Tooting the Whistle

     Many moon ago, I was a starving freshman college student living in a decrepit dormitory lucky to scrape together enough money so I could join my friends once a week at the Burger Chef directly across from Kent State University's front campus. Most weeks I had the money, but several I didn't--I hated that feeling. Although I had a part-time job working on campus, that money was pretty well spoken for, so my money flow was quite limited until . . . I became interested in becoming a basketball referee. In time, I researched the process of becoming an official, ordered and studied the materials, began focusing on referees' movements rather than the players', passed the required Ohio High School Athletic Association test, and became a licensed official. From that point, another step in my evolution had begun.

     Like most players and fans, prior to becoming an official, I had based most of my reactions on how those around me acted. Typically, if a call had gone against my team or the team I was rooting for, I, without hesitation, blamed the official. For years, I had watched the sideline antics of Coach Charlie Huggins as he berated, manipulated, and scolded officials with the intent of getting the crowd to support his viewpoint and intensify the pressure on the men in stripes. Truthfully, most times it worked because it was Charlie--a basketball icon in our valley--doing the yelling. Opposing coaches--in an attempt to get the same breaks that Charlie got--tried to emulate him. Sometimes it worked; most frequently, it didn't. That was my background, so, obviously, I carried that same mentality with me: Officials deserved to be scolded.

     When the "shoe is on the other foot," however, we often change our perspectives. As a neophyte official, I had so much to learn, but like any beginner, I carried myself as if I knew far more than I did. Fortunately, in the Portage County League where I began, the league protocol required the varsity officials to bring one JV official with them, and each of the two varsity officials worked one half of the JV game with whomever they brought. I had the opportunity to work with two veterans who basically adopted me during my first two years, helped me get games, taught me the basics of officiating, and pointed out my various weaknesses as well as the few strengths I had at that point in my development. It took my working only a few games before I realized that to be a solid official required far more than I had ever considered when I was sitting in the stands. Strangely, I loved it.

     As the years passed, I made enough money to allow me to take spring break vacations; my parents had made it clear they were not paying for any luxury like that. So, I met my first goal: make money. Beyond that, though, I realized that what I was doing was a perfect fit for the teaching and coaching career I was pursuing. In time, I learned to basically tune out as much crowd noise as possible, to identify and ignore coaches who cried and moaned most of the time, to listen to those coaches who demonstrated logic and restraint, and to quasi-understand why crowds--particularly parents--were so rabid in their support and defense of their kids. Most importantly, I learned the rules, something I really had never fully explored. Nothing could be more embarrassing--although it did happen--to be caught in a situation where my ignorance of a particular rule surfaced. In short, it was on-the-job training for the coaching profession I was pursuing.

     When I graduated from college, I continued officiating while still coaching freshmen basketball at Newcomerstown High School. As time progressed, though, my passion shifted to coaching, and I ultimately surrendered my officiating license. Unfortunately, the self-imposed pressures of coaching gradually pushed my officiating lessons aside. When coaching--regardless of what level it might be--the coach wants to win, of course. In the process, sometimes that coach may act ridiculously, may scream uncontrollably, and may assume a demeanor that is not his or her true self. If the reader failed to catch it, I just described myself in the earlier stages of my career.

     Yes, I had games where I chased the officials from the floor, earned my technical fouls, and felt my blood pressure shoot sky high all in the spirit of trying to win games. Somewhere along the line, though, I began to realize that I was turning into a man who lost his focus while coaching; it took many years for me to accept that I was shortchanging myself and my players because when I would start on the officials, I would drift from my concentration, thus making me not nearly the coach I should have been. I suppose part of it was the dreaded ego, of course, but I increasingly became aware that I was getting sick of hearing my own complaints, which seemed to be the same broken record. In time, I tried to change . . . although I did have relapses where I went nutsy on a few guys! By my career's end, though, I had come full circle--I tolerated the calls, made a few pointed observations, and then shut my mouth . . . and I like to think I became a better coach as a result.

     My point is quite simple: Officiating is hard work, far more difficult than sitting in the stands, watching a game, and offering comments. It requires keen vision, intense focus, physical conditioning, communication skills, teamwork, rule book knowledge, invisible ear muffs, confidence, and, most importantly, common sense. Just for a moment, I ask you to look around the gym at the next game and see how many of those people screaming and critiquing possess the characteristics just described. I already know the answer: an extremely small number. Yes, I will be first to admit that like any profession, not every official is on the same level; translated, several are better than others, some far better. No, not everyone can referee; unfortunately, I fear that high school and middle school sports are about to hit a crisis: not enough people are savvy enough to officiate, so the numbers of officials are dropping considerably. I question what will happen when athletic directors cannot get officials for games; my hope is it does not happen, but as numbers drop and teams increase, an officiating shortage is quickly approaching. Then what?

