Too Good for Goodwill? Think Again.

I am startled every time I hear (and I've heard it more than once), "Oh, but it's too good for Goodwill." One can only surmise that the person has never set foot in a thrift shop. Further, it is wholly slander against an organization that produces so much for our community. Not only do Goodwill workers sift and sort all imaginable donations, but merchandise the large and unpredictable inventory splendidly, with keen eyes for quality and trends. Those Manolo Blahniks will be sold by Goodwill via online auction. That Eileen Fisher ensemble will find a hanger in Goodwill's Blue boutique for designer wear. That Prada purse will be housed under glass with other fine items in a glass cabinet at the neighborhood Goodwill. And, no matter what the means of sale, the sheer act of exchanging payment for goods translates to a customer receiving a wanted item.

Moreover, the store generates revenue to not only perpetuate the thrift industry, but to provide jobs and training for those in need. Occupation lessons and encouragement turns disabled, undesirable, or otherwise skill-less individuals into a workforce of citizens who take pride in their contributions to society. Unarguably, jobs and pride in those jobs create good communities.

So, how can your donation be "too good" for Goodwill?

WWII Tracker Jackers

I recently read George Dvorsky's That time the Nazis used mosquitoes as biological weapons over on io9. Boy, does this sound like the tracker jackers from Hunger Games or what?!

So, clearly a diabolical plan, we can all agree. But really, is it any more "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" than two armed persons shooting each other? How can anyone determine a line by which warring factions should not cross? If we were able to draw such a line, then why would there be warfare at all?

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I tend to regard all "expert" reports with several grains of salt. Thanks, Redditor Jasonp55, for putting this together to illustrate a point:

It's all in the way you spin it.

Local school district's "top ten"

The local school district's publication arrived today. We don't use these services, but it's interesting to read the highlights they find worth publishing.

The lead story was a "top 10" list. Most involved accomplishments the district had made in innovative programs and teaching methods, including a middle school with all national board-certified teachers, broadening access to achievement programs, and standardizing the math curriculum across all schools in the district.

I know a handful of teachers who've gone through the certification process. It's a rigorous process, including a great deal of self-study. I'm inspired by their dedication to their professional development. I imagine that the middle school programs will be enhanced, but, as always, I wonder about the unintended consequences? When such a rigorous program is mandated in a single institution, how much is lost to the students with the extra strain on time and energy is devoted to the certification? And who is absorbing the $3000 in fees?

Also on the list was free access to the SAT for 12th graders, PSAT for 11th graders, and an 8th grade assessment. I appreciate that the district is choosing the absorb this cost, which can be a barrier to higher education for low-income families. I'm a less comfortable, however, with the absorption of AP and IB programs. I don't question that eliminating the financial barriers can lead to more students accessing and excelling through these programs, but I am critical of the teach-to-the-test approach that is essentially mandated by the licensing of an AP curriculum (and similarly, presumably, in the IB program). Not that I have a great solution, mind you; I truly want young people to have equitable access to education. However, I don't want that access to be suppressed with a teaching of what to think; I want our children to learn how to think.

Finally, the math curriculum edict certainly caught my eye. The district holds that it must be standardized because children frequently move between different schools and need to be able to pick up where they left off at their old school. What I didn't see was a reference to students who move in and out of district, for whom these standardizations would be rendered useless. I'm also a big believer in success in addressing individual learning styles, and one curriculum for seems diametrically opposite of that belief. With all that's put into specialized schools that emphasize STEM or the fine arts, why cannot the district better tailor an understanding of mathematics in the younger grades?

So, again, I don't necessarily have ready solutions to increase the graduation rate and eventual success of the coming generations. However, when a public institution issues a publication that aims to only produce accolades for its own benefit, I can only assume that we are called to skepticism.

Government mandates

Political season is upon us again. In our state, the most frequent ads I'm seeing involve voting yes or no on I-522*, to require labeling on products containing genetically modified organisms**. Cue the concerned housewives, the financially troubled farmers, and the cries for justice as it pertains to the food that keeps us alive.

Really? This is how we're spending our time? Spending gobs of money and time on campaigning to write more information on food that may or may not be read?

Consumers - do your homework. If you care about what's going into your body, then read up on your food! This doesn't even involve research; companies are already clearly proud to advertise that they are GMO-free. Is it then necessary to mark all the other packages with announcements?

It seems to me that the market can take care of itself.


*Which I think should be referenced in a manner as not to confuse voters as to whether they're voting for the existence or non-existence of an already-existing interstate highway.

**The spelling of this latter word is really, really important to get right if you're going to Google it.

Reposting: Private-sector jobs, not taxes, are the key to state budget solution

Sure, I know: political repostings are a sure-fire way to have readers stop following me. Nevertheless, I found I agree with this article:

...The state needs to get the weight of big government off the backs of employers and working families. We need to unleash the power of the private sector to create jobs and get Washington working again. A healthy economy will enhance the prosperity of working people and generate more revenue for state and local government. This is a vastly better approach than trying to raise taxes on people when they can least afford it...

 And I appreciate that Rep. DeBolt offers four actionable items to accomplish this. Read the full article (don't worry - it's short):
http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/news/jobs-economy/debolt-says-jobs-not-taxes-are-key-to-budget-solution

Political ad banners deter me

I actively repost other's blogs in a variety of manners across the web (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, LinkedIn, Pinterest). However, with campaign season upon us, I'm seeing "VOTE YES!" and "VOTE NO!" proclamations in banner advertisements atop and below various postings. Some of these are randomly-generated through pay-per-click advertising companies. Some of these are purposefully placed by blog authors.

Either way, I'm unlikely to repost if it runs the risk of making a political statement I don't support. Bummer, 'cause there's quite a bit of good stuff out there I'd like to share.

Signs

If there were fewer signs telling us what to do, what not to do and what might or might not happen to us, would people take it upon themselves to be observant and behave responsibly?