All Posts Tagged With: "barack obama"

“One’s title…says very little about how well one’s life has been led,” says pres

U.S. President Barack Obama didn’t shy away from the “snub” by Arizona State University officials who said he hadn’t accomplished enough yet to deserve an honorary degree.

In a commencement speech Wednesday to a stadium full of young graduates, he said the officials were right.

“I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven’t yet achieved enough in my life,” Obama said. With a smile he added: “First of all, (first lady) Michelle (Obama) concurs with that assessment. She has a long list of things that I have not yet done waiting for me when I get home.”

“But more than that I come to embrace the notion that I haven’t done enough in my life. I heartily concur,” the president said. “I come to affirm that one’s title, even a title like ‘president of the United States,’ says very little about how well one’s life has been led.”

Obama challenged the graduating class to find new sources of energy, to improve failing schools and never to rely on past achievement. While he congratulated them on earning a degree, Obama told them that the next steps mattered more than a piece of paper or tassel.

“I want to say to you today, graduates, class of 2009, that despite having achieved a remarkable milestone in your life – despite the fact that you and your families are so rightfully proud – you, too, cannot rest on your laurels. … Your own body of work is also yet to come,” the president said, wearing a black gown with red embellishments.

Guests who deliver commencement addresses typically are awarded honorary degrees as a sign of respect and appreciation. Arizona State University officials, however, did not award any honorary degrees this year.

“His body of work is yet to come. That’s why we’re not recognizing him with a degree at the beginning of his presidency,” university spokeswoman Sharon Keeler said shortly after the school’s student newspaper first reported the decision.

To quell the controversy, the university instead renamed a scholarship for the 44th president of the U.S. At the beginning of his remarks, Obama thanked the school for the gesture.

- The Canadian Press

He wants higher standards, tougher tests, merit pay for teachers — excellent ideas all. And in Canada, they would get him labeled as a right wing nut.

The US President gave a speech last week that reminds us why it can sometimes be a good idea to put highly educated people into positions of political responsibility. Obama unveiled his plans for American education, laying out a framework for improving educational performance by means of steps that are logical, sensible, evidence-based—and, oh yes, unacceptable to large parts of his own party.

The first clue that the Obama plan makes sense? It’s written in plain English. He did not invoke weasel words or marketing-speak or the “vague, cloudy euphemisms” that Orwell warned against in Politics and the English Language. You may disagree with what Obama said, but you can at least understand it. It is clearly worded because it is based on clear thinking.

And the reason many in his party will disagree with it? Because Obama wants to improve America’s disappointing educational results by raising standards; imposing new and better tests to measure where education is improving and where it is not; rewarding teachers who succeed in improving educational outcomes; and transforming the public school monopoly by allowing the creation of more charter schools, which are basically private-ish magnet schools funded by public money. The whole focus of the plan is on outcomes, namely more students getting more/better educations, with those outcomes objectively measured by tests.

The President also wants to spend more on education—okay, so at least there’s something in there to antagonize Republicans—but the goal is about “ensuring not only that teachers and principals get the funding that they need, but that the money is tied to results.”
“... we will end what has become a race to the bottom in our schools and instead spur a race to the top by encouraging better standards and assessments. Now, this is an area where we are being outpaced by other nations. It’s not that their kids are any smarter than ours — it’s that they are being smarter about how to educate their children. They’re spending less time teaching things that don’t matter, and more time teaching things that do. They’re preparing their students not only for high school or college, but for a career. We are not. Our curriculum for 8th graders is two full years behind top performing countries. That’s a prescription for economic decline. And I refuse to accept that America’s children cannot rise to this challenge. They can, and they must, and they will meet higher standards in our time.

So let’s challenge our states — let’s challenge our states to adopt world-class standards that will bring our curriculums to the 21st century. Today’s system of 50 different sets of benchmarks for academic success means 4th grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming — and they’re getting the same grade. Eight of our states are setting their standards so low that their students may end up on par with roughly the bottom 40 percent of the world.
That’s inexcusable. That’s why I’m calling on states that are setting their standards far below where they ought to be to stop low-balling expectations for our kids. The solution to low test scores is not lowering standards — it’s tougher, clearer standards.