     As a former coach and official, I recognize the camaraderie and respect that develop between the two: it is special, make no mistake. At this point in life, I look back at officials I hold in special regard. Retired officials like Larry Gasser, Chuck Rest, Mel McAfee, Sam Fausto, Al Amicone, Roger Levi; deceased officials like Joe Pangrazio and Warren Hood; current officials like Ron Hurst, Buck Corwin, Jimmy Hood, Jim Blickensderfer, Kevin Milligan--these guys and others just like them are ones who may have irritated the hell out of me at various times, but we were on the stage together, willing to expose ourselves to the ridicule of others while earning a respect shared by few. Officials sacrifice so much to pursue a passion, one where money and reputations can be made, yet one where enemies and grudges can also be formed. What we do appreciate, though, is that without them the show cannot go on! As I look back, I miss those interactions, that banter, the dreaded looks, the occasional technical--what fun it was!

Similarities: Jimmy Haslam /President Obama

I will begin with a profound question: Where the hell are we headed?


To answer the question, I must first define "we." For this discussion, two definitions suffice: "we" are Browns' fans and "we" are United States citizens. It strikes me that the two have a shared commonality.


Let's talk about Jimmy first; I don't trust him. Two years ago I heard him talk at the Pro Football Hall of Fame Luncheon Club (after he arrived 25 minutes late and took no questions), and I came away thinking that "if anyone can talk himself out of a federal indictment, it's he." I was right on that, by the way. His business approach and suave demeanor unnerved me; what I heard coming from his mouth did not equate with his aura . . . something about him was unnerving. Granted, I am not part of his successful Flying J business world, but my gut instincts told me he was too smooth to be true. With that said, however, I wanted to believe every word he said because I have always wanted the Browns to be winners.


As time has passed, though, my belief has sunk to its lowest depth. Point blank: I don't trust the guy. Despite what he has said, I am convinced that he bought the Browns because they were the first team available and he had the money, not because he had a vested interest in Cleveland. Like a savvy businessman, he wants results--I am glad for that, but he seems to misunderstand one of the key ingredients of athletics: loyalty. After openly stating he "would not blow things up" if  the 2015 season did not go as planned, he did just that--he "blew it up." Should we be surprised when whoever gets hired as coach and general manager faces the same dilemma of being replaced fairly quickly? Building a successful program takes time, a key point  for which Jimmy seems to have low regard. Before the season, in a blog, I observed that I hoped Jimmy would give Mike Pettine four years to build rather than going in a different direction. Obviously, it was wishful thinking on my part, but, again, I don't trust ol' Jimmy . . . and I don't think too many of us do in this part of the country. As a result of the lack of loyalty, we have lost faith; as that happens, we become cynical about everything Browns-related. My expectations are that the accompanying negativity will result in lower ticket sales and fewer merchandise purchases, of course. Of larger significance, though, is the failure to trust--when that happens, we may never recover.


Discussing politics is not a wise move in this forum because I am not wise enough or informed enough to intelligently counter many arguments; thus, because I am leery of those with extreme views, my status as an independent is comfortable to me. However, such a noticeable swing has occurred in our country based upon so many factors: lack of support for the President, Democratic/Republican opposing philosophies--pick a reason. The underlying factor, though, is a complete lack of trust in the presidency, the elected officials, and the mantra being preached to us. Obviously, the following for Donald Trump and Ben Carson reflects this mistrust because they provide a supposed option. To hear people talk, however, alarms me; no longer do many describe our president by his title. Instead, he is known as Obama or any other nickname. I have seen enough cartoons that truly go beyond satire as it is defined. Rather, it is reflective of intense personal attacks designed to belittle the office and the man. That is the sign of a deteriorating society. Restating the last sentence from my previous paragraph, "Of larger significance, though, is the failure to trust--when that happens, we may never recover."


Jimmy Haslam and Barack Obama--different in so many ways yet possessive of one key similarity: many of us in this part of the country do not trust them. Maybe what they are attempting to do will be best for us in the long run, but we are almost done giving them "the benefit of the doubt." What speaks more loudly: the actual message or the delivery of the message?


