disease.  Washing your hands after using the bathroom is a sanitary measure that prevents staph infections.  Washing your hands after handling raw chicken prevents the threat getting infected with bacteria like e. coli.

What about all the other times that you wash your hands?  Perhaps when your hands are physically dirty (actual soil) you might thoroughly wash your hands, but is an antibacterial hand soap necessary?  Or is it more practical to use plain old irish spring, dove, or any other brand of soap.  Then of course there is the newer fad of using antibacterial gel every time you touch another person or public facility or anytime at all really.  

My point is this: what constitutes a good use of such devices and a bad one?  Is using so much antibacterial formulas in our everyday life really going to help prevent disease?  Or is it just going to make the bulk of the human population that much more indefensible to any serious threat?  

These questions are ones that you should be asking yourself when you are at the grocery store deciding between a lemon scented dishwashing soap, an orange, or an apple one.  One soap is completely free of any additives.  One "Kills 99% of all bacteria."  The third has both antibacterial agents and antiviral ones.  The soaps with additives may help prevent the threat of your family getting some stomach bug, but then again if you were using hot water this would have been prevented anyway.  The other will simply clean the dishes, preventing the over-growth of any bacteria or fungi due to remaining food particles.  I see the former as unnecessary and something that will eventually harm the entirety of the population, where the latter is just good hygiene. The trouble is seeing where the line divides the two.  

The harming of the population as whole will not just be the destruction of the good bacteria that normally inhabit our bodies both inside and out, but a more serious problem.  Not only are our bodies now more defenseless because of the destruction of the helpful and preventative populations, but the harmful bacteria (and now in some case viruses) have been continually exposed so that they can mutate in order to survive both the antibacterial agents and any normal bacterial defenses that your body has.  One good example of a creation of a more dangerous bacterial infection is MRSA.  This infection is resistant to antibacterial agents and to antibiotics.  

The real question lies in asking if the scientists that created this stuff really did not think about the ramifications of their work.  The scary answer is if they did.

Robin Hood

Today I watched the recent most Robin Hood film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett.  Although Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman will not allow me to ever forget the greatness of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (not to mention Bryan Adams great song for the sound track), Robin Hood is a much better film in so many ways. 

I must begin by labeling the great many faults from which Prince of Thieves obviously suffers.  First off, would any lord of the twelfth century have a mullet?  I think not; probably would don a longer hairstyle (in the front and back) and perhaps even some facial hair.  This fault is a minor one seeing how historical films are almost never accurate in the portrayal of hair.  There is that one great exception of the tonsure, popular amongst medieval monks.  Christian Slater definitely looked pious with that hair cut in The Name of the Rose while fornicating with a women later proclaimed to be a heretic. 

One must never forget the lack of talent amongst some of the cast, or perhaps the casting director.  Do not mistake me, Kevin Costner is amazing as a baseball player or perhaps a cowboy (especially since his guns miraculously never run out of bullets).  As Sir Robin of Locksley however,  Kevin just was not up to snuff.  Does it not strike anyone strange that the main character of a film set in medieval England does not have an English accent?  This little detail may be overlooked if the rest of the cast were also American.  Unfortunately, majority of the cast is in fact British, and those who are not at least attempt to speak in that tongue.  Morgan Freeman even goes so far as to speak like a man from the Middle East who has learnt English from an Englishman (and not an American). 

The biggest problem of the film is the blatant historical inaccuracy.  King John is never mentioned; apparently it was some random sheriff that was going to take control of the whole of England.  King Richard I, aka "Lion Heart," must have risen from the dead in France to return to England after the Crusade at the end of the film.  (Although if anyone can do it, Sean Connery can!)  It is somewhat unfortunate that they did not mention King John, and his misfortunes of being the king that allowed barons to have more power.  He was the king that signed the Magna Carta in 1215.  Films produced today always exaggerate the claims of freedom in ages where such terminology does not translate to anything similar to our own idea of the word.  This moment in history was one which could be relished as a step towards modern freedom; one that was a step towards representative government.  The new movie, Robin Hood, not only accurately shows Richard I dying in France before his return, but also portrays the political climate of John's reign.

The film is good in other ways like details surround the creation of the Robin Hood legend and his connections with the house of Locksley.  This story combines those of Robin being a commoner and those of his origins being in noble blood.  Cate Blanchett makes a much stronger Marian than Mastrantonio, and the friars are equal in each movie respectively.  As for poor Matthew Macfadyen, his character's role was small and very much undermining the potency of that villainous character which Alan Rickman and so many before him have so greatly played.  

As for flaws of the new film, it has plenty of its own but of a lesser gauge.  Complete historical accuracy in a film is absolutely impossible, and I am sure that the producers and screenwriters do not claim such.  I do find it amusing that this film still did not have English subjects playing the lead roles.  This time the actors were from another of Great Britain's former colonies, Australia.  Crowe and Blanchett have however mastered the English, and American, accents.  Crowe was attempting to be more regionally specific by adopting a more northern or Yorkshire sounding accent.  I am not an expert, being a crumby Yank myself, but his attempt was a good one, better in some scenes than others.   I feel that the attempt was worth something more than Costner's blatant disregard for cultural ambiance. 

Regardless of either's faults, both movies have their place in my permanent video library (if I had the funds to purchase the new one).