Living as I do in a province that has no standardized high school leaving exams; where we have no idea what our public education system’s real “outcomes” are or whether they are improving; where an 80% grade at one school is not comparable to an 80% at another; where students enrolled at a public school and receiving unsatisfactory marks can go to private degree mill for a course or two, and pay to get the mark they need; AND have those marks appear on their regular high school transcript; AND apply to university or college using those marks… well, let’s just say that the Obama speech gave me a little frisson of…. hey, what was that? Ah yes: the man calls it “hope.”

A (more than slightly tangential) continuation from yesterday’s post:  Has it been eight years already? It feels like just yesterday when I was bemoaning the new, anti-intellectual president elect from Texas. Time flies, it seems, when you have a focus for your hatred. But now that Bush, by the time of this printing, will already be [...]

A (more than slightly tangential) continuation from yesterday’s post: 

Has it been eight years already? It feels like just yesterday when I was bemoaning the new, anti-intellectual president elect from Texas. Time flies, it seems, when you have a focus for your hatred. But now that Bush, by the time of this printing, will already be gone, to make way for the commencement of a new era, I’ll kind of miss him. He had that rare ability to unite people – even though he was uniting those who opposed him. Yet, if not for him, I would never have marched alongside wild radicals with whom I otherwise have little in common. At the great world-wide protest against the Invasion of Iraq in 2003, I met vegan farmers, girls with rainbow-coloured hair who wore ponchos and moccasins, and extremist Maoists, who called themselves “Spartacists” and advocated a simple, proletarian life for all. Had it not been for the foreign policy of Mr. Bush, I would never have come across these colourful – and eccentric – people. The assumed evil of the Bush Doctrine also gave me hope in the somewhat moribund system of the United Nations. For those of us opposing the Iraq War, the UN was given a hallowed, almost infallible, position – notwithstanding the fact that, through the Oil For Food Program, it had been partly complicit in helping certain states gain great financial benefit from the status quo of Saddam Hussein’s regime. I also found heroic the anti-American actions of countries (France, Russia, Turkey) who otherwise have far from admirable foreign policies. And, finally, I found a certain poignancy in the somewhat maudlin and misleading filmmaking of Michael Moore. For these reasons, I must thank George Bush. It is also necessary to correct certain misconceptions – or, shall we say, misunderestimations. The predominant one is that he was not intelligent. Most of us assumed this, not necessarily from his policies, but rather from his infamous linguistic missteps during speeches. In fact, these laughable proclamations became the primary evidence for disagreeing with his political decisions. We asked: “How can someone who sounds so dumb ever develop smart initiatives?” Yesterday, I referenced the recent BBC compilation of a list of well-known Bushisms. Reading it over, I couldn’t help but feel a certain admiration for the frankness and creativity of his language. After eight years of listening to this man, I’ve developed an ear for his cadence, as well as his somewhat Byzantine message. Here are some of the most beloved utterances of the now-former President, along with some of my own explanations as to their possible meaning: “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?” (January, 2000)If we consider “our children” not as the plural of “our child,” but rather as a category unto itself, the noun then becomes singular. In the same way, one could say: “We are asking the right questions in the following domains: war, the environment, our children, social security, etc.” “I understand small business growth. I was one.” (February, 2000)In the business community, many owners often associate themselves as symbiotically connected to the business which they founded. “It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.” (May, 2000)This, I presume, is a joke. Just think, if Obama had said a similar thing (albeit not in these trying economic times) with a characteristically straight-faced delivery, the media would have been rolling in the press room aisles. “I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (September, 2000)A good thing to say in any fishing community. Just think of Harper in the Maritimes. It’s sort of like him saying, “The executive must contemplate the best method to balance the interests of the local fishermen, including the possible need to diversify the economy of the region, as well as supporting a generalized moratorium on cod fishing, since, we must think of generations to come and their likely reliance on the same supply.” “They misunderestimated me.” (November, 2000)He gets a lot of flack for this one. But it’s quite an ingenious neologism: had he simply said “They underestimated me,” the term would be vague and rather clichéd. But by “misunderestimated,” we can understand that his detractors did not merely think little of him, but what little they thought was done for the wrong reasons. Ie. Over eight years, we have not only underestimated Bush, but also misplaced that underestimation by thinking him a simpleton when, in fact, he was – in his own way – a genius. “I think war is a dangerous place.” (May, 2003)Like a great poet, the President combines the tough reality of war with a geographical location (“place”). Is it not true that war must necessarily take place in a place? Lesser minds would overlook this connection. “The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the – the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice.” (October, 2003)This is a simple example of a quote taken out of context. We have a number of characters involved (ambassador, general, the majority of Iraqis and the terrorists). This likely came at the end of a long passage focusing on the terrorists. Thus, even though he has mentioned the majority of Iraqis in the previous sentence, any listener would know that “these people” refers to those mentioned in the central thrust of the speech, the terrorists. “I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.” (April, 2006)A perfect, pithy description of executive power. “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” (September, 2006)True. I hope this gloss has helped enrich our appreciation of the man who led the world’s most powerful country over the last eight years. Perhaps, for his expansion of English vocabulary and syntax, we owe him our grudging respect. 