We've been burned too many times.

Educational Decisions: General, College-Prep, A.P. or College Credit Plus?

     As students begin to think ahead to their next high school year, the question of which classes to take becomes so important: General, College-Prep, Advanced Placement (A.P.), or College-Credit Plus (formally known as Post-Secondary)? (I should stress that I am deliberately avoiding the Career Center option for this blog; that topic will be discussed in a later writing.) Each choice should represent a well thought-out process that clearly serves as preparation for the students' futures. Given my experience from having taught English in all the above mentioned classes at both the high school and the college levels, I am offering my view to perhaps assist students and parents in making their decisions.

   
      Addressing the "General" track (defined as those classes that are considered to be the most general and least challenging in respective academic departments), I am comfortable saying that choice is fine for allowing students to get through high school without major academic challenges. As for strong preparation for a four-year college, though, this track will most likely provide the least opportunity to succeed when college begins. The reason is quite simple: these "regular" classes provide instruction in basic concepts without going into great detail and expectations. Yes, the students can still be accepted into college--that really is not that difficult. However, the question of will the students remain in college for the entire four years so frequently is determined by their preparation in high school. When the college demands begin and the writing expectations become increasingly demanding, the challenge often becomes overwhelming. I am not saying students will be unsuccessful in college if they follow a "regular" high school track; what I am saying is that the road gets tougher for those who have chosen to avoid the harder high school classes. From my seat, if a student is planning to attend a four-year college, he or she should get out of the "General" track and into a College-Prep track!

   
      Regarding the "College-Prep" track (defined just as the label implies), I am confident that a significant challenge awaits. While the classes may be intimidating to many, the key is to think long term. What matters is not what grade is earned in high school but what students truly learn to benefit their futures. If planning on attending those four-year schools mentioned previously, students need to accept this challenge and get themselves prepared!

   
     The real dilemma that is popular today is the A.P. (defined as an advanced study of a particular discipline, designed to equate with a college-level curriculum) vs. College Credit Plus (defined as being a college student while still in high school) debate--a tough question, but, truthfully, one that each individual must determine if that is what he or she wants. Understanding the College Credit Plus program is relatively simple: Students receive college credit by either taking a class at a local university, or they receive dual credit in their high school if the instructor of certain courses has met standards set by the Ohio Department of Education. From my seat, here is how I view the dilemma.

   
     The College Credit Plus option certainly has merit--particularly if the students are being taught a rigorous curriculum. In truth, though, the guiding philosophy reflects our society's values: let's get more as soon as we can. Whether the student is prepared--academically and socially--does not always enter the picture. While teaching in high school, I taught a few high school students who attended KSU Tusc. and were solidly prepared . . . but they were the exception. Most of the kids who considered the retired Post-Secondary program really were not anywhere near ready. They might have liked the challenge, they might have liked the freedom from high school rules, they might have liked having Fridays off, or they might just have liked that somebody else was paying for their education. Again, I stress that not all students have the same reason for attending: It is an individual decision.

   
     Academically, most all high school juniors need more preparation for college work; many kids attend a college campus and take 10000 or 20000 level course work--practically all these college courses are beneath the level of an A.P. curriculum. Yes, of course, the classes' rigor does depend on the quality of the teachers--make no mistake about that. However, the A.P. curriculum is a year-long controlled environment that has been set up through years of preparation; most college-level introductory classes are a semester in length (most meeting no more than three days per week) with a wide variety of students, many of whom are ill-prepared. In most A.P. curriculums, students have weeded themselves out, and the environment consists mostly of high achieving kids. Translated, college instructors can set high expectations if they desire, but most beginning college classes are controlled by the middle, meaning that if many students are struggling the pace of the class is slowed considerably. Please keep this point in mind: college professors know that they cannot give too many low or failing grades--it reflects negatively on their teaching, which may ultimately affect their employment. As a result, many 10000 and 20000 classes are not necessarily "advanced," and the grading is adjusted accordingly.