Unfortunately, this may pale in comparison to his less-forgivable errors: the cynicism with which he reneged on Kyoto, the stupidity with which, based on dubious intelligence reports, he invaded Iraq, and, worst of all, the way he interpreted a miniscule electoral victory to allow the full-throttle imposition of neo-conservative policies and cabinet personalities. However, it must be added, had the eight years under Bush not been so desperate, Barack Obama may never have galvanized the support necessary to propel him into the Oval Office.

(These thoughts are all my own – well, at least those I don’t share with the the outgoing US President – and certainly don’t necessarily reflect those of my co-authors, Paul Matthews and Andrew Feindel.)

Last week, I was in Chicago, taking a short holiday, visiting some friends and catching up on the latest trends in skyscraper architecture (which point, by the way, very high – 150 storeys high, to be exact, which is the lofty ceiling of the new Santiago Calatrava spire going up at the mouth of the [...]

Last week, I was in Chicago, taking a short holiday, visiting some friends and catching up on the latest trends in skyscraper architecture (which point, by the way, very high – 150 storeys high, to be exact, which is the lofty ceiling of the new Santiago Calatrava spire going up at the mouth of the Chicago River).

It was forty years after the doomed Democratic convention in the very same city, which brought together hippies, yippies, black panthers, war veterans and you-name-its in a legendary (read “short-lived”) confrontation with the military industrial complex in general and Mayor Richard Daly’s (pere) men in black in particualr.

It was the city where presidential hopeful Barack Obama got his feet wet too. It was here, according to a recent New Yorker article, on the city’s infamous south side, that he developed many of his political philosophies and problem solving techniques. This is his place, if ever he had one – not Hawaii, not Indonesia, but in this boastful, barrel-chested city of glistening modernist spires, where America displays its best, along Michigan Avenue and for sale, and its worst, the dreaded southern end of the city, the mire of boarded-up buildings, lingering corruption and unemployment. Though, as many Chicago residents pointed out, his bastion is the enclave around the University of Chicago known as Hyde Park, an area of Nobel laureates (the university has the highest number of prize-winners in the world) and endearing Queen Anne style homes.

It was also forty-five years after Martin Luther King’s famed speech on the Washington Mall. And for the first African-American presidential candidate, that should mean something…

Yet, as a gang of us wandered from the Gehry-designed stage at Milenium Park, where a free Sonny Rollins show had just finished up, checking bar after bar to see if they were playing the speech, the hope that was oozing out of Mile High Stadium in Denver was nowhere to be found. No establishment was playing the speech. And, finally, after we managed to haggle one mafioso-like owner into playing it on one of his many screens, we were deprived of sound.

You see, the Cubs game was on – and the hometown boys were about to stage a great comeback…