   
     College professors will attest that--in so many cases--they cannot believe how poorly prepared their students are; however, many of those same students will end up with high grades in an introductory college classroom--hard to believe, isn't it? College, in many ways, is a money game; of course, college enrollment, with a few exceptions, is still borderline high. The reasons, perhaps, could be because the economy is still tough and people are returning to school to learn a new skill or to begin a different career; it could also be, though, that more and more high school kids are enrolling--the more students enrolled, the better we (college) look. If we (college) make it attractive, we (college) look good. With experience as my teacher, I am becoming more convinced that when students leave high school early to attend college, it is more about getting bodies in the seats rather than kids being ready for that academic challenge.

     

    I certainly respect the College Credit Plus philosophy--particularly the dual enrollment aspect--because for a select number of kids it is a viable option. For them, I say go for it. However, I remain unconvinced that a college freshman class offers a stronger curriculum than what a high school A.P. program does. Another anecdote that might be of interest is that while I was teaching high school, I yearly tracked high school students' ACT scores; interestingly, the Post-Secondary students scored consistently lower than the A.P. kids.

   
    My final point regarding the push for high school kids to receive college credit is this: In the long run, what does it accomplish? Getting into the workforce sooner? What is so great about that? Kids are kids only one time--they have the rest of their lives to be adults. I do not see the rush of getting there sooner than their peers. Like Donald Trump, whose corporations have declared bankruptcy four times, brags, he plays within the rules our country has established; from my seat, I see many students begin college early so someone else can pay the bill or they can avoid the harder high school classes and teachers. They are playing within the rules our state has established--I get it. 

     However, is that option advancing our society, or is it just another means to politically sidestep challenging standards? From my seat, the second option is clearly the motivation!

Our Tolerance

Scribbled on my yellow Post-It note are the following words:
     Our tolerance for everything has produced an unwillingness to restrict anything.

     I have no idea where I stole that from or when I stole it, but I do know that it certainly strikes a chord for me. As I am prone to do, when I encounter a news article, a quotation, or a picture that intrigues me, I cut it out and put it into a file--might sound boring, I realize, but from time to time I encounter situations that trigger a response connecting to one of those cutouts. Today I am sharing one that relates to many situations alive and well in our society.

 

     With each passing month, I suppose my resistance to change lessens just a bit. My occasional "anal-retentive" drive to do so much the right way occasionally shrinks to a "so what" approach. Desiring to follow a set routine marked by a daily to-do list is more frequently reduced to an "I'll do it tomorrow" approach. People tell me I have earned the right to do so, yet I remain somewhat unconvinced. I have routines that I enjoy because they provide me satisfaction at day's end, so forcing me to break away is sometimes a struggle. In short, I do not "tolerate" change simply for change's sake. What I am observing, though, is that it often is easier to simply surrender and accept . . . a task I find difficult to do.

 

     The world is whizzing by faster than I sometimes can understand. Morals, styles, laws--so much, so fast--frequently leave me shaking my head in amazement and often amusement. Do we say "whoa" to anything, or do we just accept the world as it is changing?

 

     As I am writing  and re-reading my words, I sense that I am sounding like an old codger saying that the world is going to hell. In truth, I am struggling this afternoon trying to make my point. Perhaps it would be better if I just dropped the lead-in and got to my focus:

 

*We accept swearing in so many diverse situations that it almost seems natural to hear what many may consider offensive; in particular, the "f-bomb" is treated like an acceptable word; trust me when I tell you that I am no angel, but I do understand parameters of what is and what is not acceptable. However, our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept a society where we find it perfectly acceptable to criticize our country's leaders; in a time where we desire cohesion and loyalty, we instead feel so free--thanks to the ease of social media--to blatantly criticize, ridicule, and demean those same people who were elected to represent us. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept the bandwagon jumping that goes along with people's criticism of police, and we are so often guilty of following the loudest critic in the room--whether that voice has any logic to it or not. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that public decorum is left to the individual rather than what is acceptable to others; wearing pants way low in the back, showing as much skin as possible,  . . . the list goes on. To say something, of course, is considered by many to be an act of invasion, so we just go about our way. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept the apathy toward the English language, considering it to be no big deal that our writing skills are deteriorating at a rapid pace. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that walking with headsets on limits conversation with others in a world where interaction is needed more than ever. Eye contact and personal conversation suffer . . . , and we often wonder why. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that eating in a restaurant or even in our homes has no bearing on whether we are checking our cell phone or interrupting conversation . . . the "so what" attitude seems to prevail. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

     More examples could certainly be provided, but the snowball rolling down the hill analogy seems to fit. Because of our almost-blind acceptance of practically all behavior, I sense an unwillingness to restrict much of anything. At what point do we step up and say, "Enough!" It is so easy for us to criticize, yet it is so hard to actually combat deteriorating behaviors. Certainly, I am not advocating physical confrontation, but I am stressing that if we--the adults--do not occasionally point out flaws,  this tolerance will continue to worsen . . . and that, my friends, scares the hell out of me.

To read all my blog entries, please go to michaelagunther.blogspot.com.

"A Sign of an Intelligent Person Is . . ."

"My kid is not reading that book; there's swearing in it!"    

 

As formal academic progress once again resumes, along with it comes the opportunity to assess the learning that occurs in our children's classrooms. Many, of course, welcome the educational opportunities presented to today's kids, yet, somehow, a certain percentage question the motives behind change and intellectual discussion. Before the "attack" season begins, though, I would like to offer my two cents regarding an issue dear to English teachers' hearts: teaching controversial literature.

 

     Many feel that a public school is not the place for discussion of controversial matters. I, however, vehemently disagree. A classroom is a center of intellect, a place for intelligent discussion about a variety of matters--some controversial, some not. By teaching a novel, a teacher and the school are not endorsing the topic; rather, they are providing a forum for mature conversation. My experiences have shown me that my students shine when given the opportunity to present their views; although not all are in agreement, that is the beauty of the discussions. Those who hold differing views are provided the opportunity to voice their concerns, their opposition, their reality . . . without the fear of being ridiculed or humiliated. That is what education is: learning!

 

     My classroom has been the center of tremendous discussions, ones that have made my students think . . . and that is exactly what I have attempted to create. I do not want today's students to be programmed to accept only one perspective; instead, I want them to listen, to process, and to rationalize. It is not of importance to me that in literature discussions that students are merely reiterating the basic elements of literature. Literature is meant to make one think. Many parents, I realize, are threatened by that. Their opposition is usually based upon three key triggers: swearing is present, the Lord's name has been taken in vain, and sex is mentioned. I hear that argument, but I must counter by asking if those same parents think that is what is being discussed in class? That the teacher is encouraging the teenagers to swear, to take the Lord's name in vain, and to have sex? If so, that thinking is quite shallow and way off the mark.

 

     So often, the reaction is immediate: we do not want our children to think on their own. Rather, we want them to be staunch advocates of our own selves. As a parent, I recognize this, but I also recognize that my wife and I could protect our daughters only so far. Our children grew up in the Catholic faith, and we would like to believe that with their moral upbringing that we laid a strong foundation for their adult lives. However, my wife and I wanted our daughters exposed to so many aspects of life including the realities of "the other side of life." They realized that exposure did not warrant endorsement. I share this personal story only to make my point: we wanted them to think on their own; they knew our family values, and they understood what was acceptable and what was not. We did not expect them to be like my wife or me; of course, we privately hoped that they would share a few of our attributes, but we trusted their maturity to develop their own views. That is what life experiences are like. Reading controversial novels is no different. Without a doubt, I would much rather have had my own children intellectually discuss a controversial matter in a structured environment being led by a trained professional than I would have on their own with their peers  . . . and, believe me, they did . . . and their conclusions may have had no rationality to them at all!

 

     I will conclude my explanatory comments by making what I perceive to be an extremely relevant point: I would ask all critics of any novel to perform one task before attacking a book: Read the novel! Those who evaluate the novel based upon looking at a few pages and forming a rock-solid opinion are missing the point: As decreed by the Supreme Court in 1973, a piece of literature cannot be considered "obscene" if only select pages are scrutinized. Rather taken as a whole are the key words that dictate a writing's value. It is impossible to discuss the merits of a book if only a few pages have been reviewed. Again, I stress that a critic must read the entire book. Until that happens, intellectual discussion cannot be held . . . and that is exactly what we expect from our students. We want them to intellectually judge the novels and their lessons . . . but that cannot be done if only part of the book has been read!

     The answer to the question posed in this entry's title is quite simple to me: "The sign of an intelligent person is one who is able to view all sides of an issue before voicing an opinion." Do I expect conformity with my thoughts? Of course not, but what I hope is that our high school students recognize the importance of critical independent thinking. As their adult lives unfold, that thinking becomes their moral and intellectual guide!

About This Running . . .

Getting older every day . . . how do we stop that aging train?

Story time first: I am a runner. I have run since I was 12; safe to say that I have a passion for it. While many may view running as a waste of time and energy, I see it through a different lens. What I see is a way to stay healthy even though I have paid a significant physical price over the years to sustain my passion. For years, I have run marathons, 1/2 marathons, 10Ks,  . . . you get the picture. Without belaboring the point, what readers need to know is that running is a key part of my life . . . but why?

I have paid the price for all that pavement banging: foot surgery, low back issues, intermittent knee pain, torn ankle ligaments have all been part of my life. A sane man may say "back away, boy, and try something else." The response is simple: I have. I bike, I use an elliptical, I ride stationary bikes, and I lift (sometimes)--all activities I enjoy--but running is where my passion lies. When I participate in road races, I see aging runners still hard at it, many of them just kicking my butt, and I walk away admiring the tenacity that they possess. I suppose privately I hope I can still run at an advanced age, but I do quasi-understand that at a point my body will give up and break down completely. I don't want to think about that.

When I run today, I realize I cannot go as fast as I would like. Never a speed demon, I could always compete within my age group; today, it is a rare occasion where that can occur. Given that, however, I love the competition. It would be easy for me to say that I just run, not caring about where I finish. Trust me, I'm lying. I do care; I love the thrill of seeing others running in front of me and the pursuit of them. I love the feeling of going faster as the race progresses; I love the thrill of passing people and gaining spots; I love the feeling of exhaustion when the race is completed, knowing that if I have something left in the tank then I have cheated myself during the run. I love the camaraderie that accompanies the races. In short, I love the hunt.

In truth, what I really love is the isolation of running. As I train, my mind wanders in many different directions, allowing me to organize, to vent, to categorize, and to analyze. Many times I set out to run three miles and end up at six simply because my body is in sync those days. When I'm done, I check my weight, knowing that with the juvenile eating habits I possess (what's wrong with a row of thin Oreos?) that my running has kept me in somewhat of a balance. Running is a passion for me.

On the downside, I get out of bed every morning with achy feet and knees, struggling to straighten up without my lower back hurting. Once the "blood gets pumping," the creakiness subsides, and I'm on my way . . . making sure I walk down steps a bit more carefully so as not to hurt my feet! Many days I say "why?"

The answer is simple: I want to fight Father Time, and I don't want to get overweight (despite my little puff belly that just won't die!). I don't know what is inside me making me abuse myself on the roads. It could be argued, using an ol' cliché, that the "butter dun slid off my biscuits," implying that my sanity level is a bit off center. Whatever the reason, I, and others like me, get out of bed and run; many run at their lunch break while others wait until their day is complete and hit the road. It's a curse, I guess, but I salute those who are willing to make those commitments.

My point? It's quite simple: being energetic does not come naturally to most people, myself included. It requires dedication, encouragement, and personal pride. I suppose most anyone could do it, but that is a big "suppose"; of course, many live with daily physical impairments that prevent any such exercise. However, I suspect that most of us do not exercise because we either don't care to or we are simply too lazy or too tired to make the effort. It all begins with that first step . . . many who think others will laugh at their over-weight efforts are so wrong. When I see someone attempting to exercise, that person immediately grabs my attention and respect because I know how hard it is to do so.  Folks, we live in an obese society, but it doesn't have to be that way for everyone. Running, briskly walking, or any another viable exercise of choice--bending our elbows does not count, by the way--can begin whenever we get the courage to do it.

Obviously, I don't know what the future holds as far as my running, but I do know that as long as the body cooperates with my mind, I will be motoring along the roads trying to convince myself that I am still 25!

I Wonder If . . .

As the summer flickers by, I am wondering . . . wondering

*if Donald Trump were a person of color, would anyone really listen to him? Clearly, he is voicing what the boys at Limby's or Dorey's might say sitting at the bar, but my hunch is that mainstream Americans would probably see him as making racist, unacceptable comments. Trump is obviously Caucasian, wealthy, successful, and outspoken; granted, his comments are not as far off the wall as many would like us to believe, but, because of his pedigree, we seem all too eager to endorse his views. If an Al Sharpton were to say the exact same words, I seriously doubt that we would agree with him. The reason is obvious, isn't it? The underlying "elephant in the room" is racism. I am convinced that much of the opposition to our current President is his skin color, unfortunate as it is for me to write those words. Trump is white, so many hop on his wagon. For too long, I have heard this comment regarding President Obama: "I'm not prejudiced, but . . ."--you fill in the blanks. Seems to me that the "but" carries a powerful undercurrent that disguises many white Americans' not-so-public feelings.

 

*if the Browns could successfully build a winning franchise if they would just give a head coach and his staff four years to jell. This season will be interesting; in all likelihood, the record will not indicate significant improvement, but I have to believe that a "building" culture must be allowed to materialize. When a city as starved as Cleveland suffers through another long year, the coaches take the criticism. For once, I would love to see the owner turn a deaf ear to fans regardless of the season victory totals and say, "This coach is our man, and we are sticking with him." Yep, Mr. Haslam is saying that today after a few days of training camp, but I hope he is still saying it in December . . . and meaning it.

 

*if professional sports are in significant need of dramatic changes. Football's injury lists are sad to see, particularly with the catastrophic injuries that occur more frequently every year; basketball is a close second as our own Cavaliers can attest; and baseball's all-too-common arm blowouts are devastating to the sport. Perhaps shorter seasons could be an answer, but I am perplexed by what appears to be a contradictory belief: professional athletes today are stronger than they have ever been and have the best workout regimens, diets, and flexibility training. So, the logical conclusion would be that the percentage of athletes being severely injured would be reduced; however, the opposite has occurred with injury numbers climbing every sports season. Is it possible that the mantra of "lift, lift, lift--get bigger, get stronger" has created a monster, one that exceeds the human body's capabilities particularly when the strong meet the strong?

 

*if we truly understand the complexity of a policeman/woman's job. Today, of course, an officer's every move is under the proverbial microscope. Granted, as in any profession, rogues exist in uniform; however, we must also understand that much--not all--of a peacekeeper's job is dealing with the "scum"--those who have little if any respect for authority. Certainly, we talk tough after the fact about what should have been done, but given the split-second thinking and reacting that those officers must perform is  something few of us could do. I also must stress that to perform these duties, the financial reward is almost embarrassing. Translated, we ask "cops" (as the term most frequently used) to not make a mistake, to not embarrass people, and to not profile anyone--and I am not just talking about race when I mention profiling. Additionally, we ask them to do this while not making as much money as a bulldozer operator. Something seems out of whack, doesn't it?

 

*if Dover's citizens realize that we just lost an excellent superintendent, but we have the great fortune of having a successor who is equally qualified. I have said it many times, but a person in charge is living in "rare air"--the friends become fewer, the opponents become larger, and the criticism becomes more frequent. Such is the case when a person is a school administrator whose salary and benefits are public knowledge because that information immediately creates opposition. It intrigues me when criticism is leveled at school administrators; their task is to maintain the ship and do what is right for all parties involved: students, employees, and taxpayers. If a person were to examine Dover's record, that person would see excellence in many areas, including financial responsibility. Of course, many will not believe me--check the records, my friends: those are facts, not opinions. The future of the system is in strong hands with responsible leadership in both the top job and the assistant superintendent. Will the issue of a new school again surface? Of course! It was not a Bob Hamm thing; it's a Dover thing. . . and I don't want to wait until the crumbling begins to say, "Hey, we should have done something before this like to maintain the building" (as I have heard many times). Check the facts, my friends--before we spout off about how "a custodian told me that they haven't done anything . . . ," it might be a good idea to actually find out just how much has been spent on that high school building. Again, before we settle on our opinions, let's make sure we know the facts.

 

*if the Common Core opponents are pleased that the accompanying tests have been temporarily abandoned. I would think they are because the teachers certainly are! As I have written previously, the excessive number of tests was a central issue; if the Core is studied, don't be surprised if we find out that it has a strong base. Again, from my seat, the Core is not a problem; we need standards, and we need them enforced. Remember my comment two paragraphs above about rogues? In the teaching profession, unfortunately, random rogues can be found as well. By having standards that are consistent, teachers are obligated to teach certain material, but they are not stuck teaching only that material--teachers still have the freedom to go beyond the Core! For those who are opposed to the Core and know only a limited bit about it, please recognize that, educationally, it holds strong value. As stated in an earlier blog, just give it time to be implemented and perfected--change does not come about without opposition, but it does not mean that change is necessarily wrong.

 

*if you are still reading. You must be, so thanks! Many have commented that they have enjoyed reading my material--I do appreciate it. At my "core," I am just a T-County boy who enjoys life and enjoys writing--thanks again for your support!

mag.gunther@gmail.com
michaelagunther.blogspot.com